DOCSLIB.ORG

South Station Expansion Project Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(F) Determination Appendix B – Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Station Expansion Project Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(F) Determination Appendix B – Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Determination Appendix B – Indirect and Cumulative Impacts South Station Expansion March 2017 Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Determination This Page Intentionally Left Blank South Station Expansion March 2017 South Station Expansion Project Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Determination Appendix B – Indirect and Cumulative Impacts March 2017 Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Determination Appendix B – Indirect and Cumulative Impacts This Page Intentionally Left Blank March 2017 South Station Expansion Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Determination Appendix B – Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 1 3. Indirect Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 1 3.1. South Station ................................................................................................................................. 2 3.2. Layover Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 2 3.3. United States Postal Service Relocation ....................................................................................... 4 4. Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 19 4.1. Proposed Projects ....................................................................................................................... 19 4.2. No Build Alternative .................................................................................................................. 24 4.3. Build Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 27 South Station Expansion March 2017 Page i Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Determination Appendix B – Indirect and Cumulative Impacts List of Figures Figure 1 — Potential USPS GMF Relocation Area ...................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 — USPS Employee Traffic Redistribution..................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 — USPS Truck Traffic Redistribution ........................................................................................... 7 Figure 4 — Primary USPS Routes (Existing Site) ....................................................................................... 8 Figure 5 — Primary USPS Routes (Relocated Site) ..................................................................................... 9 List of Tables Table 1 — USPS Trip Generation (Vehicle Trips) ....................................................................................... 4 Table 2 — Historic Resources in the Vicinity of the USPS GMF South Boston Project Site .................... 13 Table 3 — Development Projects in the South Station Vicinity ................................................................ 23 Table 4 — South Station Weekday Daily Combined Boardings and Alightings – No Build Alternative .. 26 Table 5 — South Station Weekday Daily Combined Boardings and Alightings – Build Alternative ........ 29 March 2017 South Station Expansion Page ii Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Determination Appendix B – Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 1. Introduction The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1500 et seq require an assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts for federally assisted projects. This section provides an assessment of the indirect and cumulative impacts of the South Station Expansion project (SSX) and other ongoing and planned projects in the project study area and the surrounding region. This analysis also includes a qualitative assessment of indirect impacts associated with the relocation of the United States Postal Service (USPS) General Mail Facility (GMF). 2. Methodology The project has the potential to produce indirect impacts and, when combined with past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable future projects, could result in cumulative impacts to certain resources. A qualitative assessment of indirect impacts was based on land use analyses, and information provided by planning departments regarding future development. The following steps were taken to complete the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts: • Reviewed land use and development planning documents related to the project sites; • Identified approved, ongoing, and proposed developments in the vicinity of the project sites; • Assessed the impact of the project on ongoing and proposed development; and • Identified potential mitigation strategies to offset adverse impacts. 3. Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts are defined as those impacts caused by an action that occur later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect impacts may include growth-inducing effects and other impacts related to changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, and other natural systems. The following sections review the indirect impacts associated with the SSX project, including reopening Dorchester Avenue to public access, and the layover facility development. However, the primary indirect impact of the SSX project would be the relocation of the USPS facility. As noted in EA Chapter 1, the project would involve acquisition and demolition of the USPS GMF located on Dorchester Avenue adjacent to South Station, which would provide an approximately 14-acre site on which to expand South Station. Although demolition of the USPS facility after it is vacated is part of the project, the relocation of USPS operations is not part of the project. The USPS would determine the future location(s) to which its operations would be relocated, and the relocation would be subject to its own environmental review as required by state and federal regulations as a separate project. For the purposes of this indirect assessment, it is assumed that the USPS GMF could be relocated to a site in South Boston on the Reserved Channel in Boston’s Seaport District (Figure 1) that the USPS had previously identified as potentially being appropriate to accommodate a relocated USPS GMF The actual relocation of the USPS GMF would be subject to negotiations between the USPS and MassDOT/the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. South Station Expansion March 2017 Page 1 Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Determination Appendix B – Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 3.1. South Station 3.1.1. Terminal Expansion South Station is the central transit hub (Amtrak, commuter rail, subway, buses) for commuters to the Financial District and the South Boston Waterfront/Innovation District in Downtown Boston. The South Boston Waterfront/Innovation District is the fastest growing area in Boston, and the South Station improvements would provide increased transit capacity to accommodate growing transportation demands from significant commercial and residential development. The Innovation District has added 200 businesses and 5,000 jobs since it was conceived in 2010.1 Further discussion of the South Boston Waterfront/Innovation District growth and development is presented in EA Section 3.13. The urbanized land use and growth patterns are firmly established in the surrounding neighborhoods in the Financial District, Chinatown, the Leather District, and South Boston, and the SSX project is not anticipated to change land use patterns or growth patterns, other than being essential to support the considerable commercial and residential growth occurring in these areas. Positive indirect impacts on social and economic conditions would relate to enhanced accessibility for residents, workers, and tourists within and beyond the Downtown Boston area. By accommodating improved rail service frequency and reliability, the SSX project would support continued economic development and job and population growth. 3.1.2. Opening Dorchester Avenue to Public Access The portion of Dorchester Avenue between the USPS GMF and the Fort Point Channel is currently closed to the general public. The SSX project would reconstruct the roadway and allow public access for motorists and connect the Harborwalk through the site. The reopening of Dorchester Avenue will provide another key link between South Boston and the Financial District and will relieve traffic congestion along Atlantic Avenue, but is not expected to result in substantial negative indirect impacts, as the area is already urbanized and heavily travelled. 3.2. Layover Facilities The Widett Circle site area is dominated by industrial uses and rail operations and support facilities, including Amtrak’s Front Yard and Southampton Street Yard, the MBTA’s South Side Service and Inspection Facility and Cabot Yard, which is the primary MBTA Red Line maintenance facility. The indirect impacts associated with the development of the Widett Circle site as a layover facility involve the potential relocation of the businesses
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA District 1964-Present
    Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2021 By Jonathan Belcher with thanks to Richard Barber and Thomas J. Humphrey Compilation of this data would not have been possible without the information and input provided by Mr. Barber and Mr. Humphrey. Sources of data used in compiling this information include public timetables, maps, newspaper articles, MBTA press releases, Department of Public Utilities records, and MBTA records. Thanks also to Tadd Anderson, Charles Bahne, Alan Castaline, George Chiasson, Bradley Clarke, Robert Hussey, Scott Moore, Edward Ramsdell, George Sanborn, David Sindel, James Teed, and George Zeiba for additional comments and information. Thomas J. Humphrey’s original 1974 research on the origin and development of the MBTA bus network is now available here and has been updated through August 2020: http://www.transithistory.org/roster/MBTABUSDEV.pdf August 29, 2021 Version Discussion of changes is broken down into seven sections: 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA 2) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Eastern Mass. St. Ry. Co. Norwood Area Quincy Area Lynn Area Melrose Area Lowell Area Lawrence Area Brockton Area 3) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Middlesex and Boston St. Ry. Co 4) MBTA bus routes inherited from Service Bus Lines and Brush Hill Transportation 5) MBTA bus routes initiated by the MBTA 1964-present ROLLSIGN 3 5b) Silver Line bus rapid transit service 6) Private carrier transit and commuter bus routes within or to the MBTA district 7) The Suburban Transportation (mini-bus) Program 8) Rail routes 4 ROLLSIGN Changes in MBTA Bus Routes 1964-present Section 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) succeeded the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) on August 3, 1964.
    [Show full text]
  • North South Rail Link Feasibility Reassessment Chapters
    6. Cost Estimates and Analysis Cost Estimates and Analysis | January 2019 North South Rail Link Feasibility Reassessment Final Report 101 Photo Source: Charlotte / Unsplash 102 North South Rail Link Feasibility Reassessment Final Report January 2019 | Cost Estimates and Analysis 6. Cost Estimates and Analysis 6.1 Cost Estimating Methodology Estimates for the NSRL project follow industry best • The cost analyses were performed in conjunction practices for large public transportation programs. with the engineering and design process, and The estimates are classifed in accordance with are based on the information available for each the Association for the Advancement of Cost alignment, as well as key constructability issues Engineering International (AACEi) Estimate identifed by the project team. Classifcation System. The System characterizes • Research was conducted to determine compa- the level of design and of construction detail and rable projects to NSRL. Individual benchmarking establishes the appropriate ranges of contingency exercises were developed for key engineering corresponding to these levels of detail. and construction components (e.g., tunnel and station excavations). Refer to Appendix E for The cost estimates within this report are not further details on the estimating methodology. intended to set the fnal budget for the proposed project, but to allow for comparison of the Defnitions of the terms used in this chapter, alignments. The following parameters and guidance such as indirect costs, additional costs, and soft form the basis for the cost estimate: costs, can be found in Appendix E under the Cost Methodology section. • All costs are reported in 2018 US dollars and es- calated to Quarter 1, 2028, the year that has been estimated as the midpoint of project construc- tion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Transportation Dividend Transit Investments And
    REPORT FEBRUARY 2018 THE TRANSPORTATION DIVIDEND TRANSIT INVESTMENTS AND THE MASSACHUSETTS ECONOMY II A BETTER CITY THE TRANSPORTATION DIVIDEND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A Better City managed the preparation of this report thanks to the generous funding of the Barr Foundation and the Boston Foundation. We are also grateful to James Aloisi for his invaluable editorial counsel. REPORT TEAM A Better City • Richard Dimino • Thomas Nally • Kathryn Carlson AECOM • Alden Raine • Toni Horst A Better City is a diverse group of business leaders united AECOM is a global network of design, around a common goal—to enhance Boston and the region’s engineering, construction and management economic health, competitiveness, vibrancy, sustainability and professionals partnering with clients to quality of life. By amplifying the voice of the business community imagine and deliver a better world. Today through collaboration and consensus across a broad range of listed at #161 on the Fortune 500 as one stakeholders, A Better City develops solutions and influences of America’s largest companies, AECOM’s policy in three critical areas central to the Boston region’s economic talented employees serve clients in more competitiveness and growth: transportation and infrastructure, than 150 countries around the world. AECOM land use and development, and energy and environment. is a leader in the US transportation industry. To view a hyperlinked version of this report online, go to http://www.abettercity.org/docs-new/ TransportationDividend.pdf. Concept: Minelli, Inc. Design:
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDICES Everett-Boston
    Everett-Boston BRT APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE STATE OF TRANSIT IN EVERETT: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE NEEDS 2 HISTORY OF TRANSIT IN EVERETT Boston’s transit system was originally designed with a series of surface– rapid transit transfer stations. Horsecars and then streetcars wound through narrow downtown streets, but the roads were quickly overcome by congestion, so the city built the first subway in the nation in 1897. However, this subway—now the Green Line—was relatively low-capacity, with a parade of short trolley cars running through narrow passages. As higher- capacity rapid transit lines were built, passengers would board surface vehicles (mostly trolleys) that fed into higher-capacity rapid transit lines at major transfer stations to continue trips downtown. Even as the network has changed, this general function has remained to this day. In the case of Everett, bus routes only serve the bordering towns of Medford, Malden, Revere, and Chelsea; nearly all other destinations require a transfer. For most trips, the transfer point is at Sullivan station, but buses also provide connections to the Orange Line at Wellington and Malden, as well as the Blue Line at Wood Island and Wonderland. This has not always been the case: Before the Orange Line was extended to Oak Grove in the 1970s, the line terminated in Everett, south of Revere Beach Parkway and the main population of the city. When the extension was opened, the routes serving Everett had their termini moved, with some extended from the old Everett station to Sullivan and others rerouted to Malden and Wellington stations.
    [Show full text]
  • 163 Chestnut Street for Sale Chelsea, Ma
    163 CHESTNUT STREET FOR SALE CHELSEA, MA 29,185 SF SITE AVAILABLE FOR SALE LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO DOWNTOWN BOSTON LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION Just four miles north of Boston, sits the City of Chelsea. Chelsea, which has seen a rush of growth from an influx of residents and employers in recent years, is home to 40,000 residents and boasts an average household income of $77,000. Chelsea’s close proximity to Boston, robust area amenities, access to public transportation and highway access, combine to make Chelsea the area’s next up-and-coming neighborhood. Chelsea also benefits from a portfolio of nearby large employers - such as Encore Boston Harbor, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Massachusetts Information Technology (MIT) Center, Partners Healthcare, and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). While the healthy job gains in the tech and life sciences industries have been key contributors to metro wide job gains, Chelsea and neighboring town, Everett, are seeing high employment growth within their submarkets: The FBI relocated its regional office into a new 268,000 SF office in Chelsea in 2016. Two and a half miles away, The Encore Boston Harbor Resort & Casino in Everett was cited as one of the largest construction projects in the nation, valued at $2.6 billion; The five-star waterfront resort offers a world-class casino, 15 restaurants, bars and nightlife scene, supporting over 5,500 new full-time jobs since its completion in 2019. Furthermore, Assembly Row in Somerville continues to expand its mixed-use retail, residential, and office complex, anchored by Partners Healthcare. The City of Chelsea has also seen significant commercial development and public transportation investment: The recently completed Silver Line 3 Chelsea (SL3) provides expedient proximity into hubs at Logan Airport and South Station, connecting residents and employees to the MBTA Blue and Red Lines.
    [Show full text]
  • LOWER MYSTIC REGIONAL WORKING GROUP Planning for Improved Transportation and Mobility in the Sullivan Square Area ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    SPRING 2019 LOWER MYSTIC REGIONAL WORKING GROUP Planning for Improved Transportation and Mobility in the Sullivan Square Area ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was the result of more than two years of collaborative effort among the many stakeholders involved in planning for the future of the Sullivan Square area. This study was funded by $550,000 in MassDOT planning funds and $250,000 from the Encore Boston Harbor resort casino. These funds were used to pay for staff time fromMetropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS), as well as facilitation consultants from the Consensus Building Institute, who were selected in a competitive procurement administered by MAPC. Special thanks to the Working Group Members who came to consensus on a number of short- and long-term recommendations, as well as the Working Group Participants, who provided invaluable input throughout the process. Finally, thanks to the hundreds of residents and employees who provided comments and input to the study. WORKING GROUP MEMBERS • City of Boston • City of Everett • City of Somerville • MassDOT • Metropolitan Area Planning Council WORKING GROUP PARTICIPANTS • Attorney General’s Office • MA Gaming Commission • Executive Office of Housing & Economic Development • MassPort • Office of Congressman Capuano • Encore Boston Casino TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND FACILITATION • Central Transportation Planning Staff • Metropolitan Area Planning Council • Consensus Building Institute CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Resilience of Rapid Transit Networks in the Context of Climate Change by Michael Vincent Martello
    Resilience of Rapid Transit Networks in the Context of Climate Change by Michael Vincent Martello Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering Manhattan College (2018) Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY May 2020 © Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2020. All rights reserved. Author . Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering May 8, 2020 Certified by. Andrew J. Whittle Edmund K. Turner Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering Thesis Supervisor Certified by. Frederick P. Salvucci Senior Lecturer of Transportation Planning and Engineering Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . Colette L. Heald Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Chair, Graduate Committee 1 2 Resilience of Rapid Transit Networks in the Context of Climate Change by Michael Vincent Martello Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 8th, 2020 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering Abstract Climate change and projected rises in sea level will pose increasing flood risks to coastal cities and infrastructure. This thesis proposes a general framework of engineering resilience for infrastructure systems in the context of climate change and illustrates its application for the rail rapid transit network in Boston. Within this framework, projected coastal flood events are treated as exogenous factors that inform exposure. Endogenous network characteristics are modeled by mapping at-grade tracks, water ingress points, track elevations, crossover switches, and critical dispatch yards to produce a dual network representation of the system, capturing physical and topological characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Transit
    Technical Appendix Proposed Baldwin 2 Section Pk-8 School Brookline, Massachusetts Prepared for: Jonathan Levi Architects Boston, Massachusetts Vanasse & Associates, Inc. Transportation Engineers & Planners 35 New England Business Center Drive Suite 140 Andover, MA 01810-1066 Fares LOWELL LINE HAVERHILL LINE NEWBURYPORT/ OL ROCKPORT LINE Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority OAK GROVE Lynn + + Rapid Transit/Key Bus Routes Map West Woodlawn Medford 116 Malden Center BL Rapid Transit 111 WONDERLAND Rapid Bus + Rapid RL PRICE PER TRIP Local Bus Bus + Bus Wellington Revere Center Transit Transit ALEWIFE Chelsea 117 Effective September 2, 2018 Arlington Revere Heights 77 Assembly Beach Box District CharlieCard $1.70 $1.70 $2.25 $2.25 Davis Beachmont 77 Sullivan Sq Eastern Waltham Ave CharlieTicket $2.00 $2.00 $2.75 $4.75*** Waverley Belmont Community CHELSEA Suffolk Downs Porter College Bellingham Sq SL3 FITCHBURG LINE 116 Cash-on-Board $2.00 $4.00 $2.75 $4.75*** SL3 Orient Heights 73 GL Charlestown 117 Harvard LECHMERE Navy Yard 71 73 E Student/Youth* $0.85 $0.85 $1.10 $1.10 71 Wood Island Watertown IN N Sq Science Park/West End E E Union Sq R 1 H Airport Watertown (Allston) A Senior/TAP** $0.85 $0.85 $1.10 $1.10 R Yard 57 66 B North Station 111 O R Central 57 WORCESTER LINE Harvard Ave Long C, E Maverick UNLIMITED TRIP PASSES Wharf F SL1 E Blue Line Griggs St Packards Corner BOWDOIN North R R Rental Kendall/MIT Y Car Center Allston St BL 1-Day $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 Babcock St 1 Haymarket Warren St C, E Newtonville Pleasant St Gov’t.
    [Show full text]
  • Chelsea Silver Line Corridor Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Vision
    Chelsea Silver Line Corridor Transit -Oriented Development Action Plan January 2017 Prepared for: City of Chelsea Department of Planning & Development Chelsea, Massachusetts www.chelseama.gov Prepared by: Metropolitan Area Planning Council Boston, Massachusetts www.mapc.org Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ 3 Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 5 The Chelsea Silver Line Corridor Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Vision ................................................. 5 Planning Value: Equitable Transit-Oriented Development ..................................................................................... 5 Planning Value: Managing Neighborhood Change ................................................................................................. 6 Planning Elements ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Planning Process: Outreach and Engagement ........................................................................................................... 9 Action Plan Goals ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Context ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum Dci Job No
    Civil Engineering Transportation/Traffic Water/Wastewater Geotechnical Land Surveying Environmental Design Consultants, Inc. Planning MEMORANDUM DCI JOB NO. 2015-129 TO: Robert Gregory North East Harvest Select Corp. 23 Chester Street Somerville, MA 02144 FROM: Wayne Keefner, P.E., PTOE Design Consultants, Inc. SUBJECT: Trip Generation Memorandum 378 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA DATE: November 14, 2019 Introduction As requested by the client, North East Select Harvest (“Proponent”), Design Consultants, Inc. (DCI) has prepared this report to analyze the proposed trip generation for the project located at 378 Highland Avenue (“Project”) in Somerville. Currently, the building houses five retail spaces, with two currently operational. It is our understanding that the Proponent is proposing to convert the three non-operational retail spaces into one Adult-Use Marijuana Establishment (“Dispensary”). The basement of theses spaces will also be part of the Dispensary and be used for storage and security. The property will be a regulated facility operating in compliance with the requirements and regulations of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the City of Somerville. Project Description Currently, the proposed Project site includes a 1-story building with three retail spaces. The retail spaces previously operated as an apparel store, bakery, and an office totaling 1,542 square feet of space. The three retail spaces will be combined and converted into a 1,542 square foot Dispensary. The basement will be used as storage space that will only be used by the facility owner and employees of the Dispensary. Existing Transportation Conditions Roadways Highland Avenue is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial under City of Somerville jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Everett-Boston BRT
    Everett-Boston BRT IMPLEMENTATION PLAYBOOK AUTHORS Ari Ofsevit Aileen Carrigan Julia Wallerce Michael Kodransky ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Ulises Navarro, Jeff Rosenblum, Li Wei, Miranda Briseño, and Anna Wyner for providing valuable contributions. A special thanks also for careful reviews by Jim Aloisi, Sarah Lee, Kristiana Lachiusa, and Jay Monty of a previous version of this document. This work is made possible thanks to support from the Barr Foundation. Published in April 2021 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION 8 1 OPERATIONS PLANNING Demand Analysis 16 Corridor and Network Development 23 Service Planning 24 Optimize System Speed and Capacity 29 Traffic Impact Analysis 30 Summary of Next Steps: Operations Planning 32 2 COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING Strategic planning for communications 33 Public Engagement 35 Marketing and Branding 37 Summary of Next Steps: Communications and Marketing 39 3 GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL PLAN Project Governance 40 Financing the BRT Corridor 42 Summary of Next Steps: Governance & Financial Plan 46 4 INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN Roadway and Station Configurations 47 Roadway Design 50 Intersections and Signals 58 Stations 61 Garages 66 Summary of Next Steps: Infrastructure Planning 68 5 TECHNOLOGY F l e e t 7 0 Fare System 72 Traffic Signal Control and TSP 73 Summary of Next Steps: Technology 74 6 INTEGRATION Multimodal Integration 75 Pedestrian Connections 77 Bicycle and Micromobility Connections 78 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies 79 Equitable Transit-Oriented Communities 82 Summary of Next Steps: Integration 87 REFERENCES 88 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Good, reliable transit service is a baseline for livable, equitable communities and is essential to well- functioning cities and societies.
    [Show full text]
  • Silver Line Gateway EENF
    Silver Line Gateway Service to Chelsea, East Boston & the Blue Line Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) Submitted to: Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs MEPA Unit November 15, 2013 Submitted by: Massachusetts Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER PART A – ENF FORM PART B – EENF REPORT PART A – ENF FORM ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 PART B – EENF REPORT ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 2 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Components......................................................................................................... 2-1 3 Project History .............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................... 3-1 4 Alternatives Analysis ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]