DOCSLIB.ORG

Transportation Impact Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transportation Impact Study The Harvest Club 255 Elm Street Somerville, Massachusetts Transportation Impact Study Prepared For: The Harvest Club Prepared by: Design Consultants, Inc. January 2021 255 ELM STREET TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Study Area .................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Safety Analysis ............................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Trip Generation ........................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................................................... 6 1.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 6 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY ................................................................................. 11 2.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................ 11 2.1.1 Study Roadways ................................................................................................. 11 2.1.2 Study Intersections .............................................................................................. 17 2.1.3 Transit and Land Use Figures ............................................................................. 21 2.2 Existing Conditions Data Collection .......................................................................... 25 2.2.1 Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) Counts ........................................................... 25 2.2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Counts ........................................................................... 25 2.2.3 Intersection Turning Movement Counts (TMCs) and Queues ............................. 25 2.2.4 Traffic Crashes .................................................................................................... 36 2.2.5 Public Transit....................................................................................................... 38 2.2.6 Parking ................................................................................................................ 40 2.2.7 Traffic Signal Timing Information ......................................................................... 40 2.3 Existing Conditions Transportation Analysis ............................................................. 40 2.3.1 Vehicle Analysis .................................................................................................. 41 2.3.2 Bicycle Analysis................................................................................................... 42 2.3.3 Pedestrian/ADA Analysis .................................................................................... 47 2.3.4 Transit Analysis ................................................................................................... 59 3. FUTURE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 64 3.1 Build Conditions ........................................................................................................ 64 3.1.1 Project Traffic ...................................................................................................... 64 3.1.2 Project Trip Distribution ....................................................................................... 66 3.1.3 2020 Build Conditions Vehicle Analysis .............................................................. 73 3.1.4 2020 Build Conditions Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis ..................................... 73 3.2 2025 Design Year Build Conditions .......................................................................... 75 3.2.1 Background Development Projects ..................................................................... 75 3.2.2 Background Growth Rate .................................................................................... 75 3.2.3 2025 Design Year Build Conditions Vehicle Analysis ......................................... 79 3.3 Future Parking Analysis ............................................................................................ 79 3.4 Future Transit Analysis ............................................................................................. 79 4. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 81 4.1 TDM Measures .......................................................................................................... 81 5. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 83 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.2.1: Study Intersections .................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 1.2.2: Locus Map .............................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2.1.1: Existing Transit Services ...................................................................................................... 22 Figure 2.1.2: Existing Land Uses ............................................................................................................... 23 2 255 Elm Street 255 ELM STREET Figure 2.2.1: 2020 Existing Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes ..................................................................... 26 Figure 2.2.2: 2020 Existing Saturday Midday Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes ........................................ 27 Figure 2.2.3: 2020 Existing Peak Hour Bicycle Volumes .......................................................................... 28 Figure 2.2.4: 2020 Existing Saturday Midday Peak Hour Bicycle Volumes .............................................. 29 Figure 2.2.5: 2020 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour .................................................. 30 Figure 2.2.6: 2020 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour .................................................. 31 Figure 2.2.7: 2020 Existing Traffic Volumes – Saturday Midday Peak Hour ............................................ 32 Figure 2.2.8: 2020 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Period ................................................ 33 Figure 2.2.9: 2020 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Period ................................................ 34 Figure 2.2.10: 2020 Existing Traffic Volumes – Saturday Midday Peak Period ....................................... 35 Figure 2.3.1: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Summary .............................................................................. 46 Figure 2.3.2: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Summary ......................................................................... 58 Figure 3.1.1: Project Trip Distribution ...................................................................................................... 68 Figure 3.1.2: Site-Generated Vehicle-Trips ............................................................................................... 69 Figure 3.1.3: 2020 Build Conditions Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour .................................... 70 Figure 3.1.4: 2020 Build Conditions Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour .................................... 71 Figure 3.1.5: 2020 Build Conditions Traffic Volumes – Saturday Midday Peak Hour .............................. 72 Figure 3.2.1: 2025 Design Year Build Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour .................................. 76 Figure 3.2.2: 2025 Design Year Build Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour .................................. 77 Figure 3.2.3: 2025 Design Year Build Traffic Volumes – Saturday Midday Peak Hour ........................... 78 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.5-1: Level-of-Service Summary ........................................................................................................ 6 Table 2.2-1: MassDOT Intersection Crash Summary ................................................................................. 37 Table 2.3-1: Intersection LOS Thresholds .................................................................................................. 40 Table 2.3-2: 2020 Existing Conditions Level of Service ............................................................................. 41 Table 2.3-3: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress – Elm Street ...................................................................... 47 Table 2.3-4: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress – Grove Street .................................................................. 48 Table 2.3-5: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress – Bowers Avenue .............................................................. 48 Table 2.3-6: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress – Highland Avenue ........................................................... 49 Table 2.3-12: Pedestrian Timings and Delay ............................................................................................. 57 Table 2.3-13: Transit Analysis Summary - Inbound ................................................................................... 59 Table 2.3-14: Transit Analysis Summary - Outbound ...............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
    y NOTE WONOERLAND 7 THERE HOLDERS Of PREPAID PASSES. ON DECEMBER , 1977 WERE 22,404 2903 THIS AMOUNTS TO AN ESTIMATED (44 ,608 ) PASSENGERS PER DAY, NOT INCLUDED IN TOTALS BELOW REVERE BEACH I OAK 8R0VC 1266 1316 MALOEN CENTER BEACHMONT 2549 1569 SUFFOLK DOWNS 1142 ORIENT< NTS 3450 WELLINGTON 5122 WOOO ISLANC PARK 1071 AIRPORT SULLIVAN SQUARE 1397 6668 I MAVERICK LCOMMUNITY college 5062 LECHMERE| 2049 5645 L.NORTH STATION 22,205 6690 HARVARD HAYMARKET 6925 BOWDOIN , AQUARIUM 5288 1896 I 123 KENDALL GOV CTR 1 8882 CENTRAL™ CHARLES^ STATE 12503 9170 4828 park 2 2 766 i WASHINGTON 24629 BOYLSTON SOUTH STATION UNDER 4 559 (ESSEX 8869 ARLINGTON 5034 10339 "COPLEY BOSTON COLLEGE KENMORE 12102 6102 12933 WATER TOWN BEACON ST. 9225' BROADWAY HIGHLAND AUDITORIUM [PRUDENTIAL BRANCH I5I3C 1868 (DOVER 4169 6063 2976 SYMPHONY NORTHEASTERN 1211 HUNTINGTON AVE. 13000 'NORTHAMPTON 3830 duole . 'STREET (ANDREW 6267 3809 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ricumt inoicati COLUMBIA APFKOIIUATC 4986 ONE WAY TRAFFIC 40KITT10 AT RAPID TRANSIT LINES STATIONS (EGLESTON SAVIN HILL 15 98 AMD AT 3610 SUBWAY ENTRANCES DECEMBER 7,1977 [GREEN 1657 FIELDS CORNER 4032 SHAWMUT 1448 FOREST HILLS ASHMONT NORTH OUINCY I I I 99 8948 3930 WOLLASTON 2761 7935 QUINCY CENTER M b 6433 It ANNUAL REPORT Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/annualreportmass1978mass BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1978 ROBERT R. KILEY Chairman and Chief Executive Officer RICHARD D. BUCK GUIDO R. PERERA, JR. "V CLAIRE R. BARRETT THEODORE C. LANDSMARK NEW MEMBERS OF THE BOARD — 1979 ROBERT L. FOSTER PAUL E. MEANS Chairman and Chief Executive Officer March 20, 1979 - January 29.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Chapter 4: Systemwide Context of The
    CHAPTER 4 Systemwide Context for the PMT TRANSIT SYSTEM: EXISTING CONDITIONS OVERVIEW The Boston metropolitan area is served by an extensive transit system comprising several comple- mentary components. One component is a hub-and-spoke radial network of rapid transit, express bus, commuter rail, and commuter boat lines that is geared, during peak operations, to efficiently move large volumes of people into and out of the urban core for weekday commutes. Local bus and trackless trolley services fill in gaps and connect the radial “spokes” by offering line haul service in heavily congested urban areas, feeder service to rail, and some inter-suburban linkages. Demand- responsive transportation for people with disabilities and the elderly is also provided. The MBTA is the primary transit provider in the Boston region. The MBTA district is made up of 175 cities and towns and includes communities outside of the 101 municipalities of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization area. The MBTA also provides commuter rail service to Provi- dence, Rhode Island, which lies outside the MBTA district. As can be seen in the following table, almost 99% of daily boardings are on the MBTA’s primary modes: rapid transit (heavy rail and light rail), bus rapid transit (BRT), bus/trackless trolley, and commuter rail. SY S TEMWIDE CONTEXT FOR THE PMT 4-1 TABLE 4-1 operating between Wonderland Station in Re- Typical Weekday Boardings by Mode vere and Bowdoin Station in the Government (Federal Fiscal Year 2007) Center area of Boston. MODE BOARDINGS • Green Line: A 23-mile light rail line over four Rapid transit 730,525 branches: Boston College (B Line), Cleveland Bus (including trackless 355,558 Circle (C Line), Riverside (D Line), and Heath trolley and BRT) Street (E Line).
    [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]
  • Feasibility Study
    BERKSHIRE FLYER: PITTSFIELD TO NEW YORK CITY CITYFEASIBILITY STUDY DEVELOPED IN SUPPORT OF THE BERKSHIRE FLYER WORKING GROUP March 26, 2018 Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield-New York City Feasibility Study Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield to New York City Feasibility Study Developed by: MasssDOT Transit & Rail Division In support of: The Berkshire Flyer Working Group Study Support Provided by: STV Inc. HMMH Inc. TPRG 3/26/2018 Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield-New York City Feasibility Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Goals ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Development Process ............................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Berkshire Flyer Working Group ............................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Working Group meetings .......................................................................................... 3 1.3 Potential Passenger Rail Service ...................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Cape Flyer Rail Service ............................................................................................ 4 1.3.2 Framework for Berkshire Flyer Service ................................................................... 6 1.4 Existing Services .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Braintree Ivory Street Corridor: a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Opportunity
    Braintree Ivory Street Corridor: A Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Opportunity Funding provided by District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Town of Braintree; FX Messina Enterprises, Covanta August 2017 Prepared for Town of Braintree 1 John F. Kennedy Memorial Drive Braintree, MA 02184 www.townofbraintreegov.org Joseph C. Sullivan, Mayor Prepared by Metropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place, 6th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02111 www.mapc.org ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The project was conducted by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) with funding from the District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) program administered by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Community Development; the federal Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), administered by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); the Town of Braintree; property owner FX Messina Enterprises, and Covanta. METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL Officers President Keith Bergman Vice President Erin Wortman Secretary Sandra Hackman Treasurer Taber Keally Executive Director Marc D. Draisen Transportation Director Eric Bourassa Project Manager Cynthia Wall, Principal Planner Architect/Urban Designer Josh Fiala, AICP, AIA, LEED AP Community Engagement Emily Torres-Cullinane, Manager Economic Development Amanda Chisholm, AICP Eric Halvorsen, AICP, former MAPC Assistant Transportation Director and Project Manager. TOWN OF BRAINTREE Mayor Joseph C. Sullivan Director, Planning and Community Development Christine Stickney Councilor Michael J. Owens STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Peter Brown, Ronald Cibotti, Samantha Cipollo, John Clark, Carl Johnson, Jeff Kunz, William Lawler, Ronald Marshall, Mark Mastroianni, Ronald Morgan, John Morse, Joseph Moscaritolo, Richard O'Connor, Christopher Serrano, Corey Smith, Dawn Spillar, Robert St. John, Curtis Stephens, William Stephenson, Charles Tufankjian, David Tufankjian, Greg Tufankjian. August 2017 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass DOT Secrerary & CEO Frank Depaola
    Charles D. Baker. Governor Karyn E. Polito. Lieutenant Governor Stephanie Polldck. Mass DOT Secrerary & CEO Frank DePaola. General Manager massDOT Brian Shortsleeve. Chief Admimstrator Massachusetts Department of Transportation Febmary 26, 2016 Mr. Scott Andrews Assistant Director of Transportation Deprui:ment of Public Utilities (DPU) One South Station Boston, MA 02110 Deru· Mr. Andrews: Attached for your review is MBTA Safety's Final Incident Report #A15-367. This involved an unintended train movement at Braintree Station on the Red Line on December 10, 2015. If you have any questions or cotmnents, please contact me at 617-222-6547. Thank you. Sincerely, RWN/tpd Attachments cc: F. DePaola J. Gonneville R. Clru·ke T. Johnson W. McClellan Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Ten Park Plaza, Suite 391 0, Boston, MA 02 11 6 www.mbta.com MBTA Safety Department Report No. A15-367 Preliminary Report __ Final Report X Date: February 26, 2016 GENERAL INFORMATION Incident Classification: Unacceptable Hazard Incident Description: Near Miss - Unattended Red Line Train Movement Line: Red Line, Date of Event: 12/10/2015 Time: 6:08 AM Location: Braintree Crossover Braintree Branch Weather Conditions: Operator: Temp: 45° F Route: #933, northbound David Vazquez Wind: 3 mph (# ) Cloudy DPU Report #: 3787 Witnesses: Instruction Department 50 passengers onboard Determination: Industry Safe #: FY15-4830 Train #1502 N/A Safety Investigator: Ronald W. Nickle Re-instruction: Discipline: Chief Safety Officer N/A Yes 857-321-3255 [email protected] INJURY AND FATALITY INFORMATION Vendor/ Pedestrian/ Fatalities and Injuries Employee Passenger Trespasser Contractor Occupant Motorist a. Injuries 1 0 0 0 0 0 b.
    [Show full text]
  • North South Rail Link Feasibility Reassessment Appendices
    Photo Source: Katie Manning / Unsplash 164 North South Rail Link Feasibility Reassessment Final Report January 2019 | Preferred Alignment and Construction Technology 9. Appendices Appendices | January 2019 North South Rail Link Feasibility Reassessment Final Report 165 Photo Source: Michael Hicks / Flickr 166 North South Rail Link Feasibility Reassessment Final Report January 2019 | Appendices A. Citations 1 Eighth in the US in 2017, Inrix Global Conges- 8 MassDOT, The Offcial Website of The Mas- 16 Central Transportation Planning Staff, Boston tion Rankings, http://inrix.com/press-releases/ sachusetts Department of Transportation - Rail Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, los-angeles-tops-inrix-global-congestion- & Transit Division, http://www.massdot.state. Memorandum: MBTA Commuter Rail Passenger ranking/; 10th in the US in 2017, TomTom Traffc ma.us/Transit/ Count Results, Dec. 21, 2012. Index, https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffcin- 9 MassDOT, Tracker 2017: MassDOT’s Annual 17 Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organiza- dex/list?citySize=LARGE&continent=ALL&coun Performance Report, http://www.massdot.state. tion, Long-Range Transportation Plan – Needs try=ALL ma.us/Portals/0/docs/infoCenter/performance- Assessment, www.ctps.org/lrtp_needs 2 Ridership Trends presentation, MassDOT Offce management/Tracker2017.pdf 18 According to Reconnecting America, a national of Performance Management and Innovation, 10 MBTA, The New MBTA, http://old.mbta.com/ nonproft that integrates transportation and February 27, 2017, http://old.mbta.com/upload- about_the_mbta/history/?id=970 community development, “Transit-oriented edfles/About_the_T/Board_Meetings/M.%20 development… is a type of development that %20Ridership%20Trends%20Final%20022717. 11 https://www.mbtafocus40.com/ includes a mixture of housing, offce, retail and/ pdf or other amenities integrated into a walkable 12 MassDOT, MBTA State of the Service: Com- neighborhood and located within a half-mile of 3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Data muter Rail, https://d3044s2alrsxog.cloudfront.
    [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]
  • Upcoming MBTA and Commuter Rail Diversions • Diversions, of Note • MBTA Bus Diversions, by Line • Commuter Rail Bus Diversions, by Line
    Bus Diversions May 29, 2018 to October 15, 2018 Fiscal and Management Control Board June 4, 2018 Overview • Diversions • Background • MBTA Diversions, to date • Commuter Rail Diversions, to date • Upcoming MBTA and Commuter Rail Diversions • Diversions, of note • MBTA Bus Diversions, by Line • Commuter Rail Bus Diversions, by Line • Communication with the Customer • Strategy • Pre-Closure & During • On the Street • In Person • Appendix • Bus Diversions, by Month (June to October 15, 2018) 2 Background The Authority will complete $850M in construction projects this summer, between June 1, 2018 and October 15, 2018. • To complete this work, we partner with three third-party vendors to provide diversion service. The vendors are Yankee, Peter Pan and Paul Revere. • Depending on the construction, four types/categories of diversions can be coordinated: • Urban short-term, weekend work: Longfellow Bridge • Urban mid-term, full week/weekend work: Commonwealth Avenue • Urban long-term, full week/weekend work: Wollaston Station • Suburban/Rural, weekend work: PTC 3 MBTA Diversions, to date Planned Highlights • Beverly Drawbridge • Replacement of 132-year old Beverly Drawbridge • Wollaston Station Reconstruction • Installation of power cables, lighting, and Quincy Center Garage fencing, and security equipment and Demolition welding rails on the Longfellow Bridge • Early Access • $92.9M Wollaston Station Reconstruction • Three Stop Shuttle and Quincy Center Garage Demolition • Longfellow Bridge • Replace the eastbound side of the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge • Commonwealth Avenue, Phase I Unplanned • Snow Support 4 Commuter Rail Diversions, to date Planned Highlights • PTC: • 93, Equipment on Locomotives • Newburyport/Rockport • 58, Equipment on Control Cars • Haverhill • 43.8, miles of Fiber • Lowell • 109, Wayside Radios • Franklin • 1,451, ACSES Transponders • Stoughton • Dock repairs to Hingham Ferry Dock in • Wollaston Station and Quincy January 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Mbta Systemwide Passenger Data Collection Program
    / AMHERST^ * r UMASS/ 1 || m BlEObb OEfll b21b 7 AL D D 26 MBTA SYSTEMWIDE PASSENGER DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM 1 VOLUME : Rapid Transit System &U COLLECTION OCT OlW Massachusetts University or Depository Copy April, 1981 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/mbtasystemwidepa01cara Boston Region MBTA SYSTEMWIDE PASSENGER DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM Volume 1 Rapid Transit System April, 1981 This document was prepared by CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STAFF, an interagency transportation planning staff created and directed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, consisting of the member agencies. Metropolitan Area Planning Council Executive Office of Transportation and Construction Massachusetts Department of Public Works Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority MBTA Advisory Board Massachusetts Port Authority 3CSTCN •.':" = .* = :. *-•. - = ?- ".-•:*. •.," . n_n nrps ti in .TORT 26 TITLE ^BTA Systemwide Passenger Data Collection Program Volume 1 - Ra^id Transit System AUTHOR(S) Michael Carakatsane (project manager) and Lawrence Tittemore (Tittemore Associates) DATE April, 1981 ABSTRACT This is the first of two reports summarizing the results of information collected during a 1978 Systemwide Passenger Data Collection Program by the MBTA. This report focuses on the Rapid Transit portion of the system and describes (1) the physical system at the time of the survey, (2) procedures used to collect and process the data, (3) passenger boardings by corridor and by station, (4) socio-economic characteristics (age, sex, occupation, household size, household income, and auto ownership) of riders by corridor, and (5) travel characteristics (trip purpose, fare type, frequency of usage, mode of access and station destination) of riders by corridor. A second report summarizing similar information for the bus portion of the system will be prepared as Volume 2 Also, subsequent memoranda are expected to be prepared to document more detailed analysis of specific items of interest to the MBTA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D
    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Karyn E. Polito Fax: (617) 626-1081 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR http://www.mass.gov/eea Kathleen A.Theoharides SECRETARY November 6, 2020 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM PROJECT NAME : Quincy Bus Maintenance Facility PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Quincy PROJECT WATERSHED : Boston Harbor EEA NUMBER : 16267 PROJECT PROPONENT : Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : September 9, 2020 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA; M.G. L. c. 30, ss. 61-62I) and Section 11.06 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I hereby determine that this project does not require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Project Description As described in the Environmental Notification Form (ENF), the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is proposing to construct and operate a new bus maintenance and storage facility (BMF) in Quincy at 599 Thomas Burgin Parkway to replace the existing facility on Hancock Street. This project is identified as an operational priority and the first component of the Bus Facility Modernization Program which involves construction, renovation, and expansion of BMFs throughout the MBTA service area to expand capacity for newer buses, including the ability to support battery electric buses (BEBs), provide a modern workspace and support the MBTA goals for resiliency and sustainability. According to the ENF, the MBTA does not have any BMFs that can accommodate a fleet of BEBs and the Hancock Street BMF is becoming functionally obsolete and cannot be upgraded to accommodate a new and modern bus fleet.
    [Show full text]