DOCSLIB.ORG

FY21-25 Capital Investment Plan Overview, Sources and Programs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FY21-25 Capital Investment Plan Overview, Sources and Programs FY21-25 Capital Investment Plan Overview, Sources and Programs March 5, 2020 1 Draft for Discussion & Policy Purposes Only The System | MBTA by the Numbers Red Line Bus » 218 Vehicles » 22 Stations/Stops » 1,055 Vehicles » 7,690 Bus Stops » 9 Garages » 175 Bus Routes Green Line » 3,244 Bus Route Miles » 206 Vehicles » 66 Stations/Stops Commuter Rail Orange Line » 90 Locomotives » 420 Coaches » 120 Vehicles » 20 Stations/Stops » 137 Stations » 394 Track Miles » 5 North Side Lines » 7 South Side Lines » Operated by Keolis Blue Line » 112 Vehicles » 12 Stations/Stops Ferry Mattapan Line » 12 Boats (3 owned by the MBTA) » 10 Vehicles » 8 Stations/Stops » 7 Terminals » 3 Routes » Operated by Boston Harbor Cruises 2 Draft for Discussion & Policy Purposes Only Key milestones for the CIP development process 3 Draft for Discussion & Policy Purposes Only Next evolution of the MBTA CIP: Continuous improvement FY17-21 CIP FY18-22 CIP FY19-23 CIP FY20-24 CIP FY21-25 CIP - Introduced a new - Continued the - Aligned priorities - Incorporate Transit - 5th update of rolling CIP strategic approach structure and with strategic goals Asset Management to produce a process introduced and plans (TAM) Plan data - Incorporate Capital Needs balanced portfolio the prior year and findings Assessment findings of projects - Issued agency-wide - Focused on fully call for projects to - Use CIP process to - Adopt lessons learned from - Represented the funding prior identify needs and implement first set acceleration initiatives first fully integrated commitments, build pipeline of Focus 40 “next - Implement a consistent and MassDOT-MBTA project readiness, priorities” nimble process for CIP acceleration, and - Incorporated incorporating in-year targeted updates Transit Asset - Leverage PMIS for - After years of Management project intake, changes underinvestment, - Expanded (TAM) data evaluation and - Integrated project mapping challenged the ambitious capital prioritization into decision-making process agency to spend spending goals to - Scored all project proposals using - Focus on execution $6.6 billion over $7.4 billion over - Integrated debt assumptions PSAC methodology and optimization of the five year five years with the Pro Forma window capital program - Produced $8 billion plan 4 Draft for Discussion & Policy Purposes Only Initial estimate: FY21-25 CIP Funding Sources Sources highlights: • Federal funds continue to be the single largest source of capital for the MBTA • Reduction from $3.8B in FY20-24 to $3.5B in FY21-25 driven by progress on Green Line Extension and drawdown of substantial balance of carry over funds • MBTA Bonds support the 20% match for Federal projects, as well as MBTA-only funded projects • State funds include Bond Cap and Rail Enhancement Program special obligation bonds for GLX, Red Line/Orange Line improvements, South Coast Rail, and other projects • Pay-Go/Lockbox reflects an assumption of $150M/year, plus prior year carryover. Includes state assistance via bond cap and operating funds • Other funding sources include municipal contributions and other reimbursements 5 Draft for Discussion & Policy Purposes Only Initial estimate: FY21-25 CIP Federal Funding Federal Sources: - The Federal program is a subset of the larger MBTA capital program and is determined after projects are prioritized - Of $3.5B in total federal funds, appx $2.3B is available for programming in the TIP: - $1.1B in Sec. 5307 urbanized area formula funds - $1.2B in Sec. 5337 fixed guideway state of good repair funds - ~$30M in Sec. 5339 bus and bus facilities funds 6 Draft for Discussion & Policy Purposes Only FY21-25 CIP Priorities and Programs 1. Reliability: Maintain and improve the overall Reliability Programs condition and reliability of Bridge and Tunnel Stations the transportation system Facilities System Upgrades Revenue Vehicles Track, Signals, and Power 2. Modernization: Modernize Modernization Programs the transportation system Accessibility to make it safer and more Bus Transformation Green Line Transformation accessible and to Bus Transit Infrastructure Partnership Process Improvements and Innovation accommodate growth Commuter Rail Safety and Resiliency Rail Transformation Customer Experience and Technology Red / Orange Line Improvements Improvements Risk Management and Mitigation 3. Expansion: Expand Fare Transformation diverse transportation Expansion Programs options for communities throughout the Green Line Extension Expansion Project Development Commonwealth Expansion Projects South Coast Rail 7 Draft for Discussion & Policy Purposes Only FY21-25 CIP Programs: Reliability Priority 1/Reliability FY21-25 CIP Programs Purpose and Need Statement Measure This program repairs, reconstructs and replaces MBTA commuter Asset condition: structural Bridge and Tunnel rail and transit bridges and tunnels system-wide deficiency and load rating This program rehabilitates and upgrades maintenance and Asset condition: FTA TERM Facilities administrative facilities that support MBTA operations. Scale (1-5) This program rehabilitates and replaces the MBTA revenue fleet, Asset age: Useful life Revenue Vehicles which includes commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, bus and ferry benchmark units. This program rehabilitates and upgrades MBTA stations and Asset condition: FTA TERM Stations parking facilities (e.g., commuter rail, commuter boat, subway and Scale (1-5) bus stations) This program upgrades a wide range of MBTA systems including Asset age: Useful life communications, security, computer technology, fare collection, System Upgrades benchmark (for non-revenue asset management and environmental remediation systems. It vehicles) also rehabilitates non-revenue vehicles and equipment. This program rehabilitates, replaces and upgrades track, signal Asset condition, age, and Track, Signal and Power and power assets across the commuter rail and transit system. performance restrictions 8 Draft for Discussion & Policy Purposes Only FY21-25 CIP Programs: Modernization Priority 2/Modernization FY21-25 CIP Programs Purpose and Need Statement Measure This program improves accessibility at MBTA commuter rail, subway and bus PATI Implementation; Accessibility stations. This program is necessary to meet the goals of the Authority’s Plan for increased number of Accessible Transit Infrastructure (“PATI”). accessible stations This program aims to support a range of investments that strive to achieve Bus Transformation better, faster, lower-emission but service that is more aligned with where riders TBD live, work and travel. Through partnerships and grants to municipalities, implement transit-supportive Bus Transit Infrastructure infrastructure to improve and facilitate more efficient delivery of transit Completion of bus lanes; Partnership operations, improve the passenger experience, and enhance transit rider and installation of TSP pedestrian service and safety. [Pending Transportation Bond Bill] Commuter Rail Safety and This program includes projects that improve the safety and resiliency of the PTC/ATC Project Resiliency Commuter Rail network, including the implementation of Positive Train Control. Milestones Improved customer Customer Experience and This program includes improvement projects that modernize the system and experience; survey Technology Improvements enhance customers’ experience. results The Fare Transformation program will implement a new reliable and convenient Fare Transformation Fare Transformation fare payment and collection system, integrated across all modes, to replace Project Milestones CharlieCards/Tickets and their supporting hardware and software. 9 Draft for Discussion & Policy Purposes Only FY21-25 CIP Programs: Modernization continued Priority 2/Modernization FY21-25 CIP Programs Purpose and Need Statement Measure Safety and Resiliency; Green Line Transformation (GLT) improves the quality of service on the Green Green Line Addressing Demand; Service Line through fleet modernization and infrastructure/facilities upgrades, as Transformation Delivery; Accessibility; Cust. well as improved capacity, accessibility and state-of-the-art technology. Experience Process Improvements & This program includes investments in innovations that enhance productivity or Project milestones Innovation quality of MBTA services and capital programs. This program reflects investments to modernize the Commuter Rail network, Rail Transformation including foundational investments in vehicles, facilities, and infrastructure to TBD implement the Commuter Rail Vision The Red Line and Orange Line Improvements program includes the set of Project milestones; Red / Orange Line vehicle and infrastructure investments needed to fully modernize the fleet Three min headways on the Improvements and achieve the service goal of three minute headways on the Red Line and RL and four min headways on three and a half minute headways on the Orange Line. the OL Implements risk management initiatives as well as proactive efforts to OHSA implementation and Risk Management improve workplace safety and system security. SMS implementation 10 Draft for Discussion & Policy Purposes Only FY21-25 CIP Programs: Expansion Priority 3/Expansion FY21-25 CIP Programs Purpose and Need Statement Measure The Green Line Extension program includes the vehicles, stations and infrastructure to extend the Green Line from a relocated Lechmere Station Green Line Extension GLX Project Milestones in East Cambridge to Union Square in Somerville and College Avenue in Medford. This program
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Fact Sheet: the Green Line Extension Cambridge | Somerville | Medford
    t4ma.org @T4MASS (413) 367-T4MA [email protected] Fact Sheet: The Green Line Extension Cambridge | Somerville | Medford What is the Green Line Extension? The Green Line Extension (GLX) project will expand MBTA light rail services into Somerville and Medford, by way of the Green Line. Currently, the Green Line ends at Lechmere Station in East Cambridge. This project will extend the line 4.7 miles, creating two new separate branches that will end at Union Square in Somerville and College Avenue in Medford, respectively. The Many Benefits of the Green Line Extension 1. Fulfilling demand for a direct ride to Downtown Boston from these communities 2. Reducing travel time by eliminating the need for bus and rail transfers 3. Increasing the number of transit riders across the seven new GLX stations by approximately 45,000 riders per day by 2030 4. Improving air quality because of 25,000+ fewer vehicle miles traveled per day 5. Enhancing universal access with all new stations meeting or exceeding the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act 6. Improving the overall transit experience with platform canopies to protect from wind and precipitation, additional elevators at select stations, and public art 7. Reducing noise pollution and vibration impacts from area railroads with mitigation measures. 8. Increasing biking and walking routes by creating a continuous network of shared-use paths that connect 11 cities and towns in Metro Boston The Story of the Green Line Extension Dirty Air, Lack of Transit Pushed Into Action Neighbors Respond The Green Line Extension project was first After 15 years and little progress, As the project completion date proposed in 1990 under Governor Michael the Conservation Law Foundation continued to be pushed back Dukakis to offset pollution and traffic filed a federal lawsuit, pushing the and cost estimates rose, problems caused by Boston's Big Dig state to respond.
    [Show full text]
  • South County
    Fairmount Line Corridor Improvements Project MBTA Contract No.G74PS01 Amendment 8 Service Enhancement Study Final Report April 2008 Prepared for: Prepared by: Fairmount Line Service Enhancement Study Introduction and Executive Summary...........................................................................................................2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................8 1. Kick Off Meeting......................................................................................................................................9 2. Validate and Update Tools: Key Findings.............................................................................................10 2.1. South Station Capacity................................................................................................................10 2.2. Station Dwell Times with High Peak Period Travel Volumes....................................................15 2.3. Equipment Maintenance and Storage Capacity...........................................................................17 3. Develop and Screen Preliminary Options: Key Findings .......................................................................21 3.1. Baseline.......................................................................................................................................21 3.2. Peak Alternatives.........................................................................................................................22
    [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]
  • Green Line Extension Project EEA #13886
    Final Environmental Impact Report Green Line Extension Project EEA #13886 Executive Summary June 2010 Green Line Extension Project Final Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary Introduction The Green Line Extension Project is an initiative of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to enhance transit services in order to improve mobility and regional access for residents in the communities of Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford, Massachusetts. The Project is required by the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and fulfills a longstanding commitment of the Central Artery/Tunnel project to increase public transit. The Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulations (310 CMR 7.36) require that MassDOT complete this Project by December 31, 2014. On October 15, 2009, MassDOT filed the Green Line Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (DEIR/EA) with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office. The Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) issued a Certificate on the DEIR on January 15, 2010. The Secretary’s Certificate stated that the DEIR adequately and properly complied with MEPA and with its implementing regulations, and required preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) of limited scope for the Proposed Project. MassDOT expects Project funding to come both from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and from Commonwealth bonding. Because MassDOT is seeking funding through the FTA, the Project also requires review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). At the request of the FTA, MassDOT is preparing a separate Final EA. The Green Line Extension Project is proposed to be built in two phases, with an initial operating segment (the “Proposed Project”) being constructed to College Avenue in Medford and a spur to Union Square in Somerville, as described and evaluated in the DEIR/EA as Alternative 1 (see FEIR Figure ES-1).
    [Show full text]
  • Phased Corridor Map
    Home Benefits Programs Environmental Construction Documents Community Engagement Home > Route and Service > Phased Corridor Map Phased Corridor Map Download PDF of the Phased Corridor Map [240 KB] Corridor map for the South Coast Rail project showing the project's phasing plan. Phase 1 will extend the existing Middleborough/Lakeville Commuter Rail Line to provide service to Taunton, New Bedford and Fall River. The Phase 1 route begins at South Station in Boston and continues on the existing Middleborough Main Line to Pilgrim Junction, then follows the Middleborough Secondary to Cotley Junction. The route then continues south and splits into two legs: one leg bound for Fall River following the Fall River Secondary and one leg bound for New Bedford following the New Bedford Main Line. Existing stations and layovers for Phase 1 include South Station, Holbrook/Randolph, Montello, Brockton, Campello, Bridgewater, Middleborough/Lakeville, and Middleborough Layover. Phase 1 includes four new stations: East Taunton, Fall River Depot, King's Highway, and Whale's Tooth; a potential new Middleborough station; and two new layover facilities (Weaver's Cove and Wamsutta). Phase 2 follows the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Canton Junction, then follows the Stoughton Line to Cotley Junction. Existing stations include South Station, Back Bay, Ruggles, Forest Hills, Readville, Route 128, and Canton Junction. Reconstructed stations include Canton Center and Stoughton stations. New stations for phase 2 include: North Easton, Easton Village, Raynham Place, Taunton, Freetown, and Battleship Cove. Powered by Translator | Translation Support MassDOT Home | About Us | Employment | Contact Us | Site Policies Copyright © 2017 Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
    [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]
  • KEEPING on TRACK Our Second Progress Report on Reforming and Funding Transportation Since Passage of the Massachusetts Transportation Finance Act of 2013
    KEEPING ON TRACK Our Second Progress Report on Reforming and Funding Transportation Since Passage of the Massachusetts Transportation Finance Act of 2013 Written by Produced by Rafael Mares Kirstie Pecci FEBRUARY 2015 KEEPING ON TRACK Our Second Progress Report on Reforming and Funding Transportation Since Passage of the Massachusetts Transportation Finance Act of 2013 Rafael Mares, Conservation Law Foundation Kirstie Pecci, MASSPIRG Education Fund February 2015 ACKNOWLEDGMentS The authors thank the following MassDOT; Rani Murali, former Intern, individuals for contributing information Transportation for Massachusetts; or perspectives for this report: Jeannette Orsino, Executive Director, Andrew Bagley, Director of Research Massachusetts Association of Regional and Public Affairs, Massachusetts Transit Authorities; Martin Polera, Office Taxpayers Foundation; Paula of Real Estate and Asset Development, Beatty, Deputy Director of Budget, MBTA; Richard Power, Legislative MBTA; Taryn Beverly, Legal Intern, Director, MassDOT; Janice E. Ramsay, Conservation Law Foundation; Matthew Director of Finance Policy and Analysis, Ciborowski, Project Manager, Office MBTA; and Mary E. Runkel, Director of of Transportation Planning, MassDOT; Budget, MBTA. Jonathan Davis, Chief Financial Officer, MBTA; Thom Dugan, former Deputy This report was made possible thanks Chief Financial Officer & Director, to generous support from the Barr Office of Management and Budget, Foundation. MassDOT; Kristina Egan, Director, Transportation for Massachusetts; Adriel © 2015 Transportation for Massachusetts Galvin, Supervisor of Asset Systems Development, MassDOT; Scott Hamwey, The authors bear responsibility for any Manager of Long-Range Planning, factual errors. The views expressed in Office of Transportation Planning, this report are those of the authors and MassDOT; Dana Levenson, Assistant do not reflect the views of our funders Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, or those who provided review.
    [Show 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
    [Show full text]