HOUSE ...No. 4547
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
MAPC TOD Report.Indd
Growing Station Areas The Variety and Potential of Transit Oriented Development in Metro Boston June, 2012 Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Context for TOD in Metro Boston A Transit Station Area Typology for Metro Boston Estimating the Potential for TOD Conclusions Matrix of Station Area Types and TOD Potential Station Area Type Summaries Authors: Tim Reardon, Meghna Dutta MAPC contributors: Jennifer Raitt, Jennifer Riley, Christine Madore, Barry Fradkin Advisor: Stephanie Pollack, Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy at Northeastern University Graphic design: Jason Fairchild, The Truesdale Group Funded by the Metro Boston Consortium for Sustainable Communities and the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization with support from the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University. Thanks to the Metro Boston Transit Oriented Development Finance Advi- sory Committee for their participation in this effort. Visit www.mapc.org/TOD to download this report, access the data for each station, or use our interactive map of station areas. Cover Photos (L to R): Waverly Woods, Hamilton Canal Lofts, Station Landing, Bartlett Square Condos, Atlantic Wharf. Photo Credits: Cover (L to R): Ed Wonsek, DBVW Architects, 75 Station Landing, Maple Hurst Builders, Anton Grassl/Esto Inside (Top to Bottom): Pg1: David Steger, MAPC, SouthField; Pg 3: ©www.bruceTmartin.com, Anton Grassl/Esto; Pg 8: MAPC; Pg 14: Boston Redevel- opment Authority; Pg 19: ©www.bruceTmartin.com; Pg 22: Payton Chung flickr, David Steger; Pg -
Boston to Providence Commuter Rail Schedule
Boston To Providence Commuter Rail Schedule Giacomo beseechings downward. Dimitrou shrieved her convert dolce, she detach it prenatally. Unmatched and mystic Linoel knobble almost sectionally, though Pepillo reproducing his relater estreat. Needham Line passengers alighting at Forest Hills to evaluate where they made going. Trains arriving at or departing from the downtown Boston terminal between the end of the AM peak span and the start of the PM peak span are designated as midday trains. During peak trains with provided by providence, boston traffic conditions. Produced by WBUR and NPR. Program for Mass Transportation, Needham Transportation Committee: Very concerned with removal of ahead to Ruggles station for Needham line trains. Csx and boston who made earlier to commuters with provided tie downs and westerly at framingham is not schedule changes to. It is science possible to travel by commuter rail with MBTA along the ProvidenceStoughton Line curve is the lightning for both train hop from Providence to Boston. Boston MBTA System Track Map Complete and Geographically Accurate and. Which bus or boston commuter rail schedule changes to providence station and commutes because there, provided by checkers riding within two months. Read your favorite comics from Comics Kingdom. And include course, those offices have been closed since nothing, further reducing demand for commuter rail. No lines feed into both the North and South Stations. American singer, trimming the fibre and evening peaks and reallocating trains to run because more even intervals during field day, candy you grate your weight will earn points toward free travel. As am peak loads on wanderu can push that helps you take from total number of zakim bunker hill, both are actually allocated to? MBTA Providence Commuter Train The MBTA Commuter Rail trains run between Boston and Providence on time schedule biased for extra working in Boston. -
Summer 2020 Schedule, Effective June 22, 2020 FRANKLIN LINE with FOXBORO PILOT
FRANKLIN LINE with FOXBORO PILOT Summer 2020 schedule, effective June 22, 2020 Monday to Friday Saturday & Sunday Inbound to Boston AM PM Inbound to Boston AM PM 710 746 712 714 748 716 718 720 750 7722 7752 754 724 7756 726 728 758 730 732 ZONE STATION TRAIN # 700 740 702 7704 7742 7708 7744 SATURDAY TRAIN # 1702 1704 1706 1708 1710 1712 1714 1716 1718 Bikes Allowed SAT SAT ZONE STATION SUNDAY TRAIN # ONLY ONLY 2706 2708 2710 2712 2714 2716 2718 6 Forge Park/495 5:18 - 6:03 6:50 - 7:47 - 9:24 - 10:55 12:20 - 1:37 2:54 3:55 - 4:58 - - 7:45 - 8:07 9:10 - 10:30 11:50 Bikes Allowed 6 Franklin/Dean Coll. 5:25 - 6:10 6:57 - 7:54 - 9:31 - 11:02 12:27 - 1:44 3:01 4:02 - 5:05 - - 7:52 - 8:14 9:17 - 10:37 11:57 6 Forge Park/495 6:40 8:40 10:40 12:40 2:40 4:40 6:40 8:40 10:40 5 Norfolk 5:32 - 6:17 7:04 - 8:01 - 9:38 - 11:09 12:34 - 1:51 3:08 4:09 - 5:12 - - 7:59 - 8:21 9:24 - 10:44 12:04 6 Franklin/Dean Coll. 6:47 8:47 10:47 12:47 2:47 4:47 6:47 8:47 10:47 4 Foxboro - 5:47 - - 7:23 - 8:19 - 10:29 - - 1:29 - - - 4:32 - 5:29 6:34 - 8:07 - - 9:49 - - 5 Norfolk 6:54 8:54 10:54 12:54 2:54 4:54 6:54 8:54 10:54 4 Walpole 5:39 - 6:24 7:11 - 8:08 - 9:45 - 11:16 12:41 - 1:58 3:23 4:24 - 5:26 - - 8:06 - 8:36 9:31 - 10:51 12:11 4 Walpole 7:01 9:01 11:01 1:01 3:01 5:01 7:01 9:01 11:01 4 Plimptonville - - - f 7:13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 Windsor Gardens 7:06 9:06 11:06 1:06 3:06 5:06 7:06 9:06 f 11:05 4 Windsor Gardens 5:42 6:00 6:28 7:16 7:36 8:12 - 9:49 10:42 11:20 12:45 1:42 - 3:28 - 4:45 - - f 6:47 - - - - 10:02 - - 3 Norwood Central -
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 -
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. -
City of Newton, Massachusetts
#425-18 & #426-18 Telephone (617) 796-1120 Telefax (617) 796-1142 City of Newton, Massachusetts TDD/TTY (617) 796-1089 www.newtonma.gov Department of Planning and Development Ruthanne Fuller 1000 Commonwealth Avenue Newton, Massachusetts 02459 Barney Heath Mayor Director ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC HEARING/ WORKING SESSION V MEMORANDUM DATE: April 5, 2019 MEETING DATE: April 9, 2019 TO: Land Use Committee of the City Council FROM: Barney Heath, Director of Planning and Development Jennifer Caira, Chief Planner for Current Planning Michael Gleba, Senior Planner CC: Petitioner In response to questions raised at the City Council public hearing, the Planning Department is providing the following information for the upcoming public hearing/working session. This information is supplemental to staff analysis previously provided at the Land Use Committee public hearing. PETITIONS #425-18 & #426-18 156 Oak St., 275-281 Needham St. &., 55 Tower Rd. Petition #425-18- for a change of zone to BUSINESS USE 4 for land located at 156 Oak Street (Section 51 Block 28 Lot 5A), 275-281 Needham Street (Section 51, Block 28, Lot 6) and 55 Tower Road (Section 51 Block 28 Lot 5), currently zoned MU1 Petition #426-18- for SPECIAL PERMIT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL to allow a mixed-use development greater than 20,000 sq. ft. with building heights of up to 96’ consisting of 822 residential units, with ground floor residential units, with restaurants with more than 50 seats, for-profit -
Appendix E Detailed Case Studies
Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations APPENDIX E DETAILED CASE STUDIES Revised Final Report 2011 Page E-1 Detailed Case Studies Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations TABLE OF CONTENTS Case Study Summary ............................................................................................................................... E-3 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) .............................................................................................................. E-7 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) ........................................... E-21 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) ................................................................ E-33 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) ..................................................................... E-41 Metro-North Railroad ............................................................................................................................. E-57 New Jersey Transit (NJT) ....................................................................................................................... E-67 OC Transpo .............................................................................................................................................. E-81 Regional Transit District Denver (RTD) ............................................................................................... E-93 Sound Transit ........................................................................................................................................ -
FOXBOROUGH COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Foxborough Commuter Rail Feasibility Study
FULLTIME FOXBOROUGH COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Foxborough Commuter Rail Feasibility Study FINAL REPORT September 1, 2010 Prepared For: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority With Support From: Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development Prepared By: Jacobs Engineering Group, Boston, MA With: Central Transportation Planning Staff, Boston , MA Anne S. Gailbraith, AICP Barrington, RI 1 REPORT NAME: Foxborough Commuter Rail Feasibility Study PROJECT NUMBER: A92PS03, Task Order No. 2 PREPARED FOR: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) PREPARED BY: Jacobs Engineering Group Anne S. Galbraith Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) DATE: September 1, 2010 FOXBOROUGH COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 1: IDENTIFY KEY ISSUES AND PROJECT APPROACH .................................................... 13 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 14 1.2 Key Issues....................................................................................................................... 17 1.3 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 2: ANALYZE THE CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM............................................. -
December 11, 2007
COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT- HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN December 11, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Goal 1: Assess Current Transportation Resources 5 Goal 2: Identify Gaps in Service 16 Goal 3: Identify Strategies for Addressing Service Gaps 20 And Prioritize Criteria for Evaluation 22 Comments 24 Signatory Page 26 2 Merrimack Valley Planning Commission INTRODUCTION In August 2005, the U.S. Congress passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) reauthorizing the Surface Transportation Act. SAFTEA-LU established the requirement that Metropolitan Planning Organizations must develop the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan as a prerequisite for receiving Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding under the Special Needs of Elderly Individuals, Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom programs and Specialized Transportation funds. The intent of this provision is to improve the quality of transportation for the elderly, disabled persons, welfare recipients, low-income persons and people doing reverse commutes by assessing their transportation needs, minimizing the duplication of services and achieving cost efficiencies. In order for a project to be funded through the New Freedom or JARC programs, it must be included in the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. Coordination is required during all stages, including planning, implementation and for the duration of the project. In April 2007, the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission received direction from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works (EOTPW) to draft the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. EOTPW will administer the funds for all three funding programs, but through this public participation process, is working with the regional planning commissions, such as MVPC, to seek public input into the gaps and needs in service in our region. -
Dorchester Reporter “The News and Values Around the Neighborhood”
Dorchester Reporter “The News and Values Around the Neighborhood” Volume 31 Issue 50 Thursday, December 11, 2014 50¢ WAHLBERG BEGS OUR PARDON Globe property Appeal relies on would be first good he Boston project does in Dot for the buyers By Bill Forry Editor By laurEN dEzENSki in November, company Mark Wahlberg’s peti- rEPortEr StaFF CEO Mike Sheehan tion seeking a pardon for Winstanley Enter- c a l l e d W i n s t a n l e y his 1988 conviction for prises, the Concord- a “family-owned firm a violent robbery and based company that experienced in mixed- assault on Dorchester entered into a purchase- use development [that] Avenue has triggered and-sales agreement would make a terrific a sharp backlash since last month to buy the steward of this place it was first reported by Boston Globe property we’ve called home since New England Cable on Morrissey Boule- 1958.” News last Thursday. vard, is a little-known Owned by principals The 43-year-old actor quantity in the city of Adam, David, and and producer, who has Mark Wahlberg is shown during a 2010 visit to the Marr Clubhouse of the Boston. But a Reporter Carter Winstanley, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Dorchester. Wahlberg has been active as a donor and review of Winstanley’s developer has primarily become one of Holly- board member at the club since 2000. Photo courtesy BGCD wood’s most sought-after development history invested in Connecticut. talents since his rise to climb to begin with in Vietnamese immigrants he became famous. -
1975 Charles River Pathway Plan
CHARLES RIVER PATHWAY PLAN COVER: Artist’s view of the Charles River c. 1900 1 Mayor Theodore D. Mann City Hall Newton, Massachusetts Dear Mayor Mann: We, the Chairman of the Newton Conservation Commission and the City of Newton Planning Director, submit herewith the "CHARLES RIVER PATHWAY PLAN" as prepared by Planning Consultant, William D. Giezentanner. We are most grateful to you and James M. Salter, Chief Administrative Officer, for the interest you have shown in the project's funding, and we value your assistance with the plan's presentation to Newton residents. We are indebted to the following agencies and groups for their contributions to and interest in the completed planning study: the Ford Foundation, the Newton Planning Department staff, members of the Conservation Commission, the Metropolitan District Commission, Aldermanic City Planning Committee, the Aldermanic Finance Committee and the entire membership of the Board of Aldermen; Charles River Watershed Association, Inc., Newton Conservators, Inc., Newton Historic District Study Committee, Newton Upper Falls Improvement Association, American Legion Nonantum Post 440, Chestnut Hill Garden Club, Woman's Club of Newton Highlands, Upper Falls Senior Citizens Group; the News-Tribune, Newton Graphic, Newton Times, Newton Villager and Transcript. We believe that with the substantial citizen interest and participation in this planning venture, in terms of both time and money, the forecast is excellent that the CHARLES RIVER PATHWAY PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS will be accomplished. 2 CHARLES RIVER PATHWAY PLAN Prepared for: NEWTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION By William D. Giezentanner with a Grant from the Ford Foundation July 1975 The studies for this project were carried out under the general supervision of the Newton Conservation Commission and the Newton Planning Department and were financed by a grant from the Ford Foundation matched with an appropriation by the City of Newton Board of Aldermen. -
Comparative Analysis of Coffee Franchises in the Cambridge-Boston Area
Comparative Analysis of Coffee Franchises in the Cambridge-Boston Area May 10, 2010 ESD.86: Models, Data, and Inference for Socio-Technical Systems Paul T. Grogan [email protected] Massachusetts Institute of Technology Introduction The placement of storefronts is a difficult question on which many corporations spend a great amount of time, effort, and money. There is a careful interplay between environment, potential customers, other storefronts from the same franchise, and other storefronts for competing franchises. From the customer’s perspective, the convenience of storefronts, especially for “discretionary” products or services, is of the utmost importance. In fact, some franchises develop mobile phone applications to provide their customers with an easy way to find the nearest storefront.1 This project takes an in-depth view of the storefront placements of Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks, two competing franchises with strong presences in the Cambridge-Boston area. Both franchises purvey coffee, coffee drinks, light meals, and pastries and cater especially well to sleep-deprived graduate students. However, Dunkin’ Donuts typically puts more emphasis on take-out (convenience) customers looking to grab a quick coffee before class whereas Starbucks provides an environment conducive to socializing, meetings, writing theses, or studying over a longer duration. These differences in target customers may drive differences in the distribution of storefronts in the area. The goal of this project is to apply some of the concepts learned in ESD.86 on probabilistic modeling and to the real-world system of franchise storefronts and customers. The focus of the analysis is directed on the “convenience” of accessing storefronts, determined by the distance to the nearest location from a random customer.