DOCSLIB.ORG

1979 Evaluation of the Impacts of Section 3 6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1979 Evaluation of the Impacts of Section 3 6 RECEIVED \ \,. ,,,. LACTC ------------- ,/ • I THE UMT A RAIL • l ,.,J~ MODERNIZATION· PROGRAM ' ..., EVALUATION OF THE IMPACTS OF SECTION 3 CAPITAL GRANTS .1 1 FOR RAIL REHABILITATION AND- MODERNIZATION, 1965-1977'! · • I prepared for the U. S. Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration Poilicy, Budget and Program Development j, Office of Program Evaluation Washington, D.C. 20590 .. .,,. ,. ~ .. • ':i,)• ,, .. ~ "'~1~,~µ!> :' ' • • i=, i . ,,~.~ ·1·. • .' ~ 1 ' ' if, . ·'1 .. , ._ ,. .,,.,, .. , ~ • ! ,. ;~00 03 03 01 01 0338 BflOlfTT /P EAT. ~ARlilICK. MITCHEL L & CO. us or /UIITA UMTA A~ l l M DE,,l!ATION PRBMIEVALUAllON Of !H f IKPACT~ Cf ECTIOM 3/CAPl1Al GRANT S FOR RAIL ..:"• RE~AE I ~co R~!ZATIOM /196S-!977 0$/01 /)\ •I I t, . - .. > ,- ~ I ·;·'oh.:. i ,, ' t ":.l l';r NOTICE .. '. ~-. ·/ l ;, ,, .. ~, l" I '.J.< it . - .. This ~document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the,_ .. }· ' Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no I ' i liability for its contents or use thereof. : ' ;. " . 1 ~ - ' I '1. NOTICE j-· ~ I" - ' ' . ' . ·,.:;.,, . ~- The United States Government does not endorse products or ' :' • ' ,:1.. i·t• ~-t" ~· .: :~ f• .J ' manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of ,.. J f : ', f this report. I'• I k,¾t-, •• ,F( :/i .... ,,·•· • 1 L. ~: .• •l,l· ,•!. r 0900 03 03 01 01 03 38 DATE DUE rc'• ,. BENNET T/PEAT, HARWICK, MITCHELL &CO . l ~ . US OOT /UMTA l . UHTA RAIL MOOERHIZATIOH PRGH/EVALUATIOH OF THE IMPAC TS OF SECTIOH J/CAPITAL GRAHTS FOR RAIL REH AB & HOOERHIZAT!OH / 1965-1977 05/01/79 ,l ! • GAVLORD PRINTED IN U.S.A. .....-.. ...._ ___ __ -•, Technical ~eport Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Cota log No. UMTA-UPP-79-8 4. Title and Sub ti tie 5. Report Dote The UMTA Rail Modernization Program May, 1979 Evaluation of the Impacts of Section 3 6. Performing Orgoni zolion Cod• Capital Grants for Rail Rehabilitation and Modernization 8. Performing Orgoni zotion Report No. 7. Autho,1 s) John Bennett UMTA-UPP-79-8 9. Performing Organization Name ond Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company 1990 K Street, N.W. ll. Contract or Gran! No. Washington, D.C. 20006 UMTA-IT-06-0118 13. Type of Report ond Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Urban Mass Transportation Administration 400 Seventh Street, s. w. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D. c. 20590 15. Supplementary Notes Project.Monitor: Jack Bennett Contributing Team Members: Bryan Green, Diane Schwager, Steve Etkin 16. Abstract This report is an evaluation of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration grants for the modernization of existing rail systems. From the beginning of the Section 3 Capital Grant Program through May 31, 1977, Section 3 grant approvals amounted to approximately $6.2 billion. Of this total, $1. 7 billion, or 28 percent was approved for the rehabilitation, replacement and upgrading of existing rail systems. The report contains an inventory of rail modernization projects by type, mode (rapid rail, light rail, and commuter rail), and city. Impacts of these funds are analyzed by examining several specific projects in detail. In addition to the examination of project impacts, the process uded by two transit operators (NYCTA and PATH) to secure rail modernization funds and to select and implement projects is discussed. LACTC/RCC LIBRARY 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Urban Transportation Rail Available to the Public through the Transit Rail Modernization Evaluation National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 19. Security Clouif. Col this report) 20. Security Clonif. (of this poge) 21• No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified Form DOT F 1700.7 CB-72) Reproduction of completed po9e o,,.,i,,,,;:.,:,d TF 857 .B47 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 A. Purpose of This Study I.l B. Study Approach I.1 C. Findings and Conclusions I.3 D. Recommendations I. 5 II INTRODUCTION II.1 A. Purpose of the Study II.1 B. Study Approach II. 1 C. Organization of the Report II.2 III UMTA PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES III .1 A. Federal Role in Transit III .1 B. Rail Modernization Program Goals and Objectives III .4 IV Il\tIPACTS OF THE RAIL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM IV .1 A. Local Impacts IV. 1 B. National Impacts Iv.11 V EVALUATION OF THE RAIL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM V. 1 A. Rail Modernization Program Impacts V. 1 B. Rail Modernization Program Management V. 10 Appendix A Impacts Resulting from the Modernization of Existing Equipment and the Purchase of New Equipment for the Burlington Northern A. 1 B Impacts Resulting from the Modernization of Power Con­ version Equipment by the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH) B. 1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Appendix C Impacts of UMTA-Funded Improvements on the River­ side Branch of the Green Line c. 1 D Impacts Resulting from the Purchase of New Commuter Rail Cars by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transpor­ tation Authority (SEPTA) D. 1 E Station Modernization Projects Funded by the UMT A Section 3 Rail Modernization Program E. 1 F Urban Rail Rehabilitation and Modernization Funding Process Case Studies F. 1 ii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Page III-1 U .s. Transit Sector Aggregate Post-War Statistics III. 2 IV-1 Initial Survey of Rail Modernization Grant Impacts IV .2 IV-2 Grant Impact Case Studies IV .4 JV-3 UMTA Section 3 Rail Modernization Grant Approvals by Mode and by Year, 1965-1977 IV. 14 IV-4 Trends in Rapid and Light Rail Modernization Patron- age and Vehicle-Miles Operated, 1953-1977 IV .16 IV-5 Changes in Annual Patronage in Selected Rapid Rail Systems IV .18 IV-6 Commuter Rail Operating Trends IV .20 V-1 Rail Modernization Project Impacts on Program Goals V .6 iii I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 was enacted by Congress to provide federal financial assistance for the development of comprehensive and coordinated urban mass transit systems. As one of various UMTA programs providing financial assistance to urban areas, the Capital Grants and Loan Program was established under Section 3 of the UMT Act. From the beginning of this program through May 31, 1977, Section 3 grant approvals amounted to approximately $6. 2 billion. Of this total, nearly $1. 7 billion, or 28 percent, was approved for the modernization of existing rail systems, including the replacement and upgrading of facilities and equipment •1 A. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY Projects funded through the rail modernization program are often justified on the basis of their anticipated impacts on the safety, reliability. cost, and/ or patronage of existing rail systems. These projects, however. are rarely examined to determine their effect on rail systems following their implementa­ tion. In this study. an initial examination of these impacts was conducted. As part of this examination, this study also involved the preparation of an inven­ tory of rail modernization projects by type, by mode, and by city, as well as an evaluation of the process undertaken by local transit operators to secure rail modernization funds and to select and implement rail modernization projects. The inventory of rail modernization projects was prepared during Phase I of this study and is described in an earlier complementary report. 2 The re­ maining analyses were conducted during Phase II and serve as the primary focus of this report. B. STUDY APPROACH The evaluation of Rail Modernization Program impacts was conducted by examining a variety o·f specific projects funded through this program. This 1Major extensions to existing facilities and new ra:i:l transit systems are also funded by Section 3 grants. They are not considered part of the rail modern­ ization program, however. 211 The UMTA Rail Modernization Program, The Distribution of Capital Grant Funds for Rail Rehabilitation and Modernization," prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co •• July 1978. I.l evaluation approach permitted a more detailed review of the range and extent of impacts resulting from rail modernization efforts. The projects selected for examination represent a mix of modernization activities which reflect the pattern of investment undertaken for the program as a whole. This pattern suggested that projects examined in detail should reflect the fact that ( 1) nearly 70 percent of all funds have been approved for use in New York and Chicago, (2) funds approved for rolling stock rehabilitation and replacement have ac­ counted for over 50 percent of the total, and (3) a significant level of funds has been approved for each of the three rail modes--light, rapid, and com­ muter. These factors served as the primary basis for selection of projects for in-depth examination. Other factors which influenced the final selection, however, included the extent of project completion and the availability of data to measure resulting project impacts. 1 The following projects were selected for detailed examination: • IL-15 (Chicago, Illinois) - Replace/ modernize Burlington Northern commuter rail rolling stock; • IT-01 (New York, New York) - Power system improvements for the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation; • MA-10, MA-13, MA-15, MA-22 (Boston, Massachusetts) - Roll­ ing stock, way and structure, and station improvements on the Riverside Branch of the Green Line light rail system; • PA-10 (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) - Replacement of SEPTA ex­ Penn-Central Division commuter rail rolling stock; and • NY-07, PA-23, PA-33 (New York, New York; Philadelphia, Penn­ sylvania) - Station modernization improvements. Reports on the evaluation of each of these projects are presented as separate appendices to this report. In addition to the examination of project impacts, an evaluation was con­ ducted of the process undertaken by local transit operators to secure rail modernization funds and to select and implement projects.
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]
  • 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]
  • SMFA Employees Receive a 25% Discount on Bus, Train, Or Commuter Rail MBTA Passes (Up to $40 Per Month)
    Employee Commuter MBTA Discounts Benefit Programs Faculty & Staff Sustainable SMFA employees receive a 25% discount on bus, train, or commuter rail MBTA passes (up to $40 per month). Save Tufts is a member of A Better City cash by using pre-tax money to buy your train, bus, and Transportation Management subway tickets. For more details, visit Commuting Association (ABC TMA), which provides incentives and go.tufts.edu/commuterbenefits. programs for encouraging commuters to take public transit, carpool, vanpool, bike, and/or walk to work. For more Students information or to sign up for any ABC TMA programs, visit SMFA students are eligible to purchase an MBTA semester abctma.com/commuters. Employees on the SMFA campus or monthly pass at a 25% discount over regular “T” SMFA Campus are eligible to participate in the following programs: prices. Each student is entitled to one pass. You must bring your Tufts ID to pick up your pass. For details and Guaranteed Ride Home the reimbursement period schedule, visit If you use public transit, car/vanpool, bike, finance.tufts.edu/controller/bursar/mbta-passes or call or walk to work at least twice a week, the Bursar’s Office at 617-626-6551. you can receive up to six free rides home each year for emergencies, unscheduled overtime, or illness. Guaranteed rides home are provided through Metro Cab. Transit Tip: You can book a cab through the Boston Metro Cab app or by Use a Charlie Card to avoid a calling 617-782-5500. surcharge for paper tickets. Learn more at mbta.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Directions to the Joseph B. Martin Conference Center Centennial Medal and Next Generation Award Ceremony Thursday, October 24
    Directions to the Joseph B. Martin Conference Center Centennial Medal and Next Generation Award Ceremony Thursday, October 24th, 2013 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur Boston, MA From South of Boston Take I-93 North to exit 26 (Cambridge/Storrow Drive). Keep left at the end of ramp and take underpass to Storrow Drive. Follow Storrow Drive approximately 2.5 miles to Kenmore Square exit (on left). Bear right at end of exit ramp into Kenmore Square. Take leftmost fork at intersection onto Brookline Avenue. Follow Brookline Avenue approximately 1 mile (Beth Israel Hospital will be on the left) until Longwood Avenue. Take left on to Longwood Avenue and follow approximately ¼ mile. Turn left onto Avenue Louis Pasteur. Glass building on left. From West of Boston Take I-90 East (Massachusetts Turnpike) to exit 18 (Cambridge/Allston). Bear right after toll booth at end of exit ramp. Turn right after lights (before the bridge) onto Storrow Drive. Follow Storrow Drive (about one mile) to Kenmore Square exit. Bear right at end of exit ramp into Kenmore Square. Take leftmost fork at intersection onto Brookline Avenue. Follow Brookline Avenue approximately 1 mile (Beth Israel Hospital will be on the left) until Longwood Avenue. Take left on Longwood Avenue and follow approximately ¼ mile. Turn left onto Avenue Louis Pasteur. Glass building on left. From North of Boston Take I-93 South to exit 26 (Storrow Drive/North Station). Keep left at end of ramp and take underpass to Storrow Drive. Follow Storrow Drive approximately 2.5 miles to Kenmore Square exit (on left). Bear right at end of exit ramp into Kenmore Square.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020–2024 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN UPDATE Text-Only Version
    2020–2024 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN UPDATE Text-Only Version This page intentionally left blank 2020–2024 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... i Letter from Secretary Pollack ...................................................................................................... ii Non-Discrimination Protections .................................................................................................. iv Translation Availability ............................................................................................................. v Glossary of Terms ..................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 What’s New ................................................................................................................................ 6 Program Changes .................................................................................................................. 7 Funding .....................................................................................................................................12 State Funding ........................................................................................................................12 Federal
    [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]
  • Maximizing the Benefits of Mass Transit Services
    Maximizing the Benefits of Mass Transit Stations: Amenities, Services, and the Improvement of Urban Space within Stations by Carlos Javier Montafiez B.A. Political Science Yale University, 1997 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN CITY PLANNING AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUNE 2004 Q Carlos Javier Montafiez. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Signature of Author: / 'N Dep tment of Urban Studies and Plav ning Jvtay/, 2004 Certified by: J. Mai Schuster, PhD Pfessor of U ban Cultural Policy '09 Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: / Dennis Frenthmfan, MArchAS, MCP Professor of the Practice of Urban Design Chair, Master in City Planning Committee MASSACH USEUSq INSTIUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUN 21 2004 ROTCH LIBRARIES Maximizing the Benefits of Mass Transit Stations: Amenities, Services, and the Improvement of Urban Space within Stations by Carlos Javier Montafiez B.A. Political Science Yale University, 1997 Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on May 20, 2004 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning ABSTRACT Little attention has been paid to the quality of the spaces within rapid mass transit stations in the United States, and their importance as places in and of themselves. For many city dwellers who rely on rapid transit service as their primary mode of travel, descending and ascending into and from transit stations is an integral part of daily life and their urban experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Tft¥;P. Z.C. .J..~ .' S(?!Is{O
    -=t£..4 ~c tft¥;P. z.c._ .J..~ .' S(?!is{o. ~.... A:£!..~: s(a'( (o~ DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA NO. 71 LONGWOOD CENTER BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS .TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Development Plan ................................................................................................................ I II. Proponent ............................................................................................................................. 1 III. Site Description .................................................................................................................... 2 N. Background of Project ......................................................................................................... 2 V. Compliance with Planning and Development Criteria ....................................................... .3 VI. General Description ofProject. ............................................................................................ 4 VII. Location and Appearance of Structures .............................................................................. .4 VIII. Open Space and Landscaping ............................................................................................. .5 IX. Uses ...................................................................................................................................... 5 X. Dimensions and Densities .................................................................................................... 6 XI. Vehicular Circulation and Pedestrian Circulation ..............................................................
    [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]
  • Green Line Extension Update
    Green Line Extension Project Update Green Line Extension Update Fiscal and Management Control Board John Dalton, Program Manager April 13, 2020 1 Green Line Extension Project Update Agenda • GLX Project Update • GLT Lechmere Viaduct Rehabilitation (B22CN02) & Coordination with GLX • Lechmere Station Closure and Bus Diversion 2 Green Line Extension Project Update Design Build Entity Contract Cash Flow & Spending Updated Quarterly. Revised as of December 31, 2019. Actuals = Paid only (does not include retainage or change orders) 3 Green Line Extension Project Update Lechmere Viaduct and Station Area (existing and future) Gilman Square 4 Green Line Extension Project Update Red Bridge Viaduct Area (looking north) 5 Green Line Extension Project Update Future East Somerville Station 6 Green Line Extension Project Update Broadway Bridge Steel Erection 7 Green Line Extension Project Update Broadway Bridge Steel Erection 8 Green Line Extension Project Update Future Union Square Station 9 Green Line Extension Project Update GLX Site Overview Project Coordination Area 10 Green Line Extension Project Update Lechmere Station Demolition & New Viaduct Section Demolition of Existing Historic Concrete Steel Viaduct – Spring Viaduct Rehabilitation 2020 by GLT 11 Green Line Extension Project Update Lechmere Project Limits GLX – Project Limits GLT – Lechmere Viaduct Rehabilitation Project Green Line Extension (GLX) Green Line Transformation (GLT) 12 Green Line Extension Project Update GLT Lechmere Viaduct Rehabilitation Project Science Park/West End Station
    [Show full text]
  • FY20-24 Capital Investment Plan Overview of Final FY20-24 CIP
    FY20-24 Capital Investment Plan Overview of Final FY20-24 CIP 6/10/2019 Final FY20-24 CIP Agenda 1. Recap of the FY20-24 CIP process and where we are today 2. Summary and analysis of public input process and comments received 3. Review overall FY20-24 CIP by funding source, priority, program and mode 4. Discuss CIP programming as compared to MBTA spend targets 5. FY20 Capital Program Key Performance Indicators 6. Next Steps Draft for Discussion & Policy Purposes Only 2 Final FY20-24 CIP FY20-24 CIP Process Recap • Develop initial estimates of capital funding sources January • Collect project proposals from MBTA Departments • Begin scoring and evaluation process • Set initial program sizes (presented to FMCB 2/4) February • Continue scoring and evaluation of new proposals • Update cash flow forecasts for existing projects • Prioritize new projects based on scoring and evaluation March • Develop initial project list – combine existing and new projects • Refine sources and sequencing for draft project list April • Present updated funding sources and draft uses to FMCB • Finalize draft FY20-24 Capital Investment Plan May • Present to FMCB on May 13, CPC May 15, Joint Bd May 20 • Post draft CIP for comment; engage public through multiple avenues • Incorporate public comment in CIP June • Present final CIP for vote: FMCB June 10, CPC June 12, Joint Bd June 17 Draft for Discussion & Policy Purposes Only 3 Final FY20-24 CIP: Public Input Public Input Process and CIP Public Meeting Schedule CIP Public Meeting Schedule (MBTA Service Area) • BOSTON
    [Show full text]
  • Division Highlights
    2017-2021 Capital Investment Plan Letter from the Secretary & CEO On behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), I am pleased to present the 2017-2021 Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Shaped by careful planning and prioritization work as well as by public participation and comment, this plan represents a significant and sustained investment in the transportation infrastructure that serves residents and businesses across the Commonwealth. And it reflects a transformative departure from past CIPs as MassDOT and the MBTA work to reinvent capital planning for the Commonwealth’s statewide, multi-modal transportation system. This CIP contains a portfolio of strategic investments organized into three priority areas of descending importance: system reliability, asset modernization, and capacity expansion. These priorities form the foundation of not only this plan, but of a vision for MassDOT and the MBTA where all Massachusetts residents and businesses have access to safe and reliable transportation options. For the first time, formal evaluation and scoring processes were used in selecting which transportation investments to propose for construction over the next five years, with projects prioritized based on their ability to efficiently meet the strategic goals of the MassDOT agencies. The result is a higher level of confidence that capital resources are going to the most beneficial and cost-effective projects. The ultimate goal is for the Commonwealth to have a truly integrated and diversified transportation investment portfolio, not just a “capital plan.” Although the full realization of this reprioritization of capital investment will be an ongoing process and will evolve through several CIP cycles, this 2017-2021 Plan represents a major step closer to true performance-based capital planning.
    [Show full text]