Attachment 1.Pdf

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Attachment 1.Pdf Before the Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation Petition for Relief from Certain Regulatory Limitations to Permit Operation of Acela Trainsets and “Tier III” Trainsets On the Northeast Corridor At up to the Maximum Speed for Class 8 Track Preface The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) requests the waiver of certain limitations on or associated with train speeds contained in Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) safety regulations and in the FRA Final Order of Particular Applicability published on July 22, 1998 (63 FR 39342; July 22, 1998) [Docket No. FRA 2001-9972; Formerly FRA Docket No. 87-2]. Granting this relief would enable Amtrak to achieve optimum trip times on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) consistent with the capabilities of existing Acela trainsets, where conditions otherwise permit. Relief is also requested to permit the use of “Tier III” trainsets built to designs that are already service-proven internationally, which, as adapted to meet specific U.S. requirements and respond to NEC conditions, would initially supplement and later replace the existing Acela equipment as it reaches the end of its useful life. Again, this relief would be utilized where conditions otherwise permit. Use of Tier III equipment would provide the potential for further improvements in trip times while also potentially offering increased seating capacity. The proposed path for achieving the proposed enhancements in Amtrak’s premium NEC service would then proceed as follows: First, FRA would process and—if deemed warranted—approve this petition, providing a framework for subsequent handling. Second, Amtrak would complete necessary improvements to support enhanced speeds (for the Acela service and Tier III equipment service, respectively, in the several high speed zones). Third, Amtrak and FRA would work to complete all necessary special approvals. The FRA exercises its authority regarding qualification of high-speed trainsets, train control systems, and other safety-relevant subject matter through special approvals that are based on close review of program documentation, engineering analysis, and testing. Nothing in this waiver request is intended to diminish that oversight in any way. At the present time it is anticipated that Acela service could be increased in designated speed zones on an incremental basis within the next one to three years. Introduction of the Tier III-compliant equipment would be founded on a Notice to Proceed issued only after a grant of approval in this proceeding and would occur only after (i) necessary risk mitigations had been completed in the subject speed zone(s) and all (ii) necessary qualification testing is satisfactorily completed. If this petition is approved, Amtrak would expect to issue a Notice to Proceed to the successful Tier III equipment vendor shortly after the anticipated selection of that vendor in April of 2015. Delivery and testing of new trainsets would require approximately 3 to 4 years from the Notice to Proceed, during which a variety of additional safety mitigations would be implemented. 2 This petition is organized as follows: I. Background and Introduction A. Amtrak’s role on the NEC B. Need for flexibility to meet service needs C. History of regulatory provisions D. Developments since existing regulations were issued II. NEC safety performance A. Accident/incident review B. Existing safety measures III. Acela 160 miles per hour (mph) request A. Previous waiver request for speed zone in Rhode Island B. Additional territory for up to 160 mph C. Status of qualification testing D. Specific relief requested, including conditions E. Safety rationale F. Public interest considerations IV. Tier III request A. Engineering Task Force / RSAC recommendations B. NEC constraints specific to this request C. Specific relief requested, including conditions 1. Regulations and order 2. Reservation of safety appliance and certain other issues for later decision D. Safety rationale 3 1. Programs driving safety performance going forward 2. Future growth of service on the NEC 3. Influence of equipment selection on safety outcome 4. Safety findings and proposed additional countermeasure a. Quantitative Risk Analysis methodology b. Other observations from risk analysis and experience c. Risk analysis findings and new safety mitigations flowing from the safety analysis d. Stakeholder Engagement Plan E. Public interest considerations V. Conclusions VI. List of supporting exhibits I. Background and Introduction The NEC constitutes a vital national asset that is utilized for intercity, commuter, and freight rail service along its length of 457 miles from Washington, D.C.’s Union Station to Boston’s South Station.1 Although most of the daily trains on the NEC are operated by commuter authorities serving discrete areas, and although use of the NEC is necessary to serve local customers at a number of locations on NEC tracks and on freight lines that can only be accessed via the NEC, Amtrak is the only entity that provides service using trains that traverse the entire length of the NEC; and every segment of the NEC is also used by Amtrak trains that originate or terminate off the spine of the Corridor. FRA enjoys a very long and intimate acquaintance with the NEC, having managed the original Northeast Corridor Improvement Project in the 1970s, and having funded electrification and upgrading of the “North End” in the late 1990’s. FRA continues to provide assistance to a number of parties working on coordinated improvements to the NEC, and FRA funds Amtrak capital and operating needs as provided by law. Amtrak wishes to emphasize that, even though the current petition focuses on achievement of shorter trip times and enhanced capacity for Amtrak customers, the measures that are being implemented to 1 For purposes of this filing, the “NEC” is defined as the “spine” of the electrified NEC not including auxiliary branches such as the Keystone Corridor and Springfield line. 4 facilitate this enhanced service will also benefit all users of the NEC in a variety of ways, including improved safety and reliability for all operators, their passengers, and citizens of the region.2 A. Amtrak’s role on the NEC Amtrak dispatches and maintains the NEC, on its own behalf or for another public authority, from Washington to Boston, with the exception of one interlocking with the MTA Long Island Rail Road and the portion of the NEC controlled by the MTA Metro-North Railroad (Mileposts MN 16.3 near New Rochelle to AB 72.9 near New Haven). All of the high speed zones discussed in this petition are located on portions of the NEC dispatched and maintained by Amtrak. Although dispatched and maintained by Amtrak, the portion of the NEC located in Massachusetts (MP AB 190-229) is owned by the State. Amtrak also provides leadership for improvements to the NEC that will benefit all users, both in the short term and in the future. The current petition is an important step in a series of actions that have been identified as necessary and useful to the future of the NEC and the region, as discussed under “Public Interest Considerations,” below. See, also, The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor (2012 Update Report). B. Need for flexibility to meet service needs Amtrak is requesting relief in this proceeding in order to provide enhanced high-speed rail service on the NEC, consistent with regional needs and Federal policy. Service would be “enhanced” in two respects. First, higher maximum train speeds within designated “speed zones” would contribute trip time savings that would be combined with other savings being planned at bridges, terminals and similar locations to make rail travel even more attractive and useful to current and potential Amtrak riders. Second, introduction of additional high-speed trainsets—trainsets with more passenger seats—will provide essential capacity in a growing intercity transportation market. Thus far, Amtrak’s Acela service has been extremely successful in claiming market share and thereby providing an environmentally beneficial alternative to air travel, while helping to reduce pressure on highly constrained airports in the region. However, in recent years Acela ridership has been running at or near capacity during the most heavily-traveled periods. Additional seats will facilitate growth in Amtrak’s premium service while also relieving pressure on regional service capacity. Moving toward lighter-weight international technology, as contemplated in the proposed Tier III standards, may offer the additional benefit of better acceleration while maintaining braking characteristics equivalent to the existing Acela fleet, further aiding trip times. Providing approval of the Tier III request would also permit Amtrak, over time, to retire the existing Acela fleet without being wed to an existing set of requirements that far exceed any in place elsewhere internationally. Building new trainsets (or additional coaches for existing trains) under existing Tier II requirements could limit passenger capacity, result in higher energy consumption, and could be much more costly per unit, given the unique requirements. Amtrak’s performance-based specifications do not eliminate Tier II equipment from consideration; however, Amtrak submits that continued use of Tier II equipment should not be required, given— 2 For a succinct summary of the importance of the NEC to region and the Nation, see The Northeast Corridor and the American Economy (Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations
Recommended publications
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Michael.W
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Energy Facilities Siting Board ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of the Petition of ) Silver City Energy Limited Partnership ) EFSB 91-100 to Construct a Bulk Generating Facility ) and Ancillary Facilities ) ____________________________________) FINAL DECISION Jolette Westbrook Hearing Officer June 15, 1994 On the Decision: Enid Kumin William Febiger Phyllis Brawarsky Dana Reed Barbara Shapiro APPEARANCES: John A. DeTore, Esq. Donna Sharkey, Esq. Rubin and Rudman 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, Massachusetts 02110 FOR: Silver City Energy Limited Partnership Petitioner Barry P. Fogel, Esq. Craig A. MacDonnell, Esq. Keohane and Keegan 21 Custom House Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 FOR: Silver City Energy Limited Partnership Petitioner Frederick D. Augenstern Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Intervenor William Graban 19 Scadding Street Taunton, Massachusetts 02780 Intervenor Robert H. Russell, Esq. Conservation Law Foundation 62 Summer Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Intervenor Alan J. Nogee Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group 29 Temple Place Boston, Massachusetts 02111 Intervenor Frances J. Perry 2R. Rail Avenue - River Bend Taunton, Massachusetts 02780 Intervenor - i - William Graban Co-Chairman COAL-FACTS Committee 19 Scadding Street Taunton, Massachusetts 02780 Interested Person Barry J. Andrews, Selectman Stephen J. Lombard, Town Manager Town of Norton 70 East
    [Show full text]
  • NEC One-Year Implementation Plan: FY17 Contents
    Northeast Corridor One-Year Implementation Plan Fiscal Year 2017 September 2016 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from four freight railroads, states with connecting corridors and several commuter operators in the Region. 2| NEC One-Year Implementation Plan: FY17 Contents Introduction 6 Funding Summary 8 Baseline Capital Charge Program 10 1 - Boston South Station 12 16 - Shore to Girard 42 2 - Boston to Providence 14 17 - Girard to Philadelphia 30th Street 44 3 - Providence to Wickford Junction 16 18 - Philadelphia 30th Street - Arsenal 46 4 - Wickford Junction to New London 18 19 - Arsenal to Marcus Hook 48 5 - New London to New Haven 20 20 - Marcus Hook to Bacon 50 6 - New Haven to State Line 22 21 - Bacon to Perryville 52 7 - State Line to New Rochelle 24 22 - Perryville to WAS 54 8 - New Rochelle to Harold Interlocking 26 23 - Washington Union Terminal 56 9 - Harold Interlocking to F Interlocking 28 24 - WAS to CP Virginia 58 10 - F Interlocking to PSNY 30 25 - Springfield to New Haven 60 11 - Penn Terminal 32 27 - Spuyten Duyvil to PSNY* 62 12 - PSNY to Trenton 34 28 - 30th St.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Capital Investment Program Appendix A
    2021 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN APPENDIX A: INVESTMENT DETAILS Appendix A: Investment Details This section provides the lists of investments contained within this CIP. The information within each column is described below: • Location – where the investment is located • Project ID – the Division specific ID that uniquely identifies each investment • Project name – the name of the investment and a brief description • Priority – the capital priority that the investment addresses • Program – the program from which the investment is made • Score – the score of the investment (reliability investments are not scored) • Total cost – the total cost of the investment • Prior years – the spending on the investment that pre-dates the plan update • FY 2021 – the spending estimated to occur in fiscal year 2021 • Post FY 2021 – the estimated spending to occur post fiscal year 2021 for the project APPENDIX A: INVESTMENT DETAILS 2021 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN ii Aeronautics 2021 Capital Investment Plan Total Prior Years 2021 After 2021 Location Division ID Priority Program Project Description Score $M $M $M $M Barnstable Municipal Aeronautics | Airport AE21000002 1 | Reliability SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS 1 $0.72 $0.00 $0.72 $0.00 Airport capital improvement Aeronautics | Airport MEPA/NEPA/CCC FOR MASTER PLAN AE21000003 1 | Reliability 1 $0.80 $0.53 $0.28 $0.00 capital improvement IMPROVEMENTS Aeronautics | Airport AE21000023 1 | Reliability AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE 1 $1.12 $0.00 $0.05 $1.07 capital improvement Aeronautics | Airport PURCHASE SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT
    [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]
  • 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.............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2018
    GROWING THE ECONOMY OF SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2018 Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District Cover Photos and Conceptual Plans: Top left: Carver Business Park, (proposed), Somerset Wastewater Treatment Facility (as part of Somerset’s four planning initiatives). Bottom row, left to right: Payne-Elco Site, New Bedford. Leonard Street Business at I-495/Route 123, Norton (proposed). Brayton Point Redevelopment, Somerset and Marine Science and Technology Corridor Initiative, Cape Cod Commission and SRPEDD, South Coast. CEDS 2018 Prepared by the: Southeastern Regional Planning & Economic Development District (SRPEDD) 88 Broadway, Taunton, MA 02780 Tel: 508.824.1367 FAX: 508.823.1803 E-Mail: [email protected] Web Site: www.srpedd.org Deborah Melino-Wender, Chair, SRPEDD Commission Richard L. Shafer, Chair, Regional Economic Strategy Committee Jeffrey Walker, Executive Director Donald R. Sullivan, Community & Economic Development Director Stacey S. Royer, Office Administrator Approved by the SRPEDD Commission June XX, 2018 The preparation of this report has been financed in part through a grant[s] from the Economic Development Administration (EDA), U.S. Department of Commerce, under EDA’s Planning Program, Section 203 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. Section 3121 et seq.) through the U.S. Department of Commerce financial assistance award 01-83-14247. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) states its policy to uphold and assure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Executive Order 13166 and related federal and state statutes and regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Buzzards Bay Commuter Rail Extension Feasibility Study
    Buzzards Bay Commuter Rail Extension Feasibility Study Author Thomas J. Humphrey Data Collection Walter Bennett George Chiasson Tom Engel Stanley Genthner Tom Wilkins Cover Design Maciej Citowicki Graphics Kenneth Dumas Editing Kate Wall The preparation of this document was supported by the Massachusetts Highway Department through SPR contract #39687. Central Transportation Planning Staff Directed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. The MPO is com- posed of state and regional agencies and authorities, and local governments. January 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. ES-1 Project Description .................................................................................................... ES-1 Ridership Estimates .................................................................................................. ES-3 Capital Cost Estimates .............................................................................................. ES-3 Operating Cost and Revenue Estimates.................................................................. ES-4 Environmental Impact Estimates............................................................................. ES-6 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1 2. SERVICE AREA AND PRESENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES...............................3 Extension Service Area ...................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • MBTA Transit Asset Management Plan Massachusetts Bay
    The following document was created by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). This document file may not be fully accessible. If you would like to request this file in a different format, please contact the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) via email at [email protected]. CTPS will coordinate your request with the MBTA. SEPTEMBER 2018 MBTA Transit Asset Management Plan Massachusetts Bay Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Transportation Authority MBTA TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank PAGE 4 OF 143 MBTA TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 MBTA Background ................................................................................................................................. 15 Scope of Transit Asset Management Plan ...................................................................................... 16 Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 17 Accountable Executive and Strategic Alignment ........................................................................ 18 Plan
    [Show full text]
  • South Coast Rail
    The commonweakh of Nassachusetts Executive Ofice of Energy andEnvironmentaljlffairs 100 Cam6dge Street, Suite 900 Boston, Mjl 021 14 Deval L. Patrick GOVERNOR Timothy P. Murray LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Ian A. Bowles Fax: (6 17) 626- 1 18 1 SECRETARY http://www.mass.gov/envir April 3,2009 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM PROJECT NAME : South Coast Rail Project PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : South Coast Region PROJECT WATERSHED : Buzzards Bay, Taunton River, Narragansett Bay, Ten Mile River, Boston Harbor, Charles River EEA NUMBER : 14346 PROJECT PROPONENT : Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works DATE IVOTICED IN MONITOR : November 24,2008 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environinental Policy Act (G. L. c. 30, ss. 61-621) and Section 11.06 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I hereby determine that this project requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This project involves the re-establishment of commuter rail service from the South Coast communities of Fall River and New Bedford to Boston, which has been discontinued since 1958. The project spans a stretch of approximately sixty miles and potentially passes through or otherwise impacts thirty-one cities or towns in the South Coast corridor. The project has the potential to increase transit accessibility and ridership, improve regional air quality, and support opportunities for smart growth and sustainable development in the South Coast region. In addition, the availability of convenient and reliable public transportation options is a crucial component of the Commonwealth's strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and tackling the problem of global climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • CTPS Technical Memo
    ON REG ST IO O N B BOSTON REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION M Stephanie Pollack, MassDOT Secretary and CEO and MPO Chair E N T R O I Tegin L. Teich, Executive Director, MPO Staff O T P A O IZ LMPOI N TA A N G P OR LANNING TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: December 17, 2020 TO: Congestion Management Committee FROM: Ryan Hicks, MPO Staff RE: 2017–18 Inventory of Park-and-Ride Lots at MBTA Facilities 1 INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this memorandum is to present the results from the 2017–18 inventory of park-and-ride lots serving Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) facilities. Comparisons with the 2006, 2010, and 2012–13 inventories are also included in this memorandum. In the spring and fall seasons between April 2017 and November 2018, Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) staff inventoried MBTA, private, and town-operated parking facilities at 152 locations comprising 121 commuter rail stations, 27 rapid transit stations, two ferry terminals, and two express bus origin locations.1 Appendix A contains parking utilization rates for all of the parking lots that were inventoried. Information about parking fees and several maps that display inventoried data are found in Appendices B, C, D, and E. This memorandum has seven main sections and five appendices. The main sections of this memorandum are: 1. Introduction 2. Background 3. Inventory Results: Parking Utilization 4. Major Regional Park-and-Ride Lots 5. Inventory Results: Amenities 6. Conclusion 7. Next Steps Civil Rights, nondiscrimination, and accessibility information is on the last page. 1 Please note that some of the stations that were surveyed are located outside of the Boston Region MPO area.
    [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]
  • Capital Investment Plan: 2017-2021
    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]