To: Council Member Edwards

From: Mario Goetz, MCP 2020 Associates

Date: 5 December 2019

RE: Strategic Transit Investment for Equity and Sustainable Mode Choice

A thriving Lower Mystic area is key to sustainable growth in Greater Boston, and Massachusetts
as a whole, providing a projected 5% of new households and 20% of new jobs statewide by
2040.i This growth relates intimately to transportation, given near-future regional development
estimates that place about 71% of commercial and 60% of housing developments within a half-
mile of current public transit service. ii Without visionary investments in workhorse bus and rapid
rail transit modes upon which the region’s most vulnerable and valuable families depend,
congested streets may fail to cope with the 500,000 new trips required. iii Alarmingly, traffic
impacts generated by the Encore Casino and Hood Milk developments pose imminent threats to
local quality of life and could turn essential transit nodes nearby into harmful choke points. iv

Figure 1- Lower Mystic Focus Area with development projects clustered along Orange Line and peripheral
communities dependent on local bus. Source: Lower Mystic Regional Working Group report, pg. 17.

Targeted investments bolster current services and expand network capacity must first prioritize
equity, and maximize shifting mode choices from private auto to public transit to have any
demonstrable impact on regional economic and social well-being, including concerns regarding
congestion, connectivity, and environmental justice. v In the short term, scarce resources should
flow toward boosting and extending current services in key, densified areas, while middle and
long-term investments in hard infrastructure and technologies, aided by fundraising and
administrative innovations, project an equitable, sustainable regional future for Eastern
Massachusetts.

1
Equity and Mode-Shift

An equitable future depends on directing investments toward low-income communities- often

predominantly communities of color, and according to projections for Metro Boston, older
residents.vi Mitigating the destructive effects of historic red-lining, highway construction,
suburbanization, and cultural signifiers
requires significant socio-political will,
backed by courageous and thoughtful
economic returns to core communities. vii
Amid expected growth, the Boston area
conservatively anticipates low-income
households to increase by almost 50% in
coming decades, further squeezed by fixed
incomes and rising costs of living, especially
housing.viii Such residents, concentrated in
inner core service areas, including Lower
Mystic communities, base their livelihoods
Figure 2- Transportation Equity Zones: Transit Dependent on robust bus and rapid rail transit services. ix
Households. Source: Destination 2040, Figure 8-7. Data Sources:
ACS 2010-14 and Census 2010.
In addition to equity priorities, focus on
existing bus and rail rapid transit services
over competing road infrastructure or regional rail investments grows from their capacity to
stimulate significant mode shifts from private vehicles at rates of 4% and 2%, respectively, over
the coming decades. This shift not only dwarfs alternative proposals, but generates hundreds of
thousands of new trips,x secures the livelihoods of underserved core residents, reverses declining
ridership trends on a few key lines, xi and establishes clear funding priorities for decades to come.
Perhaps most forcefully for the long-term, bus improvements coupled with Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) policies to incentivize transit over single-occupancy vehiclesxii can
reduce GHG emissions, which accelerate climate change and pose health hazards for
communities, by hundreds of thousands of kilograms in the Lower Mystic area, whereas
alternatives besides new rapid rail rights-of-way record negligible reductions or worse.xiii

Recommendations

Bus

Ongoing collaboration between the

MBTA, MassDOT, and local
governments in high-need areas
including the Lower Mystic, as well
as disproportionate benefits to
equity and mode-shift, position
improving local bus services as first
priority.xiv Together with the full
suite of TDM policies, Complete
Streets designs, bus-only lanes, and Figure 3- Passenger Hours Saved per Day. Source: mbtabackontrack.com.

2
new routes, Lower Mystic constituencies alone would reap the rewards of thousands more
revenue miles per day, remediating somewhat the added $23.5 Million in operating costs over 20
years. Capital costs estimates reach as high as $200 Million over the same period.xv These costs
will reduce in the short-term as already in communities like Everett, two short years of priority
bus lanes pilot projects along Broadway save passengers a full day’s worth of passenger-hours
on a typical weekday morning, all with demonstrated ridership gains. xvi

Late-night bus service would amplify these promising results. For an estimated $1 million per
year, requiring the same level of subsidy, about $2.50 per rider, as 2016 daytime bus service,
Boston can leave the shameful company of major transit networks which fail to provide adequate
nighttime services,xvii and restore its commitment to pilot program beneficiaries, made up of 60%
low-income riders, and 50% people of color. xviii During Boston’s short pilot program, late night
services both generated new ridership and reduced over-crowding on key routes for the region’s
workforce.xix Though the pilot analysis noted lower usage and subsidy increases later into the
night, key routes

BRT

Extension and connection of the Bus Rapid Transit infrastructure available through the Silver
Line would also boost bus improvement benefits and contribute to mode-shift, generating tens of
thousands of new riders daily. By
connecting Chelsea through Everett
to the Orange Line at Sullivan
Square, feeding the Red Line at
Kendall Square, and finally the
Green and Orange lines at North
Station,xx the northern half of long-
anticipated plans for a Boston BRT
ring-route would be
accomplished.xxi Though requiring
an additional $300 million in
capital and $17.5 million in
operating costs by 2040, a BRT
Figure 4- Silver Line Extension (Yellow). Source: Lower Mystic Regional
route would prove a more cost- Working Group.
effective alternative for regional
linkages,xxii compared to the questionable benefits offered by the $2.3 billion South Station
renovation, while also accomplishing, indirectly, the North-South link as advocated by
TransitMatters.xxiii

Rapid Rail

Indeed, if re-allocated to the improvements offered in this section, the South Station funding
level would be more than adequate for all capital work requirements, including a final
recommendation requiring a longer implementation timescale: decreasing Orange Line headways
from 4.5 to 3 minutes. This $400 million capital investment in new train cars, energy
technologies, and maintenance facilities would enhance Orange Line service beyond the 40%

3
capacity improvements offered by planned 4.5-minute headway improvements. Furthermore, it
would alter mode share an additional 2% in favor of transit, restoring the Orange Line as the
“backbone” of mobility in the Lower Mystic area after its decades-old removal from Everett, and
further support all bus capacity improvements enacted in its surroundings.xxiv

Land and Infrastructure

Optimizing these system upgrades will require significant reorganization of the infrastructure
surrounding it, including key nodes such as the Sullivan Square and Community College Orange
Line stations, and the Rutherford Avenue corridor linking them. To accommodate the levels of
ridership growth projected above, Sullivan
Square should prioritize rapid rail and bus
capacity, integrated through a Complete Streets
redesign of Rutherford Avenue leading toward a
growing, education and community hub at the
Community College station and Austin Street
Intersection. Crucially, the objective of future
transportation should be to encourage transit
ridership and discourage private vehicle modes.
Based on available analysis, improvements aimed
at relieving congestion through expanded
capacity for private vehicles not only display Figure 5- Diagram of Key Nodes and Corridors. Source:
negligible congestion-relief benefits compared to MA State Library Archives.
public transit improvements, but are counter- https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/21
7592/ocn896825484.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
productive in the long-term.xxv

Recent MIT analysis of the Sullivan Square and Austin Street nodes confirms this interpretation,
and indicates the benefits of removing the underpass at Austin Street to allow for the full
utilization of the intersection. Major AM traffic flows at peak hours along Rutherford Avenue
travel southbound, but divide rather equally between through traffic and turning traffic. In fact,
current intersection problems accrue mainly to queuing from turning cars. Replicated in the
opposite direction during evening peak hours, the Austin Street AM Peak team identified major
difficulties resulting from large
commercial truck traffic
making turns, and related
surface congestion, instead of a
demonstrated need for the
underpass.xxvi

Figure 6- AM Peak
Rutherford Avenue
Traffic and Transit
Counts including
through traffic and
turns. Source: Liza
Farr, Vineet Abhishek,
Patrick Meredith-
Karam, Tanvi Sharma.

4
Traffic Counts, September 30, 2019.

Figure 7- Austin Street Intersection Design Alternatives

(Left); Curb Encroachment Alternatives on Austin Street
Intersection (Right). Sources: MA State Library Archives.

Filling in the underpass would thus allow ample space for traffic calming measures, the full
residential and commercial development capacity surrounding the intersection, a vibrant,
interconnected campus atmosphere for students, and mode-shifting transit options such as BRT,
in line with Lower Mystic recommendations.xxvii

As for Sullivan Square, current busway infrastructure may incorporate higher bus capacity with
relative ease, while the large parking lot adjacent should give way to Complete Streets
programming and integration with the station to ease accessibility. Additionally, TDM policies
would help ease traffic, though not a top priority. Long-term, integration of further Regional Rail
infrastructure to the station would create a Sullivan Square “superstation” concept adding the
needed capacity and connectivity for regional mode shift, further reducing the need to expend
valuable resources on adjacent highway redesign measures.xxviii

Finally, shown above, the development of the Encore Casino and eventual Hood Milk complex
indicate massive and impending strain on the service area. These developments add extra
impetus to the need for maximized local bus and core rapid rail and bus service, in addition to
threatening gentrification and pollution pressures for surrounding communities. Though late in
the planning process, local and state governments should work to ensure these developments
secure long-term benefits for equitable, sustainable communities, including linkage funds for
affordable housing and public transportation projects.

Resource Allocation

Short-Term

Based on projections offered through the Lower Mystic study and Focus 40, short term funding
for improvements, including bus service expansion, creative lane and intersection improvements,
and Orange Line headway improvements to 4.5 minutes are well within the system-wide
commitments by 2023 of over $1 billion in this area. xxix Localized contributions from the cities

5
of Everett, Somerville, and Boston, and MBTA commitments have already shown results,xxx and
are scheduled for expansion in areas such as bus lanes, and further development in these areas
can unlock mitigation funds to jump-start project, such as the Kendall Square $6 million
unlocked in Cambridge.xxxi

Though the Casino project contributed significantly to pilot programs,xxxii mitigation

contributions from the Hood project appear oriented toward unnecessary private vehicle
infrastructure, such as ride-sharing and taxis or electric vehicles. The Hood proposal does
include vague language about contributing a Transportation Access Plan Agreement (TAPA)
based on recommendations outlined in the Lower Mystic report, but requires significant effort on
the part of citizens and stakeholders to generate the millions of dollars of dedicated transit
funding necessary and implement the correct strategy for Rutherford Avenue and Community
College streetscapes.xxxiii Finally, additional contributions from state MEPA funds, available
once the project comfortably exceeds 2,000 new daily trips,xxxiv as well as slight reallocations
from the MassDOT Expansion budget for 2020-24 from lower-priority highway projects to
transit, and existing MBTA expansion project funding, would provide sufficient collaborative
funding for coming years.xxxv

Middle and Long-Term

As mentioned, the sum of capital and operating improvements proposed represent less than $2
billion worth of investments over 20 years. Beyond re-allocations from inadvisable projects such
as the over $2 billion South Station expansion and highway capacity improvements, the MBTA
retains about $350 million in revenue bond capacity up to 2024, as a last resort. Based on growth
projections and leveraged by demonstrated mode shift, terms appear favorable to support modest
debt-financed growth.xxxvi Judging by the amount of commercial and residential growth planned
for the area, further contributions from private developers can be further legislated, capturing
hundreds of millions of dollars for street design and transit operations over the proposed time
period.xxxvii

Local property tax revenues may be further allocated for these improvements, which should
trigger expanded state funding mechanisms, especially given the regional impact of such
localized investments.xxxviii On the largest scale, however, federal and state priorities must shift
toward financing public transportation in order to fully integrate regional transit initiatives, such
as regional rail,xxxix reaching into multiple billions of dollars. Currently, these funding sources
contribute almost 3 of every four dollars spent by MassDOT and the MBTA, and of a total
MassDOT budget of $10 billion, almost $4 billion is spent on Federal Highway reimbursements,
whereas under $50 million is spent on Federal Transit and Rail reimbursements combined. xl

Conclusion and Regional Responses

In the coming years, the Lower Mystic region and the Boston Metro Area will have an
opportunity to solidify its status as an engine for equitable, sustainable growth for the 21st
century. In contrast to the previous century, this future must be public transit-driven to achieve
social, economic, and environmental goals. Currently, local governments, private contributors,
and system-wide reallocations are available to create a solid platform, especially for the most

6
vulnerable residents. In the long-term, however, larger-scale investment commitments must be
made to establish world-class regional transit connectivity. This vision should include new
administrative structures with the power to leverage regional resources toward integrated funding
and allocation mechanisms.

i Lower Mystic Regional Working Group. “Planning for Improved Transportation and Mobility in the Sullivan
Square Area.” MAPC.org. Spring 2019. Pp. 55-57. Accessed December 2, 2019. http://www.mapc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/SPRING19_LowerMysticReport_FULL.pdf.
ii The Central Transportation Planning Staff to the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. Destination
2040: Needs Assessment for the Long-Range Transportation Plan of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning
Organization. Draft: Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization. July 2019. Pg. 29. Accessed November 30, 2019.
iii LMRWG. “Improved Transportation.” Pg. 55.
iv Ibid., Pg. 36.
v Salvucci, Fred. “Chapter 8: Reflections on the usefulness of accessibility as a lens through which to consider the
evaluation of transportation and land use policies and projects.” Urban Access for the 21st Century: Finance and
Governance Models for Transport Infrastructure. Edited by Sclar, Lonnroth, and Wolmar. Routledge, 2014. Pg.
199-200. Accessed December 2, 2019.
vi Destination 2040. Ch. 2, pg. 12.
vii Inclusive Transit: Advancing Equity through Improved Access and Opportunity. TransitCenter. New York, NY:
July 17th, 2018. Pg. 7. Accessed December 2, 2019.
viii Destination 2040. Ch. 2., pg. 12 and Ch. 8 pg. 17-18.
ix Ibid., Ch. 6, pg. 75.
x LMRWG, pg. 7.
xi Better Buses: Getting Boston on Board. Livable Streets Alliance. March 2018. Pg. 1. Accessed December 2, 2019.
xii LMRWG, pg. 30.
xiii Ibid., pg. 44.
xiv MassDOT. “Bus 2040.” Focus 40: The 2040 Investment Plan for the MBTA, Section 3, pg. 33. March 2019.
Accessed December 3 2019. https://www.mbtafocus40.com/focus40theplan.
xv LMRWG, pg. 44.
xvi “Bus Land Pilot Results.” MBTAbackontrack.com: DataBlog. July 8, 2019. Accessed December 5, 2019.
https://www.mbtabackontrack.com/blog/103.
xvii Ofsevit, Ari. “Robust, Equitable, and Efficient All-Night Transit for Boston.” Amateurplanner.blogspot.com.
Blog Post. March 30, 2016. Accessed December 5, 2019. http://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/2016/03/robust-
equitable-and-efficient-all.html.
xviii Higashide, Steven, and Richardson, Hayley. “Transit Equity Starts at Home, not in Washington.”
Governing.com. July 31, 2018. Accessed December 4, 2019. https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-
transit-equity-fairness-title-VI.html.
xix MBTA. “Late Night Pilot Update.” Presentation to the Fiscal Management and Control Board, June 3, 2019.
Accessed 3 December 2019. https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/fmcb-meeting-docs/2019/06-june/2019-06-
03/2019-06-03-fmcb-G-late-night-bus-pilot.pdf.
xx LMRWG, pg. 7.
xxi Better Rapid Transit for Greater Boston. The Greater Boston BRT Study Group. Spring 2015. Pg. 33. Accessed
December 5, 2019. https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/document-file-07-2019/thebrtreport.pdf.
xxii Better Rapid Transit for Greater Boston, pg. 16.
xxiii TransitMatters. Regional Rail Proof of Concept. Fall 2019. Accessed December 3, 2019.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/533b9a24e4b01d79d0ae4376/t/5d79bba143abe87e302375ae/1568258980819/
TransitMatters+Regional+Rail+Proof+of+Concept+V1.pdf.
xxiv LMRWG, pg. 7.
xxv Ibid.
xxvi Farr, Liza, Abhishek, Vineet, Meredith-Karam, Patrick, Sharma, Tanvi. Assignment 1: Traffic Counting Report.
Report produced for MIT class 11.S940, Fall 2019. September 30, 2019.
xxvii LMRWG, pg. 8., and Goetz, Mario. “Assignment 2.” Produced for produced for MIT class 11.S940, Fall 2019.

7
xxviii MassDOT. “Orange Line 2040.” Focus 40: The 2040 Investment Plan for the MBTA, Section 3, pg 47. March
2019. Accessed December 3 2019. https://www.mbtafocus40.com/focus40theplan.
xxix “Focus 40 Programs.” Focus 40. Sec. 3, pg. 61.
xxx LMRWG, pg. 29.
xxxi Ibid., pg. 51.
xxxii Ibid., pg. 52.
xxxiii Greeley, Jonathan, et. al. Memorandum to BPDA on the Master Plan for the Hood Milk development site.
March 14, 2019. March 14, 2019. Pg. 10-14.
xxxiv LMRWG, pg. 51.
xxxv MassDOT. “Expansion Investments.” MassDOT 2020-2024 Capital Investment Plan. No Date Given. Accessed
December 2, 2019. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/capital-investment-plan-cip.
xxxvi Ibid., “Funding.”
xxxvii LMRWG, pg. 52.
xxxviii Ibid., pg. 50.
xxxix TransitMatters. Regional Rail for Metropolitan Boston. Winter 2018. Accessed December 3, 2019.
https://transitmatters.org/regional-rail-report.
xl MassDOT, “Funding: MassDOT Spending by Source.”