Draft Memorandum for the Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting
December 20, 2018 Meeting
10:00 AM–12:15 PM, State Transportation Building, Conference Rooms 2 and 3, 10 Park Plaza, Boston
Steve Woelfel, Chair, representing Stephanie Pollack, Secretary, and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) agreed to the following:
See attendance on page 14.
There were none.
There was none.
There were none.
T. Teich stated that the Advisory Council would meet at 3:00 PM on January 9, 2019.
K. Quackenbush announced that the Congestion Management Process Committee would meet immediately prior to the next MPO meeting at 9:00 AM on January 17, 2019. K. Quackenbush then called the board’s attention to a memo titled “Federal Fiscal Year 2019 Express-Highway Bottleneck Study Locations,” which was posted to the MPO meeting calendar. This memo presents locations staff has selected for the FFY 2019 iteration of this recurring study. K. Quackenbush asked board members to review the locations and submit any comments to staff. K. Quackenbush also introduced Matt Genova, recently hired as the TIP Manager on the MPO staff.
A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 8, 2018, was made by the Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of Norwood/Neponset Valley Chamber of Commerce) (Tom O’Rourke) and seconded by the City of Boston (Boston Transportation Department) (Jim Gillooly). The motion carried.
In FFY 2013, MPO staff was directed to develop an action plan for a freight planning program. Under the action plan, the three main activities of the freight program are to coordinate with regional stakeholders, study specific freight-related issues, and expand and improve available freight data. Since then, B. Kuttner has undertaken a series of studies including truck traffic in Everett and Chelsea, rest areas for truckers, trucks in the South Boston Waterfront, an inventory of height and weight restrictions that affect truck travel, and a study of intermodal warehouses in Massachusetts. The principal activities of the FFY 2019 work program are as follows:
1. Coordinate with regional freight stakeholders
2. Study truck trip patterns in the Rutherford Avenue corridor of Charlestown and develop findings relevant to planning efforts in or near this corridor
3. Continue developing region-wide freight-flow data for trucking and other modes, and configure these data for use in planning activities and development of the MPO’s regional travel demand model
4. Update the freight action plan to review recent freight program efforts and suggest areas for future study and analysis
Abby Swaine (SmartWay and Clean Freight Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 New England) stated that B. Kuttner is of national renown as a freight expert, involved with the Federal Highway Administration’s national coalition on truck parking and Northeast Clean Freight Corridors initiatives. A. Swaine added that B. Kuttner is an expert on truck travel assessments and layover needs and has creative solutions for reducing emissions from freight, the fastest growing sector of regional greenhouse gas emissions. A. Swaine commended B. Kuttner and urged the MPO to continue supporting his work.
A motion to approve the work program for Freight Planning Support: FFY 2019 was made by the Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of Norwood/Neponset Valley Chamber of Commerce) (T. O’Rourke) and seconded by the City of Boston (Boston Transportation Department) (J. Gillooly). The motion carried.
1. FFY 2019–23 Draft TIP Amendment One Tables and Public Comments
At the meeting on November 15, 2018, the MPO board voted to release Amendment One for a 21-day public review period. Amendment One includes changes to highway funding in FFY 2019 and transit funding in FFYs 2019–23. After the Amendment was released for public review, three additional adjustments to highway projects were added. These changes are a cost increase and change in project description for project #608219 (Resurfacing and Related Work on I-95 in Reading and Wakefield), a decrease in funding for #608493 (Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 in Topsfield), and a decrease in funding for #604173 (Bridge Replacement, B-16-016, North Washington Street Bridge over the Boston Inner Harbor). Adjustments do not need to be released for public review. Amendment One adds a new highway project to FFY 2019, using $290,000 of the remaining MPO target funds in FFY 2019 to provide seed capital for Middlesex 3 TMA to run a shuttle between Lowell and Burlington.
The changes to transit projects reflect funds carried over from FFY 2018 to FFY 2019, and align the TIP with the MassDOT/Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Capital Investment Program approved in June 2018. The amendment reflects the addition of MBTA projects including automatic train control for the commuter rail, Green Line track upgrades, Red Line interlocking upgrades, Alewife Crossing improvements, additional funding for battery-electric-powered buses, and the procurement of maintenance vehicles. The amendment removes the North Station Draw 1 bridge project, which will be completed without federal funds.
MPO staff received seven comments regarding Amendment One. All comments related to the Middlesex 3 TMA project. Six comments from businesses, developers, and elected officials are in support of the project. One comment, from the Lowell Regional Transit Authority (LRTA), voices concern about the project’s potential to compete with existing LRTA service.
J. Gillooly asked A. Kleyman to clarify that the cost decrease for #604173 does not reflect a decrease in overall funding for the project, but rather a decrease in total federal participating construction costs. A. Kleyman agreed.
Rick Reed (Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination) (Town of Bedford) expressed thanks for State Representative Ken Gordon’s support of the Middlesex 3 TMA project and stated that questions may be addressed to Rick Parker (Burlington Area Chamber of Commerce) or John Petrin (Town Administrator, Burlington). R. Reed added that project proponents have spoken with LRTA and found them unwilling or unable to fill the gaps in service that would be addressed by the shuttle.
A motion to approve Amendment One to the FFYs 2019–23 TIP was made by the MassDOT Highway Division (John Bechard) and seconded by the City of Boston (Boston Transportation Department) (J. Gillooly). The motion carried.
2. Status of Regionally Significant Projects in Charting Progress to 2040, the LRTP
3. Public Comment Letters from LRTP Project Proponents
4. Project Proponent Presentations
At the MPO meeting on November 15, 2018, A. Mcgahan presented the Draft Needs Assessment Summary and Recommendations and Proposed Changes to Existing Vision, Goals, and Objectives for the next LRTP, Destination 2040. MPO staff is currently updating the Needs Assessment to incorporate the demographic projections presented by Sarah Philbrick (Metropolitan Area Planning Council [MAPC]), at the meeting on December 6, 2018. Staff is soliciting feedback on both the draft recommendations and revisions to the vision, goals, and objectives. At the MPO meeting on January 17, 2019, staff will present public comments on the revisions to the vision, goals, and objectives and the board will vote on approving the revisions.
A. Mcgahan presented the draft Universe of Projects list for Destination 2040. The Universe includes all projects under consideration for inclusion in Destination 2040 and will be used when the MPO begins discussing investment strategies. All projects that cost more than $20 million and/or add capacity to the transportation network must be listed in the LRTP before they can be funded in the TIP. The Universe includes the following tables.
This table is organized by MAPC subregion and includes all active MassDOT projects that cost more than $20 million and/or add capacity to the system. The blue heading indicates projects in the current Universe of Projects to consider for programming in FFYs 2020–24 TIP. The green heading indicates projects that are conceptual in nature. If available, the evaluation scores from the current LRTP and the TIP are included. The point scales for the LRTP and TIP are different because TIP evaluations are usually done at the 25 percent design phase, when more information is available. Projects in the LRTP may still be conceptual in nature. The LRTP evaluation methodology is included in Appendix C of the current LRTP. These scores will be revisited for Destination 2040.
The pink heading indicates projects identified as the MBTA’s “Next Priorities through 2040” as part of its draft Focus 40 plan. The purple heading indicates projects that have been identified as the MBTA’s “Big Ideas” in its draft Focus 40 plan. The Big Ideas list helps provide a complete picture of proposed transit projects in the region but the MBTA needs to better understand the feasibility, benefits, and costs of these projects before determining how to move forward. Four additional conceptual projects included in Charting Progress to 2040, but not Focus 40, are included.
A. Mcgahan asked the board to review the tables and provide feedback. Staff plans to make the Universe available online and will solicit comments from the public in order to obtain a complete list before beginning the discussion of investment strategies.
Another aspect of establishing a list of recommended investments for the LRTP is to look at the status of projects programmed in Charting Progress to 2040. Four currently programmed projects are included in the 2019–23 TIP. Five currently programmed projects were programmed in previous TIPs. Three projects have been programmed with state funds. Staff will invite proponents to provide status updates on these projects at a future meeting.
Four currently programmed projects have not been included in the TIP or completed with other funds. Project proponents provided updates on the status of these projects so that the board could determine if they should continue to be programmed in Destination 2040 and, if so, in what time band.
Melissa Tintocalis (Director of Economic Development, Town of Lexington) stated that the Bedford Street/Hartwell Avenue area is a commercial district that stretches into Bedford, forming a regional connection to Interstate 95 (I-95), Hanscom Air Force Base, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Lincoln Labs. Currently, the area is a business park that the town would like to improve to encourage investment. Ten years ago, Lexington changed zoning to increase the allowable floor area. Recently, the Lexington Board of Selectmen has noted that only one new project has been built under the new zoning rules, and is considering more changes to encourage mixed-use development. Lexington would like to work with the Town of Bedford, Hanscom, MassDevelopment, and MIT to look at the area in a more comprehensive way. The Board of Selectmen acknowledge that this would be a more complex project than initially thought, given that traffic congestion is a challenge. Over the last year, Lexington has worked with consultants to develop some planning concepts for the area. The current site includes approximately 1 million square feet of office space, which the town would like to grow to an additional 1 million square feet. The consultant’s initial cost estimate is $50 million. M. Tintocalis noted that the town has already worked with property owners to build pedestrian paths and bus shelters to improve the pedestrian and transit environment. There is also an employer-supported shuttle bringing employees from the inner core. The town hopes to ready the project for FFY 2023.
Jamie Errickson (Director of Community and Economic Development, Town of Natick) stated that Route 27 is one of the metrowest region’s primary north/south routes. Route 27 connects with Route 9, a major hub of employment, retail, and housing. Route 27 is owned and maintained by MassDOT and the design process is being handled by MassDOT. A 25 percent design hearing was held in June 2017. MassDOT and its consultants hope to bring additional design concepts to the public soon. Natick is investing heavily in the Route 27 corridor, including the reconstruction of Route 27 from Natick Center to the Wayland town line. This bridge project splits the reconstruction project in two. The reconstruction project is currently programmed in the TIP in FFY 2019 and is moving forward on schedule. This project will provide pedestrian and bicycle accommodations north and south of the bridge. At Natick Center, the MBTA is redesigning Natick Station to achieve Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility, which will then connect to the corridor improvements. The station could be under construction in the next six months. The Cochituate Rail Trail project, scheduled to begin construction in spring 2019, parallels the corridor. Private investment along Route 27 includes two campuses of MathWorks and the world headquarters of Cognex Corporation. The interchange is vital to Natick’s economy and the economy of the region. J. Errickson stated that the bridge is in a state of disrepair and is considered functionally obsolete.
Arthur Robert (Director of Community and Economic Development, City of Framingham) introduced Erika Oliver Jerram (Deputy Director of Community and Economic Development, City of Framingham), and Eric Johnson (Engineer, City of Framingham). Framingham has been a regional rail hub for 150 years. Downtown Framingham has two working rail yards. There are nine at-grade crossings in Framingham, four in the Downtown core. Downtown Framingham is currently undergoing revitalization. Initial conceptual plans for this project were produced in 2009 that proposed submerging Route 135 under Route 126 using an underpass. The rail crossing is immediately north of the intersection of the two routes. Since 2009, Framingham has commissioned a three dimensional model of current conditions at the intersection and a constructability study. The MBTA has purchased the Framingham/Worcester line and the Framingham secondary line to Mansfield/Foxborough. The MBTA has added Commuter Rail trains, and has discussed adding a track to support express service. MassDOT’s commitment to the proposed project has enabled streetscape improvements to Downtown Framingham to proceed. Framingham has established a Main Streets program and revised its zoning to promote transit-oriented development. Planned projects represent 900 new housing units within a 10-minute walk of Commuter Rail. In 2017, Framingham transitioned to a city form of government. Mayor Yvonne M. Spicer submitted a written comment letter in support of the project, which is posted to the MPO meeting calendar. A. Robert stated that the City of Framingham whole-heartedly supports the project and sees it as part of the ongoing transformation of the city.
Brad Rawson (Director of Transportation and Infrastructure, City of Somerville) stated that Mayor Joseph Curtatone was unfortunately not able to attend this meeting due to illness. B. Rawson stated that the City of Somerville requests that the MPO continue programming the McGrath Boulevard project in the 2026–30 time band of the LRTP. The estimated cost of this project is approximately $82 million. B. Rawson stated that the project would transform an elevated viaduct that separates neighborhoods and does not meet the environmental justice, public health, and economic vitality needs of the surrounding areas. The project scored 13, out of 15 possible points, in Charting Progress to 2040. Somerville is in the process of updating its comprehensive plan, SomerVision, and McGrath Boulevard is a priority for residents. B. Rawson stated that MassDOT has been a great steward of this project, convening a Working Group consisting of Somerville, MAPC, City of Boston, City of Cambridge, and state agencies such as the Department of Public Health, to conduct an integrated health impact assessment of the long-term plans for McGrath Boulevard. McCarthy Viaduct has been rated as functionally obsolete. Somerville negotiated a plan with MassDOT to make short-term improvements to shore up the viaduct in advance of transforming it, rather than making a $20 million investment in rebuilding it. In the meantime, Somerville has been making investments in the project corridor to advance local and regional priorities, including protected bike facilities, a dedicated bus lane, and transit signal priority (TSP). The next steps would bring the project to 25 percent design. B. Rawson stated that he views the McGrath project as an opportunity to create gold standard bus-rapid transit to ease the congestion that has come with a booming economy and a housing shortfall. B. Rawson stressed that McGrath Boulevard is integral to the region’s goal to create more low-carbon options for mobility.
J. Bechard provided comment on the status of these projects from the MassDOT perspective. J. Bechard thanked each community for its initiative and expressed support for its continued programming in the LRTP, adding that MassDOT will have to balance the fiscal constraints of the projects when advancing them to programming in the TIP. J. Bechard encouraged proponents and consultants to work with the Highway Division district coordinators to keep them updated on any changes in project scope. J. Bechard noted that the Natick project faced some concerns from the public when the initial 25 percent design plans were presented and has since engaged a different designer. MassDOT hopes to return to the community with new plans in 2019. J. Bechard acknowledged that traffic circulation in Downtown Framingham has been a challenge and stated that MassDOT is in support of working with Mayor Spicer on the grade crossing project, which is complex.
Michael Jaillet (Town Administrator, Town of Westwood) submitted a written comment letter in support of the inclusion of Interchange Improvements at I-95/I-93/University Avenues/I-95 Widening in Canton in the LRTP and TIP. M. Jaillet stated that he was appearing on behalf of Westwood, Norwood, Canton, and Dedham. M. Jaillet stated that, since the abandonment of the I-95 extension and cloverleaf in 1972, economic development in neighboring communities has suffered and congestion has increased. In the early 1990s, the MBTA and Amtrak asked the Town of Westwood to support the construction of the Amtrak/Route 128 Station. Westwood agreed, provided that the state would address what the town viewed as the continuing adverse impacts of the abandoned I-95 extension. M. Jaillet stated that the state agreed to build the interchange project by 2004, but this never occurred. Subsequently, projects including the I-95 northbound slip-ramp, widening of Dedham Street and its bridges, and transit-oriented development at University Station, have created new economic opportunities in the area. M. Jaillet stated that the full benefit of these projects would only be felt when the interchange is completed and urged the MPO to include the project in the new LRTP and program it on the TIP in the FFY 2020–24 time band.
1. Route 128 Priority Corridor Study, Milton, MA
In the FFY 2018 iteration of this recurring study, staff analyzed Route 138 in Milton. Route 138 is a principal arterial on the national highway system with a need to enhance multimodal transportation, safety, and operations. In Milton, the corridor is a 3.5 mile, two-way, two-lane highway. Land uses vary along the corridor. The Blue Hills Reservation is an outdoor recreational area. In this segment, there are bike lanes on both sides of the road but only a few sidewalks. In the Brush Hill area, land use is residential and includes Curry College and the Fuller Village independent living facility. There is a six-foot shoulder on either side of the roadway and no sidewalks. In the Tucker neighborhood, land use is residential. There are 10-foot shoulders on both sides of the road that are used for parking and sidewalks. The Tucker neighborhood includes an elementary school and church. The majority of the corridor lacks sidewalks and crosswalks. Existing sidewalks are in poor condition. Ample shoulders on both sides of the roadway are underused. In the Blue Hills the shoulders are designated as bike lanes, but in Brush Hill they are not. In the Tucker neighborhood the shoulders are used for parking. Pedestrian volumes are highest in the Tucker neighborhood. Bicycle volumes are higher in the Blue Hills. Traffic volumes vary, with the Blue Hills seeing the highest traffic. Congestion and queuing occur mostly in the evening peak periods.
MPO staff developed a survey to determine the public’s opinion about the problems on Route 138 in Milton. Some notable conclusions drawn from the survey are listed below.
· The vast majority of respondents (89 percent) drive on the corridor.
· High vehicle speeds were the most commonly cited problem for pedestrians and cyclists.
· Many respondents expressed shock that anyone would consider walking and biking in the corridor because of the dangerous conditions.
· Many people wrote that they had interest in biking or walking on Route 138 but were concerned for their safety.
· Many participants complained about intersections being blocked during peak hours, both for its effects on traffic as well as concern for pedestrian safety.
· Eighty percent of residents indicated they would like to see Complete Streets solutions in at least part of the corridor.
· Sixteen percent indicated that they would like to see improved bus service.
In the Blue Hills, the improvement concepts include two alternatives. Alternative 1 consists of a three-lane cross-section—one southbound lane and two northbound lanes and a multi-use path on the east side of the roadway. Alternative 2 maintains the existing roadway cross-section—one travel lane each direction, a bicycle lane and sidewalk on either side of the roadway, and a midblock crosswalk in the vicinity of the south parking facility. Additional improvements include retiming signals, installing overhead advance intersection lane control signs, and adding medians. Staff extended these improvement concepts to Brush Hill. Additional improvement concepts include signalizing the intersection of Route 138 and Neponset Valley Parkway. In the Tucker neighborhood, Alternative 1 maintains the two-lane cross-section and sidewalks on either side of the roadway and converts 10-foot shoulders on the eastern side of the roadway into a two-way bike lane or multi-use path. The right shoulder would provide authorized on-street parking for residents. Alternative 2 maintains the existing roadway cross-section, sidewalks on either side of the roadway, and converts the shoulders into buffered bicycle lanes. Additional improvements include curb extensions and a pedestrian-activated crossing signal at Oak Street.
The study provides MassDOT and Milton with Complete Streets solutions for Route 138. MassDOT owns Route 138 and would be responsible for implementing improvements. The study aligns with the MPO goals of modernizing roadways to increase safety and expanding the quantity and quality of walking and bicycling. The next step is to select alternatives that are sensitive to the needs of stakeholders and advance them through the planning process.
T. Teich asked whether staff or MassDOT had considered a raised bicycle facility, in addition to separation from traffic. S. Woelfel replied that this could be considered when the improvements reach the design stage. T. Teich noted that in some segments, the suggested two-way bicycle path would provide a relatively narrow environment for cyclists and put southbound bicyclists against the flow of traffic. S. Asante stated that the reason for placing the two-way path on the east side of the roadway in this segment is due to the expense and disruption of relocating all of the utilities located on the right side of the roadway.
J. Gillooly asked whether MPO staff considered that a two-way cycle track might be challenging given the athletic cyclists that travel at fast speeds, particularly in the Blue Hills area. S. Asante responded that staff was more focused on the needs of local residents who would like to bike and walk. J. Gillooly suggested involving groups representing the needs of sport bicyclists in the design process.
Steve Olanoff (TRIC Alternate) questioned providing three lanes in the Blue Hills area due to the impact on pedestrians. S. Asante stated that staff also recommended pedestrian activated crossing locations.
T. Teich asked whether staff recommended improvements to transit. S. Asante replied that staff suggested additional bus stop locations along the corridor.
1. Memo: Community Transportation Program Framework
2. Draft Universe of Potential Community Transportation Projects
At the MPO meeting on December 6, 2018, S. Johnston presented a draft framework for evaluating projects for funding under the Community Transportation TIP program. The memorandum S. Johnston presented at this meeting includes the final program framework, evaluation criteria, and the Universe of potential projects to fund in the first round. The Universe table consists of potential projects that MPO staff has heard about through public outreach for the LRTP and TIP and recommendations from previous MPO and MAPC studies. The Universe table notes where MPO staff has been in contact with project sponsors. Going forward, staff will continue contacting project proponents, revise the Universe as necessary, and develop a funding application. After the first round of projects is scored in the spring of 2019, staff will evaluate the framework and report back to the MPO.
1. Transit Signal Priority in the Boston Region: A Guidebook
As a result of growing regional interest in TSP as a tool to improve transit service, MPO staff conducted a UPWP-funded study on planning and implementing TSP in FFY 2018. The goal of the project was to consolidate local experiences of planning and implementing TSP and provide guidance to municipalities interested in pursuing TSP. Staff conducted a literature review and a series of interviews with staff in Arlington, Boston, Everett, Cambridge, and Watertown, as well as the MBTA and Mass Department of Conservation and Recreation. The resulting guidebook consolidates national best practices and the experiences of local professionals to provide context and facilitate implementation of TSP in the Boston region.
The purpose of TSP is to reduce delays to transit vehicles at traffic signals. Most commonly, this is done by using specialized equipment to either extend the length of time that a signal stays green when a transit vehicle is approaching or reduce the length of time that a signal stays red when a transit vehicle is waiting. TSP systems can be decentralized, with communication occurring between a transit vehicle and intersection directly; centralized, with communication being routed through traffic and transit management facilities; or a hybrid of the two. The two major benefits of TSP are reduced travel time and increased reliability for transit vehicles, both of which can make transit more attractive and increase ridership.
The recent expansion of funding for TSP in the form of grants from the Barr Foundation has supported projects in Cambridge, Watertown, Arlington, and Everett. The MBTA has expanded its TSP program and is pursuing additional municipal partnerships.
Implementing TSP on Massachusetts Avenue was made feasible through Barr Foundation funding and close partnership with the MBTA. TSP in Arlington is decentralized, because Arlington does not have a central traffic control facility. One key takeaway from this project was the need to balance the competing uses of the curb. At one intersection, a bus stop needed to be moved because TSP works better with far-side transit stops (stops after intersections, rather than before). Arlington chose to move the bus stop as a pilot, and early data suggest this is well received by the community.
Cambridge and Watertown are partnering to implement TSP on Mount Auburn Street with Barr Foundation funds. This is a decentralized system. Interagency cooperation was a key in this project. Cambridge is planning additional TSP along Massachusetts Avenue, and Watertown anticipates future opportunities on Arsenal Street.
TSP can be especially useful when combined with other transit improvements. Everett chose to incorporate TSP along the dedicated bus lane on Broadway. This is a decentralized system using video detection. Everett stressed the need to pursue multiple funding sources. Everett is pursuing additional TSP along Lower Broadway near the future casino, on Ferry Street, and Elm Street.
Boston implemented TSP on the Washington Street Silver Line corridor. This is a centralized system. The MBTA’s Operations Control Center communicates directly with Boston’s Traffic Management Center (TMC). Boston continues to connect signals to the TMC, which began operation in 2012, and will take its lead from the MBTA on prioritizing additional locations.
The MBTA is pursuing a pilot program to bring TSP to various locations on the Green Line, including two locations on the B Line, one on the C Line, and one on the E Line. The MBTA is currently rolling out additional implementations along the B and E lines, with C to be implemented in 2019. The MBTA also has a pilot on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge, to benefit the number 1 bus route. A key takeaway from the MBTA is that it is eager to partner with municipalities to implement TSP.
Throughout interviews with stakeholders, staff found that good partnerships and communication were essential to TSP projects, including formalized interagency agreements. This keeps projects moving in the event of staff turnover and helps surmount bureaucratic barriers. Staff also found that a comprehensive inventory of existing equipment was important. Finally, a motivated champion can serve to unify various organizations and build consensus to keep projects moving forward.
There were none.
A motion to adjourn was made by the Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) (Tom Bent) and seconded by the City of Boston (Boston Transportation Department) (J. Gillooly). The motion carried.
|
Members |
Representatives
and
Alternates |
|
At-Large City (City of Everett) |
|
|
At-Large City (City of Newton) |
David Koses |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Arlington) |
Jennifer Raitt |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Lexington) |
Richard Canale |
|
City of Boston (Boston Planning &
Development Agency) |
Jim Fitzgerald |
|
City of Boston (Boston Transportation
Department) |
Jim Gillooly |
|
Federal Highway Administration |
|
|
Federal Transit Administration |
|
|
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) |
Tom Bent |
|
Massachusetts Department of Transportation |
Steve Woelfel |
|
MassDOT Highway Division |
John Bechard John Romano |
|
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
(MBTA) |
Samantha Silverberg |
|
Massachusetts Port Authority |
Laura Gilmore |
|
MBTA Advisory Board |
|
|
Metropolitan Area Planning Council |
|
|
MetroWest Regional Collaborative (City of
Framingham) |
Dennis Giombetti Thatcher Kezer III |
|
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal
Coordination (Town of Bedford) |
Richard Reed |
|
North Shore Task Force (City of Beverly) |
Aaron Clausen |
|
North Suburban Planning Council (City of
Woburn) |
Tina Cassidy |
|
Regional Transportation Advisory Council |
AnaCristina Fragoso Tegin Teich |
|
South Shore Coalition (Town of Braintree) |
|
|
South West Advisory Planning Committee
(Town of Medway) |
|
|
Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of
Norwood/Neponset Valley Chamber of Commerce) |
Tom O’Rourke |
|
Other
Attendees |
Affiliation |
|
Mike Jaillet |
Town of Westwood |
|
Frank Tramontozzi |
City of Quincy |
|
Sara Scully |
MetroWest Regional Transit Authority |
|
Rep. Ken Gordon |
Massachusetts House of Representatives |
|
Rick Parker |
Burlington Area Chamber of Commerce |
|
John Petrin |
Town of Burlington |
|
Travis Pollack |
MAPC |
|
Steve Olanoff |
TRIC Alternate |
|
Tony Lionetta |
BETA Group, Inc. |
|
Bryan Pounds |
MassDOT OTP |
|
Victoria Mier |
MassDOT Communications |
|
Erika Oliver Jerram |
City of Framingham |
|
Art Robert |
City of Framingham |
|
Eric Johnson |
City of Framingham |
|
Abby Swaine |
US EPA NE |
|
Jamie Errickson |
Town of Natick |
|
Brad Rawson |
City of Somerville |
|
Melissa Tintocalis |
Town of Lexington |
|
Lee Toma |
Milton Bicycle Advisory Committee |
|
Tom Kadzis |
BTD |
|
Eric Waaramaa |
MBTA |
|
MPO
Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff |
|
Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director |
|
Robin Mannion |
|
Mark Abbott |
|
Seth Asante |
|
Annette Demchur |
|
Róisín Foley |
|
Matt Genova |
|
Sandy Johnston |
|
Alexandra (Ali) Kleyman |
|
Bill Kuttner |
|
Scott Peterson |