Draft Memorandum for the Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting
June 6, 2013 Meeting
10:00 AM – 12:00 PM, Woburn Country Club, 5 Country Club Road, Woburn
David Mohler, Chair, representing Richard Davey, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization agreed to the following:
· approve Amendment Five of the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2013-16 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as presented and (including the cost increases to projects identified during the public review period)
· approve the work program for Land Use and Traffic Impacts Study of Potential Development Along Needham Street in Newton
· approve the work program for MBTA 2014 National Transit Database: Data Collection and Analysis
· approve the minutes of the meeting of May 16
Mayor Scott Galvin welcomed the MPO and attendees to the City of Woburn. He introduced State Representative Jim Dwyer, Joe Demers of Representative Dwyer’s Office, Woburn Alderman At Large Rich Haggerty, as well as municipal staffers Ed Tarallo and Beth Rudolph, and representatives of Vannase Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
The Mayor gave an overview of several transportation projects in Woburn and Reading. He noted that the Montvale Avenue project, which is currently recommended for programming on the TIP, is important to Woburn and the region and that it will alleviate traffic problems and open up commercial zones. He also discussed the importance of the Tri-Community Bikeway project, the West Street project in Reading (which is programmed on the TIP), as well as projects planned for the longer range including the New Boston Street Bridge and improvements to the interchange of Interstates 93 and 95.
B. Rudolph spoke further about the Tri-Community Bikeway project, a six-mile, handicap accessible path that would connect Stoneham, Winchester, and Woburn including commuter rail stations, commercial areas, and schools. The project is at the 75% design stage.
Rep. Dwyer spoke further about the West Street project in Reading noting that the project would alleviate traffic in both Reading and Woburn, with its heavy industrial base and growing employment.
The Mayor then expressed gratitude for the MPO’s work.
Karen Galligan, Town of Southborough, advocated for the Southborough – Reconstruction of Main Street (Route 30) project. She remarked upon the importance of the project for improving safety and discussed the support the project has among Southborough residents.
Bill Deignan, City of Cambridge, spoke in regards to the Cambridge Common project, which would renovate a corridor used by bicyclists and pedestrians and that carries three MBTA bus routes. The project is programmed in the FFY 2013 element of the TIP An amendment to the TIP is being considered to incorporate cost increases for this project. B. Deignan explained that the project cost increased by $849,000 because of the need for full-depth reconstruction of the roadway, the cost of police details, and other construction management needs. The 100% design plans have been filed with MassDOT.
D. Mohler reported that the Commonwealth submitted an application to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) discretionary grants. Projects included in the TIGER request would address Ruggles MBTA Station, the Dedham Street in Canton (part of the Canton – Interchange Improvements at Interstate 93 and 95 project), and Union Station in Springfield.
Paul Regan, MBTA Advisory Board, announced that the Administration and Finance Committee would meet following this meeting.
S. Olanoff reported that the Advisory Council will meet next on June 12 at 3 PM at the State Transportation Building. The agenda includes a presentation on the MBTA’s Capital Investment Program and a discussion of the Advisory Council’s comment letters to the MPO on the TIP and the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).
K. Quackenbush reported on the status of the proposals seeking federal funding through the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom Programs. MassDOT approved all five of the JARC proposals that were advanced by the MPO, as well as the top five (out of eight) New Freedom proposals that were advanced by the MPO. These grants will be reflected in the TIP tables that members will be seeing later this month.
Members released draft Amendment Five of the FFYs 2013-16 TIP for a 30-day public review period on April 18. During the public comment period, staff presented information on several projects that had cost increases. Today, members were provided with TIP tables showing these changes. S. Pfalzer gave an overview of the changes in the amendment and summarized the public comments received.
Changes in the Highway Program include the following:
· cost increases to the following projects:
o
Danvers –
Reconstruction of Liberty Street
o
Cambridge
– Cambridge Common
o
Lynn –
Reconstruction of Route 129 (Broadway)
o
Arlington
– Reconstruction of Massachusetts Avenue
· cost adjustment to the Route 128 Add-a-lane (Contract 5) project
· reduction in funding for the Clean Air and Mobility Program in 2016
· schedule changes to the following projects:
o
Arlington
– Bikeway Connection at Intersection of Routes 3 and 60
o
Weymouth
and Abington – Reconstruction and Widening of Route 18
· removal of the Bedford – Bridge Preservation, SR4 (Great Road) over the Shawsheen River project
· reprograming of earmarks for the following projects to later years:
o
Weymouth
and Abington – Reconstruction and Widening of Route 18
o
Boston –
Improvements to Gainsborough and St. Botolph Streets
· addition of funding for the following Interstate Maintenance projects:
o
Franklin –
Interstate Maintenance and Related Work on Interstate 495
o
Wilmington
and Woburn – Interstate Maintenance and Related Work on Interstate 93
· adjustment to funding for the Lexington and Burlington – Interstate Maintenance and Related Work on Interstate 95 project (this will be partially incorporated into a bridge project)
· cost increases to two Safe Routes to School projects
o
Braintree
– Ross Elementary
o
Wakefield
– Dolbeare School
· changes to the Statewide Intelligent Transportation Systems Program:
o
changes year of programming for the Burlington, Woburn, and Reading – Expansion
of Fiber, CCTV, VMS, and Traffic Sensor Network on Interstate 95 project
o cost increase for the Hopkinton to Andover – Installation of Cameras, Message Signs, and Communication Infrastructure on Interstate 495 project
· changes to Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program:
o cost increase to the Framingham – Bike Path Construction and Improvements on the Cochituate Rail Trail project
o combines two projects into the Beverly and Salem – Harborfront Walkway and Causeway Park Construction project
· adjustment to the Central Artery Tunnel project payments to reflect a recent adjustment to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
· addition of two bridges under the Accelerated Bridge Program
o
Framingham
– Winter Street over MBTA, AmTrak, and CSX Railroad
o
Revere –
Revere Beach Parkway over MBTA
The changes to the Transit Program of the TIP reflect adjustments required to make the MBTA’s Capital Investment Program comply with the new funding levels and categories defined in the new federal transportation legislation, MAP-21. Under MAP-21 the Section 5309 program has been discontinued and the Section 5337 program has been added. Some projects previously programmed under the Section 5309 category are now programmed in the TIP under Section 5337.
Other changes in the Transit Program relate to programming for the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA). This amendment removes Section 5307 funding for the Preventative Maintenance and Bus Rolling Stock projects, and it adds RTA capital funding (state funding) for the Rehabilitation/Renovation of Maintenance Facility project.
During the public review period, the MPO received comments expressing the following:
· support for the Cambridge Common project from the City of Cambridge with an explanation of the cost increase
· support for the Arlington – Reconstruction of Massachusetts Avenue project from the Arlington Board of Selectmen
A motion to approve Amendment Five of the FFYs 2013-16 TIP as presented and (including the cost increases to projects identified during the public review period) was made by the City of Boston (Jim Gillooly), and seconded by North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn) (Ed Tarallo). The motion carried.
During a discussion of the motion, Dennis Crowley, South West Advisory Planning Committee (Town of Medway), inquired about the contracts for the Route 128 Add-a-lane project. D. Mohler stated that Contract 5 would be bid as one $151 million project in September and construction would begin next calendar year.
P. Regan asked for an explanation for the increase in funding for the Arlington – Reconstruction of Massachusetts Avenue project. S. Pfalzer explained that the $530,000 cost increase is due to the need to address deteriorating pavement. Part of the cost will be covered by an earmark, and the remainder by MPO target funds.
P. Regan inquired about the age of CATA’s maintenance facility. Joe Cosgrove, MBTA, stated that the facility may be about five years old
D. Mohler noted that, due to scheduling complications, two projects programmed in the FFY 2013 element of the TIP may possibly not be ready for advertising in FFY 2013. These projects are the Somerville – Reconstruction of Beacon Street project and the Arlington – Reconstruction of Massachusetts Avenue project. FHWA has taken an interest in both projects.
Members were presented with two work programs. K. Quackenbush gave an overview of each and members discussed them.
K. Quackenbush explained that the work program for Land Use and Traffic Impacts Study of Potential Development Along Needham Street in Newton outlines the work that both the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and CTPS would undertake for a study that would examine the potential for redevelopment along the Needham Street corridor in Newton and possible traffic consequences stemming from any such redevelopment. The MPO will be asked only to approve CTPS’s portion of this project.
As part of this study, CTPS would begin by reviewing traffic patterns in and around this corridor. MAPC would conduct a market analysis to determine feasible land uses and develop a preferred land use scenario for the area. CTPS would then perform a manual traffic analysis to provide insight into the possible traffic impacts under the scenario.
Eric Bourassa, MAPC, added that MAPC’s portion of the study would be funded with District Local Technical Assistance funds and from UPWP Transportation Technical Assistance funding. David Koses, At-Large City of Newton, noted that the project is part of a larger visioning process and part of Newton’s master plan.
During a question and answer period, S. Olanoff inquired about the relationship between this study and the proposed TIP project, Needham and Newton – Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street, and Charles River Bridge. E. Bourassa explained that the study will help inform a mixed-use vision for the area. D. Koses noted that a public meeting will be held this evening and that the city will be trying to understand how much additional capacity is available on the corridor. Marie Rose, MassDOT Highway Department, also noted that turning lanes would be added as part of the project.
Tom O’Rourke, Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of Norwood/NVCC), asked if the study is specific to the Newton portion of that project. E. Bourassa replied yes.
A motion to approve the work program for Land Use and Traffic Impacts Study of Potential Development Along Needham Street in Newton was made by the Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) (Tom Bent), and seconded by the At-Large City of Newton (D. Koses). The motion carried.
K. Quackenbush introduced the work program for the MBTA 2014 National Transit Database: Data Collection and Analysis. This work program represents work that CTPS conducts annually to assist the MBTA with its required reporting to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The MBTA reports on various measures, and CTPS’s role is to derive estimates of passenger boardings and passenger miles by mode.
In prior years, the MPO was presented with two separate work programs that outlined the tasks – one for the MBTA’s directly operated services and another for purchased bus services. This year, the tasks are presented in one work program. Another change in this year’s reporting reflects FTA’s request that data for bus rapid transit (BRT) be reported separately from motor buses. This has a slight impact on cost, as it requires that a separate, statistically valid sample of trips be collected on the BRT mode.
Two budgets were presented with the work program. One details costs of the project if FTA allows the use of automatic passenger counter (APC) data for buses, and another higher cost budget details costs if APC data is not used.
A motion to approve the work program for the MBTA 2014 National Transit Database: Data Collection and Analysis was made by the MBTA Advisory Board (Paul Regan), and seconded by the MBTA (Joe Cosgrove). The motion carried.
A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 16 was made by the MBTA (J. Cosgrove), and seconded by the MBTA Advisory Board (P. Regan). The motion carried.
K. Quackenbush introduced the report on the MBTA Systemwide Passenger Survey: Comparison of Results study, a project in the FFY 2012 UPWP. The objective of the study was to compare the results of the on-board MBTA surveys that were conducted in 2008 and 2009 with the results of surveys conducted in the 1990s. Surveys are critically important for transportation planning; unfortunately, , they are expensive and response rates are declining. The goal of this study was to determine to what degree passenger and trip characteristics and passengers attitudes have changed between the two survey periods, and to assess the implications of those changes on how often these types of surveys should be conducted. This information could also inform MassDOT’s and the MBTA’s efforts in the areas of planning and marketing, but that is a secondary goal of the work that would require the agencies to interact with the information in this report.
T. Humphrey then gave a PowerPoint presentation on the study findings. He explained that CTPS conducted surveys on every MBTA mode in 2008 and 2009. These results were compared with earlier surveys on the following modes: commuter rail (1993), light rail (1994), bus (1995), the Old Colony commuter rail line branches (1998), and water transportation (2000). The purpose of the study was to determine whether responses to questions had changed significantly between the two sets of surveys in terms of passenger travel patterns, socioeconomic characteristics, and levels of satisfaction with service.
The main goal the study was to shed light on whether the MBTA should conduct surveys more frequently in the future (if changes are significant) or conduct fewer systemwide surveys or conduct more targeted surveys (if changes are insignificant).
There were limitations to this study. First, not all the survey questions were directly comparable. Secondly, survey samples limited the level of detail possible for comparisons.
The findings of the study showed few significant changes in passenger responses. Therefore, staff concluded that, in the future, limited numbers of routes should be surveyed as needed for specific projects. The complete study findings have been posted on the MPO’s website.
Some highlights of the findings are as follows:
· Trip Purpose: Trips from home to work and back still account for the largest shares of ridership on all MBTA modes.
· Reasons for Using MBTA Service: Convenience is still the most common reason for using the MBTA service. Environmental responsibility has increased significantly in importance.
· Trip Origins: The trip attraction areas of most services differed little between surveys.
· Trip Destinations: Destinations of riders on most services changed mostly in relative importance. There was a decrease in the share of riders going to the financial and retail area of downtown Boston. There was an increase in shares going to the Longwood Medical Area and the South Boston waterfront.
· Ages and Gender: Survey responses were increasingly from riders in the higher age ranges. More than half of the respondents on most services were female.
· Income Level: Household incomes shifted toward higher ranges, largely due to inflation.
· Trip Frequency: Fewer respondents rode six or seven days a week. A larger share of respondents rode four or five days a week.
· Fare Payment Methods: Changes were consistent with changes in options offered or fare restructuring. Higher fares prompted shifting from single-ride fares to monthly or seven-day passes.
· Auto Availability: Most respondents were licensed drivers. Bus riders tended to have lower levels of private vehicles available. The percentage of riders with private vehicles fell slightly between the two survey periods.
· Service Quality: Passengers overall were less satisfied with MBTA services in 2008 and 2009. Ratings decreased most for reliability and service frequency. Station conditions got the lowest ratings in both surveys, with lower averages in the latest ones.
Again, the major finding of this study was that comprehensive, systemwide surveys do not need to be done frequently, but resources should be put into surveys for specific parts of the transportation system where more information is needed to inform decisions about service changes.
Members discussed these findings and asked questions.
P. Regan asked whether there was a noticeable difference in responses regarding service quality between riders of the Blue Line and other subway lines. T. Humphrey recollected that there were greater levels of satisfaction on lines with newer stations, including the Blue Line, however, respondents overall were dissatisfied with station conditions.
Jim Gillooly, City of Boston, suggested that there could be value in working with transportation management associations (TMAs) to better understand what populations are not using the MBTA service and why. (The surveys were limited to users of the MBTA system.) K. Quackenbush noted that the Statewide Household Travel Survey reached respondents who do not use transit.
J. Gillooly inquired about the findings that showed a decrease in the share of riders going to the financial and retail area of downtown Boston and an increase in shares going to the Longwood Medical Area and the South Boston waterfront. He asked whether those differences referred to the actual numbers of people travelling to those destinations or to percentages. T. Humphrey explained that due to the elimination of the Journey to Work survey in the U.S. census, that question is difficult to answer.
Dennis Crowley, South West Advisory Planning Committee (Town of Medway), asked about the sample size of the survey. T. Humphrey replied that the sample size was in the tens of thousands and well above the number required to have a statistically significant sample.
D. Crowley asked about the cost of the study and the funding source. K. Quackenbush replied that the study cost approximately $30,000 and was funded by the MPO’s 3C funds.
J. Cosgrove expressed concern about reducing the frequency of surveys given that federal guidance, particularly concerning Title VI, is encouraging more surveying of transit customers. The MBTA management is also supportive of increasing surveys. He suggested that there may be more efficient ways to conduct surveys, such as using smart phone technology. K. Quackenbush noted that CTPS’s recommendation to reduce the frequency of surveys refers only to the expensive systemwide surveys. CTPS is recommending that surveys concentrate on more specialized needs.
D. Mohler addressed the finding that the household incomes of respondents shifted toward higher ranges due to inflation. He asked whether staff could make a comparison using the median household income for the two time periods of the surveys to see if the MBTA’s riders are better off than previously or not. He noted the usefulness of this information for the purposes of environmental justice planning, and noted that it would be useful to have this information for each mode. K. Quackenbush stated that staff could provide this information if the household income ranges used in the surveys matched those in the environmental justice guidelines. D. Mohler asked staff to conduct more research into this matter.
D. Mohler asked whether the data indicate that more people are making reverse commutes today. T. Humphrey replied that the ability to show that would depend on the nature of the data collection used on each mode. For the commuter rail, for example, the surveys focused on inbound commuters only. It would be difficult to determine statistically whether more people are reverse commuting. Staff will consider what information can be provided on this topic.
M. Scott and S. Pfalzer provided an update on the public comments received to date on the draft FFY 2014 UPWP and draft FFYs 2014-17 TIP respectively. The MPO has held public workshops about these documents (as well as the MPO’s Transportation Equity Program and Public Participation Plan) in Lynn, Framingham, and Boston.
The MPO has received one comment on the UPWP from the Conservation Law Foundation, which supports the proposed Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy and Cost Effectiveness Analysis study. The MPO is anticipating feedback from the Advisory Council on the UPWP, as well.
The MPO has received about 20 letters on the TIP as well as about 75 comments through its website. The comments that addressed projects expressed the following:
· support for the Assabet River Rail Trail and Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phases 2A, 2B, and 2C) projects from residents in the projects’ area, the Concord Selectmen, Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, and State Representative Cory Atkins
· opposition to the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project from one Concord resident
· support for the Bedford, Billerica, Burlington – Middlesex Turnpike Improvements (Phase 3) project from the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments, the Bedford Board of Selectmen, and the Town of Burlington
· support for the Brookline – Gateway East project from the Brookline Planning Board, the Brookline Economic Development Advisory Board, and the Children’s Hospital
· support for the Green Line Extension project from the Conservation Law Foundation
· support for the Southborough – Reconstruction of Main Street (Route 30) project from State Senator James Eldridge, State Representative Carolyn Dykema, and the Southborough Police Department; and a request that Route 30 be repave prior to FFY 2017 from a Southborough resident
· support for the Woburn – Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue project from Cummings Properties, Cummings Foundation, and the Woburn Business Association
· a request for funding for the Walpole – Reconstruction of Route 1A project from the Walpole Chamber of Commerce
· support for the Hanover – Reconstruction of Washington Street (Route 53) from the Route 53 Study Committee, the Hanover Planning Board, and the Hanover Board of Selectmen
Other comments received were issue-oriented. Senator Eldridge called for additional revenue for transportation and greater investment in the transportation system. A Sudbury resident expressed concern about the MPO’s evaluation of multi-use trail projects and asked for clarification about the assumptions used to estimate greenhouse gas emission for path projects. The Conservation Law Foundation requested that the MPO calculate greenhouse gas emissions for all projects that could have a significant positive or negative air quality impact.
During the MPO’s recent public workshops, staff heard comments from area residents who called for an increase in funding for regional transit authorities (RTAs), increased bicycle and pedestrian access, improvements for bicycle safety, the extension of the Blue Line to the North Shore, and funding for rail trails.
Members then had a further discussion about the TIP.
D. Mohler announced that at the meeting of June 20 MassDOT will be proposing to amend the draft FFYs 2014-17 TIP in order to program the Canton – Interchange Improvements at Interstates 93 and 95 project the FFY 2016 element. This project is currently programmed in the FFYs 2021-25 timeband of the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). MassDOT’s proposal would also require an amendment to the LRTP.
MassDOT will propose to program $230 million in non-federal aid for the project in the TIP. (This project is included in the Governor’s proposed transportation finance plan, The Way Forward.) This action will demonstrate the Commonwealth’s commitment to the project and allow the FHWA to proceed in the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project.
MassDOT proposes to construct the project in three phases beginning in FFY 2014 and ending in FFY 2016. The first phase of the project involves intersection reconstruction. The second phase includes the building of a new off ramp and the widening of Dedham Street. A federal TIGER grant would support the second phase if FHWA grants the Commonwealth’s application. (See the Chair’s Report.) The third phase includes the removal of loop ramps, the construction of direct ramps, the widening of a portion of Interstate 95, and the removal of unused infrastructure to restore a portion of the Blue Hills.
Members asked questions about MassDOT’s proposal.
T. Bent asked about the implications if the TIGER application is not approved. D. Mohler explained that the plan to fund the project to go forward in FFY 2014 will be contingent upon The Way Forward being approved.
E. Bourassa asked if the project would be entirely state-funded. D. Mohler replied that it would be unless the TIGER application is approved to provide federal funds.
Michael Chong, FHWA, asked if the proposed amendment would require a new air quality conformity determination for the TIP. D. Mohler replied that a new model run would be required only for reporting on carbon monoxide.
D. Crowley asked about what level of funding must be approved in the state bond bill for this project to be supported. D. Mohler noted that there must be an appropriate amount of underlying revenue to support the bond bill, and that the five-year bond bill will include this project.
Regarding the process for this amendment, D. Mohler noted that MassDOT will formally propose the amendment to the FFYs 2014-17 TIP to the MPO. The MPO can determine at that time whether this action warrants a 30-day public review period.
Members then took questions from the public.
Rafael Mares, Conservation Law Foundation, asked why MassDOT is proposing to add this project now before the state funding situation is clear. D. Mohler replied that the FHWA will not release the FONSI for the project until the Commonwealth demonstrates its support for the project. Adding the project to the TIP now will demonstrate this support, enable MassDOT to receive the FONSI, and enable MassDOT to start the design process.
L. Ahlgren gave an overview of the MetroWest RTA’s (MWRTA) Capital Program for FFYs 2014-17.
The MWRTA is one of 16 RTAs in the Commonwealth. It has seen a 55% increase in its ridership since the RTA began providing service in 2008 and an additional 10% increase is anticipated in FFY 2013. The number of paratransit riders is increasing.
RTAs are funded with federal, state, and local dollars. The MWRTA’s Capital Program is funded by federal and state dollars at a 80/20 split. The local match is available through the state’s RTA Capital Assistance Program. For funding needs beyond that the RTA uses toll credits.
The MWRTA’s Capital Program is based upon an expected level of federal Section 5307 dollars. As a whole, the RTAs in the Boston Urbanized Area receive $153 million in federal dollars; these funds are divided by a split agreement between the RTAs. The MBTA receives 90% of the funds with 10% distributed to the other RTAs. MWRTA receives approximately $1.7 million per year from this pool of funds.
The MWRTA’s yearly purchases are directed to the following: replacement vehicles, expansion vehicles, paratransit operations, shop equipment, commercial equipment, safety and security, enhancements, and the Blandin Avenue facility acquisition.
The program for replacement and expansion vehicles are funded through a statewide allocation and Section 5310.
Funding for the paratransit operations program in this Capital Plan is programmed at $1 million in FFY 2014, and reduces by $100,000 each year thereafter. The MWRTA has been working with the state legislature to increase the allocation of funds to the MWRTA to help to make up for the annual reduction in this program. The MWRTA is also working to reduce paratransit costs by training seniors and people with disabilities to use the fixed route service and by offering peer-to-peer training programs.
The line items for shop equipment, commercial equipment, safety and security, and enhancements are broken out as per MassDOT’s requirements so that the MWRTA can bill to each item individually.
The MWRTA is taking out a mortgage for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Blandin Avenue Administrative and Maintenance Center, a $2.3 million facility. For each of the four years of the Capital Program, $500,000 is programmed for acquisition. For the rehabilitation of the facility $100,000 is programmed in FFY 2014, and an additional $100,000 is added each year thereafter.
These items will be reflected in the TIP when they are approved by MassDOT.
There were none.
A motion to adjourn was made by MAPC (E. Bourassa) and seconded by the City of Boston (J. Gillooly). The motion carried.
|
Members |
Representatives
and
Alternates |
|
At-Large City (City of Newton) |
David Koses |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Arlington) |
Laura Wiener |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Lexington) |
Richard Canale |
|
City of Boston (Boston Transportation
Department) |
Jim Gillooly Tom Kadzis |
|
Federal Highway Administration |
Michael Chong |
|
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) |
Tom Bent |
|
Massachusetts Department of Transportation |
David Mohler Marie Rose |
|
MassDOT Highway
Division |
Sheri Warrington |
|
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
(MBTA) |
Joe Cosgrove |
|
MBTA Advisory Board |
Paul Regan |
|
Metropolitan Area Planning Council |
Eric Bourassa |
|
MetroWest Regional
Collaborative (Town of Framingham) |
Dennis Giombetti |
|
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (Town of Bedford) |
Richard Reed |
|
North Shore Task Force (City of Beverly) |
Tina Cassidy |
|
Mayor Scott Galvin Ed Tarallo |
|
|
Regional Transportation Advisory Council |
Steve Olanoff |
|
South Shore Coalition (Town of Braintree) |
Melissa Santucci Rozzi |
|
South West Advisory Planning Committee
(Town of Medway) |
Dennis Crowley |
|
Three Rivers Interlocal
Council (Town of Norwood/NVCC) |
Tom O’Rourke |
|
Other
Attendees |
Affiliation |
|
Lynn Ahlgren |
MetroWest Regional
Transit Authority |
|
Sarah Bradbury |
MassDOT |
|
Joe Capelo |
Woburn resident |
|
Callida Cenizal |
MassDOT Office of
Transportation Planning |
|
Bill Deignan |
City of Cambridge |
|
Joe Demers |
Office of State Representative Jim Dwyer |
|
Rep. Jim Dwyer |
State Representative |
|
Karen Galligan |
Town of Southborough, DPW |
|
Rich Haggerty |
Woburn Alderman At Large |
|
Carole Hamilton |
Town of Wilmington |
|
Lou Hills |
Concord resident |
|
Mike Johnson |
Marlborough resident |
|
Diane Madden |
MassDOT Highway
Division |
|
Rafael Mares |
Conservation Law Foundation |
|
Joe Onorato |
MassDOT Highway
Division |
|
Bob Parsons |
Woburn resident |
|
Beth Rudolph |
|
|
Abby Spegman |
Woburn Advocate |
|
George Zambouras |
Town of Reading |
|
MPO
Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff |
|
Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director |
|
Maureen Kelly |
|
Robin Mannion |
|
Anne McGahan |
|
Sean Pfalzer |
|
Michelle Scott |
|
Pam Wolfe |