Appendix D—Public Comments

D.1 Overview of contents

As a result of its extensive outreach activities while developing the LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040, the MPO received a substantial number of written and spoken comments, which are summarized in this appendix. Additional comments on the draft document received during the formal 30-day public review and comment period, which began on June 25, 2015 and closed on July 24, 2015 are summarized in Table D.1.

D.2 Comments Received during development of the LRTP

Chapter 2—Process for Developing Charting Progress to 2040 provides an overview of the public outreach methods used in developing this LRTP. This section provides additional information from the public outreach venues as noted in Chapter 2.

D.2.1 Metropolitan Area Planning Council Subregional Outreach Meetings

MPO staff attended meetings for all eight MAPC subregions, first in September through November 2014, then again in May and June 2015. In the first round of meetings, attendees commented on the vision, goals, and objectives, which are summarized below. Comments received in writing during this outreach period are also included in the summaries. In the second round of meetings, staff presented information about the ongoing LRTP development including scenario planning and project selection. The subregions submitted their written comments as part of the formal comment period.

Comments Leading to Revisions on the Vision, Goals, and Objectives

Comments leading to revisions noted in blue (commenter noted if known)

MPO staff responses to comments noted in purple

Vision – revised vision

The vision must be more transformative, holistic, and reflect new technologies. Creative thinking should be used to find new solutions that address how technology like driverless cars and buses will play a role in future travel decisions
Supports including transportation technologies – Arthur Strang of Cambridge
Re-write the central vision statement so that it's central purpose, transportation, supports and is compatible with neighborhoods of work and the residential neighborhoods that make up cities and towns: "a transportation system that supports the neighborhoods--work, residential and mixed-- of the Boston region. Transportation must be safe, provide equitable access, excellent mobility, and varied transportation options-- in support of sustainable, healthy, livable, and economically vibrant neighborhoods in the cities and towns of the region." Support for other elements of the Draft Central Vision Statement. Fresh Pond Residents Alliance (suggested re-write of vision in italics)
Incorporate the 8-80 philosophy when talking about accommodating a range of users. The 8-80 philosophy: if you create a city that’s good for an 8-year old and an 80 year old, you will create a successful city for everyone. City of Cambridge

Congestion Reduction – revised goal

Communities are concerned about how the Congestion Reduction goal affects the need for more and better transit. There is fear that congestion reduction for all modes emphasizes highway-centric solutions. Rather than reduce delay for all modes, pedestrian and transit modes should be prioritized.

Transportation Options/Healthy Modes – revised goal and objectives

The mode-shift goal should be more aggressive and focus on mass transit to result in desirable changes in person miles traveled. The goal should promote autonomous, cheap, safe travel.
The first three objectives are redundant and could be addressed by expanding the goal. Suggested re-wording of the 4^th bullet to emphasize creation of a regional network – City of Cambridge
Communities want increased transit choices, improved reliability, and transit that go beyond the needs of commuters.

Suburban communities want the MPO to support non-traditional transit, and expand the definition of transit to include carpooling and park and ride. There should also be support for last mile connections and reverse commute options.
Include private providers of public transportation. Public policy barely acknowledges the impact or presence of motor coach companies when considering planning options.

The elderly population should be included in equity; they have specific transportation needs.

Summary of Comments Generated at Subregional Meetings

Most Frequent Comments (heard 2 or more times)

The vision, goals, and objectives are very general and redundant.

Addressed as part of performance measure development

The goals and objectives should be tied to measurable outcomes, such as miles of new sidewalks or number of new bike facilities.

Addressed with performance measures

Regional equity should be part of the goals and objectives.

Addressed in project selection process

The goals and objectives favor the built-up urban core and do not address the needs of suburban communities.

Addressed in project selection process, as part of considering regional equity

Interest in weighting the goals – economic vitality and freight movement appears least important since it is the last goal listed.

Addressed if MPO prioritizes goals

Other Comments

Some goals, such as congestion reduction, can generate cost savings, if achieved by open-road tolling. There could be increased revenue and less use of the roads.

Potential UPWP study

Reducing freight delay conflicts with other goals. How does the MPO deal with conflicts of interest?

Addressed if MPO prioritizes goals, programs could allow funding for projects not listed in the LRTP

The economic development goal should direct economic development to downtowns. Consider value capture and ways to incentivize development around transit.

LRTP is coordinated with Metrofuture, the regional land use plan

Cost-effectiveness should be a goal. Project selection should consider how many people the project serves and the project’s functional necessity.

Can be considered as part of performance based planning

Include the relation to housing development goals and Smart Growth.

LRTP is coordinated with Metrofuture, the regional land use plan

Goals and objectives should provide incentives for relieving bottlenecks. Addressed through investment strategies for LRTP

Public Priorities

Transportation Options/Healthy Modes is the most widely-supported priority goal.
System preservation, safety, congestion reduction, and economic vitality/freight are all high priorities.
Important objectives include planning for climate change and hazard mitigation.

Summary of Written Submitted Comments

Pat Brown, Sudbury Resident
Add cost-effectiveness as a goal

Can be considered as part of performance based planning

Economic Vitality should exchange places with transportation options/healthy modes if goals are listed in order of importance

Addressed if MPO prioritizes goals

The objectives should be measureable

Addressed with performance measures

Objective measurement is difficult for some of the objectives

Addressed with performance measures

Arthur Strang, Cambridge Resident
How does the Olympics transportation plan factor into the LRTP

Item for consideration

Add time and standard-time deviation-of-time to destination rather than only congestion

Addressed with performance measures

Congestion on Alewife Brook Parkway and Fresh Pond Parkway is a result of the end of Route 2 - this also delays a number of bus routes

Identified need

City of Cambridge

(Many suggestions are addressed as part of the performance-based planning and process, through a PM, an MPO action, or investment strategy)

Objectives are very high level and could use further definition with specific targets

Addressed with performance measures

Why do objectives touching on transit oriented development not explicitly state it?

Addressed with performance measures and coordination with Metrofuture, the regional land use plan

Congestion reduction goal may have direct conflict with other goals; example: reducing congestion delay for all modes does not contribute to achieving mode shift. Place priority on pedestrian, bike, transit facilities to decrease single-occupant vehicle trips.

Addressed if MPO prioritizes goals

Emphasize that funding should target more sustainable and healthier modes of transportation, particularly for low-income and minority populations.

MPO action through project selection

Fresh Pond Residents Alliance
Priority Goals: "transportation options/healthy modes" and "congestion reduction." Need for improved local and metropolitan connectivity

D.2.2 Metropolitan Area Planning Council Winter Council Meeting

The MAPC Winter Council Meeting was devoted to discussing the LRTP, with a focus on prioritizing investments. Attendees were divided into 15 tables to participate in a budgeting activity, allocating the MPO’s $2 billion among six investment programs. Figure D.1 illustrates the average allocation among all tables.

FIGURE D.1

MAPC Winter Council Meeting:

Overview of Budgeting Activity Results

$Description: \\LILLIPUT\groups\Certification_Activities\2040_LRTP\LRTP Chapters\Appendix D - Public Outreach\MAPCoverall results.jpg$

D.2.3 Online Surveys

Comments on Vision, Goals, and Objectives

A survey was released between October and November 2014 to collect feedback on the MPO’s draft vision, goals, and objectives. Respondents were asked their views about the vision, to rank the goals, and provide additional feedback on the objectives. A summary of survey results is provided below.

MPO staff responses to comments are noted in purple.

FIGURE D.2

Summary of Public Survey Results

Public Ranking of Goals (raw score in parentheses; a lower score indicates a higher priority)

Transportation Options/Healthy Modes (132)
Safety (175)
Greenhouse Gas(GHG)/Air Pollution/Environment (253)
System Preservation (263)
Transit Equity (265)
Congestion Reduction (267)
Economic Vitality and Freight Movement (317)

When asked the following question, “How well does the MPO’s proposed vision for transportation in the region align with your own vision?” Members of the public on average felt the MPO’s vision match their vision well (3.9 out of 5).

1 3 5

Not at all Neutral Very Well

(through November 18, 2014 with 66 respondents)

Safety

Vehicular safety: reconfigure interchanges; construct medians or barriers along principle arterials and interstates; construct turn lanes at intersections. Better enforcement of speed limits.

Addressed in investment strategies, specific projects, UPWP activities, or by MassDOT and/or municipalities

Pedestrian and Bike safety: Pedestrian safety is a concern. Improve the sense of safety for walking and biking. Assist towns to more proactively promote bike lanes and safety improvements.

Addressed through investment strategies, specific projects, or UPWP activities, such as the Community Transportation Technical Assistance Program

Recognize that vehicular safety would improve with mode shift to transit.

Item for MPO consideration

Knowledge of and adherence to the laws by all travelers.

Item for MPO consideration

Transportation Options/Healthy Modes

Restripe roadway shoulders where feasible to better accommodate bicycles. Addressed through investment strategies, specific projects
Consider equity between motorized and human powered transportation.

Addressed with performance measures

Private providers of transit often provide greater levels of efficiency than publicly managed agencies. If there is truly a meaningful desire to provide the greatest level of passenger transportation at the lowest cost, motor-coach companies are here to assist.

Added objective to Transportation Options and Healthy Modes

System Preservation

Improve cooperation among all governments and departments to improve maintenance.

Item for consideration in MPO processes and decision making

“Maintain and modernize capital assets” is vague. Transit capital assets are very old and need modernization.

Addressed with performance measures

Congestion Reduction

Road focus: Construct additional travel lanes to congested corridors to alleviate bottlenecks; reconfigure interchanges to alleviate congestion and improve mobility. More traffic lights could be “No right turn on red between 7am-9pm” or similar, and have an allowance at night.

Can be addressed through investment strategies, specific project, UPWP activities, or by MassDOT and/or municipalities

Multi-modal focus: Prioritize projects with opportunity for multi-modal interconnectivity. Reduce the standard deviation of travel time to destination for all forms of transportation. Recognize methods already provided by private motor-coach companies.

Can be addressed through investment strategies, specific project, UPWP activities, or by MassDOT and/or municipalities

Mode-shift should be the first bullet, not the second. Reducing delays on roadways may increase auto-use and undermine mode shift.

Addressed if MPO prioritizes goals

Add credits for multi-passenger vehicles and tax rebates for bike commuters. Item for MPO/MassDOT/Legislative consideration
Increasing congestion to “force” mode-shift is an elitist and false assumption. The MPO should vigorously fight this and explicitly argue against it. Not everyone can bike to work!

Item for MPO consideration

Reducing the number of trucks on the road will significantly reduce congestion, particularly on main highways. Consider listing this in this section.

Trucks cannot be banned from roadways that receive federal funding

Economic Vitality and Freight Movement

Economic Vitality: Include more ties between transportation investment and the region’s and state’s land use, housing and economic development goals. Partial high-speed commuter rail to knit urban jobs with rural towns.

Addressed with performance measures, also LRTP is coordinated with Metrofuture, the regional land use plan

Freight Movement: The goals mostly ignore freight transportation. It really bothers me that the Boston MPO will not take freight movement seriously as it is done in the rest of the MPOs in Mass. Improve the role of freight rail in the movement of freight. Coordinate with transportation firms to identify and promote new opportunities for intermodal movements of freight by rail and truck.

Specific goal for freight movement, freight is considered in other goals – system preservation, safety, congestion reduction. Item for ongoing MPO consideration

Separate Economic Vitality and Freight Movement as two separate goals: Economic vitality and freight movement are related and possibly have an impact on each other, but they are not the same thing. They should be separate and economic vitality should be first on the list with an emphasis on quality of life. Congress, DOT have made it clear that freight movement is a critical item for our nation; Boston MPO ignores this. Freight movement may have an impact on economic vitality; however economic vitality is a MUCH larger subject than just freight movement. Linking them together like this is over valuing freight movement and under valuing economic vitality. Economic vitality and quality of life should be listed before safety. Freight movement should have its own section. Item for MPO consideration
Heavy trucks do not mix with bikes.

Item for MPO consideration

Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Air Pollution/Environment

Place higher taxes on vehicles that are not up to date in pollution decreasing. Item for MPO/MassDOT/Legislature consideration
There is a significant reduction in GHG by reducing the number of truck movements-probably more than bicycle usage.

Item for MPO consideration

Buses must be monitored for pollution and noise reduction. Pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ ears are assaulted by overly loud hissing of air brakes-probably over allowed decibels. Just follow one on your bicycle.

Items for MPO/MassDOT/MBTA consideration

Transportation Equity

Some could argue that we have equitable access to jobs when the RTA runs one bus an hour to an employment center. This is not equitable because one bus/hour is not real transit that allows some flexibility. The equity goal and objectives need to be fleshed out to specifically identify this need.

Increased transit frequency is included in the Transportation Options goal

Ensure transportation projects are distributed in a geographically equitable manner across the region based upon need.

Addressed in project selection process

Consider what equity is between motorized versus human powered transportation.

Addressed with performance measures

General Comments

Transportation is about making human connections. Transportation must be built and modified to reduce the barriers of walking to make these connections, and not allowed to divide communities and neighborhoods.

Item for MPO/MassDOT/MBTA/municipality consideration

Congestion and delays will be reduced for all modes... The MPO must continue to be a leader in promoting a multi-modal system while taking an aggressive stand for transportation equity. It must stand up against the "fad of the year" approach and keep people focused on keeping livable neighborhoods while promoting mobility and access to jobs for all. Boulevards and parks built by transportation projects are great, but if we are screwing up access for those passing through, we have degraded mobility for all.

Item for MPO consideration

Means to these ends are not apparent. More biking and walking needs safety education.

Addressed with performance measures, item for MPO/MassDOT/MBTA/ municipal/other entity consideration

There is no goal relating to highway system expansion and modernization within suburban and urban areas, e.g. adding travel lanes to congested corridors to alleviate bottlenecks and improve mobility; reconfiguring interchanges to alleviate congestion, improve mobility and safety.

Addressed through investment strategy

To ensure responsible and predictable (safe) travel, include the TROMP message in all travel related material. www.TROMPcambridge.org (Travel Responsibility Outreach & Mentoring Project)

Item for MPO consideration; could be supported through UPWP activities, such as the Community Transportation Technical Assistance Program

Citizen working groups might work on specific topics like issues at Alewife Brook Parkway and Fresh Pond Parkway, or walking and biking initiatives. These, from your MPO (ICC booklet)

Identified need, action item under public outreach or through the Community Transportation Technical Assistance Program

The Boston MPO staff has done a nice job of identifying goals and objectives. However, I feel too much emphasis is given to mode shift versus addressing existing highway safety and congestion issues, which burden commuters with opportunity costs such as lost productivity, etc.

Addressed if MPO prioritizes goals

Comments on Regional Needs by Goal

Congestion Reduction (needs prioritized by frequency heard)

Congestion on regional arterials (commuter and non-commuter). Examples are Route 1, 1A, 2, 3, 16, 30, 62, 97, 126, 128, 133, 135, Middlesex Turnpike

At peak hours, Randolph's main street is congested with traffic from other towns
Commuting on a game day in Foxborough is difficult for a number of towns.

Use alternative means to reduce congestion, not highway expansion, such as more transit.
Increase quantity and quality of parking at transit stations. Examples are Alewife and Braintree stations.
Expanding housing, shopping centers, and population growth are contributing factors to increasing congestion.
Congestion on highways, I-90, 95, 495, and specifically the I-93/95 interchange.
Congestion on neighborhood roads makes them unsafe for pedestrians

Economic Vitality/Freight (all heard once)

Desire for economic growth within the subregions so that people do not have to travel to Boston for work.
Proactive action in terms of connections between projects that affect multiple communities.
Truck traffic on arterials, and also it will spill over onto other routes, for example if Routes 126 and 135 are upgraded.
A master vision that addresses transportation holistically, looking at both trucks and people, for example Route 16 in Natick.
Truck traffic poses safety issues at I-290/I-495.
Framingham would be a logical DMU hub for the western reaches of the MBTA including opening several north-south low density freight routes to passenger service as was done many years ago by the B&M and New Haven RRs.

Greenhouse Gas/Air Quality

Mounting traffic congestion at Fresh Pond Parkway and Alewife Brook Parkway. This idling leads to more emissions.
We all know that GreenDOT is a comprehensive environmental responsibility and sustainability initiative that will make MassDOT a "green" state transportation system. (Reduce greeenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; Promote the healthy transportation options of walking, bicycling, and public transit; Support smart growth development.) There is a challenge to coordinate GreenDOT across state agencies.

Safety (needs prioritized by frequency heard)

Pedestrian safety at the intersections of Route 16/Mount Auburn and Coolidge Hill and Coolidge Ave and Brattle Street and Fresh Pond Parkway. This is especially problematic for children crossing to access the nearby school. Traffic congestion leads to less safety because cars get backed up and tend to run lights and speed through intersections.
Pedestrian safety on Fresh Pond Parkway, Alewife Brook Parkway, Brattle Street, Huron and Route 16, especially since the area connects shopping centers and Alewife Station.
Concord Ave is a narrow street that causes safety problems for bicycles when trucks pass by. It should be eliminated as an "unrestricted arterial" street.
Safety on interstates. Examples are I-290/I-495 and I-90/I-495.

System Preservation

Desire for more and better transit within existing system: improved service hours and frequency, expanded intra/inter-suburban transit, bus only lanes, point to point bus service.
Roads need to be fixed to accommodate transit, for example, Route 1 in Milton has no bus stop area and hardly a curb making it unsafe for riders.
Improvements are needed to pedestrian/cycling infrastructure. There are too many places where they end suddenly or go over “no man’s land” before continuing, are unsafe (exposed, beside heavy traffic), there is not room for both bikes and cars, or the “bike lane” is full of ruts, potholes, glass, etc.
Improvements are needed to Annisquam Bridge.
Improvements to Rockport Commuter Rail Station, including the parking lot.
The streets are a mess

Transportation Options

More investment in bike/pedestrian infrastructure.

Specific Needs include:

A new rail/bike network in a circumferential route around the Inner Core.
Expanded regional bike network, but not necessarily along rails, as these could be used in the future for transit.
A bike network between Acton and Concord.
Connections between regional trail systems and multi-use trails.
Connections between Upper Charles Trail to SNETT to the south and Bruce Freemen Trail to the north. Connection from Bruce Freeman to the east and west trails.
Increased walkability, and support to communities to promote walkability.
Promoting interconnectedness in the system and neighborhood connectivity. Train tracks and parkways impeded neighborhood connectivity necessary for north-south connections (in Cambridge area). The Hub and spoke transit system impedes connectivity.
Complete streets may be a problem and not a solution if we just mandate bike lanes and sidewalks on every roadway -- some of which are small and scenic.

Increase train and bus transit options, such as improved service hours and frequency, less expensive commuter rail and subway, bus only lanes, point to point bus service. Specific areas of need include:

Bus

MBTA bus routes in Cambridge that are slowing by traffic coming off of Route 2 and onto Alewife Brook Parkway and Fresh Pond Parkway.
A lane solely reserved for Bus Rapid Transit and freight on I-495 and freight traffic.

Railroad

DMU hub in Framingham for the western reaches of the MBTA. Open several north-south low density freight routes to passenger service as was done many years ago by the B&M and New Haven rail roads.

Commuter Rail/Subway

A new North/South Rail Link between Clinton and Mansfield to bring commuter rail connections to those commuting in the I-495 corridor. Address demand for Marlborough and Foxboro rail service.
More commuter rail service for reverse commuting, particularly on the Fitchburg Line.
More reverse commute options in MetroWest, particularly Framingham and Natick.
Expand commuter rail and subway infrastructure from the South Shore into Boston. Services are inadequate, too expensive and discourage regular use by commuters. Schedules should have more frequent trains in both directions.
A subway extension of the Blue Line to Lynn.
The MBTA needs to better publicize its schedule changes.
More capacity on the red line and at Alewife.
The red line should be extended further than Braintree.
Commuter rail should be more like subway service. Need for more DMU.
Most towns have no transportation and the MBTA is very far away. For example, there is no way to get from Stoughton to Randolph
More evening and weekend service from Council on Aging
More transit on Cape Ann.

More ferry service in coastal cities/towns.

Better links to existing transit is a dominant need in the region. There are train stations, but it is hard for people to get to them. Many bus routes run parallel to transit rather than to transit. There needs to be more local connections to transit that are convenient for people and that people know how to use. Specific needs include:

A first mile/last mile program
Better connections to suburban commuter rail stops
Investment in technology like Uber to help with connections.

Alternative transit for suburban environments.

Suburban para-transit buses must be better labeled with clear signage so people can more easily use the service. An example is the Neponset Valley TMA shuttle. People do not know how to use it and visibility should be part of transit plans.
MWRTA needs additional support
Suburbs need help providing shuttles and para-transit. Particularly Concord, which has little MBTA service, but is part of the region.
Suburban transit is needed beyond the commute to Boston and beyond borders of RTAs. For example, facilities in the area between Central Mass and Boston Region MPOs.
The region would prioritize a suburban mobility program over fixing the Concord Rotary. Fixing bad roads will not be as effective as creating a better more integrated system. This will also make the system more equitable for people not traveling into Boston.
Think of youth with suburban transit. CrossTownConnect was successful with youth going to school activities.
More coordination is needed between RTAs - there are frequently schedule mismatches between various shuttle services. They would like to eventually use the Charlie Card System. Services that can accommodate teenagers, as well as millennials and seniors, are also needed.
Westwood shuttle and bus service stops at Westwood municipal borders.
The Neponset Valley really needs and deserves access to transit. In particular, they need transit to accommodate an aging population and millennials. Transit should accommodate the suburban landscape. There are many transit gaps among the Three Rivers communities.

More parking at transit stations, specifically at Alewife, Quincy Adams, Braintree, Littleton, Medway, Norfolk, Littleton, Fitchburg, Kingston, and Plymouth.

Some park-and-ride lots are always full, some are not fully utilized - prices will impact a customer who is seeking all day parking.

Transit for an aging population, including door to door service for elderly.

Roads need to be fixed to accommodate transit, for example, Route 1 in Milton has no bus stop area and hardly a curb making it unsafe for riders

More and more people want to walk to the train or bus station.
There needs to be safe conditions for pedestrians entering and exiting the transit services - street furniture, waiting space.

Airport service is needed, specifically in the Fitchburg area.

More coordination is needed between commercial/industrial retailers and transportation options. They look for sites that suit business needs, but not about how people will get to and from work.

Need for public-private partnerships. Developers and businesses should work with the municipalities to improve the pedestrian environment, reduce parking. Example is Dedham which applied for TIF funds to improve the pedestrian realm.
More connections to existing transit in Neponset Valley, especially to and from major employment centers like Patriot Place/Gillette Stadium, Kraft, and Schneider Electric. Specifically coordinated service to Walpole Station.
Include developers in finding first-mile last-mile solutions
Legacy Place ownership says that the facility cannot accept MBTA buses on their property because the buses are too big so no buses go there. Retail and service workers cross busy streets to get to Legacy Place from the places where MBTA buses will stop. While this seems preposterous--it is not clear if state or municipal leadership has demanded change from Legacy Place.

More coordination is needed between RTAs - there are frequently schedule mismatches between various shuttle services. They would like to eventually use the Charlie Card System. Services that can accommodate teenagers, as well as millennials and seniors, are also needed.

Funding for TMAs is a challenge. The Clean Air & Mobility Program helped fund the first three years of a TMA, but many shuttle programs fail when funding is ended and only a limited ridership has been found for the service.
Managing both efficiency and equity in shuttle service is a problem. If we serve all who require service (equity) that means too many stops (efficiency).
Regional collaboration for transit services along Route 1
Information technology for transportation coordination for local services

Comments on Investment Strategies

A survey was released between May and July 2015 to collect feedback on investment strategies. Respondents were asked their views about transportation needs in the region and where they think funding should be allocated. A summary of survey results will be provided in the final document when the surveys are complete.

Comments on Investment Strategies

A series of mini-surveys was released between May 15 and July 15, 2015 to collect input on investment strategies for the LRTP. Seven different surveys were released; these surveys asked for the respondents’ views on

Transportation needs in the region
Investment priorities
Expanding and funding public transportation
Expanding the bicycle network

The surveys were publicized through MPOInfo, Twitter, and the release of an MPO NewsFlash. Each survey had either one or two questions. The MPO received a total of 1,100 responses from the seven surveys. A summary of the responses is shown below.

Survey 1: Transportation Needs

Question 1 – What personal need of yours is not being met by the regional transportation system? (212 respondents)

Survey 1- question 1 is a pie chart showing that out of 212 respondents, 132 said transit, 63 said bicycle pedestrian, 36 said mobility, 32 said roadways didn’t meet their needs. 35 responded that they didn’t have unmet needs.

Transit had the most responses; the issues included:

The need for expanded transit service
Frequency and reliability
Circumferential transit
Transit Connections
Off-peak service

Bicycle/Pedestrian had the second highest number of responses; the issues included:

An expanded network
Safer facilities
More maintenance and law enforcement

Mobility had the third highest number of responses; the issues included:

Access to Boston
Access to rail
Transportation equity
Complete Streets

Roadways had the fourth highest number of responses; the issues included:

Congestion and capacity
Major highway interchange Improvements
Maintenance
Safety

Question 2 – Which of the following investment programs include projects that would best address this need? (227 respondents)

Survey 1 - question 2 is a pie chart showing that out of 227 respondents asked which investment program had projects that best met the need, 65 said major infrastructure, 53 said flex to transit, 48 said bicycle network and pedestrian connections, 28 said community transportation and parking, 23 said complete streets, and 10 said intersection improvements.

Major infrastructure had the most responses. This includes both transit and highway infrastructure; transit received two-thirds of the responses and highway received one-third of the responses.

Survey 2: Types of Projects to Serve Your Needs

Question 1 – During the next 25 years, would you focus funding on a few large-scale projects or multiple small-scale projects? (223 respondents)

Survey 2 is a pie chart that shows 161 people would focus their funding on multiple small scale projects while 62 responded that they would rather fund a few large scale projects.

The majority of respondents wanted multiple small-scale projects. This coincides with the MPO’s new Operations and Management (O&M) approach to funding projects.

Survey 3: Condition of the Transportation Infrastructure

Question 1 – Rate the physical condition of the following facilities or services (1 = poor and 5 = excellent). (160 respondents)

Survey 3 - question 1 is a bar chart rating facilities from poor (1) to excellent (5).
out of 160 respondents:
roads - 13=1, 33=2, 82=3, 35=4
sidewalks - 25=1, 46=2, 64=3, 25=4, 3=5
bicycle lanes/paths - 25=1, 46=2, 64=3, 25=4, 3=5
traffic lights - 10=1, 30=2, 59=3, 58=4, 5=5
public transit - 29=1, 65=2, 45=3, 18=4, 4=5
access to transit - 29=1, 43=2, 54=3, 26=4, 7=5

Question 2 – Rate how well the regional transportation facilities or services meet your travel needs for these same categories (1 = not very well and 5 = very well). (160 respondents)

Survey 4: Investment Priorities

Question 1 – How do you think the MPO should allocate its funds among the following six investment programs to best meet the region’s needs? (91 respondents)

This question asked about the six different investment programs that the MPO considered in programming the LRTP. It shows how the respondents would allocate funding to each of these programs. For example, for the Complete Streets Program, 46 of 91 people think that 10% to 30% of the funds should be allocated to this program.

For all programs, some felt that there should be no allocation to that particular program, but many felt that there should be some allocation across all of the programs. This reinforces the MPO’s O&M approach across the various programs.

Survey 5: Expanding the Region’s Bike Network

Question 1 – How well would expanding the off-road bike-path network improve your ability to travel around the region (1 = not very well and 5 = very well)? (182 respondents)

Survey 5 - question 1 is a pie chart rating how well would expanding the bike path network improve your ability to travel the region from not very well (1) to very well (5).
out of 182 respondents:
18=1, 3=2, 8=3, 19=4, 52=5

Survey 6: Expanding Public Transportation

Question 1 – What types of transit improvements likely would increase your use of public transportation? (123 respondents)

Survey 6 - question 1 is a pie chart rating what types of transit improvements would increase your use of public transportation. Out of 123 respondents 54 said more frequent transit service, 19 said a community shuttle to/from a transit station, 20 said better access to transit stops/stations by walking or biking,
14 said more motor vehicle parking at transit stations, and 16 said other.

Survey 7: Funding Public Transportation

Question 1 – In addition to keeping the existing system well maintained, how important is it to expand the public transportation system (1 = not very important and 5 = very important)? (92 respondents)

Survey 7 - question 1 is a pie chart rating how important is it to expand public transportation while maintaining it from not very important (1) to very important (5).
out of 92 respondents:
6=1, 3=2, 8=3, 18=4, 57=5

Question 2 – If the MPO spends a portion of its highway funding for transit improvements or expansion, what projects do you think it should fund? (92 respondents)

Survey 7 - question 2 is a pie chart showing that out of 92 respondents asked which projects should be funded if the MPO spent some of it’s transit money on highway or expansion projects, 52 said quality of service, 30 said subway, 16 said access, 11 said bus services, 5 said roadways, 3 said commuter rail, 3 said regional connections, 1 said ferry service, and 3 were against it.

The majority of the responses requested an improvement to the quality of service; the issues included:

System expansion
Frequency and reliability
Equipment and station improvements

Expansion of the subway system had the second highest number of responses.

Access to transit had the third highest number of responses; the issues included:

Bicycle and pedestrian access
More parking

Bus service had the fourth highest number of responses; the issues included:

More buses
More bus rapid transit
More bus shelters

Even though the question asked specifically about transit, roadway is another category. The responses to this category requested:

Improved roadways so that buses could operate more efficiently
HOV facilities for buses and high-occupancy travel

D.3 Comments received during the formal public comment period

Table D.1 summarizes the comments received during the 30-day public review and comment period for the LRTPCharting Progress to 2040. This formal public review and comment period began on June 25, 2015 and closed on July 24, 2015.

TABLE D.1

Summary of Public Comments and Responses on the Draft LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040


PROJECT(S) / ISSUE(S)	AFFILIATION	NAME	REQUEST/ SUPPORT/ OPPOSE	COMMENT	MPO RESPONSE
Bridge Replacement, Route 27 Over Route 9 and Interchange Improvements	Town of Natick, Board of Selectmen	Charles M. Hughes, Chair	Support	Supports inclusion of the Bridge Replacement, Route 27 (North Main Street) over Route 9 in the FFYs 2021-2025 time band of the LRTP. The project will support economic development and quality of life initiatives. The ability to safely move people through Natick is essential to the Town and Region's continued success. The project will benefit both Natick residents and those who visit the region.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The Bridge Replacement, Route 27 (North Main Street) over Route 9 project has been included in the 2021-2025 time band of the LRTP.
I-90/I-495 Interchange & I-495/I-290/Route 85 Interchange	495/MetroWest Partnership	Paul Matthews & Jessica Strunkin	Request	The 495/MetroWest region has a diverse economic base and high quality of life, however transportation challenges remain. They are concerned how the MPO's new Operations and Management (O&M) approach will meet the needs of the regionally significant projects such as the I-90/I-495 Interchange in Hopkinton, Southborough, and Westborough and the I-495/I-290/Route 85 Interchange in Hudson and Marlborough. They understand the funding constraints but are disappointed by the inability to fund and plan these critical projects. Both projects have completed the ENF process and are high on the list of priorities for MassDOT District 3. These are long-standing priorities of the Partnership. The I-90/I-495 project was included in MassDOT's 2016 CIP as one of the "five projects of particular note." Partnership urges the MPO to include both projects in the LRTP.	Thank you for your comments requesting funding for the I-90/I-495 Interchange and I-495/I-290/Route 85 Interchange in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040. This project was not approved for funding by the Boston Region MPO in the LRTP. Funding assumptions and scenario planning played a significant role in determining project recommendations for the LRTP. Based on lower funding growth assumptions over the next 25 years, there was between 21 to 44 percent less funding available for investments within each of the five-year time bands of the LRTP. In addition, the MPO’s scenario planning process indicated that an Operations and Management (O&M) approach that focused on lower-cost intersection improvements and complete street solutions was more effective at addressing a diverse set of MPO goals than a High-Capital Investment approach that allocated a large portion of funding to major infrastructure investments.
					These factors guided MPO staff in its development of an alternative that assumed that no more than 50 percent of available funding in each five-year time band would be allocated to major infrastructure projects. Based on the MPO’s preference for lower-cost investment strategies, the MPO voted to use this alternative as the baseline for their discussion on the draft LRTP. MassDOT committed to continuing the design and environmental permitting process for the I-495/90 Interchange project. They will also evaluate both projects using the criteria developed through the Project Selection Advisory Council for consideration as part of its Capital Investment Program.
Operations & Management Programs	495/MetroWest Partnership	Paul Matthews & Jessica Strunkin (cont.)	Request	The Partnership hopes that the 495/MetroWest region benefits from the several regionwide funding and project categories such as Complete Streets (for example Reconstruction of Taunton Street in Wrentham and Reconstruction of Pleasant Street in Franklin), Bike/Ped (for example the Route 111 Trail in Boxborough and the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phases 2D and 2E in Sudbury), Intersection Improvements (for example Route 20/Landham Road in Sudbury and Route 9/Central Street/Oak Hill Road in Southborough), and Community Transportation/Parking/Clean Air and Mobility. The Partnership expects equitable distribution of such resources across the Boston region. They hope their region's rural and suburban communities are not at a disadvantage compared to their fellow urban MPO municipalities when project selection moves forward.	The O&M funding set aside in the LRTP will be programmed as part of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The projects mentioned are included in the Universe of Projects and will be considered for funding in the TIP using the project evaluation criteria that are based on the MPO's goals and objectives. Geographic equity is also considered in that selection process.
Bridge Replacement, Route 27 Over Route 9 and Interchange Improvements & Route 126/Route135/MBTA & CSX Railroad	495/MetroWest Partnership	Paul Matthews & Jessica Strunkin (cont.)	Support	Offer strong support for the Route 126/Route135/MBTA & CSX Railroad and the Bridge Replacement at Route 27 (North Main Street) over Route 9 (Worcester Street) Interchange Improvements projects included in the LRTP.	Thank you for your support. The Route 126/Route135/MBTA & CSX Railroad project is included in the list of recommended projects in Charting Progress to 2040 in the 2026 to 2030 time band. The Bridge Replacement at Route 27 (North Main Street) over Route 9 (Worcester Street) Interchange Improvements project is also included in the list of recommended projects in Charting Progress to 2040 in the 2021 to 2026 time band.
I-90/I-495 Interchange	Southwest Advisory Planning Committee (SWAP)	Gino Carlucci, Chair	Request	The subregion's top priority project is the I-90/I-495 Interchange in Hopkinton. This project is not listed due to financial constraints, and SWAP believes it should be. Request that the project be listed with a notation that there is no funding currently identified for these critical improvements. SWAP understands that planned modifications will include open road tolling which is part of the delay and expense. However, there may be additional federal programs developed in the future that could result in the MPO receiving unanticipated funding. This project needs to be on a list of priorities should funding become available.	Thank you for your comments requesting funding for the I-90/I-495 Interchange in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040. This project was not approved for funding by the Boston Region MPO in the LRTP. Funding assumptions and scenario planning played a significant role in determining project recommendations for the LRTP. Based on lower funding growth assumptions over the next 25 years, there was between 21 to 44 percent less funding available for investments within each of the five-year time bands of the LRTP. In addition, the MPO’s scenario planning process indicated that an Operations and Management (O&M) approach that focused on lower-cost intersection improvements and complete street solutions was more effective at addressing a diverse set of MPO goals than a High-Capital Investment approach that allocated a large portion of funding to major infrastructure investments.
					These factors guided MPO staff in its development of an alternative that assumed that no more than 50 percent of available funding in each five-year time band would be allocated to major infrastructure projects. Based on the MPO’s preference for lower-cost investment strategies, the MPO voted to use this alternative as the baseline for their discussion on the draft LRTP. MassDOT committed to continuing the design and environmental permitting process for the I-495/90 Interchange project. They will also evaluate the project using the criteria developed through the Project Selection Advisory Council for consideration as part of its Capital Investment Program.
Operations & Management Programs/Scenario Planning/Prioritizing Major Investment projects	Regional Transportation Advisory Council	Mike Gowing, Chairman	Support / Request	Supports the adoption of the Operations and Management (O&M) scenario, rather than the High-Capital Investment Congestion Management scenario or the Current LRTP scenario. Supports designating funding for general types of small projects, with specific projects beyond the current TIP period to be selected at a later date. Requests that the MPO conduct further analysis of scenarios with additional funding beyond the projected LRTP levels, to illustrate the regional benefits that could be achieved through expanded investment in transportation. Requests that the MPO collaborate more closely with MassDOT and the contiguous MPOs (including the MBTA and regional transit authorities) to develop a process where priorities for major investments in the Boston region can be jointly determined. Requests that the Regional Transportation Advisory Council continue to provide input as the MPO develops and implements guidelines for funding decisions in the 2021 and beyond timeframes.	Thank you for your continuing support. As part of our evolving performance-based planning practice, MPO staff will continue using scenario-based planning to examine various investment strategies, and their associated trade-offs, to inform MPO decision making. We anticipate that “what-if” scenarios may be a vital part of this exercise. The MPO recognizes the importance of working closely with state transportation agencies and neighboring MPOs to ensure that funding decisions are well coordinated and regionally beneficial. As it moves forward with performance-based planning, staff will continue to coordinate with MassDOT, the MBTA, and other RTAs operating in the region to achieve both the MPO's and state's goals. As an active member of the MPO charged with bringing the public’s views to the table, the Advisory Council’s continued input on developing and implementing guidelines for directing future funding of projects in LRTP program areas is both needed and valued.
North and South Station Link/ Concord Rotary improvements/ intersection and signal improvements in Sudbury/Hudson Rotary improvements/Bike & Ped	CrossTown Connect Transportation Management Association (TMA)	Scott Zadakis, Executive Director	Support	Supports the future link between North and South Station. Also supports Concord Rotary improvements, intersection and signal improvements in Sudbury, and improvements to the Hudson Rotary. Thanks the MPO for funding the Assabet River Rail Trail and the Bruce Freeman Rail Trails. Continue to fund these types of projects with an eye toward connecting them to the Fitchburg Commuter Rail line.	Thank you for your comments requesting funding for the link between North and South Station and Concord Rotary improvements. Funding assumptions and scenario planning played a significant role in determining project recommendations for the LRTP. Based on lower funding growth assumptions over the next 25 years, there was between 21 to 44 percent less funding available for investments within each of the five-year time bands of the LRTP. In addition, the MPO’s scenario planning process indicated that an Operations and Management (O&M) approach that focused on lower-cost intersection improvements and complete street solutions was more effective at addressing a diverse set of MPO goals than a High-Capital Investment approach that allocated a large portion of funding to major infrastructure investments. These factors guided MPO staff in its development of an alternative that assumed that no more than 50 percent of available funding in each five-year time band would be allocated to major infrastructure projects. Based on the MPO’s preference for lower-cost investment strategies, the MPO voted to use this alternative as the baseline for their discussion on the draft LRTP.
					An O&M program included in the LRTP is the Intersection Improvement Program. This provides funding for intersection and signal improvements projects requesting funding under this program will go through the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program project selection process. Funding for intersection and signal improvements in Sudbury and improvements to the Hudson Rotary will be considered under this program.
Last Mile Connections	CrossTown Connect Transportation Management Association (TMA)	Scott Zadakis, Executive Director (cont.)	Request	This TMA is on the periphery of the MPO boundaries and has limited transportation choices. They are regionalizing some of their services and urge the MPO to do the same. The MPO should consider connectivity and cross-boundary connections to other RTAs and systems in its planning process so as to be as inclusive as possible to communities that lie between RTAs. Supports the decision to focus on operations and management projects, especially the "last mile" shuttle connections, but is concerned that the allocation is too small. The MPO should consider a more robust allocation before adoption of the LRTP. The Fitchburg Commuter Rail schedule should be adjusted to allow for more reverse commuting. They believe that adding an earlier train would encourage people to use commuter rail instead of driving. Reduced fares for reverse commute would also incentivize the use of commuter rail. This could actually increase revenue because trains would not be empty. They support weighing various options and scenarios for increased parking at commuter rail stations. More parking and more peak-period outbound trains will create viable reverse commute for talented workers from the Boston area.	Another O&M program is the Community Transportation/ Parking/Clean Air and Mobility program. This provides funding for a combination of projects, including transit services developed at a local level that support first-mile/last-mile connections to existing transit services and other destinations; funding to construct additional parking at transit stations that now are at capacity, or at identified new parking locations; and funding to projects (such as bike share projects or shuttle bus services) to improve mobility and air quality and promote mode shift. Four percent of the O&M program funding has been allocated to this program. The Boston MPO regularly meets (and will continue to do so) with MPO's bordering the region to coordinate its planning activities.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D (Sudbury)		Dick Williamson	Request	Requests an update of the LRTP to reflect that the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D is no longer "conceptual." Notes that VHB has been contracted for the 25% design plans, and that the project could be considered for the FFY 2019 TIP.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The TIP/LRTP projects in the Universe of Projects list are listed in three categories based on their status: (1) Conceptual - Projects in which a functional design report has not been submitted (the design status is pre-25% design; (2) Pre-TIP - any project in which a 25% functional design report has been submitted to MassDOT (design status can range from 25% to 100%); and (3) Projects that are programmed in the LRTP. A functional design plan has not been submitted for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail so this project is categorized as Conceptual. Text has been added to the introduction of Appendix B to explain the information in the tables. The MPO appreciates your comments on the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D in Sudbury. The MPO will consider funding for the project once it advances to the 25% design stage. At the 25% design stage, MPO staff will evaluate the project based on the functional design report. The MPO more likely would prioritize funding for the project if it earns high ratings in the project evaluation process and could be made ready for advertising within the TIP’s time horizon.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D (Sudbury)	Town of Sudbury, Board of Selectmen	Leonard Simon	Request	Requests an update of the LRTP to reflect that the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D is no longer "conceptual." Notes that the 25% design study began in November 2014, and should be completed by February 2016.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The TIP/LRTP projects in the Universe of Projects list are listed in three categories based on their status: (1) Conceptual - Projects in which a functional design report has not been submitted (the design status is pre-25% design (2) Pre-TIP - any project in which a 25% functional design report has been submitted to MassDOT (design status can range from 25% to 100%) (3) Projects that are programmed in the LRTP. A functional design plan has not been submitted for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail so this project is categorized as Conceptual. Text has been added to the introduction of Appendix B to explain the information in the tables. The MPO appreciates your comments on the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D in Sudbury. The MPO will consider funding for the project once it advances to the 25% design stage. At the 25% design stage, MPO staff will evaluate the project based on the functional design report. The MPO more likely would prioritize funding for the project if it earns high ratings in the project evaluation process and could be made ready for advertising within the TIP’s time horizon.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2B (Concord and Acton) & 2D (Sudbury)		Louis Hills	Request	More support for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail is needed. Requests that Phase 2B be moved back to 2017 and that the Sudbury BFRT phase of design and construction be programmed at the earliest possible dates.	Thank you for your comments requesting inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2B in Acton and Concord in the FFY 2017 of the TIP. MassDOT proposed to move the project from FFY 2017 to FFY 2018 because of the uncertainty of the design schedule past the 25% design stage. It appears there is no current design contract in place between the municipality and a consultant to advance the design past the 25% design phase. MassDOT has committed to funding the design through 25% design, however the Town of Concord is responsible for securing funding to advance beyond 25% design. The MPO will consider funding for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D in Sudbury once it advances to the 25% design stage. At the 25% design stage, MPO staff will evaluate the project based on the functional design report. Projects with high ratings are more likely to receive available funding because MPO staff recommends new projects to the TIP from the First-Tier List of Projects. The LRTP has allocated funding for a bicycle and pedestrian program and this project can be considered for funding under this program beginning in 2021.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail		Anne Anderson	Request	Keep the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail on schedule. This a major bicycle and pedestrian corridor.	Thank you for your comments expressing support for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail. MassDOT proposed to move the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 2B from FFY 2017 to FFY 2018 because of the uncertainty of the design schedule past the 25% design stage. It appears there is no current design contract in place between the municipality and a consultant to advance the design past the 25% design phase. MassDOT has committed to funding the design through 25% design, however the Town of Concord is responsible for securing funding to advance beyond 25% design. The MPO will consider funding for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D in Sudbury once it advances to the 25% design stage. At the 25% design stage, MPO staff will evaluate the project based on the functional design report. Projects with high ratings are more likely to receive available funding because MPO staff recommends new projects to the TIP from the First-Tier List of Projects. The LRTP has allocated funding for a bicycle and pedestrian program and this project can be considered for funding under this program beginning in 2021.
Circumferential Transit		Schuyler Larrabee	Request	Requests that the MPO support the development of circumferential lines for the MBTA. States that there has been planning for a line that would use the right-of-way through MIT and then through Longwood Medical Area, with extensions on either end. Suggests that the MPO consider a line from Union Square, through Harvard to Harvard Street in Allston, to Brookline Village, and ultimately to the Red Line in the south of the region.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. Through the development of its vision, goals, and objectives, the MPO emphasized that transit is an important element to mobility in the MPO region. MassDOT is in the process of updating its Program for Mass Transportation (PMT), the MBTA´s long-range capital planning document defining a 25-year vision for public transportation. This information was not available for the MPO to use in the development of this LRTP. The MPO acknowledges that the PMT will be an important input in programming future transit dollars and chose to leave 50% of its target funds unallocated in the 2030 to 2040 time bands awaiting input on the PMT and other long-range transportation planning documents. The MPO will consider your comments in the development of future long-range transportation plans. Your comment will also be submitted to MassDOT and the MBTA for their consideration.
Route 9 / Massachusetts Turnpike (Framingham, Natick, & Wellesley)	Resident, City of Somerville	Joel Weber	Request	Suggests diverting Route 9 traffic in Framingham, Natick, and Wellesley to the Massachusetts Turnpike, which could be achieved through removing the financial incentive in the Pike's toll structure, adding a lane in each direction to the Pike, and a road diet on Route 9. Reducing traffic on Route 9 could make the Route 27 over Route 9 bridge replacement unnecessary, and diverting traffic from signalized intersections on Route 9 could reduce collisions and address safety needs identified in the LRTP. A road diet on Route 9 could be an opportunity to make bus service on Route 9 more appealing. Removing the toll from the Pike's interchange with Route 9 in Framingham may be more appropriate depending on the shift in traffic.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The MPO is limited to funding the components of the regional transportation system over which the MPO has programming and geographic jurisdiction. MassDOT has jurisdiction over the Massachusetts Turnpike. We will forward this comment for their consideration. The Bridge Replacement, Route 27 (North Main Street) over Route 9 project has been identified as a project that meets a need in the region and addresses a number of MPO goals including safety, system preservation, capacity management, and economic vitality. Your suggestion regarding Route 9 capacity and bus service has been provided to the MPO for their consideration.
Park & Ride	Resident, City of Somerville	Joel Weber	Request	Asks if MassDOT, the MBTA, and the MPO have explored opportunities to adjust pricing to better distribute vehicles to adjacent parking facilities with available capacity. The LRTP doesn't have a map highlighting underutilized parking facilities.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The MPO is limited to funding the components of the regional transportation system over which the MPO has programming and geographic jurisdiction. The MBTA has jurisdiction over pricing at their park and ride lots, while other lots may be owned by municipalities or private entities. The MBTA is beginning the development of it Program for Mass Transportation, the MBTA´s long-range capital planning document defining a 25-year vision for public transportation. We will forward this comment for their consideration.
Bicycle Parking	Resident, City of Somerville	Joel Weber	Request	The LRTP discusses the Community Transportation/Parking and Clean Air and Mobility program but does not have a clear commitment to add bicycle parking at MBTA stations that have a high utilization rate of bike parking. This bicycle parking should be constructed as soon as possible. Additionally new multi-use path connections (Tri-Community Bikeway connected to Alewife Brook Bike Path and Wayside Trail connected to the Fitchburg Cutoff Path) should be considered at Alewife Station when determining future demand for bike parking.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. Bicycle parking will be a project eligible for funding in the MPO's Community Transportation/Parking and Clean Air and Mobility program.
Bike Racks on MBTA Buses	Resident, City of Somerville	Joel Weber	Request	Suggests the installation of bike racks on all MBTA buses.	Thank you for your comments requesting funding for the installation of bike racks on MBTA buses. In FFY 2010, the MPO prioritized TIP funding for the MBTA to complete the installation of bike racks on its bus fleet. Bicycle racks are mounted on all non-electric MBTA buses (although a particular bus may occasionally have a rack that is out of service until it can be repaired). As of May 2015, electric buses are used on Routes SL1, SL2, SLW, and 71.
Expanding Green Line Capacity	Resident, City of Somerville	Joel Weber	Request	MassDOT, the MBTA, and the MPO should explore possibilities for improving capacity in the Green Line's central subway tunnel. The organizations should look at the possibility of a grade separated Copley Junction, lengthening platforms to support making 225 foot trains the norm during peak travel times. Future Green Line cars should be 225 foot cars with smart readers at each door. Questions why the Green Line is at capacity. The possibility of building a flyover between Copley and Arlington Stations should be explored. Platforms at Park, Copley, Boylston, and Arlington stations should be lengthened, as well as existing surface Green Line stations. Discusses the possibilities of taking the existing outbound E branch track from Boylston Street to Huntington Avenue out of revenue service make it available as a storage track allowing parking for a disabled trains or for overnight storage.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The MPO is limited to funding the components of the regional transportation system over which the MPO has programming and geographic jurisdiction. The MBTA is beginning the development of it Program for Mass Transportation, the MBTA´s long-range capital planning document defining a 25-year vision for public transportation. It will consider operation costs of the sytem as well. We will forward this comment for their consideration.
McGrath Boulevard (Somerville)	Resident, City of Somerville	Chris Gunadi	Support	Supports inclusion of the McGrath Boulevard project in the LRTP. States that the project will make the area more accessible and pedestrian-friendly, and improve quality of life.	Thank you for your support. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in Charting Progress to 2040 in the 2026 to 2030 time band.
McGrath Boulevard (Somerville)	Resident, City of Medford	Kevin Cuddeback	Support	Supports inclusion of the McGrath Boulevard project in the LRTP.	Thank you for your support. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in Charting Progress to 2040 in the 2026 to 2030 time band.
McGrath Boulevard (Somerville)	Resident, City of Medford	Patrick Bibbins	Support	Supports inclusion of the McGrath Boulevard project in the LRTP.	Thank you for your support. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in Charting Progress to 2040 in the 2026 to 2030 time band.
McGrath Boulevard (Somerville)	Resident, City of Somerville	Karen Molloy	Support	Supports inclusion of the McGrath Boulevard project in the LRTP.	Thank you for your support. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in Charting Progress to 2040 in the 2026 to 2030 time band.
Green Line, Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Montvale Avenue Reconstruction, and McGrath Boulevard	Resident, City of Medford	Ken Krause	Support	Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension, Phases I & II, in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. States that the project will improve regional mobility, air quality and transportation equity, and generate an estimated $4 billion in related economic development activity. Notes that Medford has already seen a tremendous amount of associated economic development and is benefiting from the nearly completed rail bridge reconstruction over Harvard Street. Supports funding to extend the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phases 2B and 2C) as part of the 200-mile Bay Circuit Trail and Greenway. Supports funding to reconstruct and widen Montvale Avenue in Woburn from the I-93 interchange to Central Street, including new sidewalks and wheelchair ramps. Supports inclusion of the McGrath Boulevard project in the LRTP. States that the project will improve conditions for bicycling and walking, and provide safer and more convenient access to Union Square and Washington Street Green Line stations	Thank you for your comments expressing support for inclusion of the Green Line Extension, Phases I & II in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. This project was approved for funding by the Boston Region MPO in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP and included in the 2016 to 2025 time bands in the LRTP. Thank you for your comments expressing support for inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2B in Acton and Concord and Phase 2C in Concord in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. Both phases were approved for funding by the Boston Region MPO, Phase 2C in FFY 2016 and Phase 2B in FFY 2018 of the TIP. The Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue in Woburn is in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. This project was approved for funding in FFY 2017 of the TIP and the 2016-2020 time band of the LRTP. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in Charting Progress to 2040 in the 2026 to 2030 time band.
McGrath Boulevard and Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects	Friends of the Community Path	Lynn Weissman & Alan Moore	Support	Supports inclusion of the McGrath Boulevard project in the LRTP. States that the project will make the area more accessible and pedestrian-friendly, and improve quality of life. Urges the MPO to: (1) Continue funding of multi-use paths (2) Shift funding away from highway expansion (3) Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian projects when programming the Clean Air and Mobility funds	Thank you for your support. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in Charting Progress to 2040 in the 2026 to 2030 time band. The MPO adopted an operations and management approach to programming projects and programs in this LRTP committing a significant amount of funding to programs. One of the programs is the Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections program. This program will expand the bicycle and pedestrian networks to improve safe access to transit, school, employment centers, and shopping destinations. It could include constructing new, off-road bicycle or multiuse paths, improving bicycle and pedestrian crossings, or building new sidewalks.
Green Line/McGrath Boulevard (Somerville)	Resident, City of Somerville	Alan Moore	Support	Supports inclusion of the Green Line to Route 16 and the McGrath Boulevard projects in the LRTP. Other necessary projects include continued funding to support multi-use paths, shifting funding away from highway expansion, and prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian projects with future Clean Air/Mobility funds.	Thank you for your support. Funding for the Green Line Phase 1 and 2 projects are programmed in the 2016 to 2025 time bands of the Charting Progress to 2040 LRTP. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in Charting Progress to 2040 in the 2026 to 2030 time band. The MPO also adopted an operations and management approach to programming funds in the LRTP. This provides funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects and projects that promote clean air and mobility.
Green Line/McGrath Boulevard	Massachusetts State Legislature	Sen. Patricia D. Jehlen	Support	Support the MPO's commitment to both phases of the Green Line Extension which is important to their constituents. Also supports the inclusion of the McGrath Boulevard project in the 2026-2030 time band of the LRTP.	Thank you for your support. Funding for the Green Line Phase 1 and 2 projects are programmed in the 2016 to 2025 time bands of the Charting Progress to 2040 LRTP. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in LRTP in the 2026 to 2030 time band.
Green Line/McGrath Boulevard	Massachusetts State Legislature	Rep. Christine P. Barber	Support	Support the MPO's commitment to both phases of the Green Line Extension which is important to their constituents. Also supports the inclusion of the McGrath Boulevard project in the 2026-2030 time band of the LRTP.	Thank you for your support. Funding for the Green Line Phase 1 and 2 projects are programmed in the 2016 to 2025 time bands of the Charting Progress to 2040 LRTP. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in LRTP in the 2026 to 2030 time band.
Green Line/McGrath Boulevard	Massachusetts State Legislature	Rep. Sean Garballey	Support	Support the MPO's commitment to both phases of the Green Line Extension which is important to their constituents. Also supports the inclusion of the McGrath Boulevard project in the 2026-2030 time band of the LRTP.	Thank you for your support. Funding for the Green Line Phase 1 and 2 projects are programmed in the 2016 to 2025 time bands of the Charting Progress to 2040 LRTP. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in LRTP in the 2026 to 2030 time band.
Green Line/McGrath Boulevard	Massachusetts State Legislature	Rep. Denise Provost	Support	Support the MPO's commitment to both phases of the Green Line Extension which is important to their constituents. Also supports the inclusion of the McGrath Boulevard project in the 2026-2030 time band of the LRTP.	Thank you for your support. Funding for the Green Line Phase 1 and 2 projects are programmed in the 2016 to 2025 time bands of the Charting Progress to 2040 LRTP. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in LRTP in the 2026 to 2030 time band.
Green Line/McGrath Boulevard	Massachusetts State Legislature	Rep. Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.	Support	Support the MPO's commitment to both phases of the Green Line Extension which is important to their constituents. Also supports the inclusion of the McGrath Boulevard project in the 2026-2030 time band of the LRTP.	Thank you for your support. Funding for the Green Line Phase 1 and 2 projects are programmed in the 2016 to 2025 time bands of the Charting Progress to 2040 LRTP. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in LRTP in the 2026 to 2030 time band.
Green Line Phase 1, Community Path, Green Line Phase 2, Rutherford Avenue, and McGrath Boulevard	STEP & MVTF	Wig Zamore	Support	Appreciates the work of the Boston MPO and finds the meetings, staff presentations, Board discussion, and public outreach to be exemplary. The certification documents represent appropriate prioritization of sustainable transit and complete streets, with growing regional walk and bike facility emphasis. Applauds the MPO's decision to fund community-based projects at the expense of some larger highway projects. Grateful to see Green Line Phase 1 and Community Path supported by the state. Also grateful to see Green Line Phase 2, Rutherford Avenue, and McGrath Boulevard supported by the MPO.	The MPO appreciates Mr. Zamore's support for its work, the content and discourse of its meetings, and the content of its certification documents. The Green Line Phase 2 and the Rutherford Avenue projects were approved for funding in 2016-2020 and 2021-2025 time bands of the LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the list of recommended projects in LRTP in the 2026 to 2030 time band.
Air Quality	STEP & MVTF	Wig Zamore (cont.)	Request	Regarding environmental impacts of transportation, hopes that the MPO will soon be able to fully recognize the serious impacts of transportation air pollution and noise on nearby residents, workers, and students. Regarding climate, states that it would be helpful to include black carbon from diesel in our climate pollutant inventories and in transportation conformity. With regard to equity, states that it would be beneficial to more fully use disaggregated TAZ level data to really investigate the disparities in transportation neighborhood facilities and transportation exposures.	The MPO appreciates your comments on the environmental impacts of transportation on air quality and noise. The MPO will consider your suggestions for incorporating black carbon from diesel fuel in climate pollutant inventories and transportation conformity analyses as part of its air-quality-related planning practices. Regarding your comment on using disaggregated TAZ level data to investigate disparities in transportation neighborhood facilities and in transportation exposures. The MPO will consider using link data from the CTPS travel demand model on a project by project basis. For example, CTPS used link data to inform a Health Impact Assessment for the Grounding McGrath Study.
Green Line and Air Quality Conformity	Conservation Law Foundation (CLF)	Rafael Mares	Support/ Request	Supports the Green Line Extension project in the TIP. Requests that the MPO return to its previous practice of conducting a conformity analysis for ozone. A recent court action affirmed the requirement for the MPO to conduct an ozone conformity analysis. CLF understands that the MPO did not plan to continue to abandon this tool but did so on the advice of US EPA. Normally after a region achieves attainment, it moves into a maintenance process. When the 2008 ozone standard was established, the 1997 standard was revoked and Eastern Massachusetts became an "orphan area" where conformity was not required. A court decision determined that this revocation violates the Clean Air Act. Pursuant to this ruling, the MPO would be required to conduct a conformity determination, however, EPA issued a new rule revoking the entire 1997 air quality standard which was presumably the agency's basis for advising MassDOT and the MPO that no conformity analysis was required. This revocation is being challenged again. Since the MPO intends to conduct a greenhouse gas analysis, adding the conformity analysis for ozone will not be an arduous additional step. This will allow the MPO to assure its members and the public that the proposed plan remains consistent with the goal of protecting the region from serious public health threats associated with ozone.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The Massachusetts MPOs and MassDOT will continue to meet the requirements of air quality conformity according to the Code of Federal Regulations, and as evaluated through inter-agency consultation. In consideration of the comments received, combined with MassDOT’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting requirements for the Commonwealth’s Global Warming Solutions Act (310 CMR 60.05), MassDOT conducted a “conformity-related” emissions analysis for ozone precursors, consistent with the 1997 NAAQS standards (currently superseded by the 2008 NAAQS). This emissions analysis is for informational purposes only (as it is currently NOT federally required), and is contained in a separate air quality document (also includes GHG emissions analysis) that was completed at the end of August 2015 – the results are available to the MPOs, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (and affiliate agencies), and all other interested parties.
Grand Junction Multi-Use Path	Resident, City of Cambridge	Mark Jaquith	Request	Requests inclusion of the Grand Junction Multi-Use Path in the LRTP. States that connecting East Somerville, North Point, East Cambridge, Kendall Square, MIT/Cambridgeport, and Allston Landing to the existing Minuteman, Charles River, and Harborwalk path systems will make bicycle commuting a safer, more accessible alternative for thousands of individuals.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The MPO adopted an operations and management approach to programming projects and programs in this LRTP committing a significant amount of funding to programs. One of the programs is the Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections program. This program will expand the bicycle and pedestrian networks to improve safe access to transit, school, employment centers, and shopping destinations. It could include constructing new, off-road bicycle or multiuse paths, improving bicycle and pedestrian crossings, or building new sidewalks.
Planning Process/Evacuation Planning/Bicycle and Pedestrian Design	Framingham Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee	Tom Branham	Request	The overall emphasis and connotation of Boston as the core demotes every other region to insignificance. There is a need to establish permanent regional cooperative intergovernmental forums (for example the MetroWest open space forums). Having open lines of communication could encourage a plethora of new ideas. Serious consideration should be held to define new standards for a low speed electric personal transportation (wheelchairs, e-assist bikes, Segway's, etc.). Global warming planning should be done to allow for potential evacuation needs, including the potential for temporary storage of essential transit, rescue and repair vehicles. Seeing more bike and pedestrian awareness in design and overall conceptual design is very encouraging. Provided grammatical and formatting notes and suggestions throughout the document.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The MPO is limited to funding and studying the components of the regional transportation system over which the MPO has programming and geographic jurisdiction. Geographic equity is considered in the selection of projects and studies that are funded by the MPO. The Boston MPO regularly meets (and will continue to do so) with MPO's bordering the region to coordinate its planning activities. The MPO adopted an operations and management approach to programming projects and programs in this LRTP committing a significant amount of funding to programs. One of the programs is the Complete Streets program that includes improvements to sidewalks and bicycle facilities. Another is a Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections program that will expand the bicycle and pedestrian network.
					The MPO also adopted an objective under its System Preservation goal to prioritize projects that support planned response capability to existing or future extreme conditions (sea level rise, flooding, and other natural and security-related man-made hazards). In addition, the MPO has developed an all-hazards planning application that shows the region's transportation network in relation to natural hazard zones. This can be used in evacuation planning.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects	Resident, Town of Framingham	William Hanson	Support/ Request	Delighted to see the commitment to infrastructure improvements benefitting pedestrian and bicyclists. As a resident of Framingham, supports projects in his community such as the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail and the Cochituate Trail. Also supports additional pedestrian crossings across Route 9. States that it would be convenient to be able to download the entire document in one file and to create full document automation with active intra-document links.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The Bruce Freeman Rail Trail and the Cochituate Trail projects are currently funded in the Transportation Improvement Program. The MPO adopted an operations and management approach to programming projects and programs in this LRTP committing a significant amount of funding to programs. One of the programs is the Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections program. This program will expand the bicycle and pedestrian networks to improve safe access to transit, school, employment centers, and shopping destinations. It could include constructing new, off-road bicycle or multiuse paths, improving bicycle and pedestrian crossings, or building new sidewalks. A PDF version of the full document was added to the website. Individual chapters are also provided to allow for easier download.
Bicycle Projects		David Hutcheson	Request	The LRTP should strongly include rail trails and bicycle and pedestrian access. The Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Mass Central Rail Trail, Assabet River Rail Trail, and Bay Colony Rail Trail allow for good health.	Thank you for your comments expressing support for inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2B in Acton and Concord in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. This project was approved for funding by the Boston Region MPO in FFY 2018 of the TIP. Phase 2C in Concord was approved for funding by the Boston Region MPO in FFY 2016 of the TIP. The MPO adopted an operations and management approach to programming projects and programs in this LRTP committing a significant amount of funding to programs. One of the programs is the Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections program. This program will expand the bicycle and pedestrian networks to improve safe access to transit, school, employment centers, and shopping destinations. It could include constructing new, off-road bicycle or multiuse paths, improving bicycle and pedestrian crossings, or building new sidewalks.
Malden/Revere/Saugus Route 1 Transportation Improvement Project	North Shore Alliance for Economic Development	Chief Elected Officials from Danvers, Essex, Georgetown, Hamilton, Ipswich, Lynnfield, Middleton, Newbury, Salem, Salisbury, Saugus, Revere, Swampscott, Wenham, Winthrop, Gloucester, Beverly, Newburyport, Rockport, Peabody, Marblehead, Lynn, Manchester, Nahant	Request	Concerned that the Route 1 Transportation Improvement Project has been removed from the Draft LRTP. Route 1 commuters have been forced to contend with these worsening and intolerable conditions along Route 1 for too long. The chief elected officials are requesting that MassDOT and the MPO (1) Reevaluate the Route 1 Improvement project to identify “specific phases” of the project that will address some of the immediate traffic, safety and environmental concerns that affect communities all along the Route 1 North corridor and (2) Include an identified and appropriate phase of the Route 1 Improvement Project as eligible for funding in the Final LRTP and FFY2016-2019 TIP respectively. By phasing the project and funding a portion of the improvements, some progress can be realized. This stretch of highway creates negative effects and disincentives for private investment, job creation, and economic development on the North Shore. This is a "highway nightmare" on a daily basis. Despite exhaustive efforts and participation by the Alliance, the Commonwealth has not advanced this project. They collectively request that MassDOT and the Boston Region MPO revisit the decision to remove the Route 1 Improvement project from the current Draft LRTP and the FFY 2016-2019 TIP to identify “specific phases” of the project that will address some of the immediate traffic, safety, and environmental concerns that affect communities all along the Route 1 North corridor.	The MPO appreciates your comments on the Route 1 Improvement Project in Malden, Saugus and Revere in the FFYs 2016−20 TIP and the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040. This project was not approved for funding by the Boston Region MPO in the FFYs 2016−20 TIP or the LRTP. Funding assumptions and scenario planning played a significant role in determining project recommendations for the LRTP. Based on lower funding growth assumptions over the next 25 years, there was between 21-to-44 percent less funding available for investments within each of the five-year time bands of the LRTP. In addition, the MPO’s scenario-planning process indicated that an Operations and Management approach that focused on lower-cost intersection improvements and Complete Streets solutions was more effective at addressing a diverse set of MPO goals than a High-Capital Investment approach that allocated a large portion of funding to major infrastructure investments like the Route 1 Improvement Project or I-93/I-95 Interchange Reconstruction in Woburn.
					MPO staff developed an alternative to the current LRTP that emphasized an Operations and Management approach by capping the share of major infrastructure projects at 50 percent of available funding in each five-year time band. The MPO preferred the alternative to the current LRTP, and voted to use the alternative as the baseline for its discussion of the draft LRTP.
					Both the MPO and MassDOT recognize the importance of the Route 1 corridor for the North Shore. This project will be considered in the development of MassDOT's next five-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for the Commonwealth that will be developed later this year. Projects listed in the Bond Bill do not secure construction funding until they are added to the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The bond bill includes authorization for MassDOT and other state agencies to issue bonds for projects consistent with priorities (projects listed in the LRTP, TIP, and MassDOT CIP). The bond bill also includes a set of earmarks that MassDOT is authorized to spend. However, the overall funding is typically not enough to cover all of MassDOT priorities and the identified earmarks.
					The upcoming MassDOT CIP process will be the first to make investment decisions that are informed by the new prioritization system recomended by the Project Selection Advisory Council. As a clarification, the Council has no role in actual project selection. MassDOT itself will apply the criteria recommended by the Council to the universe of potential projects considered for inclusion in the CIP. A favorable evaluation under MassDOT's new project selection criteria would be a necessary first step in determining whether the Commonwealth should allocate resources to design this project.
Malden/Revere/Saugus Route 1 Transportation Improvement Project	City of Malden	Gary Christenson, Mayor	Request	Dismayed to learn that the Malden/Revere/Saugus Route 1 Transportation Improvement project is not included in the TIP and LRTP. Communities are negatively impacted in terms of commute time and wasted economic opportunity; constitutes an incredible waste of energy, time, and human potential. The three communities propose a three-phase plan over a multi-year period (plan attached to comment letter). The project segments have within them certain actions that could be approached sequentially over a defined time period. There was a $10 million authorization in the 2013 Bond Bill but was not prioritized in the 2015-2018 TIP. The Commonwealth must take steps that can aid the hundreds of thousands of long suffering Route 1 commuters and hundreds of businesses forced to contend these deplorable conditions. They ask that the Project Selection Advisory Committee meet with the chief executives of the three communities to discuss a path to resolving the issue. Would like this to happen before the final 2016-2020 STIP is approved.	The MPO appreciates your comments on the Route 1 Improvement Project in Malden, Saugus and Revere in the FFYs 2016−20 TIP and the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040. This project was not approved for funding by the Boston Region MPO in the FFYs 2016−20 TIP or the LRTP. Funding assumptions and scenario planning played a significant role in determining project recommendations for the LRTP. Based on lower funding growth assumptions over the next 25 years, there was between 21-to-44 percent less funding available for investments within each of the five-year time bands of the LRTP. In addition, the MPO’s scenario-planning process indicated that an Operations and Management approach that focused on lower-cost intersection improvements and Complete Streets solutions was more effective at addressing a diverse set of MPO goals than a High-Capital Investment approach that allocated a large portion of funding to major infrastructure investments like the Route 1 Improvement Project or I-93/I-95 Interchange Reconstruction in Woburn.
					MPO staff developed an alternative to the current LRTP that emphasized an Operations and Management approach by capping the share of major infrastructure projects at 50 percent of available funding in each five-year time band. The MPO preferred the alternative to the current LRTP, and voted to use the alternative as the baseline for its discussion of the draft LRTP. Both the MPO and MassDOT recognize the importance of the Route 1 corridor for the North Shore. This project will be considered in the development of MassDOT's next five-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for the Commonwealth that will be developed later this year.
					Projects listed in the Bond Bill do not secure construction funding until they are added to the CIP. The bond bill includes authorization for MassDOT and other state agencies to issue bonds for projects consistent with priorities (projects listed in the LRTP, TIP, and MassDOT CIP). The bond bill also includes a set of earmarks that MassDOT is authorized to spend. However, the overall funding is typically not enough to cover all of MassDOT priorities and the identified earmarks. The upcoming MassDOT CIP process will be the first to make investment decisions that are informed by the new prioritization system recomended by the Project Selection Advisory Council. As a clarification, the Council has no role in actual project selection. MassDOT itself will apply the criteria recommended by the Council to the universe of potential projects considered for inclusion in the CIP. A favorable evaluation under MassDOT's new project selection criteria would be a necessary first step in determining whether the Commonwealth should allocate resources to design this project.
Malden/Revere/Saugus Route 1 Transportation Improvement Project	City of Revere	Daniel Rizzo, Mayor	Request	Dismayed to learn that the Malden/Revere/Saugus Route 1 Transportation Improvement project is not included in the TIP and LRTP. Communities are negatively impacted in terms of commute time and wasted economic opportunity; constitutes an incredible waste of energy, time, and human potential. The three communities propose a three-phase plan over a multi-year period (plan attached to comment letter). The project segments have within them certain actions that could be approached sequentially over a defined time period. There was a $10 million authorization in the 2013 Bond Bill but was not prioritized in the 2015-2018 TIP. The Commonwealth must take steps that can aid the hundreds of thousands of long suffering Route 1 commuters and hundreds of businesses forced to contend these deplorable conditions. They ask that the Project Selection Advisory Committee meet with the chief executives of the three communities to discuss a path to resolving the issue. Would like this to happen before the final 2016-2020 STIP is approved.	The MPO appreciates your comments on the Route 1 Improvement Project in Malden, Saugus and Revere in the FFYs 2016−20 TIP and the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040. This project was not approved for funding by the Boston Region MPO in the FFYs 2016−20 TIP or the LRTP. Funding assumptions and scenario planning played a significant role in determining project recommendations for the LRTP. Based on lower funding growth assumptions over the next 25 years, there was between 21-to-44 percent less funding available for investments within each of the five-year time bands of the LRTP. In addition, the MPO’s scenario-planning process indicated that an Operations and Management approach that focused on lower-cost intersection improvements and Complete Streets solutions was more effective at addressing a diverse set of MPO goals than a High-Capital Investment approach that allocated a large portion of funding to major infrastructure investments like the Route 1 Improvement Project or I-93/I-95 Interchange Reconstruction in Woburn.
					MPO staff developed an alternative to the current LRTP that emphasized an Operations and Management approach by capping the share of major infrastructure projects at 50 percent of available funding in each five-year time band. The MPO preferred the alternative to the current LRTP, and voted to use the alternative as the baseline for its discussion of the draft LRTP. Both the MPO and MassDOT recognize the importance of the Route 1 corridor for the North Shore. This project will be considered in the development of MassDOT's next five-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for the Commonwealth that will be developed later this year. Projects listed in the Bond Bill do not secure construction funding until they are added to the CIP. The bond bill includes authorization for MassDOT and other state agencies to issue bonds for projects consistent with priorities (projects listed in the LRTP, TIP, and MassDOT CIP). The bond bill also includes a set of earmarks that MassDOT is authorized to spend. However, the overall funding is typically not enough to cover all of MassDOT priorities and the identified earmarks.
					The upcoming MassDOT CIP process will be the first to make investment decisions that are informed by the new prioritization system recomended by the Project Selection Advisory Council. As a clarification, the Council has no role in actual project selection. MassDOT itself will apply the criteria recommended by the Council to the universe of potential projects considered for inclusion in the CIP. A favorable evaluation under MassDOT's new project selection criteria would be a necessary first step in determining whether the Commonwealth should allocate resources to design this project.
Malden/Revere/Saugus Route 1 Transportation Improvement Project	Town of Saugus	Scott Crabtree, Town Manager	Request	Dismayed to learn that the Malden/Revere/Saugus Route 1 Transportation Improvement project is not included in the TIP and LRTP. Communities are negatively impacted in terms of commute time and wasted economic opportunity; constitutes an incredible waste of energy, time, and human potential. The three communities propose a three-phase plan over a multi-year period (plan attached to comment letter). The project segments have within them certain actions that could be approached sequentially over a defined time period. There was a $10 million authorization in the 2013 Bond Bill but was not prioritized in the 2015-2018 TIP. The Commonwealth must take steps that can aid the hundreds of thousands of long suffering Route 1 commuters and hundreds of businesses forced to contend these deplorable conditions. They ask that the Project Selection Advisory Committee meet with the chief executives of the three communities to discuss a path to resolving the issue. Would like this to happen before the final 2016-2020 STIP is approved.	The MPO appreciates your comments on the Route 1 Improvement Project in Malden, Saugus and Revere in the FFYs 2016−20 TIP and the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040. This project was not approved for funding by the Boston Region MPO in the FFYs 2016−20 TIP or the LRTP. Funding assumptions and scenario planning played a significant role in determining project recommendations for the LRTP. Based on lower funding growth assumptions over the next 25 years, there was between 21-to-44 percent less funding available for investments within each of the five-year time bands of the LRTP. In addition, the MPO’s scenario-planning process indicated that an Operations and Management approach that focused on lower-cost intersection improvements and Complete Streets solutions was more effective at addressing a diverse set of MPO goals than a High-Capital Investment approach that allocated a large portion of funding to major infrastructure investments like the Route 1 Improvement Project or I-93/I-95 Interchange Reconstruction in Woburn.
					MPO staff developed an alternative to the current LRTP that emphasized an Operations and Management approach by capping the share of major infrastructure projects at 50 percent of available funding in each five-year time band. The MPO preferred the alternative to the current LRTP, and voted to use the alternative as the baseline for its discussion of the draft LRTP. Both the MPO and MassDOT recognize the importance of the Route 1 corridor for the North Shore. This project will be considered in the development of MassDOT's next five-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for the Commonwealth that will be developed later this year. Projects listed in the Bond Bill do not secure construction funding until they are added to the CIP. The bond bill includes authorization for MassDOT and other state agencies to issue bonds for projects consistent with priorities (projects listed in the LRTP, TIP, and MassDOT CIP). The bond bill also includes a set of earmarks that MassDOT is authorized to spend. However, the overall funding is typically not enough to cover all of MassDOT priorities and the identified earmarks.
					The upcoming MassDOT CIP process will be the first to make investment decisions that are informed by the new prioritization system recomended by the Project Selection Advisory Council. As a clarification, the Council has no role in actual project selection. MassDOT itself will apply the criteria recommended by the Council to the universe of potential projects considered for inclusion in the CIP. A favorable evaluation under MassDOT's new project selection criteria would be a necessary first step in determining whether the Commonwealth should allocate resources to design this project.
Route 4/225(Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue Project (Lexington)	Town of Lexington, Planning Board	Aaron Henry, Planning Director	Support	Supports inclusion of the Route 4/225(Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue Project in the LRTP. This corridor is a significant link in the regional transportation and economic development network. The Town supports and recognizes that the existing transportation infrastructure needs to be upgraded to support future development. Inclusion of this project is an important step to improve conditions along this corridor.	Thank you for your support. The Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue Project is included in the list of recommended projects in Charting Progress to 2040 in the 2021 to 2025 time band.
Climate Change	Resident, City of Cambridge	John MacDougall	Oppose	Concerned about MassDOT's slow progress in meeting the requirements of the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The MPO has adopted a goal of reducing greenhouse gases generated in the Boston region by all transportation modes as outlined in the Global Warming Solutions Act. This goal is used as a criterion in the selection of projects and programs in its LRTP and TIP. MassDOT is continuing to implement and revisit projects and programs in its GreenDOT Implementation Plan. The MPO works with MassDOT to implement projects and programs within its jurisdiction. As part of MassDOT’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting requirements for the Commonwealth’s Global Warming Solutions Act (310 CMR 60.05), MassDOT conducted a statewide greenhouse gas emissions analysis considering all projects included in the13 MPOs in the Commonwealth. The report was completed at the end of August 2015 and the results are available to all interested parties.
Canton Interchange Project	Three Rivers Interlocal Council (TRIC)	Sarah Raposa	Request	Between 2007 and 2015, TRIC has been consistent in supporting the full completion of the Canton Interchange project to alleviate public safety and traffic congestion issues at this location. It is a continuing detriment to quality of life and viability and prosperity of business interests that depend on a functional roadway system capable of handling employee commutes, truck deliveries, and customer access. Full completion has been promised repeatedly over the years. Information on this project has been sparse and this jeopardizes good faith efforts between communities and private developers. Complete funding must be found to move this project forward.	The MPO appreciates your comments on the Reconstruction of the I-95/I-93 Interchange in Canton in the FFYs 2016−20 TIP and the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040. This project was not approved for funding by the Boston Region MPO in the FFYs 2016−20 TIP or the LRTP. In developing MassDOT's Capital Investment Plan, MassDOT announced that it no longer could afford to fund the Canton Interchange project with non-federal aid. The project was then under consideration for federal funding; however, the MPO did not include funding for the project. Funding assumptions and scenario planning played a significant role in determining project recommendations for the LRTP. Based on lower funding growth assumptions over the next 25 years, there was between 21-to-44 percent less funding available for investments within each of the five-year time bands of the LRTP. In addition, the MPO’s scenario-planning process indicated that an Operations and Management approach that focused on lower-cost intersection improvements and Complete Streets solutions was more effective at
					addressing a diverse set of MPO goals than a High-Capital Investment approach that allocated a large portion of funding to major infrastructure investments. MPO staff developed an alternative to the current LRTP that emphasized an Operations and Management approach by capping the share of major infrastructure projects at 50 percent of available funding in each five-year time band. The MPO preferred the alternative to the current LRTP, and voted to use the alternative as the baseline for its discussion of the draft LRTP. Upon the MPO endorsement of the FFYs 2016–20 TIP and LRTP, MassDOT announced that one component of the larger interchange project, ramp construction on I-95 Northbound and improvements on Dedham Street/Canton Street in Canton, Norwood, and Westwood, would be funded with federal aid in FFY 2015 because funding became available due to changes to a project in a different MPO region. The MPO approved this action in Amendment Five to the FFYs 2015-18 TIP on September 3, 2015.
I-93/I-95 Interchange in Woburn, Reading, Stoneham, and Wakefield/Increased Transit	North Suburban Planning Council	Kristin Kassner	Request	Supports the MPO's decision to shift the majority of funding away from larger projects to fund smaller local projects. They also feel that some portion of the I-93/I-95 Interchange in Woburn, Reading, Stoneham, and Wakefield (or at least some feasible transit improvements in the area) should be funded. This interchange is central to vehicular circulation in the region. There are significant safety problems and it is a high crash location. The safety and congestion issues are highly concerning. The significant amount of drivers in the subregion is a result of a lack of public transportation. Many communities are providing alternative transportation options but more is needed. Alternative options must be available and if the interchange is not remedied, the economy of the subregion will be threatened. Requests that a small portion of funding be dedicated to continuing to advance the interchange project and studies should be pursued to identify feasible alternatives for public transportation to serve the subregion.	Thank you for your comments requesting funding for the I-95/I-93 Interchange in Woburn, Reading, Stoneham, and Wakefield the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040. This project was not approved for funding by the Boston Region MPO in the LRTP. Funding assumptions and scenario planning played a significant role in determining project recommendations for the LRTP. Based on lower funding growth assumptions over the next 25 years, there was between 21 to 44 percent less funding available for investments within each of the five-year time bands of the LRTP. In addition, the MPO’s scenario planning process indicated that an Operations and Management (O&M) approach that focused on lower-cost intersection improvements and complete street solutions was more effective at addressing a diverse set of MPO goals than a High-Capital Investment approach that allocated a large portion of funding to major infrastructure investments.
					These factors guided MPO staff in its development of an alternative that assumed that no more than 50 percent of available funding in each five-year time band would be allocated to major infrastructure projects. Based on the MPO’s preference for lower-cost investment strategies, the MPO voted to use this alternative as the baseline for their discussion on the draft LRTP. In addition, the MPO, through the O&M programs, voted to include a new program—the Community Transportation/Parking/Clean Air and Mobility program. This provides funding for a combination of projects, including transit services developed at a local level that support first-mile/last-mile connections to existing transit services and other destinations, funding to construct additional parking at transit stations that now are at capacity, or at identified new parking locations, and funding to projects (such as bike share projects or shuttle bus services) to improve mobility and air quality and promote mode shift.
Climate Change	Massachusetts Sierra Club	Cathy Ann Buckley, Chairman	Request	The statement in Chapter 8 that addresses global warming should read "The largest threat the MPO and humanity face is the need to reduce GHG emissions that contribute to climate change, which if unchecked, will impair our transportation system and way of life on an unparalleled scale." This statement should appear at the beginning of Chapter 8, and Chapter 8 should be Chapter 1 of the LRTP because many worthwhile things are included in this chapter. Many of the people that approved the list of projects in the LRTP either did not read or do not believe what is in this chapter. The climate impacts that we are experiencing today are based on the carbon dioxide emissions from the last 100 years. By 2040, the emissions of 1915 to 1940 will fall out and be replaced by the emissions we generate now through 2040. To include significant funds to deal with what we are inviting by our inaction on climate would be intelligent and courageous. To ignore them is politically expedient. With each passing year of inaction we become less able to change this trajectory. The LRTP states that the project mix is expected to show a neutral shift toward meeting the GHG reduction goal. What would someone reading this plan in 2040 think? Perhaps - "what were we thinking, we still had a chance in 2015." Please educate people to the real and present threat of climate change. Publicize that a gallon of gasoline creates twenty pounds of carbon dioxide. Tell us why Massachusetts has made idling illegal. Educate us as to why raising transit fares is bad for our financially neediest residents today and for all of us tomorrow, that a healthy transit system is good for motorists, too. Please lead. Those who study climate know that we are approaching - at an accelerating rate - a point of no return. Accumulating evidence indicates that this may well be the last Plan where we still have a chance to make a positive impact.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The MPO has adopted a goal of reducing greenhouse gases generated in the Boston region by all transportation modes as outlined in the Global Warming Solutions Act. This goal is used as a criterion in the selection of projects and programs in its LRTP and TIP. The MPO will report the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the implementation of the LRTP and TIP to MassDOT. As part of its studies, the MPO published two white papers to educate the MPO about the effects of climate change. The first, Carbon Dioxide, Climate Change, and the Boston Region MPO in 2008 and a second, an update published in 2012. These are available on the MPO's website. Staff is currently working on a study - Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Alternatives: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. The purpose of the study is to research various transportation strategies that support the reduction of GHG emissions in order to identify transportation investments that are the most cost-effective in reducing GHG emissions because the MPO must make funding decisions recognizing financial constraint.
Planning Process/Alewife/Fresh Pond area in Cambridge	The Fresh Pond Residents Alliance	Arthur Strang	Request	The Alliance is confounded by the complexity, multilayer, independent government offices, each of which has a distinct responsibility quasi-insulated from the other by the structure of management of transportation in Massachusetts. An attempt to list all the management layers includes all the municipalities of the Commonwealth (309), the requirements of the federal government as expressed through the Boston MPO, MassDOT, the MBTA, the DCR, and multiple Secretaries, and the Governor. The Alliance does not see this complex multilayer of management as responsible or responsive to the commuter. Each day, the commuter tests the maximum capacity of our roads and our transit systems. We find this daily test inimical to urban neighborhoods and unresponsive to the demands of the urban commuter. Good, skilled, knowledgeable, and dedicated people are operating the commuter system each day. However, there efforts are hindered by the lack of money for maintenance, the lack of clear management from the top as to the best way forward, and the diffusion of transportation authority throughout the government. A clarity of strategy and a redirection of intent is required for mobility in the neighborhoods of rising density in Urban Metropolitan Boston. Specific comments are in regard to the Alewife/Fresh Pond area in Cambridge. Development is adding to congestion and the Red Line is near capacity. The roads are full, especially during commuting hours and it is unlikely that more lane miles will be built in Urban Metropolitan Boston and Complete Streets will reduce vehicle lane miles. Commuting hours are lengthening, speeds are falling and commuters will rise dramatically by 2040, over 14% according to the Boston MPO.	Thank you for your comments on the LRTP. The MPO is limited to funding the components of the regional transportation system over which the MPO has programming and geographic jurisdiction which includes federal-aid eligible routes. The MPO conducted a study in the Alewife Brook Parkway area. Phase 1 was the Route 2/Route 16 (Alewife Brook Parkway) Eastbound: Traffic Patterns and Alewife Station Garage Survey which identified travel patterns through the study area. The second phase was the Alewife Station: Improvements to Feeder Bus Routes, Bus Access and Egress, and Route 2/Route 16 Intersection which recommended improvements to MBTA feeder bus service to Alewife Station. MassDOT used this information to make improvements in this area.
Alewife/Fresh Pond area in Cambridge	The Fresh Pond Residents Alliance	Arthur Strang (cont.)	Request	These conditions are likely to be more severe in many parts of Urban Metropolitan Boston—such as Cambridge, Watertown, Belmont, Arlington, Newton, Brookline, Boston, and many others. Transportation funding is tight, and perhaps more important, uncertain. Walking is low cost and enables high density transit. It is inexpensive to make public paths—direct, attractive, safe—especially for development close to transit hubs. Alewife is one example, Kendall Square is another. Road capacity and commuting speeds can increase by raising the density of commuters per vehicle rather than by increasing the number of vehicles through an intersection. Buses, including private, TMA, and public, are inexpensive. Preference for buses, some carrying over 60 commuters at crush capacity, can increase the number of commuters over the roads. The strategic statement of Charting Progress 2040 should be walk, bike, bus, rail. The strategy requires well planned investment in paths that are direct, safe, and attractive, and significantly better management of the operations of buses, subway, and rail, and better management and more money for maintenance of transit. A clear strategy is critical for the rising development around transit centers, for the technology growth centers in Urban Metropolitan, and for older close‐in neighborhoods for which more attractive and safer walking paths can make transportation more neighborhood friendly. Some communities will need more proactive guidance and support to implement strategy.	The MPO acknowledges that the roadways and transit services are at capacity in many areas of the region. Funding assumptions and scenario planning played a significant role in determining project recommendations for the LRTP. Based on lower funding growth assumptions over the next 25 years, there was between 21 to 44 percent less funding available for investments within each of the five-year time bands of the LRTP. In addition, the MPO’s scenario planning process indicated that an Operations and Management (O&M) approach that focused on lower-cost intersection improvements and complete street solutions was more effective at addressing a diverse set of MPO goals than a High-Capital Investment approach that allocated a large portion of funding to major infrastructure investments.
Alewife/Fresh Pond area in Cambridge	The Fresh Pond Residents Alliance	Arthur Strang (cont.)	Request	Given fixed, even declining lane space, the only way to accommodate more commuters at a speed and volume relevant to a thriving economy is to increase the ‘density’ of commuters, not the density of vehicles and cars. To do this, government at all levels must act to make transit more attractive. Buses both public and private increase density of commuters. Compared with all other modes of transportation, except walk and bike, the bus is both inexpensive and faster to install. UberPool, Via, Bridj, and other yet to be invented apps attempt more dense utilization of existing capacity—more commuters, whether per vehicle or per traffic lane. Preference on the road for buses and faster bus service can attract riders. Would like to see a strategy within the severe budget constraints for this in the LRTP. The MPO's Operations and Management strategy is a good beginning but needs to go further. A more neighborhood-centric strategy is needed for urban mobility in the future. They do not doubt that infrastructure need to be improved but the urban future should be a combination of walk, bike, bus, applications, transit, rail, and “walk the last mile”. Alewife could be an example of this approach using walking and transit capacity, including enhanced bus service. Improved access to the Alewife T will be relevant only if the capacity of the Red Line is increased. We need to ensure that commuters, other residents, and arriving workers will be able to walk to a wide variety of modern connections, including home, work, school, and, on the way, daycare and the market.	As part of the O&M approach, and in addition to the Complete Streets and Intersection Improvement Programs, a Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections program was established. This program will expand the bicycle and pedestrian networks to improve safe access to transit, school, employment centers, and shopping destinations. It could include constructing new, off-road bicycle or multiuse paths, improving bicycle and pedestrian crossings, or building new sidewalks. Another new investment program was also established—the Community Transportation/ Parking/Clean Air and Mobility program. This provides funding for a combination of projects, including transit services developed at a local level that support first-mile/last-mile connections to existing transit services and other destinations, funding to construct additional parking at transit stations that now are at capacity, or at identified new parking locations, and funding to projects (such as bike share projects or shuttle bus services) to improve mobility and air quality and promote mode shift.
Increased Transit Infrastructure	The Fresh Pond Residents Alliance	Arthur Strang (cont.)	Request	There is only one major transit infrastructure investment listed in the LRTP, the Green Line Extension. There are several other major transit investments that are needed if we are to tackle the problem of urban traffic congestion and the current lack of efficient mobility. These include a Red-Blue Line connection, other subway line extensions, and major commuter rail improvements. To not even consider these investments until after 2040 is unfortunate, and may undermine the objectives of the Boston MPO. A new commuter station at Alewife on the Fitchburg Line would help. Specific comments: (1) Map 3.2 seems to misrepresent or not report the arterial bottleneck of crossing the Charles River at Gerry’s Landing Road to Soldier’s Field Road. The parallel Memorial Drive is also an arterial bottleneck. (2) Map 3.3 lacks the Alewife T Garage with its daily 100% full capacity. (Does Park & Ride include the T stations? Alewife T is not on the Park & Ride Map.) (3) Map 3.5 does not show the gaps in the bike paths from the Alewife T/Minuteman Commuter Bike Path to Harvard Square and Kendall Square. (4) They support the Transportation Equity Area of Map 3.7, specifically north of the Fitchburg Commuter Line of Alewife and Rindge Avenue and North Cambridge. It should be noted that areas of commercial development (like Alewife or Kendall Square) depend on a full range of workers all of whom need to get there from their residential areas. They also note that there is no bus from Rindge Avenue nor from all of Cambridge directly to the Alewife T station. Thus, except for getting on the Red Line first, there is no attractive access from anywhere in Cambridge to the eight MBTA bus lines or private bus lines outbound from Cambridge.	Through the development of its vision, goals, and objectives, the MPO emphasized that transit is an important element to mobility in the MPO region. MassDOT is in the process of updating its Program for Mass Transportation (PMT), the MBTA´s long-range capital planning document defining a 25-year vision for public transportation. This information was not available for the MPO to use in the development of this LRTP. The MPO acknowledges that the PMT will be an important input in programming future transit dollars and chose to leave 50% of its target funds unallocated in the 2030 to 2040 time bands awaiting input on the PMT and other long-range transportation planning documents. The MPO will consider your comments in the development of future long-range transportation plans. Your comment will also be submitted to MassDOT and the MBTA for their consideration. In addition, the MPO is currently conducting a study to examine existing and future conditions of the transportation system in the core area, its ability to accommodate future growth, and the effect of major developments on the transportation system.