3.30.11 glx community visioning meeting

Mystic Valley Parkway Green Line

Community Visioning Process

Public Meeting #2

March 30, 2011

1

Process Map

Community

Vision

Community

Opportunities

Community

Concerns

Issue

IdentificationDraft

Recommendations

Continuous Public Involvement

Continuous Stakeholder Outreach

Tonight’s Meeting

2



Traffic and Parking

March 30, 2011

Eric Halvorsen, Transit Planner, MAPC

3

Presentation Will Cover:

• Commuting Patterns and Ridership

• Where Are People Going and How Are They Getting There

• Accessing a Station at Mystic Valley Parkway

• Walking, Biking, Public Transit, Driving

• Parking

• Policy and Enforcement

• Existing and Future Traffic Patterns

• Green Line vs. No-Green Line Patterns

Traffic and Parking

4

Commuting Patterns and Ridership

T

5






• Parking




Traffic and Parking

6


Workforce Living within 1 Mile

13,000

Number of Workers Living within

1 mile of MVP Station

Working Along the Green Line

33%

Employment destination within ½

mile of the Green Line

7


Travel Time from Mystic Valley Parkway to Park Street Station in Downtown Boston

15-30 Minutes by Car

Route 16 to I-93 South*Depending on traffic

30 Minutes by Green Line Extension

MVP Station to Park Street Station*One Seat Ride

35-60 Minutes by Existing Bus and Subway

Route 94 Bus to Red Line at Davis to Park Street Station*Depending on connection

8


How many people are projected to take the Green Line?

• 800 riders during the peak hour at MVP station

• 2,000 riders during the entire day at MVP station

Travel Mode Shift for Peak Hour MVP Station Riders

StationPreviously

Taking Transit

Previously

Walking/Biking

Previously

Driving

Mystic Valley Pkwy23% 3% 74%

184 Riders 24 Riders 592 Riders

*Data provided by CTPS

9






• Parking




Traffic and Parking

10

Station Access

Riders access stations using different modes of transportation:

Walking

Biking

Transit

Drop Offs11

Station Access

How many people are projected to be dropped off at the MVP station in the morning?

• DEIR projects 40 drop-offs during the morning peak hour

• Based on 2007 Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) study on kiss-n-ride (KNR)

• Survey of 76 transit stations, with and without parking

• Even if KNR projection doubled to 80, still low compared to overall traffic volumes

• 800 cars on Boston Avenue

• 3,100 cars on Route 16

• MVP station is not comparable to Alewife or Wellington

• No parking, no easy access off major roadways

• Mystic Valley Parkway station will not include parking 12

Station Access

How does Mystic Valley compare to other stations

surveyed?

Peak Hour Kiss N Ride (KNR) Analysis

Station Ridership KNR Observed KNR Percentage

Newton Centre 394 46 11.7%

Brookline Village 923 19 2.1%

Reservoir Station 923 22 2.4%

Station Projected Riders Projected KNR KNR Percentage

Mystic Valley Pkwy 800 40 5%

*Data provided by CTPS

13

Green Line – Newton Centre Station

Major

Roadway

Circle

Drop-

Off

Area

Station

2006 Peak

Period

Ridership

2007 KNR

Headcount

Actual

KNR %

Newton

Centre394 46 11.7%

On-

Street

Parking

14

Green Line – Reservoir Station

Major

Roadway

Circle

Drop-

Off

Area

Station

2006 Peak

Period

Ridership

2007 KNR

Headcount

Actual

KNR %

Reservoir 923 22 2.4%

15

Green Line – Brookline Village Station

Major

Roadway

Circle

Drop-

Off

Area

Station

2006 Peak

Period

Ridership

2007 KNR

Headcount

Actual

KNR %

Brookline

Village923 19 2.1%

16






• Parking




Traffic and Parking

17

Parking

Key ways to regulate on-street parking:

1. Develop a strong parking ordinance

• MassDOT has agreed to work with the Cities on drafting

updated parking ordinances

2. Options for regulation

• Residential permitted parking

• Metered spaces promoting turnover, reducing day-long

parking

3. Enforcement

• Consistent parking enforcement is important

• Daily or spot checking at metered or permitted locations

18






• Parking




Traffic and Parking

19

Existing and Future Traffic Patterns

How is traffic congestion typically measured?

• Delay

• Time you might wait at an intersection

• Expressed in “seconds of delay”

• Level of Service (LOS)

• Operating conditions at an intersection

• Rated A – F

• LOS A, B & = Little Congestion

• LOS D = Near Congestion

• LOS E & F = Congestion20


What might traffic be like in the year 2030?

• Population and employment is expected to modestly increase

through 2030

• Drivers are averaging more trips per day, adding

congestion to the transportation network

More People = More Cars = More Congestion

21


Level of Service Comparison – 2007, 2030 No-GLX, 2030 GLX

AM Peak Hour Congestion/LOS

Intersection2007

LOS

2030

No-GLX

LOS

2030 GLX

LOS

Mystic Valley at Boston Avenue E - -

Mystic Valley at Auburn Street (East) C - +

Mystic Valley at Auburn Street (West) B - +

Mystic Valley at Winthrop Street F - =

Boston Avenue at North Street B - +

Boston Avenue at Winthrop Street D - =

Boston Avenue at College Avenue D - -

Main Street at High Street E - +

Main Street at Harvard Street E - =

*Data provided by VHB, Inc.

• LOS gets worse in the

No-GLX 2030 scenario

• Green Line Extension

provides a modest

reduction in traffic in 2030

• Delay is reduced at

some intersections, not

enough to change LOS

22

- Means 2030 GLX is worse than No-GLX

+ Means 2030 GLX is better than No-GLX

= Mean 2030 GLX is equal to No-GLX

Changes in Traffic Patterns as a Result of Increased Capacity on a Roadway

Existing Congestion:

Drivers are taking parallel

alternative routes due to

existing congestion.

Congestion After Construction:

Auto trips are reduced on the roadway

due to mode shift to new transit service.

Other drivers have not yet realized the

increased peak hour capacity along the

main travel route.

Future Congestion:

Drivers who were taking

parallel alternative routes have

now returned to the original

roadway. This alleviates traffic

on parallel routes.

Project

Implementation

Increased

Roadway Capacity

Year 2011 Year 2020 Year 2030

23

Conclusion

In Conclusion:• Population in Metro Boston is increasing modestly, but

the number of automobile trips taken are increasing at a

faster pace

• Traffic in the area will get worse over time

• The Green Line Extension will provide modest traffic

congestion reductions

• Any reduction in automobile congestion is an air quality

benefit

24

Questions?

25



Air Quality

March 30, 2011

Mariana Arcaya, Senior Regional and

Public Health Planner, MAPC

26

Air Quality

• Air quality as the main motivation for Green Line Extension (GLX)

• What’s been done to understand air quality and the GLX

• What we know

• What’s next

27

The Green Line Extension is an

air quality improvement project

• Extending the Green Line will reduce

vehicle traffic over time, significantly

improving air quality in the region

28

Understanding Air Quality:

What’s been done

• GLX underwent a preliminary Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) process

• Air quality analysis required an examination of pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

• MassDOT produced highly conservative estimates to understand the maximum impacts possible

29

What Was Done

• Air quality analysis overview

–How is our air quality now?

–What will air quality be in the future

• If the Green Line is extended to Mystic Valley Parkway?

• If there is no extension?

• Regional air quality and intersections right around the stations

30

What Was Measured

• Pollutants measured and projected

– Carbon monoxide (CO)

– Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

– Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

– Carbon dioxide (CO2)

– Particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5)

31

Study Area

32

Regional Findings

• The Green Line Extension is an air quality

improvement project.

• Air quality will be improved above and

beyond what was required by the state

• Vehicles will drive 26,650 fewer miles/day

Pollutant Volatile Organic

Compounds

(VOCs)

Nitrogen

Oxides

(NOx)

Particulate

Matter 10

(PM10)

Carbon

Dioxide

(CO2)

Change in daily emissions

compared to no extension

- 7.9 kg -5.1 kg -0.8kg -18,043kg

33

Intersections Studied

34

MVP Intersection Findings

Current (2007)

Extension to

Mystic Valley No build Current (2007)

Extension to

Mystic Valley No build Current (2007)

Extension to

Mystic Valley No build

Carbon Monoxide (C0):

concentration over 1 hour (ppm) 35 5.5 4.6 4.6 6.8 5.4 5.2 5 4.3 4.2

Carbon Monoxide (C0):

concentration over 8 hours (ppm) 9 3.6 3 3 4.5 3.6 3.4 3.3 2.8 2.8

Particulate Matter 10 (PM10):

concentration over 24 hours

(µg/m3) 150 81 73 71 91 78 78 78 71 71

Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5):

concentration over 24 hours

(µg/m3) 35 31.7 32.1 30.9 32.9 32.9 31.7 31.7 31.7 30.9

Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5):

concentration over 1 year (µg/m3) 15 12.1 12.1 11.9 12.3 12.3 12.1 12.1 12.1 11.9

Pollutant NAAQS

Mystic Valley Parkway at Boston Mystic Valley Parkway at Winthrop Mystic Valley Parkway Offramp at Main

Green means the air will be cleaner than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) to protect human health. Bright green means air quality will both meet NAAQS

standards and be cleaner than it is now.

No pollutant at any intersection studied exceeds EPA limits

35

Green Line Trains and Commuter Rail

• Trains that will be used on the Green Line Extension

Project will be electric and will not generate air

pollution

• Relocating the commuter rail closer to residential

properties will not have an air quality impact, even for

the closest property for the pollutant most sensitive to

distance changes

Pollutant Current After

relocation

Difference Percent

Difference

NAAQS Exceeds

NAAQS?

24-hour PM2.5

Concentration

29.7 30.1 .4 1.3% 35 No

Annual PM 2.5

Concentration

11.7 11.8 .1 .9% 15 No

36

Summary of Findings

• The Green Line Extension will improve air quality throughout the region, reducing levels of pollutants that cause health problems

• Local air quality around stations will be maintained: for some pollutants, air will be even cleaner than it is today

• Green Line trains will not emit pollution, any changes to the commuter rail will not worsen air quality; vehicles are the primary source of air quality concern

– The Green Line extension is designed to reduce car travel and prevent growth in car travel

37

What’s Next?

• Another MEPA review and other governmental and environmental reviews are likely

• This visioning process is an opportunity to think about how to reduce driving around the station and around town in general– Connections to bike/pedestrian and other transit

– Land uses around the station

• This visioning process is an opportunity to think about the positives of cleaner air– Enhancing recreational resources?

38

Questions?

39



Land Acquisitions

March 30, 2011

Kate Fichter, Manager of Long-Range Planning,

MassDOT

40


• Land Acquisitions Around College Ave

• Land Acquisitions Around Mystic Valley Parkway

• Process for Land Acquisition

Land Acquisitions

41

Land

Acquisitions

• Minimal land acquisitions

around College Ave. station

area

• Acquisitions limited to small

segments along bridge

abutments and along the track

right-of-way

42

Land Acquisitions43

Land Acquisitions

Real Estate Acquisition Process

• Acquisitions are identified

• Acquisition Staff meet with property owners to explain project and owner’s rights

• Acquisition Staff contracts with an appraisal company who determines market value of property

• Letter is sent to property owners detailing appraisal, negotiations begin

• Agreement is reached, MBTA Board of Directors approves acquisition

• Payment is awarded to property owner 44

Questions?

45



Managing Neighborhood Change

March 30, 2011

Jennifer Raitt, Chief Housing Planner, MAPC

46

The introduction of new transit spurs community changes, including:

• Housing affordability

• Demographic diversity (Age, Ethnicity, Class,

Household Status)

• Business diversity

Communities can manage neighborhood change and mitigate negative impacts on neighborhoods, people, and jobs by implementing equitable development policies and strategies.

Managing Neighborhood Change

47

1) Define neighborhood change

2) Provide an overview of MAPC’s ongoing research on

neighborhood change

3) Explore possible attributes of change in areas near the

proposed stations

4) Discuss next steps in research

Presentation Objectives

48

What is gentrification?

Gentrification is a pattern of neighborhood change in

which a neighborhood experiences reinvestment and

revitalization, accompanied by increasing home values

and/or rents.

Gentrification, while frequently controversial, can be either

good or bad for a neighborhood, depending on who

benefits from the reinvestment and revitalization.

(Source: Stephanie Pollack, 2010)

Defining Terms

49

What is displacement?

A pattern of change in which current residents are

involuntarily forced to move out because they cannot

afford to stay in the gentrified neighborhood.

This housing turnover is marked both by unequal retention

of existing residents (with wealthier and/or better-

educated residents more likely to remain) and in-migration

of wealthier, better-educated residents.

(Source: Stephanie Pollack, 2010)

Defining Terms

50

MAPC is talking to communities around the country to gain

insight on strategies to manage neighborhood change.

These include:

• Workforce strategies that promote local/small business

retention and employer-assisted housing

• Conversion ordinances that increase protections for

renters

• Preservation of housing currently in private markets

• Development without displacement policies and/or

strategies

• Community benefits agreements

MAPC Research on Strategies in Practice

51

Attributes of Change

52

MAPC is developing a methodology for identifying and

tracking areas susceptible to gentrification (anti-

displacement risk) and change over time using Census

data. The study area includes Census Tracts within a 1-

mile radius of the proposed Mystic Valley Parkway station

location.

MAPC will focus strategies to manage neighborhood

change in these areas.

Study Area

53

Attributes of Change

54

The following are some of the attributes studied:

1) Age of Householder/ Family/ Nonfamily Households

• Seniors on Fixed Incomes - could be displaced

by rising housing costs

2) Household Size

3) Housing Cost Burden

• Cost Burdened Renters – may be priced out of

the market

• Cost Burdened Long-Term Resident Owners –

may be further burdened by housing costs/

rising property values

There are 9,600 households in the study area, split almost

evenly among owner and rental units, and occupied as

follows:

1) One-third are occupied by single-person households

2) One-half are occupied by 2-3 people households

• Predominantly family households

• 11% are nonfamily households

3) There are only 135 large nonfamily households (four or

more people)

Household Size

55

Single Person Household

2 or 3 people, Family

Households

2 or 3 people, Non-Family Household

4 or 5 people, Family

Household

4 or 5 people, Non-Family Household

Household Size

1) Most of the single-person households in the study area

are a resident younger than age 65.

2) While only 38% of the single-person households are

senior citizens, seniors comprise a (slight) majority of

single-person households north of the proposed station in

West Medford.

3) In Arlington, more than ¾ of single person households

are working age (15-64).

57

Single-Person Household Characteristics

Cost Burden:

• Moderate Housing Cost Burden: Gross Housing

Costs are 30-50% of HH Income

• Severe Housing Cost Burden: Gross Housing Costs

are >50% of HH Income

1) More than 80% of renters in the station area are

people younger than age 65 and are the vast

majority of cost-burdened households.

2) Approximately 17% of all renters in the station area

are seniors - 20% are cost burdened.

Renter Housing Cost Burden

1) 35% of all homeowners are cost burdened

2) The largest number of homeowners and also the

largest number of housing cost burdened owners

overall live north of the station in West Medford

3) Seniors comprise 32% of homeowners and the same

proportion of housing cost burdened homeowners

4) Nearly 1,000 seniors own their home outright, this

comprises 65% of all homeowners over 65.

Owner Housing Cost Burden

1) Refining methodology for identifying and tracking

gentrification and anti-displacement risk

2) Talking with City and State leaders who will help

manage and oversee neighborhood change

3) Identifying innovations and best practice while exploring

existing housing, community and economic development

policies in Medford and Somerville

4) Further defining appropriate strategies for communities

in and around the Station Area to manage neighborhood

change

MAPC Next Steps in Research

60

Questions?

61

Thank you for your participation!

Next Meeting: Mid-May, Stay Tuned!

If you have further questions or comments please contact us at:

[email protected]

Additional information on previous and future meetings can be found at:

www.mass.gov/greenlineextension

www.mapc.org

62

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.mass.gov/greenlineextension

http://www.mapc.org/

3.30.11 glx community visioning meeting

Documents

green line patterns4

green line patterns6

green line patterns10

green line patterns17

green line patterns19

commuting patterns

red line

station accesshow