Silver Line Gateway EENF

Transcription

Silver Line Gateway
Service to Chelsea, East Boston & the Blue Line
Expanded Environmental Notification
Form (EENF)
Submitted to:
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
MEPA Unit
November 15, 2013
Submitted by:
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER
PART A – ENF FORM
PART B – EENF REPORT
PART A – ENF FORM ............................................................................................................................... 1-1
PART B – EENF REPORT ........................................................................................................................ 1-1
1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
2
Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 2-1
3
2.1
Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
Project Components......................................................................................................... 2-1
Project History .............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1
4
5
6
Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................... 3-1
Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2
Screening ......................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.1
Alternative 1: Busway to Mystic Mall .................................................................. 4-3
4.2.2
Alternative 2: Busway to Bellingham Square ...................................................... 4-4
4.2.3
Alternative 3: On-Street to Everett Avenue ......................................................... 4-5
4.2.4
Airport Blue Line Station BRT Platform Location ................................................ 4-5
4.2.5
Fare Collection .................................................................................................... 4-7
4.2.6
Operating Plan .................................................................................................... 4-7
4.3
Transit Operations Summary ........................................................................................... 4-9
4.4
Resource Summary ....................................................................................................... 4-12
4.5
Preferred Alternative ...................................................................................................... 4-16
Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1
Civic Engagement ............................................................................................................ 5-1
5.2
Project Coordination......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3
Public Informational Meetings .......................................................................................... 5-2
5.4
Project Web Site .............................................................................................................. 5-3
Resource Area Analysis .............................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1
6.2
Environmental Justice ...................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1
Environmental Justice Communities ................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2
Performance Measures ....................................................................................... 6-2
6.1.3
Results Summary ................................................................................................ 6-2
Land Use / Demographics ............................................................................................... 6-5
Silver Line Gateway – Service to Chelsea, East Boston & the Blue Line
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.3
6.2.1
Study Area Land Use .......................................................................................... 6-5
6.2.2
Study Area Demographics ................................................................................ 6-10
6.2.3
Summary ........................................................................................................... 6-13
Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................... 6-13
6.3.1.
Initial Site Assessment ...................................................................................... 6-13
6.3.2
Site Visit ............................................................................................................ 6-14
6.3.3
Historical Research ........................................................................................... 6-14
6.3.4
Environmental Database Review ...................................................................... 6-15
6.3.5
Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................. 6-16
6.4
Utilities ............................................................................................................................ 6-17
6.5
Transit ............................................................................................................................ 6-19
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.5.1
Silver Line Fleet Analysis .................................................................................. 6-19
6.5.2
Impacts on Existing MBTA and Other Transit Operations ................................ 6-20
Transportation ................................................................................................................ 6-22
6.6.1
Traffic ................................................................................................................ 6-22
6.6.2
Pedestrian Analysis .......................................................................................... 6-26
6.6.3
Existing Bicycle Inventory and Facilities ........................................................... 6-26
Parking ........................................................................................................................... 6-28
6.7.1
Existing Parking Inventory and Utilization ......................................................... 6-28
6.7.2
Future Parking Impacts ..................................................................................... 6-30
Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................................ 6-32
6.8.1
Summary ........................................................................................................... 6-32
6.8.2
Screening Methodology .................................................................................... 6-32
6.8.3
Existing Conditions ........................................................................................... 6-33
6.8.4
Screening Assessment ..................................................................................... 6-34
6.8.5
Noise Impact Assessment ................................................................................ 6-36
6.8.6
Vibration Impacts .............................................................................................. 6-43
Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas ........................................................................................ 6-44
6.9.1
General ............................................................................................................. 6-45
6.9.2
Comparative Analysis ....................................................................................... 6-45
6.9.3
Summary ........................................................................................................... 6-46
Wetlands and Water Resources .................................................................................... 6-49
6.10.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................... 6-49
6.10.2 Jurisdictional Determination .............................................................................. 6-51
6.10.3 Regulatory Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 6-52
6.10.4 Project Alternatives, Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................... 6-53
6.11
Stormwater Management ............................................................................................... 6-54
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.11.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................... 6-54
6.11.2 Post Development Conditions........................................................................... 6-54
6.11.3 DEP Stormwater Standards .............................................................................. 6-56
6.12
Chapter 91 and Massachusetts Coastal Zone ............................................................... 6-59
6.12.1 Chapter 91 ........................................................................................................ 6-59
6.12.2 Massachusetts Coastal Zone ............................................................................ 6-59
6.13
Historic / Archaeological ................................................................................................ 6-64
6.14
Construction Impacts and Traffic Management Plan ..................................................... 6-66
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.2-1:
Potential Frequency of Service ........................................................................................ 4-8
Table 4.2-2:
Summary Table for Total Fleet Requirements by Alternative .......................................... 4-8
Table 4.3-1:
Comparison of Travel Time ............................................................................................ 4-10
Table 4.3-2:
Performance Comparison with Seaport Access ............................................................ 4-10
Table 4.3-3:
Comparison of Ridership (2035) .................................................................................... 4-11
Table 4.3-4:
Magnitude Preliminary Cost Estimate for Silver Line Gateway ..................................... 4-11
Table 4.5-1:
Comparison Summary / Alternatives Analysis ............................................................... 4-16
Table 5.3-1:
Public Involvement ........................................................................................................... 5-2
Table 6.2-1:
Proposed Development Projects in the Study Area ......................................................... 6-7
Table 6.2-2:
Population Data.............................................................................................................. 6-10
Table 6.2-3:
Employment Data........................................................................................................... 6-10
Table 6.6-1:
Intersection Level of Service Summary – 2035 Build Weekday Peak Hour .................. 6-23
Table 6.6-2:
Existing Bike Paths in Vicinity of the Study Area ........................................................... 6-26
Table 6.6-3:
Proposed Bike Facilities in Study Area .......................................................................... 6-27
Table 6.6-4:
Estimated Journey Times .............................................................................................. 6-28
Table 6.7-1:
Parking Space Inventory – Chelsea – Existing 2013 Conditions ................................... 6-29
Table 6.7-2:
Parking Utilization Summary – 2013 Existing Conditions .............................................. 6-29
Table 6.7-3:
Parking Impact Summary – Busway to Bellingham Square Alternative ........................ 6-30
Table 6.7-4:
Parking Impact Summary – On-Street to Everett Avenue Alternative ........................... 6-31
Table 6.8-1:
Screening Results for Alternative 1 – Busway to Mystic Mall ........................................ 6-35
Table 6.8-2:
Screening Results for Alternative 2 –Busway to Bellingham Square ............................ 6-35
Table 6.8-3:
Screening Results for Alternative 3 – On-Street ............................................................ 6-36
Table 6.8-4:
Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria ............................. 6-38
Table 6.8-5:
Summary of Existing Noise Level Measurements ......................................................... 6-40
Table 6.8-6:
Summary of Noise Impacts for Residential Land Use – Alternatives 1 & 2 ................... 6-43
Table 6.8-7:
Summary of Noise Impacts for Institutional Land Use – Alternatives 1 & 2 .................. 6-43
Table 6.9-1:
Year 2035 Build Alternatives / Reductions in Daily VMT & Emissions Compared to Year
2035 No-Build Conditions .............................................................................................. 6-47
Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 6.9-2:
Year 2035 Build Alternatives / Percentage Reduction in VMT & Emissions When
Compared to Year 2035 No-Build Conditions ................................................................ 6-47
Table 6.9-3:
Highest Reductions in Daily VMT & Emissions by Alternative at the Project Site, Study
Area, and Regional Levels ............................................................................................. 6-48
Table 6.11-1:
Pre-Development Runoff Volume .................................................................................. 6-54
Table 6.11-3:
Increase in Runoff Volume ............................................................................................. 6-55
Table 6.12-1:
MCZM Policies and Likely Project Effects ..................................................................... 6-64
Table 6.14-1:
Construction Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 6-67
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1-1:
Silver Line Gateway Study Area ...................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 4.1-1:
Existing Silver Line Service (Route SL1) in South Station and Seaport District .............. 4-2
Figure 4.1-2:
Proposed Silver Line Service in East Boston .................................................................. 4-2
Figure 4.2-1:
Alternative 1 – Busway to Mystic Mall.............................................................................. 4-3
Figure 4.2-2:
Alternative 2 – Busway to Bellingham Square ................................................................. 4-4
Figure 4.2-3:
Alternative 3 – On-Street to Everett Avenue .................................................................... 4-5
Figure 4.2-4:
Silver Line Gateway BRT Platform at Airport Blue Line Station ...................................... 4-6
Figure 4.5-1:
Busway Section in Abandoned Rail Corridor ................................................................. 4-17
Figure 4.5-2:
Busway Section Adjacent to Active Railroad ................................................................. 4-17
Figure 4.5-3:
Cross-Section of New Concept of Washington Avenue Bridge ..................................... 4-18
Figure 4.5-4:
Station Example – Box District ....................................................................................... 4-19
Figure 4.5-5:
Station Example – View of Box District Station from MWRA ......................................... 4-19
Figure 4.5-6:
Station Example - View of Box District Station from Highland Street ............................ 4-20
Figure 4.5-7:
Station Example – View of Box District Station Platforms ............................................. 4-20
Figure 4.5-8:
Sample Cross-section with Shared-Use Path ................................................................ 4-21
Figure 4.5-9:
Conceptual Plan / Relocated Chelsea Commuter Rail Station ...................................... 4-22
Figure 6.1-1:
Environmental Justice Populations .................................................................................. 6-4
Figure 6.2-1:
Land Use in the Study Area ............................................................................................. 6-6
Figure 6.2-1:
Land Use in the Study Area ............................................................................................. 6-9
Figure 6.2-2:
Percent Population Change 2010-2035 ......................................................................... 6-11
Figure 6.2-3:
Population Growth 2010-2035 ....................................................................................... 6-11
Figure 6.2-4:
Percent Employment Change 2010-2035 ...................................................................... 6-12
Figure 6.2-5:
Employment Growth 2010-2035 .................................................................................... 6-12
Figure 6.3-1:
Historical Map of Chelsea Depicting Areas Burned in 1908 and 1973 Fire................... 6-15
Figure 6.4-1:
Utility Pole Relocation Plan ............................................................................................ 6-18
Figure 6.6-1:
Study Area Intersections ................................................................................................ 6-25
Figure 6.8-1:
Cumulative Noise Levels from Transit and Bus Sources............................................... 6-37
Figure 6.8-2:
FTA Noise Impact Criteria .............................................................................................. 6-39
Figure 6.8-3:
Noise Measurement Locations ...................................................................................... 6-42
Figure 6.10-1: Potential Wetland Areas ................................................................................................ 6-50
Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 6.11-1: Conceptual Cross-Section ............................................................................................. 6-56
Figure 6.12-1: Chapter 91 Tidelands ..................................................................................................... 6-61
Figure 6.13-1: Project Elements ............................................................................................................ 6-65
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum
Appendix B – Hazardous Waste ISA
Appendix C – Operations Analysis/Supplemental Analysis Technical Memorandum
Appendix D – Design Year Traffic Impacts Memorandum
Appendix E – Air Quality Technical Memorandum
Appendix F – Request for Determination of Applicability
Page v
PART A – ENF FORM
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office
Environmental Notification Form
For Office Use Only
EEA#:
MEPA Analyst:
The information requested on this form must be completed in order to submit a document
electronically for review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00.
Project Name: Silver Line Gateway
Street Address: South Station, Boston, to Mystic Mall, Chelsea
Municipality: Chelsea, Boston
Watershed: Boston Harbor
Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 42°23’48.24” N to 42°21’09.46” N
Zone 19N 332049 E, 4695844 N to
Longitude: 71°02’26.33” W to 71°03’18.12” W
Zone 19N 330746 E, 4690975 N
Estimated commencement date: Fall 2014
Estimated completion date: Fall 2016
Project Type:Transit/Public Transportation Status of project design: Preliminary Design
Proponent: Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Street Address:10 Park Plaza
Municipality: Boston
State: MA
Zip Code: 02116
Name of Contact Person: James Cerbone
Firm/Agency: MassDOT
Street Address: 10 Park Plaza
Municipality: Boston
State: MA
Zip Code: 02116
Phone: 857-368-8792 Fax: 857-368-0105 E-mail: [email protected]
Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
Yes
No
If this is an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) or a
Notice of Project Change (NPC), are you requesting:
a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8) )
Yes
No
Yes
No
a Special Review Procedure? (see 301CMR 11.09)
a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.11)
Yes
No
a Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11)
Yes
No
(Note: Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis must be included in the Expanded ENF.)
Which MEPA review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
301 CMR 11.03 (6)(a)(5) Construction of a New rail or rapid transit line along a New, unused or
abandoned right-of-way for transportation of passengers or freight (not including sidings,
spurs or other lines not leading to an ultimate destination).
301 CMR 11.03 (3)(b)(1)(d) Alteration of 5,000 or more sf of bordering or isolated vegetated
wetlands.
Effective January 2011
Which State Agency Permits will the project require? This project will require a MassDEP Water
Quality Certificate pursuant to Section 401 of Clean Water Act. Additionally, a Request for
Determination of Applicability (RDA) has been filed with the Chelsea Conservation
Commission, from which a Negative Determination is expected. Review under M.G.L. Chapter
9, Section 26-27C, as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988 by the Massachusetts
Historical Commission will also occur. In addition, a Federal Consistency Determination will be
required from the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management office.
Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an Agency of the Commonwealth, including the
Agency name and the amount of funding or land area in acres: The Massachusetts Department of
Transportation Highway Division will be funding the construction costs associated with the
Silver Line Gateway Bus Rapid Transit Service and Washington Avenue Bridge replacement
through The Way Forward Program. The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
will be funding the construction costs associated with the Chelsea Shared-Use Path through
the Gateway City Parks Program.
-2-
Summary of Project Size
& Environmental Impacts
LAND
Existing
Total site acreage
4.3 acres (busway)
Change
Total
19.3 acres (existing
on-street elements)
0.85 acres (shareduse path / off-street
elements)
0.4 acres (relocated
commuter rail station
/ off-street elements)
0.09 acres
(Washington Ave
Bridge)
24.94 acres total
New acres of land altered
Acres of impervious area
5.55 acres
0.7 acres (busway)
3.6 acres (busway)
0.09 acres
(Washington Ave
Bridge)
commuter rail station)
19.3 acres (existing
on-street elements)
0.85 acres (shared-use
path / off-street
elements)
20.09 acres total
4.85 acres total
4.3 acres (busway)
commuter rail station)
0.85 acres (shareduse path/ (off-street
elements)
0.09 acres
(Washington Ave
Bridge)
24.94 acres total
Square feet of new bordering
vegetated wetlands alteration
Square feet of new other wetland
alteration
Acres of new non-water dependent
use of tidelands or waterways
0 SF
13,798 SF
Isolated Vegetated
Wetland (IVW)
NA
STRUCTURES
Gross square footage
Number of housing units
Maximum height (feet)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TRANSPORTATION
Vehicle trips per day
Parking spaces
WASTEWATER
NA
Water Use (Gallons per day)
NA
Water withdrawal (GPD)
NA
Wastewater generation/treatment
(GPD)
NA
Length of water mains (miles)
NA
Length of sewer mains (miles)
Has this project been filed with MEPA before?
Yes (EEA #
)
No
-3-
Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before?
Yes (EEA # 12565 Circumferential Transportation Improvements in the Urban Ring
Corridor
)
No
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION – all proponents must fill out this section
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Describe the existing conditions and land uses on the project site:
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the City of Chelsea and
the City of Boston, proposes to extend Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service from
South Station and the Seaport District in Boston to East Boston and Chelsea, MA. The
purpose of the project, the Silver Line Gateway, is to enhance the livability and economic
development potential for these communities.
The Study Area is located in the City of Chelsea and City of Boston. The Study Area is five
miles long (see figure 2), and consists of diverse and dense residential and commercial uses.
It begins at the Seaport District of Boston north, travels through East Boston and the Airport
Blue line stop, and crosses Chelsea Creek into the City of Chelsea. The Study Area
boundaries were determined based upon input from stakeholders and aligned with MassDOT
goals for the subject area. Concerns regarding transportation issues throughout this corridor
resulted in state, regional and local support for development of alternative solutions that
address existing and expected future traffic congestion and improve regional mobility.
The proposed Silver Line Gateway route consists of the existing Silver Line route and
facilities in the Seaport area including the Williams Tunnel to the Airport Blue Line Station,
airport service roads, and the new Coughlin Bypass Road, then crosses into Chelsea via the
new Chelsea Street Bridge. The study area then extends along the MassDOT-owned former
CSX / Grand Junction rail right-of-way across the city, paralleling the south side of the
existing Newburyport/Rockport Commuter Rail right-of-way, and eventually to the Mystic Mall
on the west side of Everett Avenue.
The “Project Site” consists of proposed new construction components in Chelsea from the
Massport employee parking garage at the corner of Central Avenue and Eastern Avenue to
the Mystic Mall.
In accordance with MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.05(7) and 301 CMR 11.06(8), MassDOT
requests that the Secretary review this expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) and
allow a single Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The EENF provides more extensive and
detailed information concerning the proposed project, its alternatives, potential
environmental impacts and mitigation measures than is required in an ENF. Specifically, this
EENF describes and analyzes all aspects of the project and all feasible alternatives (see
Chapter 4). Chapter 6 provides a detailed baseline of natural and man-made communities in
relation to which potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures can be assessed,
and includes an assessment of those impacts including an evaluation of all feasible measures
to avoid potential environmental impacts.
A more detailed description is provided in the attached Expanded ENF document.
Describe the proposed project and its programmatic and physical elements: The proposed project
would create a new Silver Line route serving downtown Chelsea and better serving East
Boston residents. The new route would use the existing Silver Line route to the Blue Line
Airport Station, and then would be extended north and west on existing roads (Coughlin
-4-
Bypass and across the Chelsea Street Bridge). Three alternatives have been evaluated for the
Chelsea portion of the route: Alternative 1, a dedicated busway using an out-of-service rail
ROW and a portion of the active commuter rail ROW to a terminal station at the Mystic Mall;
Alternative 2, a dedicated busway using an out-of-service rail ROW and a portion of the active
commuter rail ROW, with an on-street loop to Bellingham Square and a terminal station on
Broadway; Alternative 3, an on-street alternative with a short segment of dedicated busway
along Hawthorn Street with a loop through downtown Chelsea. Each of these alternatives
has been designed to avoid impacts to sensitive resources, and will minimize noise impacts
to residents. Alternative 1 was selected as the preferred alternative because it would have
the fastest travel times, largest number of new transit riders, and overall highest ridership.
Alternative 1 would result in unavoidable impacts to isolated wetlands under federal
jurisdiction that have developed within the out-of-service ROW. These wetland impacts would
be mitigated as required by the Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 regulations.
As part of the proposed project the existing Chelsea commuter rail station, which currently
does not meet state and federal accessibility requirements, will be relocated to a location
adjacent to the Mystic Mall (Market Basket) area. The new station will meet all accessibility
requirements.
Additionally, replacement of the state-listed, functionally-obsolete Washington Avenue bridge
will occur as part of this project. This project, which is at the 25% design stage, is included in
the Boston MPO Transportation Improvement Program for year 2014, and will require design
and construction coordination with the proposed Silver Line Gateway busway component.
Both the bridge and the busway will be part of Phase 1 of a two-phase construction project.
It should be noted that the City of Chelsea and the Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs (through the Gateway Cities Program) have plans to incorporate a
shared-use path within portions of the former railroad right-of-way adjacent to the proposed
busway. This ENF includes the impacts of the shared-use path. MassDOT will coordinate with
the City to ensure that design of the proposed Silver Line Gateway project accommodates
implementation of the proposed shared-use path.
Describe the on-site project alternatives (and alternative off-site locations, if applicable), considered
by the proponent, including at least one feasible alternative that is allowed under current zoning,
and the reasons(s) that they were not selected as the preferred alternative:
Development of project alternatives has occurred over a year-long period with comprehensive
public outreach that is described further in the attached Expanded ENF document. A series
of four public meetings has been conducted to-date, with input that has been incorporated
into the alternatives presented below.
In addition to the No-Build alternative, three separate alternatives were analyzed. The three
alternatives share a common routing between South Station, Seaport District, and East
Boston. Each follows the existing SL1 Route from South Station to the Williams Tunnel
before serving the Airport Blue Line Station (bypassing Logan terminals) then following the
Coughlin Bypass Road to the Chelsea Street Bridge. The alternatives are described below:
Preferred Alternative 1 - Busway to Mystic Mall Alternative
In Alternative 1, the Silver Line Gateway route continues from East Boston in mixed traffic
until it reaches Eastern Avenue. To the west of Eastern Avenue, the route travels in a new
exclusive busway generally following the MassDOT-owned right-of-way of the former Grand
-5-
Junction Railroad all the way to Mystic Mall. New BRT stations would be provided at Eastern
Avenue, Box District, Downtown Chelsea, and Mystic Mall.
Two additional alternatives were considered during development of the project:
Alternative 2 - Busway to Bellingham Square Alternative In Alternative 2, the Silver Line
Gateway route is the same as Alternative 1 between Eastern Avenue and Broadway. West of
Broadway the Alternative 2 busway ascends a slope to connect with Chestnut Street. It then
travels in mixed traffic along Chestnut Street and Washington Avenue and utilizes a bus lane
on Broadway to serve a new Chelsea City Hall terminal, located on Broadway. It then returns
in mixed traffic along City Hall Avenue before using Chestnut Street inbound to return to the
busway. New BRT stations are provided at Eastern Avenue, Box District, and Bellingham
Square.
Alternative 3 - On-Street to Everett Avenue Alternative
In Alternative 3, the Silver Line Gateway route continues from East Boston and travels
westbound along Central Avenue in mixed traffic. The route would be able to utilize a bypass
lane just before making right turn onto Hawthorn Street and traveling along a bus lane on
Hawthorn Street and continues in mixed traffic on Broadway and City Hall Avenue. The Silver
Line Gateway route then utilizes a contra-flow bus lane on Sixth Street and a short section of
exclusive busway along the MassDOT-owned former Grand Junction rail right-of-way. The
route then continues to its Spruce Street terminal station in mixed traffic. For the return trip,
as the Silver Line Gateway enters Everett Avenue it travels in mixed traffic for a short section,
then on a bus lane and then again in mixed traffic as it continues onto Park Street and east
along Central Avenue in mixed traffic. The Silver Line Gateway service is able to utilize a
bypass lane for a short section on Central Avenue eastbound just before reaching Eastern
Avenue. New sidewalk scaled BRT stations are provided at Central Avenue near the Massport
Garage, on Central Avenue at Highland Street, at Hawthorn Street, and at Spruce Street/MGH.
The BRT vehicles and service frequency is the same for each of the three route alternatives
described above. The Alternatives Analysis concluded with a recommendation to implement
Alternative 1. A more detailed description of the recommended alternative is provided in the
attached Expanded ENF document.
NOTE: The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to consider what effect changing the parameters
and/or siting of a project, or components thereof, will have on the environment, keeping in mind that
the objective of the MEPA review process is to avoid or minimize damage to the environment to the
greatest extent feasible. Examples of alternative projects include alternative site locations,
alternative site uses, and alternative site configurations.
Summarize the mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts of the preferred alternative:
Impacts and mitigation measures summarized below will be required for the preferred
alternative described above. Refer to Expanded ENF document for additional information.
Impacts
Impacts associated with the proposed project include land disturbance (in areas disturbed for
previous uses), creation of less than five acres of impervious surface (for the busway
element, in the former railroad ROW, and the relocated commuter rail station, in existing
commuter rail ROW and graded areas at the Mystic Mall), and alteration of 13,798 square feet
of isolated vegetated wetlands (within the former railroad ROW). There are no reported Rare
and Endangered Species within the Project Site, and no other impacts to natural resources or
systems as shown in Figure 5. The project will be required to meet all MassDEP Stormwater
Management Standards. Neighborhood impacts due to construction are expected to be
-6-
temporary, and will include utility relocation, traffic detours and presence of construction
equipment and construction traffic. Minor ROW takings will occur, and will be finalized as the
design progresses. Secondary and cumulative impacts associated with these actions, as
relevant, will be discussed in the Single EIR, as project design advances and additional
information becomes available.
Mitigation
Mitigation measures may include but are not limited to wetland restoration, stormwater
management measures, reclamation of railbed soils, alignment adjustments to minimize
potential neighborhood impacts, careful consideration of utility pole relocation, and other
measures. The details of these mitigation measures will be finalized as the design
progresses, and will be identified in the Single EIR.
Drainage
Stormwater management systems will be designed to meet all applicable MassDEP
stormwater management standards.
Wetlands
This project will directly impact 13,798 sf of Isolated Vegetated Wetlands (IVW). MassDOT
intends to file a Massachusetts General Permit (MGP) with the Army Corps of Engineers
pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and a Water Quality Certificate (WQC)
with MassDEP pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Additionally, a
Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) has been filed with the Chelsea Conservation
Commission, with a Negative Determination expected. Mitigation measures will include
wetland replication or restoration to be determined in discussions with the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Hazardous Materials
There are numerous adjacent properties listed on contamination-related databases (a majority
have been closed). No direct evidence of impacts from these sites was identified during the
review of state files; however, based on proximity (adjacent) and status (AULs implemented),
the Samuel Gordon and Sons property at 333 Third Street and the property at 300 Third Street
have the potential to have impacted the Project Site. It should be noted that based on the
state files reviewed, no disposal site boundaries or AULs were identified which extend onto
the Project Site. For the nearby sites which do have AULs, the AUL boundaries are limited to
the neighboring site. Other nearby AUL sites include: 1) the 63 Washington Avenue property;
2) the 151 Everett Avenue property; 3) the 2 Griffin Way property; and 4) the Gerrish
Property/Gerrish Avenue.
It should be noted that due to the location of the Project Site within: 1) an area which has been
urbanized for a long period of time, 2) within a railroad right-of-way, and 3) in the general
vicinity of the boundaries of The Great Chelsea fires (resulting in contaminated fill containing
coal and coal ash at adjacent properties), it is considered possible that petroleum
hydrocarbons, PAHs, metals (arsenic, lead, etc.) and/or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are
present in soil and groundwater within the Project Site. Groundwater within the Project Site
was generally present within 10 feet below grade. Any existing railroad ties along the corridor
were likely treated with creosote and therefore need to be removed and transported in
accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. In addition, treated timber and lead
paint are expected to be encountered during demolition of the Washington Avenue Bridge and
therefore need to be removed and transported in accordance with local, state, and federal
requirements.
-7-
Construction Impacts
The project construction will have little or no impact on most of the concurrent transportation
projects in the Study Area. Project construction will need to be coordinated with the
Washington Avenue Bridge placement project over the operating MBTA Commuter Rail tracks
in Chelsea. Pedestrian access will be maintained throughout construction during the
Washington Avenue Bridge Replacement.
There will be little, if any, new project construction in South Boston and East Boston because
in those areas of the Study Area the new Silver Line Gateway service will operate within
existing roadways and transit infrastructure.
Roadway and traffic impacts and traffic management plans will be limited to the existing atgrade railroad crossings in Chelsea at Arlington Street/6th Street, Spruce Street, and Everett
Avenue. At these locations project construction is expected to include busway signal/gate
installation and traffic signal coordination with existing railroad at-grade crossing protection
systems. Minor construction impacts will also occur at the Cottage Street grade crossing.
Additional analyses of construction-period noise, air quality and water resource impacts will
be provided in the Single EIR. These analyses may include, but will not be limited to,
additional standards for construction equipment, night-time construction, and construction
impacts associated with the relocation of the commuter rail station.
If the project is proposed to be constructed in phases, please describe each phase:
The project will be constructed in two phases. Phase I will include the construction of the
busway, three of the four proposed BRT stations, and the replacement of the functionally
obsolete Washington Avenue Bridge. Phase II will include the construction of the downtown
Chelsea BRT station, new commuter rail station west of Everett Avenue, the demolition of the
existing Chelsea commuter rail station, and the construction of the Shared-Use Path.
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN:
Is the project within or adjacent to an Area of Critical Environmental Concern?
Yes (Specify__________________________________)
No
if yes, does the ACEC have an approved Resource Management Plan? ___ Yes ___ No;
If yes, describe how the project complies with this plan.
_______________________________________________________
Will there be stormwater runoff or discharge to the designated ACEC? ___ Yes ___ No;
If yes, describe and assess the potential impacts of such stormwater runoff/discharge to the designated
ACEC.
_________________________________________________
RARE SPECIES:
Does the project site include Estimated and/or Priority Habitat of State-Listed Rare Species? (see
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/regulatory_review/priority_habitat/priority_habitat_home.htm)
Yes (Specify__________________________________ )
No
HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Does the project site include any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place
or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth?
Yes (Specify:) Washington Avenue Bridge (CLS 920)
No
If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic
or archaeological resources?
Yes (Specify Washington Avenue Bridge (CLS 920)_)
No
WATER RESOURCES:
Is there an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) on or within a half-mile radius of the project site? ___Yes
-8-
No; if yes, identify the ORW and its location. ______________________________________________
(NOTE: Outstanding Resource Waters include Class A public water supplies, their tributaries, and bordering
wetlands; active and inactive reservoirs approved by MassDEP; certain waters within Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern, and certified vernal pools. Outstanding resource waters are listed in the
Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00.)
Are there any impaired water bodies on or within a half-mile radius of the project site?
Yes ___No; if yes,
identify the water body and pollutant(s) causing the impairment:____________________________________.
Water Body
Chelsea River
Pollutants
Debris/Floatables/Trash, Ammonia (Un-ionized), Fecal
Coliform, Other, Oxygen, Dissolved, PCB in Fish Tissue,
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Sediment Screening Value
(Exceedence), Taste and Odor, Turbidity
Watershed
Boston Harbor
Is the project within a medium or high stress basin, as established by the Massachusetts
Water Resources Commission? ___Yes
_No
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:
Generally describe the project's stormwater impacts and measures that the project will take to comply
with the standards found in MassDEP's Stormwater Management Regulations:
Standard 1 – No New Untreated Discharges – The proposed project will not include any new untreated
stormwater conveyance systems. The stormwater runoff will be treated prior to discharge.
Standard 2 – Peak Rate Attenuation – The proposed project will be designed such that the postdevelopment peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development discharge rates. The additional
runoff being generated by the additional impervious area will need to be retained within the project
limits.
Standard 3 – Recharge – The project will be designed such that the post-development annual recharge
approximates the pre-development recharge rate. The use of porous pavement will be evaluated for the
shared-use path. For the busway, the use of an open graded friction course will be evaluated. Soil
testing will be performed throughout the Project Site to determine suitable locations to infiltrate runoff.
Standard 4 – Water Quality – The proposed project will include the installation of treatment chains in
order to meet the 80% TSS removal standard.
Standard 5 – Land Uses With Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs) – This standard is not
applicable. The proposed project is not considered a land use with higher pollutant loads.
Standard 6 – Critical Areas – This standard is not applicable. The proposed project is not expected to
discharge runoff to a critical area.
Standard 7 – Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the maximum extent
practicable – For the majority of the project, this standard is not applicable. The portion of the planned
busway between Cottage Street and Central Avenue is already largely paved and is considered a
redevelopment. The remainder of the planned busway is not considered a redevelopment project and
will be required to meet all applicable standards. The proposed shared-use path is considered a
redevelopment and will be required to meet the standards 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the maximum extent
practicable.
Standard 8 – Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control – A
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for construction will be prepared prior to the start of construction
activities. During construction erosion control devices will include hay bales and silt fences. Land
-9-
disturbance will be minimized to address erosion and sedimentation.
Standard 9 – Operations and Maintenance Plan – A long-term operation and maintenance plan will be
developed for the maintenance of the stormwater management system.
Standard 10 – Prohibition of Illicit Discharges – Based on available information, there are no known or
suspected illicit discharges within the project limits.
MASSACHUSETTS CONTINGENCY PLAN:
Has the project site been, or is it currently being, regulated under M.G.L.c.21E or the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan? Yes ___ No
_ ; if yes, please describe the current status of the site
(including Release Tracking Number (RTN), cleanup phase, and Response
Action Outcome classification):__________________
No MCP sites with RTNs were identified directly related to the portion of the project within the right of
way associated with the proposed busway (Project Site). There are numerous adjacent properties with
MCP sites (a majority have been RAO’d [closed]).
Is there an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on any portion of the project site? Yes ___ No
_;
if yes, describe which portion of the site and how the project will be consistent with the
AUL: _____________________.
Based on the MCP files reviewed to this point, no AULs were identified which extend onto the Project
Site. Nearby sites do have AULs but those are limited to their respective property boundaries.
Are you aware of any Reportable Conditions at the property that have not yet been assigned an RTN?
Yes _ No
; if yes, please describe:____________________________________
It should be noted that due to the location of the Project Site within: 1) an area which has been
urbanized for a long period of time, 2) within a railroad right-of-way, and 3) in the general vicinity of the
boundaries of The Great Chelsea fires (resulting in contaminated fill containing coal and coal ash at
adjacent properties), it is considered possible that levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals (arsenic, lead, etc.) and/or Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
are present in soil and groundwater within the Study Area. Soil testing will be conducted to determine
the presence or absence of these contaminants and appropriate actions as necessary.
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE:
If the project will generate solid waste during demolition or construction, describe alternatives considered
f or re-use, recycling, and disposal of, e.g., asphalt, brick, concrete, gypsum, metal, wood:_NA___
(NOTE: Asphalt pavement, brick, concrete and metal are banned from disposal at Massachusetts
landfills and waste combustion facilities and wood is banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills.
See 310 CMR 19.017 for the complete list of banned materials.)
Will your project disturb asbestos containing materials? Yes ___ No
;
if yes, please consult state asbestos requirements at http://mass.gov/MassDEP/air/asbhom01.htm
Describe anti-idling and other measures to limit emissions from construction equipment:
MassDOT requires that contractors install emission control devices in all off-road vehicles.
MassDOT’s Revised Diesel Retrofit Specification states that emissions control standards must be met
or technology must be used for non-road, diesel powered construction equipment in excess of 50
horsepower on MassDOT job sites.
DESIGNATED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER:
Is this project site located wholly or partially within a defined river corridor of a federally
designated Wild and Scenic River or a state designated Scenic River? Yes ___ No
;
- 10 -
if yes, specify name of river and designation:
If yes, does the project have the potential to impact any of the “outstandingly remarkable”
resources of a federally Wild and Scenic River or the stated purpose of a state designated Scenic River?
Yes ___ No ___ ; if yes, specify name of river and designation: _____________;
if yes, will the project will result in any impacts to any of the designated “outstandingly remarkable”
resources of the Wild and Scenic River or the stated purposes of a Scenic River.
Yes ___ No ___ ;
if yes,describe the potential impacts to one or more of the “outstandingly remarkable” resources or
stated purposes and mitigation measures proposed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3..
4
5.
6.
7.
List of all attachments to this document.
U.S.G.S. map (good quality color copy, 8-½ x 11 inches or larger, at a scale of 1:24,000)
indicating the project location and boundaries.
Plan, at an appropriate scale, of existing conditions on the project site and its immediate
environs, showing all known structures, roadways and parking lots, railroad rights-of-way,
wetlands and water bodies, wooded areas, farmland, steep slopes, public open spaces,
and major utilities.
Plan, at an appropriate scale, depicting environmental constraints on or adjacent to the
project site such as Priority and/or Estimated Habitat of state-listed rare species, Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern, Chapter 91 jurisdictional areas, Article 97 lands,
wetland resource area delineations, water supply protection areas, and historic resources
and/or districts.
Plan, at an appropriate scale, of proposed conditions upon completion of project (if
construction of the project is proposed to be phased, there should be a site plan showing
conditions upon the completion of each phase).
List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance
with 301 CMR 11.16(2).
List of municipal and federal permits and reviews required by the project, as applicable.
• City of Chelsea Conservation Commission Request for Determination of
Applicability / Negative Determination of Applicability
• Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Section 401 Water
Quality Certification
• Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Federal Consistency Review
Determination
• US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 General Permit (Category II)
• Review under M.G.L. Chapter 9, Section 26-27C, as amended by Chapter
254 of the Acts of 1988 by the Massachusetts Historical Commission
•
- 11 -
LAND SECTION – all proponents must fill out this section
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Does the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to land (see 301 CMR 11.03(1)
___ Yes
No; if yes, specify each threshold:
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site*, as follows:
Existing
Change
Total
Footprint of buildings
__0____
__0____
__0____
Internal roadways
__0_____
__0_____
__0_____
Parking and other paved areas
__0.79___
__4.85___
__5.64___
Other altered areas
__3.6_____
__-3.6___
__0___
Undeveloped areas
__1.25____
__-1.25____
__0____
Total: Project Site Acreage
__5.64____
__
___
__5.64___
* - calculations are for area of new construction only, and do not include existing Silver Line
components (19.3 acres parking and other paved areas) that will remain unchanged.
B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last five years?
___ Yes
No; if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use (with prime state or
locally important agricultural soils) will be converted to nonagricultural use?
C. Is any part of the project site currently or proposed to be in active forestry use?
___ Yes
No; if yes, please describe current and proposed forestry activities and
indicate whether any part of the site is the subject of a forest management plan approved by
the Department of Conservation and Recreation:
D. Does any part of the project involve conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in
accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to
any purpose not in accordance with Article 97? ___ Yes _
No; if yes, describe:
E. Is any part of the project site currently subject to a conservation restriction, preservation
restriction, agricultural preservation restriction or watershed preservation restriction? ___
Yes_
No; if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction?
___ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe:
F. Does the project require approval of a new urban redevelopment project or a fundamental change
in an existing urban redevelopment project under M.G.L.c.121A? ___ Yes _
No; if yes,
describe:
G. Does the project require approval of a new urban renewal plan or a major modification of an
existing urban renewal plan under M.G.L.c.121B? Yes ___ No _ ; if yes, describe:
B.
III. Consistency
A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan
Title: City of Chelsea Community Development Plan Date: June 2004
Title: Addison-Orange Neighborhood Revitalization Plan Date: August 2009
Title: Gerrish Avenue/Bellingham Street Neighborhood Action Plan Date: October
2007
Title: North Bellingham Hill Revitalization Plan Date: October 2009
B. Describe the project’s consistency with that plan with regard to:
- 12 -
1)
economic development _______________________
2)
adequacy of infrastructure _____________________
3)
open space impacts ___________________________
4)
compatibility with adjacent land uses_______________
The various components of the project are consistent with the various City of Chelsea
Plans as follows:
Economic development – the project provides new transit service and improves existing
transit service that allows residents to more easily access jobs and services;
Adequacy of infrastructure – the project includes replacement of a functionally obsolete
bridge (the Washington Avenue Bridge), utilizes the abandoned railroad ROW (preserving
capacity on local roadways, and will accommodate a shared use path;
Open space impacts – the project is not expected to have any open space impacts;
Compatibility with adjacent land uses – the project will provide improved multi-modal
linkages among land uses.
C. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency (RPA)
RPA: Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)
Title: MetroFuture Regional Plan Date_May 2008
D. Describe the project’s consistency with that plan with regard to:
1) economic development ________________________
2) adequacy of infrastructure _______________________
3) open space impacts ____________________________
The various components of the project are consistent with the MetroFuture Regional
Plan as follows:
Economic development – the project provides new transit service and improves existing
transit service that allows residents to more easily access jobs and services;
Adequacy of infrastructure – the project includes replacement of a functionally obsolete
bridge (the Washington Avenue Bridge), utilizes the abandoned railroad ROW (preserving
capacity on local roadways, and will accommodate a shared use path;
Open space impacts – the project is not expected to have any open space impacts.
- 13 -
RARE SPECIES SECTION
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to rare species or habitat (see
301 CMR 11.03(2))? ___ Yes
No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
(NOTE: If you are uncertain, it is recommended that you consult with the Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP) prior to submitting the ENF.)
B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? ___ Yes
No
C. Does the project site fall within mapped rare species habitat (Priority or Estimated Habitat?) in the
current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? ___ Yes
No.
D. If you answered "No" to all questions A, B and C, proceed to the Wetlands, Waterways, and
Tidelands Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the
remainder of the Rare Species section below.
- 14 -
WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, AND TIDELANDS SECTION
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands, waterways, and
tidelands (see 301 CMR 11.03(3))? _
Yes ___ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
301 CMR 11.03 (3)(b)(1)(d) Alteration of 5,000 or more sf of bordering or isolated vegetated
wetlands – the project will alter 13,798 sf of isolated wetlands
B. Does the project require any state permits (or a local Order of Conditions) related to wetlands,
waterways, or tidelands?
Yes ___ No; if yes, specify which permit:
MassDEP 401 Water Quality Certification
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Water Supply Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wetlands,
Waterways, and Tidelands Section below.
II. Wetlands Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project require a new or amended Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection
Act (M.G.L. c.131A)? ___ Yes _
No; if yes, has a Notice of Intent been filed? ___ Yes ___
No; if yes, list the date and MassDEP file number: ______; if yes, has a local Order of Conditions
been issued? ___ Yes ___ No; Was the Order of Conditions appealed? ___ Yes ___ No. Will
the project require a Variance from the Wetlands regulations? ___ Yes ___ No.
B. Describe any proposed permanent or temporary impacts to wetland resource areas located on
the project site:
This project will directly impact 13,798 sf of Isolated Vegetated Wetlands (IVW). MassDOT
intends to file a Massachusetts General Permit (MGP) with the Army Corps of Engineers
pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and a Water Quality Certificate
(WQC) with MassDEP pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act.
Additionally, a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) has been filed with the
Chelsea Conservation Commission, with a Negative Determination expected.
C. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and
indicate whether the impacts are temporary or permanent:
Coastal Wetlands
Area (square feet) or
Length (linear feet)
Temporary or
Permanent Impact?
Land Under the Ocean
Designated Port Areas
Coastal Beaches
Coastal Dunes
Barrier Beaches
Coastal Banks
Rocky Intertidal Shores
Salt Marshes
Land Under Salt Ponds
Land Containing Shellfish
Fish Runs
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
___________________
___________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
___________________
____________________
- 15 -
Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage _________________
____________________
Inland Wetlands
Bank (lf)
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands
Isolated Vegetated Wetlands
Land under Water
Isolated Land Subject to Flooding
Borderi ng Land Subject to Flooding
Riverfront Area
____________________
____________________
permanent
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
_________________
_________________
13,798 sf
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
D. Is any part of the project:
1. proposed as a limited project? ___ Yes
No; if yes, what is the area (in sf)?____
2. the construction or alteration of a dam? ___ Yes
No; if yes, describe:
3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? ___ Yes
No
4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? ___ Yes _
No; if yes, describe the volume
of dredged material and the proposed disposal site:
5. a discharge to an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) or an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC)? ___ Yes
No
6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? ___ Yes
No; if yes, identify the area (in sf):
7. located in buffer zones? ___Yes
_No; if yes, how much (in sf) ______
E. Will the project:
1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw? ___ Yes
No
2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state law?
Yes ___ No; if
yes, what is the area (sf)? 13,798 sf
III. Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project site contain waterways or tidelands (including filled former tidelands) that are
subject to the Waterways Act, M.G.L.c.91? ___ Yes_
No; if yes, is there a current Chapter 91
License or Permit affecting the project site? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, list date and license or
permit number and provide copy of the historic map used to determine extent of filled
tidelands:
B Does the project require a new or modified license or permit under M.G.L.c.91? ___ Yes
No; if yes, how many acres of the project site subject to M.G.L.c.91 will be for non-waterdependent use?
Current ___ Change ___ Total ___
If yes, how many square feet of solid fill or pile-supported structures (in sf)?
C. For non-water-dependent use projects, indicate the following:
Area of filled tidelands on the site:_____________________
Area of filled tidelands covered by buildings:____________
For portions of site on filled tidelands, list ground floor uses and area of each use:
______________
Does the project include new non-water-dependent uses located over flowed tidelands?
Yes ___ No
Height of building on filled tidelands________________
Also show the following on a site plan: Mean High Water, Mean Low Water, Waterdependent Use Zone, location of uses within buildings on tidelands, and interior and
exterior areas and facilities dedicated for public use, and historic high and historic low
water marks.
D. Is the project located on landlocked tidelands? ___ Yes
No; if yes, describe the project’s
impact on the public’s right to access, use and enjoy jurisdictional tidelands and describe
measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact:
- 16 -
E. Is the project located in an area where low groundwater levels have been identified by a
municipality or by a state or federal agency as a threat to building foundations? ___Yes
No; if yes, describe the project’s impact on groundwater levels and describe
measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact:
F. Is the project non-water-dependent and located on landlocked tidelands or waterways or
tidelands subject to the Waterways Act and subject to a mandatory EIR?__ Yes
No;
(NOTE: If yes, then the project will be subject to Public Benefit Review and
Determination.)
G. Does the project include dredging? ___ Yes
No; if yes, answer the following questions:
What type of dredging? Improvement ___ Maintenance ___ Both ____
What is the proposed dredge volume, in cubic yards (cys) _________
What is the proposed dredge footprint ____length (ft) ___width (ft)____depth (ft);
Will dredging impact the following resource areas?
Intertidal Yes__
No__; if yes, ___ sq ft
Outstanding Resource Waters Yes__
No__; if yes, ___ sq ft
Other resource area (i.e. shellfish beds, eel grass beds) Yes__ No__; if yes __
sq ft
If yes to any of the above, have you evaluated appropriate and practicable steps
to: 1) avoidance; 2) if avoidance is not possible, minimization; 3) if either
avoidance or minimize is not possible, mitigation?
If no to any of the above, what information or documentation was used to support
this determination?
Provide a comprehensive analysis of practicable alternatives for improvement dredging in
accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(1)(b). Physical and chemical data of the
sediment shall be included in the comprehensive analysis.
Sediment Characterization
Existing gradation analysis results? __Yes ___No: if yes, provide results.
Existing chemical results for parameters listed in 314 CMR 9.07(2)(b)6? ___Yes
____No; if yes, provide results.
Do you have sufficient information to evaluate feasibility of the following management
options for dredged sediment? If yes, check the appropriate option.
Beach Nourishment ___
Unconfined Ocean Disposal ___
Confined Disposal:
Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) ___
Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) ___
Landfill Reuse in accordance with COMM-97-001 ___
Shoreline Placement ___
Upland Material Reuse____
In-State landfill disposal____
Out-of-state landfill disposal ____
(NOTE: This information is required for a 401 Water Quality Certification.)
IV. Consistency:
A. Does the project have effects on the coastal resources or uses, and/or is the project located
within the Coastal Zone?
Yes No; if yes, describe these effects and the projects consistency
with the policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management:
The project does not have effects on coastal resources or uses. The proposed busway
component in the former CSX/Grand Junction railway right-of-way now owned by
MassDOT is located within the coastal zone in Chelsea (see Figure 7). It is not within the
Chelsea Creek Designated Port Area, nor is it within areas subject to Chapter 91
jurisdiction.
- 17 -
A more detailed description of the project’s consistency with the policies of the Office of
Coastal Zone Management is provided in the attached Expanded ENF document.
It should be noted MassDOT intends to file a Section 404 Category II general permit
application with the Army Corps of Engineers. As part of that permit process, a federal
consistency review with MCZM for Category II projects (such as the Silver Line Gateway
project) that involve work in or affecting the coastal zone will occur.
B. Is the project located within an area subject to a Municipal Harbor Plan? ___ Yes
No; if
yes, identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency with that plan:
WATER SUPPLY SECTION
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to water supply (see 301 CMR
11.03(4))? ___ Yes
B. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply? ___ Yes
specify which permit:
No; if yes,
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A & B, proceed to Wastewater Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out remainder of Water Supply Section
below.
WASTEWATER SECTION
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wastewater (see 301 CMR
11.03(5))? ___ Yes
B. Does the project require any state permits related to wastewater? ___ Yes
specify which permit:
No; if yes,
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Transportation -- Traffic
Generation Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder
of the Wastewater Section below.
TRANSPORTATION SECTION (TRAFFIC GENERATION)
I. Thresholds / Permit
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to traffic generation (see 301 CMR
11.03(6))? ___ Yes _
B. Does the project require any state permits related to state-controlled roadways? ___ Yes
No; if yes, specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Roadways and Other
Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out
the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below.
- 18 -
TRANSPORTATION SECTION (ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES)
I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to roadways or other
transportation facilities (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))?
Yes ___ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative
terms:
301 CMR 11.03 (6)(a)(5) Construction of a New rail or rapid transit line along a New, unused
or abandoned right-of-way for transportation of passengers or freight (not including
sidings, spurs or other lines not leading to an ultimate destination). The proposed project
adds approximately 6,050 feet of new busway.
B. Does the project require any state permits related to roadways or other transportation
facilities? ___ Yes
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Energy Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out remainder of the Roadways Section below.
II. Transportation Facility Impacts
A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities in immediate vicinity of project site:
The busway component of the project will occur in the existing MassDOT-owned former
CSX/Grand Junction rail right-of-way between Eastern Avenue and the west side of Everett
Avenue. The busway will travel in a barrier-separated corridor adjacent to the south side of
the commuter rail line between the Broadway overpass and the turnaround station at the
Mystic Mall. Within this portion of the MBTA Commuter Rail right-of-way, the existing
Chelsea Commuter Rail Station will be relocated to the west side of the proposed Mystic
Mall BRT station. To the south of Chelsea the Silver Line Gateway service will operate
across existing infrastructure, including Chelsea Street, the Coughlin Bypass Road,
airport services roads, and the Williams Tunnel before connecting with the existing Silver
Line facilities service in South Boston and at South Station.
The proposed shared-use path will travel from Broadway to Cottage Street in Chelsea
either within or adjacent to the busway component, depending on right-of-way
restrictions.
B. Will the project involve any
1. Alteration of bank or terrain (in linear feet)?
2. Cutting of living public shade trees (number)?
3. Elimination of stone wall (in linear feet)?
NA
NA
NA
III. Consistency -- Describe the project's consistency with other federal, state, regional, and local plans
and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services,
including consistency with the applicable regional transportation plan and the Transportation
Improvements Plan (TIP), the State Bicycle Plan, and the State Pedestrian Plan:
The project is consistent with state, regional and local plans and policies related to
extending transit service to underserved areas in Environmental Justice communities and
improving frequency and travel times from these areas to the urban core. Paths to a
Sustainable Region envisions a transportation system that provides affordable
transportation options and accessibility to people of all incomes, ages, races, and
language backgrounds and does not inequitably burden or benefit any particular group.
The Washington Avenue Bridge replacement component of the project is in the current
Boston Region MPO TIP as part of the year 2014 component. The Chelsea Shared-use Path
- 19 -
component provides improved non-motorized access consistent with the State Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plans.
ENERGY SECTION
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to energy (see 301 CMR 11.03(7))?
___ Yes
B. Does the project require any state permits related to energy? ___ Yes
which permit:
No; if yes, specify
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Air Quality Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Energy Section
below.
AIR QUALITY SECTION
I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality (see 301 CMR
11.03(8))? ___ Yes
B. Does the project require any state permits related to air quality? ___ Yes
which permit:
No; if yes, specify
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Air
Quality Section below.
- 20 -
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste (see
301 CMR 11.03(9))? ___ Yes
B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste? _ Yes
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological
Resources Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the
remainder of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing,
combustion or disposal of solid waste? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons per day)
of the capacity:
Existing
Change
Total
Storage
________
________
________
Treatment, processing ________
________
________
Combustion
________
________
________
Disposal
________
________
________
B. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, recycling, treatment or
disposal of hazardous waste? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons or gallons per day)
of the capacity:
Storage
Recycling
Treatment
Disposal
Existing
Change
Total
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
C. If the project will generate solid waste (for example, during demolition or construction), describe
alternatives considered for re-use, recycling, and disposal:
D. If the project involves demolition, do any buildings to be demolished contain asbestos?
___ Yes ___ No
E. Describe the project's other solid and hazardous waste impacts (including indirect impacts):
III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with the State Solid Waste Master Plan:
- 21 -
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION
I. Thresholds / Impacts
A. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission?
Yes
No; if yes,
attach correspondence. For project sites involving lands under water, have you consulted with the
Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources? ____Yes _ _ No; if yes, attach
correspondence
B. Is any part of the project site a historic structure, or a structure within a historic district, in either
case listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological
Assets of the Commonwealth? _ __ Yes _
No; if yes, does the project involve the demolition
of all or any exterior part of such historic structure? _ __ Yes ___ No; if yes, please describe:
The Washington Avenue Bridge (C-09-001) is included in the Inventory of Historic and
Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth (CLS.920). Bridge C-09-001 is functionally
obsolete and will be removed and replaced with a new bridge on the same alignment. The
south abutment of the new bridge will be reconstructed farther south of the existing
abutment’s location but still within the MBTA right-of-way to accommodate the new
busway. MHC has determined that the Washington Avenue Bridge is not eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places in a letter dated April 16, 1992.
C. Is any part of the project site an archaeological site listed in the State Register of Historic Places
or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? ___ Yes _
No; if
yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site? ___ Yes
___ No; if yes, please describe:
D. If you answered "No" to all parts of both questions A, B and C, proceed to the Attachments and
Certifications Sections. If you answered "Yes" to any part of either question A or question B, fill out
the remainder of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section below.
II. Impacts
Describe and assess the project's impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried historical and
archaeological resources:
In Boston, the Silver Line Gateway bus route will be located entirely on existing city streets. No
new construction is required. The route begins at the National Register-listed South Station and
proceeds southeast across the Evelyn Moakley Bridge into South Boston, passing adjacent to the
National Register-listed Fort Point Channel Historic District. The route continues into the Seaport
District in South Boston, north through the Williams Tunnel to Logan Airport, and then north on
Chelsea Street in East Boston to the Chelsea Street Bridge into Chelsea. The project will not
affect the NR-listed South Station or the NR-listed Fort Point Channel Historic District.
In Chelsea, the bus route will proceed in a northwesterly direction on a proposed two-lane
roadway to be constructed on the abandoned and overgrown railroad bed along the Grand
Junction railroad right-of-way, which is now owned by MassDOT. The new roadway will continue
onto the MBTA railroad right-of-way, where it will run in a westerly direction on heavily disturbed
ground parallel to the active Newburyport-Rockport line of the MBTA. The new roadway will end
at the Mystic Mall, where the new Chelsea Commuter Rail Station platform will be constructed. A
new shared use path will be constructed parallel to the new roadway on existing right-of-way
between Cottage Street and Chestnut Street. The Washington Avenue Bridge (C-09-001) over the
MBTA will be replaced on the same alignment as part of this project.
- 22 -
A review of the National Register of Historic Places revealed that the project area in Chelsea is
adjacent to the NR-listed Bellingham Square Historic District, the northerly boundary of which is
defined by the MBTA railroad right-of-way between Washington Avenue and Broadway. The new
Silver Line Gateway roadway and the new shared use path will be constructed entirely within the
MBTA right-of-way and outside the boundaries of the NR-listed Bellingham Square Historic
District.
A review of the Inventory of the Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth at the
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) revealed two inventoried properties located adjacent
to the abandoned Grand Junction railroad right-of-way in Chelsea: the Russell Box CompanyChelsea Carton Company Building (CLS.608), constructed in 1911, and the Russell Box Company
Storehouse (CLS.610), constructed in 1914. The address for both buildings is 88 Gerrish Avenue.
A third inventoried building, the Russell Box Company Engine House (CLS.609), has been
demolished. The two existing Russell Box Company buildings have been rehabilitated into multifamily housing. Extensive new multi-family residential development also has been constructed on
the 88 Gerrish Avenue property. The two inventoried properties do not appear to exhibit the
distinguishing characteristics necessary for individual listing in the National Register of Historic
Places, nor do they appear to be part of any NR-eligible historic district. MassDOT’s Cultural
Resources Unit (CRU) staff visited the project area on September 24, 2013, and determined that no
other properties adjacent to the project area appear to be eligible for listing in the National
Register.
The Washington Avenue Bridge (C-09-001) is located ½ block north of the NR-listed Bellingham
Square Historic District but is clearly outside of the district boundaries. The bridge is included in
the MHC Inventory as CLS.920. The Washington Avenue Bridge is a mongrel two-span structure
over the railroad consisting of a 1913 concrete slab superstructure at the south span and a 1960
steel stringer superstructure at the north span carried on a reinforced concrete south abutment, a
reinforced concrete pier, and a late-19th century cut granite north abutment from an earlier bridge
at this crossing. MHC, in a letter dated April 16, 1992, concurred with a finding by the Federal
Highway Administration and MassHighway (now MassDOT) that the Washington Avenue Bridge is
not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
A review of the MHC archaeological base maps revealed no recorded pre-contact or historic sites
in the vicinity of the project area in Chelsea. Project impacts will be confined to the abandoned
Grand Junction railroad bed, heavily graded track-side areas with steep side slopes within the
active MBTA railroad right-of-way, paved areas at the Mystic Mall, and the Washington Avenue
Bridge with no widening at the approaches. MassDOT’s Archaeological Resources Supervisor,
John Rempelakis, and other MassDOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) staff walked the entire ½
mile length of the Grand Junction right-of-way during the September 24th site visit and also viewed
as much of the active MBTA right-of-way as feasible from overpasses and intersecting streets.
CRU staff has determined that the entire project area has been heavily disturbed by the effects of
past railroad, roadway, and bridge construction and high-density residential and commercial
development and, thus, little or no archaeological potential may be ascribed to the project area.
No visible remains or features of possible historical significance were encountered during the site
visit.
III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state, regional, and local
plans and policies related to preserving historical and archaeological resources:
- 23 -
The Silver Line Gateway project in Boston and Chelsea will be supported entirely with state funds,
but work in water will require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) permit, the jurisdiction of
which will cover the entire Project Site. The project, therefore, is a federal undertaking that is
subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
MassDOT will submit a Project Notification Form (PNF) on behalf of the Corps to the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) at the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) to initiate
consultation under Section 106. Copies of that PNF will be submitted to the Boston Landmarks
Commission and the Chelsea Historical Commission. MassDOT also will submit PNFs to the
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and the
Mashpee Tribe. MassDOT also will consult with the Massachusetts Board of Underwater
Archaeological Resources (BUAR).
- 24 -
List of Attachments
U.S.G.S. map (good quality color copy, 8-½ x 11 inches or larger, at a scale of 1:24,000) indicating the
project location and boundaries. (Figure 1)
Overall Study Area (Figure 2)
Preferred Alternative (Figure 3)
Aerial photo of existing conditions on the Project Site and its immediate environs (Figure 4)
MassGIS Environmental Datalayer Map (Figure 5)
Concept Plan illustrating Project Components (Figure 6)
Chapter 91 and Coastal Zone Map (Figure 7)
List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance with 301
CMR 11.16(2). (below)
List of municipal and federal permits and reviews required by the project, as applicable. (below)
Expanded ENF Report, with Appendices
- 26 -
Figure 1:
U.S.G.S. map
- 27 -
Figure 2:
Overall Study Area
- 28 -
Figure 3:
Preferred Alternative
- 29 -
Figure 4:
Aerial Photo of Existing Conditions on the Project Site and its Immediate Environs
- 30 -
Figure 5:
MassGIS Environmental Datalayer Map
- 31 -
Figure 6:
Concept Plan Illustrating Project Components
- 32 -
Figure 7:
Chapter 91 and Coastal Zone Map
- 33 -
List of Potential Municipal, State and Federal Permits
City of Chelsea Conservation Commission Request for Determination of Applicability / Negative
Determination of Applicability
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Federal Consistency Review Determination
US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 General Permit (Category II)
- 34 -
Silver Line Gateway Expanded ENF Distribution List
TWO FULL COPIES FOR MEPA
Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Attn: MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection / Boston Office
Transportation
Commissioner’s Office
Public/Private Development Unit
One Winter Street
10 Park Plaza, Suite 3170
Boston, MA 02108
Boston, MA 02116
Massachusetts Historical Commission
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
The MA Archives Building
Attn: Project Review Coordinator
220 Morrissey Boulevard
251 Causeway Street, Suite 800
Boston, MA 02125
Boston, MA 0211
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species
Massachusetts Water Resource Authority
Program
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
100 First Avenue
100 Hartwell Street, Suite 230
Charlestown Navy Yard
West Boylston, MA 01583
Boston, MA 02129
Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority
Division of Marine Fisheries
Attn: Environmental Reviewer
th
10 Park Plaza, 6 Floor
30 Emerson Avenue
Boston, MA 02216-3966
Gloucester, MA 01930
Transportation Highway Division-District #6 Environmental Protection / Northeast
Regional Office
185 Kneeland Street
205B Lowell Street
Boston, MA 02111
Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
60 Temple Place, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02111
Boston
Office of the Mayor
Boston City Hall
One City Hall Square, Room 500
Boston, MA 02201
Boston City Clerk
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201
- 35 -
Boston City Council
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201
Boston Transportation Department
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201
Boston Conservation Commission
Environment Department
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201
Boston Public Library
700 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Boston City Hall
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201
Environment Department
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201
Boston Public Health Commission
1010 Mass Avenue, 2nd Floor
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02118
Chelsea
City Council
City of Chelsea
Chelsea City Hall
500 Broadway, Room 306
Chelsea, MA 02150
Conservation Commission
John DePriest
City of Chelsea
Chelsea City Hall
500 Broadway, Room 101-104
Chelsea, MA 02150
City Manager
Jay Ash
City of Chelsea
Chelsea City Hall
500 Broadway, Office #302
Chelsea, MA 02150
Planning Board
Maggie Schmitt, AICP
City of Chelsea
Chelsea City Hall
500 Broadway, Room 101
Chelsea, MA 02150
Board of Health
Luis Prado
City of Chelsea
Chelsea City Hall
500 Broadway, Room 100B
Chelsea, MA 02150
Chelsea Public Library
Robert Collins
City of Chelsea
Chelsea Public Library
569 Broadway
Chelsea, MA 02150
- 36 -
PART B – EENF REPORT
INTRODUCTION
1
Introduction
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) in coordination with the City of Chelsea
and City of Boston is proposing to construct the Silver Line Gateway project.
The purpose of this project is to extend Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service from South Station
and the Seaport District in Boston to Chelsea and East Boston that will enhance livability and economic
development potential for these communities. The existing Silver Line serves only the Logan Airport
terminals in East Boston. It does not currently serve Chelsea, the East Boston neighborhood, or the
existing Airport Blue Line Station.
Transit improvements in the Study Area are well aligned with MassDOT’s goals and will help to leverage
many recent public investments, including the Silver Line Transitway, Williams Tunnel, Airport Blue Line
Station, Coughlin Bypass Road, new Chelsea Street Bridge, and the purchase of the former Grand
Junction Railroad right-of-way (ROW), which crosses through the center of Chelsea.
Because the proposed Silver Line Gateway service utilizes existing Silver Line infrastructure and mirrors
service from South Station through the Seaport District of Boston and through the Williams Tunnel to East
Boston, the focus of the Alternatives Analysis and Resource Impact Analysis is directed at the new
construction components in Chelsea.
In accordance with MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.05(7) and 301 CMR 11.06(8), MassDOT requests
that the Secretary review this expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) and allow a single
Environmental Impact Report (Single EIR). The EENF provides more extensive and detailed information
concerning the proposed project, its alternatives, potential environmental impacts and mitigation
measures than is required in an ENF. Specifically, this EENF describes and analyzes all aspects of the
project and all feasible alternatives (see Chapter 4). Chapter 6 provides a detailed baseline in relation to
which potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures can be assessed, and includes an
assessment of those impacts including an evaluation of all feasible measures to avoid potential
environmental impacts.
The proposed project would create a new Silver Line route serving downtown Chelsea and better serving
East Boston residents. The new route would use the existing Silver Line route to the Blue Line Airport
Station, and then would be extended north and west on existing roads (Coughlin Bypass and across the
Chelsea Street Bridge). Three alternatives have been evaluated for the Chelsea portion of the route:
Alternative 1, a dedicated busway using an out-of-service rail ROW and a portion of the active commuter
rail ROW to a terminal station at the Mystic Mall; Alternative 2, a dedicated busway using an out-ofservice rail ROW and a portion of the active commuter rail ROW, with an on-street loop to Bellingham
Square and a terminal station on Broadway; Alternative 3, an on-street alternative with a short segment of
dedicated busway along Hawthorn Street with a loop through downtown Chelsea. Each of these
alternatives has been designed to avoid impacts to sensitive resources, and will minimize noise impacts
to residents. Alternative 1 was selected as the preferred alternative because it would have the fastest
travel times, largest number of new transit riders, and overall highest ridership. Alternative 1 would result
in unavoidable impacts to isolated wetlands under federal jurisdiction that have developed within the outof-service ROW. These wetland impacts would be mitigated as required by the Corps of Engineers
regulations.
Expanded ENF
Page 1-1
November 2013
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2
Project Description
2.1
Study Area
The Study Area is located in the City of Chelsea and the City of Boston. The Study Area is about five
miles long, as shown in Figure 2.1-1 and runs from the Seaport District north, including East Boston and
the Airport Blue Line stop and crossing Chelsea Creek into the City of Chelsea. MassDOT worked with
project stakeholders to determine the boundaries of the Study Area. The Study Area consists of diverse
mix of dense residential and commercial land uses. Concerns about transportation issues in the Study
Area resulted in state, regional, and local interest in exploring potential alternative solutions for alleviating
existing and expected future traffic congestion, and improving regional mobility and safety.
Within the Study Area, the existing Silver Line serves only the Logan Airport terminals in East Boston. It
does not currently serve Chelsea, the East Boston neighborhood, or the existing Airport Blue Line Station.
The Project Site consists of the portion of the Study Area in Chelsea where new construction will occur,
and includes the Project Components described in more detail in Section 2.2 below. In general, the
Project Site is a corridor that begins at the Massport employee parking garage near the corner of Central
Avenue and Eastern Avenue and ends at the Mystic Mall.
2.2
Project Components
The proposed project will provide a new Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route, which will be in
addition to the existing Silver Line routes operated by the MBTA. The new service would begin at South
Station in Boston and serve the Seaport District, then travel via the Williams Tunnel to the Airport Blue
Line Station in East Boston (Logan Airport terminals will continue to be served by the existing SL1 route).
The service then uses the Coughlin Bypass Road and crosses into Chelsea via the new Chelsea Street
Bridge. The new exclusive busway component starts adjacent to the existing Massport employee parking
garage and continues north and west via the MassDOT-owned former Grand Junction Railroad right-ofway across the city to the Mystic Mall area. Four new BRT stations are proposed:
•
•
•
•
Eastern Avenue Station (near corner of Central and Eastern Avenues);
Box District Station (near northern end of Highland Street);
Downtown Chelsea Station (between Washington Avenue and Sixth Street); and
Mystic Mall Station (west side of Everett Avenue).
BRT service combines the flexibility of a bus with features that incorporate rapid transit service. These
features can include off-board fare collection, a dedicated right-of-way, which gets the bus out of regular
traffic, more frequent service, wider station spacing and branding of the service, as the Silver Line is
branded today. BRT service is currently provided by the Silver Line on Washington Street in Boston and
along the South Boston waterfront. The challenges to BRT service are the street widths and lack of a grid
system in Boston, East Boston and Chelsea, making the “rapid” part of the service more challenging
unless it is in a dedicated right-of-way.
A second component of the project will be the relocation of the Chelsea Commuter Rail Station from its
existing location to a new location adjacent to the west side of the proposed Mystic Mall BRT station. The
existing Chelsea Commuter Rail Station does not meet state and federal accessibility requirements. The
Expanded ENF
Page 2-1
November 2013
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
proposed relocated commuter rail station will comply with all accessibility requirements and take
advantage of potential transit-oriented development.
Additionally, the state-listed, functionally obsolete Washington Avenue Bridge will be replaced as part of
the construction phasing for this project. The replacement bridge will provide sufficient clearances
beneath it for the proposed busway.
Finally, as part of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
Gateway Cities appropriation, the City of Chelsea and EEA are proposing to construct a Shared-Use path
along sections of the former CSX Grand Junction ROW under the EEA’s Gateway Cities Parks Program.
The project goal is to create a linear trail from the Chelsea River waterfront to downtown Chelsea that will
serve as both a transportation alternative and recreational facility. The path will parallel the busway
where it can be accommodated within and parallel to the ROW. From the downtown area, the path will
need to transition to an on-road bike facility and walking route to connect to key destinations, including
schools, the Mystic Mall area, and relocated commuter rail station. The path will also enhance
neighborhood redevelopment and economic development efforts. As envisioned the path will one day
connect to other regional path systems including the existing East Boston Greenway, Northern Strand
Trail, and Malden River trail system.
Expanded ENF
Page 2-2
November 2013
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 2.1-1:
Silver Line Gateway Study Area
Expanded ENF
Page 2-3
November 2013
PROJECT HISTORY
3
Project History
Initial planning for transit service in the Chelsea and East Boston portions of the Silver Line Gateway
corridor took place during the Urban Ring Circumferential Transit Improvement Project, which would
connect the radial lines of the MBTA using BRT service. In addition, there was a MassDOT 2011 internal
analysis of potential transit opportunities using the Coughlin Bypass Road, and work by the Central
Transportation Planning System (CTPS) on ridership. Based on MassDOT’s goal of closing transit gaps
and the demonstrated need for better transit connections, the basic alternatives were developed.
3.1
Project Goals and Objectives
The goal of recent study efforts was to identify a recommended alternative for extending Silver Line
service to Chelsea and East Boston that will enhance mobility and economic development potential.
Analysis was conducted in order to develop transit alternatives that would achieve this goal through
pursuing the following major objectives:
•
reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality,
•
identify potential impacts,
•
evaluate alternative routes,
•
identify travel time saving measures,
•
enhance mobility by increasing choices, and
•
support economic development and smart growth.
The purpose of the shared-use path project is to improve multi-modal connections between the City’s
edges. The proposed path is within one-half mile of 16,000 Chelsea residents, almost 38 percent of the
City’s total population, as well as many of the City’s major employment centers. Many of Chelsea’s
residents and workers rely on public transit, biking, and walking to reach their desired destinations.
Currently, it is difficult to navigate between the waterfront, downtown, and Mystic Mall area on bicycle or
by foot due to the existing topography, parking and circulation patterns, and lack of consistent multi-modal
accommodations.
Expanded ENF
Page 3-1
November 2013
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
4
Alternatives Analysis
The Alternatives Analysis considered and expanded upon alternatives presented in the MassDOT 2011
internal study and the CTPS Analysis of Silver Line extensions to Chelsea1. Alternatives were revised and
further defined through a process of public engagement and technical evaluation. Transit fleet and
operational issues were considered in the development and evaluation of the final set of alternatives.
4.1
Alternatives Analysis
An initial public meeting was held in Chelsea on March 13, 2013, to introduce the project and gather
preliminary suggestions from the community. Based on this public input, a set of alternatives for
extending the Silver Line service were prepared and were presented at a second public meeting held in
Chelsea on May 1, 2013.
In all of the proposed alternatives, the new Silver Line service would depart from South Station and mirror
the existing Silver Line service in the Seaport District as shown in Figure 4.1-1. It would reach East
Boston via the Williams Tunnel to the Blue Line Airport Station. From there, vehicles would enter the
Coughlin Bypass Road and then cross the new Chelsea Street Bridge as shown in Figure 4.1-2. From
this point, two basic route choices were evaluated and compared:
(1) Busway alternatives that would move more quickly in a dedicated alignment right-of-way, with
an option to serve Bellingham Square;
(2) On-Street alternatives that would use Central Avenue to reach Bellingham Square with a variety
of ways to speed up the service, including transit signal priority and dedicated bus lanes in key
locations.
Further analyses regarding the route choices are provided in Appendix C.
1
https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/31/Docs/Sl-to-AirportandChelsea_CTPS.pdf
Expanded ENF
Page 4-1
November 2013
Figure 4.1-1:
Existing Silver Line Service (Route SL1) in South Station and Seaport District
Figure 4.1-2:
Proposed Silver Line Service in East Boston
Expanded ENF
Page 4-2
November 2013
4.2
Screening
MassDOT developed three alternatives based on input received at the May public meeting and at other
stakeholder meetings. Preliminary station locations were also identified for each alternative. The
alternatives were presented at a June 19, 2013 public meeting in Chelsea and are discussed below:
4.2.1
Alternative 1: Busway to Mystic Mall
In the Busway to Mystic Mall Alternative (Figure 4.2-1), Silver Line buses would reach the new exclusive
busway on the former railroad right-of-way after crossing the Chelsea Street Bridge and entering the
Massport employee parking garage bus loop off of Central Avenue. Alternative 1 has four proposed
stations in Chelsea: Eastern Avenue Station, Box District Station, Chelsea Commuter Rail Station and
Mystic Mall Station.
Figure 4.2-1:
Alternative 1 – Busway to Mystic Mall
Expanded ENF
Page 4-3
November 2013
4.2.2
Alternative 2: Busway to Bellingham Square
In the Busway to Bellingham Square Alternative (Figure 4.2-2), Silver Line buses would travel on the new
busway after crossing the Chelsea Street Bridge and entering the Massport employee parking garage bus
loop, same as Alternative 1. The buses would follow the busway until turning left at Chestnut Street into
the Bellingham Square area, and looping around Chelsea City Hall via Washington Avenue and
Broadway. This alternative is shorter than Alternative 1 and has three proposed stations in Chelsea:
Eastern Avenue Station, Box District Station and Broadway Station.
Figure 4.2-2:
Alternative 2 – Busway to Bellingham Square
Expanded ENF
Page 4-4
November 2013
4.2.3
Alternative 3: On-Street to Everett Avenue
The On-Street to Everett Avenue Alternative (Figure 4.2-3) uses Chelsea city streets with short sections
of dedicated lanes in some portions of the route. The benefit of Alternative 3 is that it would avoid major
busway construction. Innovative features would be needed to reduce buses getting stuck in general
traffic, including the dedicated bus lanes for 200 feet at each end of Central Avenue where the buses
could short cut some of the congestion; a dedicated bus lane on Hawthorn Street; a contraflow lane on 6th
Street; and use of the ROW for the connection to Spruce Street. The dedicated bus lanes would also
benefit MBTA key bus Routes 111, 116 and 117. A contraflow lane would permit the buses to travel the
opposite way on a one-way street. Creating bus queue jump lanes or full bus lanes in downtown Chelsea
would impact significant amounts of on-street parking in the downtown retail area.
Alternative 3 has four proposed stations in Chelsea. The proposed BRT stations are located at Central
Avenue at Eastern Avenue (near the Massport employee parking garage), Central Avenue at Highland
Street, Hawthorn Street Outbound Station (at Bellingham Square), Hawthorn Street Inbound Station (at
the intersection of Hawthorn and Park Streets), and on Spruce Street near MGH. Each station would
have inbound and outbound terminals, and parking impacts.
Additional details regarding the three alternatives are provided in Appendix C.
Figure 4.2-3:
4.2.4
Alternative 3 – On-Street to Everett Avenue
Airport Blue Line Station BRT Platform Location
There is not currently any regularly-scheduled MBTA bus service provided at the Airport Blue Line Station
in East Boston. It is currently served only by Logan Airport shuttle buses. When the MBTA needs to
provide replacement shuttle bus service on the Blue Line from Airport Station, MBTA buses use a smaller
busway located about 300 feet north of the Airport Blue Line station exit. Coordination with MBTA
Service Planning and Massport regarding ConRAC shuttle changes identified an opportunity for the Silver
Line Gateway extension to establish a BRT platform in closer proximity to the Airport Blue Line Station
Expanded ENF
Page 4-5
November 2013
entrance, thereby facilitating transfers between the Blue and Silver Line services. The impact of
proposed Silver Line Gateway operations on emergency or planned shuttle services provided from the
Airport Blue Line Station was also evaluated.
The general location of the Silver Line Gateway BRT platform at the Airport Blue Line Station is shown
shaded in blue in Figure 4.2-4. The yellow arrows indicate the direction of the outbound (dashed yellow)
and inbound (solid yellow) Silver Line Gateway vehicles. The outbound (toward Chelsea) vehicles would
need to use the northernmost portion of the platform area to enable them to continue to Chelsea by
looping the block as shown. The inbound (toward South Station) vehicles can use the portion of the
platform closest to Airport Blue Line station entrance and will continue south on Harborside Drive to reach
the Williams Tunnel.
Figure 4.2-4:
Silver Line Gateway BRT Platform at Airport Blue Line Station
Toward
Chelsea
Silver Line
Gateway
BRT
Platform
Toward
South
Station
This configuration allows for Silver Line Gateway service from either direction of travel to easily access
the Airport Blue Line Station and then continue en route to either Chelsea or the Seaport District in South
Boston.
In addition, the possibility exists that in the future the MBTA may decide that other bus routes in addition
to the proposed Silver Line Gateway (e.g., Route 112) may be shifted or extended to serve the Airport
Blue Line Station. This configuration allows for that possibility to be accommodated.
Expanded ENF
Page 4-6
November 2013
4.2.5
Fare Collection
The new Silver Line Gateway service would have a fare structure identical to the existing Silver Line
Waterfront services. At this point in the planning process, it is assumed that the fare would be collected
off-board at the various stations, which will be equipped with Charlie Card fare machines and ticket
validators to allow all-door boarding and reduced station dwell time.
4.2.6
Operating Plan
Operational analysis of the proposed Silver Line Gateway extension was conducted based on existing
operational and ridership data available from the MBTA and the Central Transportation Planning Staff
(CTPS). Coordination was made with both MBTA Bus Operations and Service Planning while conducting
this analysis. For each alternative, operational concepts were developed and analyzed. The operational
concepts were reassessed in concert with ridership projections to optimize service reliability and ridership
potential. Based on the analysis, a refined operational concept was developed for each alternative.
The analysis identifies the following attributes:
•
•
•
•
•
Service frequencies
Peak and total fleet requirements
Daily and annual vehicle hours of service
Operational capacity requirements
Infrastructure (including signal, communications, and power systems)
4.2.6.1 Service Frequencies
The new Silver Line Gateway service would be in addition to the three existing Silver Line Waterfront
services (i.e., Route SL1, Route SL2 and the Silver Line Waterfront Shuttle). The new Silver Line
Gateway service would make stops at South Station, Courthouse, World Trade Center, and Silver Line
Way and the existing Silver Line customers would not experience any decrease in service levels – in fact,
they would see an increase in service levels along the South Boston Piers Transitway.
The new service would bring a new neighborhood stop at Airport Blue Line Station in East Boston and
bring bus rapid transit (BRT) service to Chelsea. The new Silver Line Gateway service would operate with
similar frequencies and spans of service as the existing Silver Line Waterfront services. The span of
service is from 5:00AM to 1:30AM seven days a week. Potential frequency of the new Silver Line
Gateway service option is shown below in Table 4.2-1. The service plan for the Silver Line Gateway
service has a frequency of service identical to the existing Route SL1, except for Sunday. The new Silver
Line Gateway service would have frequency of every 10 to 12 minutes in each direction.
Expanded ENF
Page 4-7
November 2013
Table 4.2-1:
Potential Frequency of Service
Frequency of Service (In Minutes)
Route
Origin – Destination
Peak
Off-Peak
Night
Saturday
Sunday
12
12
12
Proposed Frequency of Service (Same as Route SL1, except Sunday)
Silver Line
Gateway
South Station – Chelsea (All
Alternatives)
10
10
The new Silver Line Gateway service plan would be similar for any of the potential alternatives. This
allows for comparisons of potential ridership and other impacts to be made on a consistent basis. Other
service plan considerations include vehicle size and type, which impacts the capacity of the service, its
potential frequency, and other factors. Consistency of bus service is another important consideration and
impacts ability to understand the service and use it easily. Similarly, intermodal connections are another
important service plan consideration.
4.2.6.2 Bus Fleet Size Requirements
The total size of the bus fleet required to support the new Silver Line Gateway service was estimated
using the round trip travel time of the service for each alternative and dividing the total cycle time in
minutes by the planned 10-minute headway of the route. The cycle times are a function of route length,
the percentage of busways and bus lanes, and the forecast level of congestion in mixed traffic segments
using intelligent transportation systems (ITS) bus signal priority. The methodology estimated 12%
layover/recovery time and a 30% spare ratio.
As can be seen in Table 4.2-2, the proposed Silver Line Gateway service would require an additional 8 to
10 dual-mode articulated buses to provide service, depending upon the option selected.
Table 4.2-2:
Alternative
Summary Table for Total Fleet Requirements by Alternative
Origin –
Destination
Run Time
(minutes)
(1)
Total Cycle
Time (2)
min
hr
Peak
Headway
(minutes)
Vehicles
(no
layover)
Vehicles
(12%
layover)
Vehicles with
Layover and
30% Spares)
Busway to
Mystic Mall
South Station –
Chelsea
24
48
0.8
10
5
6
8
Busway to
Bellingham
Square
South Station –
Downtown
Chelsea
24
47
0.8
10
5
6
8
On-Street to
Everett Avenue
South Station –
Chelsea
30
60
1.0
10
6
7
10
(1) One way travel time for each route in minutes.
(2) Round trip running time for each route.
Expanded ENF
Page 4-8
November 2013
4.2.6.3 Daily and Annual Vehicle Hours of Service
Based on the operating scenarios developed, Silver Line Gateway will provide service twenty hours and
30 minutes (20.5 hrs) per day, seven days per week. Factors were applied to the total number of weekly
vehicle operating hours. The required fleet size for each route has assumed a thirty percent spare factor,
which provides an allowance for maintenance and driver breaks, but does not necessarily account for
deadhead movements. The operating cost estimates presented include layover but not deadhead miles
to/from garage(s).
4.2.6.4 Operational Capacity Requirements
The planned Silver Line Gateway service would at peak times operate a BRT vehicle every ten minutes in
each direction. The operational capacity will be provided with an estimated fleet size described in the
preceding sections. For the running ways and stations the capacity requirements in South Boston, the
Williams Tunnel, and East Boston will need to be met by existing infrastructure including the South
Boston Piers Transitway tunnel, the Ted Williams I-90 tunnel beneath Boston Harbor, the airport service
roads, the Coughlin Bypass Road, and the Chelsea Street lift bridge. Planning level operations analysis
indicates there is adequate capacity within the existing Silver Line infrastructure in South Boston to
handle the planned new service. The Williams Tunnel is a mixed traffic facility subject to periodic traffic
congestion associated with Logan Airport and connections to/from Route 1A.
Airport service roads and the Coughlin Bypass Road are relatively new and have sufficient capacity to
support the planned service. Where the planned service operates with general traffic there will be bus
signal priority used to provide an operating advantage to the BRT vehicles. Existing Silver Line Stations,
Airport Blue Line Station, and the planned stations in Chelsea will have sufficient capacity to support the
operating plan.
4.2.6.5 Infrastructure
Outside of Chelsea the Silver Line Gateway will operate using existing infrastructure. Project investments
in those areas are expected to be limited, consisting of bus signal priority at key intersections, selected
upgrades to existing BRT stations, and targeted improvements that would benefit all Silver Line
Waterfront services. Virtually all of the new infrastructure needed to support the operating plan is located
in Chelsea, and consists of approximately one-mile of grade separate busway constructed along the
former railroad right of way owned by MassDOT, four new BRT stations, retaining walls, new drainage,
utility relocations, bridge overpass replacement, and the reconstruction or relocation of the Chelsea
Commuter Rail station.
4.3
Transit Operations Summary
Comparison of each alternative was done by analyzing travel time, ridership, parking impacts and costs.
The following shared assumptions were considered: service 10-12 minutes in each direction (10 minutes
at peak, 12 minutes at off-peak), service hours of 5 am to 1:30 am, $2 fare cost, off-board fare collection
(to avoid long waits) and 60-foot articulated low emission vehicles (the same vehicles operating today).
Additional details regarding these analyses are provided in Appendix C and Appendix D.
Travel Time
Comparison of example trip end locations and the estimated time in minutes for each alternative is shown
in Table 4.3-1. The table shows that the Busway to Mystic Mall alternative is quicker in all cases.
Expanded ENF
Page 4-9
November 2013
Table 4.3-1:
Comparison of Travel Time
Travel Time (minutes) by Alternative
Sample Trip Ends
Busway
Mystic Mall
Busway
Bellingham
Square
On-Street
Everett
Avenue
8
9
11
15-19
16-20
18-22
23
24
26
Downtown Chelsea to Airport Blue Line Station
Downtown Chelsea to World Trade Center*
Downtown Chelsea to South Station
*Ranges of travel times for Silver Line Gateway are for surface and underground WTC stations, respectively.
Table 4.3-2 compares the performance measures of the No-Build Alternative (111 bus, commuter rail and
Blue Line) with the Silver Line Gateway Alternatives (Busway to Mystic Mall, Busway to Bellingham
Square and On-Street to Everett Avenue Alternatives). Performance measures are based on travel time,
number of transfers and reliability. Existing transit routes from Chelsea to the Seaport are typically well
over 30 minutes and require one, two or three transfers. These travel times would worsen in a “No-Build”
scenario. Silver Line Gateway trips are direct, fast and reliable. A map of existing MBTA services in the
Study Area is provided in Appendix C.
The results summarized in Table 4.3-2 indicate that the projected travel time for access to the Seaport
with Silver Line Gateway service is essentially 50% of existing route times.
Table 4.3-2:
Performance Comparison with Seaport Access
No Build
Performance
Measures
Travel Time
No. of Transfers
Reliability
111 Bus
Silver Line Gateway
Commuter 116/117 to
Rail
Blue Line
Busway
Mystic
Mall
Busway
Bellingham
Square
On-Street
Everett
Avenue
39 min
36 min
37 min
15-19 min
16-20 min
18-22 min
3
1
2
0
0
0
Low
High
Medium
High
High
Medium
Notes:
All travel times shown are inbound from downtown Chelsea to the Seaport World Trade Center (WTC) Station.
No-Build travel times are based on MBTA Trip Planner tool.
Ranges of travel times for Silver Line Gateway are for surface and underground WTC stations, respectively.
Reliability – based on the percentage of route operating in an exclusive right-of-way and the number of transfers
required. A high percentage of route operating in an exclusive right-of-way without any transfers results in a rating of
high reliability
Ridership
Table 4.3-3 presents daily ridership of Silver Line Gateway and new transit trips. The ridership demands
for the Busway Alternative, Busway to Bellingham Square Alternative and On-Street Alternatives are
compared with the No-Build Alternative. The ridership data is based on CTPS Travel Demand Model and
forecasting results for Year 2035. It also shows change in daily ridership of Blue Line, Route 111 and
combined Routes 116 and 117 compared to No-Build Alternative. The CTPS model shows that the new
Expanded ENF
Page 4-10
November 2013
Silver Line service would be popular, and it would reduce passenger crowding on existing bus routes that
are over- capacity, in particular Route 111. The projected Silver Line ridership numbers are comparable
to the top 10-12 bus routes in the MBTA system today.
Table 4.3-3:
Comparison of Ridership (2035)
Change in Ridership compared to
No-Build
Alternative
SLG Total
Daily
Ridership
New
Transit
Trips
Blue
Line
Route
111
Combined
Routes
116/117
Busway to Mystic Mall
8,730
2,500
190
-2,230
-1,950
Busway to Bellingham Sq.
6,820
2,000
230
-1,890
-1,460
On-Street
6,960
2,500
260
-1,720
-1,310
Parking Impacts
Parking impact analysis for each alternative was done. The On-Street Alternative displaces the largest
number of parking spaces (80 spaces in total, 44 metered). The Busway to Bellingham Square Alternative
Impacts 29 total spaces, 9 metered. The Busway to Mystic Mall Alternative does not impact any parking
spaces.
Costs
Preliminary cost estimates were prepared during the Alternatives Analysis for each alternative as shown
in Table 4.3-4. Much of the cost associated with the busway alternatives is the construction of the
busway itself and bridge modifications. The total cost of the On-Street Alternative is lower because there
is no major right-of-way construction, but it may be offset by the parking impacts and increased vehicle
fleet. The range is attributable to variables such as the Washington Avenue Bridge replacement design,
the Chelsea Commuter Rail station relocation, and the extent of right-of-way acquisition needed.
Table 4.3-4:
Magnitude Preliminary Cost Estimate for Silver Line Gateway
Magnitude Cost Range (2013 dollars)
Alternative
Capital Cost
($ Millions)
Busway to Mystic Mall
$40 – 85 M
Busway to Bellingham Square
$20 – 45 M
On-Street to Everett Avenue
$20 – 30 M
Expanded ENF
Page 4-11
November 2013
4.4
Resource Summary
Potential impacts to various natural and man-made conditions within the Project Site are summarized
below. These conditions include Consistency with Local, State and Regional Plans, Environmental
Justice, Land Use/Demographics, Hazardous Materials, Utilities, Transportation, Noise and Vibration, Air
Quality/Greenhouse Gas, Wetlands and Water Resources, Stormwater Management, Chapter 91
/Massachusetts Coastal Zone, and Historic/Archaeological Resources. More details regarding these
analyses are provided in Chapter 6.
Consistency with Local, State and Regional Plans
Beginning with the Urban Ring, a dedicated busway has been contemplated within the abandoned Grand
Junction Railroad right-of-way now owned by MassDOT. Alternative 1, the Busway to Mystic Mall
alternative, most closely represents the Urban Ring segment envisioned for Chelsea. In addition, City of
Chelsea neighborhood and city-wide plans have included specific recommendations to “utilize the CSX
transit easement to improve access to mass transit,” “improve CSX Rail Corridor with pedestrian
walkway/bike trail, and integrate improvements with long-term Urban Ring planning,” and acknowledge
the need to plan for the use of the rail corridor for “Urban Ring BRT lanes.”
Environmental Justice
CTPS conducted an Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis for the No-Build and three Build Alternatives
based upon Federally-mandated methods and criteria described in more detail in Chapter 6 and Appendix
A. In brief, the EJ analysis is conducted to ensure that there are no disproportionate impacts to
disadvantaged populations (EJ zones with a higher-than-average percentage of low-income and minority
residents) as a result of the proposed project.
The results of the CTPS EJ analysis indicate that there are no disproportionate impacts to EJ zones and ,
in fact, there are project-related benefits to EJ zones in regard to increased accessibility to employment,
health care and educational facilities, and improvements to mobility and air quality. All three Build
Alternatives result in improvement compared to the No-Build Alternative. Among the three Build
Alternatives, Alternative 1 (Busway to Mystic Mall) ranks highest in accessibility to jobs, while Alternative
3 (On-Street to Everett Avenue) ranks highest in access to health care and educational facilities. Both
Alternative 1 and 3 rank highest in Mobility elements, while all three alternatives have equal benefits in air
quality impacts to EJ zones.
Additional information regarding the Environmental Justice analysis is provided in Appendix A.
Land Use/Demographics
Population growth in the Study Area is projected to outpace that in the overall Boston MPO region of 101
communities, and that absolute population growth in Study Area traffic analysis zones (TAZs) is greatest
in the Seaport/Fort Point Channel, Chelsea and South Station/Financial District neighborhoods.
Employment growth in the Study Area is projected to outpace gains in the region and the absolute
employment growth in the Study Area is greatest in the Seaport/Fort Point Channel and South
Station/Financial District neighborhoods. These figures also illustrate that the project will not only
improve accessibility for minority and low-income families as noted in the Environmental Justice section,
but will serve an area that is projected to grow at a rate faster than the entire metropolitan Boston MPO
region and will connect East Boston and Chelsea with the highest-growing employment area in the
region.
There is no distinction among the three Build Alternatives in regard to land use and demographic impacts:
each alternative serves the purpose of linking the highest growing population and employment areas.
Expanded ENF
Page 4-12
November 2013
Alternative 1 provides the greatest opportunity to implement smart-growth development opportunities in
the vicinity of the Mystic Mall.
Hazardous Materials
An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was performed along the proposed 1.3 mile busway route in Chelsea,
Massachusetts (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Project Site). The purpose of the ISA is to
evaluate the presence of a potential release of oil and/or hazardous material (OHM) along the Project
Site. The ISA (Phase I Study) consisted of research of the historical and existing property uses in the
Project Site and a site visit to determine visual presence of a release of OHM. The geographic scope of
the ISA was sufficient to cover the potential routes of all three Build Alternatives.
There are numerous adjacent properties listed on contamination-related databases (a majority have been
closed). No direct evidence of impacts from these sites was identified during the review of state files;
however, based on proximity (adjacent) and status, the Samuel Gordon and Sons property at 333 Third
Street and the property at 300 Third Street have the potential to have impacted the Project Site. It should
be noted that based on the state files reviewed, no disposal site boundaries or Activity and Use
Limitation’s (AULs) were identified which extend onto the Project Site. For the nearby sites which do
have AULs, the AUL boundaries are limited to the neighboring site.
It should be noted that due to the location of the Project Site within: 1) an area which has been urbanized
for a long period of time, 2) within a railroad right-of-way, and 3) in the general vicinity of the boundaries
of The Great Chelsea fires (resulting in contaminated fill containing coal and coal ash at adjacent
properties), it is considered possible that petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, metals (arsenic, lead, etc.)
and/or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are present in soil and groundwater within the Project Site.
Groundwater within the Project Site was generally present within 10 feet below grade. In addition, any
existing railroad ties along the corridor were likely treated with creosote and, therefore, those within the
abandoned portion of the rail corridor need to be removed, transported and disposed of in accordance
with local, state, and federal requirements.
Given this initial information, it is possible that all three Build Alternatives will have equally minimal or nonexistent impacts in regard to hazardous materials. However, given the qualifying language and need for
further testing, it is likely that Alternative 3, the On-Street to Everett Avenue Alternative, has the lowest
potential for impacts because it does not include construction in the abandoned railroad ROW.
Appendix B contains background materials regarding hazardous waste assessments.
Utilities
Any potential construction in the abandoned railroad ROW will require the relocation of NStar highvoltage (115kv) utility poles. As a result, Alternative 3, the On-Street to Everett Avenue Alternative, will
have the least impact of the three Build Alternatives in regard to utility relocation.
Transportation
Alternative 1, the Busway to Mystic Mall alternative, will have the least impact on local roadway
operations. Alternative 3, the On-Street Alternative, would pass through the highest number of
intersections and therefore have the greatest comparative impact on local traffic operations. For all Build
alternatives, the additional of project bus trips would result in only small increases in intersection delay.
None of the project alternatives would deteriorate intersection LOS to deficient conditions (LOS E or F)
during peak hours.
Expanded ENF
Page 4-13
November 2013
Similarly, pedestrian and bicycle activity would be least affected by Alternative 1, since fewer
intersections will share the increased bus volumes. The Chelsea Shared Use Path is a component of all
three alternatives and will be constructed in the abandoned railroad ROW regardless of which transit
alternative is implemented.
Further information on traffic, pedestrian and bicycle issues are provided in Appendix D.
Noise and Vibration
A noise and vibration analysis was conducted based upon the latest Federal Transit Administrtation
guidelines. The screening assessment component of this analysis indicated that Alternative 1, the
Busway to Mystic Mall alternative, has the fewest number of potential noise impacts based upon the
number of residential units and sensitive receptors within screening distance.
Further noise analysis was conducted based upon the results of the screening assessment. The results
of this analysis indicate that no noise impacts are expected under any of the three Build alternatives.
Because the Silver Line Gateway project includes a rubber tired vehicle, a vibration screening
assessment is only conducted under unusual circumstances. There are no highly vibration sensitive land
uses along any of the alternatives, the busway portions of Alternatives 1 and 2 will be newly paved with
no irregularities and the on-street portions of Alternatives 2 and 3 would share lanes with existing buses
and trucks (including any current roadway irregularities). Therefore, none of the guidelines for conducting
a vibration screening for Silver Line Gateway are met and there are no locations with the potential for
vibration impact on the project.
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas
The results of air quality analysis conducted by CTPS indicate that, on an overall regional basis,
Alternative 1, the Busway to Mystic Mall alternative, provides the greatest air quality benefits when
compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 1 provides the greatest reduction in five of the seven
emissions criteria.
The complete CTPS air quality analysis is provided in Appendix E.
Wetlands and Water Resources
The construction of the proposed busway component of the project will require the alteration of 13,798
square feet of Isolated Vegetated Wetlands (IVW). These wetlands are present in the abandoned railroad
ROW, and will be under USACOE jurisdiction. As a result, a Section 404 Category II Permit Application
will be filed with the USACOE, and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required from
MassDEP. Depending on further analysis, wetland restoration or replication will be required.
These busway-related impacts are associated with Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 3, the On-Street to
Everett Avenue Alternative, has no wetland impacts.
Appendix F contains the complete Request for Determination of Applicability submitted to the Chelsea
Conservation Commission.
Stormwater Management
Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the need to alter 13,798 square feet of IVW and the associated Section 404
permit from the USACOE results in the requirement to meet all MassDEP Stormwater Management
Standards in their entirety (as opposed to the maximum extent practicable). As a result, Alternative 3, the
On-Street to Everett Avenue alternative, has the least impact in regard to stormwater management.
Expanded ENF
Page 4-14
November 2013
Chapter 91 / Massachusetts Coastal Zone
There are no impacts to lands under Chapter 91 jurisdiction under any of the three Build alternatives. The
Project Site (where any new construction would occur) is well beyond any areas identified as filled
tidelands.
The proposed busway component is within area identified as part of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone.
Although there are no expected coastal effects and the project will provide beneficial contributions and
compliance with a number of MCZM policies, a Federal Consistency determination will still be required.
Since Alternative 3, the On-Street to Everett Avenue alternative, lies mostly outside of the coastal zone, it
will by definition have the least impact of the three Build alternatives.
Historic/Archaeological Resources
The proposed busway component of the project does not travel through or affect any historic or
archaeological resources. Alternative 3, the On-Street to Everett Avenue alternative, travels through
portions of the Bellingham Square Historic District, and therefore has the greatest potential of the three
Build alternatives to have impacts to historic and archaeological resources.
Expanded ENF
Page 4-15
November 2013
4.5
Preferred Alternative
In order to determine a Preferred Alternative, the results previously identified in the Transit Operations
Summary (Section 4.3) and the Resource Summary (Section 4.4) were tabulated. A check mark
identifies the alternative with the highest benefit or least impact, as appropriate. In some cases more
than one alternative rated a check mark where impacts or benefits were similar. A comparison of the
three Build alternatives is provided in Table 4.5-1.
Table 4.5-1:
Comparison Summary / Alternatives Analysis
Resource Topic
Alternative 1
Busway to
Mystic Mall
Alternative 2
Busway to
Bellingham Square
Alternative 3
On-Street to
Everett Avenue
Transit Operations Summary
Travel Time
Ridership
Total Daily Ridership
New Transit Trips
Local Bus Capacity
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fleet Size
Yes
Parking
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cost
Yes
Resource Summary
Consistency with State, Regional and Local Plans
Yes
Access to Jobs
Access to Health Care and Educational Facilities
Mobility
Air Quality
Land Use / Demographics
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hazardous Materials
Yes
Utilities
Yes
Transportation
Yes
Noise/Vibration
Yes
Air Quality
Yes
Yes
Wetlands
Yes
Yes
Chapter 91
Yes
Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Historic / Archaeological
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Construction Impacts
Yes
Public and Stakeholder Support
Yes
Note: A check mark (√) identifies the alternative with the highest benefit or least impact, as appropriate.
Based on the results of the technical analysis and civic engagement process, Alternative 1, the Busway to
Mystic Mall alternative, was selected as the preferred alternative for the Silver Line Gateway project.
Expanded ENF
Page 4-16
November 2013
Figure 4.5-1 shows the busway in the abandoned rail corridor, displaying three-foot shoulders on each
side of the busway, two twelve-foot bus lanes, one for each direction, and inbound and outbound Silver
Line Gateway buses. Figure 4.5-2 illustrates the busway adjacent to the active railroad. It shows threefoot shoulders on each side of the busway, two twelve-foot bus lanes (one for each direction), inbound
and outbound Silver Line Gateway buses, and the existing commuter train and freight rail tracks with
existing outbound and inbound commuter trains. As shown in the figure, a concrete barrier separates the
busway from the existing rail tracks.
Figure 4.5-1:
Busway Section in Abandoned Rail Corridor
Figure 4.5-2:
Busway Section Adjacent to Active Railroad
Expanded ENF
Page 4-17
November 2013
Figure 4.5-3 shows a cross-section of the new concept of Washington Avenue Bridge replacement, which
includes two-way busway. The cross-section shows that busway and active commuter rail can be
accommodated within ROW under the Washington Avenue Bridge. The bus lanes in each direction are
12-foot wide and have 2 and half-foot shoulder on each side of the busway. The cross-section also
shows the front and back view of the commuter rail on the existing rail line.
Figure 4.5-3:
Cross-Section of New Concept of Washington Avenue Bridge
Figures 4.5-4 displays a plan view of the proposed Box District Station as an example of a typical BRT
station for the Silver Line Gateway. It illustrates the proposed Busway with inbound and outbound BRT
platforms, and pedestrian access-way from Highland Street and the Box District redevelopment area.
Figures 4.5-5 through 4.5-7 are a series of renderings of the proposed Box District Station illustrating the
characteristics of the BRT station and its amenities, including bike racks, fare machine, electronic signs
and pedestrian crossings.
Expanded ENF
Page 4-18
November 2013
Figure 4.5-4:
Station Example – Box District
Figure 4.5-5:
Station Example – View of Box District Station from MWRA
Expanded ENF
Page 4-19
November 2013
Figure 4.5-6:
Station Example - View of Box District Station from Highland Street
Figure 4.5-7:
Station Example – View of Box District Station Platforms
Sample cross-sections that include the Shared-Use Path are being developed. Figure 4.5-8 illustrates
initial cross-sections developed with the Shared-Use Path in place.
A conceptual plan for the relocated Chelsea Commuter Rail Station has also been developed, and is
shown in Figure 4.5-9. It is expected that modifications to this plan will occur as public input is received
and as overall project planning progresses. Further design details will be provided in the Single EIR.
Expanded ENF
Page 4-20
November 2013
Figure 4.5-8:
Sample Cross-section with Shared-Use Path
Expanded ENF
Page 4-21
November 2013
Figure 4.5-9:
Conceptual Plan / Relocated Chelsea Commuter Rail Station
Expanded ENF
Page 4-22
November 2013
PUBLIC OUTREACH
5
Public Outreach
5.1
Civic Engagement
A concerted civic engagement process was conducted by MassDOT throughout the Alternatives Analysis
to ensure that there would be a forum for interested and affected parties to provide input and comment on
the study process, to provide education and awareness about the project, to engage key stakeholders in
the process, to build agreement and support implementation. The civic engagement program was
developed with the following objectives:
•
•
•
•
To create a participatory and effective public process.
To encourage input from affected local residents and businesses, regional governmental
bodies, and interested groups.
To coordinate the project with other ongoing projects, studies, and planning efforts.
To be conducted in a manner that gives special consideration to the unique
characteristics of Chelsea and East Boston.
Project materials were provided in English and Spanish for all public meetings and for all handouts,
newspapers ads, project flyers, meeting notices, and materials posted on the project website. Project
flyers and meeting notices were posted on MBTA routes serving the Study Area and at Maverick and
Airport Blue Line Stations as well as at bus shelters in Chelsea and East Boston. Additionally, project
flyers and meeting notices were distributed by hand at the Bellingham Square bus shelter and the
Haymarket Station in Boston during the AM and PM weekday peak periods. Bellingham Square and
Haymarket are major bus terminals serving Chelsea transit riders.
5.2
Project Coordination
A project coordination strategy was established to stay informed of other related ongoing projects,
studies, and planning efforts. Meetings were held with representatives of these projects, as need, to
coordinate plans where the projects overlap. Project coordination included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Washington Avenue Bridge Reconstruction
Logan Airport CONRAC, other Massport/MassDOT coordination issues
Chelsea Street Bridge
MBTA Silver Line Vehicle Fleet Planning
East Boston Greenway
Waterside Place, Seaport Square, and other Seaport developments
Chelsea Shared-Use Path
Development of FBI Facility in Chelsea (and Other Chelsea Developments)
Potential Casino Development at Suffolk Downs
The project coordination has also included coordination with the City of Chelsea’s City Planning
Department, City of Boston, and Massport. Regular meetings will continue to be held throughout the
project design phase to keep municipal and agency departments informed and receive feedback on
project design and mitigation decisions.
Expanded ENF
Page 5-1
November 2013
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Additional outreach was conducted with Chelsea Collaborative, Eagle Hill Civic Association, Jeffries Point
Neighborhood Association, Seaport TMA, T Riders Union, Chelsea Boys and Girls Club, Demoula’s
Interpark, Massport Ground Transportation Unit, City of Boston (BTD/BRA), Traggorth Properties, and
One North of Boston.
5.3
Public Informational Meetings
To date, four stakeholder and other public informational meetings have been hosted over the period of
approximately six months. Given the large percentage of Spanish-speaking residents in East Boston and
Chelsea, MassDOT provided Spanish interpreters at the meetings. All materials for public distribution
(either hard copy or electronically) have been provided in both English and Spanish. MassDOT has
reached out to community groups, advocacy organizations and distributed more than 1,000 flyers to
MBTA passengers to invite their participation and comments.
The March 2013 Public Meeting introduced the Study, Study Area and Project Site, the May 2013 Public
Meeting reviewed potential alternatives and solicited feedback, the June 2013 Public Meeting presented
initial analysis results and solicited feedback, and the September 2013 Public Meeting presented the
preferred alternative. Table 5.3-1 provides a list of the neighborhood and public stakeholder informational
meetings.
Table 5.3-1:
Public Involvement
Group/Meeting
Public Meeting #1
Public Meeting #2
Public Meeting #3
Public Meeting #4
Date
March 13, 2013
May 01, 2013
June 19, 2013
September 18,
2013
Location
Agenda
Chelsea City Hall,
Council Chambers
•
•
•
•
•
Study Overview
Civic Engagement Plan
Project Background/Alternatives
Existing and Future Conditions
Next Steps
Chelsea City Hall,
Council Chambers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Study Overview
Options for routes through Chelsea
Busway alternatives and roadway options
Impacts on Parking
Chelsea Creek Lift Bridge Options
Potential Service Plans and
Next Steps
•
•
•
•
Study Overview
Description of the three route options
Proposed station locations
Preliminary analysis results: travel time, ridership,
parking and environmental impacts, costs
Next Steps
Study Overview
Presentation of Preferred Alternative
Washington Avenue Bridge
Chelsea Commuter Rail Station Issues
Next Steps
Chelsea City Hall,
Council Chambers
Chelsea City Hall,
Council Chambers
•
•
•
•
•
•
Expanded ENF
Page 5-2
November 2013
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A feasibility/conceptual design study was prepared for the Shared-Use path in June 2011. As part of the
feasibility/conceptual planning effort for the path, the City and its project team coordinated with MassDOT,
MBTA, key stakeholders along the ROW, and a local working group comprised of representatives from
City boards and nonprofit organizations. The meetings included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.4
March 2, 2011 – MassDOT
April 13, 2011 – ACS Development
April 14, 2011 – Retail Management and Development (Market Basket/Mystic Mall
development team)
April 14, 2011 – Griffin Way LLC
April 19, 2011 – Working Group
April 22, 2011 – MassDOT and MBTA
May 31, 2011 – Working Group
June 1, 2011 – Mitchell Properties
June 21, 2011 – Working Group
March 7, 2011 – MassDOT
Project Web Site
MassDOT has already developed a MassDOT-hosted and maintained website that supports the project
goals. The project website link is: www.massdot.state.ma.us/silverlinegateway
The webpage includes an email link for interested participants to use to receive project information.
Relevant project-related information is regularly posted to the website to allow citizens to remain informed
about the progress of the project. Any materials prepared for and posted to the website associated with
this project were also developed in accessible formats.
Expanded ENF
Page 5-3
November 2013
RESOURCE AREA ANALYSIS
6
Resource Area Analysis
6.1
Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) identified Environmental Justice (EJ) communities based on
US Census data2 and information provided by the Cities of Chelsea and Boston. The project’s support of
the mobility needs of EJ Communities were documented by identifying and contacting business and
organizational groups that represent EJ populations, advertising project meetings and information in local
papers, and translating project meeting notices, presentations, and website materials.
CTPS-provided Mobility and Accessibility Analyses3 were used to identify the mobility benefits and
accessibility to jobs and educational opportunities provided by the project to EJ and other communities in
the Study Area. The analyses also illustrate how the project is designed to provide fair access to transit
and avoid any disproportionate share of burdensome environmental impacts in EJ communities. This
includes impacts resulting from the location or relocation of stations and station entrances (Alternative 1
includes four new stations: Easter Avenue Station, Box District Station, Downtown Chelsea Station and
Mystic Mall Station; and relocation of the Chelsea Commuter Rail Station). It also includes impacts
resulting from changes in traffic (See Section 6.6 Traffic/Pedestrian/Bicycle Issues). No disproportionate
negative impacts on EJ Communities were identified by the CTPS analysis.
Appendix A contains a more detailed Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum.
6.1.1
Environmental Justice Communities
Recent FTA documents such as the 2011 Title VI Circular4 and the 2011 Environment Justice Circular5,
have informed the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)’s identification of
geographic areas of minority and low-income populations (municipalities and Boston neighborhoods).
Such geographic regions are determined by the demographics of the people living in a transportation
analysis zone (TAZ). A TAZ is an aggregation of census geography based on population and estimated
trip volumes. The current assumed thresholds for these environmental justice populations are as follows:
•
Low income – The Boston Region MPO median household income in 2000 was approximately
$55,800. A low-income TAZ was defined as having a median household income at or below 60
percent of this level ($33,480).
•
Minority – 27.7 percent of the MPO population in 2000 was composed of minorities (nonwhite
and Hispanic). A minority TAZ was defined as having a percentage of minority population greater
than 27.7 percent.
6
2
US Census Bureau 2000.
Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS). Silver Line Gateway – Results of EJ Analysis. September 27, 2013.
4
Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Administration. [Docket No. FTA-2011-0054]. Title VI; Proposed
Circular. Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 189/Thursday, September 29, 2011/Notices. 60593
5
Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Administration. [Docket No. FTA-2011-0055]. Environmental Justice;
Proposed Circular. Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 189/Thursday, September 29, 2011/Notices. 60590
6
The MPO used the 2000 U.S. census to define environmental justice areas. Though the 2010 census minority
population data at the tract level was released on March 22, 2011, the household income data have yet to be
released at the tract level.
3
Expanded ENF
Page 6-4
November 2013
•
Environmental Justice – An environmental justice TAZ was defined as a TAZ that met either the
aforementioned minority or the low income criteria.
Following the above rules, in CTPS model region (which includes 2,727 TAZ’s), 315 TAZs were
categorized as low income TAZ, and 813 TAZ’s were categorized as minority population TAZ. Figure 6.11 illustrates the EJ characteristic of Study Area TAZs.
The EJ analysis for this project focused on the three communities in the vicinity of the Silver Line
Gateway: South Boston, East Boston, and Chelsea. A total of 81 TAZ belong to these three
communities. Among them, 60 (75%) met the EJ thresholds described above compared to 41% meeting
EJ thresholds in the region as a whole. The results of the above analyses from the EJ areas near the
Study Area were compared to those from the non-environmental justice areas.
A map based upon the 2010 US Census is provided on the Boston MPO Transportation Equity webpage
(http://www.ctps.org/Drupal/equity). While available for reporting purposes (as shown in Figure 6.1-1),
linguistic isolation is not part of the EJ calculations as defined in the aforementioned FTA documents.
6.1.2
Performance Measures
Three categories of performance measures were adopted in this environmental justice analysis:
1.
The environmental impact analysis examined the volumes of emissions (CO and PM2.5), and
roadway congested VMTs within the Study Area. Please note that the difference between
congested VMTs from the regular VMTs is that the congested VMT is the average VMTs on the
links under the congested condition (links with volume to capacity ratio greater than 0.75).
2.
The mobility and congestion analysis compared the average door to door travel time for auto and
transit trips travelling from and to the Study Area between EJ and non-EJ TAZs.
3.
Analyses of accessibilities to jobs and needed services, which have focused on two measures:
•
•
6.1.3
The number of employment opportunities in three categories (basic, retail, and service),
health care facilities (hospital beds), and higher education facilities, that can be reached
within 20 minutes by car, or within 40 minutes by transit.
The average travel time for accessing the above employment opportunities, health care, and
higher education institutions.
Results Summary
The results of the above three analyses (accessibility analysis, mobility and congestion analysis and
environmental impact analysis) were weighted by the number of population of each TAZ and differences
between the Build alternative and No-Build conditions were calculated for EJ and non-EJ communities in
the Study Area. The results for each of the three categories are summarized below.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-5
November 2013
1.
Environmental Impacts:
In every Build alternative, the changes of the air quality results in the EJ population zones and
non-EJ population zones are minimal (from 0% to 1.1%). See Table 1-1 of Appendix A for more
detailed information.
2.
Mobility:
The average travel time (both highway and transit) from/to the TAZs in the Study Area was
reduced in the Build alternatives. Although the travel time from non-EJ TAZs by Transit
(production time) have slightly more reduction (-0.5% for all Alternatives) than from the EJ TAZs
(-0.3% for Alternatives 2 and 3 and -0.5% for Alternative 1), the difference is considered minimal.
The transit travel time to EJ TAZs have slightly more reductions (-0.5% for Alternatives 1 & 2 and
-1.2% for Alternative 1) than non-EJ TAZs (-0.4% for all Alternatives).
3.
Accessibility:
The accessibility examines number of jobs and services, health care facilities, and education
institutions available within 20 minutes by car and within 40 minutes by transit, respectively. It
also summarizes the average travel time from EJ and non-EJ neighborhoods to these places.
See Table 1.2 of Appendix A for more detailed information.
The results indicate that in all Build alternatives, people are able to access more jobs and
services (4.6% to 5.9% basic jobs, 0.4% to 0.58% retail employment for EJ TAZs) compared to
the No-Build condition. The travel time to jobs in the Build alternatives are slightly shorter or
remain the same in most of the cases. The EJ TAZs have the same or slightly more benefit than
non-EJ TAZs.
The number of available health facilities and education institutions and the average travel time to
them remained very close in both Build alternatives as compared to the No-Build conditions for
both EJ and non-EJ populations. See Tables 1.3 and 1.3 of Appendix A for more detailed
information.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-6
November 2013
Figure 6.1-1:
Environmental Justice Populations
Expanded ENF
Page 6-7
November 2013
6.2
Land Use / Demographics
6.2.1
Study Area Land Use
Figure 6.2-1 illustrates the most recent (2005) comprehensive land use mapping available from MassGIS.
It should be noted that many locations in the Study Area, particularly in the Seaport District, have been
developed or redeveloped since 2005 and are not reflected in the MassGIS mapping. Nonetheless,
overall land use functions (residential, commercial, industrial, others) throughout the Study Area are
sufficiently demonstrated.
Additionally, proposed development projects within the Study Area include those summarized in Table
6.2-1 and are also shown in Figure 6.2-1. Many of these projects will benefit directly from the improved
transit access provided by the Silver Line Gateway project.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-8
November 2013
Figure 6.2-1:
Land Use in the Study Area
Expanded ENF
Page 6-9
November 2013
Table 6.2-1:
Proposed Development Projects in the Study Area
Location/Development Name
Type
Development
Program
Status
Chelsea
One North Boston, Phase 1
Residential - Rental
230 apartments
In Construction
One North Boston, Phase 2
240 apartments
Permitted
Chelsea Place
56 apartments
In Construction
Standard Box, Phase 1
50 apartments
In Construction
Standard Box, Phase 2
46 apartments
In Construction
Old Taxi Cab Garage
20 apartments
In Construction
Old American Legion Bldg.
10 apartments
Permitted - In Design
Highland Terrace
32 apartments
Completed
FBI Headquarters
Government - Federal
500 employees
Beech Street Hotel
Hotel
130 rooms
In Preliminary Design
Happy Days
Adult Day Care
100 clients
Central Avenue Hotel
Hotel
150 rooms
Conceptual
Mystic Mall Site
Residential/Retail/Office
Expanded ENF
Conceptual
Page 6-10
November 2013
Table 6.2-1:
Proposed Development Projects in the Study Area (continued)
Location/Development Name
Type
Development
Program
Status
Seaport District
316-322 Summer
Retail / Office
138,000 SF
In Construction
319 A Street Rear
202 units
In Construction
327-337 Summer
187,000 SF
Under review
338 Congress Street
Letter of Interest
368 Congress
Hotel
120 rooms
In Construction
381 Congress
44 units
In Construction
399 Congress
Residential
388 units
Under review
411 D Street
197 units
In Construction
49-63 Melcher
60 units / 113,100 SF Completed
Boston Cargo Terminal
Industrial
570,000 SF
Board Approved
Congress Street Hotel
Hotel
505 rooms
Board Approved
D Street Development
Hotel
500 rooms
Under review
Fan Pier / Vertex
Office
1 million SF
In Construction
Pier 4
Hotel/Retail/Residential
1 million SF
In Construction
Seaport Square
Hotel/Retail/Residential
6.5 million SF
Board Approved
Seaport Square Parcel A
Hotel
136 rooms
Board Approved
Seaport Square Parcel L1
In Construction
Waterside Place Phase I
Retail / Residential
World Trade Center Parcel K
Parking Structure
235 units
In Construction
Letter of Interest
124 Fan Pier
In Construction
South Station Area
102-110 Broad Street
Residential
TBD
Letter of Interest
South Station Air Rights
Hotel / Office
200 rooms, 1.375
million SF office
Board Approved
111 Federal Street
Office
1.3 million SF
Letter of Interest
Notes:
Board Approved: Projects that are approved by the BRA/EDIC Board of Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA).
Under Review: Projects that are under review by the Development Review Department of BRA.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-11
November 2013
Figure 6.2-1:
Land Use in the Study Area
Expanded ENF
Page 6-12
November 2013
6.2.2
Study Area Demographics
Population and employment data for the Boston region developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning
Council (MAPC) was obtained from the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS). CTPS provided
demographic data in two formats: town-by-town data, and town-by-Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data. The
TAZ format provided the ability to further define conditions within the Study Area. Baseline data (year
2010) and projections for year 2035 were analyzed. The CTPS year 2035 forecasts for population and
employment do not change from the No-Build to the Build alternatives.
Table 6.2-2 and 6.2-3 summarize population and employment data for the region, Study Area
communities and Study Area neighborhoods.
Table 6.2-2:
Population Data
Location
2010 Baseline
2035 Projection
2010-2035 Growth
% Growth
City of Chelsea
37,555
43,905
6,350
16.9%
City of Boston
648,250
727,719
79,469
12.3%
MAPC Region
3,208,000
3,475,000
267,000
8.32%
Study Area TAZs
71,459
96,499
25,040
35.0%
Chelsea TAZs
27,535
31,716
4,181
15.2%
East Boston TAZs
32,022
34,745
2,723
8.5%
Seaport District TAZs
7,404
21,355
13,951
188.4%
South Station TAZs
4,498
8,683
4,185
93.0%
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS), from Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)
Demographic Projections.
Table 6.2-3:
Employment Data
Location
2010 Baseline
2035 Projection
2010-2035 Growth
% Growth
City of Chelsea
13,393
14,973
1,580
11.8%
City of Boston
545,079
603,393
58,314
10.7%
MAPC Region
1,793,400
1,937,000
143,600
8.0%
Study Area TAZs
128,557
151,801
23,244
18.1%
Chelsea TAZs
10,858
12,326
1,468
13.5%
East Boston TAZs
21,088
21,521
433
2.1%
Seaport District TAZs
24,338
36,611
12,273
50.4%
South Station TAZs
72,272
81,344
9,072
12.6%
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS), from Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)
Demographic Projections.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-13
November 2013
Figures 6.2-2 and 6.2-3 are provided to illustrate that population growth in the project Study Area is
projected to outpace that in the overall region, and that absolute population growth in Study Area TAZs is
greatest in the Seaport District, Chelsea and South Station neighborhoods.
Figure 6.2-2:
Percent Population Change 2010-2035
Figure 6.2-3:
Population Growth 2010-2035
As shown in Figures 6.2-4 and 6.2-5, employment growth in the Study Area is projected to outpace gains
in the region and the absolute employment growth in the Study Area is greatest in the Seaport District
Expanded ENF
Page 6-14
November 2013
and South Station neighborhoods. These figures also illustrate that the project will not only improve
accessibility for minority and low-income families as noted in the Environmental Justice section, but will
serve an area that is projected to grow at a rate faster than the entire metropolitan Boston region and will
connect East Boston and Chelsea with the highest-growing employment area in the region.
Figure 6.2-4:
Percent Employment Change 2010-2035
Figure 6.2-5:
Employment Growth 2010-2035
Expanded ENF
Page 6-15
November 2013
6.2.3
Summary
Land use and demographics data for the Study Area indicate that the Silver Line Gateway project is
beneficial for the following reasons:
•
•
•
•
•
Transit connections and service between Study Area residences and employment locations will
improve;
Transit improvements will be provided to areas expected to experience the highest employment
growth in the region;
The transformation of the abandoned railroad right-of-way in Chelsea to a dedicated busway and,
at some locations, a shared use path, improves the functional value of otherwise unused
property;
The proximity of improved transit service to planned development projects in the Study Area
satisfies many of the smart growth goals of Chelsea and Boston, and enhances future
development potential;
The inclusion of the Chelsea shared use path will enhance connections among residential,
commercial and recreational areas in the community. The path will parallel the busway where it
can be accommodated within and parallel to the ROW. The proposed Shared-Use path will
provide an attractive and convenient biking and walking route to key destinations, including
schools, the Mystic Mall area, and relocated commuter rail station.
There is no distinction among the three Build Alternatives in regard to land use and demographic impacts:
each alternative serves the purpose of linking the highest growing population and employment areas.
Alternative 1 provides the greatest opportunity to implement smart-growth development opportunities in
the vicinity of the Mystic Mall.
At this time the extent of potential ROW takings, changes in land use, commercial relocations and
potential loss of employment associated with takings and relocations, if any, are unknown. Further detail
and confirmation will be provided in the Single EIR.
6.3
Hazardous Materials
6.3.1. Initial Site Assessment
An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was performed along the proposed 1.3 mile bus route in Chelsea,
Massachusetts (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Project Site). The purpose of the ISA is to
evaluate the presence of a potential release of oil and/or hazardous material (OHM) along the Project
Site. The ISA (Phase I Study) consisted of research of the historical and existing property uses in the
Project Site and a site visit to determine visual presence of a release of OHM.
In addition, a search was conducted of local, state and federal databases along the proposed bus route to
determine any known releases in the immediate vicinity. For each known or suspected contaminated site
of concern identified in the immediate vicinity, an on-line review of files in the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (BWSC) database was conducted
in order to get a better understanding of the location of the impacts and to determine if they could be
encountered during excavation activities at the proposed bus route. Additionally, where sites of concern
were identified, the Responsible Party (RP) was determined for each of the listed release sites and it was
documented whether the RPs have met, or are meeting, MassDEP-Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup’s
remediation standards and if any Activity and Use Limitation’s (AULs) imposed on the parcel containing
Expanded ENF
Page 6-16
November 2013
those sites are being followed. For sites where remediation has not been completed, the schedule of
proposed response actions required for completion of a Response Action Outcome was identified.
The primary tasks completed for this Phase I Study include:
•
•
•
•
•
A visual inspection by conducting a walk-through of the Project Site, where possible, to identify
potential environmental concerns;
A review of historical sources to determine if any historical uses of concern were along the
Project Site;
An environmental database report review to identify the locations of properties located within a
660-foot buffer zone of the Project Site which have potential environmental concern;
A review of MassDEP online files for sites of concern identified in the environmental database
report; and,
Provide a documented summary of results.
The 660-foot buffer (i.e., 1/8 mile) used as the search area for this evaluation is a commonly used
industry standard search radius for several databases when conducting environmental database research
along a linear survey area. In addition, the 660-foot buffer will capture any locations that may be
candidates for potential right-of-way takings.
6.3.2
Site Visit
On September 26, 2013, a walk-through of the Project Site was conducted to observe the current
occupancy of properties located along and adjacent to the Project Site, including the western portion of
the Study Area along the active Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) railroad track rightof-way. The eastern portion of the Project Site (after the intersection with Broadway), was inspected from
nearby roadways, overpasses and accessible properties.
The immediate vicinity of the Project Site is a mix of industrial, commercial, residential and undeveloped
land. The area includes single-family and multi-story/multi-unit residential dwellings, and buildings with
first floor commercial use and upper floor residential. In addition, former industrial properties in the
central portion of the Project Site along Gerrish Avenue were undergoing redevelopment as residential
properties.
No significant evidence of a release of OHM was observed during the site walk-through.
No properties of potential concern were identified during the field inspection in addition to the properties
identified in the database report. It should be noted that thick brush was observed along the fence-line in
the western portion of the Project Site and not all portions of the eastern portion of the Project Site were
able to be observed.
6.3.3
Historical Research
Historical research consisted of a review of historical Sanborn Maps for the years 1911, 1950, 1964, and
1985 and historic aerial photographs for the years 1938, 1946, 1955, 1960, 1969, 1978, 1980 and 1985
as well as limited online research. These are included in Appendix B.
Based on a review of the historical sources, the immediate vicinity of the Project Site has been developed
with residential, commercials and/or industrial properties since at least 1911. The area along Eastern
Avenue (east of the southeastern portion of the Project Site) was not developed until the late-1960s.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-17
November 2013
Based on a review of the Sanborn Maps, historical uses of concern including foundries, manufacturing
companies, junkyards and automobile services facilities, were identified; however, the locations of these
property uses of concern were also listed in the database report and are summarized in Appendix B. No
uses of potential concern were identified during the historical review in addition to the properties identified
in the database report.
It should be noted that the Great Chelsea Fire of 1908, which destroyed over 3,000 buildings, and The
Second Great Chelsea Fire of 1973, which destroyed 18 city blocks, 45 acres, an area one mile long and
one half-mile wide, encompassed or was adjacent to a large portion of the Project Site (Figure 6.3-1).
Based on a review of various reports for impacted properties along the Project Site, the destruction of
these buildings resulted in elevated background levels of extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH),
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals (arsenic, lead, etc.) and/or PCBs in soil and
groundwater within the Study Area due to coal and coal ash.
Figure 6.3-1:
6.3.4
Historical Map of Chelsea Depicting Areas Burned in 1908 and 1973 Fire
Environmental Database Review
In accordance with the scope of work, a search of various governmental databases was conducted by
Environmental Data Resources (EDR). A site-specific environmental database corridor study (database
report) prepared by EDR was obtained for the Project Site and included a 1/4-mile search area. The
database report was reviewed to determine the potential for environmental impacts from on-site and/or
off-site sources of concern. The database abbreviations are provided in the environmental database
report.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-18
November 2013
The environmental database report includes information for each of the sites identified/geocoded within
the specified search area. The EDR report also includes additional sites identified within the databases
searched where the locations of these sites could not readily be determined (a.k.a., “orphan” sites) due to
insufficient/contradicting address information. Based upon the review, no orphan sites of concern were
identified.
Based on a review of the database report and the Project Site, the database and state file reviews were
focused on sites listed on contamination-related databases within a 1/8-mile (660-foot) radius of the
Project Site. No sites expected outside the 660-foot radius are expected to impact the Project Site.
Therefore, sites located outside of the 660-foot radius are not outlined on the table below but are provided
in the details of the database report. The 660-foot radius has been determined based on the distance of
the closest site boundary to the Project Site and not necessarily the location plotted on the EDR database
report.
A summary table and figure of the review and analysis of the site-specific environmental database report
is presented in Appendix B. It should be noted that the figure and table are intended to provide an
overview of the impacts identified and the extent of impacts. The source of the impacts at each site was
identified if easily available in the reports reviewed.
6.3.5
Conclusion and Recommendations
There are numerous adjacent properties listed on contamination-related databases (a majority have been
closed). No direct evidence of impacts from these sites was identified during the review of state files;
however, based on proximity (adjacent) and status (AULs implemented), the Samuel Gordon and Sons
property at 333 Third Street and the property at 300 Third Street have the potential to have impacted the
Project Site. It should be noted that based on the state files reviewed, no disposal site boundaries or
AULs were identified which extend onto the Project Site. For the nearby sites which do have AULs, the
AUL boundaries are limited to the neighboring site. Other nearby AUL sites include: 1) the 63
Washington Avenue property; 2) the 151 Everett Avenue property; 3) the 2 Griffin Way property; and 4)
the Gerrish Property/Gerrish Avenue.
It should be noted that due to the location of the Project Site within: 1) an area which has been urbanized
for a long period of time, 2) within a railroad right-of-way, and 3) in the general vicinity of the boundaries
of The Great Chelsea fires (resulting in contaminated fill containing coal and coal ash at adjacent
properties), it is considered possible that petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, metals (arsenic, lead, etc.)
and/or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are present in soil and groundwater within the Project Site.
Groundwater within the Project Site was generally present within 10 feet below grade. Any existing
railroad ties along the corridor were likely treated with creosote and therefore need to be removed and
transported in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. In addition, treated timber and lead
paint are expected to be encountered during demolition of the Washington Avenue Bridge and therefore
need to be removed and transported in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements.
On average, the excavation for the busway in the Project Site will most likely be 18”-30” although deeper
excavations will be required at the retaining walls and at the supports for the station enclosures. Soil
testing will be conducted to determine proper handling and disposal needs for excavated soil.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-19
November 2013
6.4
Utilities
In order to accommodate the busway and other project elements (see Figure 6 in the ENF Form for
project elements), MassDOT is working with NStar to relocate up to eight overhead 115kv electric utility
poles. NStar will conduct this activity under their standard operating procedures for pole relocation, with
typical neighborhood health and safety precautions addressed for construction and operational
conditions.
Figure 6.4-1 illustrates the proposed utility pole relocation plan.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-20
November 2013
Figure 6.4-1:
Utility Pole Relocation Plan
Expanded ENF
Page 6-21
November 2013
6.5
Transit
This section summarizes analyses of transit system impacts. Appendix C contains the Transit Technical
Memorandum with additional details on the proposed operating plan.
6.5.1
Silver Line Fleet Analysis
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) currently operates two separate and distinct
Silver Line services – one along Washington Street using articulated 60-foot buses powered by
compressed natural gas (CNG), and the other in the South Boston Piers Transitway using dual-mode
(diesel-electric) articulated 60-foot buses.
The vehicles used by the proposed Silver Line Gateway service would need to be capable of operating
via the South Boston Piers Transitway tunnel.
6.5.1.1 Silver Line Gateway Fleet – Challenges and Opportunities
The proposed Silver Line Gateway service to Chelsea will operate in the South Boston Piers Transitway
when in the Seaport District in South Boston, thus using this facility to access the Williams Tunnel and the
Airport Blue Line Station. Thus, the proposed Silver Line Gateway service will overlay or “mirror” the
existing Silver Line SL1 route between South Station and the portal of the Williams Tunnel in East
Boston, where they diverge with the Silver Line Gateway service making a single station stop in East
Boston at the existing Airport Blue Line Station before continuing on to a total of four (4) planned stops in
Chelsea.
The BRT vehicles to be used in the proposed service are the existing MBTA dual-mode articulated buses,
which can operate both in the South Boston Piers Transitway as well as on the surface without an
overhead power supply system.
There are both advantages and disadvantages associated with the existing dual-mode articulated buses,
which are summarized as follows:
•
Advantages: The dual-mode articulated buses produce no vehicle emissions in the South Boston
Piers Transitway tunnel while using an overhead power supply. This allows them to operate
through the tunnel safely and efficiently, with no need for major ventilation systems (other than
emergency ventilation needs) in the tunnel. Another advantage is their size – the capacity of the
60-foot three-door low floor vehicles is necessary given the levels of passenger ridership along
the Silver Line Waterfront service. In addition, by being able to operate using an onboard diesel
engine as their power supply when on the surface, the dual-mode articulated buses are not
subject to any range limitations typically associated with battery-powered buses that do not use
an overhead power supply (i.e., when they are operating “off-wire”). Finally, the lack of the need
for an overhead power supply system when operating on the surface may be viewed as an
advantage by many as it eliminates the visual clutter sometimes associated with such a system.
•
Disadvantages: The manner in which the power modes are switched between the onboard
diesel engine and the overhead power supply system involves having the bus operator stop the
vehicle, alight, go to the rear of the bus to either unlatch and raise or lower and secure the trolley
poles (depending on the direction of travel), and then return to their operator’s position and
continue on the trip. This is a time-consuming process that can impact the long-term capacity of
the South Boston Piers Transitway Tunnel to accommodate additional services.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-22
November 2013
Short - Term – All the alternatives for the Silver Line Gateway service would utilize the South Boston
Piers Transitway in the Seaport District. They differ primarily in how service is provided to points beyond
East Boston (i.e., Chelsea). Nonetheless, in the near-term they will need to utilize the dual-mode
articulated bus fleet the MBTA currently operates.
The current peak vehicle requirement for the Silver Line Waterfront service (i.e., Routes SL1 and SL2, as
well as the Silver Line Waterfront Shuttle) is 16 buses, according to MBTA data. The proposed Silver
Line Gateway service alternatives would require approximately 8 to 10 peak vehicles. Combined with the
existing fleet needs, that means the peak vehicle requirement for all Silver Line Waterfront and Silver Line
Gateway services would be 24 to 26 vehicles, resulting in an acceptable spare ratio of 23 percent to 33
percent, depending upon the option implemented.
Long -Term – In the long-term, the challenges and opportunities for the proposed Silver Line Gateway
service revolve around the use of the dual-mode articulated buses. Although this relatively unique fleet
will be undergoing a mid-life overhaul program, in the long-term these buses will need to be replaced.
As was previously mentioned, the procurement process for the dual-mode articulated buses was costly,
and they are no longer being manufactured in the United States. However, in addition to the possibility
that the dual-mode articulated buses could be replaced with similar vehicles, the MBTA will need to
consider other potential equipment types capable of providing service in the South Boston Piers
Transitway. However, any potential long-term alternative vehicle type would need to be:
•
•
•
6.5.2
Capable of operating with sufficiently low emissions in the South Boston Piers Transitway tunnel;
or
Capable of operating on surface streets with sufficient range to be able to serve the projected
Silver Line Gateway route alignment; or
Available as a vehicle with a capacity sufficient for the projected Silver Line Gateway operations
(i.e., as an articulated 60-foot bus).
Impacts on Existing MBTA and Other Transit Operations
A conceptual review was conducted of the potential impacts on existing MBTA and other transit
operations.
6.5.2.1 Impacts on Chelsea Commuter Rail Station and Newburyport/Rockport Line Commuter
Rail Service
Construction of the busway between Broadway and Mystic Mall in Chelsea will also involve construction
of a concrete barrier between the active commuter rail tracks and the busway. During busway
construction in this area there will need to be very close coordination with MBTA and its Commuter Rail
operator MBCR. Clearances are especially tight in the area between Broadway and the Route 1
overpass, and innovative approaches to maintenance of operations will be needed. One potential
approach that will be explored is to route inbound and outbound trains on the northernmost track during
busway construction, which would enable continued service to Chelsea Commuter Rail station throughout
construction of the busway in this area. The need for this coordination would also be applicable to the
busway to Bellingham Square alternative and the On-Street to Everett Avenue alternatives, though the
extent of the coordination with commuter rail operations would be less.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-23
November 2013
6.5.2.2 Impacts on Existing Bus Stops and Bus Service in Chelsea
The busway to Mystic Mall alternative would have no impact on existing bus stops and bus service in
Chelsea because the new busway alignment would be entirely separate from existing streets and bus
stops. Some minor adjustment to existing local bus stops at locations such as Washington Avenue and
Market Basket may be needed to provide easier transfers but those changes would be minor.
The busway to Bellingham Square alternative would require relocation of the existing Bellingham Square
bus stop to Broadway on east side of City Hall and associated adjustments to existing local bus route
stops.
The on-street to Everett Avenue alternative would have the largest impact on existing bus stops and bus
service in Chelsea because the new service would overlap with existing services in several areas, such
as Central Avenue, Hawthorn Street, and the area of Spruce Street and Everett Avenue. These impacts
would be most significant during construction because most of the running way is within existing streets.
As part of the new service it would be appropriate to relocate the terminus of the 112 bus route at the
Blue Line from Wood Island Station to the Airport Blue Line Station. Ridership forecasts indicate that
compared to the 2035 No-Build the Silver Line Gateway alternatives would result in fewer Blue Line riders
at Wood Island Station and a great many more Blue Line riders at Airport Blue Line Station.
Other impacts on existing bus routes in Chelsea include an overall reduction in existing local bus
ridership, particularly on the 111 and 117 routes, which will free up capacity on these routes and reduce
crowding.
6.5.2.3 Impacts on Existing Silver Line Service in Transitway
The existing Route SL1, Route SL2 and Silver Line Waterfront Shuttle services operate every two (2)
minutes through the South Boston Piers Transitway tunnel during the peak periods.
With this proposed level of service, an additional 6 buses per hour would be added to the South Boston
Piers Transitway, resulting in a bus every 1.6 minutes (or every 100 seconds). With this additional level
of service, one proposal worth considering is to have a crew stationed at the Transitway portal – perhaps
only during the peak periods – to lower/secure or unlatch/raise the dual-mode articulated bus trolley
poles. This could save approximately four minutes per bus travel cycle (i.e., round trip) and allow the
driver to remain on board. Although this time savings and additional operating expense doesn’t reduce
vehicle requirements on any one Silver Line Waterfront or Silver Line Gateway route, it may help
smooth out Transitway operations and help relieve bunching during the peak periods.
6.5.2.4 Impacts on Airport Station Busway
The existing Blue Line Airport Station curb on the Airport side of the station is accessible only to buses
and other authorized vehicles, and thus functions as a type of short busway. Virtually all of the existing
service is provided by Massport shuttle buses linking the station to the Logan Airport terminals and other
on-airport locations. Massport is in the process of modifying the existing curb and bus circulation areas at
the Blue Line Station to improve capacity and increase operational flexibility, which is being done in
conjunction with the anticipated opening of the consolidated rental car facility (ConRAC). Coordination is
continuing between MassDOT and Massport to identify the specific curb areas to be used by the Silver
Line Gateway inbound and outbound routes to take advantage of these improvements and provide MBTA
customers with a readily identifiable Silver Line station and convenient transfers to/from the Blue Line.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-24
November 2013
6.6
Transportation
6.6.1
Traffic
The project would generate 6 new bus trips (10 minute headways) in each direction (inbound and
outbound) during the AM and PM peak periods. In some locations the Build traffic volumes are lower than
the No-Build as some people shift away from auto trips to transit trips.
Intersection operations were reviewed for the following Build alternatives:
•
•
•
Alternative 1: Busway to Mystic Mall Alternative
Alternative 2: Busway to Bellingham Square Alternative
Alternative 3: On-Street to Everett Avenue Alternative
Because the Silver Line Gateway project will only add 6 buses per direction during the peak periods to
the Study Area roadways, there is generally very low impact to study intersections. In East Boston and
South Boston there is no difference in routes, therefore there is no difference in intersection operations
between alternatives.
Appendix D contains a more detailed Traffic/Pedestrian/Bicycle Technical Memorandum.
In Chelsea, the On-Street Alternative would pass through the highest number of study intersections and
in the Busway alternative the fewest. Figure 6.6-1 illustrates the Study Area intersections. For all Build
alternatives, the additional of project bus trips would result in only small increases in intersection delay.
None of the project alternatives would deteriorate intersection LOS to deficient conditions (LOS E or F)
during peak hours. Table 6.6-1 summarizes the results of the intersection capacity analyses.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-25
November 2013
Table 6.6-1:
Intersection Level of Service Summary – 2035 Build Weekday Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
Int.
ID
Study Intersection
Alternatives
Delay
(sec/
1
veh)
LOS
2
PM Peak Hour
3
v/c
Delay
(sec/
veh)
LOS
v/c
Chelsea:
Signalized:
C-1
Eastern Ave/Marginal St/Central
Ave/Chelsea St Bridge
Alts 1,2 & 3
C-6
Broadway/Washington
Ave/Hawthorn St/Bellingham Sq
Alts 2 & 3
th
29
C
0.94
44
D
1.19
22
C
0.91
35
C
0.91
C-12
Spruce St/6 St
Alt 3
29
C
0.87
38
D
0.91
C-14
Everett Ave/Spruce St
Alt 3
34
C
0.98
30
C
0.88
C-18
Broadway/Everett Ave/Cross St
Alt 3
6
A
0.51
13
B
0.80
Alt 3
11
B
0.68
9
A
0.47
18
C
--
20
C
26
D
--
36
E
--
68
F
--
33
D
--
C-19
rd
Broadway/3 St/Congress Ave
Minor
Approach
Unsignalized:
C-5
Central Ave/Park St/Hawthorne
St
Northbound
C-7
Broadway/City Hall
Ave/Marlborough St/ Shurtleff St
Eastbound
C-8
th
Washington Ave/6 St/City Hall
Ave
th
Westbound
Alt 3
Alts 2 & 3
Alts 2 &3
--
C-9
Chestnut St/5 St
Westbound
Alts 2 & 3
9
A
--
10
B
--
C-21
Park St/Congress Ave/Pearl St
Eastbound
Alt 3
20
C
--
38
E
--
C-23
Everett Ave/RR crossing
C-24
Spruce St/RR crossing
Alt 1
10 seconds gate down time
Alts 1 & 3
10 seconds gate down time
Source: Level of Service methodologies in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual, 5th
Edition, 2010.
1
Represents average delay per vehicle during the weekday peak hour.
2
LOS = Level of Service.
3
v/c = volume to capacity ratio.
The project buses are planned to run with signal pre-emption where gates or signals would stop traffic at
at-grade crossings when a bus approaches. This is the same type operation that occurs today with the
MBTA commuter rail trains. The three at-grade crossings that are affected include:
•
•
•
th
Arlington Street/6 Street
Everett Avenue
Spruce Street
At each of these locations traffic and pedestrians will be required to stop when a Silver Line bus
approaches. During the peak periods, buses will run with 10-minute headways per direction resulting in a
total of 12 buses per hour. The delay for vehicles at each at-grade crossing is estimated to be
approximately 10-15 seconds when waiting for a Silver Line bus to cross. If all buses arrive
Expanded ENF
Page 6-26
November 2013
independently, motorists would be expected to experience 10-15 seconds of delay every 5 minutes at the
three at-grade crossing. This level of delay is considered minor and will not result in significant delay for
vehicles and pedestrians or vehicle queuing. If inbound and outbound buses arrive simultaneously, then
the delay would be shorter. Signals at the at-grade crossings will be coordinated to the extent possible to
minimize traffic delay.
The traffic delay created by Silver Line buses at at-grade crossings by themselves is expected to be
minimal. However, if buses arrive before or after a commuter train crossing, then vehicle delay and
queuing created by the train crossing could be exacerbated. Gate down times for trains currently average
approximately 90 seconds at the three Chelsea Study Area grade crossings. The Silver Line buses could
extend this time by 10-15 seconds. The scheduling of commuter rail trains and Silver Line buses will need
to be evaluated and coordinated during the design stages to minimize this occurrence.
The other at-grade crossing of the busway with a roadway occurs at Cottage Street in Chelsea. The traffic
volumes on Cottage Street at this location are minor and are projected to remain low for future conditions.
At this time a full traffic signal is not anticipated, but the crossing would include warning devices and
protection for general traffic, pedestrians, and bicyclists. These details will be determined in conjunction
with the City of Chelsea and other initiatives in the area such as the planned Chelsea Shared-Use Path.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-27
November 2013
Figure 6.6-1:
Study Area Intersections
Expanded ENF
Page 6-28
November 2013
6.6.2
Pedestrian Analysis
Analysis of existing pedestrian conditions included collecting pedestrian counts and evaluating pedestrian
Level of Service. Appendix D contains the entire pedestrian data collection and analysis content.
In Chelsea, the intersection with the greatest peak hour pedestrian activity is Broadway/Washington
Avenue/Hawthorne Street/Bellingham Square, with over 600 pedestrians during the AM peak hour and
over 2,000 pedestrians during the PM peak hour. Other locations with heavy peak hour pedestrian activity
(greater than 400 pedestrian crossings per hour) include: Chestnut Street/5th Street, Broadway/Everett
Avenue/Cross Street, and Broadway/3rd Street/Congress Avenue.
Study intersections in South Boston with over 100 peak hour pedestrian crossings include Congress St/B
St/I-90 Ramps, Congress Street/D Street, and D Street/Silver Line Way. Pedestrian crossing volumes at
all study intersections in East Boston were low, below 10 pedestrians per peak hour.
All intersections in the Study Area experience acceptable pedestrian LOS (LOS D or better) during peak
hours.
The MAPC (www.trailmap.mapc.org) provides a trail map showing existing and proposed bike routes in
the Metropolitan Boston area. In the City of Chelsea, a Shared-Use path is proposed along the railroad
right-of-way between Second Street and Everett Avenue.
6.6.3
Existing Bicycle Inventory and Facilities
The MAPC website (www.trailmap.mapc.org) and the City of Boston website (www.cityofboston.gov)
provide trail maps that show recommended bike routes in the Boston Metropolitan area. Existing off-street
bike paths in the vicinity of the Study Area are summarized in Table 6.6-2.
Table 6.6-2:
Existing Bike Paths in Vicinity of the Study Area
Facility
Location
Chelsea:
Shared-Use Path
Mary O’Malley Waterfront Park
East Boston:
Harbor Walk
Waterfront areas
East Boston Greenway
Bremen Street Park and East Boston Memorial Park
South Boston:
Harbor Walk
Waterfront areas
Source: http://trailmap.mapc.org/
In southwest Chelsea, Shared-Use paths are provided along the waterfront in Mary O’Malley Waterfront
Park. Several sections of Harbor Walk are located along waterfront sections of East Boston and South
Boston. The East Boston Greenway is a car-free bike path that runs in a northeast/southwest direction
though Bremen Street Park (from Frankfort Street in the north to Marginal Street to the south) and
through East Boston Memorial Park.
Appendix D contains additional information regarding bicycle facilities and opportunities in the Study
Area.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-29
November 2013
The MAPC (www.trailmap.mapc.org) provides a trail map showing existing and proposed bike paths and
routes in the Metropolitan Boston area. Proposed bike facilities in the vicinity of the Study Area are
summarized in Table 6.6-3.
Table 6.6-3:
Proposed Bike Facilities in Study Area
Location
From
To
Planned Bicycle Facility
Chelsea:
RR Right-of-Way
Second St
Everett Ave
Improved Shared-Use path
RR Right-of-Way
(south of Maple St)
Fourth St
Everett Ave
Arlington St
Bike lane on roadway
Fourth St
Fifth St
Fifth St
Arlington St
Hawthorn St/ Broadway
Broadway
Hawthorn St
RR Right-of-Way (northeast
of Gerrish Ave)
Chelsea St (along
waterfront parallel to
Route 1A)
Forbes St (in Chelsea)
Prescott St
Bennington St
Lovell St
Frankfort St
Northern terminus of street
(and continuing along T line
to Constitution Beach,
eventually to connect with
Belle Isle Marsh)
Marginal St
Orleans St
Sumner St (Jeffries Yacht
Club)
Shared bike lane on roadway
Waterfront
Boston Harbor Walk
1
locations
Boston Harbor Walk
locations
Walking path or trail
Seaport Blvd/
Northern Ave
Atlantic Ave
(in Boston)
B Street
Thompson Place
Seaport Blvd
Congress Ave
A Street
Thompson Pl
A Street
Congress St
Dorchester Ave
D Street
Northern Ave
Dorchester Ave
Boston Harbor Walk
1
locations
Boston Harbor Walk
locations
Walking path or trail
Everett Ave
Fourth St
Arlington St
East Boston:
Chelsea River
Waterfront
Chelsea St
South Boston:
Congress St
Waterfront
Sources: http://trailmap.mapc.org/; and http://massbike.org/resourcesnew/pathstrails/#boston_future
Notes:
1.
Several walking paths are proposed along the East Boston and South Boston Waterfront areas.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-30
November 2013
The Chelsea Shared-Use Path project proposed by EEA and the City of Chelsea may use some portions
of the former Grand Junction Right of Way now owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Coordination between the two projects has begun and will continue as both continue into the design
stages. Silver Line Gateway Build Alternative 3 (On-Street to Everett Avenue) includes 16-foot wide bus
lane with shared bike accommodation along the northbound side of Hawthorn Street between Central
Avenue and Broadway.
The proposed Shared-Use path will provide an attractive and convenient biking and walking route to key
destinations. Table 6.6-4 identifies the estimated time required to bike or walk between key destinations
in the City along the proposed trail route. These estimates are based on an urban biking speed of 10
miles per hour and a leisurely walking speed of 3.5 feet per second.
Table 6.6-4:
Estimated Journey Times
Distance
(Feet)
Bike Time
(Minutes)
Walk Time
(Minutes)
Waterfront to Box District Along ROW
2,300
3
11
Box District to Downtown Chelsea Along ROW
1,900
2
9
Downtown Chelsea to Mystic Mall
(On-road bike and walking routes along local roadways)
3,500
4
17
Destination
The time required to bike or walk between these destinations is very reasonable. For example, an MWRA
employee could walk from Griffin Way (Box District) to downtown Chelsea in 9 minutes to buy lunch or
connect to public transit, and in the process attain the health benefits of a ¾ mile roundtrip walk. A Box
District resident who needs to buy a few grocery items could bike to Market Basket at the Mystic Mall in
less than 10 minutes, or walk there in under 30 minutes each way.
Future bicycle demand (and associated need for bike racks and other related elements) has not been
determined at this time. As appropriate and available, this information will be provided in the Single EIR.
6.7
Parking
6.7.1
Existing Parking Inventory and Utilization
Existing parking analysis includes an inventory of existing parking spaces and their utilization. The focus
of this evaluation was new construction areas in the City of Chelsea. Appendix D contains additional
parking information and analysis.
6.7.1.1 Existing Parking Inventory
Parking inventories were conducted in March and April of 2013. Table 6.7-1 summarizes the number of
parking spaces for several key Study Area roadways in Chelsea.
A total of 209 parking spaces are provided along the five blocks of Central Avenue between Hawthorn
Street/Park Street and Eastern Avenue/Marginal Street. Thirty-four parking spaces are provided along the
th
two blocks of Hawthorn Street between 5 Street/Bellingham Street/Broadway and Park Street/Central
th
Avenue. Twenty-one parking spaces are provided along the east end of Chestnut Street (east of 6
Street/City Hall Avenue).
Expanded ENF
Page 6-31
November 2013
Table 6.7-1:
Parking Space Inventory – Chelsea – Existing 2013 Conditions
Street
Side
2
Central Ave (Hawthorn St/Park St. to
Eastern Ave/Marginal St)
th
Hawthorn St (5 St/Bellingham St/Broadway
to Park St/Central Ave)
3
th
Chestnut St (6 St/City Hall Ave to east
end of Chestnut St)
Number of
Spaces on
each Side1
North Side
107
South Side
102
East Side
24
West Side
10
East Side
West Side
21
n/a
Total
209
34
21
Source: AECOM on-street parking inventories, 3/4/13 and 4/9/13.
1
Citywide residential sticker parking is 12:00 AM – 5:00 PM, 7 days a week, except Broadway, Eastern
Avenue, and Washington Avenue.
2
Upper Central Avenue District: residential sticker parking is 12:00 AM – 6:00 PM, 7 days a week, from
Highland Street to Willow Street.
3
Commuter Rail District: residential sticker parking is between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday-Friday.
6.7.1.2 Parking Utilization
Parking utilization was measured along roadways in the Study Area that may be impacted by the Silver
Line Gateway. Table 6.7-2 summarizes the percentage of occupied spaces for each of these key
locations under existing 2013 conditions.
Table 6.7-2:
Parking Utilization Summary – 2013 Existing Conditions
Side
Parking
Spaces
Weekday Max
Occupancy
8AM - 6PM
Weekday AVG
Use Occupancy
8AM - 6PM
North
4
100%
91%
North
4
75%
41%
South
5
40%
22%
Central Ave (Hawthorne St & Shurtleff St)
North
7
57%
41%
Hawthorn St (Park St to Bellingham St)
East
24
88%
69%
Sixth St3 (Washington Ave to Arlington St)
North
16
81%
59%
Everett Ave (Arlington St to Fourth St)
West
11
109%
88%
Park St (Congress Ave & Hawthorne St)
South
9
89%
63%
Chestnut St (Busway & Washington Ave)
Both
21
86%
71%
Broadway (City Hall Ave)
West
8
113%
75%
Street
1
Central Ave at MASSPORT Garage
Central Ave (farside) at Highland St2
1.
2.
3.
Citywide, residential sticker parking only 12:00 AM – 5:00 PM; 7 days a week except Broadway, Eastern
Upper Central Avenue District: residential sticker parking, only 12:00 AM – 6:00 PM 7 days a week from
Commuter Rail District: residential sticker parking only between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday-Friday.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-32
November 2013
The average occupancy between the hours of 8 AM and 6 PM was greater than 40 percent for all but one
roadway segment surveyed (the south side of Central Avenue at Highland Street). For two locations, the
maximum parking occupancy exceeded 100 percent, which indicates that some vehicles were likely
parked in illegal spaces. A majority of the locations surveyed experienced average utilization in excess of
60 percent.
6.7.2
Future Parking Impacts
The anticipated parking impacts of the Silver Line Alternatives are summarized below.
Alternative 1 - Busway to Mystic Mall Alternative Impacts:
•
None
Alternative 2 - Busway to Bellingham Square Alternative Impacts:
•
Removes 29 parking spaces, which represents a peak demand of 27 parked vehicles
•
Peak hour of impact is 1:00 – 2:00 PM
Parking impacts for the Build Alternative 2 - Busway to Bellingham Square Alternative are shown in Table
6.7-3.
Table 6.7-3:
Parking Impact Summary – Busway to Bellingham Square Alternative
Parking Spaces
Street
Side
Metered
Unmetered
Total
Weekday
Max
Occupancy
8AM - 6PM
Chestnut St (Busway
& Washington Ave)
Both
0
21
21
86%
71%
Broadway (City Hall
Ave)
West
8
0
8
113%
75%
8
21
29
93%
72%
TOTALS
Expanded ENF
Weekday
AVG Use
Occupancy
8AM - 6PM
Page 6-33
November 2013
Alternative 3 - On-Street to Everett Avenue Alternative Impacts:
•
Removes 80 parking spaces, which represents a peak demand of 67 parked vehicles
•
Peak hour of impact is Noon – 1:00 PM
Parking impacts for the On-Street to Everett Avenue alternative are shown in Table 6.7-4.
Table 6.7-4:
Parking Impact Summary – On-Street to Everett Avenue Alternative
Parking Spaces
Street1
Side
Metered
Unmetered
Total
Weekday
Max
Occupancy
8AM - 6PM
Central Ave at Massport
Garage
North
4
0
4
100%
91%
North
0
4
4
75%
41%
South
0
5
5
40%
22%
Central Ave (Hawthorne
St & Shurtleff St)
North
7
0
7
57%
41%
Hawthorn St (Park St to
Bellingham St)
East
24
0
24
88%
69%
Sixth St (Washington
Ave to Arlington St)
North
0
16
16
81%
59%
Everett Ave (Arlington St
to Fourth St)
West
0
11
11
109%
88%
Park St (Congress Ave &
Hawthorne St)
South
9
0
9
89%
63%
44
36
80
84%
63%
Central Ave (farside) at
Highland St2
3
TOTALS
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
Weekday
AVG Use
Occupancy
8AM - 6PM
Citywide, residential sticker parking only 12:00 AM – 5:00 PM; 7 days a week except Broadway, Eastern
Upper Central Avenue District: residential sticker parking, only 12:00 AM – 6:00 PM 7 days a week from
Commuter Rail District: residential sticker parking only between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday-Friday.
It is assumed that any on-street stop/station will have parking impacts. Any sections of a route running in
mixed traffic are also likely to have parking impacts.
The relocation of the Chelsea Commuter Rail Station is not expected to have additional parking impacts
beyond any associated with the existing station. Commuter Rail parking will not be provided, and normal
City of Chelsea enforcement of on-street parking would be expected.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-34
November 2013
6.8
Noise and Vibration
6.8.1
Summary
6.8.1.1 Noise
Each of the three alternatives has the potential for noise impacts, primarily at multi-family residences
along the south side of the busway for Alternatives 1 and 2, and at duplexes along Central Avenue for
Alternative 3. However, given the conservative nature of the screening procedure used in the
assessment and the relatively high ambient noise levels in the Project Site, it is unlikely that there would
be any noise impacts identified in later stages of the project after a locally preferred alternative is
selected.
6.8.1.2 Vibration
The Silver Line Gateway project is a rubber-tired vehicle, and does not generate enough vibration to
produce the potential for any impacts. Because of this, there is no need to conduct any further vibration
analysis at later stages of the project after a locally preferred alternative is selected.
6.8.2
Screening Methodology
6.8.2.1 Noise
The noise screening procedure is detailed in Chapter 4 of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA)
noise and vibration guidance manual7. The noise screening procedure is designed to identify locations
where a project has the potential to cause noise impact, and is typically used at the early planning stages
of a project, such as an Alternatives Analysis, to help define the potential magnitude for noise impacts by
alternative. This approach identifies areas for further noise analysis at later stages of the project where
impacts are possible, and eliminates locations where no impacts would be identified. The screening
procedure is conservative enough to include all locations with the potential for noise impact, and provide
assurance that any areas outside the screening distances would have no noise impacts.
The screening procedure takes account of the noise impact criteria, the type of project and noisesensitive land uses. For screening purposes, all noise-sensitive land uses are considered to be in a
single category. The screening consists of distances from the project centerline or boundary within which
there is the potential for noise impact, based on relatively high-capacity scenarios (which can be scaled
up or down for specific project information) for a given project type and conservative estimates of existing
noise levels. The areas defined by the screening distances are meant to be sufficiently large to
encompass all potentially impacted locations.
If no noise-sensitive land uses are within the defined screening distances, then no further noise
assessment is necessary. If noise-sensitive land uses are found within the screening distances, further
assessment is required at later stages of the project. It is important to note that identification of sensitive
land uses within the screening distances does not indicate noise impact, nor does it mean that there will
be impact at later stages of the project with more detailed analysis.
7
U.S. Federal Transit Administration. “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.” Report FTA-VA-90-1003-06,
May 2006.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-35
November 2013
6.8.2.2 Vibration
The vibration screening procedure is detailed in Chapter 9 of the FTA’s noise and vibration guidance
manual. The vibration screening procedure, like the noise screening procedure, is designed to identify
locations where a project has the potential to cause vibration impact, and is typically used at the early
planning stages of a project, such as an Alternatives Analysis. This approach identifies areas for further
vibration analysis at later stages of the project where impacts are likely, and eliminates locations where
no impacts would be identified. The screening procedure is conservative enough to include all locations
with the potential for vibration impact, and provide assurance that any areas outside the screening
distances would have no vibration impacts.
For projects that involve rubber-tire vehicles, such as a BRT or bus project, vibration impact is unlikely
except in unusual situations, including vibration sensitive land uses near expansion joints, speed bumps
or uneven road surfaces, or buses operating in or very close to a vibration sensitive building, such as a
research facility or hospital. If these scenarios do not exist on a BRT or bus project, then the vibration
screening procedure does not need to be conducted, and no vibration impacts would be expected for the
project.
6.8.3
Existing Conditions
6.8.3.1 Noise and Vibration Sensitive Land Use
Noise and vibration sensitive land use for the Silver Line Gateway Alternatives Analysis Project Site was
identified based on aerial photography, project mapping and a site survey conducted in July 2013. Noise
and vibration-sensitive land use near the proposed alternatives includes single- and multi-family
residences, apartments and lofts, schools, churches and other institutional sites. The following describes
the noise and vibration-sensitive land use for each of the three alternatives.
Alternative 1 – Busway to Mystic Mall Alternative Impacts
•
•
•
Eastern Avenue to Highland Street - The land use on the eastern side of the busway between
Eastern Avenue and Highland Street is primarily industrial. On the western side, the land use is
primarily residential, with a mix of single- and multi-family residences.
Highland Street to Washington Avenue - The land use on the northern side of the busway and
commuter rail line is primarily residential. On the southern side, the land use includes a new
residential development under construction and a church on Broadway.
Washington Avenue to Mystic Mall - The land use on both sides of the busway and commuter
rail line is primarily commercial and industrial.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Highland Street to Chestnut Street - The land use on the northern side of the busway and
commuter rail line is primarily residential. On the southern side, the land use includes a new
residential development under construction and a church on Broadway.
Chestnut Street - The land use on Chestnut Street includes residences and a fire station.
Hawthorne Street - The land use on Hawthorne Street is primarily commercial.
Broadway - The land use on Broadway is a mix of residential and commercial.
Sixth Street - The land use on Sixth Street is primarily commercial.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-36
November 2013
Alternative 3 – On Street to Everett Avenue
•
•
•
•
•
•
6.8.4
Central Avenue from Eastern Avenue to Highland Street - The land use from Eastern Avenue
to Willow Street is primarily commercial. From Willow Street to Highland Street the land use is
primarily residential on both sides of the street.
Central Avenue from Highland Street to Hawthorne Street - The land use on this section of
the proposed alignment is primarily residential on both sides of the street. There is also a
cemetery on the northern side of Central Avenue.
Hawthorne Street and Broadway - The land use on both Hawthorne Street and Broadway is
primarily commercial with some mixed residential land use.
Sixth Street – The land use on Sixth Street is a mix of commercial and residential and includes
the fire station.
Busway and Spruce Street - The land use along the Busway and Spruce Street is primarily
commercial and industrial.
Everett Avenue, Cross Street and Park Street - The land use on Everett Avenue, Cross Street
and Park Street is primarily commercial with a few residences.
Screening Assessment
6.8.4.1 Noise
As discussed in the methodology section, the noise screening assessment is used to identify areas with
the potential for noise impact that should be assessed at later stages of the project, screen out areas
where no noise impacts would occur and need no further analysis, and provide an order of magnitude
comparison for potential impacts between alternatives.
For a bus project, the screening distance in the FTA guidance manual is 200 feet. This is based on 30
buses in the peak hour of operations traveling at 35 mph. For projects with significantly different
proposed operations than the default in the FTA guidance manual (such as the Silver Line Gateway
project) the screening distance can be adjusted based on the actual operations. The proposed Silver Line
Gateway operations include:
•
•
•
•
12 buses in the peak hour of operations for bi-directional service (10 minute headways in each
direction)
6 buses in the peak hour of operations for one way service (10 minute headways in one direction)
Speeds of 20-25 mph for the busway segments
Speeds of 10 mph for the on-street segments
Using these operational assumptions, the screening distance of 200 feet was adjusted using the
methodology contained in Chapter 4 of the FTA guidance manual. The following screening distances
were applied to the Silver Line Gateway project for the noise assessment:
•
•
•
70 feet for the busway portions of the alternatives
30 feet for the bi-directional on-street segments
20 feet for the one way on-street segment
Based on these screening distances, a noise screening assessment was conducted for each of the three
alternatives. The results of the noise screening assessment are detailed below for each alternative, by
segment. It is important to note that the locations identified below are not impacts, but represent areas
with the potential for noise impacts and where the noise assessment should focus in later stages of the
project, using the General Assessment methodology contained in Chapter 5 of the FTA guidance manual.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-37
November 2013
However, based on the conservative nature of the screening assessment and the high ambient noise
levels in the Project Site, it is unlikely that any noise impacts would be identified at later stages of the
project, once a locally preferred alternative is selected.
Alternative 1 – Busway to Mystic Mall
The results of the noise screening assessment for Alternative 1 are shown in Table 6.8-1. The screening
shows the potential for noise impact at several multi-family residences and one church, all located on the
western/southern side of the busway.
Table 6.8-1:
Screening Results for Alternative 1 – Busway to Mystic Mall
Screening
Distance
(ft)
Location
Number of
potential noise
impacts*
Description
Eastern Ave to Bellingham St
70
Eastern portion of apartment building on Cottage St
20
Bellingham St to Highland St
70
Lofts and apartments at Highland St and Willow St
41
Highland St to Broadway
70
New residential development on Gerrish Ave
48
Broadway to Washington Ave
70
Church on Broadway
1
Washington Ave to Mystic Mall
70
None
0
Total:
110
* The number of residences in multi-family buildings is estimated.
shows the potential for noise impact at several multi-family residences and one church, located on the
western/southern side of the busway and at several single-family residences and the fire station on
Chestnut Street.
Table 6.8-2:
Screening Results for Alternative 2 –Busway to Bellingham Square
Location
Screening
Distance
(ft)
Number of
potential noise
impacts*
Description
Eastern Ave to Bellingham St
70
Eastern portion of apartment building on Cottage St
20
Bellingham St to Highland St
70
Lofts and apartments at Highland St and Willow St
41
Highland St to Broadway
70
48
Broadway to Chestnut St
70
Chestnut St
30
New residential development on Gerrish Ave
Church on Broadway and apartments on SE Corner of
Washington Ave
Duplexes and fire station
Hawthorne St
20
None
0
Broadway
20
None
0
Sixth Street
20
None
0
Total:
33
11
153
Expanded ENF
Page 6-38
November 2013
Alternative 3 – On Street to Everett Avenue
shows the potential for noise impact at several single- and multi-family residences and one cemetery, all
located between Willow Street and Hawthorne Street on Central Avenue.
Table 6.8-3:
Screening Results for Alternative 3 – On-Street
Location
Central Ave from Eastern Ave to
Highland St
Central Ave from Highland St to
Hawthorne St
Hawthorne St
Screening
Distance
(ft)
Description
Number of
potential noise
impacts*
30
Single- and multi-family residences
50
30
Single- and multi-family residences and cemetery
81
20
None
0
Broadway
20
None
0
Sixth St
20
None
0
Busway
70
None
0
Spruce St
20
None
0
Everett Ave
20
None
0
Cross St
20
None
0
Park St
20
None
0
131
Total:
As a follow-up to the noise screening, a more detailed noise analysis was conducted.
6.8.5
Noise Impact Assessment
This section describes the noise impact assessment conducted for the Silver Line Gateway project,
including noise basics and impact criteria, the methodology used to assess impact, a description of the
existing noise conditions, the impact assessment and the noise mitigation measures required.
6.8.5.1 Noise Basics
Sound is defined as small changes in air pressure above and below the standard atmospheric pressure
and noise is usually considered to be unwanted sounds. The three parameters that define noise include:
•
Level – The level of sound is the magnitude of air pressure change above and below atmospheric
pressure, and is expressed in decibels (dB). Typical sounds fall within a range between 0 dB (the
lower limits of human hearing) and 120 dB (the highest sound levels experienced in the environment).
A 3 dB change in sound level is perceived as a barely noticeable change outdoors and a 10 dB
change in sound level is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound level.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-39
November 2013
•
Frequency – The frequency (pitch or tone) of sound is the rate of air pressure changes and is
expressed in cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz). Human ears can detect a wide range of frequencies
from around 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. However, human hearing is not effective at high and low
frequencies, and the A-weighting system (dBA) is used to correlate with human response to noise.
The A-weighted sound level has been widely adopted by acousticians as the most appropriate
descriptor for environmental noise.
•
Time Pattern – Because environmental noise is constantly changing, it is common to condense all of
this information into a single number, called the “equivalent” sound level (Leq). The Leq represents
the changing sound level over a period of time, typically 1 hour or 24-hours in transit noise
assessments. For transit projects, the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) is the common noise descriptor
used, and has been adopted by most agencies as the best way to describe how people respond to
noise in their environment. Ldn is a 24-hour cumulative A-weighted noise level that includes all
noises that happen within a day, with a 10 dB penalty for nighttime noise (10 PM to 7 AM). This
nighttime penalty means that any noise events at night are equivalent to ten similar events during the
day. Typical Ldn values for various transit and bus operations are shown in Figure 6.8-1.
Figure 6.8-1:
Cumulative Noise Levels from Transit and Bus Sources
Expanded ENF
Page 6-40
November 2013
6.8.5.2 Noise Impact Criteria
The noise impact criteria used for the project are based on the information contained in Chapter 3 of the
FTA noise and vibration guidance manual8. The FTA noise impact criteria are based on well-documented
research on community response to noise and are based on both the existing level of noise and the
change in noise exposure due to a project. The FTA noise criteria compare the project noise with the
existing noise (not the no-build noise).
The FTA noise criteria are based on the land use category of the sensitive receptor, and use Ldn for
locations where people sleep (Category 2) and Leq for locations with daytime and/or evening use
(Category 1 or 3), as shown in Table 6.8-4.
Table 6.8-4:
Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria
Land
Use
Category
Noise
Metric
(dBA)
1
Outdoor
Leq(h)*
2
3
Outdoor Ldn
Outdoor
Leq(h)*
Description of Land Use Category
Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. This
category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land uses as
outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks
with significant outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls.
Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes
homes, hospitals and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of
utmost importance.
Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes
schools, libraries, theaters, and churches where it is important to avoid interference
with such activities as speech, meditation and concentration on reading material.
Places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums,
campgrounds and recreational facilities can also be considered to be in this category.
Certain historical sites and parks are also included.
* Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity.
Source: FTA Guidance Manual (2006)
The noise impact criteria are defined by the two curves shown in Figure 6.8-2, which allow increasing
project noise as existing noise levels increase, up to a point at which impact is determined based on
project noise alone. The FTA noise impact criteria include three levels of impact, as shown in Figure 2.
The three levels of impact include:
•
No Impact: In this range, the proposed project is considered to have no impact since, on average;
the introduction of the project will result in an insignificant increase in the number of people highly
annoyed by the new project noise.
•
Moderate Impact: At the moderate impact range, changes in the cumulative noise level are
noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the
community. In this transitional area, other project-specific factors must be considered to determine
8
U. S. Federal Transit Administration, “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.” Report FTA-VA-90-1003-06,
May 2006.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-41
November 2013
the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation, such as the existing level, predicted level of
increase over existing noise levels and the types and numbers of noise-sensitive land uses affected.
•
Severe Impact: At the severe impact range, a significant percentage of people would be highly
annoyed by the new project noise. Severe noise impacts are considered to be “significant” under
NEPA, and should be avoided if possible. Noise mitigation should be applied for severe impacts
where feasible.
Figure 6.8-2:
FTA Noise Impact Criteria
6.8.5.3 Impact Assessment Methodology
Noise impact has been evaluated using the general noise assessment methodology contained in Chapter
5 of the FTA guidance manual. The steps in a noise assessment for a transit project include:
•
•
•
•
•
identifying noise-sensitive land uses in and adjacent to the Project Site using aerial photography, GIS
data and field surveys
measuring the existing noise levels
projecting project noise levels from transit operations
assessing impact from transit by comparing the project noise with the existing noise using the criteria
detailed above
recommending mitigation at locations where project noise levels exceed the impact criteria
Projected noise levels for the Silver Line Gateway project are based on operations data and drawings
provided by AECOM. Specific assumptions used in the noise impact assessment include:
•
•
•
Bus speeds were provided by AECOM. Speeds were assumed to be 20 mph on the busway east of
Route 1 and 25 mph west of Route 1.
The operating hours and headways included the following:
o Early morning hours (5:00 AM to 6:00 AM) – 12 minute headways
o Peak operating hours (6:00 AM to 10:00 PM) - 10 minute headways
o Late evening hours (10:00 PM to 1:30 AM) - 12 minute headways
Bus vehicle reference noise levels are based on information contained in the FTA noise and vibration
guidance manual.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-42
November 2013
6.8.5.4 Existing Conditions
Noise Sensitive Land Use
Noise-sensitive land use for the Silver Line Gateway was identified based on aerial photography, project
maps and a site survey. Based on the information from these sources, the noise-sensitive land use is as
follows:
•
•
•
Highland Street to Washington Avenue - The land use on the northern side of the busway and
commuter rail line is primarily residential with one church. On the southern side, the land use
includes existing residences, a new residential development under construction and a church and
school on Broadway.
Washington Avenue to Mystic Mall - The land use on both sides of the busway and commuter
rail line is primarily commercial and industrial.
Existing Noise Measurements
Existing noise levels were measured at two sites near the proposed Silver Line Gateway busway during
September 2013. Because the thresholds for impact in the FTA noise criteria are based on the existing
noise levels, measuring the existing noise and characterizing noise levels at sensitive locations is an
important step in the impact assessment. The noise measurements included short-term (1 hour)
monitoring of the A-weighted sound level at noise-sensitive locations near the proposed busway.
Table 6.8-5 summarizes the results of the existing noise measurement program and Figure 6.8-3 shows
the location of the two short-term noise monitoring sites for the proposed busway. At each site, the
measurement was conducted at the approximate set back of the building or buildings relative to the
project location. The results of the existing noise measurements program are used to determine the
existing noise levels for all the noise sensitive locations for the project. The noise measurement results at
each site are described below.
Table 6.8-5:
Summary of Existing Noise Level Measurements
Site
No.
Measurement Location
N1
N2
Measurement
Start
Date
Time
End of Chestnut St Behind St. Rose Church
9/27/2013
08:36
Grove St and Willow St
9/27/2013
09:42
Meas.
Duration
(hrs)
Noise
Level
(dBA)
Ldn
Leq
1
58
56
1
58
56
Ldn is used for Category 2 (residential) land use and Leq is used for Category 3 (institutional land use). Ldn
values were calculated from the measured Leqs using methods contained in the FTA guidance manual.
Site N1 – Chestnut Street: The Leq measured at this location was 56 dBA and the calculated Ldn was
58 dBA. The dominant noise sources were commuter rail trains, local traffic and aircraft overflights.
Noise levels were measured for 1 hour at the end of Chestnut Street adjacent to the existing commuter
rail line. This site is representative of the ambient noise conditions at locations adjacent to the commuter
rail line.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-43
November 2013
Site N2 – Grove Street and Willow Street: The Leq measured at this location was 56 dBA and the
calculated Ldn was 58 dBA. The dominant noise sources were local traffic and aircraft overflights. There
was some contribution from commuter rail trains, but they were not one of the primary sources of existing
noise. Noise levels were measured for 1 hour at the corner of Grove Street and Willow Street adjacent to
the proposed busway. This site is representative of the ambient noise conditions at locations away from
the commuter rail line.
6.8.5.5 Potential Environmental Impacts
For the proposed Silver Line Gateway busway, a general noise assessment was conducted. The results
are presented below and include both residential and institutional land use. The results include tables of
all sensitive locations which show the location information for each sensitive receptor group, the existing
noise levels, the projections of future noise levels, the impact criteria and whether or not there are any
noise impacts. The tables also show the total number of Moderate and Severe noise impacts for each
location.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-44
November 2013
Figure 6.8-3:
Noise Measurement Locations
Expanded ENF
Page 6-42
November 2013
Table 6.8-6:
Summary of Noise Impacts for Residential Land Use – Alternatives 1 & 2
Project Noise
#
Existing
Total
Noise
Levels
of
Dist Speed
Impact? Noise Level
Noise
Impacts
Criteria
(ft) (mph)
Level Bus
Level Increase
Mod Sev
Mod Sev
Location
MF on Cottage St
55
20
56
53
56
62
No
SF at Bellingham St and Willow St
60
20
56
52
56
62
No
SF at Grove St and Willow St
75
20
56
51
56
62
No
SF north of Willow St
115
20
56
48
56
62
No
MF north of Willow St
55
20
56
53
56
62
No
Box District Lofts
50
20
56
53
56
62
No
New MF on Gerrish Ave
50
20
56
53
56
62
No
MF on Washington Ave
35
20
56
55
56
62
No
th
SF on 6 St
75
20
56
51
56
62
No
SF on Crescent Ave East of Broadway
65
20
56
52
56
62
No
SF on Crescent Ave West of Broadway 110
20
56
48
56
62
No
Notes: 1. The reported noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel, except for the noise level
2. SF – Single-family residences
3. MF – Multi-family residences
58
1.7
57
1.5
57
1.1
57
0.6
58
1.7
58
1.9
58
1.8
59
2.7
57
1.1
58
1.3
57
0.6
increases.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
The results in Table 6.8-6 indicate no noise impacts for residential land uses along the Silver Line
Gateway busway.
Table 6.8-7:
Summary of Noise Impacts for Institutional Land Use – Alternatives 1 & 2
Project Noise
#
Existing
Total Noise
Levels
of
Dist Speed
Noise
Impact? Noise Level
Impacts
Criteria
(ft) (mph)
Level Bus
Level Increase
Mod Sev
Mod Sev
Location
St. Rose Church
45
20
58
50
130
20
58
43
St. Rose School
Iglesia de Dios Pentacostal Church 90
20
58
45
Note: The reported noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel,
62
62
62
except
68
No
59
0.6
68
No
58
0.1
68
No
58
0.2
for the noise level increases.
0
0
0
0
0
0
The results in Table 6.8-7 indicate no noise impacts for institutional land uses along the Silver Line
Gateway busway.
6.8.5.6 Proposed Mitigation
There are no noise impacts identified for the Silver Line Gateway project, so no mitigation is required.
6.8.6
Vibration Impacts
Because the Silver Line Gateway project includes a rubber tired vehicle, a vibration screening
assessment is only conducted under unusual circumstances, as described in the methodology section.
There are no highly vibration sensitive land uses along any of the alternatives, and the assumption is that
Page 6-46
Expanded ENF
November 2013
the busway portion Alternatives 1 and 2 will be newly paved with no irregularities and the on-street
portions of Alternatives 2 and 3 would share lanes with existing buses and trucks (including any current
roadway irregularities). Therefore, none of the guidelines for conducting a vibration screening for Silver
Line Gateway is met and there are no locations with the potential for vibration impact on the project. No
further vibration assessment is required at later stages of the project, once a locally preferred alternative
is selected.
6.9
Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas
An air quality analysis of the Silver Line Gateway alternatives was prepared by the Central Transportation
Planning Staff (CTPS) of the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) using the MOVES9 air
quality model. Results of the analysis are summarized in the text and tables provided below. Appendix E
provides a more detailed technical memo on this topic.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established air quality conformity requirements for transportation
plans, programs, and projects. The EPA published a final rule in the November 24, 1993, Federal
Register, with several amendments through January 2008, providing procedures to be followed by the
U.S. Department of Transportation in determining conformity of transportation plans, programs, and
projects with the SIP for meeting air quality standards. Eastern Massachusetts has been designated a
“moderate” ozone nonattainment area for the eight-hour ozone standard. Federal conformity regulations
require that the impact of transportation plans, programs, and projects on nonattainment areas be
evaluated.
The Boston Region MPO has conducted an air quality analysis for projects in the TIP. The purpose of the
analysis was to evaluate the air quality impacts of the TIP on the SIP. The analysis evaluates the change
in ozone precursor emissions (VOCs and NOx) and CO emissions due to the implementation of the TIP.
The modeling procedures and assumptions used in this air quality analysis follow the EPA’s and the
Commonwealth’s guidelines and are consistent with all present and past procedures used by the
Massachusetts DEP to develop and amend the SIP.
MassDOT has found the emission levels from all areas and all MPO regions in Eastern Massachusetts,
including emissions resulting from implementation of the TIP, to be in conformance with the SIP
according to state and federal conformity criteria. Specifically, the following conditions are met:
•
•
•
The VOC emissions for the build scenarios are less than the 2009 VOC mobile-source emission
budget for analysis years 2016 through 2035.
The NOx emissions for the build scenarios are less than the 2009 NOx mobile-source emission
budget for analysis years 2016 through 2035.
The CO emissions for the build scenarios are less than projections for analysis years 2016
through 2035 for the nine cities in the Boston CO maintenance area.
In accordance with Section 176(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990, the Boston Region MPO
has completed this review and hereby certifies that the FFYs 2013–16 TIP, and its latest conformity
determination, conditionally conforms with 40 CFR Part 93 and 310 CMR 60.03 and is consistent with the
air quality goals in the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.
9
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This emission
modeling system estimate emissions for mobile sources covering a broad range of pollutants and allows multiple
scale analysis.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-47
November 2013
6.9.1
General
While the CTPS analysis provided information for several peak hours, this summary focuses upon the
daily totals of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as well as the various emissions components of CO, CO ,
VOC, NOx, PM-2.5 and PM-10, using the MOVES model. A comparison is provided between year 2035
No-Build Conditions and three year 2035 Build Alternatives: Alternative 1 - Busway to Mystic Mall
Alternative, Alternative 2 - Busway to Bellingham Square Alternative, and Alternative 3 - On-Street to
Everett Avenue Alternative. Although the CTPS spreadsheet breaks out results for South Boston, East
Boston and Chelsea, only Chelsea (as the “new construction” component) is highlighted, along with
overall Study Area and regional results.
The order of magnitude of the differences between the No-Build and Build conditions, and among the
Build Alternatives themselves, is small. For all variables, the changes amount to less than one percent
(1%) of the No-Build quantity.
6.9.2
Comparative Analysis
Using the No-Build scenario as the basis for comparison, Tables 6.9-1 through 6.9-3 assess the potential
daily reductions in VMT and the various emissions components associated with the three alternatives.
•
VMT – All three Build Alternatives serve to reduce daily VMT, with the Busway to Bellingham
Square Alternative being the most effective when focusing on conditions within Chelsea and the
project Study Area. From an overall Regional perspective, the On-Street to Everett Avenue
Alternative provides the greatest reduction in VMT;
•
CO – All three Build Alternatives serve to reduce CO in Chelsea and within the project Study
Area, with the Busway to Bellingham Square Alternative being the most effective in Chelsea and
the On-Street to Everett Avenue Alternative most effective when considering the entire Study
Area. However, only the Busway to Mystic Mall Alternative reduces CO on an overall Regional
level;
•
CO – The CO results mirror the CO results summarized above. The Busway to Bellingham
Square Alternative is the most effective in Chelsea and the On-Street to Everett Avenue
Alternative most effective when considering the entire Study Area. Again, only the Busway to
Mystic Mall Alternative reduces CO on an overall Regional level;
•
VOC – Given the overall scale and level of precision of the reported results, there is no noticeable
reported difference in VOC within Chelsea when comparing No-Build conditions to the three Build
Alternatives. As the scale increases to the Study Area level, no difference is again reported
between the No-Build condition and the Busway to Mystic Mall Alternative, although increases in
VOC are reported for the Busway to Bellingham Square and On-Street to Everett Avenue
Alternatives. Only at the Regional scale does the comparison indicate that the Busway to Mystic
Mall Alternative serves to reduce VOC when compared to No-Build conditions;
•
NOx – NOx levels are reduced in Chelsea and in the Study Area by all three Build Alternatives,
with the Busway to Mystic Mall Alternative providing the greatest benefit. On a Regional level,
however, none of the Build Alternatives provide NOx reductions as compared to the No-Build
condition;
Expanded ENF
Page 6-48
November 2013
•
PM-2.5 – Given the overall scale and level of precision of the reported results, there is no
noticeable reported difference in PM-2.5 within Chelsea when comparing No-Build conditions to
the three Build Alternatives. As the scale increases to the Study Area level, a small reduction is
attributed to the Busway to Mystic Mall Alternative. At the Regional scale, the Busway to Mystic
Mall Alternative is once again neutral when compared to No-Build conditions, although increases
in PM-2.5 are reported for the Busway to Bellingham Square and On-Street to Everett Avenue
Alternatives;
•
PM-10 – Neutral or small reductions in PM-10 are reported within Chelsea and the project Study
Area for the three Build Alternatives, with only the Busway to Mystic Mall Alternative reporting
PM-10 reductions at the Regional level.
6.9.3
Summary
The implementation of any of the three Build Alternatives is expected to have a beneficial impact on air
quality within the City of Chelsea. Small differences in VMT and emissions reductions among the Build
alternatives are noted within Chelsea as well as the project Study Area, but only the Busway to Mystic
Mall Alternative provides consistent benefits in air quality reduction across Chelsea, the project Study
Area and the greater Boston region.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-49
November 2013
Table 6.9-1:
Year 2035 Build Alternatives / Reductions in Daily VMT & Emissions Compared to Year 2035 No-Build Conditions
Chelsea Total
ALT 1
Study Area Total
ALT 2
ALT 3
No-Build
Baseline
Busway to
Mystic
Mall
VMT (miles)
375,220
2,180
2,360
1,980
CO (kg)
1,249.00
6.00
7.00
6.00
CO (kg)
143,829.0
858.00
928.00
VOC (kg)
22.20
0.00
0.00
NOx (kg)
Busway to
Bellingham
Square
On-Street
to Everett
Avenue
No-Build
Baseline
ALT 1
ALT 2
Regional Total
ALT 3
ALT 1
No-Build
Baseline
ALT 2
Busway to
Bellingham
Square
On-Street
to Everett
Avenue
1,482,810
2,720
2,990
2,820
113,659,450
840
1,040
1740
4,910.00
7.00
6.00
8.00
350,377.00
1.00
-16.00
-4.00
787.00
589,099.00
1,039.00
879.00
1,129.00
39,559,887.00
56.00
-1,092.00
-578.00
0.00
93.40
0.00
-0.10
-0.10
5,919.60
0.20
-0.10
-0.20
Busway to
Mystic Mall
Busway to
Bellingham
Square
ALT 3
Busway to
Mystic
Mall
On-Street
to Everett
Avenue
91.10
0.30
0.30
0.20
368.60
0.60
0.50
0.40
26,191.80
-1.00
-1.60
-0.20
PM-2.5 (kg)
9.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
27.40
0.10
0.00
0.00
2,595.70
0.00
-0.30
-0.20
PM-10 (kg)
10.20
0.00
0.10
0.10
39.70
0.20
0.20
0.30
2,814.30
0.10
-0.10
0.00
Table 6.9-2:
Conditions
Year 2035 Build Alternatives / Percentage Reduction in VMT & Emissions When Compared to Year 2035 No-Build
Chelsea Total
ALT 1
ALT 2
Study Area Total
ALT 3
ALT 1
ALT 2
Regional Total
ALT 3
ALT 1
ALT 2
ALT 3
No-Build
Baseline
Busway to
Mystic
Mall
Busway to
Bellingham
Square
On-Street
to Everett
Avenue
No-Build
Baseline
Busway to
Mystic
Mall
Busway to
Bellingham
Square
On-Street to
Everett
Avenue
No-Build
Baseline
Busway to
Mystic
Mall
Busway to
Bellingham
Square
On-Street
to Everett
Avenue
VMT (miles)
CO (kg)
NA
NA
0.58%
0.48%
0.63%
0.56%
0.53%
0.48%
NA
NA
0.13%
0.14%
0.20%
0.12%
0.19%
0.16%
NA
NA
0.001%
0.0003%
0.001%
-0.005%
0.002%
-0.001%
CO (kg)
VOC (kg)
NOx (kg)
PM-2.5 (kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.60%
0.00%
0.33%
0.00%
0.65%
0.00%
0.33%
0.00%
0.55%
0.00%
0.22%
0.00%
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.18%
0.00%
0.16%
0.37%
0.15%
-0.11%
0.14%
0.00%
0.19%
-0.11%
0.11%
0.00%
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0001%
0.003%
-0.004%
0.00%
-0.003%
-0.002%
-0.006%
-0.01%
-0.002%
-0.003%
-0.001%
-0.61%
PM-10 (kg)
NA
0.00%
0.98%
0.98%
NA
0.50%
0.50%
0.76%
NA
0.004%
-0.004%
0.00%
Expanded ENF
Page 6-50
November 2013
Table 6.9-3:
Highest Reductions in Daily VMT & Emissions by Alternative at the Project Site, Study Area, and Regional Levels
Chelsea Total
NoBuild
ALT 1
Busway to
Mystic Mall
CO (kg)
CO₂ (kg)
PM-2.5 (kg)
PM-10 (kg)
ALT 2
ALT 3
Busway to
Bellingham
Square
On-Street
to Everett
Avenue
NoBuild
ALT 1
Busway to
Mystic Mall
Yes
Yes
Yes
VMT (miles)
VOC (kg)
NOx (kg)
Study Area Total
Yes
ALT 2
ALT 3
Busway to
Bellingham
Square
On-Street
to Everett
Avenue
NoBuild
ALT 1
Busway to
Mystic Mall
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Expanded ENF
ALT 2
ALT 3
Busway to
Bellingham
Square
On-Street
to Everett
Avenue
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Regional Total
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Page 6-48
November 2013
6.10
Wetlands and Water Resources
6.10.1 Existing Conditions
Field Investigations and wetland delineations were performed on June 4, 2013 in accordance with the
methodology established in the1995 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
Delineating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands policy guidebook, as well as the US Army Corps of Engineers’
(USACOE) 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and
the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and
Northeast Regions (January 2012) (USACOE Regional Supplement Manual). During the investigation,
five (5) areas were identified as potential wetlands and inspected for the presence of hydrology, hydric
soils, and a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation. All of these wetlands are within the out-of-service
section. These areas are described below and presented on Figure 6.10.1. Additional figures, photos
and MassDEP Bordering Vegetated Wetland Field Data Forms are located in Appendix F.
Area W1 (W1-1 through W1-19)
Area W1 extends from Cottage Street to approximately 120 feet northwest of the Bellingham Street
Bridge, spans roughly the width of the ROW (~45 feet), and is approximately 0.25 acres (10,748 +/square feet) in size. Area W1 is situated within an isolated depression with steep cut-slopes on either
side. Topographic elevations range from approximately 13- feet (NAVD 1998) at the northern extent of
the area, gradually sloping downwards to approximately elevation 11 at the southern extent.
No storm water inlet/outlet pipes or surface connections with any other jurisdictional wetlands were
observed, and Area W1 does not border a creek, river, stream, pond or lakes. Hydrology is derived
through surface sheet flow from adjacent vegetated uplands and expansive impervious surfaces.
Approximately 6-inches of standing water was observed, most likely due to recent rain events from May
29th to June 5th, when approximately 1.34 inches of rain fall was recorded in close proximity to the ROW
(Boston Water and Sewer Commission Charlestown collection site)
The dominant vegetation is common reed (Phragmites australis) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Other
species commonly observed included soft rush (Juncus canadensis), bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis) and
pussy willow (Salix discolor), which is consistent with plants typically found within wetlands and disturbed areas.
Soils consist of a coarse railroad bed gravel (2-4" across in size) with no fine component (i.e., sand, silt or clay).
Soils consisting of a fine sandy loam fill the interstices of the coarse railroad bed gravel, which measures
approximately 2-4-inches across in size. Additionally, shallow roots densely fill the interstices of the railroad
ballast within the upper few inches. The interstitial fine sandy loam soil has high value/ low chroma matrix
coloration, which could possibly be due to oxidation and reduction processes. Large redoximorphic concentrations
are beginning to be evident as skins on the surface of the railroad ballast stone, and it is likely that some iron
coatings may be associated with the living roots. The shallow roots, possible oxidized rhizospheres, and
redoximorphic concentrations likely reflect prolonged reducing conditions in Area W1. This type of situation would
be considered a “problematic hydric soil” condition under the USACOE Regional Supplement Manual. Indicators
of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology are also present, and it is presumed that this area would be
considered an isolated wetland.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-52
November 2013
Figure 6.10-1: Potential Wetland Areas
Expanded ENF
Page 6-53
November 2013
Area W2 (W2-1 through W2-11)
Area W2 is approximately 0.07 acres (3,050 +/- square feet) in size and is located within a long narrow, isolated
depression of compacted silty and gravelly soils. Topographic elevations range from approximately 15- feet
(NAVD 1998) at the southern extent of the area, gradually sloping downwards to approximately elevation 13 at
the northern extent.
Areas UP3, UP4, and UP5
Three additional areas were investigated for a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and
hydrology due to the presence of common reed growing within the ROW. These areas appear on Figure
2 as UP3, UP4 and UP5. Despite the presence of common reed throughout these three areas, which is
categorized as a Facultative Wetland (FACW) plant species (USACOE – National Wetland Plant List,
October 2012), the remaining dominant plant species were Facultative Upland (FACU) and Obligate
Upland (UPL), to include black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and
common mugwort (Artemesia vulgais). No additional indicators of hydric soils or hydrology were
observed. Therefore, these areas as presented on Figure 2 do not meet the criteria necessary to be
considered a wetland using both federal and state wetland criteria.
UP3 is approximately 0.22 acres in size with 0.15 of that residing within the ROW. The additional 0.07
acres is located off-site to the east of the ROW and consists of common reed growing within a compacted
gravel parking lot (see attached photos). Topographic elevations range from approximately 13- feet
(NAVD 1998) at the southern extent of the area, sloping downward to approximately elevation 10.5- at the
northern extent. Although common reed is a dominant plant within that portion of UP3 which lies within
the ROW, nearly all the remaining vegetation is FACU or UPL. The only other wetland indicator plants
observed included purple loosestrife (FACW), and rough-stemmed goldenrod (Solidago rugosa; FAC),
neither of which were a dominant plant.
Finally, although the soils were disturbed throughout this area, no redoximorphic features or hydric
indicators (e.g., depleted matrix) were observed within the fine component of the soil (i.e., sand and silt),
and no indicators of hydrology were observed other than the puddles of water located in the off-site gravel
parking lot (following recent rain events).
UP3 and UP4 were much smaller areas (approximately 150 square feet each), and exhibited the same
characteristics as described above for UP3. That is, a prevalence of upland vegetation (despite the
presence of common reed), disturbed soils with no hydric indicators and no indicators of hydrology.
No other potential wetland areas were observed throughout the remaining portions of ROW (see attached
photographs in Appendix C). From Eastern Avenue to Cottage Street, the ROW is comprised by paved
and gravel parking areas used by an adjacent trucking facility. From UP3, northwest to its junction with
the existing Rockport Commuter Rail Line, the ROW is maintained lawn and recently landscaped areas.
6.10.2 Jurisdictional Determination
6.10.2.1 Bordering Vegetated Wetlands
The definition, critical characteristics, and boundaries of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands are defined at
310 CMR 10.55(2) (a) through (c). As described in 310 CMR 10.55(2)(a) ”Bordering Vegetated Wetlands
are freshwater wetlands which border on creeks, rivers, streams, ponds and lakes… are areas where the
soils are saturated and/or inundated such that they support a predominance of wetland indicator plants”.
As described above, Areas W1 and W2 are saturated such that they support a predominance of wetland
indicator plants, but they do not border on any creek, river, stream, pond or lake and are indicative of
Expanded ENF
Page 6-54
November 2013
highly disturbed urban areas. Additionally, Areas W1 and W2 do not have any visible inlets or outlets and
are not connected to one another or any other jurisdictional resource area by an intermittent or perennial
stream. Therefore, Areas W1 and W2 as presented on Figure 6.10-1 do not meet the criteria for
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and are isolated wetlands not subject to WPA jurisdiction.
Areas UP3, UP4, and UP5 are not saturated such that they support a predominance of wetland indicator
plants and do not exhibit any indicators of hydric soils or sufficient hydrology. Therefore Areas UP3, UP4,
and UP5 as presented on Figure 6.10-1 do not meet the criteria for Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and
are not subject to WPA jurisdiction.
6.10.2.2 Isolated Land Subject to Flooding
The definition, critical characteristics, and boundaries of Isolated Land Subject to Flooding are defined at
310 CMR 10.57(2)(a) 1 through 3. As described in 310 CMR 10.57(2)(a) “Isolated Land Subject to
Flooding is an isolated depression or closed basin without an inlet or an outlet. It is an area which at least
once a year confines standing water to a volume of at least ¼ acre-feet and to an average depth of at
least six inches”.
As described above, Area W1 and W2 are located within closed basins that do not have an inlet or outlet,
and do not have the storage capacity to contain a volume of at least ¼ acre-feet as described below.
Area W1 measures approximately 0.25 acres in size, but due to the sloping topography the maximum
volume of water that can be confined within Area W1 prior to over-topping the depression is
approximately 7,884 cubic feet and does not meet the requirement of being able to confine standing
water to a volume of at least ¼ acre-feet. Therefore, Area W1 does not meet the criteria to be considered
Isolated Land Subject to Flooding and is not subject to WPA jurisdiction.
Area W2 measures approximately 0.03 acres in size and has sloping topography as described above in
Section 2. This area is not large enough or deep enough to confine standing water to a volume of at least
¼ acre-feet. Therefore, Area W2 does not meet the criteria to be considered Isolated Land Subject to
Flooding and is not subject to WPA jurisdiction.
Areas UP3, UP4, and UP5 are not located within closed basins and lack storage capacity, therefore these
areas do not meet the criteria to be considered Isolated Land Subject to Flooding and are not subject to
WPA jurisdiction.
6.10.3 Regulatory Jurisdiction
A Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) was filed with the City of Chelsea Conservation
Commission in October, 2013, to determine whether the Commission would take jurisdiction over these
potential wetlands under the Wetlands Protection Act. The Conservation Commission is expected to
issue a Negative Determination. Appendix F contains the full RDA.
Early coordination meetings and a site visit have occurred with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE). It is their opinion that the site is jurisdictional, and the USACOE is expected to assume
jurisdiction over the two isolated wet areas exhibiting the characteristics of isolated wetlands. MassDOT
expects to file a Section 404 Category II Permit Application with the USACOE. Given that the project will
alter 13,798 SF of resource area, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification will also be required from
MassDEP. MassDOT will work with the USACOE and MassDEP to determine the extent of any potential
mitigation required as a result of this alteration.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-55
November 2013
6.10.4 Project Alternatives, Impacts and Mitigation
Both Alternative 1 (Busway to Mystic Mall) and Alternative 2 (Busway to Bellingham Square) require the
alteration of 13,798 square feet of Isolated Vegetated Wetland (IVW), given that both contain the busway
component proposed for the former railroad ROW. Alternative 3, the On-Street to Everett Avenue
alternative, requires no wetland alteration.
Given the project purpose and need, consistency with local plans and the travel time and accessibility
improvements, Alternative 1 has been selected as the preferred alternative.
It is anticipated that construction activities proposed to occur within the former Grand Junction Railroad
Right of Way (ROW) will permanently alter the two Isolated Vegetated Wetlands (IVW) located there. The
proposed impact area is not within a large habitat block outside of the general site or adjacent property
boundaries. The presence of densely developed abutting residential and commercial properties along
with the ROW, combined with the ROW being bound by two streets, has isolated the area from any
surrounding blocks of natural regional landscapes.
A Wetland Functions and Values Assessments (FVA) per the methodology described in the ACOE New
England Division, 1999, The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement – Wetland Function and
Values – A Descriptive Approach and a detailed Wildlife Habitat Evaluation (WHE) subject to the
provisions at 310 CMR 10.60, have not yet been conducted. Accordingly, a wetlands mitigation plan has
not yet been developed. Upon completion of both the FVA and WHE, a mitigation plan will be developed
to restore any Principal functions and values lost as a result of construction activities as well as replace
any important habitat features and characteristics. The mitigation plan may include on-site and off-site
restoration components. The following sections provide a summary of the anticipated construction
impacts proposed in the IVW.
Isolated Vegetated Wetlands Impacts
Construction related activities will result in the removal of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation, including
biomass such as stumps and root systems. Although there are no large trees located within the IVW, a
majority of the tree canopy within the ROW is likely to be removed.
Soil material, which has begun to accumulate within the interstitial space of the railroad ballast due to
inundation and other pedogenic (soil forming) processes, will be removed from the area during work, and
the leaf litter and duff layers will also be removed.
Wetlands Function and Values Impacts
It is anticipated that the construction related activities proposed to occur within the IVW will likely affect
that resource area’s ability to recharge groundwater, retain sediments and toxins that may enter the IVW
from upland areas, and remove nutrients prior to discharging from the site to adjacent upland areas.
Wildlife Habitat Impacts
The loss of vegetation in the IVW will result in a reduction of any hard and soft mast that may be used by
wildlife species present in the ROW, perching and nesting sites for birds, and areal vegetative cover.
The reduction of dead standing woody material and the removal of downed woody debris in these areas
would reduce the habitat value for both primary excavators such as the pileated woodpecker and
secondary cavity users, which include a variety of species from mammals commonly found in urbanized
areas such as raccoons, to small birds like the tufted titmouse and black-capped chickadee.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-56
November 2013
6.11
The design of the proposed project will be progressing over the next few months as data on the existing
conditions is received and evaluated. A more detailed discussion of the existing drainage system and the
proposed stormwater management plan will be included in the Single EIR.
6.11.1 Existing Conditions
The Project Site is in a portion of a former active railroad right-of-way. There are some areas where
portions of track still remain, but the majority of the site consists of ballast overgrown with vegetation.
There are a few locations where the abutting property owners have encroached into the right-of-way with
pavement. The Project Site is a combination of redevelopment and new development. There are two
locations that have been characterized as isolated wetlands. At this early stage in the design, it is not
known where the stormwater runoff from the site discharges. Field survey and utility research will
continue over the next few months to determine where the runoff from the existing site discharges.
Based on available information, the majority of the Project Site does not flood during storm events.
The following table summarizes the volume of stormwater runoff (within the Project Site) for the predevelopment condition. The quantities provided are preliminary and will be updated as field survey is
completed and soil characteristics are determined. The runoff rates cannot be determined until
information on the existing drainage system is available.
Table 6.11-1:
Pre-Development Runoff Volume
Runoff Volume (acre-ft)
2-year
10-year
100-year
1.14
2.32
4.45
Although it is not known where the runoff from the Project Site is routed to, it has been assumed that the
runoff eventually makes its way to the Chelsea River. Chelsea River is classified as an impaired
waterway. Discharge of runoff to an impaired waterway requires treatment to remove pollutants which
contribute to the impairment. The Chelsea River was recently assessed through the MassDOT’s
Impaired Waterways program. The assessment determined that the river does not have a TMDL for
Phosphorous or Nitrogen, so treatment beyond the standard infiltration BMPs will not be required.
6.11.2 Post Development Conditions
The Project Site is a combination of redevelopment and new development. The new development
portions of the proposed project will be required to meet all ten of the Massachusetts DEP stormwater
management standards. The proposed project will be designed so that the post-development drainage
patterns follow the pre-development drainage patterns. At this stage of the design, it has not been
determined which best management practice methods will be implemented to meet the standards.
As noted above, field survey, utility research and soils classification will continue over the next few
months so that the existing drainage patterns and systems can be evaluated. Once the existing drainage
patterns and systems have been determined, the process of evaluating various BMPs for the proposed
project will begin. The soils within the Project Site will be evaluated for infiltration potential.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-57
November 2013
Meeting stormwater standards 2 & 3 (peak attenuation and recharge) within the railroad right-of-way will
be difficult due to the availability of land. The addition of the shared-use path in the right-of-way further
limits the area available for stormwater treatment. As the design progresses, parcels outside the right-ofway may need to be evaluated for stormwater management potential.
The following table summarizes the volume of stormwater runoff (within the Project Site) for the postdevelopment condition. The quantities provided are preliminary and will be updated as field survey is
completed soil characteristics are determined.
Table 6.11-2:
Post-Development Runoff Volume
2-year
10-year
100-year
1.70
3.15
5.55
Table 3 provides the difference between the pre-development and pose development runoff volumes.
The standard requires that the peak runoff rate be attenuated; however at this stage in the design, the
runoff rate cannot be determined. The runoff volume can be used to provide an approximate volume of
runoff that will need to be detained prior to being discharged into the existing drainage system.
Table 6.11-3:
Increase in Runoff Volume
2-year
10-year
100-year
0.56
0.83
1.10
In an effort to reduce the volume and rate of runoff, the use of porous pavement will be evaluated for the
shared-use path. There is also a possibility that open –graded friction course (OGFC) material could be
used for portions of the busway. Further discussion with MassDOT and MBTA will be required to
determine the feasibility of using OGFC on the busway. As with any pervious material, long term
maintenance is a concern.
In order to meet Standard 3, stormwater runoff will need to be infiltrated. The volume of runoff which will
need to be infiltrated will be determined based on the increase in impervious area and the hydrologic
group of the existing soils. Once the geotechnical field work and laboratory testing is complete, the
required volume of runoff to be infiltrated will be determined. As the design progresses the feasibility of
providing a vegetated swale between the busway and the shared-use path will be evaluated. The intent
of the vegetated swale is to provide both treatment and infiltration. The cross-section below shows a
possible configuration.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-58
November 2013
Figure 6.11-1: Conceptual Cross-Section
The water quality volume required to be treated in accordance with standard 4 is based on the total
impervious area. Since the project is not within a critical area, is not considered a land use with higher
pollutant load, and is not within a Zone II or wellhead protection zone, the runoff volume to be treated will
be 0.5 inches of runoff over the total impervious area. Based on preliminary calculations, the water
quality volume will be:
201,160 sf* x 0.5 inches = 8,382 cubic feet.
*The impervious area includes the shared-use path.
6.11.3 DEP Stormwater Standards
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has established ten Stormwater
Management Standards. The Project Site is a combination of both new development and redevelopment.
The new development portions of the project will be required to meet all ten standards as applicable. The
redevelopment portions of project are only required to meet standards 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the maximum
extent practicable.
The stormwater performance standards developed by the DEP, and a brief discussion on how the
proposed project will achieve the standards, are provided as follows:
Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges
No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause
erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-59
November 2013
The proposed project will not include any new untreated stormwater conveyance systems. The
stormwater runoff will be treated prior to discharge.
Standard 2: Peak Attenuation
Stormwater management systems shall be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not
exceed pre-development peak discharge rates.(This standard may be waived for discharges to land subject to
coastal storm flowage as defined in 310 CMR 10.04.)
The Project Site is a combination of new development and redevelopment. The new development
segments will be designed such that the post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed predevelopment discharge rates. The additional runoff being generated by the increase in impervious area
will need to be detained within the project limits. For the redevelopment segments, this standard will be
met to the maximum extent practicable. Meeting this standard within the railroad right-of-way may be
difficult due to the availability of land. The addition of the shared-use path within the right-of-way further
limits the land available for stormwater treatment. As the design progresses, parcels outside the right-ofway may need to be evaluated for stormwater management potential.
Standard 3: Recharge
Loss of annual recharge to groundwater shall be eliminated or minimized through the use of environmentally
sensitive site design, low impact development techniques, stormwater best management practices, and good
operation and maintenance. At a minimum, the annual recharge from the post-development site shall
approximate the annual recharge from pre-development conditions based on the soil type. This Standard is met
when the stormwater management system is designed to infiltrate the required recharge volume as determined
in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.
The Project Site is a combination of new development and redevelopment. The project will be designed
so that the post-development annual recharge approximates the pre-development recharge rate for the
new development segments. For the redevelopment segments, this standard will be me to the maximum
extent practicable. The use of porous pavement will be evaluated for the shared-use path. For the
busway, the use of an open graded friction course will be evaluated. Additionally, the feasibility of a
vegetated swale between the busway and the shared-use path will be evaluated. Soil testing will be
performed throughout the Project Site to determine suitable locations to infiltrate runoff. Meeting this
standard within the railroad right-of-way may be difficult due to the availability of land. The addition of the
shared-use path within the right-of-way further limits the land available for stormwater treatment. As the
design progresses, parcels outside the right-of-way may need to be evaluated for stormwater
management potential.
Standard 4: Water Quality
Stormwater management systems shall be designed to remove 80% of the average annual post-construction
load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). This Standard is met when: a. Suitable practices for source control and
pollution prevention are identified in a long-term pollution prevention plan, and thereafter are implemented and
maintained; b. Structural stormwater best management practices are sized to capture the required water quality
volume determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook; and c. Pretreatment is
provided in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.
The proposed project will include the installation of treatment chains in order to meet the 80% TSS
removal standard. These may include deep sump catch basins, grass channels, porous pavement and/or
detention basins.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-60
November 2013
Standard 5: Land Uses with Higher Pollutant Loads
For land uses with higher potential pollutant loads, source control and pollution prevention must be
implemented in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook to eliminate or reduce the discharge
of stormwater runoff from such land uses to the maximum extent practicable. If through source control and/or
pollution prevention all land uses with higher potential pollutant loads cannot be completely protected from
exposure to rain, snow, snow melt, and stormwater runoff, the proponent shall use the specific structural
stormwater BMPs determined by the Department to be suitable for such uses as provided in the Massachusetts
Stormwater Handbook. Stormwater discharges from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads shall also
comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L. c. 21, §§ 26-53 and the regulations
promulgated there under at 314 CMR 3.00, 314 CMR 4.00 and 314 CMR 5.00.
This standard is not applicable. The proposed project is not considered a land use with higher pollutant
loads.
Standard 6: Critical Areas
Stormwater discharges within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead protection Area of a public water supply, and
stormwater discharges near or to any other critical area, require the use of the specific source control and
pollution prevention measures and the specific structural stormwater best management practices determined by
the Department to be suitable for managing discharges to such areas, as provided in the Massachusetts
Stormwater Handbook. A discharge is near a critical area if there is a strong likelihood of a significant impact
occurring to said area, taking into account site-specific factors. Stormwater discharges to Outstanding Resource
Waters and Special Resource Waters shall be removed and set back from the receiving water or wetland and
receive the highest and best practical method of treatment. A “storm water discharge” as defined in 314 CMR
3.04(2)(a)1 or (b) to an Outstanding Resource Water or Special Resource Water shall comply with 314 CMR 3.00
and 314 CMR 4.00. Stormwater discharges to a Zone I or Zone A are prohibited unless essential to the operation
of a public water supply.
This standard is not applicable. The proposed project is not expected to discharge runoff to a critical
area.
Standard 7: Redevelopment and other projects Subject to the Standards only to the extent practicable
A redevelopment project is required to meet the following Stormwater Management Standards only to the
maximum extent practicable: Standard 2, Standard 3, and the pretreatment and structural best management
practice requirements of Standards 4, 5, and 6. Existing stormwater discharges shall comply with Standard 1
only to the maximum extent practicable. A redevelopment project shall also comply with all other requirements
of the Stormwater Management Standards and improve existing conditions.
The shared-use path portion of the project is considered a redevelopment project and will be required to
meet the standards 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the maximum extent practicable. The busway portion of the project
is a combination of new development and redevelopment. The redevelopment segments will be required
to meet the standards 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the maximum extent practicable. The new development
segments will meet all applicable standards.
Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion Control
A plan to control construction-related impacts including erosion, sedimentation and other pollutant sources
during construction and land disturbance activities (construction period erosion, sedimentation, and pollution
prevention plan) shall be developed and implemented.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-61
November 2013
A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared prior to the start of construction activities. During
construction erosion control devices including hay bales and silt fences will be installed. Land
disturbance will be limited to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Sediment and erosion
controls are needed to protect the adjacent properties from sediment.
Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan (post-construction)
A Long-Term Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that
stormwater management systems function as designed.
A long-term operation and maintenance plan will be developed, by the Design-Build Contractor, for the
maintenance of the stormwater management system.
Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges
All illicit discharges to the stormwater management system are prohibited.
Based on available information, there are no known or suspected illicit discharges within the project limits.
6.12
Chapter 91 and Massachusetts Coastal Zone
6.12.1 Chapter 91
There is no new construction in areas identified as historic filled tidelands. Figure 6.12-1 illustrates the
proximity of areas within Chapter 91 jurisdiction.
The closest boundaries of Chapter 91 jurisdictional areas run roughly along Marginal Street and extend
across Chelsea Street in the vicinity of the Chelsea Street bridge. While Silver Line Gateway service will
utilize the Chelsea Street bridge, there will be no project-related construction activity at this location.
Proposed new construction of the busway begins north of the intersection of Chelsea Street with Eastern
and Central Avenues, in the abandoned railroad right-of-way adjacent to the Massport employee parking
garage.
6.12.2 Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Figure 6.12-1 also identifies portions of the project that occur within the Massachusetts Coastal Zone.
The official Massachusetts Coastal Zone includes the lands and waters within the seaward limit of the
state’s territorial sea to generally 100 feet beyond (landward of) the first major land transportation route
encountered (a road, highway, rail line, etc.). Included in the state’s coastal zone is all of Barnstable
County, Dukes County, and Nantucket County (i.e., Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, and
Gosnold), tidal rivers and adjacent uplands, and anadromous fish runs in coastal towns. Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management (MCZM) jurisdictional authority may extend beyond the defined coastal zone
boundary when activities in adjacent marine waters or land areas can be reasonably expected to affect
the resources, land, or water uses of the Massachusetts coastal zone.
Because the project will apply for a Section 404 Category 2 general permit with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE), the project will be subject to federal consistency review. As part of that
review, the project will be assessed for its compliance with or effects on MCZM policies. As noted in the
MCZM policy guide (October, 2011):
Expanded ENF
Page 6-62
November 2013
“The term “coastal effects” refers not only to environmental effects (i.e., impacts on
biological or physical resources found within the state coastal zone), but also to effects on
human uses, such as fishing and boating, public access and recreation, scenic and aesthetic
enjoyment, and resource creation or restoration.”
Compliance with water resource issues will be addressed through compliance with the MassDEP
Stormwater Management Standards. By enhancing multi-modal access and improving transit availability
and performance, the project is compliant with access and growth management policies. Based upon the
MCZM policies listed below, the project will have no coastal effects.
Coastal Hazards Policy #1
Preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the beneficial functions of storm damage prevention and
flood control provided by natural coastal landforms, such as dunes, beaches, barrier beaches,
coastal banks, land subject to coastal storm flowage, salt marshes, and land under the ocean.
Ensure that construction in water bodies and contiguous land areas will minimize interference
with water circulation and sediment transport. Flood or erosion control projects must demonstrate
no significant adverse effects on the Project Site or adjacent or downcoast areas.
Ensure that state and federally funded public works projects proposed for location within the
coastal zone will:
• Not exacerbate existing hazards or damage natural buffers or other natural resources.
• Be reasonably safe from flood and erosion-related damage.
• Not promote growth and development in hazard-prone or buffer areas, especially in
velocity zones and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.
• Not be used on Coastal Barrier Resource Units for new or substantial reconstruction of
structures in a manner inconsistent with the Coastal Barrier Resource/Improvement Acts.
Prioritize acquisition of hazardous coastal areas that have high conservation and/or recreation
values and relocation of structures out of coastal high-hazard areas, giving due consideration to
the effects of coastal hazards at the location to the use and manageability of the area.
Energy Policy #1
For coastally dependent energy facilities, assess siting in alternative coastal locations. For noncoastally dependent energy facilities, assess siting in areas outside of the coastal zone. Weigh
the environmental and safety impacts of locating proposed energy facilities at alternative sites.
Energy Policy #2
Encourage energy conservation and the use of renewable sources such as solar and wind power
in order to assist in meeting the energy needs of the Commonwealth.
Growth Management Policy #1
Encourage sustainable development that is consistent with state, regional, and local plans and
supports the quality and character of the community.
Ensure that state and federally funded infrastructure projects in the coastal zone primarily serve
existing developed areas, assigning highest priority to projects that meet the needs of urban and
community development centers.
Encourage the revitalization and enhancement of existing development centers in the coastal
zone through technical assistance and financial support for residential, commercial, and industrial
development.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-63
November 2013
Figure 6.12-1: Chapter 91 Tidelands
Expanded ENF
Page 6-64
November 2013
Habitat Policy #1
Protect coastal, estuarine, and marine habitats—including salt marshes, shellfish beds,
submerged aquatic vegetation, dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, banks, salt ponds, eelgrass
beds, tidal flats, rocky shores, bays, sounds, and other ocean habitats—and coastal freshwater
streams, ponds, and wetlands to preserve critical wildlife habitat and other important functions
and services including nutrient and sediment attenuation, wave and storm damage protection,
and landform movement and processes.
Habitat Policy #2
Advance the restoration of degraded or former habitats in coastal and marine areas.
Ocean Resources Policy #1
Support the development of sustainable aquaculture, both for commercial and enhancement
(public shellfish stocking) purposes. Ensure that the review process regulating aquaculture facility
sites (and access routes to those areas) protects significant ecological resources (salt marshes,
dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, and salt ponds) and minimizes adverse effects on the coastal
and marine environment and other water-dependent uses.
Except where such activity is prohibited by the Ocean Sanctuaries Act, the Massachusetts Ocean
Management Plan, or other applicable provision of law, the extraction of oil, natural gas, or
marine minerals (other than sand and gravel) in or affecting the coastal zone must protect marine
resources, marine water quality, fisheries, and navigational, recreational and other uses.
Accommodate offshore sand and gravel extraction needs in areas and in ways that will not
adversely affect marine resources, navigation, or shoreline areas due to alteration of wave
direction and dynamics. Extraction of sand and gravel, when and where permitted, will be
primarily for the purpose of beach nourishment or shoreline stabilization.
Ports and Harbors Policy #1
Ensure that dredging and disposal of dredged material minimize adverse effects on water quality,
physical processes, marine productivity, and public health and take full advantage of
opportunities for beneficial re-use.
Obtain the widest possible public benefit from channel dredging and ensure that Designated Port
Areas and developed harbors are given highest priority in the allocation of resources.
Preserve and enhance the capacity of Designated Port Areas to accommodate water-dependent
industrial uses and prevent the exclusion of such uses from tidelands and any other DPA lands
over which an EEA agency exerts control by virtue of ownership or other legal authority.
For development on tidelands and other coastal waterways, preserve and enhance the immediate
waterfront for vessel-related activities that require sufficient space and suitable facilities along the
water’s edge for operational purposes.
Encourage, through technical and financial assistance, expansion of water-dependent uses in
Designated Port Areas and developed harbors, re-development of urban waterfronts, and
expansion of physical and visual access.
Protected Areas Policy #1
Preserve, restore, and enhance coastal Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, which are
complexes of natural and cultural resources of regional or statewide significance.
Protect state designated scenic rivers in the coastal zone.
Ensure that proposed developments in or near designated or registered historic places respect
the preservation intent of the designation and that potential adverse effects are minimized.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-65
November 2013
Public Access Policy #1
Ensure that development (both water-dependent or nonwater-dependent) of coastal sites subject
to state waterways regulation will promote general public use and enjoyment of the water’s edge,
to an extent commensurate with the Commonwealth’s interests in flowed and filled tidelands
under the Public Trust Doctrine.
Improve public access to existing coastal recreation facilities and alleviate auto traffic and parking
problems through improvements in public transportation and trail links (land- or water-based) to
other nearby facilities. Increase capacity of existing recreation areas by facilitating multiple use
and by improving management, maintenance, and public support facilities. Ensure that the
adverse impacts of developments proposed near existing public access and recreation sites are
minimized.
Expand existing recreation facilities and acquire and develop new public areas for coastal
recreational activities, giving highest priority to regions of high need or limited site availability.
Provide technical assistance to developers of both public and private recreation facilities and sites
that increase public access to the shoreline to ensure that both transportation access and the
recreation facilities are compatible with social and environmental characteristics of surrounding
communities.
Water Quality Policy #1
Ensure that point-source discharges and withdrawals in or affecting the coastal zone do not
compromise water quality standards and protect designated uses and other interests.
Ensure the implementation of nonpoint source pollution controls to promote the attainment of
water quality standards and protect designated uses and other interests.
Ensure that subsurface waste discharges conform to applicable standards, including the siting,
construction, and maintenance requirements for on-site wastewater disposal systems, water
quality standards, established Total Maximum Daily Load limits, and prohibitions on facilities in
high-hazard areas.
Table 6.12-1 summarizes the policies and identifies whether the project will have positive, negative or
neutral (non-applicable) effects on coastal resources.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-66
November 2013
Table 6.12-1:
MCZM Policies and Likely Project Effects
Policy
Positive Effect
Negative Effect
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Energy Policy #1
Yes
Energy Policy #2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Habitat Policy #1
Habitat Policy #2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
6.13
Not Applicable
Yes
Historic / Archaeological
The MassDOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) at the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. It is the opinion of the CRU staff that this project will have No
Effect on properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places,
including the NR-listed Bellingham Square Historic District in Chelsea, and in Boston, the NR-listed South
Station and the NR-listed Fort Point Channel Historic District. MHC will receive a copy of this Expanded
ENF for review as part of the normal MEPA distribution requirements. MassDOT also will consult with the
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and the Mashpee
Tribe and with the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources.
Figure 6.13-1 shows the project elements in the Study Area.
Expanded ENF
Page 6-64
November 2013
Figure 6.13-1: Project Elements
Expanded ENF
Page 6-68
November 2013
MITIGATION
6.14
Construction Impacts and Traffic Management Plan
Data provided by CTPS, in combination with the information assembled in Traffic Impacts Memorandum
and information on any concurrent transportation construction projects identified through the project
coordination process was used to analyze and document the traffic impacts of the proposed project, and
other concurrent projects impacting the Project Site, during construction. The following construction
impacts are evaluated in this memorandum:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Concurrent transportation construction projects
Roadway impacts
Traffic volume impacts
Level-of-Service analysis
Emergency vehicle access impacts
Transit operations impacts
Traffic management plan
Noise and vibration levels
The potential construction impacts of the project are summarized in Table 6.14-1.
The project construction will have little or no impact on most of the concurrent transportation projects in
the Study Area. Project construction will need to be coordinated with the Washington Avenue Bridge
placement project over the operating MBTA Commuter Rail tracks in Chelsea. Temporary displacement
of some existing on-street parking spaces on Washington Avenue Bridge is expected during construction
with no permanent loss of parking expected.
There will be little, if any, new project construction in South Boston and East Boston because in those
areas of the Study Area the new Silver Line Gateway service will operate within existing roadways and
transit infrastructure.
Roadway and traffic impacts and traffic management plans will be limited to the existing at-grade railroad
crossings in Chelsea at Arlington Street/6th Street, Spruce Street, and Everett Avenue. At these locations
project construction is expected to include busway signal/gate installation and traffic signal coordination
with existing railroad at-grade crossing protection systems. Minor construction impacts will also occur at
the Cottage Street grade crossing.
Transit operations impacts will be limited to construction of the busway adjacent to the existing Chelsea
Commuter Rail Station. Project construction will need to be coordinated with MBTA commuter rail
operations. Temporary operation of inbound and outbound commuter rail trains on the existing inbound
track is being explored during preliminary design as a potential way to minimize impact on existing
commuter rail operations during construction of the busway and the Washington Avenue Bridge
replacement. The relocation of the Chelsea Commuter Rail Station will require additional coordination.
Construction of the project busway will be primarily within the Commonwealth owned former CSX rail
right-of-way which abuts the south side of the MBTA commuter rail line between approximately Broadway
and the Mystic Mall. To the south of Broadway the proposed busway abuts primarily existing and former
industrial land uses on the east and residential land on the west. Potential noise and vibration impacts are
expected to be minor and are addressed in a separate technical memo.
Construction of the Shared-Use Path project in Chelsea will occur under Phase 2 of the construction
schedule. The coordinated design of this project and the busway are ongoing, with off-street and onSilver Line Gateway – Service to Chelsea, East Boston & the Blue Line
Expanded ENF
Page 6-69
November 2013
MITIGATION
street elements subject to cross-section requirements, ROW limitations and potential easements and
takings.
Additional analyses of construction-period noise, air quality and water resource impacts will be provided
in the Single EIR. These analyses may include, but will not be limited to, additional standards for
construction equipment, night-time construction, and construction impacts associated with the relocation
of the commuter rail station.
Table 6.14-1:
Construction Impact Analysis
Construction Impact Analysis
South Boston
Concurrent
Transportation
Construction
Projects
•
•
Multiple Massport
and private
development
projects in the
Seaport District
South Boston
truck route
improvements;
South Bay Harbor
Trail.
East Boston
•
•
•
•
Blue Line Airport station bus UTurn.
Ongoing Logan Airport
roadway and intersection
improvements
Conversion of existing Williams
Tunnel toll plazas to All
Electronic Tolling (AET)
Installation of AET toll zone on
I-90 EB in South Boston to
support two-way tolling of
tunnel
Roadway Impacts
None
None
Traffic Volume
Impacts
None
None
Level – of Service
Analysis
None
None
Emergency Vehicle
Access Impacts
None
Chelsea
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Minimal, at four (4) existing atgrade crossings
•
Minimal, at four (4) existing atgrade crossings
•
None
•
Temporary emergency vehicle
response routes will be established
as part of Washington Avenue
Bridge replacement.
Some around Chelsea Commuter
Rail Station. Local bus detour
during Washington Avenue Bridge
replacement.
Limited around four (4) existing atgrade crossings
Construction mostly limited to
former railroad right of way (ROW).
The majority of ROW is located
adjacent to either active commuter
rail tracks or former industrial land
uses. Noise analyses indicate that
no noise mitigation measures will
be required. No vibration impacts
are anticipated.
None
•
Transit Operations
Impacts
None
None
Traffic Management
Plan
None
None
•
•
Noise and Vibration
Levels
None
None
Expanded ENF
Resurfacing Route 1 Viaduct over
proposed busway
New FBI Headquarters
New Hotel at corner of Central
Avenue and Eastern Avenue
New residential and hotel
developments between Everett
Avenue and Sixth Street
Box District redevelopment
Shared-Use Path project by
EEA/City of Chelsea
Page 6-70
November 2013

Silver Line Gateway EENF

Transcription

Similar documents

UviLux UV Fluorometer: Applications

The History of Chelsea

Manifesto, But Why?

2012 MetanVB Boston Whaler 16`7” Sakonnet

Chelsea Piers: Branding Opportunities

Pantallas Acusticas Pared Verde (EN)

2010 Annual Report

High Line map

a library unit lesson plan

Times The