Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting
10:00 AM – 12:30 PM, Newton Free Library, Druker Auditorium, 330 Homer Street, Newton, MA
David Mohler, Chair, representing Richard Davey, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization agreed to the following:
• approve
the following work programs
o Priority Corridors for LRTP Needs Assessment
– FFY 2013
o Safety and Operations Analyses at Selected
Intersections – FFY 2013 (as revised)
o Completion of Green Line Extension New
Starts Analysis
• approve
the minutes of the meeting of September 6
• approve
Amendment One to the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2013–16 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and waive the public review period
Newton Mayor Setti
Warren welcomed the MPO members and attendees to Newton. He discussed planning
work underway in Newton to improve conditions for walking and bicycling and to
improve the quality of life, and he noted that the MPO has funded projects it the
city that support these aims. He
acknowledged the good work of the city’s planning and DPW staff and the Newton
Transportation Advisory Committee.
The Committee is working to make Newton
more walkable and bikeable; MPO dollars have funded
projects to this end, such as a program to fund bicycle racks. The Mayor also
remarked upon the 13 Villages, One Community Program, a
partnership with the business community and residents to improve quality of
life in the city. Through the Liveable Community
Workshop program and the Safe Access to Transit study, MPO staff has worked on
projects with that commitment.
He also noted that the city has
developed a Capital Plan for the prioritization and systematic ranking of
infrastructure improvement needs. This evolving plan is transparent and
incorporates residents’ input.
In closing, the Mayor emphasized the
need for more revenue to fund transportation projects in the state, the need to
create efficiencies in government, and the need for all residents to care about
addressing our infrastructure problems. He noted that he and the city of Newton
will be in the forefront talking about these needs in the near future.
The Mayor thanked the MPO for their work
and expressed his satisfaction with the partnership between the MPO and the
city.
There were none.
Last week, MassDOT
and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) held a public hearing on MassDOT’s annual status report on the State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The SIP has been released for public review. Comments will be
accepted until September 25. Comments should be submitted to Kate
Fichter, MassDOT, Office of Transportation Planning,
Room 4150, Ten Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116 or Katherine.Fichter@dot.state.ma.us,
and Jerome Grafe, MassDEP, Bureau of Waste
Prevention, Boston, MA 02018 or Jerome.Grafe@state.ma.us.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has notified MassDOT that it cannot approve the
draft State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) due to the failure to
program funds for the design of the Red
Line-Blue Line Connector project. The project is a requirement under the
SIP. (I f the SIP is amended, as has been requested by MassDOT,
the requirement would be removed from the SIP.) MassDOT
is proposing to amend the FFYs 2013-16 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
today to restore funding for the project design. This action is needed before the
STIP can receive federal approval and that approval is needed to allow projects
programmed in that document to go forward.
MassDOT will hold 14 public meetings across the commonwealth to discuss
transportation needs and revenue gaps. The first will be held in Springfield on
September 27. MassDOT will provide the full schedule
of meetings to the MPO when it is available.
There were none.
S. Olanoff
reported that the Advisory Council met on September 12 and held its annual
election. S. Olanoff was elected as chair and Monica Tibbitts as vice chair.
The Advisory Council also revised its
bylaws to conform to the MPO’s expanded membership. MPO members also serving on
the Advisory Council are now non-voting members of the Advisory Council.
Advisory Council members have been sent
a survey asking them to voluntarily report their personal demographic
information, as was requested by the federal government.
A presentation on the Regional Household
Survey was postponed from the September meeting to the meeting of October 10,
which will begin at 3 PM. The MPO’s Candidates’ Forum will precede the Advisory
Council meeting. S. Olanoff encouraged members to
attend both events.
Following S. Olanoff’s
report, some members raised concerns about how the Advisory Council’s election
was administered. Paul Regan, MBTA Advisory Board, began by expressing concern
about a personal attack on a candidate and about the resulting election of
members who were not originally among the slate of candidates. He stated that
this occurrence has the potential to negatively impact the Advisory Council’s
outreach to new members. Given that the Advisory Council is a voting member of
the MPO, the Advisory Council’s elections should be as rigorous and transparent
as the MPO’s elections, he said.
S. Olanoff noted
that all the candidates were present at the election. He acknowledged that
inappropriate remarks were directed at one candidate. He stated that the
election process will be starting earlier next year so that a replacement chair
can be identified, which will also depend on whether the current vice chair
wishes to be promoted to chair.
D. Mohler
noted that there is a perception among some people that the nominated
candidates were “sandbagged” by a group of individuals. He also expressed
concern that the winning candidate was not among the original slate of candidates.
Laura Wiener, At- Large Town of
Arlington and an non-voting Advisory Council member, pointed out that when the
MPO expanded its membership last year, some of the most active municipal
members of the Advisory Council were disenfranchised (because MPO members cannot
be voting members of the Advisory Council). As a result, she said, the Advisory
Council has a greater representation of interest groups than municipalities.
P. Regan noted that the Advisory Council
exists to serve the MPO and that it would be problematic (possibly with regard
to the federal government’s oversight) if anything were to interfere with the
Advisory Council’s ability to collect a broad spectrum of opinion and advise the MPO.
Eric Bourassa, Metropolitan Area
Planning Council (MAPC), stated that the Advisory Council should examine the
diversity of its membership and how it is conducting outreach. He noted that
there is a need to ensure that the election process is transparent, otherwise
people will not engage.
Pam Wolfe, Manager of Certification
Activities, MPO staff, noted that the results of the diversity survey that was
distributed to Advisory Council members will be available to the MPO by October
4. The survey was conducted as a result of a recommendation from the MPO’s
certification review in August 2011.
S. Olanoff noted
that municipalities are well represented on the Advisory Council, though some
are not able to vote. He noted that the Advisory Council is working to increase
involvement by advocacy organizations, business interests, and state agencies.
As next steps, P. Regan suggested that
the Advisory Council election process be modeled on the MPO election process.
L. Wiener suggested forming an ad-hoc committee to address the issue. The
following members volunteered to serve on the committee: L. Wiener; S. Olanoff; P. Regan (Chair); E. Bourassa; and Richard Canale, At-Large Town of Lexington.
At a previous meeting, staff was asked to
consider distributing the MPO minutes to municipal officials or to consider other
ways of increasing awareness of the MPO’s activities. Staff is discussing this
issue and will be reporting back to the MPO with suggestions.
The meeting of October 4 will focus on
the topic of climate change. Topics to be covered will include the state and
regional policy framework, and how the MPO incorporates climate change into its
planning activities. This discussion will help lay the groundwork for future
MPO work. Staff is preparing a discussion paper for this meeting. The format of
the meeting will be a panel discussion featuring representatives from MassDOT, MAPC, and the MPO staff. The discussion will
include an introduction to climate change, policy tools for decision making,
and next steps to advance climate change initiatives.
K. Quackenbush presented three work programs which were discussed by members and approved.
The work program for Priority Corridors for LRTP Needs Assessment – FFY 2013 is the second round of analyses that staff has conducted on corridors identified in the MPO’s Needs Assessment for the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) as in need of safety and operational improvements. (The first round focused on sections of Route 114 in Danvers and Route 203 in Boston.)
This study will identify mobility and safety problems – including those involving trucks – on selected corridors identified in the Needs Assessment. Staff will engage MassDOT and municipalities to select the study locations and to implement recommendations resulting from the study.
Tasks of the work program will involve collecting and analyzing data on turning movements, traffic volumes, signal timing, the performance and characteristics of transit routes, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Multi modal solutions will be proposed.
During a discussion of this work program, John Romano, MassDOT Highway Division, remarked that the first round of studies was well done. He expressed support for this second round.
David Koses, At-Large City of Newton, inquired as to whether a municipality could propose a roadway segment for study. K. Quackenbush replied that the work program was designed to dovetail with the Needs Assessment of the LRTP, though staff would be responsive to the will of the MPO. He added that staff has the capacity to examine other roadways (not identified in the Needs Assessment) through another program.
E. Bourassa expressed support for implementing the work program as designed. He asked staff to coordinate with MAPC on any development projects or land use issues they may identify during the course of the study.
D. Mohler noted that the focus of the study (on corridors identified in the Needs Assessment) would not change unless a member was to make a motion.
D. Mohler asked if staff would present a proposed list of locations for study to the MPO before beginning work. K. Quackenbush replied yes.
S. Olanoff asked if staff would be taking past studies into consideration. K. Quackenbush replied yes. In choosing study locations, staff will give consideration to choosing locations where there is interest from MassDOT Districts and municipalities in implementing study recommendations.
A motion to approve the work program for the Priority Corridors for LRTP Needs Assessment – FFY 2013 was made by the MBTA Advisory Board (P. Regan). The motion carried.
The work program for Safety and Operations Analyses at Selected Intersections – FFY 2013 is the sixth round of studies that examine safety improvements at intersections. (Later in the meeting, staff reported on the FFY 2012 study.)
Staff will develop a list of 20 potential study sites that are problematic based on crash, travel time, and other data. That list will be narrowed down to four locations for study. Staff will then collect data and conduct a variety of analyses – including crash and capacity analyses – and examine pedestrian amenities at the locations. A set of recommendations will be developed.
During a discussion of this work program, Ed Tarallo, North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn), asked if the MPO will have input regarding the selection of study locations. K. Quackenbush replied yes. E. Tarallo asked that the text of the work program be updated to reflect that and be consistent with the Priority Corridors work scope.
A motion to revise the work program for the Safety and Operations Analyses at Selected Intersections – FFY 2013 to add text explaining that staff will present a list of candidate locations for study to the MPO members for their input was made by the North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn) (E. Tarallo), and seconded by the City of Boston (BTD) (J. Gillooly). The motion carried.
A motion to approve the work program for the Safety and Operations Analyses at Selected Intersections – FFY 2013, as revised, was made by the North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn) (E. Tarallo), and seconded by the MassDOT Highway Division (J. Romano). The motion carried.
Implementing the work program for the Completion of Green Line Extension New Starts Analysis will assist the MBTA and its consultant team with the formal submission for federal New Starts funding for the Green Line Extension project. (This project has gone through the federal environmental process and a draft submission for New Starts was submitted recently.) The final submission must be consistent with the land use forecasts and transportation project assumptions in the LRTP.
The objective of the work program is to provide modeling and planning analyses. Staff will conduct modeling of baseline conditions and the preferred alternative. Other tasks will include the following: sensitivity testing (to model impacts of altering the bus network); conducting a capacity analysis for the Green Line to identify capacity constraints; calculating user benefits (using SUMMIT software); testing new evaluative metrics proposed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA); passenger revenue forecasts; conducting an uncertainty analysis; and conducting a service and fare equity analysis.
Members discussed the work program:
P. Regan asked if an outcome of the study would be an estimate of net new riders. K. Quackenbush replied yes.
P. Regan asked for the target date of the New Starts submission and the timeframe for a federal decision. Andrew Brennan, MBTA, replied that the target submission date is September 2013 and that a decision could be expected in February 2014.
P. Regan asked if the equity analysis would consider the impacts of gentrification or changes in real estate values that might result from the Green Line Extension. K. Quackenbush replied no and noted that the analysis will examine changes in travel time necessary to reach certain destinations.
D. Mohler noted that the budget for the work program includes almost a full year of time for P4 level staff members. He asked how many P4 level staffers would be working on the project. K. Quackenbush replied that more than one individual at the P4 level would likely be working on the project.
A motion to approve the work program for the Completion of Green Line Extension New Starts Analysis was made by the MassDOT Highway Division (J. Romano), and seconded by the MBTA Advisory Board (P. Regan). The motion carried.
A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 6 was made by MAPC (E. Bourassa), and seconded by the Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (Town of Bedford) (Richard Reed). The motion carried. The following members abstained: MBTA Advisory Board (P. Regan); Regional Transportation Advisory Council (S. Olanoff); North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn) (E. Tarallo); and Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) (Tom Bent).
Members were presented with draft Amendment One of the FFYs
2013–16 TIP, which adds funding for the design of the Red Line-Blue Line Connector project. MassDOT has petitioned DEP to remove this project from the
SIP. Until DEP’s decision is final, the cost of the project must be reflected
in the TIP. The following dollar amounts would be programmed for this project: $10
million in FFY 2013; $29 million in FFY 2014; and $10 million in FFY 2015. This action would make the TIP
consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Members discussed the proposed
amendment.
P. Regan inquired about the source of
funding for the Red Line-Blue Line
Connector project. D. Mohler replied that the
funding would be non-federal aid.
Members discussed how to address the amendment. S. Pfalzer offered staff’s view that the amendment could be treated as a technical correction considering that the funding will be in the TIP for informational purposes only.
Tom Holder, South West Advisory Planning Committee (Town of Medway), inquired whether the change would have an effect on any other projects in the TIP. D. Mohler replied no, that the change would be adding funds to the TIP.
J. Gillooly expressed the City Boston’s support for the Red Line-Blue Line Connector project.
A motion to make a technical correction to the FFYs 2013–16 TIP to restore funds for the Red Line-Blue Line Connector project was made by the City of Boston (BTD) (J. Gillooly), and seconded by the Regional Transportation Advisory Council (S. Olanoff).
Prior to voting, members discussed the procedure for adopting the change as an amendment. P. Wolfe outlined the options available. Members could consider the change a scribner’s error and adopt the change while waiving the public review period, or treat it as an administrative modification or amendment. Staff chose to present the document as an amendment because the changes involve a certain dollar threshold. The MPO could choose to reduce the public review period to as few as 15 days. Staff was not certain that the change would qualify as an emergency action, in which the MPO would be permitted to waive the public review period.
D. Mohler noted the urgent need to address this issue given that the federal agencies will not approve the STIP until the correction is made to the TIP. As a result, all projects slated for advertising in eastern Massachusetts will be delayed. (He noted that MPO staff is not responsible for the error.)
E. Bourassa and J. Gillooly both
advocated for treating the change as a scribner’s
error. E. Bourassa. D. Mohler noted that to release
the amendment for public review would in fact be confusing to the public
because DEP is currently gathering public comments regarding the potential
removal of the Red
Line-Blue Line Connector project from the
SIP.
E. Tarallo pointed
to the emergency nature of the situation given that a delay on adopting the
amendment would delay the implementation of projects programmed on the STIP.
A motion to waive the public review period for Amendment One of the FFYs 2013–16 TIP was made by the MetroWest Regional Collaborative (Town of Framingham) (Dennis Giombetti), and seconded by the MassDOT Highway Division (J. Romano). The motion carried.
A motion to endorse Amendment One to the FFYs 2013–16 TIP to restore funds for the Red Line-Blue Line Connector project was made by the City of Boston (BTD) (J. Gillooly), and seconded by the Regional Transportation Advisory Council (S. Olanoff). The motion carried.
Staff reported on two completed studies.
Chen-Yuan Wang, MPO staff, gave a report on the Safety and Operations Analyses at Selected Intersections – FFY 2012 study, which examined locations in Southborough, Wilmington, and Quincy and proposed multi-modal solutions to mobility and safety problems at those locations. The study locations were identified through a comprehensive process and the selection results were presented to the MPO in February 2012.
The location in Southborough is at Turnpike Road (Route 9) at Central Street and Oak Hill Road. The roadway is owned by MassDOT District 3. Problems at the intersections include congestion and the fact that drivers approach from Central Street using two lanes while the road is only striped for one lane. To address these problems, staff recommended adding pavement markings, posting a sign advising drivers to not block the intersection at Woodland Road, and restriping the Central Street approach to allow for an exclusive left turn lane.
The location in Wilmington is at Main Street (Route 38 and Route129) at Church Street and Burlington Avenue (Route 62). The roadway is owned by MassDOT District 4. The location is among the Top 200 Crash Locations in the state and it experiences congestion. There are also problems with visibility for drivers as they approach the intersection due to a slope and curvature of the road.
Staff recommended the following short term solutions: installing warning signs; prohibiting parking at the northwest corner of the Route 62 intersection; and installing sharrow markings. Long term solutions include the following: adding an eastbound left-turn lane; extending the departure lanes on the southbound approach; and upgrading traffic signal equipment with Adaptive Signal Control technology.
The locations in Quincy are at the Southern Artery (Route 3A) at Sea Street and Coddington Street and at McGrath Highway and Field Street. The roadway is owned by the City of Quincy. The two intersections are heavily travelled. The intersection at Sea and Coddington Street is equipped with outdated signals and substandard pedestrian accommodations.
Staff made the following recommendations for the short term: optimize signal timing; upgrade signals; realign the crosswalk; and relocate traffic signs. Longer term solutions include the following: reconstructing the intersection at Sea and Coddington Streets; correcting bicycle and pedestrian issues; adding bicycle lanes on Coddington Street; updating signal equipment; and adding a left turn lane on the southbound approach.
Staff is working with the MassDOT Districts 3 and 4, the Town of Wilmington, and the City of Quincy to implement the study recommendations. The Town of Southborough is implementing recommendations by using maintenance funds. The Town of Wilmington is coordinating with the MassDOT District 4 and working on implementing many of the short term recommendations. The City of Quincy is implementing short term recommendations and has plans to implement long term recommendations in its downtown revitalization plans.
In closing, C. Wang noted that Mark Abbott, MPO staff, also worked on this study.
Members commented on the study.
D. Mohler noted that he was pleased that staff reported on the implementation efforts underway. E. Bourassa also praised staff for coordinating with the MassDOT District Offices and for doing a great job.
J. Romano remarked upon the timeliness of the staff recommendations for the Wilmington location given that a new housing development near the commuter rail station will likely add to the traffic congestion problems at the intersection. He noted that signal equipment upgrades are needed.
K. Quackenbush introduced the CharlieCard Trip Paths Pilot Study. The objective of the study was to see whether data from the MBTA’s Automated Fare Collection (AFC) system could be converted into origin/destination data that could be used for planning purposes.
Obtaining traveler origin/destination data is typically costly and difficult (often requiring the use of surveys). This study has shown that the AFC data will be an effective means of collecting origin/destination data. This type of data collection will result in future cost savings for the MPO and the MBTA.
Tom Humphrey, Project Manager, MPO staff, then gave an overview of the study. He noted that until the AFC data became available, staff collected origin/destination data through the use of passenger surveys or by manual collection, which are labor intensive methods. The AFC system, on the other hand, automatically records when a passenger enters a transit station, but not the passenger’s exit.
The objective of the study was to determine the feasibility of inferring additional ridership data (such as where passengers alight) from the data in the AFC system. Staff used the AFC data to create station-to-station grid tables and calculate passenger volumes along transit segments.
Past passenger surveys revealed that a person is likely to make at least two trips on the transit system – most returning to the station where they started. For this study, staff assumed that if a CharlieCard was recorded more than once during a day, each station entered after the first one would be the exit point of the person’s last trip.
Using AFC data from a weeklong period in September 2010, staff was able to infer exit locations for 80-90 percent of CharlieCard entries. This is a much higher sample than would be obtained through passenger surveys. The method also avoids a sampling bias. The results show that it is possible to produce good origin/destination (or trip table) data from the AFC data.
T. Humphrey showed an example of one of the trip tables that were created.
Members discussed the study and asked questions.
In response to questions from D. Mohler and N. Codd, T. Humphrey explained that staff assumed that a passenger entering the system would be making a round trip. If a passenger only entered the system once (and did not make a return trip by transit) that trip would not be recorded in the tabulations, however, staff used control totals to estimate those trips.
N. Codd asked if the data is stand alone or if it would inform other origin/destination information, such as the Statewide Household Travel Survey. T. Humphrey replied that this is one piece of information that could potentially be used with other sources of information, such as the regional model.
J. Gillooly inquired about the potential cost savings of using this data collection method as a substitute for traditional data collection methods. T. Humphrey replied that passenger surveys would still be required to gather demographic data and data regarding trip purposes. He noted that the 2008-09 MBTA Systemwide Passenger Survey cost over $1 million. He noted that the AFC data collection method is significantly less expensive than traditional methods. K. Quackenbush added that the new AFC method could supplant the passenger survey work that staff conducts to gather data for the National Transit Database.
D. Giombetti inquired about the usage percent for the CharlieCard. P. Regan replied that the CharlieCard has a usage rate of about 89 percent, the highest market penetration of any major transit system in the U.S.
D. Giombetti asked why the MBTA’s AFC technology does not capture data when passengers exit the system. J. Cosgrove explained that the reason is because the MBTA has a one fare system, rather than a geography based system that charges passengers based on how far they travel.
K. Quackenbush introduced the work program for MBTA Service Standards and Service Delivery Policy Update. This study will evaluate the MBTA’s service standards and processes in the Service Delivery Policy (SDP), that are the primary tool used to design and evaluate transit service. The current SDP has been in place, with some updates, since 1996. The MBTA and MassDOT wish to make a comprehensive examination of the service standards and service planning processes in the SDP to determine whether service efficiencies could be gained if the service standards, the thresholds associated with each, or the way in which they are applied, were changed. The impetus for this work is the need to bring service delivery into alignment with contemporary fiscal realities while trying to preserve ridership.
The work program covers two years’ worth of work, but the budget covers the first year only. (The budget for the second year will be developed and presented at a later date.) The tasks of the work program include the following: (1) update data sources; (2) update the existing fully allocated and variable cost models for bus and develop cost allocation models for each other MBTA mode; (3) convene a service delivery and service standards technical advisory committee; (4) update and refine service standards; and (5) review the service planning process and develop a methodology for evaluating service using the metrics developed in Task 4. (Tasks 4 and 5 would be undertaken in the second year of the study.)
Members asked questions and made comments.
Tom Kadzis, City of Boston, remarked upon media reports regarding a net cost per passenger figure for the commuter rail service. He asked how those figures are determined if a cost allocation model for the commuter rail service does not yet exist. K. Quackenbush and Elizabeth Moore, MPO staff, stated that the MBTA make estimates for the commuter rail using some basic assumptions. K. Quackenbush added that this work program would implement a much more rigorous approach to developing the cost models that would be used for commuter rail and other modes in the future.
T. Kadzis asked if the technical advisory committee would be carried over to the second year of the project. K. Quackenbush replied yes.
T. Kadzis asked how long it would take to collect meaningful data to use for the new models and what the time period of the data would be. K. Quackenbush replied that the data work would be completed during the first year of the project. E. Moore added that staff would build a database that could be refreshed with new data. Staff would use data from the most appropriate time period for the task at hand.
R. Reed inquired about the incorporation of customer satisfaction data in the work program. K. Quackenbush replied that this issue is not mentioned specifically in the work program, but that the advisory committee may wish to address the question. P. Regan added that the MBTA has in the past determined customer satisfaction based on the percentage of vehicle trips at crush load. E. Moore added that surveys (such as the 2008-2009 Systemwide Passenger Survey) indicate that passengers are generally most concerned about service indicators like reliability and whether they can get a seat. These are covered by the existing service standards for schedule adherence and vehicle load. Another measure relating to reliability that could be considered is dropped trips.
Members will vote on the work program in two weeks.
D. Mohler provided an update on projects included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP):
There is no update on the Fairmount Line Improvement project since last month’s report.
The 1,000 New Park and Ride Parking Spaces project is complete with the opening of Wonderland Garage.
DEP held a hearing regarding MassDOT’s petition to remove the requirement to design of the Red/Blue Line Connector project from the SIP. Public comments are due by September 25.
The Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) delivery method has been approved for use in the Green Line Extension project. The MassDOT board has awarded a final design contract for the project. The federal government has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which has enabled right-of-way work to go forward. MassDOT has bid work on Phase 1 of the project, which involves widening of bridges in Medford and Somerville and the demolition of the building at 21 Water Street in Cambridge. MassDOT is reviewing comments on Green Line mitigation proposals.
D. Giombetti asked for an update on the MPO election process. E. Bourassa reported that the Town of Braintree has been nominated and the Town of Bedford has stated its intention to run. An update will be provided at the next MPO meeting.
A motion to adjourn was made by the MassDOT Highway Division (J. Romano) and seconded by the MBTA Advisory Board (P. Regan). The motion carried.
|
Members |
Representatives
and
Alternates |
|
At-Large City (City of Newton) |
David Koses |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Arlington) |
Laura Wiener |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Lexington) |
Richard Canale |
|
City of Boston (Boston Redevelopment Authority) |
Lara Mérida |
|
City of Boston (Boston Transportation Department) |
Jim Gillooly Tom Kadzis |
|
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) |
Tom Bent |
|
Massachusetts Department of Transportation |
David Mohler Ned Codd |
|
MassDOT Highway Division |
John Romano |
|
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) |
Joe Cosgrove |
|
Massachusetts Port Authority |
Lourenço Dantas |
|
MBTA Advisory Board |
Paul Regan |
|
Metropolitan Area Planning Council |
Eric Bourassa Eric Halvorsen |
|
MetroWest Regional Collaborative (Town of
Framingham) |
Dennis Giombetti |
|
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal
Coordination (Town of Bedford) |
Richard Reed |
|
North Shore Task Force (City of Beverly) |
Denise Deschamps |
|
North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn) |
Ed Tarallo |
|
Regional Transportation Advisory Council |
Steve Olanoff |
|
South Shore Coalition (Town of Braintree) |
Christine Stickney |
|
South West Advisory Planning Committee (Town of Medway) |
Tom Holder |
|
Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of
Norwood/NVCC) |
Tom O’Rourke |
|
Other
Attendees |
Affiliation |
|
Andrew Brennan |
MBTA |
|
Callida Cenizal |
MassDOT Office of
Transportation Planning |
|
Andrea Dowas |
TAG-Newton |
|
Inva Fried |
Conservation Law Foundation |
|
Derick Joyner |
Newton Resident |
|
Lois A. Levin |
TAG-Newton |
|
Rafael Mares |
Conservation Law Foundation |
|
Maureen R. Meagher |
Newton Resident |
|
Bill Paille |
City of Newton |
|
Adam Peller |
Newton Resident |
|
Greg Reibman |
Newton/Needham Chamber of Commerce |
|
Bill Renke |
Newton Resident |
|
Amanda Richard |
Office of State Senator Thomas McGee |
|
Laury Rodenstein |
Newton Resident |
|
Norman Sieman |
Newton Resident |
|
MPO
Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff |
|
Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director |
|
Mark Abbott |
|
Daniel Amstutz |
|
Tom Humphrey |
|
Maureen Kelly |
|
Robin Mannion |
|
Elizabeth Moore |
|
Efi Pagitas |
|
Scott Peterson |
|
Sean Pfalzer |
|
Chen-Yuan Wang |
|
Pam Wolfe |