Draft Memorandum for the Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting
September 4, 2014 Meeting
10:10 AM – 12:35 PM, Needham Town Hall, James Hugh Powers Hall, 1471 Highland Avenue, Needham
Clinton Bench, Chair, representing Richard Davey, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization agreed to the following:
• release for public review the draft central vision, goals, and objectives for the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), as revised at today’s meeting
• approve the minutes of the meeting of August 21, 2014
The following attendees asked the MPO to prioritize improvements to the Needham Street and Highland Avenue corridor in Needham and gave their perspectives on the importance of investing in the corridor.
Greg Reibman, President of the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce, discussed the N2 Innovation Corridor on the Newton-Needham line, which includes two office parks housing 150 high tech firms. This corridor attracts business that may be priced out of Boston or Cambridge innovation districts. The Chamber and the community are working to make the Needham and Newton area more attractive for these businesses. Improved transportation access – including for bicyclists and pedestrians – is required on the Needham Street and Highland Avenue corridor, which is the gateway to the N2 Innovation Corridor. He provided letters from area businesses expressing their concerns.
Jeanne Levesque, Director of Government Relations at Boston College, expressed support for the corridor improvements on behalf of the 14,000 students and 3,000 employees at Boston College.
Mark Sokoll is Chief Executive Officer of the Jewish Community Center, which receives as many as 45,000 visits per month and employs over 600 people. He discussed the traffic problems on the corridor and asked the MPO to support improvements.
Ron Stollof is an owner of Blue Ribbon Barbecue, which operates a food truck business in the industrial park and has a growing catering business. Better access on Needham Street would be beneficial for both the operation of his company’s food trucks and for his employees to get to work.
Amy Tierce, Regional Vice President of WinTrust Mortgage, discussed the advantages for businesses to locate in the N2 Innovation Corridor given its proximity to major highways and Boston, and the sense of community in the area. She noted that the Needham Street and Highland Avenue corridor could be a robust area with investment in the transportation infrastructure.
Lesley Palmiter, a realtor at Keller Williams, also expressed support for improvements to the corridor. She remarked upon the numbers of people who want to move to Needham or locate businesses there.
Ruthanne Fuller, Alderman for the City of Newton, urged the MPO to provide funding for the corridor improvements soon. She noted that the project is several years behind schedule.
Steve Waller, owner of The Center Café, also voiced support for improvements to the corridor noting the importance of improved access to the high tech businesses as well as the small businesses that provide the support structure for them.
Tyler Young, TripAdvisor, reported that TripAdvisor’s new headquarters in the N2 Innovation Corridor are under construction and scheduled to open next year. TripAdvisor is hopeful that the improvements to the Needham Street and Highland Avenue corridor will continue to be prioritized.
Simon Boyd is a Director of The Winhall Companies, which owns land along the corridor. He expressed concern that the traffic situation prevents further development on Highland Avenue.
Chair Clinton Bench, MassDOT, assured the commenters that improvements to the corridor remain high on the list of priorities for MPO funding.
C. Bench reported on several items:
The new Assembly Square Station on the Orange Line has opened, and presents opportunities for transit-oriented development in Somerville.
A next vehicle tracking system will be employed on the Green Line later this year.
The public review period for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which incorporates the project list in the FFYs 2015-18 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), is open for three more days. The STIP may be found on MassDOT’s website.
Traffic on the Massachusetts Turnpike has been flowing relatively well while lane closures have been in place for construction work on the highway median.
MassDOT will be releasing a request for proposals to consultants to work on the bus section of the Program for Mass Transportation (PMT), the MBTA’s 25-year plan.
Then Vice Chair Eric Bourassa, Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), reminded members and attendees about the upcoming MPO Elections. Four seats are open. Two of the seats are open to all of the municipalities within each of two subregions of the MPO planning area: the SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee and the North Shore Task Force. The other two seats are at-large and will be filled by one city and one town from any of the eight subregions.
A municipality must be nominated by five cities or towns in the region. Nominations are due by October 5 to MAPC. MAPC and the MBTA Advisory Board, which manage the election, will be sending out a second mailing to municipal chief elected officials in the region to remind them of the election. More information is available on the MPO’s website or by contacting E. Bourassa or Paul Regan, MBTA Advisory Board.
There were none.
D. Montgomery welcomed the MPO to the Town of Needham. He then reported that the Advisory Council will hold a Community Transportation Forum on September 10 at 3:00 PM. Panelists at the forum will include Heather Hume, MassDOT Rail and Transit Division; Theodora Fisher, Human Services Transportation Office; Sue Temper, Executive Office of Elder Affairs; Monica Tibbits-Nutt, 128 Business Council; and Mike Gowing, Town of Acton. All are welcome to attend.
Also at the September 10 meeting, the Election Committee will propose a slate of candidates for chair and vice chair of the Advisory Council. Nominations will also be taken from the floor. The election will be held in October.
K. Quackenbush reminded members about the upcoming federal recertification process, which MPOs undergo every four years. During this process, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) meet with the MPO and review the MPOs’ work to ensure that the MPO is following the spirit and letter of the law and federal guidance. The recertification process this time will require two and a half days of meetings. Dates are not confirmed yet, but will be this fall.
Michael Chong, FHWA, explained that the recertification process is required by federal regulation and involves a comprehensive look at the MPO’s processes for developing its certification documents and conducting public involvement. The federal agencies look forward to receiving input from the MPO members and the public during the recertification process. Nicolas Garcia, FTA, added that the federal agencies will prepare a report of their findings and make recommendations following the recertification meetings.
K. Quackenbush then reported that CTPS has filled two open managerial positions. Mark Abbott will be the Manager of the Traffic Analysis and Design group, and Bruce Kaplan will be the Manager of the Transportation System Analysis group.
John Bulian, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen for the Town of Needham, welcomed the MPO members and attendees to James Hugh Powers Hall, which was restored with the use of Community Preservation Act funds and dedicated to a town meeting member for his 60 years of service. J. Bulian began by thanking David Montgomery for serving as Needham’s representative on the MPO. He then discussed the Town of Needham’s close working relationship with the City of Newton, with which it has shared economic interests.
Kate Fitzpatrick, Town Manager for the Town of Needham, then gave an overview of the Town of Needham and its transportation issues. The town has a stable population of about 30,000 people with a large school age and senior population. The town’s biennial survey in 2014 revealed that 96% of the population considers Needham an excellent or good place to live.
Transportation assets in the town include three highway exits and four commuter rail stations. A new highway ramp is being constructed at Kendrick Street as part of the Route 128 Add-a-Lane project. The town’s biggest challenge over the next ten years will be to maintain and improve its facilities and water, sewer, and highway infrastructure.
For FY 2011-14, the town has appropriated $11 million for public works projects. Chapter 90 funds will be used for streetscape improvements and traffic signalization in the downtown. The completion of the Route 128 Add-a-Lane project is expected to have a great impact on the town.
Regarding transit, the town would like to have commuter rail service on Saturday restored. The town is also working with the City of Newton to convert an abandoned rail bed to a bicycle path between the two municipalities. This path could potentially serve as a transit corridor connecting to the Green Line in the future.
The town continues to seek funding through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for improvements to the Needham Street and Highland Avenue corridor. K. Fitzpatrick noted that the project was the highest rated in the MPO’s evaluation process. She also noted that the corridor represents one of the greatest economic opportunities in the MetroWest area, but that economic development is hindered by the condition of the corridor.
The project is at the 25% design stage and MassDOT will be funding the full design. MassDOT has pulled out part of that project to be a distinct project, which is now at the 25% design stage. On behalf of both the Town of Needham and the City of Newton, K. Fitzpatrick asked the MPO to support this project.
C. Bench thanked the town staff for hosting today’s meeting.
At the previous two MPO meetings, members discussed the central vision, goals, and objectives for the LRTP. For today’s discussion, staff distributed a redlined version of a memorandum that incorporates suggestions from members. A. McGahan gave an overview of the proposed changes presented for discussion.
The changes include the following:
· revisions to the vision statement
· addition of a Safety objective to address transit safety
· revision of System Preservation objectives to reflect goals for maintenance and modernization for all transportation modes, improvements to the bicycle system, and climate change adaptation and resiliency
· revision of Congestion Reduction objectives to emphasize the goal of achieving a substantial mode shift as a means of congestion reduction
· clarification of language in the Transportation Options/Health Modes objectives
· defining environmental justice populations as low-income and minority populations in the Transportation Equity objectives
· addition of a Transportation Equity objective to target investments to areas that benefit a high percentage of low-income and minority populations
· revision to Freight Movement objectives to specify improving intermodal connections
· addition to Freight Movement objectives to reference protecting parts of the freight network vulnerable to climate change
· movement of certain objectives under other topic categories
Members suggested several other comments that were presented, but not incorporated in the memorandum.
MAPC suggested adding a Transportation Option and Healthy Modes objective focused on public health. The objective would read, “The rates of chronic disease will decrease over time.” Data from the Department of Public Health and Centers for Disease Control would be used as a performance measure to track the change in chronic disease rates. A background paper summarizing the ideas behind the proposed objective was provided.
MAPC believes the objective should be included, particularly considering the Healthy Transportation Compact. They also pointed to a FHWA report, “Metropolitan Area Transportation Planning for Healthy Communities,” that identifies a holistic approach to health, including consideration of active transportation, safety, air pollution, and access to opportunities for healthy lifestyles.
Another commenter recommended changing a Transportation Option and Healthy Modes objective from “Increase the percentage of population and employment within one-half mile of shared-use paths or on-road bicycle facilities,” to “Increase the percentage of population and employment with direct access to bicycle facilities.” Direct access is understood to mean having a dedicated bicycle facility for a door-to-door trip. However, the majority of roadways in the MPO region are local roadways, which are not primary candidates for bicycle facilities. According to MassDOT’s 2011 Bicycle Inventory, local roadways make up only 5% of the existing bicycle facility mileage. As such, MPO staff believes that the proposed goal would be too ambitious and likely be unattainable.
A third commenter asked the MPO to consider adding a Transportation Equity objective that would read, “Reduce the number of MPO-funded projects with negative impacts to low-income and minority populations.” Possible sources of information to track this measure would be the MPO’s Project Funding Application form or MassDOT’s Project Initiation form, both of which ask project proponents to identify any improvements that involve community planning and equitable sharing of benefits or burdens to environmental justice areas. Information in these forms generally focuses on benefits, not burdens.
Once the MPO finalizes the draft goals and objectives, they will be released for public review. Staff will also incorporate them into the performance-based planning and programming framework that was presented at the meeting of August 7 and ensure that there are appropriate performance measures for each of the new objectives.
E. Bourassa advocated for including the proposed public health objective. He remarked on the work that has been done over the past couple of years on measuring public health outcomes and MAPC’s work, supported by the Department of Public Health, on public health issues as relates to the built environment. He noted that more data is becoming available to track public health outcomes.
P. Regan expressed concern that by including the public health objective, the MPO could be fostering the idea that transportation choices play a greater role in health than they actually do, considering the effects of diet, lifestyle, and other factors. He noted that the goals and objectives, as presented, have enough elements to support the Commonwealth’s goals for encouraging healthy lifestyle choices.
Tom O’Rourke, Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of Norwood/NVCC), agreed and noted that the MPO is sufficiently addressing health through other goals and objectives. He expressed interest in hearing more about the work MAPC is doing to track public health outcomes.
K. Quackenbush remarked upon the difficulty of making connections between MPO decision-making and public health outcomes. He informed members, however, that the MPO staff is exploring software tools that may in the future be able to draw a link between transportation investments and public health outcomes. He discussed how the MPO for many years did not have a credible method for estimating linkages between transportation investments and economic consequences, but now a software tool – TREDIS – is available to do so.
D. Montgomery also expressed concern that health outcomes may not have strong links to MPO actions. He noted that it would be helpful to track public health information, however, and analyze the data to see if linkages could be established in the future.
Richard Canale, At-Large Town of Lexington, expressed strong support for including the public health objective. He noted that including the objective would give the MPO a chance to receive feedback from the public. Also, the objective would give more importance to finding metrics to measure these factors.
C. Bench expressed that it would be useful to find ways in the future to incorporate some of these public health concepts, but the MPO may need more time to do so.
A member of the public then pointed out that the rates of chronic disease will likely increase in the coming years due to the aging of the Baby Boomers. This factor, he said, may make it difficult to measure the rate of health improvement.
Christine Stickney, South Shore Coalition (Town of Braintree), suggested that the MPO not include the proposed objective. She noted that there are other state departments that address public health issues and that the MPO could be entering an area outside its purview.
Members then moved on to discuss the proposal to change the Transportation Option and Healthy Modes objective for increasing access to bicycle facilities.
To address staff’s concerns about creating an unattainable goal, C. Bench suggested rewording the proposed objective to remove the word “direct,” so that the objective would read, “Increase the percentage of population and employment with access to bicycle facilities.”
N. Garcia suggested that the term “bicycle facilities” could be broadened to incorporate local roads that are safe for bicycling.
P. Regan cautioned against instituting measures that could be used by advocates to encourage the conversion of unused rail right-of-way to bicycle paths, considering that these corridors may be needed in the future for mass transit lines.
Members then turned to the proposal for adding a Transportation Equity objective for reducing the number of MPO-funded projects with negative impacts to low-income and minority populations.
C. Bench suggested rewording the objective to indicate that negative impacts would be minimized.
Members then debated whether the objective would be needed. John Romano, MassDOT Highway Division, indicated that it may be redundant to state this objective because the MPO already must follow Title VI requirements and aim to reduce impacts on low-income and minority populations.
A member of the public, Rafael Mares, Conservation Law Foundation, recommended including the objective and using the language of Title VI to reference “benefits and burdens” on these populations.
A motion to release for public review the draft central vision, goals, and objectives, as presented and with the discussed revisions, was made by the City of Boston (Tom Kadzis), and seconded by the At-Large Town of Arlington (Laura Wiener).
The revised objectives would read as follows:
· “Increase the percentage of population and employment with access to bicycle facilities”
· “Minimize burdens associated with MPO-funded projects on low-income and minority populations.”
Members discussed the motion.
P. Regan recommended excluding the Transportation Equity objective that reads, “Target investments to areas that benefit a high percentage of low-income and minority populations.” He raised an issue concerning the Title VI language of “benefits and burdens,” and noted that a transportation facility could be both a benefit and a burden to those populations at the same time. As an example, the siting of a bus garage would be a burden for abutters, but the service provided from that garage could benefit a large number of people. He expressed concern that the proposed objective could give an advantage for NIMBYism while downplaying shared benefits across the region. He said that it behooves the MPO to focus on benefits rather than burdens.
T. O’Rourke added that the original wording of the objectives in that category better captures the intent of Title VI.
R. Mares pointed out that the Title VI regulations are aimed at addressing the burdens felt by people who live in environmental justice communities. He advocated for taking project burdens into account as well as the benefits.
A motion to amend the motion was made by the MBTA Advisory Board (P. Regan). The amendment would remove the objective to “target investments to areas that benefit a high percentage of low-income and minority populations.” The amendment was accepted by the makers of the motion.
During further discussion, E. Bourassa pointed out that if a transportation facility were to be sited, there would be a legal requirement to conduct an analysis of the benefits and burdens of that facility. C. Bench concurred noting that the LRTP must be compliant with Title VI in terms of overall impacts of projects and programs in the region. The stated objectives would, however, express the MPO’s intent to give priority proactively to projects that meet certain measures.
Pam Wolfe, Manager of Certification Activities, MPO staff, noted that by expressing these policy statements the MPO can send a message to project proponents about the factors they need to consider when designing their projects.
Members voted on the motion to amend the original motion. The motion failed. The following members voted in favor of the amendment: MBTA Advisory Board; Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of Norwood); South Shore Coalition (Town of Braintree); At-Large City of Everett; and South West Advisory Planning Committee (Town of Medway). The following voted against the motion: At-Large City of Newton; At-Large Town of Arlington; At-Large Town of Lexington; City of Boston (with two votes); Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville); MassDOT (with two votes); MassDOT Highway Division; MBTA; MAPC; MetroWest Regional Collaborative (Town of Framingham); Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (Town of Bedford); North Shore Task Force (City of Beverly); and the Advisory Council.
Members then voted on the original motion to release for public review the draft central vision, goals, and objectives of the LRTP, as presented, with the discussed revisions to the objectives. The motion carried.
A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 21 was made by MAPC (E. Bourassa), and seconded by the MassDOT Highway Division (J. Romano). The motion carried. The following members abstained: Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (Town of Bedford); Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville); and At-Large City of Everett.
D. Crowley then raised a topic that was discussed at the meeting of August 21 regarding the cost estimates of projects. He asked staff to stay on track to address his request to provide members with the original cost estimates for TIP projects. K. Quackenbush reported that the staff is discussing how best to provide that information.
D. Crowley also referenced the report on the State Implementation Plan at the August 21 meeting, in which MassDOT staff reported that the MBTA is working to acquire several real estate parcels for the Green Line Extension project. He asked whether the costs for land acquisition were included in the original budget for the project. C. Bench and Ron Morgan, MBTA, confirmed that those contingencies were built into the budget.
E. Moore presented the results of two MPO-funded studies, The Core Efficiencies Study and The Bus Walking Radius Study. Both examined ways to provide MBTA services in different configurations to better meet demand. Scenarios in both were evaluated against the MBTA’s service standards in its service delivery policy.
The purpose of The Core Efficiencies Study was to examine how MBTA service could be reconfigured to better meet current and future demand taking into account changes in demographics, environmental awareness, and fiscal issues associated with the economic downturn.
The first part of the study was a review of the MBTA service standards, which are the performance metrics used by the MBTA to evaluate the performance of the system, and a peer review of service standards at other transit agencies. Staff made recommendations for adjustments to the MBTA’s service standards and suggestions for new ones to adopt.
The second part of the study examined ways of reconfiguring service based on projections of demand. Scenarios were evaluated using the service standards and the MPO’s travel demand model.
The MBTA’s service standards address the following factors: access to service (geographic coverage, time span, and frequency of service); reliability (schedule adherence); safety and comfort (vehicle load); and cost effectiveness (net cost per passenger). Peer agencies employ other standards; examples include standards for service structure (such as distance between transit stops, and route competition) and for service provision (such as reliability of vehicles, and passenger perception of service).
Four concepts were examined in the study:
· Rail Extension Concept: extending rapid transit lines
· Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridors: BRT would run on high-demand corridors and certain bus routes would be eliminated
· Limited-Stop Corridors: on high-demand corridors some trips would not make local stops during peak travel periods
· Neighborhood Services: service would be concentrated on BRT corridors and local bus routes would be reconfigured to serve neighborhood needs and provide circumferential connections and feeder service to rapid transit and BRT
Each concept was analyzed and yielded the following results:
· Rail Extension Concept: The rapid transit network would be strengthened. There would be no major changes in service performance. The net cost of providing service would increase.
· Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridors: Service would be more frequent and reliable; however, transit coverage would be reduced, requiring customers to walk further to reach transit. The net cost of providing service would increase.
· Limited-Stop Corridors: There would be a major decrease in trip time for customers using limited-stop service, but less frequent service on local trips. This option is revenue neutral.
· Neighborhood Services: Overall performance would remain high; however, the directness of travel would be reduced and customers would have to make more transfers. The net cost of providing service would decrease.
The presentation of this study was delayed until now because while the study was underway, the financial situation at the MBTA became critical, which led to consideration of substantial service cuts and fare increases. The MBTA is now at a point where it will be able to institute regular small fare increases and consider reconfiguring service. The outcome of the study shows that each scenario comes with trade-offs.
The Bus Walking Radius Study examined the effect of changing the threshold of the service standard for service coverage. The MBTA’s service standard for its core service area holds that in areas with 5,000 or more people per square mile, a customer should not have to walk more than one-quarter of a mile to reach a transit service (regardless of mode).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate how the bus system could best provide mobility and access by eliminating overlapping services and using the resources from eliminated service to increase service in high-demand corridors, assuming that riders would walk further to access better service. Fixed operating costs were assumed for this study.
Staff evaluated the effect on service of three different coverage thresholds: one-quarter mile, one-third mile, four-tenths mile, and a half mile. GIS was used define buffers around stations and stops to determine how far customers would have to walk to reach transit, and to identify overlapping services.
A service plan was developed for each coverage threshold level. For each scenario, ridership, environmental justice, and air quality impacts were identified. The one-third mile service scenario resulted in the fewest changes in ridership for all modes. The four-tenths mile scenario was optimal for retaining bus ridership; however, customers in environmental justice communities would have a greater number of transfers. In the one-third mile scenario, bus ridership decreased. In the half mile scenario bus ridership decreased further while commuter rail ridership increased. This last scenario had the most negative air quality impacts because more people would be expected to resort to travelling by auto.
The study highlights the importance of service standards and their impact on how service is configured, and the interplay between the service standards. It also highlights the difficulty of improving service performance without losing ridership in a resource neutral environment. Each scenario has trade-offs, and decisions about adopting scenarios would have to be policy decisions.
This study relates to a current initiative to update to the MBTA’s service standards and service delivery policies, and the MBTA’s priorities for improving bus service.
In response to a question from T. Kadzis about the half mile scenario, E. Moore explained that the scenario is based on the assumption that people would walk up to a half mile to reach bus service if it was more frequent and reliable due to elimination of some services that are necessary to meet the current coverage threshold of one-quarter mile. Resources from eliminated routes would improve the remaining service.
N. Garcia asked if the MBTA uses the early arrival threshold to measure service reliability. E. Moore replied that for bus service with headways greater than ten minutes they look at scheduled departure times and establish acceptable limits for early and late arrivals at different time points. For bus or rapid transit service with headways of less than ten minutes, the standard measures how even the headways are regardless of the exact scheduled arrival/departure times.
N. Garcia remarked on the scenario that eliminated some circumferential bus routes and asked if the determination about which bus routes to eliminate took into account the access that those routes provide or whether it was based only on proximity to stations or stops. E. Moore replied that in The Bus Walking Radius Study the focus was more on eliminating overlapping routes by applying thresholds in an iterative process.
Steve Olanoff, Three Rivers Interlocal Council, asked how these studies relate to the Core Service Area Study that is in the FFY 2015 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and whether data from these studies will be used for the UPWP study. K. Quackenbush explained the distinction between the studies. The UPWP study will be examining capacity constraints on both the transit and roadway system in the urban core. The data sources for the UPWP study will be usage statistics and results of travel demand modeling.
E. Moore credited Rob Guptill and Sreelatha Allam for their work on these studies.
C. Bench noted that there will be more discussion in the future about how these studies feed into the MBTA’s visioning process through the Program for Mass Transportation process, and how the service delivery standards may play into future changes in service.
There were none.
A motion to adjourn was made by the MBTA Advisory Board (P. Regan) and seconded by the MBTA (Ron Morgan). The motion carried.
|
Members |
Representatives
and
Alternates |
|
At-Large City (City of Everett) |
Tony Sousa |
|
At-Large City (City of Newton) |
David Koses |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Arlington) |
Laura Wiener |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Lexington) |
Richard Canale |
|
City of Boston (Boston Transportation
Department) |
Tom Kadzis Patrick Hoey |
|
Federal Highway Administration |
Michael Chong |
|
Federal Transit Administration |
Nicolas Garcia |
|
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) |
Tom Bent |
|
Massachusetts Department of Transportation |
Clinton Bench David Anderson |
|
MassDOT Highway Division |
John Romano |
|
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
(MBTA) |
Ron Morgan |
|
MBTA Advisory Board |
Paul Regan |
|
Metropolitan Area Planning Council |
Eric Bourassa |
|
MetroWest Regional Collaborative (Town of
Framingham) |
Dennis Giombetti |
|
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal
Coordination (Town of Bedford) |
Richard Reed |
|
North Shore Task Force (City of Beverly) |
Aaron Clausen |
|
Regional Transportation Advisory Council |
David Montgomery |
|
South Shore Coalition (Town of Braintree) |
Christine Stickney |
|
South West Advisory Planning Committee
(Town of Medway) |
Dennis Crowley |
|
Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of
Norwood/NVCC) |
Tom O’Rourke |
|
Other
Attendees |
Affiliation |
|
Sreelatha Allam |
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning |
|
Susan Bernstein |
Attorney |
|
Simon Boyd |
The Winhall Companies |
|
John Bulian |
Town of Needham, Board of Selectmen |
|
Paul Connolly |
Crosspoint Associates, Inc. |
|
Jeff Converse |
TripAdvisor |
|
John Dempsey |
Needham resident |
|
John Fantasia |
Intrum Corp |
|
Kate Fitzpatrick |
Town of Needham |
|
Jeremy Freid |
Boston Realty Advisors |
|
Ruthanne Fuller |
Alderman, City of Newton |
|
Jacques Gagnon |
H.L. Starck, Inc. |
|
Michael Gendrin |
Residence Inn Needham |
|
David Gillies |
Maric, Inc. |
|
Jamie Gutner |
Needham Council on Aging |
|
Timothy Horan |
MBTA |
|
Rhain Hoyland |
Town of Needham, Department of Public Works |
|
John Hueber |
Crosspoint Associates, Inc. |
|
Melanie Jones |
Hotel and Home Recovery |
|
Jeanne Levesque |
Boston College |
|
Pete Manni |
PTC |
|
Rafael Mares |
Conservation Law Foundation |
|
Kerry McCormack |
Crosspoint Associates, Inc. |
|
Richard Merson |
Town of Needham, Department of Public Works |
|
Lee Newman |
Town of Needham |
|
Steve Olanoff |
Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of
Norwood) |
|
Lesley Palmiter |
Keller Williams |
|
Greg Reibman |
Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce |
|
Tom Riley |
Residence Inn Needham |
|
Tina Snyder |
The Bulfinch Companies |
|
Mark Sokoll |
Jewish Community Center |
|
Ron Stoloff |
Blue Ribbon Barbecue |
|
Chris Teachout |
Needham Bank |
|
Amy Tierce |
Wintrust Mortgage |
|
Steve Waller |
The Center Cafe |
|
Tyler Young |
TripAdvisor |
|
MPO
Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff |
|
Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director |
|
David Fargen |
|
Maureen Kelly |
|
Robin Mannion |
|
Anne McGahan |
|
Elizabeth Moore |
|
Sean Pfalzer |
|
Pam Wolfe |