|
The Transportation Plan for the Boston Region - Volume 2 - Nov 15, 1993
Click HERE for graphic. VOLUME TWO Resource Papers The Transportation Plan for the Boston Region November 15, 1993 Central Transportation Planning Staff Directed by the Boston Metropolitan Plan Organization (MPO), which comprises: Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Advisory Boars Massachusetts Highway Department Massachusetts Port Authority Metropolitan Area Planning Council Click HERE for graphic. The Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization Region The preparation of this document was supported by the Massachusetts Highway Department and Federal Highway Administration through Massachusetts Highway Department Agreement 93218, by the Federal Transit Administration through Technical Study Grant MA-80-X002, and by state and local matching funds. TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME TWO-RESOURCE PAPERS Preface A. Commuting Patterns A-1 B. The Transportation And Land Use Models B-1 C. History Of Mass Transit Planning In The Boston Region C-1 iii PREFACE These papers were researched and developed as part of the 1993 Transportation Plan for the Boston region. Although they were not included in Volume One of the Plan, they contain useful supporting information and provide insights on regional transportation planning issues. The first paper, Commuting Patterns, is a time-series analysis of regional work-related travel. It continues the analysis started with the Demographics of Commuting in Greater Boston, a report prepared for the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization by the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) in 1989; an update of this report will be available in the Fall of 1993. Commuting Patterns, prepared by Stephen Falbel of CTPS, incorporates information from the 1990 U.S. Census Journey-to-Work survey. The second paper, The Transportation and Land Use Models, is a concise description of the computer-based models that were used to help analyze future travel conditions. Prepared by Karl Quackenbush of CTPS, the paper outlines key modeling issues, describes the current effort to extend and improve the Boston region's transportation and land use models, and identifies improvements that will be made in coming months. The last paper, History of Mass Transit Planning in the Boston Region, presents a review of the development of the region's mass transportation system. Beginning in 1894, the paper takes the reader through the planning and implementation of public transportation facilities. Prepared by Stephen Falbel, the history attempts to place the current planning effort, represented by the Transportation Plan, in the context of historical planning efforts. v A. COMMUTING PATTERNS Commuting is at the core of many of the issues of transportation, for it is the morning and afternoon peaks, the rush hours every day, which determine what roads and transit systems are most needed. Transportation infrastructure must be designed to serve the peak volume, not merely the average traffic volume spread over an entire day. Thus at the basis of any transportation plan must lie an understanding of the patterns of commuting in the metropolitan region. Journey-to-Work data from the US Census provide a wealth of information on commuting patterns. The long form of the Census, sent to a random sample of the population, asks questions on the location of the respondent's work place and the means of transport used to get to work. Data on commuting patterns are available from the last three Censuses: 1970,1980 and 1990. COMMUTING TO THE URBAN CORE Each weekday, 607,000 work trips are made to Boston and Cambridge, representing 35.3 percent of all work trips made within the 101 cities and towns of the Boston MPO region. Of these, 341,600 (57.7 percent) are made by automobile, 187,200 (31.6 percent) are made by transit, 53,900 (9.1 percent) are made by walking, and 9,100 (1.5 percent) are made by other modes. As would be expected, the number of trips to and from the urban core declines with distance, but large numbers of trips are made even from very long distances. Figure A-11 shows the number of commuters to the urban core, defined here as the cities of Boston and Cambridge. Over 240,000 urban core workers live in the urban core. Communities immediately surrounding Boston and Cambridge send in large numbers of workers-190,320 from the 28 other communities within Route 128. Between Route 128 and I-495, the numbers are smaller but the slow rate at which they diminish demonstrates the strength and extent of the influence of the urban core. Communities from beyond I-495 such as Nashua, Manchester and Salem, New Hampshire, Worcester, Providence, New Bedford, and Barnstable each have more than 500 residents that commute to _____________________ 1Figure A-1, and subsequent figures in this chapter, display trips made from 388 cities and towns in five of the six New England states. This 388-community region extends to roughly a sixty-five mile radius around downtown Boston and encompasses several metropolitan areas. Worcester, Providence, Fall River, New Bedford, Brockton, Lowell, Lawrence, Haverhill, Fitchburg, and Manchester, Nashua, Concord and Portsmouth New Hampshire, among others. This area is home to approximately 7 million people. A-1 Click HERE for graphic. the urban core. Over 100 people commute from Falmouth, Warwick, Rhode Island, Concord and Portsmouth, New Hampshire and York, Maine-these commutes being nearly one and a half hours each way. Smaller numbers of people, in the range of 40 to 80, commute from as far away as Kennebunk, Maine, Springfield, Massachusetts and Newport, Rhode Island. Figure A-1 also shows that the number of commuters to the urban core is closely correlated with transportation access to the core. All of the communities with the highest number of Boston and Cambridge workers are located on a major expressway. TRENDS IN URBAN CORE COMMUTING Looking at the historical trends in the commuting pattern to the urban core, one finds a tendency toward lengthening commuting trips. Figure A-2 shows the percentage change in the number of commuters to the urban core for those cities and towns which sent at least fifty commuters to Boston and Cambridge in 1980. The majority of the close-in communities are in the "stable" category (i.e. less than 10% change up or down) while some experienced a significant decline. For communities with rapid growth in the number of commuters to the urban core, one has to go out the I-495 ring and beyond. Several of these more distant communities experienced a doubling or even a three and four-fold increase in commuters to Boston and Cambridge. The area with the most consistent, fast growth is the southwestern stretch of I-495, between Ashland and Taunton. This segment of expressway was completed only in the late 1970s and 1980s. An increase in the number of commuting trips from distant locations combined with a decrease in trips from close-in locations yields an increase in the average trip length. Census data on work trip travel time support this conclusion, showing that the average work trip in eastern Massachusetts increased from 22.8 minutes in 1980 to 24.1 minutes in 1990. Figure A-3 displays the percent change in commuters from 1970 to 1990 for communities with at least fifty commuters to the urban core in 1970. Unfortunately, 1970 data were not available for New Hampshire and Maine, so it is impossible to measure the growth in those states. Cities and towns in Massachusetts, though, exhibit a striking pattern of growth, most notably along the southwestern stretch of I-495 all the way from Northborough to Taunton, influenced, undoubtedly, by the construction of that expressway during this period. In addition, rapid increases appear in Plymouth and on the Cape. A few of these communities saw nearly a five-fold increase in the number of people traveling to the urban core for work between 1970 and 1990. The northeastern portion of Massachusetts also displayed growth, although not as fast as the aforementioned areas. Closer-in communities had smaller percentage increases in urban core commuters, but since these cities and towns sent large numbers of people in 1970, these small percent increases translate into large absolute increases. A-3 While the change in number of commuters provides some perspective on shifts in commuting patterns, from a transportation standpoint, it is important to study trends in travel patterns for particular modes of travel. Figure A-4 contains two maps of the central portion of the study area showing the changes in mode shares between 1980 and 1990 for single occupant drivers and transit riders to the urban core.2 The maps portray an overall shift toward single occupant vehicles (SOVS) for the journey to work to the urban core between 1980 and 1990. The upper map shows most of the cities and towns in the region experiencing an increase in the percent share for SOVs between 5 and 25 points. A few towns to the west, from Westborough to Westford, had somewhat larger shifts toward SOVS, up to 50 points. Although there are a few scattered communities which saw the percentage of commuters driving alone drop during the 1980s, the only portion of the region where this happened with any consistency was in the southwest, around Ashland, Bellingham and Wrentham. Looking at the second map, this southwestern area can be seen as clearly different from the rest of the region. While most areas had a stable or moderately declining transit mode share, cities and towns stretching from Canton and Stoughton, up to Natick, down to Mansfield, and out to Uxbridge saw the percentage of their commuters to the urban core using transit rise by 5 to 25 points. Most of this increase occurred on commuter rail, which can be explained by improvements to the Franklin and Attleboro lines made during the 1980s, including new equipment, the improved Southwest Corridor, and the opening of a large park'n'ride facility at Forge Park/I-495 station. In other parts of the region, most of the decrease in transit mode share is due to declining bus ridership. This decline may be somewhat overstated because bus ridership may have been artificially high in 1980 as a result of the 1979 oil crisis. One final point about this map is that declining or stable transit mode share does not imply declining or stable ridership. With the increase in urban core employment and its corollary increase in the number of commuters to the urban core, a stable, or even slightly declining mode share could represent an increase in the number of riders, albeit a small increase relative to the increases in other modes. (For example, while the transit mode share declined by 0.3 percentage points between 1980 and 1990, MBTA ridership increased by nearly 20 percent between 1983 and 1993.) _____________________ 2Data are unavailable for the rest of the study area. A-4 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. MODE SHARE OF URBAN CORE COMMUTING The percent share of commuters who used to get to the urban core in 1990 is displayed in Figure A-5. This map has several interesting features. The cities and towns immediately surrounding the core have high transit shares, as one would expect, given the high level of transit service provided by the local and express buses and subway lines.3 Some of the most distant communities also have high transit shares, reflecting strong patronage of private bus companies. For many people, such trips are too long to drive every day. Buses offer a more relaxing and often cheaper way to get to the downtown area. The effect of commuter rail service is clearly shown, particularly on the North Shore up to Rockport and to the southwest along the Franklin line and especially the Attleboro/Providence line. In these two corridors (northeast and southwest), commuter rail offers travel times competitive to the automobile, presumably because I-95 from Canton through Boston and up to Peabody was never built. On the Haverhill and Lowell lines, the terminal city has a high transit share while many of the intermediate communities have lower shares. On the Fitchburg line, all of the communities past Ayer have low shares, reflecting the relatively low ridership on that segment of the system. A map of mode share for single occupant automobiles, shown in Figure A-6, is almost an inverse of Figure A-5. These trips are least common in the downtown area, in the southwest corridor down to Providence, and in some of the communities at the edge of the study area. In addition, the area around Fall River and New Bedford exhibits a very low mode share for SOV because of a large amount of carpooling (in the range of 30%) as well as high bus ridership. _____________________ 3The cities and towns of the core area do not fall into the highest category of transit share because significant numbers of residents walk to work: 32% of Cambridge residents and 18% of Boston residents walk to urban core jobs. A-11 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. COMMUTING TO THE SUBURBS Up to this point we have looked only at commuting to the urban core of Boston and Cambridge. These two cities, although the largest employers in the UTO region, provide only 35% of the total employment. Much of the rest of the employment is located in suburban job centers along Route 128 and in other satellite cities. Suburban communities along Route 128 draw employees from a wide area in much the same manner as the core, but in lower total volumes. These characteristics point out the basic problem in providing attractive transit services to and from these areas: although the geographical extent of the need for service is almost as large as for the core, the lower volumes are not sufficient to support frequent (and thus convenient) service. Three specific examples are Waltham, Burlington, and Braintree, which are large employment centers along Route 128. Waltham, which is the largest employment center on Route 128, has less than one-tenth the employment of the urban core (57,000 versus 607,000). However, as shown in Figure A-7, Waltham employees travel from distances nearly as long as those to Boston and Cambridge, with commuters coming from as far away as Concord, New Hampshire, Springfield and Barnstable, Massachusetts, and Warwick, Rhode Island. Cities and towns sending more than 100 commuters to Waltham are not quite as spread out, extending to Haverhill, Nashua, Worcester, Attleboro and New Bedford. One explanation why Waltham draws employees from such great distances may be that much of the employment in Waltham is in high-tech industries. Because these jobs call for specialized skills, the high-tech firms must draw from a very large labor pool, including people in other New England states. Waltham has a significant amount of transit service: five local MBTA bus routes, one express MBTA bus route, and commuter rail. However, these services are oriented around downtown Waltham and toward urban core commuting, and do not serve Route 128 employment centers. The design of these services reflects existing travel volumes: 5,440 Waltham residents commute each day to the urban core (1,190 on transit-a 22% share), but no more than 4,600 (from Boston) travel to Waltham from any single community.4 Of all 57,000 commuters to Waltham, only 1,200 (2%) used transit. Burlington, shown in Figure A-8, is a smaller but faster growing job center on Route 128. It employed 32,000 people in 1990, just over half the employment of Waltham, but grew by 9,000 new jobs in the 1980s, almost a 50% increase in employment. Despite its smaller size, Burlington draws commuters from _____________________ 4 Over 14,000 Waltham residents work in Waltham. After Boston, the next largest source community for Waltham workers is Newton at 2,500. Of Boston's commuters to Waltham 414 used transit (9%). A-14 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. distances as long as Waltham and the urban core. Like Waltham, the long distances may be partly explained by the high-tech nature of employment in Burlington. Another explanation is that the high housing prices of the mid and late 1980s forced the people filling the newly created jobs in Burlington to live at the edges of the urban area, far from their work places. A particular feature of Burlington is that it imports a huge percentage of its work force: 88% of the work force lives out of town, compared to 75% for Waltham and 64% for the urban core. In addition, no other community houses a large concentration of Burlington's workers- medium-size concentrations of 500 to 2,000 are spread over several cities and towns stretching from Boston to Nashua. Burlington is served by three MBTA bus routes-two are oriented toward urban core commuting, and the other is oriented toward work trips from Boston to Burlington. (The town also operates a mini-bus service, but this service is not designed to serve work trips and begins operation after the end of the AM peak.) Only 1.65 percent of the Burlington work force commutes on transit. Finally, Braintree, located at the southeastern end of the circumferential highway at the intersection with Route 3 and the Southeast Expressway, exhibits somewhat different characteristics, as shown in Figure A-9. It has roughly the same employment at Burlington, with nearly 30,000 jobs, but the extent of its commuter source area is noticeably smaller. It imports a large percentage of its work force at 84%, but many of the imported workers are concentrated in a few nearby cities: Boston, Quincy and Weymouth. Braintree's employment is less high-tech and more of the generic commercial and office variety, and thus can draw form a smaller labor pool. Braintree has transit service, with the Red Line and several bus routes, and will have even more when the Old Colony line is restored. However, these services do not reach the parts of Braintree where most of the employment is located. As a result, in spite of the current service, less than 4% of the work force uses transit to get to work. CONCLUSIONS The Census Journey-to-Work data provide much information on commuting patterns in the region. People are commuting very long distances, up to one and a half hours each way, to reach their jobs in the urban core. Over the past two decades, these trips have been lengthening, and more often than not, people have chosen to drive alone rather than carpool or take some form of public transport. There are several explanations for these trends. Housing prices rose steeply in the 1980s, forcing people to go outside of I-495 to find an affordable suburban-style home. At the same time, the costs associated with private transportation were falling relative to other goods: fuel prices dropped sharply in the mid '80s, cars have become more comfortable and reliable, and expressway construction in the '60s and 70s reduced travel times from distant locations. Of course, highway congestion has increased travel times, mitigating the effect of the improvement in access. A-17 Click HERE for graphic. Transit has retained a high share of the market in places where it offers service competitive to the automobile. In the urban core, the cost of parking often outweighs a car's travel time advantage. For very long distance trips, an express bus is as fast as a car and can be cheaper, especially considering parking costs. Along certain commuter rail lines to the northeast and southwest, automobile access times are inferior, making transit attractive. For commuting to suburban work places, mode shares of higher than 80% for single occupant vehicles, and higher than 90% for SOV and carpool combined, are the rule. Transit garners 2 to 4% on an average and even less for Burlington. Using transit in the suburbs is undoubtedly less convenient than using a car, and with the added bonus of plentiful free parking, there is hardly any incentive not to drive. Commuting to suburban jobs is therefore automobile commuting, rather than the multimodal commuting characteristic of the urban core. Congestion is usually associated with commuting to the urban core, and for good reason: expressways leading to the core are filled to capacity every day, as are many of the transit services to the downtown area. However, congestion is an increasing problem in suburban locations. With the long commuting distances, many miles are being travelled. Highway space is limited and there are few travel options. Thus, even with employment levels well below those of the urban core, congestion can be just as severe in the suburbs. It may not be possible to build our way out of the problem in the suburbs because new expressway construction may encourage more suburban development leading to more travel and thus more congestion. Density in the suburbs may never reach the level necessary to support a conventional transit system. The solution may therefore reside in a combination of better land use planning- providing more housing near to employment centers and locating work places in areas accessible by transit-and participation by employers in transportation management associations to promote ridesharing and offering shuttle services to transit stations. For the urban core, it is crucial to keep the transit system as a viable option-without it, the highways of the region would be clogged. The future lies with a balanced multimodal approach. A-19 B. THE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE MODELS INTRODUCTION This resource paper discusses the land use and transportation models that were used to generate travel forecasts and statistics for the alternative scenarios of the draft Transportation Plan for the Boston region. The discussion is intended to be non-technical and to provide the reader with a general understanding of the nature of regional modeling and its role in the regional Transportation Plan. The paper begins with an overview of the nature and role of the Boston MPO's regional model set. Then there is a discussion of how the model set was recently updated for use in the draft Transportation Plan, followed by a brief description of the steps in the model set. The paper closes with some information about how the model set will be further improved in the future. OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL MODEL A regional land use/transportation model set is composed of several models that together simulate intra-regional passenger transportation supply and demand for the current and future years. Supply enters the model set in the form of a computerized representation of the region's highway and transit systems. All express highways and major arterials, most minor arterials and many local roadways are included. All transit lines, both public and private, are included. Demand enters the model in the form of weekday trips that are generated from population, employment and land use. A regional model set is used to forecast changes in regional travel patterns that would result from certain actions. Historically, those actions have focused on major new or widened roadways and new or extended transit lines. Also, regional models have been used to estimate the system wide travel effects of changes in such things as transit fares, parking price or supply and fuel prices. Recently, regional models have come to be used in forecasting the impacts of transportation system changes on air quality. Travel forecasting models used at a regional level are appropriate for developing regional transportation plans, but are not necessarily the best tool in all planning situations. Precise and accurate forecasts of roadway traffic volumes and transit line volumes are often obtained by using these same models, but at a corridor or subarea level, where supply and demand variables can be represented with more detail and where relationships in the models can be calibrated more precisely. Even more fine-grained forecasts, such as those of intersection levels-of-service must be obtained from operations-level traffic forecasting models. B-1 The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 have placed new demands on travel forecasting models and on those who develop and use them. These models are being relied on for guidance in how transportation investments inter-relate with land use patterns, air quality and livable communities. Neither this region's nor any other region's models can provide all of the guidance being sought, but the models used in the transportation plan were recently updated and are more responsive to some of these issues than they were before. MODEL UPDATE PROCESS Travel models need to be updated periodically. At a minimum, they must be recalibrated with new data it becomes available. In addition, their structures must be updated to maintain currency with evolving research and the state-of-the practice. The Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization regional model set, which is maintained by the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS), is in the process of being updated for these reasons and in order to make it more responsive to the recent federal mandates referred to above. It will be another year before the update process is complete, but that process yielded an "interim" model for use in the Transportation Plan. Steps in Model Update Process The process of developing a new interim model set involved several steps, the first of which was to acquire a new data base. Early on, some new computer software, notably a land use allocation model, was also acquired. After these acquisitions, many months were devoted to modifying some elements of the model process and completely revamping others. All elements of the process were then connected to one another and implemented on a mainframe computer. Model calibration was then undertaken. Calibration refers to repeatedly running the model set and adjusting certain of its components until it replicates current regional travel patterns at an acceptable level of accuracy. Once the model set was calibrated to current conditions, it was used to forecast future conditions associated with the various scenarios described in this transportation plan. New Data Used in Model Update Acquiring new data was crucial to the model update process. Several types of data, including the following, were obtained: Characteristics of region's travelers and of their trips Current and forecast regional population and employment Community land use and zoning information Traffic and transit counts B-2 Among the more important data sources was a travel diary, used to collect information from 3,900 of the region's households. Descriptive data about households and their members was obtained, as was detailed information about the trips they make each day. This information was expanded to represent all of the region's residents and used to refine and reformulate certain portions of the model set. Socio-economic data from the 1990 U.S. Census supplemented the survey data. CTPS developed a comprehensive file of current population and employment from various sources, including the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the 1990 U.S. Census, the Massachusetts Department of Employment and Training and a commercial vendor. Forecasts of future-year population and employment were obtained from the MAPC. Community land use and zoning information was collected from the MAPC and individual towns and used in the land use allocation model. Current traffic and transit ridership counts were acquired from the state transportation agencies and other sources and used in model calibration. New Interim Model Versus Old Models The new interim model differs from those previously used at CTPS in several key respects. First, it is a single comprehensive regional model, used for highway, transit and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) forecasting. In the past, three separate sets of models were used for each of these travel modes. The new model set is based entirely on new data, as described above, and incorporates many modified and brand-new steps. Because of these features, the new model is more accurate and sensitive to a wider array of policy variables than were the old ones. In short, it can do more things and do them better than the old models. The integration of a land use allocation model with the transportation models radically changed the nature of the regional model process. In the past, population and employment forecasts input to the transportation models were always pre-determined and they remained unchanged in the modeling process. Now the land use allocation model allows us not only to forecast the impact of population and employment on transportation, but also to test how transportation might, in turn, shift the patterns of those variables across the region. Regional employment forecasts used in the new model set are different from those used in the old models. The differences in employment projections between the old and new models translate into differences in the future trips that are generated, in part, from those projections. The old forecasts implied a central Boston employment growth of about 30 percent between 1987 and 2010. The new MAPC forecasts imply a central Boston employment growth of only seven-to-eight percent between 1990 and 2020. In consequence, the forecast of central Boston-bound trips is now lower than before. In particular, since most transit trips are made to and from that area, system wide transit ridership forecasts output from the new model are lower than before. B-3 STEP BY STEP DESCRIPTION OF MODEL STEPS The transportation model used in the Transportation Plan is similar to those used in most large North American cities. It is commonly referred to as the four step urban travel demand forecasting process or simply as the four-step process. There are actually several more steps to the process; the four steps refer to the major ones. The four steps are: trip generation, trip distribution, mode split and trip assignment. With the addition of a land use allocation model, there are five major steps in the model process. Figure B-1 shows the relationships among these steps. In the course of constructing a model set, the region was subdivided into small geographic areas called traffic analysis zones or simply zones. These zones, many of which are similar in size to Census tracts, serve as the basic geographic units for which trips are forecast. Also in the model development stage, the region's transportation supply, in the form of roadways and transit lines, was represented in computerized networks. These networks are used to derive travel times by travel mode from each zone to every other one. These times are then used in the trip distribution and mode split steps. The networks themselves are used in the trip assignment step. The zone system and the networks are connected to one another to allow for interaction between demand and supply. Land Use Allocation Model The land use allocation model spatially allocates forecasts of total regional population and employment among traffic analysis zones. Employment for a given forecast year is allocated to a given zone on the basis of historical levels of employment and population in that zone, total land area in the zone and the accessibility of that zone from other zones where people live. Population is allocated to a given zone based on its historical population, forecast employment level, amount of residential land, vacant developable land and the accessibility of that zone to other zones where people work. Use of an integrated land use/transportation model allows for a linkage between the locations of activities and transportation system accessibility. Land use models used alone ignore the effects of spatial activity allocation on the transportation system. Transportation models used alone ignore the effects of transportation systems on the spatial allocation of activities. Trip Generation The trip generation model takes the allocated population and employment from the land use allocation model and translates that to trips into and out of each zone. It does so for several different trip purposes (work, school, shopping, social, personal business). This is an extremely important step because it yields the basic number of trips in the regional transportation system. Subsequent steps simply B-4 Click HERE for graphic. allocate those trips spatially, modally and temporally. Completely new trip generation equations were developed in the model update process. Trip Distribution Trip distribution spatially allocates the trips generated in the previous step. Trip generation deals solely with how many trips begin or end in a given zone, without reference to where the other ends of those trips are located. Distribution links trips among zones: it deals with where all trips begin and end. Trips that start in a given zone are forecast to end in another given zone as a function of how far apart the two zones are from each other and how many trips each zone generates in total. The longer the travel time between two zones, the fewer trips will flow between them, all other things being equal. On the other hand, the more total trips a zone generates, relative to all zones, the greater the "pull" it will have on a given origin zone; hence, the more of that origin zone's trips it will attract to itself. Distribution results in a matrix of trips among zone's for each trip purpose. This model was modified somewhat in the update process, but its basic structure remained unchanged from previous model versions. Mode Split In the mode split (or mode choice) step, the matrices of trips by purpose output from distribution are allocated to competing travel modes. The model that does this considers the times and costs associated with the competing modes and certain characteristics (e.g., auto ownership, forecast with one of the sub-models in the model process) of the travelers being modeled. Work trips are split among the transit, drive alone, 2-person carpool and 3-or-more person carpool modes. Nonwork trips are just split between transit and automobile, irrespective of automobile occupancy. This model is critically important for the Transportation Plan because it predicts shifts from the auto to the transit mode that could be expected to occur as a result of implementing various transit projects. The model update process resulted in a brand-new work trip mode choice model. Trip Assignment The final step in the model process is trip assignment. In this step, the trips split by mode from the previous step are assigned to the appropriate computerized networks in order to predict which routes those trips will choose in the highway and transit networks. It is from this step that we produce statistics such as regional vehicle-miles-traveled, vehicle-hours-traveled and average operating speed. From this procedure, we also produce predicted traffic volumes along specific roadways and transit ridership on specific lines. Trip assignment procedures were modified in the model update process. Also output from trip assignment are highway travel times under congested conditions and transit travel times. These are combined and input back into the land use model in order to forecast how transportation system accessibility, measured by travel times, might lead to a reallocation of population and employment. These times are also input back into the trip distribution and mode B-6 choice steps as well, and for any given model scenario, those steps and trip assignment are run through a second or even third time in order to reach a rough equilibrium state among all steps of the land use/transportation model set. After the travel models are run, regional air pollution emissions can be calculated. This is done by combining information from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved emissions models with the results from the trip assignment procedures. FUTURE MODEL DEVELOPMENT As stated previously in this paper, development of the travel demand model for the Boston region is not complete. The model used for the Transportation Plan is termed "interim"; a final model will be available in 1994. It will differ from the interim model in three broad respects. First, CTPS will have completely redone certain steps in the model that, for now, have simply been modified or left alone. The trip distribution model will, for instance, probably be completely reformulated to make it responsive to travel cost as well as to time. Second, CTPS will have collected and used additional data to refine the model further. This will, for example, include some survey work to obtain information on unique trip generators such as sports complexes and military installations. Trips to and from these kinds of facilities are not well represented in the standard model process described above. Getting better information about them will enhance the accuracy of the forecasts. Finally, by next year, CTPS will have tied the individual model steps together more tightly and calibrated the entire land use/transportation model set more precisely. At present, the land use allocation model, being brand-new in the process, does not yield results as satisfactory as will be required in the future. The trip assignments must be further refined in order to enhance their accuracy at the level of individual roadways and transit lines. CONCLUSION The 1993 Transportation Plan analysis of future travel and air quality conditions would not have been possible without the models described in this paper. The Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization has made a commitment to continue to improve these models, since they are among the tools necessary for planning and management of the regional transportation system. The next update of the Transportation Plan, to be completed by January, 1995, will rely on the final versions of the these regional travel and land use models. B-7 C. HISTORY OF MASS TRANSIT PLANNING IN THE BOSTON REGION The public transportation system of the Greater Boston area has a long and complex history. What today is an integrated, publicly owned and operated system, began as a number of private ventures, hoping to produce profits by capitalizing on the ever growing demand for mobility. Over the hundred years since the beginning of public involvement in the construction of mass transit facilities, planning for the public transportation system has proceeded in fits and starts. This chapter will examine the periodic planning efforts which have brought the Boston area to its current mass transit system made up of rapid transit, light rail and commuter rail lines (see Figure C-1). A study of the private investments and plans for streetcar lines and railroads would be very interesting, but it is beyond the scope of the present chapter.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BOSTON TRANSIT COMMISSION AND THE BOSTON ELEVATED RAILWAY The first large scale planning effort for public transportation facilities in the Boston area occurred with the establishment of the Boston Transit Commission and the Boston Elevated Railway Company in 1894. Prior to that time, many miles of streetcar track had been laid, but this construction had been undertaken by private entrepreneurs, driven by market forces rather than a comprehensive plan. In the early 1890's, when the downtown area was severely congested with,streetcar traffic, the City of Boston decided that the time had come to invest in rapid transit facilities. The City chose both elevated lines, which had been in use for several years in New York and Chicago, and subways, which had not yet been tried anywhere in North America. The Massachusetts legislature passed an act in 1894 to "Incorporate the Boston Elevated Railway Company and to Promote Rapid Transit in the City of Boston and Vicinity.2 This act called for three elevated and three subway lines to form the basis for a rapid transit network. Only two of these six projects were constructed in the way contemplated when the 1894 act was passed, namely the Tremont Street Subway from Shawmut Avenue to Scollay Square (now part of the Green line)3 and the _____________________ 1 The numerous bus and former streetcar lines will also not be discussed, since they were not considered in detail in any of the major planning studies. Likewise, the planning of the commuter rail system will not be discussed, since it was privately owned and operated until the 1970s. 2 Stat.1894, Chapter 548. 3 Throughout this chapter, cross-references to the color scheme familiar to today's riders will be given in parentheses. The color scheme was instituted by the newly-formed MBTA in 1965. C-1 East Boston Tunnel from Scollay Square to Maverick Square in East Boston (part of the Blue Line). But the fact that the statute laid out a large network with many branches makes it an important landmark in systems planning and the history of urban transit. SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION Several other acts of the legislature in the ensuing years altered the proposals made in the 1894 act and authorized the transit lines that were actually built. Chapter 534 of the acts of 1902 laid out plans for the Washington Street Tunnel (Orange Line from North Station to Chinatown). Chapter 520 of the acts of 1906 described the Cambridge subway (Red Line from Harvard to Park Street) Finally, Chapter 741 of the acts of 1911 prepared the way for the Dorchester Tunnel from Park Street to Andrew (southern portion of the Red Line), the Boylston Street Subway from Kenmore to Tremont Street (Green Line) and a continuation of the East Boston Tunnel from Court Street to Bowdoin Square (western section of the Blue Line). REPORT ON IMPROVED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES (1926) The first major planning document to be produced after the core of the transit system was in place was the Report on Improved Transportation Facilities in the Boston Metropolitan District, published by the Division of Metropolitan Planning4 in 1926. This report based its proposals upon 1) a study of population trends in the Boston area, 2) an analysis of ridership trends on the many steam railroad lines and on the streetcar and rapid transit system, and 3) a survey of trouble spots in the existing system. The authors found that population was growing very quickly in the suburban areas immediately surrounding Boston, especially those to the west and south, such-as Newton, Needham and Dedham, but that patronage of the steam railroads within five or six miles of the city was declining steeply. The railroads had lost their inner suburb commuter patronage to the streetcar and rapid transit facilities of the urban core in the early part of the century, and as the 1920's wore on, even more people were leaving the railroads to drive their own private automobiles. The automobile had not yet cut significantly into the patronage of the Boston Elevated (called the "El"), which then served an average of one million passengers per day, but it was predicted that increasing numbers of people would desert the El because of congestion and inconvenience if improvements were not made to the transit facilities. Improvements were deemed to be especially necessary at the Park Street and Scollay Square stations which, because of the large number of trolley lines (eleven separate routes) which originated and terminated there, were subject to a severe congestion problem compounded by confusion and delays in loading and _____________________ 4 Part of the Metropolitan District Commission C-2 Click HERE for graphic. unloading passengers. The Planning Division recommended several the system to alleviate this problem and also to provide more comprehensive service to the territory within five miles of the State House, which was seen as the proper domain of rapid transit. Two projects received top priority: a through route between Maverick Square and Warren Street or Lake Street, Brighton which was essentially a connection between the East Boston Tunnel (Blue line) and the Tremont Street and Boylston Street Subways (Green Line) emerging along Commonwealth Avenue; and a route from Lechmere to Huntington Avenue through the Tremont Street Subway, along the Albany and New Haven Railroad tracks and then along Huntington Avenue to a terminal at Tremont Street in Roxbury (see Figure C-2). These through routes operating in the Tremont Street subway would replace the eleven trolley routes and thereby greatly improve the congestion problems. Neither of these routes was ultimately instituted, although service along Huntington Avenue was eventually put into place with the opening of the Huntington Avenue Subway in 1941. As it turned out, several other proposals in the 1926 report, judged to be of lower priority, were actually carried out. These include: Extension of East Boston route to Lynn via the Boston, Revere Beach and Lynn Narrow Gauge Railroad completed as far as Revere in 1952 Conversion of the Western Division of the Boston and Maine Railroad as far as Reading to a new rapid transit line-completed as far as Oak Grove in 1975-77 Use of the Old Colony Railroad tracks for a transit extension to Braintree-completed in 1980 New transit line parallel to Providence Division of the New Haven Railroad to Forest Hills-completed in 1987 Extension of Huntington Avenue route through Brookline Village connecting to the Highland Branch of the Boston and Albany Railroad-use of the Highland Branch for the D Line through Kenmore instead completed in 1959 (Note: the connection from Brigham Circle to Brookline Village is still being considered). There were also several other proposals which were subsequently dropped from consideration as well as two which have reappeared on the agenda: Extension from Lechmere to Woburn via Southern Division of the Boston and Maine Railroad-extension as fall as Medford Hillside is currently being considered. Suggested study of a circumferential transit route as proposed by the City of Boston in 1923 (no particular alignment mentioned). The second major function of the 1926 report was to suggest ways to solve the problem of the chronic deficits of the transit agencies. Since 1918, the Boston C-5 Elevated had been under public control, but its financial problems had not ended. The report recommended the establishment of a corporation, owned by private stockholders, to be called the Metropolitan Transit System, which would assume the assets and liabilities of the El for a period of at least forty years. The directors of this corporation would be appointed by the governor and thus, although it would not be a state agency, control would be in the public domain. It was further recommended that the district for this new agency be expanded to twenty-nine cities and towns from the fourteen communities which had been bearing the deficits of the El under the Public Control Act of 1918. These suggestions were not followed until 1947 when the Metropolitan Transit Authority was created in response to the reports of the Coolidge Commission. COOLIDGE COMMISSION REPORTS (1945 -1947) In 1943, the legislature decided it was again time for an evaluation of the future shape of the rapid transit system and created the Metropolitan Transit Recess Commission headed by Senator Arthur W. Coolidge "for the purpose of making an investigation and study of the subject of rapid transit in the boston metropolitan area."5 The Coolidge Commission, as it cam to be known, produced a report in April of 1945 and a second revised edition in 1947. As did the 1026 report, the Coolidge Commission report had two primary functions: to propose a layout for a transit system to fulfill the future needs of the Boston metropolitan area, and to recommend a reorganization of the transit agency to solve the perennial problem of the deficits of the Boston Elevated. The Coolidge Commission considered population trends between 1900 and 1940 and concluded that the urban core areas were on the decline and that suburbs between five and ten miles from the State House were growing quickly. The Commission argued that the current demise of the public transportation system and the concurrent increase in automobile traffic congestion was a result of this population movement, since the existing rapid transit system only extended as far as five or six miles from the center of Boston. The report declares: "The obvious solution [to these problems] is the extension of rapid transit lines out to the areas where the population is growing, sufficiently extended to aid the development of the areas and to facilitate the movement of the population to and from the center of the City of Boston."6 Specific proposals were based upon studies of the existing system and possible transit extensions using railroad rights-of- way. Commuter rail patronage for short-haul trips was declining, and it was assumed by the Coolidge Commission that rapid transit could take over the facilities at a minimal cost. _____________________ 5 Coolidge Commission Report 1945, p.8 6 Ibid., p.10. C-6 Click HERE for graphic. Ridership estimates were based upon population trends and an assumed twelve percent ridership growth factor, derived from the El's experience with the transit extension to Ashmont in the late 1920s. The projects listed in the 1947 Coolidge Commission report are a very ambitious list, effectively extending the rapid transit network out to ten to twelve miles in all directions (see Figure C- 3): Northeast: an extension of the East Boston Line to Lynn North: an extension of the Elevated from Sullivan Square to Reading including a branch to Medford Square Northwest: an extension from Lechmere to Woburn and an extension of the Cambridge Subway from Harvard to West Cambridge (Alewife) and beyond to Lexington West: a second extension from West Cambridge to Waltham Highlands, an extension to Riverside from the Tremont Street Subway via the Main Line of the Boston and Albany Railroad, another extension to Riverside from Kenmore Square (forming a loop) via the Highland Branch of the Boston and Albany Railroad, and a branch off of the Highland Branch to Needham Junction and Bird's Hill Southwest: two possible extensions beyond Forest Hills to Readville and East Dedham, plus the possible realignment of the Elevated to the New Haven Railroad tracks from Essex Street to Forest Hills South: an extension to South Braintree from Savin Hill along the Old Colony Railroad right-of-way, and perhaps even further to Cohasset, Whitman and Brockton. The total predicted cost of this program, including some changes to the central subway between Boylston Street and Scollay Square came to $73,375,050. Of the many projects proposed in the Coolidge Commission report, five have been completed, all at a smaller scale than originally suggested: 1) Blue Line extended to Wonderland instead of Lynn in 1952, 2) Orange Line extended to Oak Grove instead of Reading in 1975- 77, 3) Red Line extended to Alewife instead of Lexington and Waltham in 1985, 4) Orange Line relocated to Forest Hills in 1987 with no extensions beyond, and 5) Red Line extended to Braintree instead of South Braintree or the extensions beyond in 1980. All of the cases where rapid transit lines were not extended were a result of the recommitment to Commuter Rail which began to take shape in the early 1970's. As to the reorganization of the Boston Elevated, the Coolidge Commission recommended the establishment of a Metropolitan Transit Authority to assume C-9 the assets and liabilities of the El. As in the 1926 Report, it was suggested that the district for this Authority be expanded to twenty-nine cities and towns (all of those within a ten mile radius of the State House). The proposed legislation contained within the report formed the basis of the enabling legislation for the MTA, enacted in August of 1947. 1966 PROGRAM FOR MASS TRANSPORTATION Because of the comprehensive nature of the Coolidge Commission Reports and their far-reaching expansion plans, no further planning documents were produced during the existence of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. In the early 1960's, planning activities stirred again with the Boston Regional Planning Project and the Mass Transportation Demonstration Project. These studies were initiated due to the looming crisis caused by the continued decline of commuter rail and rapid transit and the resultant deficits of the rail companies and the MTA. The Boston Regional Study (1963) provided an in-depth analysis of land use and economic trends, a comprehensive description of the existing transportation systems including highway, public transportation and railroad, as well as an excellent historical overview of these transportation systems. The Demonstration Project (1964), carried out by the Mass Transportation Commission, was a series of experiments designed to determine how changes in the fare structure, fare levels, and service frequency affect patronage. Various tests were performed on commuter rail lines and bus lines (but not the rapid transit system, because the experiments would have been too difficult to perform) over a span of fifteen months, typically following this pattern: Stage 1 reduce fares and increase service, Stage 2 - maintain higher level of service, restore fares to pre-test levels but institute a low off-peak fare, Stage 3 - make adjustments to service as necessary and continue stage 2 fares. The results of the experiments show that increased service is more important than lower fares in attracting new riders, but in almost all cases, not enough new riders would be attracted to pay for the increased service. These planning studies provided much interesting information and also helped to promote the formation of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. In July, 1964, the MBTA was established by the legislature under Chapter 161A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth. One of the stipulated responsibilities of the MBTA in section 18 was to "prepare and from time to time revise its program for mass transportation. The said program shall include a long-range plan for construction, reconstruction or alteration of facilities for mass transportation within the area constituting the authority."7 The first such _____________________ 7 Chapter 563 of the Acts of 1964 C-10 Click HERE for graphic. document to be produced was the Program for Mass Transportation of August 1966. The MBTA was then in the process of reviewing its expansion plans in the context of the Eastern Massachusetts Regional Planning Project (EMRPP), and put forth in its own format the plans for public transportation facilities which were part of the EMRPP's comprehensive transportation planning effort. The method used to evaluate proposed extensions was significantly more sophisticated than the simple population projections used in the 1926 and 1945 studies. The complexity was possible due to the major data gathering effort which had taken place in 1963 as part of the EMRPP. The home-based travel survey showed planners the numerous factors which go into a person's choice of mode and thus allowed them to develop formulas and models which would make reasonable estimations of ridership on new extensions. The 1966 PMT contained an Action Plan consisting of several components with a total cost of $340 million. Five of the projects were extensions of rapid transit lines with the other components pertaining to rolling stock replacement, station modernization, and maintenance and storage facilities. Ideas for future expansion projects beyond the Action Plan were mentioned but not discussed in any detail. Four of the five action projects have now been completed and, in fact, have been the focus of the MBTA's construction effort from 1966 to 1987. The recommended Haymarket North extension on the Orange Line was completed by 1977, allowing for the demolition of the elevated structure through Charlestown and Everett. The second project was the Southwest Corridor. The 1966 PMT recommended the replacement of the Washington Street elevated structure with a new route along the New Haven Railroad tracks and an extension beyond Forest Hills to West Roxbury. The relocation of the Orange Line was completed in 1987, but the idea of extending beyond Forest Hills was dropped in favor of upgrading the Needham commuter rail line. The third project was the Harvard to Alewife extension of the Red Line which was completed in 1985, with the modification of a station at Davis Square in Somerville in addition to the original proposal of stations at Porter Square and Alewife. The Red Line was also to be extended in the other direction to the South Shore via the right-of-way of the former Old Colony Railroad. The 1966 PMT suggested extending as far south as Weymouth, but it was subsequently decided to stop at Braintree, which was accomplished by 1980. The final project, which has not been built to date, was a one-mile extension of the Green line from Lechmere terminal into Somerville. In addition to the projects, the PMT included a discussion of its relationship to private carriers in eastern Massachusetts. Continuation of commuter rail service by the railroad companies was in doubt in 1966, reflected by the use of the railroad rights-of- way for the proposed transit extensions. The MBTA suggested in the PMT that commuter rail service could continue but in a C-13 reduced form, as more of a shuttle service from outlying areas to the ends of the rapid transit lines. The Orange Line at Malden, the Red Line at Alewife, and the Orange Line at Forest Hills and West Roxbury provided good opportunities for creating cross- platform links between railroad and rapid transit. As for buses, the MBTA recognized that changes would occur, with the authority either taking over routes from private companies, subsidizing those companies, or buying them out completely. The PMT made no firm plans for this but rather left the decisions up to the ongoing bus studies. EMRPP RECOMMENDED HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT PLAN (1969) The final report of the EMRPP was published in January of 1969. The MBTA had participated in the project since its inception in 1964, although the project was done under the aegis of the Department of Public Works (now the Massachusetts Highway Department), specifically the DPW's Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development. While the MBTA had been quite conservative in the 1966 PMT in terms of the ambitiousness of its expansion plans, the Recommended Highway and Transit Plan provided a forum for some longer range speculation. The plan is divided into three elements: Committed Projects, the Short-range Program (1968-1975) and the Long-range Program (1975-1990). The list of committed projects corresponds to the list in the 1966 PMT, but the Short-range projects include a proposal to extend the Blue Line from Wonderland to Pines River and the Orange Line from West Roxbury to Route 128 in Wakefield, the Red Line from Alewife to Route 128 in Lexington, and several changes to the Riverside line including a connection to the Blue Line in the downtown area, a conversion of the existing line to the high-platform rapid transit and an extension of the line out to the Wellesley-Natik border. (See Figure C-4). These proposals all follow the pattern of extending the rapid transit lines out to terminals along Route 128. The fact that such plans appear in the EMRPP report but not in the PMT is attributable to the overall theme of the report deriving from the highway plans: to create a complete network of transportation facilities, both expressway and rapid transit, connecting Route 128 and the urban core as a set of spokes between the rim of the Boston area and its hub. This theme is the defining characteristic of the EMRPP, even though the transit projects recommended within it go back a long way, most to 1945 and some to 1926. C-14 Click HERE for graphic. FINAL REPORT OF THE BOSTON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REVIEW (1972) The Boston Transportation Planning Review (BTPR) was a major restudy of the plans laid out in the EMRPP report. The restudy took place in 1971-72 and marked a fundamental shift in transportation priorities in the Boston region from highways to public transportation. The effect of the BTPR on transit plans was not so much to inflate them, but rather to move them to the top of the agenda replacing the urban expressways which had been discarded. The plans themselves, in fact, deflated a bit to return to the scale of the 1966 PMT. No extensions of the Blue line were planned in the BTPR with instead a minor upgrading to improve roadway access to Blue Line stations. The Orange Line would not be stretched north beyond Malden, although the extensions south beyond Forest Hills to Needham and Canton were retained. The Red Line extension to Alewife was altered to include the Davis Square station, and the possibility of extending to Arlington Heights was not ruled out. The South Shore Red Line extension was planned to go only as far as South Quincy. The extension of the Green Line from Lechmere to Somerville was retained for further study, but it was of low priority. There was discussion of replacement service for the Washington Street corridor in the South End and Roxbury which would lose its rapid transit service with the demolition of the elevated structure and relocation of the Orange Line. No firm plans were made as to the exact nature of the replacement service. Finally, there was enthusiasm for the idea of a Circumferential Transit line (although no particular alignment was laid out), an idea originating in 1923, but which had been absent from the discussion for a long time. One other non-rapid-transit element was included in the BTPR program: a third harbor crossing reserved for buses, taxis, airport limousines, trucks and emergency vehicles. Such a special-use tunnel would encourage the use of multiple-occupancy vehicles for access to Logan Airport. TRANSPORTATION PLAN (1974-1983) / TEN YEAR TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (1974-1983) New laws were enacted at the federal level during the early 1970s concerning transportation planning in metropolitan areas. Specifically, federal regulations required the formation of a Metropolitan Planning Organization to carry out continuing, comprehensive and cooperative planning, the "Three-C" process. As part of this process, the MPO was required to produce a set of documents, one of which was the Transportation Plan. The first Plan to be written under these new guidelines was released in July 1974. The preparation of this document was undertaken by a group comprised of technical staff from four agencies: the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, the Massachusetts Department of Public Works and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. C-17 At approximately the same time, the MBTA published the Ten Year Transit Development Program 1974-1983. Although this document was not called a Program for Mass Transportation, it was effectively a revision of the 1966 PMT which had been amended in 1968, 1969 and 1971. The Development Program and the Transportation Plan were the first planning documents to be produced after the BTPR, and they clearly show the influence of the restudy and the conclusions of its Final Report. In terms of the projects included in these reports, though, there is an equally strong influence of the transit element of the Recommended Highway and Transit Plan of the EMRPP. One other important event occurring at this time was the purchase by the MBTA of the railroad rights-of-way and equipment of the Penn Central and the Boston and Maine Railroads. The fate of the railroad companies had been in doubt for a long time, but the institution of the Commuter Rail Improvement Program in 1972 gave the MBTA the task of taking over and revitalizing the commuter rail system. In 1974, the transfer of property from the private companies to the MBTA was in progress, and the MBTA was in the process of forming a Commuter Rail Directorate in its organizational structure. These two documents reflect the changed status of commuter rail by including, for the first time, improvement projects for the railroad lines and equipment. For the purpose of organizing the proposals, the metropolitan area was divided into corridors. In the urban core area, there were two main proposals contained in both documents: a connection between the Blue Line and the Green Line via a new tunnel under Beacon Hill and the Boston Common linking Bowdoin station to the subway under Boylston Street, and a circumferential transit line running around the downtown area from South Station to Sullivan Square in Charlestown. In addition, the Transportation Plan listed other possible improvements including a rail connection between North Station and South Station and the restoration and revitalization of South Station. In the North Shore corridor, two improvements were planned: an extension of the Blue Line from its terminal at Wonderland to Lynn, Salem, or even as far north as Route 128 in Peabody, and an upgrade of the commuter rail lines to Rockport and Ipswich. The northern corridor similarly has two improvements: an extension of the Orange Line from Oak Grove to Route 128, Reading Center or Route I-93 at the Reading-Wilmington line, and upgrade of commuter rail service on the New Hampshire Division through Woburn and Wilmington. The Orange Line extension would replace commuter rail service from Reading to North Station, but freight service would be retained on a third track. Two transit improvements were planned for the northwest corridor: the Red Line would be extended from Harvard through Porter Square and Davis Square in Somerville to Alewife and perhaps beyond to Arlington Center, Arlington Heights or Route 128 in Lexington, and the Green Line would be C-18 extended 1.1 miles from the Lechmere terminal to Washington Street in Somerville. This second project was relegated to a low priority status when the Red Line extension was altered during the BTPR to include the station in Davis Square. Commuter rail service would also be improved on the Fitchburg Division commuter rail line including a transfer facility between the rail line and the new Red Line extension either at Alewife or at Porter Square. There was only one listed improvement in the western corridor, the reconstruction and upgrade of the tracks and facilities for the Green Line Riverside branch and the Boston and Albany Main Line commuter rail route from Newton to Westborough. The southwest corridor, on the other hand, had a number of large scale projects. The largest of them was the relocation of the Orange Line from the elevated structure on Washington Street to the Penn Central (New Haven Railroad) right-of-way to Forest Hills. This project included a new tunnel in the South Cove area from the Washington Street Tunnel to the Boston and Albany right-of-way (under construction at the time of publication of these documents), and the removal of the railroad embankment along the Penn Central right-of-way. In addition to the relocation project, the Orange Line was to be extended to West Roxbury and Needham, replacing the existing commuter rail service on those tracks. To replace the service of the elevated line on Washington Street in the South End and Roxbury, it was planned to reactivate the Green Line tunnel under Tremont Street south of Boylston for a new light rail extension to Roxbury, or to institute bus service including reserved lanes. One other project concerning the Green Line was the connection from Brigham Circle to Brookline Village, linking the E and D lines. In addition to these transit projects, upgrades for all of the commuter rail lines in this corridor were planned. The final corridor was the South Shore which had one main project: the completion of the Red line extension to South Braintree. The extension had been built as far as Quincy Center in 1971 and the remaining segment, including two new stations was under construction at the time. Further extensions to Brockton, South Weymouth or Hingham were retained for consideration. 1978 PROGRAM FOR MASS TRANSPORTATION Between the 1966 edition of the PMT and the next version to come out in 1978, the legislature passed a law in 19738 amending Chapter 161A so as to transfer the responsibility for producing the PMT from the MBTA to the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, which had been formed in the restructuring of government in 1971. EOTC undertook the revision of the PMT in late 1975, beginning a three-year process which ended with the approval of the Revised PMT by the Advisory Board to the MBTA in December of 1978. A great deal of analysis went into the production of this document in terms of _____________________ 8 Chapter 1140 7 of the Acts of 1973 C-19 studying the plans of the early seventies and using complex forecasting models to determine the costs and benefits of the various proposals. Improved forecasting methods allowed planners to have a better idea of future population and employment trends as well as likely ridership levels. As a preliminary step to laying out the construction program for public transportation facilities, the PMT includes an extensive discussion of policy objectives. Six major headings furnish the framework for the policy of the MBTA: 1) Management - to manage the system efficiently so as to provide a high level of service at the minimum cost to the rider and the taxpayer; 2) Ridership - to promote increased patronage of the mass transit system; 3) Environment - to provide services which are beneficial to the environment from the standpoint of energy efficiency, decreased pollution, and minimized negative impacts on areas near transportation facilities; 4) Economic and Physical Development - to create economic activity through construction projects and to promote the development of urban areas in the region; 5) Transportation Service - to make the transit system as fast, convenient, attractive and safe as possible; and 6) Services for Elderly and Handicapped - to increase the accessibility of the transit system and provide paratransit service where needed. These overarching goals serve as the fundamental rationale for all of the proposed improvements in the 1978 PMT. The 1978 program consisted of two segments, one for plant and vehicle improvements and the other for service expansion. The first section covered such items as electric power sources for the system, track renovations, improvements in the signaling system and communications, maintenance and storage facilities, bus and rapid transit vehicles, station modernization, parking capacity expansion, and accessibility improvement projects. The chapter on new service projects listed fifteen proposals, including improvements to all of the transit lines and three new routes. The projects are listed in counterclockwise order, according to corridor (see Figure C-5): Blue Line extension from Wonderland to Lynn Orange Line extension from Oak Grove to Route 128 Green Line extension from Lechmere to Tufts Red Line extension from Harvard to Alewife Green line extension to Brighton (partial rehabilitation of the A Line) Brookline Village Connector - connection between the Riverside Line (D) and the Arborway line (E) Orange Line relocation in the southwest corridor C-20 West Roxbury/Needham Service - either extension of the Orange Line from Forest Hills or major, commuter rail upgrade Roxbury/South End Replacement Service Rail service to Brockton - extension of Red Line, commuter rail line to Boston, railroad shuttle to Braintree, or a special lightweight diesel rail car joining the Red Line tracks in Quincy Commuter Boats for the South Shore Bowdoin-Charles Connector - connection between the Blue Line and the Red Line at Charles Station North Station Green Line Relocation - removal of the elevated structure over Causeway Street and reconstruct the Green Line station North Station-South Station connector - a new rail link as part of the Central Artery project Circumferential Transit - a new transit line around the fringe of the Downtown Boston Of these fifteen projects, four have been implemented: the Harvard Alewife extension was completed in 1985, the Orange Line relocation was finished in 1987, the upgrade of commuter rail service to West Roxbury and Needham opened at the same time as the new Orange Line, and commuter boat service to Hingham has been running since 1984 with subsidies from the MBTA. The Old Colony Railroad Rehabilitation is now underway (subsuming the rail service to Brockton), and the North Station Green Line relocation is planned to be implemented as the new North Station and Boston Garden are built. The Roxbury/South End replacement service, and the Bowdoin-Charles connector are in the planning stages. The rest of the projects are being retained, pending a revision of the PMT. Following the listing of projects, the 1978 PMT had three more chapters. A section on low-cost capital improvements discussed various transportation systems management (TSM) programs such as marketing, maintenance and the promotion of carpooling, bicycling and pedestrian travel. Accessibility issues for senior citizens and people with disabilities were also discussed. A chapter outlining the financing procedures for the capital improvements was followed by a summary of the goals and impacts of the program, highlighting the benefits of transit investment and some of the land use and development changes that would occur as a result of the implementation of the program. 1983 TRANSPORTATION PLAN The most recent version of the Transportation Plan for the Boston Region preceding the current update is the Fiscal Year 1983 edition. Like the 1974 Plan, this document encompasses the entire transportation system and discusses policy objectives for transportation and regional development. The projects in the Plan are divided into four categories depending on the degree of change to the C-23 physical plant involved in the project. The largest degree of change is plant expansion, defined as "any development and construction or acquisition of facilities or equipment for the purpose of increasing physical capacity."9 Lesser degrees of change are denoted as plant replacement, plant renovation and plant enhancement. The projects listed in these four categories correspond to the projects in the 1978 PMT: twelve of the fifteen expansion projects in the PMT are included under plant expansion, the other three are listed under plant replacement (the Orange Line relocation, the Roxbury replacement service, and the Green Line/North Station relocations, and the other improvements in the PMT such as storage and maintenance facilities and other system upgrades are distributed under plant replacement, renovation and enhancement. CONCLUSION Both the Transportation Plan and the Program for Mass Transportation are now being updated, and they will both contain some system expansion projects for the MBTA. It is likely that almost all of the recommended projects can be found in at least one of the historical planning studies. In most cases, it is clear how the system could be expanded; the route of expansion has not changed markedly over time. However, planning efforts for mass transit have changed character over the years, as the relationship of mass transit to the other modes of travel has been transformed. In the early part of the century, mass transit competed directly with commuter rail services, while the automobile was not seen as an immediate threat. In the middle part of the century, rapid transit came to be seen as a replacement for commuter rail, at least within a ten mile radius of downtown Boston. The automobile, meanwhile, was eating away at the market share of both commuter rail and mass transit. In the 1970s, rapid transit became a complement to a revitalized commuter rail system, while both were severely threatened by the dominance of the automobile. In the late '80s and '90s, intermodalism has come of age, and it is clearly recognized that mass transit is an indispensable complement to the regional highway system. To facilitate the connection.between autos and transit, there has been a great emphasis on constructing parking lots at transit stations, and in some cases, locating new transit stations at the intersections of rail lines and major highways. Changes in land use patterns have also affected mass transit planning. As population began to disperse in the middle part of the century, it was thought that the rapid transit system should reach out into the suburbs to follow. In the 1970s, the region realized that commuter rail could serve suburbs more efficiently than rapid transit lines, so some of the longer rapid transit extensions have not been pursued. Since the BTPR, there has been a strong policy _____________________ 9 Transportation Plan FY 1983, p.49 C-24 Click HERE for graphic. commitment to support development and commerce in the urban core. As a result, many transportation investments have focused on the downtown area. Mass transit facilities have a very long life span. The initial investment is very high, but the benefits extend for many decades. Although Boston is a mature metropolitan area relative to others in North America, it is still growing and developing. The transit system functions well, but it is not complete. Planners throughout the 20th Century have seen how to expand it, and planners in the 21st Century will likely follow the same paths. C-25
