Click here to download the letter from ATP-NARP President Richard J. Arena and NARP President Ross B. Capon.

Massachusetts based The Association for Public Transportation and the National Association of Railroad Passengers have announced their intent to work together on areas of mutual interest and to collaborate on such matters when appropriate.

In addition, NARP President and CEO Ross B. Capon will speak at APT’s June 15 annual meeting at the Downtown Harvard Club at One Federal Street, Boston. Capon is a Newton, MA native who in 1971 became one of the first employees of the Commonwealth’s then fledgling Executive Office of Transportation & Construction where he was a railroad specialist. Capon has worked for NARP since 1975.

The event’s keynote speaker is Eugene K. Skoropowski, a transit advocate turned professional who left his Boston architectural team in the 1970’s to work for the MBTA. He recently concluded 10 spectacularly successful years as Managing Director of the California agency that manages the Capitol Corridor Amtrak trains that link Sacramento with the San Francisco Bay Area. He now works for HNTB, a preeminent architecture and engineering firm specializing in infrastructure.

APT will add “Massachusetts Association of Railroad Passengers” to its name and institute a new website address www.aptmarp.org.

APT President Richard J. Arena said, “The Obama Administration has changed the funding rules for rail transportation projects. Now states and regional transit authorities must have local funding assured prior to receiving a commitment for federal monies. NARP does a great job working the halls on Capitol Hill in Washington. APT is just as active on Beacon Hill in Boston. Together we make a very good team.”

“APT is the ideal local partner for NARP,” said Capon. “Its members understand the importance of Amtrak and intercity rail, and it has long been a proponent of the North Station/South Station Rail Link (NSRL) which will enable the extension of the electrified Northeast Corridor to New Hampshire and Maine.” He noted that, in 1991, NARP filed suit against the Federal Highway Administration and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in an attempt to force inclusion of the Rail Link in the Central Artery
Project.

NARP is the only national organization speaking for the users of passenger trains and rail transit. It has worked since 1967 to expand the quality and quantity of passenger rail in the U.S. Its mission, supported by over 18,000 individual members, is to work towards a modern, customer?focused national passenger train network that provides a travel choice Americans want.

The Association for Public Transportation was founded in 1973 with the mission that effective, affordable, accessible public transportation, and the construction of strategic transportation infrastructure, is critical for the region’s economic prosperity and quality of life. APT authored the classic survival book “Car Free™ in Boston”, now in its tenth edition.

MOVE MASSACHUSETTS

Membership Meeting Friday, March 27th, 8:15-9:30 AM
Brown Rudnick One Financial Center, Eighteenth Floor, Dewey Square, Boston (across from South Station)

Imminent Challenges for New England’s Rail Future

with

Richard Arena
New England Regional Rail Coalition & Association for Public Transportation

and

Tom Irwin
New England Regional Rail Coalition & Conservation Law Foundation

13 May 2005
Congestion Pricing of Roadways: Can it Happen Here?

Yosef Sheffi, Professor of Engineering Systems and Director, Center for Transportation and Logistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and

Paul Scapicchio, Boston City Councilor and Chairman of the Committee on Aviation and Transportation.

Yosef Sheffi: Urban transportation used to be my thing at the start of my career. But I have no interest in working in research when the answer is known.

When something is “free”, it will be overused. I stopped working in the field because it is not a technological problem but a political problem. I was at Cambridge University in England just when they were starting congestion pricing, just because there will be fewer cards, but better traffic.

They are now charging $16 a day to drive to central London because they are using the revenue [for transportation]. Clearly, in the City of Boston, it is not going to reduce the national oil consumption, but it is a leadership position. It can show the way how our country consumes less oil.

I was amazed how much hate mail I got when I wrote the article in the Globe. It became very personal. There are fair criticisms. There was fear in London that business would go down. But it went up. But there must be an alternative [to provide access]. In London, there is a cordon around downtown; one is charged £4 if he passes it. They also have prepaid passes. There is also fear of privacy issues. According to the CEO of Sun Microsystems, “You have no privacy in today’s age. Get over it.” There is nowhere in London you can avoid getting photographed and recorded.

There are some problems that will take place, such as parking operators.

It is my guess there should be a $10 charge [in Boston]. It would change behavior.

Paul Scapicchio: Background of Boston Latin School, Harvard, Northeastern University and Tufts. He has worked at Brown, Rudnick [which sponsors this meeting].

Why would a city councilor care about this? My district goes from the Airport through the Big Dig to South Station. I thank the professor, since all that hate mail I was getting is [now] going to him. I had been looking at congestion planning. Someone sent me a report as to what London was doing. I submitted it to the City Council. The next morning the television news was all over on it. The City should look at this. I have always been a bit of a provocateur. The City should be a national leader.

We have held on because of the types of people who lived here. We were always a city thinking forward and taking advantage of our brain power. In the Deloitte and Touche study, it said it needs someone in government to initiate the question. In London, the mayoral candidate ran on the issue.

Eighty percent of the people who e-mail me were against it. Now it is more balanced. There are differences with London. David Luberoff of the Harvard Business School wants to discuss this. The Boston Transportation Dept. is taking this up.

Q (Dan Wilson, Move Mass.) How would we do this?

A (Scapicchio) Anything we do has to go through the state legislature. We are going to have to explore it.

Q (Alan MacDonald) What about a mandate for everyone to pay, rather than to pay for entry from certain roads?

A We haven’t looked in that detail. We have to look at [the] alternative, public transportation.

What we propose is a small zone, maybe a square mile. But the media made it sound like there would be toll booths around the town.

Q (Bob Sturgis) Is congestion a good thing?

A Density is a good thing. We supersize our houses. Congestion meaning people living in pockets is good, but rather sprawl is not good.

Q What was the e-mail?

A Not polite. But an inquisitiveness downtown. Six of the state’s worst intersections were downtown. People could see the advantage. In the City, there is 70% support. In Cambridge, unanimous support.

Q [What about a] “fare” Lexus Lane: Drivers would pay more, granting credits to slow right hand drivers?

A With technology, it is amazing what you can do.

Q Is there a way we can package this as a transportation PLAN?

A Absolutely. Show people that the revenues will go to public transportation. The problem is that the MBTA is one entity, the Mass. Turnpike Authority another entity. It is difficult.

Q (Curtis Davis) Have you seen examples of how it is developed comprehensively and with policies evening the costs of transportation? Rather than people being boxed in or constrained?

A That how you want to position us. In London, they didn’t have a chance to do it. The just implemented it quickly. In one year. Do it; do it right away.

Q Can we use “global warming” or “global resiliency”?

A I am searching for this. Last week a study was released that Boston has the seventh most congested traffic in the country. But I can’t bring this up as a Boston city councilor.

Q When you look at how the T runs out of the city, you see [gateways] at Alewife or Quincy. How do your approach this, using the T to spearhead this?

A Congestion is a tremendous problem at the T. They can’t pay for it. How do we pay for it? It can’t come from City Hall. We get a vituperative reply from the Governor.

Q (Vineet Gupta, Boston Transportation Dept.) Where would the boundary go?

Comment (Dan Wilson) This is a question for you.

Gupta: Thirty percent of daily trips are for Boston. In the spirit of this being a discussion, we have been talking on the supply side, i.e. more parking.

A But we have been doing this $29 parking; every inch of the City has a parking meter.

Q To build on this, we have a cap on PUBLIC parking garages, but as we build downtown, these facilities are providing their own parking. Perhaps we can do something with Zip Cars.

A (Gupta) But there are not new office buildings in Boston, rather residential parking.

Q What about the administrative costs of a camera-based system—Would this [be self-defeating]?

A (Sheffi) The technology now permits this. You can change the price over the course of the day automatically. The camera is used for enforcement exclusively.

Because of the technology, London wanted to do it right away.

(Scapicchio) Because of the technology, 28 people in total run Zip Car.

(Sheffi) It is amazingly inexpensive.

Q (Richard Garver) What is the problem we are addressing? It is in the suburbs, not here. You want to reduce sprawl. The businesses are building in the suburbs. What you might want to do is charge for driving out there.

What you need is a one-term Democratic governor.

A (Sheffi) It is tough to provide an alternative in the suburbs because of the spread. There is poor public transportation there.

(Schapicchio) Route 128 is a problem, a six-mile [?-ed.] belt around the City of Boston.

Q Terminology. We don’t use the term congestion pricing any more. It sounds like a tax. We call it “value pricing”. You are getting some value out of this.

A (Schapicchio) You bring up an important point. In other cities, they build their own trolley line. People know that a tax would go directly to transportation.

Comment (from Somerville): [There could be] A $4 toll going in to Boston or a 10¢ gas tax. But people are paying for lattes.

Suggestion: (1) Make a survey of tolls around the country.

(2) You focus on the health costs; the EPA is studying this. Norfolk and Middlesex counties are suffering from premature deaths.

The benefit is great from getting this under control.

Comment: A year or two ago, a friend from Canada came in by plane and had to drive to Wilmington. Their first statement: “Why would anyone want to live here?”

Perhaps people would want to pay more to have a better life experience.

Q Other parts of the country are attracting people who care about quality of life and lack of pollution. Some companies send people around the country. But they don’t send them to Portland, Oregon, because they stay there.

What are the key things about Boston? The quality of life.

Who will contribute to this? Everyone will suffer if people choose not to live here.

A (Schapicchio) People are moving out. They are making the same wages, but getting much more for it.

Q This is a great idea: To sell this is an economic answer. People who live outside the city and drive in are getting a free ride so to speak.

As an MBTA employee, it is a packaging problem: People who are sending you hate mail see no alternative. You impose a fee, but there is a long time to reflect in new transit terminals.

Q There is less and less transportation funding.

A Other cities expand outward, but if you look at a space photo, you see other cities sharing the same demographic[s]…

Q And those other cities have no developable area.

Q People are sheepish. The average person asks why should I pay for this when I already pay an excise tax. And now I am paying for this again. You have to re-tool peoples’ minds.

Curtis Davis: We are a forum for dialogue. We have to know how to approach this. In London, they change their boundaries every fourteen or fifteen years. We cannot do this.

There is a transportation plan from the Governor on the table now.

The real question is not the politicians, rather we have to lead the leaders. We need political structures. We need regional governance, not regional governments. We won’t have country again.

Notes on Move Massachusetts meetings are provided as a public service and do not represent an official statement of Move Massachusetts. The Association for Public Transportation is a member of Move Massachusetts.

11 March 2005
Urban Ring Update

Dennis DiZoglio, Assistant General Manager for Planning and Real Estate, MBTA

[The project involves] seven communities around Boston. The term “Ring” is a misnomer. It is really a corridor, which has lots of transportation needs. MBTA service is radial. People come in to Boston, then go back out to their destination. There is growth outside the core of Boston. What if, instead of going all the way into Boston, you could stop in the outskirts and go left or right and make connections [along the corridor]?

At the end of the major investment study (MIS), [we] came down with a new approach: Phases I, II and III. Because of the nature of the corridor, it is more of an overlapping system.

Phase I, from the MIS, took crosstown bus service with the intent to connect from a commuter rail station to the Longwood Medical Area (LMA). There are all kinds of crosstown routes, with intermediate stops. [Price:] $100 million.

How can we intensify those connections? With bus rapid transit (BRT). We made a draft environmental impact report (DEIR). The key in our mind, we identified six bus rapid transit routes.

Phase II would not eliminate the crosstown routes, but would use BRT routes which would overlay the circumferential routes.

What if we implemented BRT as Phase II (this qualifies for federal funding)? Why not go straight to Phase III, and implement the strongest portion of the corridor? [Q&A's by Stephanie Pollock]. This could be added, but it would never be this alone. The previous phases would not go away. It is a layering approach. There is an emphasis on trying to get people off their commuter rail.

This is not the traditional transit project. Our desire is to improve mobility in that corridor. There is a closing for comments on the DEIR of 18 March [later extended to 1 April because of snowy weather—ed.].

Tom Nally, Co-Chair, Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee.

We have been working on this project for a long time. The Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) certificate preparation for Phase II of the Urban Ring established the Citizens Advisory Committee, which has had 14 meetings.

On the fifteenth of February, [we sent] a letter to the Secretary of Transportation to put on paper our position. The main points:

1. The strong support for the project from our members.
2. The strong desire to reconnect the state DEIR process with the federal process.
3. The strong desire to preserve threatened portions of right of way, especially in Chelsea.
4. The desire to review the phasing of the project.

There is a matter of importance to hold by the project schedule. [Complications:]

* The impact on MIT laboratories by electromagnetic forces.
* Kendall Square needs more examination.
* Takings.
* Further examination of segments around the Ring.
* The Charles River crossing in the Boston University area.

[There is the need] to further review the development opportunities in the area, especially private investment. There is the need for a financial mechanism such that private investment would count as the local portion relative to the federal contribution.

Peter Calcaterra, Urban Ring Project Manager, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.

Now it is a single draft environmental impact report (DEIR), not also a draft environmental inpact statement (DEIS), so we can get the document on the street ASAP. It is a difficult project to understand. Normally there would be a thirty-day review.

There is a need to revise study methodology. Issues: The Federal Transit Administration want to be assured that it is a combined document. There are a lot of variants we have been looking at.

There are some specific [geographic] areas which need a look. A supplemental process would permit us to look at them. This is dependent on the level of changes required; we would have to look at it. Then we would have to put together funding. We are not there yet to tell you when all these comments will be answered. We will be glad to discuss specifics.

It is unfortunate that the term “Urban Ring” was coined, but it is circumferential. “Circumferadial”, really. This is a building up of service.

Questions and Answers

Q (Dan Wilson) How will Phase II be done?

A (DiZoglio) We do not have sufficient funds to go all the way. We are in a holding pattern. We cannot financially do a significant analysis.

Wilson: What about the cost of construction?

DiZoglio: This is dependent on WHEN the project is advanced and where it is.

Q (Barbara) 2018 is the date I have heard.

A (DiZoglio) The Governor talked about that yesterday. More of the Commonwealth being involved in these projects. The Governor wants to build a consensus around projects. The Ring has developed detractors, which has pushed the project later. An agreement on what to do (i.e. community support) would advance it.

Q. If the Urban Ring is not just one route, it is unfortunate that Circumferential Transit is folded into it, and unfortunate that it delays the project.

A (DiZoglio) We would have to increase the bus fleet and build a new maintenance facility to advance Phase I from our perspective.

Q. Now that Phase I has been folded into Phase II, this slows the process.

A (DiZoglio) Yes, the financial issue slows the process.

Q (Karen Wepsic) Touting of this as an urban project is a misnomer. Circumferential Transit doesn’t run at night. It serves the suburbs. If the ridership is there, the service would be there.

A (Calcaterra) The maintenance facility is the major expense.

(Wepsic) I am concerned that people will not use it at night and weekends. It is really driven by the institutions, even though it is touted as being driven by the residents.

Q (George Bailey, MBTA Advisory Board) It is necessary for the T to look at Toulouse, France. There they have an automated 15-km transit line. During rush hours, there is a one-minute headway. Off-peak, three minutes.

You need a quick turnover at modal split points. You have this also in Lille and at the Chicago Airport. Rubber-tired vehicles with steel wheel guidance. In the long run, that should be an option. Fully automated. In Toulouse, two additional lines are being developed.

A (DiZoglio) This is not part of our thinking at this time.

A (Calcaterra) [With our proposal,] there would be a ten-minute frequency at peak hours. The Urban Ring reduces the real need for transfers for people riding the system now.

Q (Anne McKinnon, Howard/Stein-Hudson) It would help the T to decouple the smaller project to make an improvement, e.g. Yawkey Station.

A (DiZoglio) We have no funds for these small projects. We need the larger project to get federal money for these projects.

Q. There is a concern that the roadway expansion would just get them clogged.

A (Calcaterra) There will be no expansion of roads. Bus lanes, but for exclusive use of buses.

Q. You do not envision that people would not use the road on the off-peak?

A. This is an enforcement question.

Q. What about truck traffic? If the expansion, for example of Yawkey is decoupled, this does damage to the Ring project.

A (Calcaterra) The East Boston truck route is the only shared area. This is intended for share only with trucks, not taxis or other vehicles.

The House bill includes $6 million for the East Boston haul road, although it doesn’t say who is paying for it.

A (DiZoglio) We are always happy to do this with private sector contributions.

Q (Rep. Martha Mary Walz) We know people park in the bus lane. What is the potential answer to the problem?

A (DiZoglio) I don’t have a good answer. There is relief on Washington Street: Vehicles can go around blockages. But yet, we have to enforce reservations. There is a partnership between the City and transit police.

A (Calcaterra) Also other municipalities.

Q (Fred Salvucci) Identify these streets where the proportion of buses to humans is higher. Buses are the solution, rather than the problem.

A (DiZoglio) I agree.

Appendix 1: FEATURES AND BENEFITS SUMMARY: URBAN RING PHASE 2

Expands the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System.

* Provides six overlapping BRT routes encircling the corridor.
* Reduces transit trip times with physical priority (bus lanes, busways, etc.).
* Increases reliability with signal priority and other “intelligent transportation systems” (ITS).
* Increases passenger amenities with new vehicles, stations and information systems.

Adds and Improves Commuter Rail Connections.

* Provides new stations at Sullivan Square, Gilman Square and Union Square.
* Expands stations at Chelsea, Yawkey, Ruggles and Uphams Corner.
* Uses existing station at JFK/UMass.

Increases System Connectivity.

* Commuter Rail—new and expanded stations connect with suburbs and increase reverse commute options.
* Rapid Transit—connects with all existing and planned rapid transit lines.
* Local Buses—connects with most to extend service to neighborhoods.

Connects People to Jobs.

* Connects seven communities with each other—Boston, Chelsea, Everett, Medford, Somerville, Cambridge and Brookline—and with the region.
* Urban Ring corridor is projected to grow at rates higher than regional average.
* By 2025 the corridor is a mix of people (336,000) and jobs (389,000) connected by the Urban Ring transit service.

Supports Smart Growth.

* Leverages existing transit infrastructure by connecting with all lines.
* Supports development in areas with existing water and sewer capacity.
* Relieves traffic congestion in established areas and supports emerging areas.

Addresses Environmental Justice.

* Corridor meets federal and state environmental justice (EJ) criteria.
* Improves transit access and mobility in EJ communities.

Provides Major Transportation and Environmental Benefits.

* Total Urban Ring ridership of 150,000 daily passengers by year 2025.
* Increases commuter rail ridership systemwide by approximately 8,500 a day.
* Reduces rapid transit system congestion by 25,600 daily riders.
* Approximately 80% of Urban Ring trips originate in Urban Ring communities.
* Reduces auto-person trips systemwide by nearly 18,000 a day.
* Improves air quality by reducing auto vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 176,900 a day.
* Phase II infrastructure investments continue to function in Phase III as part of an integrated system.

Costs: Capital.

* $741 million if implemented by 2011.
* $987 million if implemented by 2020.

Note: Figures shown above are from preliminary draft Phase 2 DEIR/S, February 2004.

Source: MBTA

For more information on the Urban Ring, a copy of the Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Citizens Advisory Committee report on the DEIR, see http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/t_projects/

Notes on Move Massachusetts meetings are provided as a public service and do not represent an official statement of Move Massachusetts. The Association for Public Transportation is a member of Move Massachusetts.