(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Final study summary report"

SM,C * LIBRARY 

-" 

H MA 02116 



FOR USE IN LIBRARY ONLY 



DOES NOT CIRCULATE 




$$9 



m 



I ' i 



'V* 



iBiiB»gfc 



BOSTON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REVIEW 



FINAL STUDY 



1 /•, 



!2~14 



IE 

.B71 
B747af 



SUMMARY REPORT 



FEBRUARY 1973 



^ 



The Boston Transportation Planning Review 
is a study undertaken for the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts, sponsored by the Executive 
Office of Transportation and Construction 
through the Department of Public Works (DPW) 
and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation 
Authority (MBTA) . 



State support is contributed by the DPW and 
the MBTA. This report has been prepared in 
cooperation with the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Federal Highway Administratic| 
The preparation of this report has also been 
financed in part through a grant from the 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban 
Mass Transportation Administration, under 
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, 
as amended. 



STAit »K, DKA|<y 

10 ' ,A 

BOSTON, MA 02116 



The best description of the Boston Transportation Planning Review can be found 
in the policy statements made by Governor Sargent with respect to transportation 
in the Boston region. The context of each of these statements, made at various 
stages of the BTPR, is on the following pages. 

In addition, this report summarizes the technical reports and memoranda produced 
during the course of the BTPR. Contents of the following published reports are 
included: 

Core 

• Third Harbor Crossing Report 

• Harbor Crossing Summary 

• Central Artery 

• Circumferential Transit 

North Shore 

• North Shore Report (1-95 North and 1-95 Relocated) 

• 1-95 Relocated Summary 

• The Salem-Peabody Route 128 Arterial Connector 

• The Winthrop Connector 

Northwest 

i 

• Northwest Corridor Report 

• Northwest Arterial Report 

• Mobility Problems of Elderly Cambridge Residents 

Southwest 

• Southwest Corridor Report 

• Southwest Summary 

• Southwest Corridor: Supplementary Report 

Regional 

• • Air Quality Monitoring Program 

• Commuter Rail Improvement Program 

• Goods Movement Study 



• Regional Framework 

• Regional Systems 
A Review of Recommended High Speed Ground 



and Air Transportation Options 

Social Benefit/Cost Evaluation 

Study Element 6 Summary Report: Land Use 
and Travel Forecasting 

• Study Element 2 Summary Report: Community Liaison 

and Technical Assistance 

Other technical reports and memoranda produced by the BTPR are listed by the 
following categories: 

Study Element 

02 Community Liaison and Technical Assistance 

03 Design and Evaluation Criteria 

04 Transportation System Design 

05 Joint Development 

06 Land Use and Travel Forecasting 

07 Special Mobility Studies 

08 Technological Studies 

09 Legal and Administrative Studies 

10 Environment and Conservation Studies 

11 Effects on Regional Economy 

12 Replacement Housing and Family Relocation 

13 Business Relocation and Employment 

Facility 

10 North Shore General Studies 

11 Regional Studies 

12 No-Build 

13 1-95 North — Lynn/Peabody 

14 1-95 North — Route 1 

15 1-95 Relocated 

16 Third Harbor Crossing 

17 I-93/I-95 Connector 
19 Revere Beach Parkway 

2 3 North Shore Special Mobility/Coverage Transit 



24 Airport 

25 Southwest Expressway 

26 Southeast Expressway 

27 Western Inner Belt 

28 Midlands Special Purpose Road 

29 Southwest Arterial 

30 Orange Line Relocated 

33 Circumferential 

34 Southwest Commuter Railroad 

36 Grand Junction Truckway 

37 Western Connector 

39 Harvard/Alewife Extension 

40 Green Line Extension 

41 Northwest Commuter Rail 

43 Northwest Special Mobility/Coverage Transit 

44 Central Artery 

50 Southwest General Studies 

60 Northwest General Studies 

A list of handouts at Working Committee Meetings and a list of Working 
Committee Meeting Minutes is also included in this report. These documents 
can be found only in the files at the Massachusetts Department of Public 
Works. 



GOVERNOR FRANCIS W. SARGENT 
POLICY STATEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION IN THE BOSTON REGION 

FEBRUARY 11, 1970 



I have asked to speak to you tonight to report one of the most far-reaching 
and significant decisions I have made during my term as Governor. 

I have decided to reverse the transportation policy of the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts . 

The decision has immediate effect on the metropolitan Boston area, long- 
range effect on the state as a whole, and, it is my hope, major effect on 
the entire nation. 

Last May, I announced a reappraisal of this state's policy on transportation. 
I asked a special Task Force to conduct that reappraisal and to answer cer- 
tain questions. Here are the questions — and the answers. 

Are we really meeting our transportation needs by spending most of our money 
building roads? The answer is no. 

Are the roads we are building too costly — not merely in dollars, but in 
what they cost us in demolished homes, disrupted communities, dislocated 
lives, pollution of the air, damage to our environment? The answer is 
yes — they are too costly. 

The most important question is this: what should we do? 

I am here tonight to answer that question — clearly, plainly, and without 
doubletalk, for there_ has been enough of that. 

My answer takes the form of local, state, and national decisions. 

First, metropolitan Boston. Today construction is planned for several contro- 
versial transportation facilities — all of them highways. Extension of 
Route 2, the Inner Belt, the Southwest Expressway, and Interstate 93 through 
Charlestown and Somerville. 

First, Route 2 and the Inner Belt. Pending today is a five and a half million 
dollar study of this project. It is called the Task B study and it is 
scheduled to take 18 months to fix the route of this highway. 

I have decided not to approve it. It is too expensive. It would take too 
long — and most important, it would consider only where and how to build 
expressways, not whether to build them at all. 

And that last point is the critical question — whether to build them at all. 

Instead of the Task B study, I have decided on a new approach. I call it 
the Balanced Transportation Development Program and I will ask approval of 
it from the United States Department of Transportation. 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

Federally funded with LSTA funds through the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners 



http://archive.org/details/finalstudysummarOObost 



This program will cost not five and a half, but three and a half million 
dollars, 90% of which will be federal money. It will operate for 12 months 
instead of 18. And, most important, its considerations will be far more 
relevant to our real needs than the Task B study would have been. 

This new program will be a first in the nation. 

For the first time a metropolitan transportation plan will be developed that 
is free of outdated ideas and obsolete myths. 

The plan will be based on an answer to the questions I called critical a 
moment ago — not where an expressway should be built, but whether an express- 
way should be built. It will integrate road-building with mass transit — 
and it will study some of these other, imaginative means of moving goods and 
people: park and ride system, metered traffic on expressways, special bus 
lanes, and the host of other space-age approaches now available to the trans- 
portation planners. 

We must plan for tomorrow, not for yesterday. 

My new Balanced Transportation Development Program will also embrace the 
Southwest Expressway Corridor. The state now owns three-quarters of the 
land in that Corridor. We are committed to use of that Corridor. Plans now 
call for highway construction there — massive highway construction: an 
eight-lane highway, plus four extra breakdown lanes. 

The old plan does call for rapid transit in this Corridor. But it does not 
consider its proper integration, or other innovative transportation alter- 
natives now available to us. And it emphatically does not consider the impact 
on the environment — on housing, on land-use, on people. 

I have decided that it must. 

My new program will be broad in scope and will consider all aspects of deve- 
lopment of a transportation system in the Corridor, for, I repeat, a transpor- 
tation line must be constructed there. 

And, it may well be that a highway will be part of that system. 

But before we go further, let us know certainly where we are going, how we 
are going. 

One important footnote. While we consider a new plan for use of the Southwest 
Corridor, Boston faces a major housing shortage. Today, there are 475 livable 
housing units standing in the Corridor. 

I have ordered a halt to their demolition. 

The houses and industries not yet acquired by the Commonwealth will not be 
acquired, unless their owners ask that they be, or unsafe conditions demand 
that they be. 



Those housing units unfit for habitation in the Corridor will be demolished 
immediately. 

I turn now to Route 93. There are those who say all highway construction 
within Route 128 should stop. They clamor for what they call a moratorium, 
and they include Route 93 in this unrealistic idea. The result of their 
proposals would be not a moratorium on construction, but a moratorium on 
movement within the Route 128 area. I cannot agree to so irresponsible a 
plan. 

I have decided to order the immediate completion of Route 93 from its present 
terminus in Medford to the proposed link with the Central Artery. That pro- 
ject makes sense. It shall go forward. 

It should be clear by now that the Balanced Transportation Development Program 
I announce tonight is a totally new concept, not only for Massachusetts, but 
for the nation. 

I envision this program altering the nation's transportation thinking for 
decades to come. It will affect San Francisco and Atlanta as well as Spring- 
field and New Bedford, Worcester and Fall River, Lowell and Lawrence. 

Every state, Massachusetts included, is afflicted today by a national trans- 
portation policy that is out of date, out of touch with today's realities. 

Federal aid to states for transportation today consists mainly of money for 
highways — ninety cents on every dollar spent by a state . 

But most metropolitan areas need rapid transit systems and federal money for 
them is skimpy. In the Boston area, as an example, 79 cities and towns must 
use tax dollars to finance MBTA growth — and that burden is increasing to 
unbearable levels. 

Further, major federal money for highways, but only minor federal money for 
mass transit denies cities and towns the right to choose what kind of trans- 
portation is best for them. They are left with either building highways or 
building nothing. 

I have decided to do something about that. I will attempt to change national 
transportation policy. I will go to the Congress with these plans to amend 
federal law. 

First, that the Federal Highway Act of 1970 permit states to use interstate 
Highway Funds for mass transit systems of all kinds, not just highways. 

Second, that that same act permit use of such funds for building and improving 
arterial streets in cities, not just for expressways. 

Third, that that same act permit use of such funds to build houses replacing 
those demolished for transportation construction. We have in Massachusetts 
today a good plan for relocating families dispossessed by highway construc- 
tion: We compensate some. We underwrite rents for others. We protect 
individuals. But we don't meet community housing needs generally. Last year, 
Boston built only 109 low income housing units, only 1200 moderate income 
housing units. Yet the present Southwest Expressway plan would wipe out a 
thousand units — with no plan to replace them, no funds to finance a plan. 



That doesn't make sense. 

And so, I will appeal to Congress. And I will propose an amendment to our 
own state constitution to permit broader use of our own highway money. 

Proposals, of course, are not enough. They must be backed by action. 

I shall go to Washington to work for these plans. I shall ask the help of 
our Congressmen, the help of our Mayors of major American cities, the help 
of Governors in states with major urban areas. 

I shall ask the help of the President of the United States. 

Most of all, I shall ask and I shall need your help. 

Four years ago, I was the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works — 
our road building agency. Then, nearly everyone was sure highways were the 
only answer to transportation problems for years to come. 

We were wrong. 

Today we know more clearly what our real needs are — what our environment 
means to us — what a community means to us — what is valuable to us as a 
people. 

Today I know, as Governor of this state, that the errors of the past will cost 
us dearly if we do not correct them immediately. 

We must move quickly. 

I mean to do so. Thank you. 



GOVERNOR FRANCIS W. SARGENT 

POLICY STATEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION IN THE BOSTON REGION 
December 29, 1971 



Governor Francis W. Sargent announced today that Phase I of 

the Boston Transportation Planning Review has been completed. 

The following is a text of the Governor's comments upon the conclusion 
of Phase I of the Study: 



Phase I of the Boston Transportation Planning Review has 
been completed, successfully and on time. It has demonstrated 
that plans developed in the 1940' s and 1950' s are inappropriate 
for the 1970' s and 1980* s. Specifically, based on the Planning 
Review recommendations, I have concluded: (1) that all of the 
old expressway plans for the region within Route 128 require, at 
the very least, major modification; (2) that there are many new 
and exciting alternatives which have not previously been 
seriously considered? and (3) that open planning, in close 
consultation with local officials and interested private groups, 
can work. 

The time is not yet ripe to say whether any of the proposed 
expressways within Route 128 will be built, and if so, which ones. 
Phase I was never intended to produce the answer to this question. 
It has rather had two objectives: first, to analyze the pros and 
cons of the old plans. in systematic fashion; and second, to develop 
a wide range of possible alternatives to these previous plans, 
in close consultation with interested groups and officials. 



Phase I, then, has been a period of creativity, of increasing 
the number of alternatives available for consideration. Now, as 
we move into Phase II, it is time to begin reducing the number of 
alternatives. This is necessary in order to permit detailed 
development and analysis of those alternatives that remain in the 
coming months, in preparation for the final decisions that I have 
* pledged myself to make during the spring and summer of 1972. 

In narrowing down the options for those final decisions, I 
have today reached the following conclusions: 

1. The eight-lane scale for expressways within Route 128 

is clearly excessive, both because of environmental disruption and 
traffic impact on downtown Boston. The construction of such express- 
ways would overwhelm the already crowded city streets in the vicinity 
of core area interchanges. Thus the maximum scale facilities to 
be considered during Phase II will be four conventional highway 
lanes plus two lanes for buses, emergency vehicles (such as ambulances 
and fire engines), and at times other special purpose vehicles 
(minibuses, taxis, trucks, car pools, etc # ). 

2. An effort to accommodate all potential demand by commuters 
for highway capacity into downtown Boston would be outrageously 
expensive, in terms of highway investment dollars, increased transit 
deficits, social disruption, and environmental degradation. Such 

a policy would also require the construction of many thousands of 
additional parking spaces in the core, at an average cost that 
might exceed $5,000 per space, not to mention the associated local 
street improvements that would be necessary,, 

3. Thus, our policy must be to encourage those who work in 

the Boston core to commute by transit « At the same time, we recognize 
that there is a great deal of travel demand by people who work outside 
the core or who come to the core at times other than peak commuting 
periods (truckers, tourists, shoppers, etc.). A central question 
that must be resolved in Phase II is: how much of this non- 
commutation demand for highway space can be accommodated at acceptable 
social, economic, and environmental cost. 



3. 



4. Implementation of this policy will require an intensive 
effort to improve our public transportation system. It must take 
on a bigger share of the job. It will need facilities, services, 
and funds to do that job. We will look to the Planning Review, 
working closely with the M.B.T.A., to develop better means of 
getting around in downtown, and of serving areas tha t are not 
adequately served at present. The Planning Review has proposed 
circumferential transit, that would link a number of our educational 
* arid medical institutions. It has also proposed new transit services 
to improve mobility for inner city neighborhoods. I am asking 
that these proposals for new patterns of transit service be given 
in depth study during the next few months, along with facilities 
such as fringe parking lots that would encourage a greater number 
of core-oriented travelers to go by transit. 

These conclusions have led me to drop from consideration the 
following highway alternatives: 

1. Any expressway facilities greater in scale than four 
conventional highway lanes plus two lanes for buses and other 
special purpose vehicles . Thus the previously planned eight-lane 
facilities for the Southwest Expressway, 1-95, North, the Inner Belt, 
and Route 2 extension will no longer be considered. 

2. All previous plans for the Inner Belt through Cambridge 
and Somerville . The much-discussed Brookline-Elm and Portland- 
Albany Street alignments .are now officially dead. I hope that the 
families, churches and businesses that have lived with this threat 
for so many years will now feel able to plan for the future with a 
sense of security. Federal relocation requirements make it impossible 
to construct these routes. Therefore the Commonwealth will be 
seeking compensation in the form of equivalent dollars for highway 
investment elsewhere in the state, recognizing that it was impossible 
to construct this route in accord with Federal relocation procedures. 

While dropping the Inner Belt as previously conceived, let me 
note that the possibility of a two or four lane facility, primarily 
or exclusively for trucks and buses, connecting the Turnpike and 
Route 1-93, using the Grand Junction railroad right-of-way, will 
continue to receive consideration in Phase II. This facility, if 
constructed, might well be designated 1-695. It would be very 
different from the old Inner Belt, however, most notably in that 
its primary purpose would be to take truck traffic off the residential 



4. 



streets of Cambridge, and that it would require virtually no dis- 
location of homes or businesses. 

3. The previously proposed alignment for a Third Harbor 
Crossing . This alignment passed through East Boston and would have 
caused very substantial business and residential dislocation. 

». East Boston has already paid an excessive price for the convenience 
of motorists and air travelers. Moreover, the alignment in question 
involved an airport interchange very close to the existing tunnel 
entrances. Such an interchange location could produce airport and 
tunnel traffic tieups far beyond anything seen to date. 

Thus, the Third Harbor Crossing alignments carried forward 
for Phase II consideration all pass through Logan Airport property 
to the east of the previously proposed alignment. They would re- 
quire no taking of homes in East Boston. An expressway on one of 
these alignments might relieve congestion in the existing tunnels 
and on East Boston streets. It could facilitate bus, taxi, and 
automobile access to Logan Airport. It could relieve Central 
Artery congestion. And it could open up South Boston for exciting 
new development. Such a road might, however, cost upwards of half 
a billion dollars. We have a good deal still to learn about its 
possible social and environmental cost, as well as its transportation 
benefits. Thus, it is premature to judge whether it merits 
construction at this time. But it will be studied in Phase II. 

4. The previously proposed alignment for 1-95 (Relocated) 
through Revere to Cutler Circle . This would have been extremely 
disruptive to homes. and businesses in Revere. The Planning Review 
has proposed studying a number of alignments that would create 
significantly less disruption. They would all be primarily on 
existing highway or railroad corridors. All of these will be 
studied in Phase II. 

5. The South End Bypass . This was a project of the 

City of Boston, abandoned by the City* It was never a state project. 
As a general purpose roadway, I consider it a dead proposal. Some 
transit options in the existing railroad alignment, however, should 
be studied in Phase II', including the possibility of a busway. 



5. 



6. Certain recent proposals for major arterial and 
parkway routes within Route 128 . These alternatives would have 
involved modifications to Hammond Pond Parkway and Turtle Pond 
Parkway in Newton, Brookline and Boston; to Alewife Brook Parkway 
and Mystic Valley Parkway in Somerville and Med ford; and/or to 
College Avenue and Harvard Street in Somerville and Medford. These 
% investments would have produced quite modest transportation benefits 
at high cost in terms of environmental and business disruption, 
not to mention highway investment dollars (non-Interstate) that 
might be put to far better use elsewhere in the Commonwealth, 
These proposals will not be considered further, 

I have listed these items that will not be studied further 
in order to clear the air and let the Planning Review get on with 
more detailed work comparing a number of more feasible alternatives. 

Permit me to conclude with a few words about the options 
that remain, and the general thrust of this Administration's 
transportation policy. 

First, let me emphasize that, in dropping certain expressway 
alternatives at this time, I am not deemphasizing the needs of the 
regional economy. No one is more cognizant than I of the need for 
economic development and for jobs. At the same time, I think that 
we have to reevaluate a good many old shibboleths about the means 
to achieve prosperity. I do not think that the best path to 
prosperity is one which radically overloads the street system of 
the downtown core. I do think that concern about the environment 
and the quality of life is highly compatible with a determination 
to promote prosperity. I have called upon the Planning Review for 
creative thinking about tte best ways to reconcile these objectives. 
I think that its staff has been doing a grand job. And I would 
call upon other public officials and private groups to join me in 
taking a fresh look at our transportation problems in the light 
of their findings. 

The alternatives that will receive priority attention in 
Phase II of the Planning Review fall into three broad categories: 
transit options, expressway options at the 4-6 lane scale, and 
means of handling motor vehicle traffic that do nov. involve the 
construction of new expressways. All of these alternatives will 
be studied in an integrated fashion, in order to present the 
alternatives within a broad context of the economic, environmental, 
and transportation needs of the Boston region. 



With respect to the transit alternatives, it bears 
emphasis that I have never questioned the desirability of the 
major proposed transit extensions for the Boston region. The 
Planning Review has dealt with them only insofar as their design 
has required integration with the design of related road improve- 
ments. Design is a broad term, of course, which includes in 
several cases considerations of alignment and of choice among 
* pdssible rapid transit technologies (for example, commuter rail, 
electrified rail rapid transit, and exclusive busway). Though a 
good many transit design issues remain open, I am assured that 
no projects for which bonding authorization is available will be 
delayed by the Planning Review. 

With respect to the "no expressway" alternatives, the 
Planning Review will consider what can be done to existing arteries 
in order to improve safety, eliminate bottlenecks, and facilitate 
local traffic and bus transit movement. I have also asked that the 
Review prepare a full analysis of the consequences of foregoing 
freeway construction. How severely would automobile traffic have 
to be restricted? What transit investments would be required that 
might not otherwise be needed? What would be the impact upon the 
regional economy and the regional land use pattern? What would be 
the consequences for the natural environment and the quality of 
life in the Boston region? This analysis should be an important 
part of Phase II. 

A list of the facility alternatives that will be studied 
in Phase II is attached, along with maps to indicate their possible 
alignments. 



The following major transportation facility alternatives will be 
g iven priority consideration during Phase II by the BTPR. 

In the Southwest Corridor 
(Highways) 

1. Either a four-lane expressway, or a six-lane expressway in which 
two lanes are reserved for buses and other special purpose ve- 
hicles. (The busway lanes, it should be noted, also constitute 
a public transit alternative.) 

These studies will include consideration of appropriately-scaled 
connections, to the Massachusetts Turnpike and the Southeast 
Expressway, along the present alignment of the Boston Inner 
Belt. These studies will also include alternative alignments 
in the Fowl Meadow area, including Readville and Route 138. 

2. As an alternative to expressway construction in the Southwest 
C6rridor, the development of separate new reversible lanes in 
the Southeast Expressway Corridor, possibly at a second level. 
If such lanes are constructed, at least one would be designed 
for exclusive or controlled bus use during peak hours. 

3. A route for trucks and, possibly , other special purpose ve- 
hicles on the Midlands Division right-of-way of the Penn- 
Central Railroad. 

4. No new expressways — bottleneck relief, safety measures and 
local arterial improvements only. 

(Transit) 

5. Orange line extension in the Penn Central right-of-way from 
South Cove Tunnel to Forest Hills, with extensions to West 
Roxbury and Needham, and to Route 128 in Canton. Right-of- 
way will also be reserved for high speed ground transportation 
between Boston and New York City. Options for improved commuter 
rail service will also be investigated in this corridor. 

6. Maintenance of existing Washington Elevated Rapid Transit, or 
equivalent service, from Essex Station to Dudley ^or Egleston 
Station. Extensions to Mattapan Center on Warren Avenue and 
Blue Hill Avenue will also be investigated. 

\ 

7. Use of the Midlands Division right-of-way of the Penn Central 
Pvailroad from South Station to Mattapan for light-rail transit 
service, or as an exclusive busway facility. 



\ 



8 



8. Use of either new technologies or conventional rapid transit 
systems for an Inner City Circumferential transit loop, from 
City Hospital and Columbia Point, to Back Bay educational and 
health facilities, and connecting with a similar transit loop 
alternative in the Cambridge portion of the Northwest Corridor. 

9. Development of reserved bus lanes in the Southeast and South- 
west Highway Corridors. 

In the North Shore Sub-area 
(Highways ) 

1. Either a four-lane expressway, or a six-lane expressway in 
which two lanes are reserved for buses and other special pur- 
pose vehicles. Both the originally proposed alignment for 1-95 
through Lynn and Peabody, and the newly developed Route 1 align- 
ments, remain in consideration at this time. Priority attention 
will be given to the Route 1 alignment to determine whether it is 
a feasible and prudent alternative, while work proceeds on im- 
proved design through Lynn Woods. Sub-options of the Route 1 
alternative include rebuilding within the existing right-of- 
way as well as constructing a new, parallel facility. 

2. 1-95 Relocated, extending from South Station through a Third 
Harbor Crossing to a connection with either 1-95 or the Revere 
Beach Parkway in the North. The scale of the roadway to be 
considered is four lanes, or six lanes in which two lanes are 
reserved for buses and special purpose vehicles. As noted 
previously, the originally proposed alignment through heavily 
residential areas of East Boston and Revere will be dropped 
from further consideration. All Third Harbor Crossing altern- 
atives carried into Phase II will pass through Logan Airport 
property, to the east of the originally proposed alignment, and 
would not require the taking of any homes in East Boston. 1-95 
alternatives through Revere would follow either the Boston and 
Maine right-of-way and the edge of Saugus Marsh, or a widened 
Northeast Expressway and Revere Beach Parkway. 

3. A four-lane expressway spur connecting Revere Beach and the 
Pines River Blue Line rapid transit terminal with Cutler Circle, 
and 1-95, if built. 

4. Expressway and arterial improvement alternatives from the Salem/ 
Beverly area to Route 128, as alternatives to the presently 



9. 



designed Connector to 1-95 North. The presently designed Con- 
nector will also remain under consideration. 

5. No new expressways - — bottleneck relief, safety measures, and 
local arterial improvements only. 

(Transit) 

6. Improved line-haul transit service between the North Shore and J 
Boston. Options include upgrading existing commuter rail* service, 
or introducing new, dual-powered transit vehicles capfJ&Le'of pu©*^ 
viding both suburban service and improved downtown 1££s£r^bution. 
A full rapid transit extension on the Ng£tfa^Shore Will not be 
considered for short-term implementation. "" * 

7. The integration of the Mur Line Rapid transit extension to 
Pines River with £peder bus service^&nd* fringe parking 
facilities. **' 

8. Development of reserved bus lanes in conjunction with all 1-95 

and Third Harbor Crossing alternatives , as Well- as the Revere .^ 
Beach/Pines River connector. ■ -. •■■• rtt "_ ■ .. "*'* # ^m^M^^nv^' . ->• 

In the Northwest Sub-area 
(Highways) 






1. A two or four- lane route, primarily or exclusively for trucks, 
following the Grand Junction Railroad right-of-way through 
Cambridge" and Some rvi lie, Connecting the Massachusetts Turn- 
pike with Route 1-93. 

2. A four-lane route, through Cambridge and Watertown along the 
Watertown Branch of the Boston and Maine Railroad, connecting 
the present terminus of Route 2 at Dewey and Almy Circle to the 
Massachusetts Turnpike, 

3. A two- or four-lane route over the Boston and Maine Fitchburg 
Division right-of-way from the terminus of Route 2 to several 
possible terminations in Cambridge and Somerville. This route 
might be an arterial connecting with several cross streets, or 
it might be a special purpose expressway intended primarily or 
exclusively for trucks and buses. 

4. No new expressways — bottleneck relief, safety measures, and 
local arterial improvements only. 



10. 



(Transit) 

5. Rapid transit extension to the Alewife Brook area. First pri- 
ority will be given to possible extensions of the Red Line from 
Harvard Square, including a direct deep-bore tunnel, as well 

as an alternative through Porter Square. The Green Line ex- 
tension alternative along the Boston and Maine Fitchburg 
Division right-of-way will also be retained in the event that 
costs of the Red Line alternatives prove to be prohibitive. 

6. Extension of the Green Line from Lechmere to West Medford along 
the Boston and Maine New Hampshire Division right-of-way with a 
possible connection to Alewife along the Boston and Maine freight 
cut-off. 

7. Continuation of commuter service to suburban areas, either through 
improved commuter rail service, substitution of new "light rail" 
or dual powered transit vehicles, substitution of express bus 
service on existing expressways or new busway facilities, or 

some combination of the above . 

8. Development of a Circumferential Transit Loop in Cambridge and 
Somerville to provide local access and distribution service. 
This study will be coordinated with a connecting alternative in 
the Southwest Corridor. 

During Phase It, each transportation facility alternative will be 
thoroughly analyzed in terms of direct and secondary social, en- 
vironmental and economic effects, as outlined in the Study Design. 
In addition to the above, BTPR Phase II studies will include the 
following related analyses: 

Local transit access and distribution needs in the Cambridge/ 
Somerville and Roxbury/South End/Jamaica Plain areas, 

Needs and characteristics of goods movements in the greater 
Boston area, 

Transit operations improvements, including modificiations of 
routes and schedules and improvement of transfer procedures 
and facilities, 

Parking needs and policies, 



11. 



Regional economic and environmental implications of alternative 
transportation systems. 



FACILITIES TO BE GIVEN PRIORITY CONSIDERATION DURING PHASE II - TRANSIT 

LfllUI 

Legen d 

■ — ■Rapid Transit Lines - L w^lMSAr^"^^., 



!!■!■ 



■ Rapid Transit Lines 
• Improved Catinuter Rail 

■ Reserved- lane bus 




- PEABODY^.v 



nTm 1 . lot* conn' no 4-/-\ cnKnvka *v* .» /.» N. ...Ii>£l"-. ^/.. . .'&»v._ ~*l 



rammer service to suburbs, via ,./' V^'/A "^Srt^T'^I^^Lcv* ^ l l\- 7ri '*"*"' W 
w/iraproved rail service, express '^U-^'X)-^ "4 H "' A"*"" ^WnehajL^*^ // r '\--"'B"^/\ 



.s -, or combination 



\ 



I <■ 



h^if, 



>Hi 



VA3 



•¥■ 



r.„7 



sxmston 



fl 



n'Jf 



..V 



cr 






l Wl«<h»»f 



XifJ-Ki \WALita n^;fi c 



^. 



"ARLiNGTOf 



&i 







line-haul 
K&f' ffi/j* transit, 
&.m"-z£s ""'powered vehicles 



/. r transit, via dual- 
fyp.., M " or upgraded 



8 commuter rail 

,/wr«e«.\\>/Wtl« Ndl ; r 



reserved bus lanes on 
,.. ,., AIJ all exp. alternatives 



Blue line extension 
to Pines River 
MASSACHUSETTS 






•j ° 6 ^p*, • 

",?.'. -D . f. .......sr.cx *--' 

'pid transit to W. Medford vie 
een line 

u ■ , can v^.; a ^ ^-^^; 



j^d, : 



a or Green line rapid transiJ 
■tensions Jbo Alewife 

ner Circumferential transit looj 






*®-i 






SI 



Airport via Third Harbor 
Tunnel 



•\, 



'T 



a®: 



^■SM^tew^^-gv B0ST0H ^~ j^y 

;\ ^:^ ,l "\r^U p ^ Ma ^taining of Wash. St. Ej, or 

" f7 equivalent service, and extensions 
V fc& tf 'V'~>^***i ^ """'" to Mattapan Sq. 

wR*^. Extension of circumfrential 

'#^ 2f I f»V> ^T lo °P to Columbia Point "".- 







j / |C)' -^f v / ^^ Ught' rail "transit or busway or, 
h&Zrrr. Ba ^T^C-J^ Midlands Branch ROW 






--•/ r )\ 



" : '( 



:ange line extensions to W.Rox./ -C^Xfv/ /^ 
!edham / and Rt. 128 in Canton Jt/ 

p provision for high speed grounc 
anspgrtation in Penn-Central ROW 

Dedham, 



QWATCy , (7^/ HINQHAM 

-Reserved bus lanes in SE & SW Exp. 
Corridors 




















ft) 



H-'Hi m " 









^eymouth3g™«, ,h ^ &■ - 






!**»r 



^ 



:?>- 






FACILITIES TO BE GIVEN PRIORITY CONSIDERATION DURING PHASE II - HIGHWAYS 

Legend 

■■RBM New 4- lane exp. plus 2 special-purpose lanes 

HHiMB New 4 -lane exp. or arterial 

■ ■■■i Truck and special-vehicle routes 

mmh ■■ ■ Improved existing facility 

Not shown, but applicable to all corridors: No new exp. 
alternative, local arterial improvements only 



.4* 



-^feVwOSURH 



ft"!:* •■, \ v«£k «*%V,!!l« SM jr »\ \ Alternatives: 4 or 6 lanes exp., original Mf-'T, 
X/Uexin<*ton\ y alignment thru Lynn and Peabcdy; or ^^^ 

;v ^r;;._! „-^ j4 or 6jLane exp. in Rt? >1 xseEridor - - * s: ^ 

Vr major improvements to Rt. i « '%K*» 



^S..2 or 4 lane route from RT 2 to possible Sg^ J9 MKraRD^fe#s^^7^MALDEN/^ £&# 



w_™.. *. ^ i .l^^ iwut^^ j.^.^... «* «. «^ possible! 
terminations in Cambridge and 
•■^ Somerville following Fitchburg Div. 
, /ROW , 




; MALDEN 



REVERE • 



-'••. zrQv^ avALTHAMKr^: 

X-,' <&•:&-* \~ .•"«■'"' 
iiti/V. 4-lane route from RT 2 to Mass 
I? , ' , following Watertown Branch ROW 



.WONT 



isi 



'-\' 



rVMi-ley 



Pike 






M. 



FK" 



ilem/Beverly Connector 
^as proposed, or alternativt 
" connectors to Rt. 128 (ohb 
one of which shown) 

^*-f/X?' ;fJ»>« A '../I'll "Nah.nl 

I- lane exp. spur frcr 
Revere Beach to 



~>OUND 



Cutler Circle 



"""r-r^S/y^ 



v 



-,:>fi 



iVatcrtov 



■- 2 or 4 lane route, primarily 






- — \.V>-i° 



' T X C ^^^^^^^^^^ Af: a vi 



"4 or 6-lane exp. alter- 
natives to original 1-95- 
^ '>'^""^\^ relocated alignment , 
,»A j t5'ij(i , "' < avoiding E. Bos. & ■ 
' ft J Revere residences 



for. 



* h :^ 









y^ Truck route on Midiands* Branch ro w'^'j^-; '" ['■( >/> W/lL£ 
M\v V s >edham X fat K ?l »\ f'V? /"M \y Vr-' 



«... k t\ \\ f iv 

ij. 4 or 6 lane alternatives for SW Exp7,^ 
with connections to Mass Pike and 






■>'<" U - (P«. Shirley 

J^€ lane alternative for 3rd Harbor 
^ ,-,;,«. ,v r .j funnel, through Logan Airport 
^£. % ^*,l^ % ^. ^ property 

^^7™T!Z~i'^™^ BOSTON ^ :z ':'~~~j --. 

^Ro.tK.r> % Mvf,A?\ Old Harbor "'"> J \ '***• f/A<"« ''5* rA* ~~~-- 

\\ \^ ^^» . . „_ y ^ > N , 

VjiWf^^-Reversible lanes in SE Exp. corridoi 
jSPVs-A. as alternative to SW Exp. 

/ 



/ ! ^ Readville and 
L 7 alternatives ■ 
/ thru Fowl Meadow 






\c^" 



Norwood, 



*^r 



\Wl *B 



rJor!h\- K.»*ri - 



l)« \. 



v- 






*'-?V. 



" FACILITIES DROPPED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

Legend 

Facilities dropped frcm further consideration 




' W8-lane scale for 1-95 South ^Vr— ba y 

s i V 



I- y.- J -^ I \ % \&P~d S^IK i^^T" $ ^^T ^M^^''^Z te 

^h^^jSs^ /W/M ^Jtff^^ ^^tSi^'^^T 

i/^%J/fe^ a . T^^^^||r |K^-;^\ ^"''i-feri;; 



y 



I/.'/. V 




?// «..*• | N3l& <?J jr^^a «„JS #\ HllLS {RESERVATION 



'Tl Sraintreel " w rS^i'rHv 



rts 



ikao<M£$ t'\ < £ 



<?S» 










/' wl'"- 50 






J 



GOVERNOR'S STATEMENT ON THE NORTH SHORE 

June 5, 1972 



A little over a year ago, I made a commitment to decide 
within ten months after the start of the work of the Boston 
Transportation Planning Review, whether or not to build Route 
1-95 North on the approved corridor through Revere, Saugus , 
Lynn and Peabody. 

I have now received and studied the Boston Planning Review 
Report on the North Shore. This is a total transportation report 
dealing both with highway and public transportation issues on the 
North Shore. It deals with four major categories of issues, all 
of which are closely related to one another: line haul highway 
issues; line haul transit issues; local service highway issues; 
and local service transit issues. 

The major line haul highway issue is whether or not to 
build Route 1-95 from Cutler Circle to Route 128, and if so, 
where and — at least in general terms — with what design. 
With respect to my original qommitment on this issue, the options 
for choice have broadened considerably since the beginning of the 
Planning Review. As the Planning Review began, the only options 
appeared to be the original DPW alignment through the Lynn Woods, 
perhaps with changes in design; some very modest alternative 
improvements to roads within basically the same corridor; or no 
road at all. In Phase I the Planning Review generated several 
major new highway alternatives in the Route 1 corridor — alter- 
natives on which very little work had been done and about which 
public discussion had not taken place. These appeared worthy of 
serious examination, however, since they would avoid going through 
residential neighborhoods and major public open space reserves. 

By contrast, the Lynn alignment for 1-95 North had been 
studied and debated for years. Its chief advantages were that 
it would provide improved access to General Electric and certain 
other commercial locations in Lynn, and by means of a series of 
connector highways would tie the eastern shore communities in 
to the regional expressway system. It had two major disadvan- 
tages. First, the main highway alignment passed through the Lynn 
Woods, the North Shore's largest and most valuable open-space 
resource; and the connector alignment passed through valuable 
recreational and watershed land in Peabody and Salem. Second, 
the main highway alignment passed through the densely built up 
residential area of West Lynn and residential land in Peabody, 
requiring the taking of over 100 additional homes. 

The alternatives in the Route 1 corridor can serve most 
of the major functions of the Lynn Woods alignment, with the 



exception that Lynn itself would not have an expressway within 
its borders. The chief advantage of an expressway in Route 1 is 
that it would be built in an existing transportation corridor, 
which would have much less permanent impact on residential com- 
munities and parkland. Its major disadvantage is that during 
construction it would create significant disruption of existing 
businesses on Route 1. Implementation of this scheme would 
require a major state program of imaginative relocation assistance, 
business redevelopment, and careful construction phasing. 

While the number of transportation options has thus broadened 
to include several major new alternatives, the legal analysis con- 
ducted within the BTPR has clarified certain of the legal constraints 
that must be accommodated as we move toward decision. The most 
important legal constraint is Section 4(f) of the federal Department 
of Transportation Act. This provision of federal law specifies 
that the choice between the Lynn Woods corridor and the new (Route 1) 
alternatives is not a pure policy decision for the state to make. 
Rather, it calls for an initial finding as to whether any alter- 
native to the Lynn Woods alignment constitutes a "feasible and 
prudent" alternative within the meaning of Section 4(f). 

The BTPR Phase II report provides the basis for a clear 
conclusion that there is_ an alternative which does not take 
substantial public parkland and which is feasible and prudent 
within the meaning of federal law. Therefore it seems most 
unlikely that a state decision to construct 1-9 5 on the Lynn 
Woods alignment could be sustained in the courts. So as not to 
mislead those who care to participate in the next stage of public 
discussion, I am today taking official cognizance of this finding. 
Although the Lynn Woods alternative is discussed in the report and 
will be explained at the hearing to demonstrate how the BTPR 
did its work, I hereby state that I will not recommend tb the 
Federal Highway Administration the construction of 1-95 North 
through the Lynn Woods. Route 1-95 North will thus not enter 
the city of Lynn. 1-95 North will not be built on its original 
corridor through the Lynn Woods. 

Of the alternatives that remain, two involve the construction 
of 1-95 in the area of Route 1. One of these would involve the \/ 
construction of 1-95 basically on the current Route 1 alignment. 
The Interstate expressway would occupy the center of the new 
facility, flanked by four lanes (two in each direction) of local 
arterial roadway. The other alternative would have the expressway 
lanes run essentially parallel to the existing Route 1, behind 
the current development insofar as possible, leaving Route 1 
as it now is to serve local traffic. 

A third alternative does not involve the construction of a 
new expressway, but it does involve what in my view is the minimal 
program that is conceivable for a functioning Route 1 in the 



absence of 1-95 — widening Route 1 in places, rebuilding an 
interchange, and creating some safety improvements. 

These are the three alternatives on which those who wish 
to address themselves to the meaningful options that I am con- 
sidering are advised to focus their attention in the coming 
weeks. These alternatives will be the subject of a public 
hearing early this summer, as soon as all required legal pro- 
cedures have been completed. The first step in these procedures 
has already occurred with the official transmittal of copies of 
the report to the Federal Highway Administration. The forthcoming 
hearing will enable the people of the North Shore to have a full 
opportunity to view the plans and express their views about them 
before the Commonwealth becomes committed to any of these schemes. 

A widespread view has matured in recent months among the 
active participants in the BTPR that a total decision on the 
three major 1-95 segments under consideration and their associated 
major transit investments, should be made at the same time, because 
there is such a great interrelationship among aspects of any total 
transportation system plan. I have reviewed that position and 
find it essentially valid. Therefore, I will choose among these 
Route 1 alternatives at the same time that I make decisions on 
the Southwest Expressway and a Third Harbor Crossing. I anticipate 
making these decisions in September. This involves some delay in 
the original schedule for a Southwest Expressway decision, but an 
acceleration in the schedule for decisions on Relocated 1-95 and 
the Third Harbor Crossing. 

Since the Lynn Woods alignment is now officially dead, a 
connector which had been designed to connect Beverly, Salem, and 
Swampscott to Route 1-95 cannot be implemented. The Planning Review, 
however, has identified a corridor that runs mostly along existing 
rail right-of-way from Salem through' Peabody , in which ^a new four-, 
lane arterial street could provide greatly improved access from 
the shore communities to Route 128 with minimal disruption. The 
plan appears to command widespread support from officials and 
citizens of both Peabody and Salem. I am today directing the 
Department of Public Works to accelerate engineering and design ^ 
work on this proposal, aiming at the earliest possible public 
hearing and the closest possible cooperation with the two com- 
munities. Improved access from Marblehead and Swampscott to this 
Peabody-Salem-Beverly connector will also be studied. 

I am also directing the DPW and the BTPR to work closely with 
the city of Lynn and representatives of the General Electric 
Company to develop a detailed plan for improving access to 
downtown Lynn and the GE plant. GE would have been the chief 
beneficiary of 1-95 on the Lynn Woods alignment, since the city 
of Lynn in past years rejected proposed downtown connectors. In 
its absence, the Commonwealth is prepared to undertake smaller 
scale but nevertheless significant improvements so that people 
can get to and from this major employment center with greater 



/ 



\ 



ease. I am also requesting the MBTA and the BTPR to work with 
Lynn and GE in exploring whether improved or special transit 
service, perhaps running direct from employee residences to the 
plant gate, could be instituted specifically to serve GE and 
possibly downtown as well. 

At the outset I indicated that the BTPR report was a total 
transportation report, not just a report about Interstate 
expressways. Let me highlight three of the main findings 
and issues in the other problem areas: 

With respect to line-haul transit, a major improvement program 
is called for — but not in the form of high cost new transit 
extensions into the outer North Shore. The commuter railroad 
network already exists, and is an extremely valuable resource to 
protect and upgrade. The report describes the need for right- 
of-way improvement, better equipment, additional parking capacity, 
and some construction to eliminate several major grade crossings. 

With respect to local service transit, a number of improvements 
in bus routes, schedules, and fares are proposed. These are 
intended to make the bus system work more as an integrated network, 
both as an effective feeder to the commuter rail system where 
appropriate, and as a major means of travel between the North 
Shore communities themselves. Public response to the details 
of these proposals will be important. 

/ With respect to local service highway issues, one major 
category of North Shore transportation problems has to do with 
congestion in town centers and on major arterial streets con- 
necting North Shore towns to each other. Attention must be 
focused on these very immediate, very difficult transportation \>* 
pr oblems. \ Individually these problems and the kinds of improve- 
"fflents which respond to them are relatively small scale, but 
collectively they are very significant indeed. Off street 
parking and arterial street improvements, better signs and 
signals, improved traffic operations programs — these all ^ 
require the highest priority attention within the North Shore 
subregion. I am today directing the DPW to accelerate its 
comprehensive TOPICS program for the North Shore, in a manner 
that will bring to fruition its promise as a model for the kind 
of state-local cooperative transportation planning that Secretary 
Altshuler, Commissioner Campbell and I are determined to achieve. 




GOVERNOR FRANCIS W. SARGENT 
POLICY STATEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION IN THE BOSTON REGION 

November 30, 1972 

BACKGROUND 

Early in 1970, I halted work on a number of controversial 
highway projects in the Boston area. At that time I established 
the Boston Transportation Planning Review (BTPR) to advise me on 
these controversies, and directed that these projects be reviewed 
in conjunction with other pending transit and highway projects 
in the region bounded by Route 12 8. I promised that we would 
examine not just where and how expressways should be built, but 
also whether they should be built at all. 

My mandate to the BTPR was to produce the technical analyses 
needed to evaluate the impact of the proposed projects on a full 
range of metropolitan issues. The planning process for this 
study was to be open, broadly participatory, and fully compatible 
with emerging federal and state policies with respect to trans- 
portation, socio-economic, and environmental values. In order to 
provide me with the widest range of options , I directed that the 
BTPR pay particular attention to the development of new alterna- 
tives which would address critical transportation needs, the move- 
ment of goods and the provision of transportation opportunities 
for the aged, the young, the low income, and the handicapped. 
As a final product, I asked the BTPR to provide me with an objec- 
tive analysis of the value of each possible transportation im- 
provement as balanced against its unavoidable adverse impacts , 
such as residential and business displacement and environmental 
disruption . 



-2- 



PHASE I DECISIONS - POLICY AND FACILITY OPTIONS FOR DETAILED STUDY 
As there were a great many policy and project alternatives 
to consider, it was essential that the options gradually be narrowed 
during the course of the BTPR. Thus, the BTPR study design pro- 
vided for phased decision-making with respect both to broad 
transportation policies and specific project alternatives. 

In December, 19 71, at the conclusion of Phase I of the 
BTPR, I reduced the range of highway alternatives for further 
study by: 

Eliminating consideration of any expressway facilities 

having more than four general-purpose traffic lanes 

and, where appropriate, two special purpose traffic 

lanes . 

Eliminating the Cambridge-Somerville Inner-Belt and 

the Route 2 Extension from Alewife to the Inner Belt 

from further consideration. 
More generally, I stated that new radial expressways de- 
signed to accommodate peak-hour travel demand to downtown Boston 
should no longer be considered, for the following reasons: 

° Inability of already crowded city streets to receive 

and distribute additional expressway traffic. 
° Lack of adequate off-street parking capacity, and 

inability to provide such capacity in an efficient, 

orderly fashion. 

Competition with line-haul transit service, both 

existing and proposed, leading to increased transit 

operating deficits . 



-3- 



Inescapable social disruption and environmental de- 
gradation as a result of direct displacement, air 
and noise pollution, and visual intrusion. 
At the same time , I recognized the importance of highways in 

meeting the travel demands cf persons who work outside the down- 
town Boston core , who come to the core at times ether than peak 
commuting periods , such as tourists and shoppers , or who have no 
effective means of traveling other than on highways , such as 
truckers. I asked the BTPR, therefore, to determine how much cf 
this non- commutation demand for highway space could be accommodated 
at acceptable social, economic and environmental cost. 

Finally, in order to provide efficient accessibility to 
downtown Boston and to maintain the continued growth and vitality 
of the region's central core, I directed the BTPR to consider 
innovative improvement programs for the metropolitan transit 
system. I stated that: 

Our policy must be to encourage those who work in 
the Boston core to commute by transit. . . Imple- 
mentation of this policy will require an intensive 
effort to improve our public transportation system. 
It must take on a bigger share of the job. It will 
need facilities , services , and funds to do that 
job. We will look to the Planning Review, working 
closely with the MBTA, to develop better means of 
getting around in downtown, and of serving areas 
that are not adequately served at present. 

Subsequently, in June 19 72, I announced the elimination 

of the originally proposed route for 1-9 5 North through the Lynn 

Woods and Saugus Marsh. Based on the BTPR draft Environmental 

Impact Statement, I concluded that the presence of "feasible and 

prudent" highway location alternatives, as defined by Federal 



-4- 



law, effectively precluded the use of the Lynn Woods for the pro- 
posed 1-95 North expressway. 

Formal public hearings were held for the remaining major 
highway facility alternatives on the North Shore, in the Boston 
Core, and in the Southwest Corridor during August and October 19 72. 
Testimony was received from a wide spectrum of public officials , 
agencies, and private interests. I have considered this testimony 
with great care. Along with the technical analyses provided by 
the BTPR, it has been instrumental in shaping the decisions that 
are set forth below. 

POLICY DECISIONS 

CENTRAL THEMES 

The Boston area is fortunate in having an extensive rapid 
transit and commuter rail network. The traditional reliance of 
Bostonians upon this network for access to the regional core is 
in large part responsible for the economic and cultural vitality 
of the metropolis. For half a century until very recently, however, 
this transit system has been permitted to deteriorate -- physically, 
financially, and institutionally. 

A judgment was reached in the early postwar period that 
the primary public response to mounting traffic congestion and 
the decline of transit should be massive investment in new free- 
ways. The hope was that this public investment, combined with 
still greater private investment in motor vehicles , would provide 
a lasting solution to the transportation problems of the region. 



-5- 



We have gradually learned that this judgment was mistaken. 
There was no way to provide sufficient highway and parking capa- 
city while still preserving those characteristics of the region 
that make it a highly attractive place to live and work. The 
freeway investment strategy incorporated in the 1948 Master Plan 
threatened to strangle the region in traffic, to destroy the fi- 
nancial viability of the transit system, to dislocate many thou- 
sands of families and hundreds of businesses , and to do irreparable 
harm to many of the most valuable neighborhoods and open space 
resources in the region. By accelerating the decline of transit 
service, moreover, it threatened great harm to those groups in the 
population that are most dependent on transit for their mobility -- 
the elderly, the low income, the handicapped, and the young. 

Thus , the time has come to right the balance in trans- 
portation policy for the Boston region. 

The central tenet of the transportation policy that I find 
appropriate for the area inside Route 12 8 is that future invest- 
ment must concentrate overwhelmingly upon the improvement of 
public transportation. Many of the investments that will be called 
for by this strategy will be highway investments , but they too 
should contribute to the effective utilization of transit for 
access to the regional core. Some of these investments will be 
special purpose facilities and dedicated lanes for buses -- along, 
where appropriate , with other high priority vehicle types , such as 
trucks and emergency vehicles. Some will be for improved arterial 
connectors providing more convenient access from major highways 
to transit stations. Some will be for parking facilities at 



-6- 



transit stations. Some will be for traffic operations improvements, 
particularly those designed to give. buses, trucks and emergency 
vehicles preference in congested traffic corridors . 

Thus , we need a combination of transit and highway invest- 
ments. These investments should be planned in concert, however, 
to facilitate the implementation of a unified transportation 
policy . 

We will, of course, continue to use and improve the exist- 
ing street and highway system of the region. I recognize that most 
trips in the region will continue to be by motor vehicle. We 
shall improve this existing system, moreover, wherever it is 
possible to do so at acceptable cost -- in terms of environmental 
and social disruption as well as dollar cost. But we shall give 
the highest priority within the framework of available resources 
to those road and parking improvements that will contribute to 
the unified policy that I am announcing today. 

If we are to succeed in stabilizing the level of highway 
travel, so that we can utilize the existing street and highway 
network with optimal effectiveness , it is essential that we employ 
the most effective lever available for the limitation of traffic 
demand -- parking policy. If we continue to increase the supply 
of parking at major activity centers in the regional core, we 
shall severely undermine the strategy of accommodating future 
travel demand increases by transit. 

Thus, I am calling for a freeze on the total supply of 
parking in downtown Boston and at Logan Airport. As the freeze 
will apply to the total number of parking spaces, it will leave 



-7- 



substantial flexibility with respect to the relocation of parking 
supply -- from on-street to off-street facilities, for example. 
The freeze is not intended to apply to residential spaces (as 
downtown residents are not major contributors to peak hour con- 
gestion) nor to parking facility additions that are already 
contractually committed (such as the parking component of the 
South Terminal at Logan Airport). 

Finally, I shall recommend a transportation local aid 
package to the General Court -- one intended to encourage balanced 
transportation throughout the Commonwealth and at the same time 
to provide needed property tax relief to local citizens. The 
main components of this local aid package ■ are as follows : 

(a) state assumption of 50% of the net cost of MBTA service, 

(b) enactment of regional transit legislation for the other 
urban areas of the Commonwealth, with a similar provision for 
50% state sharing of net cost of service, and (c) a near- 
quadrupling of the Chapter 9 program of local highway aid, with 
the increase to be distributed only outside the MBTA district. 
The total package is designed to provide assistance equitably 

to all portions of the Commonwealth. It recognizes that the 
primary need is for transit assistance within the MBTA region, 
but that the largest dollar needs will continue to be for high- 
way purposes elsewhere in the Commonwealth. 

HIGHWAY DECISIONS 

Following my determination in December 1971 that no 
further effort should be made to design expressways for the 



accommodation of peak hour general-purpose traffic demand, BTPR 
planners developed several plans for mini-expressways that were 
indeed far more appropriate to the transportation needs of the 
region than the larger expressways for whose reexamination I had 
called in 1970. If designed and managed so as to minimize dis- 
ruption and competitiveness with the transit system, they could 
have provided some genuine benefits. 

They were also extremely costly, however. With one ex- 
ception, I find that the costs inevitably associated with these 
facilities would have exceeded their benefits. The costs I have 
in mind are not simply dollar costs , though these would have been 
extremely great. Even more significantly, I have borne in mind 
the impacts that construction of these facilities would have 
upon the social, economic, and environmental fabric of the region. 
The Southwest Expressway, for example, would have involved run- 
ning an elevated highway through the Fowl Meadow, a major water 
resource, wildlife sanctuary, and recreational open space facility. 
It would also have involved the further dislocation of about 
370 families and 800 jobs. Finally, it would have in- 

volved overruling the clear preference of most elected officials 
and private citizens in the Southwest Corridor who have made their 
views known. 

The one exception that I have made to this finding that 
we cannot sustain additional expressway construction within 
Route 128 is a two-lane special purpose road, including a tunnel, 
from the South Station area to Logan Airport. This facility 
will be open solely to buses , airport limousines , taxis , trucks , 



-9- 



and emergency vehicles. Its purposes will be to encourage 
passenger access to Logan by means other than the private auto- 
mobile, and to facilitate goods movement. It will not involve 
the taking of any homes or public open space. It will involve 
the relocation of only one business. I find it essential to 
the larger transit and highway management strategy that I am 
today recommending for the region. 

In order for the bus/truck tunnel to achieve its full 
potential, it is essential that three related developments occur. 
First, a high-quality bus and limousine service must be developed 
to provide rapid, frequent, and comfortable service from a number 
of pick-up points distributed conveniently throughout the region 
to Logan Airport. I shall look to the Port Authority to develop 
this service, and to finance both the rolling stock and satellite 
terminal facilities that will be required. Second, parking 
facilities will have to be developed at a number of the satellite 
terminal locations . I shall look to the Department of Public 
Works, drawing upon available Federal aid, to develop these 
facilities. Third, a freeze must be placed on Logan parking 
supply. It is essential that future parking investment intended 
to serve the airport be distributed at convenient locations well- 
removed from the core rather than at the Airport itself. The 
freeze that I propose is not, of course, intended to preclude the 
reorganization of parking arrangements within the Airport, nor 
is it intended to apply to projects that are contractually 
committed today. 

In addition, the implementation of this project will 



-10- 



require Federal agreement to finance it on a 90-10 matching basis, 
and a guarantee to bondholders in the existing Sumner and Callahan 
Tunnels that their investment will not be impaired. 

It is possible that Federal financing will require a 
technical amendment to Federal highway legislation. At the 
present time, a busway can be financed on a 90-10 basis, but there 
is no provision in current Federal law for the financing of a 
special purpose facility open as well to trucks and emergency 
vehicles- I believe that the facility I propose can be 
adequately justified for Federal financing on the basis 
of projected transit use alone, but truck and emergency 
vehicle utilization of the facility does seem likely to 
require legislation. I am optimistic that this will be viewed 
in the Congress as a technical amendment to the existing busway 
provision rather than as a major policy change. 

State legislation will be required to eliminate the 
current prohibition on construction of an additional harbor 
crossing within one mile downstream of the existing Sumner and 
Callahan Tunnels. It is unclear at this time whether the out- 
standing revenue bonds on these tunnels will have to be refi- 
nanced (which would require legislation), or whether an agreement 
with the bondholders can be negotiated. It does seem certain, 
however, that the financial viability of the Sumner and Callahan 
Tunnels will be unimpaired, and that, consequently, there will 
be no taxpayer cost of the financial arrangement that is eventu- 
ally determined. 

I would hope to have the Turnpike Authority design, 



-li- 



es on struct , and operate the new tunnel under contract with the 
Department of Public Works . The efficiency and experience of 
the Turnpike Authority in this field should be fully utilized as 
the project goes forward. 

In addition to the bus/truck tunnel, I believe that a 
number of highway improvements of a non-expressway nature are 
called for within Route 128. Those that have been clearly iden- 
tified by the Boston Transportation Planning Review are listed 
on the table on page 41 and involve an aggregate cost of more 
than $100 million. This figure should be added to the $200 
million cost estimate for the special purpose tunnel to Logan 
Airport and to the approximately $100 million that DPW will spend 
on parking and traffic management projects within Route 12 8 during 
the remainder of this decade. 

I am deferring decision at this time on a project idea 
that emerged during the later stages of the BTPR itself. This 
proposal would involve depression of the Central Artery and con- 
struction of a rail connection between North and South stations . 
While further analysis is required, I have seen enough of this 
proposal to judge that it merits the most serious consideration. 
I am directing that a more detailed study be conducted in the coming 
months of its probable benefits and costs. 

The Central Artery project (which has an estimated cost 
of $280 million, of which $80 million would be for the rail con- 
nection) would greatly improve the attractiveness of downtown Boston 
upon its completion; it would provide substantial traffic benefit; 



r-12- 



and the rail connection would be of significant benefit to com- 
muter rail patrons. We must carefully examine the following 
questions, however: whether it is worth its high dollar cost; 
whether the traffic disruption that would occur during the six 
year construction period can be held to acceptable levels; and 
whether the expanded highway would compete with the improved 
transit system that I believe must be the centerpiece of our 
transportation policy. I believe as well that the decision on 
this project should be made only after there has been opportunity 
for the kind of full citizen participation that has marked the 
Boston Transportation Planning Review. 

I hope that the Central Artery analysis will proceed 
with sufficient rapidity to permit a more definitive conclusion 
during 197 3. 




-13- 



TRANSIT 

In 1971, I worked with the MBTA and key legislative leaders 
to secure authorization of a major bond issue, intended primarily 
for modernization of the existing rapid transit system. That pro- 
gram has begun within recent months to produce large Federal 
commitments to the funding of vitally needed capital investments , 
and contracts with vendors for the implementation of these projects 

I am today recommending a vast enlargement of the transit 
investment program that we have begun to implement this year. 
Together with the modernization projects authorized in the 19 71 
bond issue, they constitute a total transit investment program 
in the range of $1.3 billion. Of this total, nearly $600 million 
involves modernization of the existing commuter rail and rapid 
transit systems. The remainder is for new or relocated rapid 
transit lines and for extensions of existing lines. All cost 
estimates are in terms of 1972 prices. 

I am optimistic that all of these projects will be eligible 
for 2/3 Federal funding, and hopeful that Congress will increase 
the Federal matching ratio within the next year or so. I shall 
be extremely active in the Federal arena to bring this about, and 
to increase the total level of Federal transit assistance that is 
available nationwide. 

On the basis of current Federal aid levels, the total 
program recommended today should take about 15 years to get fully 
under contract and 18 or 20 years to complete. I am hopeful that 
increased Federal aid will permit cutting this time span by five 
to eight years. In the meantime, we shall have to make some hard 



-14- 



phasing decisions as to which projects are implemented earlier, 
which later, in the total program. 

The dollar totals cited above are exlusive of investments 
by the Department of Public Works that I expect to be undertaken 
primarily or exclusively for transit purposes. These include 
the special purpose bus/truck tunnel to Logan Airport ($200 
million) and at least $100 million for access roads and parking 
facilities at transit stations and satellite air terminals. 

The entire transit improvement program is summarized in 
the Table on page 15 and discussed in the following paragraphs. 

The results of the BTPR analysis clearly indicate that the] 
Southwest Corridor has the greatest overall need for investment in 
improved transit service. Transit investments are urgently needed 
in this corridor, both to provide improved mobility for the resi- 
dents of the Southwest area and to spur the renewal of the land 
which has been cleared for the Southwest Expressway. The early 
provision of transit service in this cleared land area has been 
identified as a key component of the program for revitalizing this 
area. In addition, with the relocation of the Orange Line from 
the Washington Street Elevated to the cleared land corridor, it 
is clear that a replacement service must be provided for the 
South End, Roxbury , Dorchester, and Mattapan . I place the pro- 
vision of both of these services as high priority items in the 
expanded transit program. 

While there is no question among any of the participants 
as to the need for the two services set forth above, questions 
still remain as to the specific design of the facilities to provide 



15. 



COST OF RECOMMENDED TRANSIT INVESTMENTS (Millions of Dollars)* 



PROJECT 

1. Modernization Projects 
Authorized Under 1971 
Bond Issue. 

2. Modernization Projects 
for Rapid Transit and 
Bus Service in Addition 
to Those Authorized 
Under the 19 71 Bond 
Issue . 

3. Commuter Rail 
Modernization . 

4. Red Line Extension 
from Harvard Square 

to Alewife or Arlington 
Heights . 



5. Relocated Orange Line 
from South Cove via 
Forest Hills to both 
Needham and Canton. 



6 . Replacement Service 
for the Washington 
Street El through the 
South End, Roxbury and 
Dorchester to Mattapan 

7 . Inner Circumferential 
Transit Line. 



8 . Blue Line Improve- 
ments in East Boston 
and Revere . 

9 . Red Line Extension from 
Quincy Center to South 
Quincy . 

10. Green Line Extension 
from Lechmere to 
Somerville (under 
study ) . 

TOTALS: 



Low 
Estimate 

243 



250 



70 
112 



172 



106 



112 



10 



10 



26 



1,111 



High 
Estimate 

243 



250 



EXPLANATION OF RANGE 



70 
200 



240 



274 



254 



10 



10 



26 



1,577 



Remaining issues: 
should there be stations 
at Porter Square, Davis 
Square , and Arlington 
Heights? how much 
deep bore construction, 
as opposed to cut and 
cover? 

Should the section from 
Ruggles Street to 
Forest Hills be on the 
existing Penn Central 
embankment or be de- 
pressed? 

How much of the system 
should be underground? 



Which rapid transit 
technology should be 
used? how much of the 
system should be under- 
ground? 



* These figures do not include the cost of the bus/truck tunnel to Logan 
Airport ($200 million) or the cost of parking facilities and access roads 
at transit stations that will be constructed by the Department of Public 
Works (roughly, $100 million). 



-16- 



th e services. With respect to the relocated Orange Line, there 
is a question as to whether this service should be provided on the 
existing Penn Central embankment or should be depressed. There is 
no question that a depressed facility would in the long run provide 
a service more compatible with the environment of the area. How- 
ever, the depression of this facility will cost approximately 
$60 million more than if the embankment were used, and there is 
a question as to whether this is compatible with the most rapid 
possible revitalization of the cleared land. In the replacement 
corridor, the questions revolve around whether the transit service 
should be provided on surface streets, similar to the service on 
Commonwealth Avenue, or whether it should be in a subway. With 
regard to these issues, I feel that an additional two months is 
needed for technical analysis and consultation with the communities 
most affected. Therefore, while I am today recommending the pro- 
vision of these two services, I am deferring for two months my 
specific design recommendations for these two projects. 

Throughout the region, transit investments which extend 
existing lines to the perimeter of the high density zone and to 
connections with major highways appear to be exceptionally cost 
effective in terms of the transit service they provide to the re- 
sidents of the region and their effect on auto commutation to 
the core. Recommendations for extensions of this type include 
the Red Line to Route 2 at Alewif e , the Orange Line to Route 12 8 
in both Needham and Canton, the connection of the Blue Line to 
Route 1 via the Revere Beach Connector, and the Red Line Extension 
from Quincy Center to Route 128 in South Quincy. 



17- 



Two other rapid transit extensions are under investigation 
by the BTPR. These are the further .extension of the Red Line from 
Alewife through Arlington and Lexington to Route 128 and extension 
of the Green Line from its present terminus at Lechmere to Ball 
Square in Somerville. Inasmuch as the analyses in the Northwest 
Corridor have not been completed, I will defer at this time 
recommendations on these two projects. 

The BTPR has confirmed the finding of previous studies 
that a key limiting factor in our present transit system is its 
distributional capability, particularly in the Central Area. The 
BTPR has produced an innovative and exciting proposal for circum- 
ferential transit, which would increase the effectiveness of our 
entire transit system by providing for much needed circumferential 
movement around the downtown as well as better distribution within 
the downtown. I am recommending that this concept be pursued and 
that more detailed engineering and feasibility studies be undertaken 
by the MBTA . 

In the setting of priorities for improving and extending 
our transit system, recognition must be made of the essential 
nature and high priority of a number of catch-up projects not in- 
volving new transit routes , but rather such items as new maintenance 
facilities, rolling stock replacement, and station modernization. 
The need for this modernization is well recognized and is being 
vigorously pursued at the present time by MBTA; therefore, my 
recommended program contains an additional $250 million for the 
continuance of this program over the period to 1985. A component 
of a modernization program not included in the above is the 



-18- 



ref urbishing and restoring of the extensive commuter rail system, 
which this region can no longer afford to neglect. We simply 
cannot allow this valuable asset to deteriorate further. It is 
a critical component of an overall transportation program to meet 
the transport needs of today as well as the future. Therefore, 
I am recommending an intensive, five-year, $70 million commuter 
rail improvement program. 



MBTA, it is essential ~z recognize Thai a viial irarsi 
requires i.ore ihar. capiiai irvesii.er.i . Z~ else re:uir 

ever lie issue cf iir.ar.ee iasi su.i_i.er . are irar.sii ser' 



? oiic'.-.'ir.g aij eurneni zf lie legisiaiure 

Z aipcir.iec a Sceciai Zxecuiive ?.ecess _;i_iissisr. 
chaired ev zr.e Secreiarv i 






ii has seer availing a eeiuiunicaiion rrei i.e viih resieei is i: 



-20- 



The first part, and that most relevant to the Boston region, 
is that the state should assume 50% .of the MBTA net cost of ser- 
vice, across the board. Debt service and the operating commuter 
rail deficit, two categories of cost that are now borne primarily 
by the state, should, be treated exactly as all other cost items. 
Commuter rail, rapid transit, and bus services are all part of a 
single integrated system. Capital investment and operating costs 
should likewise be viewed together when decisions about financial 
priorities have to be made. The MBTA Enabling Act recognizes 
the financial unity of the system, and thus defines the "net cost 
of service" as including all those costs that are borne by tax- 
payers rather than out of f arebox revenues . 

The Recess Commission has considered and rejected the al- 
ternative of having increased state aid focus on particular cost 
categories. One plausible approach was to concentrate state aid 
on express service , leaving the total cost of local service to be 
borne by local taxpayers. Recess Commission members feared that 
such a policy might lead to a severe curtailment of local service. 
They noted that local service brings patrons to and distributes 
from the express service system. Thus, the two types of service 
are integrally related. Second, they noted that local service is 
particularly important to the most transit-dependent groups in the 
population, those who rely upon transit for their shopping, medi- 
cal, and social trips as well as for their commutation trips. It 
would be ironical indeed if a formula for increased state aid led 
indirectly to a curtailment of those services most needed by the 



-21- 



most transit-dependent groups in the region. 

In short, I find that the regional transit system should be 
viewed as a unity for planning and financial management purposes , 
and I believe that the state-local partnership should extend to 
each of these categories of cost equally. Recognizing that the 
transit system provides major direct benefits to residents of the 
Boston region as well as indirect benefits to all citizens of the 
Commonwealth, I believe that the 50-50 division of financial res- 
ponsibility is as equitable as any that can be devised. I hope and 
trust that it will provide the basis for a long-term settlement of 
the dispute over what portion of the MBTA net cost of service 
should be borne by the state . 

During the most recent year for which complete data are 
available, Calendar 1371, the state bore 22% of the net cost of 
MBTA service. Thus, implementation of the formula that I recommend 
will more than double the state share . The added cost to the 
Commonwealth (over and above the 22% level) should be in the range 
of $29-31 million for Calendar 1973. It is estimated that the 
total state share of the Calendar 1973 net cost of service under 
this plan will be $51-53 million. 

If the state is to bear such a large, general, and con- 
tinuing responsibility for the net cost of MBTA service, some new 
mechanisms will be necessary to ensure that MBTA financial needs 
are evaluated within the framework of overall state priorities. 
It will also be essential to guarantee that the crisis of last 
summer, in which a shutdown of the regional transit system was 



-22- 



threatened, will not be repeated. To achieve these objectives, 
I shall recommend to the General Court that the following pattern 
of organization for review of the MBTA budget should be adopted: 
... the Legislature should provide broad authority, 
within a fixed dollar limit to be established 
annually, for the Executive Office of Administration 
and Finance to enter into contracts for financial 
assistance with the MBTA (similar to current capital 
and commuter rail assistance); 
. . . the MBTA budget should pass through the Executive 

Branch and be subject to itemized reductions by the 
Governor prior to being submitted to the Advisory 
Board for approval. The proposed procedure would be 
identical to that for handling Executive agency 
budget requests before their submission to the 
General Court , except that no additions by the 
Governor would be permitted. 

The Advisory Board should be empowered to restore 
budget cuts made by the Governor, but such increases 
should not be eligible for state assistance. 
... The Advisory Board's power to reduce the MBTA budget 
should be curtailed. Its authority should be suf- 
ficient to enable it to press the MBTA effectively 
to keep its costs under tight control. But it should 
not have the power to shut down the system. My 
recommendation is that the Advisory Board be 



-23- 



empowered to veto spending increases only when these 
bring the MBTA budget to the level of the previous 
year plus the rate of increase in the Consumer Price 
Index for the most recent twelve months as of the time 
that the budget is submitted. It mav_ be appropriate 
to allow an additional 2% in recognition of the fact 
that transit service costs seem inescapably to rise 
more rapidly than the Consumer Price Index as a whole. 
They have actually risen about 6-7% faster in recent 
years . 
Overall, these new budgetary review mechanisms would pro- 
vide: (a) an independent and professionally staffed executive 
review of MBTA budget submissions, designed to keep a tight rein 
on MBTA cost increases, (b) concurrent veto authority over MBTA 
cost increases by both the state and local financial partners in 
bearing the net cost of MBTA service, and (c) a guarantee that the 
region will not again be faced with the threat of an MBTA shutdown 
as a lever in disputes between the Commonwealth and local govern- 
ments . 

These proposals with respect to the MBTA constitute the 
first part of my recommended local aid transportation package. The 
second part is passage of a Regional Transit bill along the lines 
of that which I have recommended to the General Court for the past 
two years — with one major addition. The addition is that re- 
gional transit systems should be eligible for 50% state partici- 
pation in their net cost of service on identical terms with the 



24- 



MBTA. The estimated first year cost of this recommendation is 
$1 million. 

Part 3 of the proposed local aid package is a major in- 
crease in the Chapter 90 program of local highway aid, to be 
funded from the Accelerated Highway Program. The local aid highway 
package should consist of three parts: 

(a) a new program combining the present Chapter 81 and 
Chapter 9 programs, to be funded at the current com- 
bined level for these two programs of $10.7 5 million. 
These funds should be distributed on the basis of 
the current or a slightly modified Chapter 9 formula 
throughout the state. The Secretary of Transportation 
and Construction and the Commissioner of Public Works 
are currently working with a representative committee 
of local highway officials on a review of the Chapter 

9 formula to see if some modifications would be 
appropriate. I look forward to receiving the product 
of this review by the first of the year. 

(b) a further program adding $30 million a year for local 
highway assistance, to be distributed only to those 
communities outside the MBTA region . Aside from the 
limitation to communities outside the MBTA district , 
these funds should be distributed in accord with the 
same formula as (a). 

(c) a supplemental program to ensure that no city or 
town in the MBTA district receives less than its 



-25- 



current allocation under the Chapter 81 and Chapter 
9 programs, and that no city or town outside the 
MBTA district receives less than twice its current 
allocation. 

Under the current Chapter 81 and Chapter 9 programs, the 
state share is 50%, with the county being responsible for 25% 
and the city or town being responsible for the other 2 5%. On the 
basis of consultations with local highway officials, I have come 
to the conclusion that county participation should be eliminated, 
with the state share increasing thereby to 75%. 

The local highway aid program here recommended can be 
supported for at least the next decade, even with a 3-5% annual 
rate of increase to keep up with inflation, from the debt service 
portion of the Highway Fund with no increase in taxes. This esti- 
mate takes full account of other likely demands upon the Highway 
Fund . 

The objective of the entire local aid transportation 
package is to recognize the varying transportation needs of dif- 
ferent regions of the Commonwealth. Within the MBTA district, 
the primary need at this time is for transit investment and for 
assistance in financing the net cost of MBTA service. Elsewhere 
in the Commonwealth, there is also a need for transit assistance, 
but the primary investment emphasis will continue to be on highways 

Recognizing these varying needs , the package is designed 
to provide both transportation assistance and property tax relief 
equitably to all portions of the Commonwealth. The highway 



-26- 



portion will, of course, be funded from highway user revenues, 
while the transit portions of the package will have to be fi- 
nanced from other revenue sources . Statewide , the total first year 
increase in local aid that this package will entail is about 
$60 million. 



- -27- 



MEMBERSHIP 
of the 
GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION TO EXAMINE THE FINANCING AND ORGANIZATION 
OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 



CHAIRMAN ALAN ALTSHULER, Secretary of Transportation and 

Construction, Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts 

SENATOR EDWARD L. BURKE 

SENATOR WILLIAM L. SALTONSTALL 

REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN P. COLE, JR. 

REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS W. McG EE 

REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND F. ROURKE 

REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH B. WALSH 

MAYOR GEORGE R. McCARTHY, City of Everett 

MARYOR RICHARD L. WAINWRIGHT , City of Brockton 

MAYOR KEVIN H. WHITE, City of Boston 

CITY MANAGER FRANCIS J. McGRATH , City of Worcester 

PROFESSOR JOHN F. COLLINS, Former Mayor of Boston 

CHAIRMAN HENRY S. LODGE, MBTA 

PROFESSOR THEODORE S. BACON, JR. 

MR. GEORGE BAILEY 

MR. WILLIAM L. FOX 

MR. FRANCIS X. MEANEY 

MRS. MARC I A MO LAY 

MR. CHARLES TURNER 



-28- 



TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND PARKING 

The region within Route 12 8 has an enormous street, highway, 
and parking network currently in place. We have reached the point 
at which major additions to this network are incompatible with the 
overall transportation and quality of life needs of the region. 
Thus , it is essential that we manage the existing network with far 
greater care than hitherto, striving above all to ensure that it 
serves and complements rather than competes with the regional 
transit system. 

The primary objectives of the region's traffic management 
and parking strategy should be to discourage the use of the auto- 
mobile for peak hour commutation and to provide very high quality 
service to those types of traffic that are (i) essential to the 
social and economic life of the region and (ii) non-susceptible of 
diversion to the rail network. In considering ■ strategic options, 
it should be kept in mind that the congestion problem is essentially 
one of weekday peak periods -- two or three hours a day in each 
direction. For the most part, our existing highway network is 
capable of providing quite good service during off-peak periods 
into the indefinite future . 

The kinds of peak hour trips that are most essential to 
the region and not amenable to service by rail transit are cargo 
trips, trips by rubber tired transit vehicles, and urgent trips 
for reasons of public health and safety. Those trips in the last 
category are most notably those by fire engines , ambulances , and 
police cars. In some circumstances as well, it may be appropriate 



-29- 



to give priority to high occupancy automobiles (carpools), on the 
ground that in a situation of limited supply they enable the public 
road investment to provide high quality service to a greater number 
of people than does a system which fails to discriminate between 
single-occupant and high-occupancy vehicles. Proposals to give 
carpools preference in peak hours require very careful evaluation, 
however, because those whose working hours are sufficiently regular 
to permit carpooling tend to be prime candidates for transit use. 

The major components of the region's traffic management 
and parking policy, in my view, should be the following: (a) the 
development of special lanes and other traffic operations techni- 
ques intended to provide free-flow service for trucks, buses, air- 
port limousines, emergency vehicles, and other high priority 
vehicle types that may be identified on as many major arteries 
as possible in the region, during peak as well as off-peak periods, 
(b) a freeze on the creation of additional parking capacity in 
downtown Boston (see map) and at Logan Airport, except as new 
spaces are offset by the elimination of existing (particularly 
on-street) spaces and as their location is determined in consulta- 
tion with the Joint Regional Transportation Committee," and (c) 
parking limitations of perhaps a less stringent nature outside 
the "freeze" zone but within several miles of downtown. 



" The Joint Regional Transportation Committee is the 
Federally recognized successor to the Working Committee of the 
Boston Transportation Planning Review. It is the product of an 
interagency agreement that currently includes the Executive Office 
of Transportation and Construction, the Metropolitan Area Planning 



-31- 



I do not think that this strategy can be fully implemented 
overnight, but it should be implemented to the extent feasible in 
the near future, and it should become a key policy guideline for 
transportation planning in the Boston region. The special bus 
lane on the Southeast Expressway is a significant application of 
the recommended strategy that is already in operation. I hope 
that it can be developed into a permanent, all year round, facility 
The interim management strategy recently announced for 1-9 3 on 
the approach to the Central Artery, to go into effect next year, 
will be another application of this strategy. The proposed bus/ 
truck tunnel to Logan Airport is a third. The identification of 
other management opportunities in the region should be a prime 
task of future transportation planning in the region. 



Footnote continued from page 10: 

Council (MAPC), and the Department of Public Works. The MBTA is 
expected to become a signatory within the next several weeks, and 
it is hoped that the Massachusetts Port Authority will eventually 
become a signatory as well. The Federal Department of Transporta- 
tion has recently required that a unified transportation planning 
grant application be submitted annually for each urban region in 
the nation. This application for the Boston region must be de- 
veloped jointly by the signatory agencies in close consultation 
with the Joint Regional Transportation Committee. Similarly, 
capital grant applications must be consistent with comprehensive 
plans that have been developed in consultation with the Committee. 

Thus , though new and somewhat ad hoc , the Joint Regional 
Transportation Committee is a very important body. Its membership 
is composed as follows: (a) all members of the transportation 
committee of MAPC, (b) the state Secretaries of Transportation 
and Construction, Communities and Development, and Environmental 
Affairs, and (c) seven private citizens, who have been designated 
by the Secretary of Transportation and Construction after con- 
sultation with the President of MACP. 



-32- 



The proposed freeze on the total parking supply in downtown 
Boston and at Logan Airport has two. significant qualifications. 
It is not intended for the freeze to apply to residential parking 
spaces , nor to spaces that are currently under construction or con- 
tractual commitment. The residential exclusion is based on the 
judgment that downtown residents place very little peak hour burden 
on the highway system. The exclusion of spaces that are contractually 
committed is intended to minimize the inevitable pain that transition 
to a new policy entails for some of those who have made plans based 
on previous policies. 

I do not believe that parking restrictions should be con- 
fined to the very limited downtown area delineated on the attached 
map. A decision on the types and degrees of limitation that may 
be appropriate for other sub-areas within several miles of the 
core must await completion of the master parking study that is 
currently being conducted by the Department of Public Works in 
consultation with the City of Boston and other public bodies. 

I am pleased to report that preliminary consultations with 
Mayor White have produced general agreements on the approach to 
parking policy here outlined. I am hopeful that he and I will be 
able to reach agreement in the near future on a legislative 
package to facilitate implementation of a comprehensive parking 
policy for the Boston region, including the downtown freeze. In 
the meantime, I will expect state agencies to be guided by my 
policy as they consider state-aided or state-regulated investments 
in parking facilities and/or access roads to parking facilities. 



-33- 



I hope that the Massachusetts Port Authority will agree 
to the freeze on future parking development at Logan as part of 
my overall package providing for Federal and state financing of 
the bus/truck tunnel to Logan Airport and of parking facilities 
for Logan employees and patrons located around the Route 12 8 
periphery. I am likewise hopeful that the Port Authority will 
agree to take primary responsibility for the proposed bus/limousine 
service to Logan Airport. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR CLEARED LAND 

The decision not to build an expressway in the Southwest 
Corridor necessarily brings with it the need to implement a program 
for the sound and sensitive redevelopment of the cleared land in 
the corridor and for the equitable treatment of those who have 
been affected by the demolition in the corridor. 

I shall appoint a Southwest Corridor Development Coordin- 
ator who will be accountable to me and responsible for the following 
basic actions : 



o 



Management of the design of the arterial street 
Immediate disposition of DPW-owned land south of 
Forest Hills 

Supervision of an inter-agency process for the 
formulation of detailed plans for the disposition 
of cleared and other DPW-owned land north of Forest 
Hills under a transportation and land development 
program 



-34- 



Management and maintenance of the state owned 
land in the corridor through the development 
period 

Relocation and construction, where necessary, of 
replacement housing for those displaced by the 
arterial who have not yet been relocated 
Immediate execution of interim improvements in 
the corridor, including the development of open 
space on cleared land 

The Development Coordinator will work closely with the 
Offices of the Governor and the Mayor of Boston, In this regard, 
Mayor White and I have agreed to work cooperatively to develop this 
devastated corridor into an asset for Boston and the region. The 
state and the city will both provide staff resources for the devel- 
opment effort. Each of us will assign a senior staff member within 
our respective offices to act as liaison between us and with the 
Coordinator. 

There are a number of agencies at the state and municipal 
levels which have direct interests in and responsibilities for the 
formulation and execution of development plans in and affecting the 
corridor. These agencies include at least the following: 

State Department of Public Works — Design activities 

for urban arterial, including continuation, at appropriate 

level of detail, an analysis of social, economic, and 



-35- 



environmental impacts, conduct of design hearings, 
etc.; construction of arterial; land disposition 
actions , etc . 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority -- Design 
and construction activities for Relocated Orange Line 
(Back Bay station to Forest Hills) and removal of 
elevated, joint development design at stations, etc. 

Metropolitan District Commission — Formulation ana 
execution of recreation and open space plans in and 
affecting the corridor; maintenance of open space, 
etc . 

Boston Redevelopment Authority -- Formulation of cor- 
ridor plans (at level of detail required for' Standard 
Loan and Grant application, including development of 
parcel boundaries, etc.); amendments to existing renewal 
plans (e.g., Campus High) where necessary under overall 
corridor plan; etc. 

City of Boston -- Adequate police protection for the 
corridor. 

The Development Coordinator, working with the liaisons from 
Offices of the Governor and Mayor, and with relevant Secretaries 
from the Governor's Cabinet, will take immediate action to execute 
an inter-agency agreement which will govern the planning, design, 



-36- 



and development actions occurring over the next twelve-to-eighteen- 
month period. Agencies participating in this agreement should in- 
clude those listed above as well as others (e.g., DCA, Model Cities, 
EDIC, etc.) who may perform functions in the development effort. 
The agreement should provide that signatory agencies will provide 
staff for the corridor development effort, and that such staff will 
be under the supervision and control of the Development Coordinator. 

Each participating agency will also appoint a senior mem- 
ber who will act as an expediter of all development activities in- 
volving or affecting the respective agency. These agency repre- 
sentatives will form with the Development Coordinator a Steering 
Group will have general responsibility for working with the Coor- 
dinator and his development staff in the preparation and execution 
of plans and programs for the Southwest Corridor. The Steering 
Group will review the organization plan and on-going work program 
of the development staff and any consultants; assist the Coordinator 
the Offices of the Governor and Mayor, and the relevant Cabinet 
Secretaries in the formulation of an appropriate budget and funding 
arrangements for all aspects of the development effort; and work 
closely with the Community Advisory Board (to be designated momen- 
tarily) in the provision of long-range and day-to-day policy 
guidance to the Development Coordinator and Staff. 

The Coordinator and the Governor/Mayor liaisons will 
immediately appoint a Community Advisory Council, which will sit 
with the Steering Group and insure that relevant community groups 



-37- 



and interests are fully represented in the process of preparing 
and executing corridor development plans. This Council will 
include sub-committees for persons and interests basically north 
or south of Forest Hills. The Council will operate in terms of the 
precedent established by the Project Coordinating Committee and 
thevSteering Committee established for the Boston Transportation 
Planning Review. No decisions will be reached through voting. 
Where the Group and Council reach consensus, among themselves and 
with each other, the Coordinator and his staff will abide by that 
consensus. However, where basic disagreement persists and consensus 
cannot be reached, the Coordinator will decide the issue after 
full discussion. 

The essential function of the Advisory Council is to 
insure that the development process is open and broadly participa- 
tory, and that the full range of values affected by the corridor 
development effort are articulated and represented throughout the 
process . 

Over the next twelve to eighteen months , the corridor 
redevelopment effort just outlined will provide a solid framework 
for the preparation and execution of plans for the restoration of the 
Southwest Corridor. During the year, the state administration will do 
all within its power to modify existing budgets and agency priorities 
in order to expedite redevelopment and rehabilitation in the corridor 
The Mayor has pledged the same level of concern and effort on the 
part of the City. At the end of this initial period, specific re- 
sponsibilities will be assigned to various state and city agencies 
participating in the redevelopment effort, and a judgment will be 



-38- 



made whether the Development Coordinator, a single agency, or a 
new Development Corporation should retain the responsibility for 
the management of the overall redevelopment program. 



-39- 



CONCLUSION 

Today's decisions concerning highways and transit inside 
Route 128 should be viewed as part of the balanced transportation 
program that I have been developing for the entire state and indeed 
for the New England region. It is worth noting my firm and con- 
tinuing commitment to those key transportation policies that I have 
previously announced: 

Joint action with other New England Governors and 
the Federal Government to make high speed ground 
transportation to New York City a reality 
My strong support of the proposed amendment to the 
State Constitution which would make it possible to 
tap state gasoline tax revenues for mass transit 
purposes 

A vigorous national effort to free up the Federal 
Highway Trust Fund so that states all over the 
country can have greater flexibility to use such 
revenues for the mis of highway and transit in- 
vestments that they think best 

A limitation on the physical expansion of Logan 
Airport without curtailing its central importance as 
our only jetport, and an active MassPort program to 
minimize the noise impact of Logan operations , and a 
request that MassPort pursue a policy of compensation 
for the unique pain and suffering that those commu- 
nities adjacent to the airport experience in conse- 
quence of Logan activities. 



-40- 



Finally, I wish to reemphasize my commitment to working 
with our cities and towns in an open and cooperative manner 
so that we can move forward in partnership toward the truly bal- 
anced transportation system that we seek. Partnership is indeed 
the keynote of what I am trying to achieve in transportation -- 
partnership between the state and the Federal Government; and above 
all, partnership between the people and their government. I am 
convinced that such partnership in transportation progress can be 
achieved. Today's decisions are a major step in that direction. 



-41- 



00 

Q 
ft 

< 

CJ) 
H 



T) 






















- 




cu 
















n 




1 












c 




CM O to 










i 


CD 


o 


Ho oj 


o o o 


zt- 


o 


J- o co 


H r>- 


£ 


H 


H cm 


J- J- CD 


[>- 


H 


lo r^ cr> 


r-\ r>- 


§ 






H 


CM 




cm J- 


H lo 


O 






1 


1 




1 


r» n 


o 






CM 


CD 




CM 


H H 


cu 






f- 


O 




rH 


■CO- </> 


ft 




c, * H ^ 
P 4_) 

gO q; co 

O co o 


CO 

H g 

H (3 c o 
•H ,£ -P 


H 




H 
+- 1 CD 

•h e 


*:c 






U 0) -P -h & 


CD EC T) -P 




O 


CO CD 








ft cm ^ m qj 


£ CD £ P 




•P 


C > 






bO 


•H bO £ ij 


•H -P CD rd O 






rd O -P 






C 


C £ -H CD £ 


J CO^OTJ 




C 


P P C 






•H 


O CD CD +J p 


CD «H 




o 


Eh Ph CD 






1! 


■H H ffi < >< ^^ 


CD p O O P 




•H 


6 £ 






rd 


CO < pq CD 


bO O -P +J P 




CO 


H M P, 






P 


C C H 


G ft 




c 


rd -H C 






bO 


CD O O CD H 


rd co co o 




CD >, 


■H H SO 






ft 


^ -P ^ £ -H 


P O H H 




•P O 


•P -H rj».H 






D 


X bO . H > 


O -P H H -P 




X c 


c fd w +j 








WT3 C Jf, 


•H«H £ 




H -H 


CD P< rd 






CD 


P *H CD 


T3 >>EC EC CD 


c 


3 


P TJ N 






G 


CD rd H £ g 


CD rd g 


rd 


cd cy 


CD p £ C -H 






•H 


£ > P CD 


-P PQ -p -p CD 


ft 


c 


<+H CD rd rd fl 






J 


•H P < CD GO 


rd CO CO O 


rd 


•H ^ 


6 4-» P U 








J ^ p 


O ft CD CD rd 


•P 


J -P 


p P bOP" CD 






CD 


W CD 


O O p P H 


■P 


^ 


OS OCTJ 






P 


t) * * 


H (d OOft 


rd 


T3 


P 6 P rd 






H 


CD * * 


CD PQ ft ft CD 


S 


CD CO 


• H OfHH^ 






PQ 


ft 


ft ft 




P^ 


O O P-. 




p >, 
















0> T3 












o 


o 


13 P 












o 


o 


C -M 












CM 


CM 


D oo 














-CO- 


T3 
















CD 
















T3 
















C 
















CD 
















g 


LO CO O LO 




o 




r>- 


O O O 


LO 


£ 


CM i— 1 CnI 




CM 




H 


O CM O 


CM 















CM rH 


H^ 


o 














-CO- 


CD 




• 












ft 




1 
o ft 1 

■P -P 


CO 

•p 
G 

CD 
g 
CD 






CO 
-P 

C 

CD 






P 


P 


> 






(D g 






>, O 


co bO O 










> rd 






T) -P 


+^ £ S 


P. 




•P 


o p 






O 


£ -H 


ft 






P bO 






J3 CD bO 


CD T3 ft 


6 




bO 


ft O 






rd c C 


6 Cfc 


H 




C 


e p 






CD C -H 


CD CD H 






•H 


H CU 






ft CD X 


> ftft 


-P 




^ 








1 ^TDO ^ 


O 


CD 




P 


>> bO 






6 O nj rd 


P T5 ft 


CD 




rd 


.-Q 


P C 






CD "P P .C ft 


ft CD 


P. 




Ph 


< 


CD «H 






W 


H O hOO 


6 £ 


-P 






a 


-P rM 






ft 


fd CD ft rd T) 


H -H £ >> 


CO 




T3 


O 


H P H 

CD < rd 






o 


W CD Q) c 


ft 


g OTJ 


H 






H 


C 


H 






ffi 


1 £ ft rd 


00 


H P -H 3 


00 


rH 




00 


rd CD 


CD 


C CLh 






00 


>> O <H H 


W 


rd CD -P -P 


w 


rd 




< 


C 


W 


C H 


• • 






HO (DP 


3 


•H -P CD 00 


3 


•H 




W 


CO -H 


P< 


P rd CD 


CO 




ffi 


P CD P CD 


EC 


P CD rH 


HI 


P 




3^ 


CO hQ 


s. 


En P bO 


J 




Eh 


CD -P CD T) 


H 


CD T3 ft-P 


H 


CD 




Eh 


CD 


w 


-P C 


< 




ft 


> P > C 


ft 


■P 6 to 


D 


-P 




D 


O T3 


P^ 


CO C'H 


H 




o 


CD O CD O 


o 


P CD O CD 


o 


P. 




O 


O CD 


o 


P CD P 


O 




s 


PQ ft ft 3: 


s 


< ft O 5 


00 


< 




00 


< « 


CJ 


mop 


Eh 





CO 




4-> >. 




ffi rd 




3 




C 1 




OMh 




-P O 




bfl 1 




G-P 




•H,C 




rH bO 




P-H 




< P 




fiH 




O-H 




P rd 




LP P 




CD P 




C CD 




•H -P 




J P 




T3 g 




CD O 




P4 O 




/"-N 




OH CO 




O^ 




#\ 




C co 


• 


£ 


CO 


•P O 


-p 


CO-H 


H 


C -H 


P 


CD rd 


CO 


-P -P 


CD 


X 00 


P 


CD 




^^ 


>, r- 


TJ 


v^ P 


P 


•• 


•P 


CD 00 


00 


Td 




PTZI 


•P 


rH C 


CO 


O rd 


CD 


£ 


5 


•H,C 


rC 


-P 


-P 


6 P 


P 


rd 


O 


PZ 


S 


bfl 




O £ 


H 


P CD 


rd 


ft. CD 


C 


5 


•H 


CO -P 


LH 


•H CD 




A rQ 


O 


-P 


-p 


C 




O 


-p 


-P-H 


O 


-P 


• CD 


CO O 


CO T-l 


C CD 


P^Q 


c 


rd P 


•H £ 


r-\ CO 


-P 


rH 


•H O 


O CO 


T) 


--0 CD 


T3 H 


P 


rd-P 


CM p 


rd 


r>- bO 


CD P 


co «H 


P 


rH LH 


P< 




+Jr-s 


c; >. 


p CM 


•H P 


<+H ^-^ 


rd 


" 


CO £ 


CD co 


-P-H 


r-{ CV 


CO g 


A ■"+ 


O-H 


-H -1 


O H 


CO - 


CD 


CO CD 


rH P 


O -P- 


rH CU 


ft ft 


< 


•:: 




PROGRAM OF CORRIDOR AND FRINGE 
PARKING RELATED TO RAPID TRANSIT, 
COMMUTER RAIL LINES, EXPRESS BUS 
SERVICE. (SITES TO BE DETERMINED) 

NEW INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 
j - FACILITIES 

/ Hill 

HOLBROOK / HMB NEW OR IMPROVED NON- INTERSTATE 
>' HIGHWAY OR ARTERIAL FACILITIES 



DECISIONS ON REGIONAL 
HIGHWAYS & ARTERIALS 



BTPR RESTUDY AREA o 



rL_n_n 



4 5 MILES 



m 



GENFRAI PKnr lR flfl 

1. COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM; 
INCLUDING ROLLING STOCK, RIGHT-OF , 
WAY, OPERATIONS, PARKING, ETC. ^J' 93 

2. CORRIDOR AND FRINGE PARKING ALONG * 
COMMUTER RAIL, RAPID TRANSIT LINES,? 
EXPRESS BUS TERMINALS. 

3. STATE ASSUMPTION OF 50X OF MBTA 
MET COST OF SERVICE 

H. PARKING FREEZE DOWNTOWN AND AT LOGAN 
5. MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING HIGHWAYS 
TO ENCOURAGE TRANSIT UTILIZATION 

*\ / 

U i 

7 




EXTENSION OF RED LINE 
FROM QUINCY TO ROUTE 12» 
(REDESI GNATED 1-95) 

" T\- v ' 

FRINGE PARKING RELATED TO 

©COMMUTER RAIL, TRANSIT, 
EXPRESS BUS OPERATIONS (SPE- 
CIFIC SITES TO BE SELECTED 
/ WEY IN COORDINATION WITH TRAN- 

SIT, HI6HWAY IMPLEMENTATION 

■■■■ NEH RAPID im * U EXTENSIONS 
■ ■■I OR MAJOR UPGRADES TO EXISTING 
LINES 

COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 
OTHER TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS 



DECISIONS ON REGIONAL TRANSIT 

n_rL_n 

BTPR RESTUDY AREA 01 2345 miles 



© 



u/ 



NORTHWEST REPORT 

1 Volume 464 Pages 

February, 1973 231 Figures 

CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION 

A. BTPR PROCESS 

1. Origins of the BTPR 

2. BTPR Study Region and Facilities 

3. The BTPR Study Approach 

4. Purpose of the Phase II Reports 

5 . Report Organization 

B. A FRAMEWORK FOR CHOICE 

1. Governor's Policy 

2. Special Legal Protection of Public Parklands 

3. Community Impact 

4. Equity: Concept of Program Packages 

5. Institutional Adaptability 

1. Coordination of Highway and Transit Planning Operations 

2. Moficiations of Transit Service and Assessment Programs 

3. Special Compensatory Programs 

4. Land Development Implementation 

I. NORTHWEST CONTEXT 

A. NORTHWEST TRANSPORTATION 

1. Key Questions 

2. Northwest Transportation Problems 

1. Corridor Descriptions 

2. Cambridge Radial Corridor 

3. Arlington/Lexington Corridor 

4. Watertown/Belmont/Waltham Corridor 

5. Somerville Radial Corridor 

6. Cambridge/Somerville Crosstown Corridor 

7. Medford/Winchester/Woburn Corridor 

3. Northwest Improvement Program Packages 



NORTHWEST IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT: ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, 
AND TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW 

1. The Regional Environment 

1. Urbanization and Open Space 

2. Northwest Environment 

1. Environmental Assets 

2. Ecological Assets 

3. Environmental Sensitivity 

3 . The Regional Economy 

4. The Northwest Subregional Economy 

1. Population 

2 . Income 

3. Housing 

4. Employment 

5. Projected Northwest Population, Employment and General 
Travel Demands 

1. Northwest Corridor Alternative Future Population and Employment 

2. Estimated Travel 

3. Transportation System Interrelationships 



II. NORTHWEST TRANSIT 

A. REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING STRATEGY 

1. Plan Versus Planning 

2 . Toward a New P licy 

1. Institutional 

2 . Operational 

3. Developmental 

4. Modal Integration 

B. NORTHWEST TRANSIT DEFICIENCIES AND ISSUES 

1. Public Transportation SERvice Today 

1. Surface Bus 

2. Light Rail 

3. Rapid Transit 

4. Commuter Rail 

2. Demand for Public Transportation Service 

3. Problems of Public Transportation Service 

1. Fare Structure 

2. Reliability 

3 . Frequency 

4. Speed 

5 . Crowding 

6 . Comfort 

7. Availability of Information 

8. Transit Coverage and Linkage 

4. Operating Costs and Revenues 



C. TRANSIT TESTING SYSTEMS AND EVALUATION 

1. Alternative Transit Systems for Testing 

2. Evaluation of Transit Systems 

1. Ridership 

2. User Benefits 

3. Net Cost 

4. Capital Cost and Economic Rate of Return 

3. Evaluation Summary and Conclusions 

1. Red Line Extension 

2. Green Line Extension 

3 . Suburban Services 

D. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 

1. Harvard-Alewife Corridor 

1. Harvard-Alewife Segment: Northwest Extension of the Red Line 

2. Green Line Extension from Lechmere to Alewife 

3. Massachusetts Avenue Bus Capacity Increase 

2. Arlington/Lexington Corridor 

1. Northwest Extension of the Red Line to Arlington or Route 
128 in Lexington 

2. Express and Local Bus Service to the Red Line 

3. Upgrading of Bedford Branch Commuter Rail 

3. Watertown/Belmont/Waltham Corridor 

1. Fitchburg Division Commuter Rail Improvements 

2. Express and Local Bus Service to the Red Line and Boston 

4. Somerville Radial Corridor 

1. Green Line Extension 

2. Express and Local Bus Service to Rapid Transit and Boston 

3. Commuter Rail Station in Somerville 

4. Special Transfer Privileges to Rapid Transit from Somerville Bus 

5. Cambridge/Somerville Crosstown and Circumferential Corridor 

1. Crosstown Bus ServiceOptions 

2 . Local Bus Service to the Red Line 

3. Circumferential Transit Facility Options 

6. Medford/Winchester/Woburn Corridor 

1. New Hampshire Division Commuter Railroad Improvements 

2. Express and Local Bus Service to Boston, the Red Line and 
the Orange Line 

E. SPECIAL MOBILITY AND COVERAGE TRANSIT 

1. Analysis of Service Needs 

1. Special Mobility Groups 

2. Transportation Problems of Cambridge Elderly 

2. Solutions for Special Mobility and Coverage Transit Problems 

1. Bus Route Alterations 

2. Transit "Coverage "Recommendations 



III. NORTHWEST EXTENSION OF THE RED LINE 

A. MAJOR PROBLEMS AND CHOICES FOR THE RED LINE 

1. Background and Issues 

2. Harvard-Ale wife Extension — Description of Alternatives 

1. Alignment 1 — Garden Street 

2 . Alignment 2 — Porter Square 

3. Alignment 3 — Davis Square 

4. Alignment 4 — DAvis Square without a Porter Station 

5. Measures to Minimize Disruption During Construction 

6. Relation to Subregional Transportation Improvements and 
No-Build Implications 

3. Alewife Station — Access and Development Alternatives 

1. Existing Traffic and Transportation Conditions 

2. Land Use and Planning Context 

3. Environmental Characteristics and Constraints 

4. Alternative Access Improvements at Alewife 

5. Description of Alternative Red Line Station Locations at Alewife 

6. Joint Development Concepts for the Alewife Area 

4. Red Line Extension Beyond Alewife 

1. BAckground and Issues 

2. Alignments INvestigated 

3. Design, Terminal and Station Location Alternatives 

4. Existing Rail Line and Service 

5. Description of Right-of-Way and Modifications for Rapid 
Transit Operations 

6. Description of Station Location Alternatives 

7. Construction Scheduling and Cost Estimates 

B. HARVARD -ALEWIFE EXTENSION: ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION 

1. Engineering Design and Construction Considerations 

1. Definitions of Construction Methods 

2. Design Criteria 

3. Design Conditions 

4. Effect on Existing Structures 

5. Subsurface Conditions 

2. Alignment 1 — Garden Street Alignment 

1. General Description 

2. Construction Methods 

3. Alternative 1 Engineering Description and Drawings 

3. Alignment 2 — Porter Square Alignment 

1. General Description 

2. Construction Methods 

3. Alternative 2A — Engineering Description and Drawings 

4. Alternative 2B — Engineering Descriptions and Drawings 

5. Alternative 2C — Engineering Description and Drawings 

4. Alignments 3A and 3B — Davis Square Alignments 

1. General Description 

2. Construction Methods 



3. Alterantive 3A-1 — Engineering Description and Drawings 

4. Alternative 3A-2 — Engineering Description and Drawings 

5. Alternative 3B-1 — Engineering Description and Drawings 

6. Alterantive 3B-2 — Engineering Description 

7. Alternative 3B-3 

5. Alignments 4A and 4B — Davis Square Alignments Without Porter Square 

1. General Description 

2. Construction Methods 

3. Alternatives 

6. Construction Cost Estimates 

C. ALEWIFE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS: ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION 

1. Alternative 1 — Parkway Redesign (Minimum New Construction) 

2. Alternative 2 — Parkway Redesign (Preferred Access for Specialized 
Movements) 

1. Alternative 2A 

2. Alternative 2B 

3. Maintenance of Traffic and Sequence of Traffic 

4. Subsurface Conditions 

5. Major Utilities Relocation 

3. Alternative 3 — Combined Bypass/Transit Access 

1. Alternative 3 Description 

2. Maintenance of Traffic and Sequence of Construction 

3. Subsurface Conditions 

4. Major Utilities Relocation 

5. Construction Cost Estimates 

D. DETAILED IMPACTS AND EVALUATION 

1. Description of Evaluation Criteria and Process 

2. Capital Costs of Construction 

3. Transportation Service and Costs 

1. User Benefits 

2. Transit Operating Costs 

3. First Year Rate of Return 

4. New Transit Ridership 

5. Relief from Street Congestion 

6 . System Linkage 

7. Mobility of Transit Dependent 

4. Family Relocation and Replacement Housing 

1 . Summary Evaluation 

2. Inventory of Structures and Description of Households — 
Porter Square 

3. Inventory of Structures and Description of Households — 
Davis Square. 

4. Housing Market Characteristics and Relocation Needs 



5 . Regional Economic Impact 

1. Effects on Population Distribution 

2. Effects on Employment 

3. Impact of Construction Expenditures 

6. Community Economic Impact 

1. Effects on Land Values and Local Tax Base 

2. Impact on Existing Retail Centers 

3. Business Displacement and Impact on Employment 

4. Impact During Construction 

5. Private Land Development Opportunities 

7. General Landscape, Open Space and Historic Resource Impact 

1. Present Transportation-Associated Impacts 

2. Physical Alteration 

3. Non-Conformity with Existing Environment 

4. Physical Separation 

5. Disruption of Access 

6. Disruption of Ambient Environment 

7. Access-Induced Development 

8. Noise Impacts 

1. Impact Measurement 

2. Noise Standards 

3. Noise Impact Forecast 

4. Noise Minimization Procedures 

9. Community Quality Impact 

1. Impact on Facilities 

2. Traffic Impact and Service Access 

3. Visual and Aesthetic Impacts 

4. Neighborhood Cohesion 

10. Ecological Impacts 

1. Harvard-Alewife Extension Impacts 

2 . Alewif e Transit Station Location Impacts 

3. Alewif e Road Improvement Impacts 

4. Impacts of Extension Beyond Alewif e 

E E. DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) LANDS AND IMPACTS 

1. Scope and Purpose of Section 4(f) Review 

2. Lands Subject to 4(f) Review 

3. Detailed Descriptions and Impacts 

1. Rindge Field 

2. Jefferson Park Housing 

3. Russell Field 

4. Fresh Pond Reservation 

5. Alewif e Brook Reservation 

6. Alewif e Brook and Fresh Pond Parkways 

7. Thorndike Street Playground 

8. Linwood Field (Scannel Field) 

9. Spy Pond Field 

10. Pond Lane Park and Totlot 

11. Wittemore Historic Park 



5. Regional Economic Impact 

1. Effects on Population Distribution 

2. Effects on Employment 

3. Impact of Construction Expenditures 

6. Community Economic Impact 

1. Effects on Land Values and Local Tax Base 

2. Impact on Existing Retail Centers 

3. Business Displacement and Impact on Employment 

4. Impact . During Construction 

5. Private Land Development Opportunities 

7. General Landscape, Open Space and Historic Resource Impact 

1. Present Transportation-Associated Impacts 

2. Physical Alteration 

3. Non-Conformity with Existing Environment 

4. Physical Separation 

5. Disruption of Access 

6. Disruption of Ambient Environment 

7. Access-Induced Development 

8. Noise Impacts 

1 . Impact Measurement 

2. Noise Standards 

3. Noise Impact Forecast 

4. Noise Minimization Procedures 

9. Community Quality Impact 

1. Impact on Facilities 

2. Traffic Impact and Service Access 

3. Visual and Aesthetic Impacts 

4. Neighborhood Cohesion 

10. Ecological Impacts 

1. Harvard-Alewife Extension Impacts 

2 . Alewif e Transit Station Location Impacts 

3. Alewif e Road Improvement Impacts 

4. Impacts of Extension Beyond Alewif e 

DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) LANDS AND IMPACTS 

1. Scope and Purpose of Section 4(f) Review 

2. Lands Subject to 4(f) Review 

3. Detailed Descriptions and Impacts 

1. Rindge Field 

2. Jefferson Park Housing 

3. Russell Field 

4. Fresh Pond Reservation 

5. Alewif e Brook Reservation 

6. Alewif e Brook and Fresh Pond Parkways 

7. Thorndike Street Playground 

8. Linwood Field (Scannel Field) 

9. Spy Pond Field 

10. Pond Lane Park and Totlot 

11. Wittemore Historic Park 



IV. NORTHWEST PROGRAM PACKAGE SUMMARY 

A. PROGRAM PACKAGE CRITERIA 

1. Context of Program Package Policy Alternatives 

2. Time and Staging Availability of Improvement Options 

3. Alternative Futures and Land Use Policies 

B. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM PACKAGE POLICY ALTERNATIVES 

1. Improvements Implementable within Five Years 

2. Packages Implementable within Five to Ten Years 

3. Packages Implementable in 10+ Years 

C. SUMMARY EVALUATION OF PROGRAM PACKAGES 

1. Effect of Program Packages on Mass Transit Service 

2. Capital Costs of Alternative Program Packages 

3. Effect of Program Packages on Land Use Policies and Alternative Futures 



SOUTHWEST SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT 

80 Pages 
February, 1973 45 Figures 



I. A. INTRODUCTION 

I.B. SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR REVIEW COMMITTEE 

I.C. POLICY ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS 

I.D. DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR STUDY 

I.E. SUMMARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

II. A. BASIC OPTIONS IN THE MAIN LINE CORRIDOR 

1. Issues and Assumptions 

2 . The Alternatives 

3. Noise Impacts for Main Line Transit Alternatives 

4. Engineering 

5. Impact Evaluation 

6 . Summary 

III. A. DETAILED DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS FOR THE SOUTH END AND ROXBURY/MATTAPAN 
REPLACEMENT TRANSIT SERVICE 

Appendix A OPTIONS DROPPED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
Appendix B MAIN LINE RAILROAD AND TRANSIT TRACK REQUIREMENTS 
Appendix C GREEN LINE OPERATIONS 



To Be Printed 



NORTHWEST ARTERIALS 



February, 1973 15 Fi g Ure s 



CONTENTS 



Introduction 

The Western Connector 

1-93 Access/Somerville 

Cambridge Truck Problems and Alternative Solutions 

Northwest Arterial Street Improvement Programs 



To Be Printed 



WINTHROP CONNECTOR EVALUATION REPORT 

30 Pages 
February, 197 3 10 Figures 

CONTENTS 



Introduction 

Background 

The Problem 

Description and Evaluation of Alternatives 

Conclusions and Next Steps 



STUDY ELEMENT 2 SUMMARY REPORT 



January, 1973 60 Pages 



INTRODUCTION 

I. AN OVERVIEW OF S.E.2. 

Organization 

Initial Operations 

The Results of Phase I 

Phase II 

The Hearings 

The Resulting Decisions 



CONTENTS 



II. NORTH SHORE 
III. SOUTHWEST 
IV. COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 



AIR QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 



January, 1973 



15 Pages 
1 Figure 



CONTENTS 



1. INTRODUCTION 

2. MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM 

3. SUMMARY OF MEASUREMENTS DATA 

4. COMPARISON BETWEEN MEASURED AIR QUALITY AND AMBIENT STANDARDS 

5. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS AND DIRUNAL VARIABILITY OF GASEOUS POLLUTANTS 

6. CORRELATION BETWEEN AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS AND METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS 

7. CONCLUSIONS 



STUDY ELEMENT 6 SUMMARY REPORT 

December, 1972 128 Pages 

14 Figures 

CONTENTS 

I. Introduction and Summary 

II. Procedures for Establishing a Regional 

Framework for Land Use and Travel Analyses 

III. Procedures for Selecting and Adapting City 

and Town Population and Employment Forecasts 

IV. Procedures for Review of Travel Forecasts 
Prepared Previously 

V. Procedures for Network Development and Coding 

VI. Procedures for Trip Generation and Distribution 

VII. Procedures for Mode Split Analysis and 
Forecasting 

VIII. Procedures for Network Assignment 

IX. Cross-Elasticity Model Investigations 

X. Appendices 

A. List of Study Element 6 Memoranda 

B. List of References for Study Element 6 
Material in BTPR Published Reports 

C. Basic Socio-Economic Data for Study 
Element 6 by City and Town 



THE SALEM/PEABODY ROUTE 128 ARTERIAL CONNECTOR 

December, 1972 14 Pages 

3 Figures 

CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

THE PROBLEM 

ALTERNATIVES STUDIED 

PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 

Use of Original DPW-Designed Connector Right-of-Way 
Vinnin Square/Swampscott Road/Summit Street 
Bridge Street Bypass/Dan vers River/Waters River 

DESCRIPTION OF SALEM/PEABODY/ROUTE 128 ARTERIAL 
Conclusion 



REGIONAL SYSTEMS 



November, 1972 57 Pages 

23 Figures 



CONTENTS 



BACKGROUND 

Highway Planning Before the Planning Review 
Transit Planning Before the Planning Review 

BASIC PROBLEMS WITH EXPRESSWAYS AND THE PLANNING REVIEW 

The Planning Review and Rethinking Regional Transit Strategy 



REGIONAL SYSTEMS FORMULATION AND TESTING 
Study Design Approaches 
Phase I Systems Approach 
Phase II Systems Modification 

PHASE II SYSTEMS TESTING 

System Effects in Alternative Facility Combinations 

Effects of Alternatives of Local Street Traffic 

Induced Travel from Systems Combinations and Improved Level of Service 

Intermodal Competition 

Relationships Between Parking Policy and Modal Usage 

Systems Testing Conclusions 

AGGREGATE IMPACTS — POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE 

DOWNTOWN BOSTON TRAVEL — THE KEY PROBLEM 

REGIONAL AND CORE PARKING STRATEGY 

REGIONAL TRANSIT POLICY AND SUBREGIONAL IMPLICATIONS 

Toward a New Transit Policy 

Subregional Transit Improvement Programs 

Priorities 

Future Directions 

REGIONAL HIGHWAY STRATEGY 

MANAGEMENT APPROACH 

The Rationales for Traffic Management 

The Need for Infrastructure 

Southwest Expressway Management Strategy 



SOCIAL BENEFIT/COST EVALUATION 



November, 1972 74 Pages 

6 Figures 



CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION 

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK DEVELOPED BY THE BTPR 
The Fifty Criteria 

TRANSPORTATION SERVICE 

Benefits from Induced Trips and Systems Effects 

Types of Trips Benefitted and Distribution by Community 

Accessibility to Employment 

Reduction of Traffic on Major Arterials and Local Streets 

Housing Relocation 

REGIONAL ECONOMICS 

Employment Distribution 
Employment Accessibility 
Goods Movement and Commerce 

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC IMPACT 
Business Displacement 
Special Problems 
Impact on Local Employment 
Tax Impact 

Tax Loss Impact to Date 
Acquisition Cost of Build Alternatives 
Tax Impact of Build Alternatives 
Impact on Existing Retail Centers 
Impacts During the Construction Period 
Private Land Development Opportunities 
Highway Alternatives 
Arterial Alternatives 

GENERAL LANDSCAPE, OPEN SPACE AND HISTORIC RESOURCE IMPACT 

AIR POLLUTION IMPACT ANALYSIS 

NOISE IMPACTS 

COMMUNITY QUALITY 

ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS 

SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

Scope and Purpose of Section 4(f) Review 
Lands Subject to 4(f) Review 
Detailed Descriptions and Impacts 
Indurect 4(f) Impacts 



JOINT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION 

TRANSIT EVALUATION — SERVICE 
Ridership 
Travel Time 
Net Cost 

Schedule Efficiency 
Net Benefit 

Capital Cost and Economic Rate of Return 

Evaluation of Moderate and Maximum Versus Existing Investment 
Mode Split Analysis 
Time Savings 
Summary and Evaluation Results 

TRANSIT EVALUATION 

Effect on Street Traffic 

Flexibility and Adaptability 

Feasibility 

Regional Economic Impact 

Community Economic Impacts 

Community Quality 

Effect on Population Distribution 

Effects on Employment 

Conservation/Recreation 

Air Quality and Noise 

EVALUATION SUMMARY 



CENTRAL ARTERY REPORT 

86 Pages 
November, 1972 

53 Figures 



CONTENTS 



A. CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Background Summary 

Major Transportation Problems and Conditions 
Harbor Crossing Context 

Description of Central Artery Improvement Alternatives 
Summary Evaluation 

B. TRANSPORTATAON IMPLICATIONS 

Effects of Other Regional Transportation Improvements on Central Artery 

C. CORRIDOR CONTEXT AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Corridor Description 

Social and Economic Overview 

Economic Opportunities of a Depressed Central Artery 

Economic Impacts of Central Artery Improvements 

D. JOINT DEVELOPMENT 

Scope and Purpose 

Land Use Planning Context and Objectives 
Alternative A: Viaduct Improvements 
Alternative B: Widen and Depress the Artery 
Planning and Implementation Issues 

E. DETAILED ENGINEERING DESCRIPTIONS 

Scope and Purpose 

Alternative A: Viaduct Improvements 

Alternative B: Widen and Depress ARtery 

Maintenance of Traffic and Staged Constrfuction 

North to South Station Rail Connection 

North Terminal Area Studies 



REGIONAL FRAMEWORK 



October, 1972 



72 Pages 
45 Figures 



CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

A. Goal Formulation — Assumptions and Evaluation 

B. Regional Transportation Service Improvement Approaches — Evaluation 

C. Alternative Land Use Futures: Evaluation 

D. Issues of the Environment 

E. Issues of the Economu 

F. Issues of Equity 



CIRCUMFERENTIAL REPORT 

October, 1972 122 Pages 

40 Figures 

A . INTRODUCTION 

1 . Purpose of the Report 

2. Concept of Transit Circumferential 

3. Organization and Limitations on Scope of Work 

B. SERVICE AREA DEFINITION AND INVENTORY 

1. Service Area Definition and Description 

2. Potential Ridership Demand Categories 

3. Corridor Inventory 

C. TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

1. Initial Range of Technological and Alignment Alternatives Considered 

2. ^Design Constraints 

3. Description and Discussion of Proposed Alternatives 

D . PERSONAL RAPID TRANSIT 

1. Technological Considerations 

2. Engineering and Costing Analysis 

3. Staging Possibilities 

4. Institutional and Funding Ouestions 

E. EVALUATION OF DEMAND FOR CORE DISTRIBUTION 

1. Subarea Analysis of Distribution Demand 

2. Analysis of Alignment Options by Segment 

F. 

NETWORK ANALYSIS AND LONGER TERM PLANNING 

1. Description of Networks 

2 . Network Performance 

3. Network Impacts of Core Distribution Improvement 

4. Regional Distribution of User Benefits 

G. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Summary Conclusions 

2. Elements for Future Work Program 



SOUTHWEST SUMMARY REPORT 



October, 1972 

43 Pages 



19 Figures 



CONTENTS 



1 . INTRODUCTION 

1. Background of the Southwest Expressway 

2. Purpose of the Summary 

2. SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS AND ISSUES 

1. Major Questions and BTPR Findings in the Southwest Corridor 

2. Existing Transportation Problems 

3. TRANSPORTATION CHOICES 

1. Program Packages 

2. Highway and Local Street Choices 

3. Transit Choices 

4. Physical and Institutional Relationships Between Highway/ 
Arterial and Transit Options 

4. SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE EVALUATION 

1. Highway and Local Street Service 

2. Transit Service 

3. Relationships between Highway and Transit 

5. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF I-95S CHOICES 

1. Summary of Impacts 

2. Incidence of Costs and Benefits to Communities 

3. Summary Evaluation of Fowl Meadow Choices 

4. Unavoidable Effects, Remedial Measures and Residual Impacts 



HARBOR CROSSING SUMMARY 



October, 1972 



23 Pages 
22 Figures 



CONTENTS 



FORWARDING LETTER 

FRAMEWORK FOR CHOICE 
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES 

PROGRAM PACKAGE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS 
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM PACKAGES 

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF CORRIDOR AND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES 
PHOTOGRAPHS OF ALIGNMENTS 
SUMMARY CHRONOLOGY 
CONTENTS OF FULL REPORT 



COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

September, 1972 250 Pages 

7 Figures 

CONTENTS 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Chapter 1, Introduction and Summary 

Chapter 2, Organization 

Chapter 3, Ridership 

Chapter 4, Service and Route Characteristics 

(Includes sector maps and charts describing existing services) 
Chapter 5, Service Standards 
Chapter 6, Capital Program 
Chapter 7, Fare Structure 
Chapter 8, Economic and Social Considerations and Evaluation 

Appendix I, Extensions of Service 

Appendix II, Bibliography of the Principal Previous Reports Relating to the 

Commuter Railroad Operations 
Appendix III, Equipment 
Appendix IV, MBTA-B&M and SEPTA-Reading contracts relating to Service Stdiiuards 

Appendix V, Quantifiable System Benefit Analysis 



THIRD HARBOR CROSSING REPORT 

1 Volume 341 Pages 

September, 1972 253 Figures 

CONTENTS 

A. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY EVALUATION 

1. Framework for Choice 

2. Summary Chronology 

3. Problems and Issues 

4. Program Package Transportation Elements 

5. Alternative Program Packages 

6. Transportation Implications of Alternative Program Packages 

7. Legal and Financial Issues of a New Harbor Crossing 

8. Comparative Evaluation of Corridor and Facility Alternatives 

9. Summary of Conflicts with Section 4(f) Lands 

10. Remedial Measures to Minimize Harm and Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

B. DETAILED CORRIDOR AND FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS 

1. Corridor Descriptions 

2 . Social and Economic Overview 

3. Logan Airport 

4. Facility Descriptions 

C. JOINT DEVELOPMENT 

1. Scope and Purpose of Joint Development 

2. East Boston and Logan Airport Joint Development Concepts 

3. South Boston and Central Artery Joint Development Concepts 

4. Joint Development Cost Summary 

5. Joint Development Planning and Implementation Issues 

D. DETAILED IMPACTS AND EVALUATION 

1. Description of Evaluation Criteria and Process 

2. Capital Costs of Constructron 

3 . Transportataon Service 



4. Family Relocation and Replacement Housing 

5. Regional Economic Impacts 

6. Local Economic Impacts 

7. General Landscape, Open Space and Historic Resource Impact 

8. Air Pollution Impacts 

9. Noise Impacts 

10. Community Quality 

11. Ecological Impacts 

E. DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) LANDS AND IMPACTS 

1. Scope and Purpose of Sectaon 4(f) Review 

2. Description of Environmental Inventory Method 

3. East Boston Recreation Area (Stadium) 

F. IMPACTS ON PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION AREAS, AND HISTORIC SITES 

1. Definition of Impacts 

2 . John Cheverus Elementary School Yard 

3. Daniel Webster School Yard 

4. Jeffries Point Park 

5. South Boston Naval Station Recreation Area 

6. West Third Street Playground 

7 . Buckley Playground 

8. Saints Peter and Paul's Church 

9. Summary Alternatives 

G. DETAILED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS AND DESCRIPTIONS 

1. Scope and Purpose of Chapter 

2. Construction Cost Estimation 

3. Engineering Description of Alternative Alignments in South Boston 

4. Engineering Description of Tunnel Alignments in Zone TC3 

5. Engineering Description of Alternative Alignments in East Boston - 
Zones TC4 and TC5 

6. Bridge Crossing for Boston Inner Harbor 

7. Central Artery — Depress and Widen 



-J 



SOUTHWEST REPORT 



1 Volume 631 Pages 

September, 1972 454 Fi 9ures 



CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION 



SUMMARY AND EVALUATION 

1. Introduction 

2. Summary of Problems and Issues 

3. The Transportation Choices 

4. Summary Transportataon Service Evaluation 

5 . Comparative Evaluation of I-95S Choices 

SOUTHWEST CONTEXT 

A. SOUTHWEST TRANSPORTATION CHOICES: AN OVERVIEW 

1. Key Questions 

2. Southwest Transportation Problems 

3. Alternative Improvement Packages 

1. Highway Alternatives 

2. Transit Alternatives 

3 . Interrelationship of Highway and Transit Alternatives 

B. A FRAMEWORK FOR CHOICE 

1. Governor's Policy: Increased Role for Transit to Downtown Boston 

2. Special Legal Protection of Public Parklands — The National 
Environmental Policy act and Section 4 (f ) 

3. Community Impact 

4. Equity: Concept of Program Packages 

5. Institutional Adaptability 

1. Coordination of Highway and Transit Planning Operations 

2. Modification of Transit Service and Assessment Programs 

3. Special Compensatory Programs 

4. Land Development Implementation 

6. Technological Feasibility 

7. Fiscal Resources and Funding Limitations 



8. Evaluation: Service, Futures, Criteria 

1. Alternative Transportation Service Approaches 

2. Transportation and Alternative Shapes of the Future 

3 . Evaluation Criteria 

SOUTHWEST IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT: ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC 
AND TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW 

1. The REgional Environment 

1. Urbanization and Open Space 

2. Environmental Issues 

2 . Southwest Environment 

1. Environmental Assets and Man-Made Problems 

2. Ecological Assets 

3 . Environmental Sensitivity 



3. 


The 


Regional Economy 


4. 


The 


Southwest Subregional Economy 




1. 


Population 




2. 


Housing 




3. 


Income 




4. 


Employment 




5. 


Occupational Structure 



5. Projected Southwest Population, Employment and General Travel Demands 

1. Southwest Corridor Alternative Future Population and Employment 

2. Estimated Travel 

D. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INTERRELATIONSHIPS 

1. Traffic Volumes, Diversions and Patterns 

2. Alternative Futures and Induced Traffic 

3. Modal Interrelationships and Parking Price 

II. 1-95 SOUTH/CENTRAL ARTERY TO ROUTE 128 

A. Major Problems and Choices for 1-95 South 

1. Summary Chronology of the Southwest Expressway Proposal 

2. Highway Travel Problems in the Southwest 

3. Major Issues Relating to 1-95 South 

4. Description of Roadway Alternatives for 1-95 South 

1. Alternative 1: Arterial Street 

2. Alternatives 2A, 2B, 2C: Southwest Expressway 

5. Alignment Options at Fowl Meadow 

6. Western Inner Belt — Boston 

1. Arterial Street Approach 

2. Grade-Separated Expressway Approach 

7. Relationship to Southeast Expressway Improvements 



B. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

1. New Arterial Street — Forest. Hills to Massachusetts Avenue 

2. Expressway Alternatives 

3. Four-Lane Expressway with Rail/Transit in Median (Alternative 2A) 

4. Four-Lane Expressway with Rail/Transit Adjacent (Alternative 2B) 

5. Six-Lane Expressway with Rail Transit in Median 

6. Construction Costs 

III. SOUTHWEST TRANSIT 

A. REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING STRATEGY 

1. Plan Versus Planning 

2. BTPR Policy Review 

3. Toward a New Policy 

1. Institutional 

2. Operational 

3. Developmental 

B. SOUTHWEST TRANSIT: DEFICIENCIES AND ISSUES 

1. Public Transportation Service Today 

1. Surface Bus 

2. Light Rail 

3. Rapid Transit 

4. Commuter Rail 

2. Demand for Public Transportation Service 

3. Problems of Public Transportation Service 

4. Operating Costs and Revenues 

C. TRANSIT TESTING ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 

1. Transit Testing Alternatives and Evaluation 

1. Technologies Tested 

2. Technology and Operations Factors 

2. Transit Packages for Evaluation 

1. Description of Transit Packages 

2. Evaluation of Preliminary Packages 

3. Evaluation of Moderate and Maximum Versus Existing Transit Investment 

1. Alternative Systems 

2. Mode Split Analysis 

3 . Time Savings 

4. Summary and Evaluation Results 

D. TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS 

1. Transit Programs 

2. The Penn Central Mainline Corridor 



3 . The Replacement Corridor Options 

4. The Circumferential Corridor 

5. Transit Engineering Descriptions and Construction Sequences 
E. SPECIAL MOBILITY AND COVERAGE TRANSIT 

1. Analysis of Service Needs 

2. Solutions for Special Mobility and Service Coverage Problems 

IV. SOUTHWEST PROGRAM PACKAGES/ SUMMARY AND EVALUATION 

A. PHYSICAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT DECISIONS 

1. Context of the Program Packages 

2. Physical Relationship of Rail and Transit Service to Program Packages 

B. LAND USE AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT 

1. Introduction 

2 . Land Use Context 

3. Land Use Options and Local Priorities 

4. Land Development Opportunities with the Arterial Street Option 

5. Joint Development Opportunities with the Highway Option 

6. Legal/Administrative Issues Related to Joint Development Associated 
With Both Expressway and Arterial Options 

C. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

1. Capital Costs of Construction 

2. Transportation Service 

3. Family Relocation and Replacement Housing 

4. Regional Economics 

5. Community Economic Impact 

6. General Landscape, Open Space and Historic Resource Impact 

7. Air Pollution Impact Analysis 

8. Noise Impacts 

9. Community Quality 
10. Ecological Impacts 

V. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ON PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND HISTORIC SITES 
A. INTRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY 

1. Introduction 

2. Description of Environmental _nventory Method 

3. Description of Environmental Zones 



DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) LANDS AND IMPACTS INVOLVING DIRECT PROPERTY TAKING 

1. Scope and Purpose of the Section 4(f) Review 

2. Lands Subject to 4(f) Review 

3. Detailed Descriptions and Impacts 

DESCRIPTION OF OTHER IMPACTED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND HISTORIC SITES 

1. Definition of Impacts 

2. Identification of Sites Impacted 

3. Detailed Descriptions and Impacts 



SUMMARY REPORT 
1-95 RELOCATED AND REVERE BEACH CONNECTOR 

August, 1972 32 pages 

14 Figures 

CONTENTS 

Summary of Problems and Issues 

Summary Description of Alternative Program Packages 

Comparative Evaluation of Corridor and Facility Alternatives 

Impact Summary by Alternative 

Incidence of Costs and Benefits 

Anticipated Short- and Long-Term Effects 

Composite Table of Contents 



NORTH SHORE REPORT 

2 Volumes 700 Pages 

July, 1972 500 Figures 

CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION 

I. NORTH SHORE CONTEXT 

A. NORTH SHORE TRANSPORTATION CHOICES 

1. Key Questions 

2. North Shore Transportation Problems 

3 . Alternative Improvement Programs 

1. Alternative I — No Expressway 

2. Alternative II — I-95/Route 1 Alignment 

3. Alternative III — I-95/Lynn Woods Alignment 

4. Transportation System Interrelationships 

1. Highway Facility Interrelationship 

2. Transit-Highway Interrelationship 

B. A FRAMEWORK FOR CHOICE 

1. Governor's Policy: Increased Role for Transit to Downtown Boston 

2. Special Legal Protection of Public Parklands 

3. Community Impact 

4. Equity: Concept of Program Packages 

5. Institutional Adaptability 

1. Coordination of Highway and Transit Planning Operations 

2. Modification of Transit Service and Assessment Programs 

3. Special Compensatory Programs 

4. Land Development Implementation 

6. Technological Feasibility 

7. Fiscal Resources and Funding Limitations 

8. Evaluation: Service, Futures, Criteria 

1. Alternative Transportation Service Approaches 

2. Transportation and Alternative Shapes of the Future 

3. Evaluation Criteria 

C. NORTH SHORE IN A REGIONAL CONTEXT 

1 . The Regional Environment 

1. Urbanization and Open Space 

2. Environmental Issues 



2 . North Shore Environment 

1. Environmental Assets 

2. Ecological Assets 

3. Environmental Sensitivity 

3. The Regional Economy 

4 . The North Shore Economy 

1. Population and Housing 

2 . Income 

3. Employment and Industry 

4. Retail Sales 

5. Projected North Shore Population, Employment and Travel Demands 

1. North Shore Alternative Future Population and Employment 

2 . Estimated Travel 

II. 1-95 NORTH/REVERE TO PEABODY 

A. MAJOR PROBLEMS AND CHOICES FOR 1-95 NORTH 

1. The Problem of North-South Travel 

2. Major Issues Relating to 1-95 North 

3. Description of Program Packages for 1-95 North Decision 

1. Alternative 1A 

2 . Alternative IB 

3. Alternative 2 

4. Alternative 3 

5 . Alternative 4 

4 . Corridor Descriptions 

1 . The Route 1 Corridor 

2 . The Lynn Woods Corridor 

B. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

1. Route 1 Corridor Rebuild (Alternative 1A) 

2. Route 1 Corridor Rebuild (Alternative IB) 

3. Route 1 Corridor ByPass (Alternative 2) 

4. Lynn Woods Corridor (Alternative 3) 

5. Route 1 Upgrade (Alternative 4) 

6. Construction Cost Estimates 

C. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

1. Capital Costs of Construction 

2. Transportation Service 

3. Housing Relocation 

4. Regional Economics 

5 . Community Economic Impact 



6. General Landscape, Open Space and Historic Resource Impact 

7. Air Pollution Impact Analysis. 

8. Noise Impact 

9. Community Quality 
10. Ecological Impacts 

D. JOINT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

1. Joint Development — Lynn Woods Corridor 
1. Specific Joint Development Opportunities 

2 . Joint Development — Route 1 Corridor 

1. Joint Development Objectives 

2 . Improvement of Environmental Quality 

3. Specific Joint Development Opportunities 

3. Joint Development Planning and Implementation 
1. Public and Private Participation 

E. EVALUATION SUMMARY 

1. Summary of Alternatives Considered and Their Impacts 

2. Comparative Evaluation of Cirrodir and Facility Descriptions 

1. Should 1-95 North Be Build? 

2. What are the Relative Advantages of the Lynn Woods 
and Route 1 Corridors? 

3. How do the Alternatives Within the Route 1 Corridor 
Compare with One Another? 

3. Incidence of Costs and Benefits 

4. Unavoidable Effects, Remedial Measures, and Residual Impacts 

F. DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) LANDS 

1. Description of Environmental Inventory Method 

2. Discussion of Impacts by Environmental Zone 

3. Route 1 Corridor Inventory 

4. Lynn Woods Corridor 

G. LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 

1. Acquisition of Land Under Article 39 

2. Alternate Basis of Land Acquisition 

3. Statutory Authority of the Department of Public Works to Acquire 
Land and Other Property for Highway and Related Uses 

4. Statutory Authority of the Department of Public Works to Dispose 
of Land Not Needed for Highway Purposes 

5. Potential Availability of Public Funds for a Land Cost Write Down 

6. Site Development Costs 

7. Construction of Buildings 



8. Special Highway Design Features 

9. Possible Additional Compensatory Programs 
10. Implementation Issues: Next Steps 

III. TRANSIT IN THE NORTH SHORE 

A. REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING STRATEGY 

1. Plan Versus Planning 

2. BTPR Policy Review 

3. Toward a New Policy 

1. Institutional 

2 . Operational 

3. Developmental 

B. NORTH SHORE TRANSIT: DEFICIENCIES AND ISSUES 

1. Corridor Description 

2 . Public Transportation Service Today 

1. Commuter Railroad Service 

2. Rapid Transit Service 

3. Bus Transit Service 

3. Demand for Public Transportation Service 

4. Problems of Public Transportation Service 

C. TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 

1. Screening the Alternatives 

2. Alternatives for Evaluation 

1. Upgraded Blue Line Rapid Transit 

2 . Upgraded Commuter Rail 

3. Dual-Power Vehicle 

4. Express Bus Service in the Route 1/1-95 

3. Local Bus Service Improvements 

1. New and Improved Bus Routes and Schedules 

2. Fares 

3 . Other Improvements 

3. Alternatives for Further Investigation 

D. EVALUATION OF TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 

1. Patronage, Revenue and Cost Estimates 

2 . Travel Time 

3. Beneficiaries of Improvements and Significance of Linkage Improvements 

4. Effect on Street Traffic 

5. Flexibility and Adaptability 

6. Feasibility 

7 . Transport Costs and Benefits 



8. Regional Economic Impact 

9 . Community Economic Impact 

10. Displacement 

11. Community Quality 

12 . Conservation/Recreation 

13 . Air Quality and Noise 

14. Ecological Impacts 

15. The Impact of Alternative Futures on Transit 
E. SUMMARY OF TRANSIT FINDINGS 

1. Institutional Changes 

2 . Operational Improvements 

3. Contingent Issues 

4. Summary of Transit Alternative Evaluation 

5. Evaluation Considerations 

IV. 1-95 RELOCATED: EAST BOSTON TO REVERE 
A. SUMMARY EVALUATION 

1. Summary of Problems and Issues 

1. Summary Chronology of 1-95 Relocated and Revere Beach 
Connector Proposals 

2. Major Transportation Problems and Conditions in Revere 
and Chelsea 

3. Major Issues Relating to 1-95 and the Revere Beach Connector 

2. Summary Description of Alternative Program Packages 

1. Location and Major Features of Alternative Corridors 

2. Transit Components of the Alternative Program Packages 

3. Highway Components of the Alternative Program Pakcages 

4. Transportation Implications of Alternative Program Packages 

3. Comparative Evaluation of Corridor and Facility 

1. Should 1-95 Relocated and the Revere Beach Connector be Built? 

2 . What are the Relative Advantages of the Alternative Facilities 
and Corridors? 

4. Incidence of Costs and Benefits 
1. Community Costs and Benefits 

5. Anticipated Short-term and Long-term Effects 

6. Summary of Conflicts with Section 4(f) Lands 

7 . Remedial Measures to Minimize Harm 

8. Unavoidable Adverse Effects and Irreversible Commitments of Resources 



COMMUNITY AND CORRIDOR DESCRIPTIONS 

1. Environmental, Social, Economic, and Transportation Overview 

1. Location and Transportation 

2. Environmental Context 

3. Major Environmental Assets 

4. Social and Economic Context 

5 . Transportation Context 

2. Detailed Corridor Descriptions 

1. Corridor A: Saugus Marsh/Revere Beach Connector 

2. Corridor B: Boston & Maine Right-of-Way From Oak Island 
Park to East Boston Line 

3. Corridor C: Mill Creek/Revere Beach Parkway 

4. Corridor D: Northeast Expressway 

5. Corridor E: MBTA Blue Line 

DETAILED ENGINEERING DESCRIPTIONS 

1 . Introduction 

2. Alternative 1 

1. Typical Sections 

2. Route Description 

3. Construction Sequence and Maintenance of Traffic 

4. Major Utilities 

5. Subsurface Conditions 

3. Alterantive 2 

1. Typical Sections 

2. Route Description 

3. Construction Sequencing and Maintenance of Traffic, 
Major Utilities, and Subsurface Conditions 

4. Alternative 3 

1. Typical Sections 

2. Route Description 

3. Construction Sequencing and Maintenace of Traffic, 
Major Utilities, and Subsurface Conditions 

5. Alternative 4 

1. Typical Sections 

2. Route Description 

3. Construction Sequence and Maintenance of Traffic 

4. Major Utilities 

5. Subsurface Conditions 

6. Alternative 5 

1. Route Description 

2 . Construction Sequence and Maintenance of Traffic 

3. Major Utilities and Subsurface Condition- 

7. Alternative 6 

1. Route Description 



D. JOINT DEVELOPMENT 

1. Scope and Purpose of Joint Development 

1. Joint Development and the Principle of Equity 

2. Joint Development and Section 4(f) Review Issues 

3. Joint Development in Revere and Chelsea 

2. Property Acquisition and Displacement 

3. Saugus Marsh (Corridor A) 

4. Boston & Maine Right-of-Way (Corridor B) 

5. Mill Creek (Corridor C) 

6. Northeast Expressway (Corridor D) 

7. MBTA Blue Line (Corridor E) 

8. Joint Development Planning and Implementation Issues 

1. Public and Private Participation in Joint Development Planning 
and Implementation 

2. Recent State Legislation 

E. DETAILED IMPACTS AND EVALUATION 

1. Description of Evaluation Criteria and Process 

2. Capital Costs of Construction 

3. Transportation Service 

1. Benefits from Fixed Travel Patterns 

2. Benefits from Induced Trips and Systems Effects 

3. Safety 

4. Rate of Return 

5. Types of Trips Benefited, and Distribution by Community 

6. Reduction of Traffic on Major Arterials and Local Streets 

7 . Summary 

4. Housing Relocation 

5. Regional Economic Impacts 

1. Effect on Employment Accessibility (Economic Opportunity) 

2. Effect on Population Accessibility 

3. Effect on Existing Businesses 

6. Community Economic Impacts 

1. Business Displacement 

2. Impact on Local Employment/Payrolls 

3. Land Value, Tax Base and Land Use Impacts 

4. Impact During Construction Period 

5. Private Development Opportunities 

6. Impact of Transit Improvements 

7. Summary of Community Economic Impacts 

7. General Landscape, Open Space and Historic Resource Impact 

1. Present Transportation-Associated Impacts 

2. Physical Alteration 

3. Nonconformity with Existing Environment 

4. Physical Separation 

5. Disruption of Access 



6. Disruption of the Ambient Environment 

7. Access-Induced Development 

8 . Summary Impact Charts 

8. Air Pollution Impact Analysis 

1. Air Quality Standards 

2. Impact of Carbon Monoxide 

3. Impact of Nitrogen Dioxide 

4. Impact of Hydrocarbons 

5. Summary of Facility Impacts 

9. Noise Impacts 

1. Impact Measurement 

2. Summary of Major Findings 

3. Critical Receptors 

4. Potential Noise Minimization Devices 

10. Community Quality 

1. Impact on Community Facilities 

2. Relief from Local Automobile and Truck Traffic 

3. Visual and Aesthetic Impacts 

4. Neighborhood Cohesion 

11. Ecological Impacts 

1. Combined Impacts to Salt Marsh, Plants, Wildlife 

2. Impacts to Wetlands and Floodplains 

3 . Impacts to Water Quality 

4. Minimization of Ecological Impacts through Collection 
and Dispersion of Runoff Waters 

DESCRIPTION OF 4(f) LANDS AND IMPACTS 

1. Scope and Purpose of the Section 4(f) Review 

2. Description of the Environmental Inventory Method 

3. 4(f) Conflicts in Environmental Zone 16 

4. Pines River Detention Basin 

5. Douglas and Bates Streets Playground 

6 . Arcadia Street Playground 

7. Sullivan Playground 

8 . Paul Revere Park and Playground 

9 . Revere Beach Parkway/Cronin Rink 

10. Slade Spice Mill 

11. Clinton Street Recreation Area 

12. Summary of Section 4(f) Issues by Alternative 



GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY 



22 Pages 
1 Figure 



CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 

BACKGROUND DATA 

THE RANGE OF TRUCKING PROBLEMS 

Congestion 

Noise and Pollution 

Safety 

Land Use and Tax Base 
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 

Design Considerations 

Trends 
RANGE OF SOLUTIONS 

Parking Regulations and Enforcement 

Traffic Operations Improvements 

Truck Routes, Truck Roads and Special Truck Lanes 

Transit 

Distribution Schedules 

Distribution Facilities 
ROLE OF BTPR 

Remaining Work Program 

Subsequent Reporting 



A REVIEW OF RECOMMENDED HIGH SPEED GROUND AND 
AIR TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS 



May, 1972 10 Pages 

CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

RECOMMENDED GROUND TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS 

Air Travel 

Ground Access: Airport 

Ground Access: Rail 

Comparative Travel Times, MOdal Choice and Total Travel 
BTPR ISSUES 



MOBILITY PROBLEMS OF ELDERLY CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS: SUMMARY 



27 Pages 
5 Figures 



CONTENTS 



Background to Study 

I. Summary of Findings 

II. Comparison of Elderly Population in 

Cambridge to Elderly Respondents 

III. Trip-Making Characteristics of Elderly 

Respondents 

IV. City-Wide Transportation Problems 

V. Transportation Issues in West and 

North Cambridge 

VI. Transportation Issues in East Cambridge, 

Donnelly Field, Central 4, and Mid Cambridge 

VII. Transportation Issues in Cambridgeport and 

Riverside 

VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations for Action 

IX. Appendices 

I. Discussion Guide 

II. Meeting Report Form 

III. Questionnaire 



SEFACFILE TITLE AUTHOR DATE 

32 COMMUNITY LIAISON L TECH ASSIST 

02 11 BOO MATCH PARTICIPATION IN R5STJ0Y SLOAN 09/27/71 

02 11 BOO COORDINATING HARVARD MED SLOAN 11/01/71 

02 36 B23 CAM3R IDGE/SO.MERVILLE TRUCK PROBLEM OSDDBY 05/22/12 

02 3b Bll CAM3RIDGE/S0MERVILLE TRUCK PROGRAM OSDOBY 06/08/72 

02 50 BOO FURTHER DEV^L OF SW CORRIDOR TRANSIT OPTION SE2 STAFF 09/3C/72 

02 11 BOO »U3 HEARING TEST AND RESPON SE2 STAFF 11/16/72 
0-3 DESIGN & EVALUATION CRITERIA 

03 11 BOO EVALUATION CRITERIA LOCK WOOD 07/0C/71 
'03 11 BOO TRANSPORTATION CRISIS 1972^ BTPR STAFF 06/00/72 

04 39 BOO WORK PROGRAM ALEWIFE LANE 01/07/71 
04 25 B20 SW EXTENSTION W/0 HWY COST OF CONSTRUCTION WILLIAMS 03/16/71 
04 13 BOO NO SHORE TRANSP SYS DES TEAM 07/29/71 
04 13 b21 PRELIM EXAM OF ALT ALIGN FOR 1-95 N SYS DES CON 08/19/71 
04 11 310 TRANSIT PARTICIPANT IN CORE TEAM COJGAN 08/30/71 
04 11 BOO PUB TRANS SERV IN INNER CITY 09/00/71 
04 13 B24 A NEW BEV SALEM BRIDGE ZELLNER 09/02/71 
04 11 310 BOSTON TRANSIT STUDIES CEEN 09/14/71 
04 26 BIO DISCUSSION OF SW TRANSIT WORK PROGRAM 3T°R 09/15/71 
04 14 BOO NORTH SHORE ARTERIAL STUDY HANSEN 09/17/71 
04 14 300 NORTH SHORE ARTERIAL STUDY HANSEN 09/17/71 
04 13 B24 WORK PROGRAM BEV SALEM BRIDGE PHASE II NO SHORE TEAM 09/23/71 
04 34 B12 EVAL AND POTENTIAL USE OF EXISTING RAIL ROW CUNLIFFE 09/28/71 
04 25 BIO BTPR SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR CUNLIFFE 09/29/71 
04 25 B20 SE HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVES SOUTHWEST TEAM 10/06/71 
04 25 B20 SOUTHWEST HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVES SOUTHwEST TEAM 10/06/71 
04 36 B23 GOODS MOVEMEMNT STUDY BREVARD 10/C7/71 
04 25 BOO HYDE PARK REPORT KELLEY 10/12/71 
04 11 BIO TRANSIT TASK FORCE WORK PROGRAM FEHR 10/12/71 
04 16 B20 FREE HARBOR CROSSING HANSEN 10/18/71 
04 13 BIO NORTH SHORE TRANSIT ALT PROGRAM NS TEAM 10/20/71 
04 13 BIO EARLY ACTION PRGM FOR TRANSIT IMPROVE NS NS STUDY TEAM 10/20/71 
04 13 B2C NORTH SHORE TOPICS MILLER 10/20/71 
04 36 B23 TRUCK TRAVEL WORK PROGRAM KIDSTON 10/20/71 
04 11 BIO NORTH SHORE ALT PARKING TRANSIT 3USWAY HANSEN 10/26/71 
04 34 B12 3&M LINES FIELD RECONNAISSANCE TRIP ROUDEBUSH 10/26/71 
04 11 BOO PRELIM PHASE I ALTERNATIVES BTPR STAFF 10/28/71 
04 13 321 ROUTE 1-95 ALTERNATIVES NO SHORE CORRIDOR HANSEN 11/00/71 
04 17 B21 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT FOR 1-93 LEVINSON 11/00/71 
04 11 310 PROTOTYPICAL TRNSIT STUDIES FEHR 11/02/71 
04 11 B20 MASTER PARKING STRATEGY FOR BOSTON PROP HANSEN 11/02/71 
04 11 BOO OPTIONS FOR PUB TRANS SERV IN INNER CITY Sw TEAM 11/04/71 
04 36 B23 GOODS MOVEMENT LACROSS 11/04/71 
04 39 Bll ALEWIFE EXT TUNNELING GERSHOWITZ 11/05/71 

.04 13 BOO STUDY FOR LYNN HANSEN 11/09/71 

04 16 B1.5 AIRPORT TRAFFIC VERSUS TUNNEL TRAFFIC MILLER 11/09/71 

.0-4 36 B23 GOODS MOVEMENT HANSEN 11/09/71 

04 30 300 ORANGE LINE LOCKWOOD 11/10/71 

04 11 BIO BRITISH TRANSIT SYSTEM PLANNING ZELLNER 11/10/71 

04 30 Bll NEW ORANGE LINE WITH OR WITHOUT HIGHWAY COST LOCKWOOD 11/10/71 

04 13 B21 ROUTE 1-95 ALTERNATIVES EXTRA TOPOGRAPHY HANSEN 11/15/71 

04 34 B12 COMMUTER RAIL MEETING^ WARSHER 11/16/71 

04 11 BIO TRANSIT SUGGESTIONS MILLER 11/17/71 

04 34 B12 COMMUTER RAILROAD^ KILLINGER 11/17/71 

04 11 B20 TOPICS PROGRAM HANSEN 11/17/71 

04 34 B12 COMMUTER RAIL ISSUES^ KILLINGER 11/19/71 

04 11 320 TOPICS HANSEN 11/21/71 

04 60 BOT COST BENEFIT ANAL OF CAM3RIDGE INNER BELT ZELLNER 11/22/71 

04 11 BIO PROTOTYPICAL T RNSIT STUDIES KIDSTON 11/29/71 



SE FAC FILE TITLE 

04 11 Bll PROTOTYPICAL TRANSIT STUDY 

04 16 Bll TUNNEL COSTS 
.04 25 Bll SOUTHWEST TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 

04 34 B12 PENN CENTRAL R IGHTS-OF-WAY y/ 

04 39 Bll RED LINE FROM HARV TO ALEWIFE 

04 25 BOO SW CORRIDOR 

04 11 B1C WASHINGTON STREET EL REHABILITATION 

P.4 25 RIO 3TPR SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR 

04 11 BIO POSSIBLE TRANSIT SITES ALONG ROUTE 128 
*04 11 B1C CBD ACCESSIBILITY STUDIES 

04 11 BIO WASHINGTON STREET EL REHAB WORK PROGRAM 

04 13 B21 CONTR FOR B-S BRIDGE TO INCLUDE ALT CONN 

04 25 B21 IMPROVE TO 128 £ ALT ALIGN TO 1-95 IN RTE 1 

04 13 B21 IMPROVEMENTS TO 129 AND ALT ALIGN FOR 1-95 

04 36 B23 MAJOR TRUCK ROUTE LOCATION BY TOWN 

04 11 B>" OPE FOR DEV OF ALT ALIGN FOR 1-95 IN RTE 1 

04 28 BIO HIGH SPEED GROUND MIDLANDS VS MAINLINE 

04 11 B1C PRELIM FINDINGS ON TRANSIT 

04 13 B20 NO/SO VEHICULR ROUTES THRU REVE ALT ALIGN 

04 36 B23 GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY 

04 11 Bin TENTATIVE TRNSIT STUDY WORK 

04 11 BlO PROPOSED MBTA WORK PROGRAM FOR NS ANAL 

04 10 BOO PROP MBTA WORK PRGM OPER ANA OF NO SHORE 

04 13 Bll MBTA WORK PROGRAM !=0R NORTH SHORE ANAL 

04 11 BIO PTS SUMMARY AND FINDINGS 

04 39 Bll ENGR WORK ON HARVARD ALEWIFE TUNNEL 

04 11 B2C PARKING STUDY 

■04 13 321 PHASE II NORTH SHORE 

04 27 B20 SE/MASSPIKE/SJ STA RAMP PROBLEM 

04 14 B21 COST OF REHABIL OF RTE 1 CORRIDOR 
"04 34 B12 SUPPORT PERSONNEL FOR RAIL PLANNING 

04 34 B12 SUMM OF PENN CENTRAL WEEKDAY OPER STAT 

04 34 B12 COMMUTER RAILv/ 

04 34 B12 PRELIM APP FOR ADV LAND ACQUISITION LOAN 

04 11 B20 PARKING STUDY 

04 34 B12 COMMUTER RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY PURCHASE OPER"^ 

04 34 B12 COMMUTER RAIL SYS WORK PROGRAM 

04 34 B12 MANPOWER RESOURCES OF PRIVATE COMPANIES 

04 34 B12 COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM ACTION PLAN 

04 27 822 WESTERN INNER BELT 

04 34 B12 COMMUTER RAIL SYS ACTION PLAN*/ 

04 36 B23 GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY 

04 25 B21 DESIGN WORK ON I-93/I-95 CONNECTOR ROUTE 

04 25 BOO SW CORRIDOR 

04 36 BIO BEDFORD BRANCH TRANSIT EXTENSION 

04 11 BHC PHASE II ENGINEERING WORK 

04 11 B2-0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND ENGR IMPROVEMENT 

,04 26 324 PROGRAMS FOR SE EXPRESSWAY 

04 26 B24 SE EXP FEASIBILITY STUDY 
"04 11 B20 PARKING VIOLATIONS/STREET CAPACITY 
-04 16 B21 THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 

04 13 BIO TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES NORTH SHORE 

04 11 BIO PTS SUMMARY AND FINDINGS 

04 16 B21 THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 

04 11 Bll PROTOTYPICAL TRANSIT STUDIES 

04 11 BIO PROPOSED INNOVATIVE TRANSIT WORK PROGRAM 

04 26 B24 SOUTHEAST EXP WIDENING STUDY 

04 27 B22 WESTERN INNER BELT 

04 39 Bll REDLINE EXTENSION FROM HARV TO ALEWIFE 

04 34 B12 COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

04 10 311 NOR T H SHORE TRANSIT WORK PROGRAM PRIORITIES 



AUTHOR 

KIDSTON 

BENSON 

MILLER 

HANSEN 

KIDSTON 

PIERCE 

BENSON 

CUNLIFFE 

CLAPP 

FEHR 

BENSON 

HANSEN 

HANSEN 

HANSEN 

BRAY 

HANSEN 

HANSEN 

DEE.M 

HANSEN 

LACROSS 

HANSEN 

TRUST 

TRUST 

TRUST 

FEHR 

CAMBRIDGE ADV 

LEVINSON 

HANSEN 

LOCKWOOD 

MALONE 

WARSHER 

WARSHER 

WARSHER 

ZELLNER 

LEVINSON 

WARSHER 

WARSHER 

WARSHER 

WARSHER 

SZILASSY 

WARSHER 

BRAY 

HANSEN 

CUNLIFFE 

GRAHAM 

VOLPE 

HANSEN 

HANSEN 

BENSON 

LACROSS 

HOPKINSON 

FEHR 

KINDSTON 

HANSEN 

KIDSTON 

LOWSON 

BENSON 

SZILASSY 

KIDSTON 

ZELLNER 

NO SHORE TEAM 



DATE 

11/29/71 
11/29/71 
11/30/71 
11/30/71 
12/00/71 
12/04/71 
12/06/71 
12/09/71 
12/10/71 
12/10/71 
12/14/71 
12/15/71 
12/15/71 
12/15/71 
12/15/71 
12/16/71 
12/20/71 
12/21/71 
12/21/71 
12/28/71 
01/06/72 
01/06/72 
01/06/72 
01/13/72 
01/14/72 
01/14/72 
01/17/72 
01/18/72 
Cl/19/72 
01/20/72 
01/21/72 
01/24/72 
01/25/72 
01/25/72 
01/26/72 
01/27/72 
01/31/72 
01/31/72 
02/01/72 
02/01/72 
02/02/72 
02/02/72 
02/03/72 
02/09/72 
02/11/72 
02/11/72 
02/14/72 
02/14/72 
02/14/72 
02/15/72 
02/15/72 
02/17/72 
02/18/72 
02/18/72 
02/18/72 
02/22/72 
02/28/72 
02/29/72 
03/00/72 
03/00/72 
03/00/72 



SE FAC FILE TITLE 

34 B12 COMMUTER RAIL OPERATIONS 

27 B22 WESTERN INNER BELT 

26 BlO SOUTHWEST TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 
34 B12 STEPS IN PENN CENTRAL LOAN APP COMPLETION 
14 B24 ROUTE 1 ENGINEERING STUOY RECORD 
11 BIO RAPID TRANSIT OPERATING COST COMPARISONS 
11 BIO PTS INTEREST RATE ASSUMPTIONS 
16 B21 ENGR FEAS STUOY OF THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 
14 B24 COST OF REHABILITATION OF RTE 1 "CORRIDOR 
25 Bll MBTA WORK PROGRAM FOR SW CORR ANAL 
34 B12 SERV AND OPER ASSUMP FOR COMMUTER RAIL 
13 Bll 1-95 THROUGH LYNN ROAD ALIGNMENTS 
13 B21 1-95 THROUGH LYNN ROAD ALIGNMENTS 
36 B23 GOODS MOVEMENT IN EAST CAMBRIDGE 

27 B22 WFSTERN INNER BELT 

11 BIO TRANSIT ALT LINE HAUL AND COMMUTER RAIL 

13 B21 TRAFF LEVELS ON RTE 1 L 1-95 THRU LYNN WOODS 

25 B21 STATUS OF WORK ON 1-95 SOUTH 

25 B21 1-95 SOUTH FOW MEADOW 

36 823 GOODS MOVEMENT/E AST CAMBRIDGE 

6C B14 NEW MBTA BUS ROUTE 

16 B21 THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL LAND USE ACCESS REQUIRE 

13 BIO NORTH SHORE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 

13 Bll LINE HAUL TRANSIT ANAL NORTH SHORE 

10 Bll NORTH SHORE LINE TABLE TRANS ANAL 
13 BIO NORTH SHORE TRANSIT CAPITAL COSTS 
25 B21 FOW MEADOW HIGHWAY ALT UNDER CONSIDERATION 
25 B22 SOUTHWEST EXPRESSWAY NO BUILD OPTION 
16 B21 THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL 
16 B21 THIRD HARBOR CROSSING WORK PROGRAM 

11 B15 CBD ACCESSIBILITY SUMMARY 
13 B21 1-95 COMPLETION ALTERNATIVES 
13 B21 TRAFFIC ESTIMATES FOR LYNN WOODS ALIGNMENT 

10 B22 LYNN/GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ACCESS 

11 B15 BTPR TRANSIT STRATEGY 
33 B15 RATIONALE FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL 
50 BOO COST BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS OF SW CORR ALT 
11 Bll PENN CENTRAL OPERATING COST DATA 
60 Bll ORANGE LINE CAPACITIES 
11 B21 AUTOMOTED GUIDEWAY APPLICA IN SO BOSTON 

10 B14 NORTH SHORE EXPRESS BUS OPERATING COST 

11 B20 CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING AND RATE REGULA 

10 B2C SPECIAL PURPOSE LANES - NORTH SHORE 

39 B20 HARVARD ALEWIFE TUNNELLING 
50 B55 HWY ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSID AT FOWL MEADOW 

40 Bll GREEN LINE CAPACITY 

11 B1Q GENERAL CHARACTERIS OF ALT TRANSIT MODES 
11 BIO DOUBLE DECKER BUSES 

39 B24 MBTA HARV ALEWIFE PRELIM TUNNEL STUDY 

60 BOO NW CORRIDOR TRANSIT EVALUATION 

60 Bll NW CORRIDOR TRANSIT EVALUATION 

11 B02 INTERSTATE TRADEOFF 

50 Bll SW RAPID TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY ASSUMP 

33 B15 TRANSIT CIRCUMFERENTIAL PRODUCT 

50 Bll PROSPECTUS FOR TRANSIT PLAN IN SOMERVILLE 

50 B15 CIROUMFER TRANSIT IN SOMERVILLE 

41 BC5 COMMUTER RAIL, RAPID TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME 
41 B05 EXPRESS BUS AND COMMUTER RAIL 
41 B12 EXPRESS BUS/COMMUTER RAIL 
60 B1C MBTA WORK PROGRAM NW CORRIDOR 
11 BIO TRANSIT DEMAND DATA 



AUTHOR 

BAILEY 
SZILASSY 
KIDSTON 
ZELLNER 

JOHANSON 

KIDSTON 

KIDSTON 

MAZZA 

MALONE 

TRUST 

KIDSTON 

WILLIAMSO 

WILLIAMS 

NORTHWEST TEAM 

SZILASSY 

PEERS 

LANE 

SOUTHWEST TEAM 

SOUTHWEST TEAM 

HOPKINSON 

MILLER 

MARTIN 

MCBRAYER 

FEHR 

FEHR 

MCBRAYER 

KILLINGER 

WOFFORD 

MAZZA 

BTPR STAFF 

COOGAN 

MARTIN 

HANSEN 

BLUMENTHAL 

COOGAN 

MILLER 

ZELLNER 

ZELLNER 

KIDSTON 

COOGAN 

MCBRAYER 

MCBRAYER 

NO SHORE TEAM 

SVDRUP/PARCEL 

SW TEAM 

KIDSTON 

BTPR STAFF 

ZELLNER 

SV PARCEL 

KIDSTON 

KIDSTON 

COOGAN 

BREVARD 

MILLER 

HOPKINSON 

MILLER 

KIDSTON 

KIDSTON 

KIDSTON 

TRUST 

KIDSTON 



DATE 

03/01/72 
03/01/72 
03/02/72 
03/02/72 
03/06/72 
03/07/72 
03/08/72 
03/08/72 
03/09/72 
03/13/72 
03/13/72 
03/14/72 
03/14/72 
03/16/72 
03/17/72 
03/20/72 
03/21/72 
03/22/72 
03/22/72 
03/22/72 
03/24/72 
03/2^/72 
03/28/72 
03/28/72 
03/28/72 
03/29/72 
03/29/72 
03/29/72 
03/30/72 
03/30/72 
04/04/72 
04/12/72 
04/14/72 
04/18/72 
04/24/72 
04/24/72 
04/25/72 
04/27/72 
04/27/72 
05/00/72 
05/00/72 
05/00/72 
05/00/72 
05/00/72 
05/00/72 
05/00/72 
05/00/72 
05/01/72 
05/02/72 
05/05/72 
05/05/72 
05/09/72 
05/10/72 
05/11/72 
05/15/72 
05/17/72 
05/18/72 
05/18/72 
05/18/72 
05/18/72 
05/22/72 



SE FAC FILE 


04 


11 


B15 


04 


11 


Bll 


04 


60 


BOO 


04 


50 


BOC 


04 


60 


Bll 


04 


41 


B12 


0'4 


11 


B21 


"04 


60 


Bll 


34 


11 


BIO 


04 


41 


B12 


"04 


39 


Bll 


04 


40 


Bll 


04 


11 


BIO 


04 


39 


872 


04 


10 


B23 


Q4 


50 


Bll 


04 


34 


811 


04 


11 


310 


04 


39 


Bll 


04 


11 


B15 


04 


11 


B21 


04 


39 


Bll 


04 


11 


B15 


04 


41 


B12 


04 


50 


Bll 


04 


11 


BCC 


04 


25 


B21 


04 


36 


B23 


04 


36 


B23 


04 


50 


311 


04 


16 


B21 


04 


10 


BIO 


04 


50 


8 00 


04 


39 


Bll 


04 


60 


Bll 


04 


16 


B15 


04 


5C 


BOC 


04 


36 


823 


04 


36 


B23 


04 


33 


B15 


04 


50 


Bll 


04 


22 


815 


04 


50 


BOO 


04 


11 


B02 


04 


50 


Bll 


04 


50 


Bll 


04 


50 


BOO 


04 


50 


Bll 


.04 


10 


BOO 


.04 


50 


Bll 


04 


11 


BIO 


04 


11 


Bll 


04 


16 


B15 


04 


10 


Bll 


04 


39 


Bll 


04 


10 


B14 


04 


60 


Bll 


04 


11 


BOO 


04 


11 


B15 


04 


13 


B24 


04 


11 


BOO 



TITLE 

TRANSIT CIRCUMFERENTIAL TECH MEETING 

SUB MODAL ASSIGNMENTS 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FOR NORTHWEST 

SW FEASIBILITY STUDY TRANSIT PACKAGE 

SW FEASIBILITY STUDY TRANSIT PACKAGES 

TRANSPORTATION CRISIS 

SUMMARY EVAL OF 1-95 ALIGNMENTS 

SW TRANSIT ORANGE LINE EXT TO RTE 128 

TOPICS RELATIVE TO TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT 

CRIP-CRAP 

ALEWIFE STATION LOCATION 

PRELIM DESCRIPTION OF GREEN LINE EXT 

MISCELLANEOUS MISFORTUNES 

RIOERSHIP FOR HARVARD ALEWIFE ALIGNMENTS 

1-95 NORTH ALTERNATIVES 

SW CORRIDOR TRANSIT/COMMUTER RAIL ASPECTS 

SW CORRIDOR MIDLSNADS BRANCH RAIL 

CHOICE RIDER SURVEY 

ALEWIFE EXTENSION COST ESTIMATES 

CONSTRUCTION COST OF PRT 

CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS ON ACTIVE HWYS 

PRELIM PEIDERSHIP EST FOR HARV/ALE 

TRANSPO 72 

USE OF MIDLANDS FOR LIGHT RAIL 

PRELIM COST ESTIMATES FOR SW TRANSIT OPTIONS 

DAVIS SQUARE PROJECT 

ADV L DISADV OF 1-95 ALIGN AT FOWL MEADOW 

TRUCK ROAD ALTERNATIVES 

GOODS MOVEMENT INTERIM REPORT 

MATTER OF CANTON RlDERSHIP 

3HC FORT POINT CHANNEL STUDY AREA 

NORTH SHORE NET COST OF SERVICE IMPACT 

PRELIMINARY SW TRANSIT PROGRAM PACKAGES 

HARV ALEWIFE EXTENSION ENGR FEAS STUDY 

NW CORRIDOR STATUS REPORT 

THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL 

SW CORR ALT - COST BENEFIT ISSUES 

TRUCK PROBLEM IN C AMBRI DGE/SOMERV ILLE 

GOODS MOVEMEMENT DATA 

OBSERVA AND QUES ON SO STATION RENEWAL PLAN 

SW TRANSIT PHASING 

PROPOSED' BLUE LINE SCHEME 

SW CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 

INTERSTATE TRADE OFF 

SW CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 

TRANSIT SERVICE AND PARKING IN SW CORR 

AIR RIGHTS DECKING SW CORRIDOR 

ALTSHULER SPEECH ON SW TRANSIT 

NORTH SHORE NET COST OF SERVICE IMPACT 

SW TRANSIT OPTIONS/CAP COSTS/MAINT FACIL 

COMPLETION OF PHASE II TRANSIT STUDIES 

POWER CAR/CATENARY COST ANALYSIS 

PROPOSED TUNNEL CROSSING TRANSIT WORK ITEM 

NORTH SHORE EXP BUS OPERATING COSTS 

HARVARD ALEWIFE EXT 

NORTH SHORE EXPRESS BUS OPER COSTS 

ENGR ANAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NW TRANSIT EXT 

TIMING OF SO BRAINTREE EXTENSION 

TIMING OF SO BRAINTREE EXTENSION 

WHETHER TO BUILD B-S BRIDGE 

BEVERLY SALEM BRIDGE 



AUTHOR 

BTPR STAFF 

KIDSTON 

HOPKINSON 

BREVARD 

BREVARD 

BTPR STAFF 

BTPR STAFF 

BATCHELDER 

MCBRAYER 

HANSEN 

NORTHWEST 

NORTHWEST 

MCBRAYER 

COOGAN 

LEISCH 

BAILEY 

BENSON 

MCBRAYER 

SIMPSON 

SZILLASSY 

BENSON 

COOGAN 

MCBRAYER 

KILLINGER 

GRAHAM 

TERRILL 

SOUTHWEST 

MAZZA 

BTPR STAFF 

COOGAN 

DURNING 

KIDSTON 

BTPR STAFF 

SIMPSON 

SIMPSON 

KIDSTON 

ZELLNER 

GAILINAS 

BTPR STAFF 

ZELLNER 

KIDSTON 

ZELLNER 

MCBRAYER 

COOGAN 

MCBRAYER 

LANE 

BENSON 

COOGAN 

KIDSTON 

BENSON 

MCBRAYER 

KIDSTON 

KIDSTON 

KIDSTON 

LISSER 

KIDSTON 

SIMPSON 

COOGAN 

COOGAN 

NO SHORE 

NO SHORE 



TEAM 
TEAM 



TEAM 



TEAM 
TEAM 



DATE 

05/23/72 
05/23/72 
05/23/72 
05/24/72 
05/24/72 
06/00/72 
06/00/72 
06/00/72 
06/02/72 
06/05/72 
06/05/72 
06/06/72 
06/08/72 
06/08/72 
06/12/72 
06/13/72 
06/14/72 
06/16/72 
06/20/72 
C6/22/72 
06/23/72 
06/23/72 
C6/27/72 
06/28/72 
06/28/72 
06/28/72 
07/00/72 
07/00/72 
07/00/72 
07/00/72 
07/06/72 
07/06/72 
07/07/72 
07/10/72 
07/11/72 
07/11/72 
07/12/72 
07/13/72 
07/13/72 
07/14/72 
07/17/72 
07/18/72 
07/19/72 
07/19/72 
07/19/72 
07/24/72 
07/26/72 
07/26/72 
07/28/72 
07/30/72 
08/07/72 
08/11/72 
08/15/72 
08/15/72 
08/15/72 
08/15/72 
08/18/72 
08/23/72 
08/23/72 
08/25/72 
08/25/72 



FAC 


FILE 


TITLE 


AUTHOR 


DATE 


36 


823 


TRUCK WORK PROGRAM 


PARKER 


08/28/72 


36 


B23 


TRUCK MOVEMENT STUDY 


MADISON 


08/28/72 


27 


B22 


WESTERN INNER BELT 


SZILASSY 


09/03/72 


11 


B02 


INTERSTATE REDES I GNAT ION 


COOGAN 


09/20/72 


11 


B15 


TRANSIT PLANNING STRATEGY 


COOGAN 


09/25/72 


11 


BOO 


NW ENG PROGRESS NW CORR HWY IMPROVEMENT 


SZILLASSY 


09/26/72 


41 


B12 


COMMENTS ON PRELIM CRIP DRAFT 


ZELLNER 


09/27/72 


41 


B12 


COMMUTER RAIL L RAPID TRANSI IN SW CORR 


ZELLNER 


10/00/72 


39 


Bll 


CORRECTIONS TO HARV ALEWIFE MEMO 


SIMPSON 


10/00/72 


44 


B22 


RAILROAD TUNNEL 


ZELLNER 


10/03/72 


39 


Bll 


HARVARD ALEWIFE BASE MAPS 


SIMPSON 


10/11/72 


41 


B12 


CRIP PRELIM DRAFT 


ZELLNER 


10/13/72 


50 


B21 


MANAGED EXPRESSWAY CONCEPT 


HANSEN 


10/30/72 


41 


B12 


ALT SERVICE PERCENTAGE 


ZELLNER 


11/01/72 


41 


B12 


CRIP PROGRAM SUMMARY 


ZELLNER 


11/15/72 


39 


Bll 


ALEWIFE BROOK STATION PARKING 


KIDSTON 


11/21/72 


11 


B26 


PARKING AS AN URBAN LAND USE 


LEVINSON 


12/05/72 


11 


BOO 


ISSUE PAPER 


BTPR STAFF 


08/26/71 


12 


BOC 


NORTH SHORE NO EXPRESSWAY OPTION 


BTPR STAFF 


09/00/71 


13 


BOO 


NO SHORE PHASE I SUMMARY REPORT 


NO SHRE TEAM 


09/00/71 


11 


BOO 


BTPR APPROACH 


BTPR STAFF 


09/07/71 


11 


BOC 


TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS 


ROUDEBUSH 


09/13/71 


19 


BOO 


REVERE 


MILLER 


09/17/71 


13 


B24 


B-S BRIDGE SCHEMATIC DESIGNS 


HOPKINSON 


09/17/71 


13 


B20 


NORTH SHORE HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVES 


LANE 


09/20/71 


13 


BOO 


POTENTIAL PROG PKGS FOR NO SHORE 


LANE 


09/21/71 


24 


BOO 


EAST BOSTON 


MILLER 


09/21/71 


13 


BIO 


RANGE OF TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 


LANE 


09/22/71 


36 


BOO 


ECONOMIC DEVELOP OF CAMBRIDGE 


SIMPSON 


09/28/71 


11 


BOC 


PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 


KILLINGER 


09/28/71 


36 


BOO 


REVIEW OF SUBAREA 


D SIMPSON 


10/01/71 


13 


BOO 


PRELIM DEF OF ISSUES IN INNER NO SHORE 


NO SHRE STAFF 


10/12/71 


25 


BOC 


WORK ASSIGNMENTS FOR SW STAFF 


KILLINGER 


10/13/71 


16 


BOO 


FREE HARBOR CROSSING 


HANSEN 


10/18/71 


16 


B21 


THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL ISSUES 


MILLER 


10/18/71 


13 


BIO 


SUMMARY OF NO SHORE TOPICS PLANS 


MILLER 


10/20/71 


13 


BIO 


SOME COMMENTS ON NORTH SHORE TRANSIT ALT 


HANSEN 


10/26/71 


11 


BIO 


BOSTON TRANSIT CRISIS 


HANSEN 


11/02/71 


11 


BOO 


PHASE II STUDY 


STEINMAN 


11/05/71 


11 


BIO 


PHASE II 


STEINMAN 


11/05/71 


39 


B°C 


PRELIM OBSERVA ON ALEWIFE FRESH POND 


KLEIN 


11/09/71 


24 


B15 


AIRPORT TRAFFIC VERSUS TUNNEL TRAFFIC 


MILLER 


11/09/71 


U 


BOO 


INTERMODAL CORRIDORS 


LOCKWOOD 


11/22/71 


11 


per 


PHILOSOPHY L PLAN FOR AVOID TRANSPOR CRISIS 


NICHOLAS 


11/26/71 


16 


B21 


THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL 


LOCKWOOD 


12/15/71 


33 


B15 


INNER TRANSIT CIRCUMFER SUMMARY 


MILLER 


01/18/72 


16 


B21 


THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 


MARTIN 


01/19/72 


13 


B24 


BEVERLY SALEM BRIDGE 


NO SHORE TEAM 


01/19/72 


11 


B20 


DEVELOPMENT OF AERIAL OBLIQUE PHOTOS 


MARTIN 


01/20/72 


13 


B1C 


POTENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR LYNN TRANSIT DEMO 


LANE 


01/27/72 


12 


BOO 


NO BUILD PRODUCT 


HOPKINSON 


02/14/72 


24 


Bll 


MBTA BUS SERVICE AT LOGAN 


MARTIN 


02/18/72 


33 


B15 


FORD MOTOR CO PRT SYSTEMS 


MILLER 


02/18/72 


24 


B15 


MBTA BUS SERVICE AT LOGAN 


MARTIN 


02/18/72 


33 


B15 


TRAFFIC GENERATORS IN CAMBRIDGE CIRCUM COR 


MILLER 


02/21/72 


25 


BOO 


GOALS OF SW CORRIDOR 


DIMANCESCO 


02/26/72 


13 


B21 


1-95 LYNN WOODS 


JOHANSON , 


03/06/72 


37 


R22 


ALT UNDER CONSID FOR WESTERN INNER BELT 


ROUDEBUSH 


03/07/72 


37 


B22 


PRELIM FINDINGS ON WESTERN INNER BELT 


ROUDEBUSH 


03/07/72 


14 


824 


HWY ALT UNDER CONSID IN RTE 1 CORR 


LANE 


03/09/72 



SE FAC FILE 


05 


33 


B15 


05 


33 


B15 


05 


14 


B21 


C5 


10 


BOO 


05 


60 


Bll 


05 


11 


B22 


05 


11 


BOO 


05 


14 


BOO 


05 


11 


BOO 


05 


14 


BOO 


05 


50 


BOO 


05 


10 


B21 


05 


14 


B21 


05 


16 


B21 


05 


33 


B15 


05 


33 


B15 


05 


33 


B15 


05 


11 


B21 


05 


10 


B21 


35 


33 


B15 


05 


16 


B21 


05 


16 


821 


05 


16 


B21 


05 


15 


B21 


05 


50 


B^C 


05 


50 


BOO 


05 


11 


BOO 


05 


24 


B21 


05 


11 


BOO 


05 


16 


B21 


05 


11 


BC2 


05 


39 


BOO 


05 


60 


B05 


05 


39 


300 


05 


14 


BOO 


05 


50 


BOO 


05 


50 


BOO 


05 


11 


BOO 


05 


15 


B21 


05 


16 


B21 


05 


50 


B21 


05 


40 


Bll 


05 


29 


B22 


05 


50 


BOO 


05 


50 


BOO 


05 


11 


B22 


05 


11 


B21 


05 


10 


B24 


P5 


60 


B05 


06 


11 


B05 


t)6 


11 


B05 


06 


11 


BO 5 


06 


11 


B05 


06 


11 


B05 


06 


11 


BOC 


06 


11 


B05 


06 


11 


B05 


06 


11 


B05 


06 


11 


B05 


06 


11 


B05 



TITLE 

TR4PF GENERATORS IN BOSTON CIRCUM CORR 

TRANSIT CIRCUMFERENTIAL 

TRAFFIC LEVELS ON ROUTE 1 

WORK PROGRAM PROO AND NO SHORE EIS 

TRANSP FACILITIES AFFECTING FENWAY 

TASK FORCE ON HOUSING RELOCATION 

JOINT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 

LAND USE INVENTORY FOR ROUTE 1/1-95 

PHASE II URBAN DESIGN 

JOINT DEVELOP OPPORTUNITIES RTE I CORRIDOR 

URB DESIGN & PLANNING DESIGN SPEC SW CORR 

1-95 LAND USE INVENTORY 

RTE 1 HWY IMPROVEMENTS 

THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL NO BUI LD HWY ELEMENTS 

CIRCUM SERV AREA POTENTIAL RIDERSHIP 

TRANSIT ALT UNDER CONSID IN CIRCUMFEREN CORR 

CIRCUMFERENTIAL PRESENTATION 

1-95 ALTERNATIVES 

1-95 COMPLETION ALTERNATIVES 

TRANSIT CIRCUMFERENTIAL 

THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL 

THIRD HARBOR CROSSING ALTERNATIVES 

THIRD HARBOR ALTERNATIVES 

1-95 RELOCATED EXP ALTERNATIVES 

ADV £ DISADV OF ALT 1-95 ALIGN AT FOWL MEAD 

SERV OBJEC WASH/WARREN/BLUE HILL CORR 

AREA WIDE TOPICS REPORTS 

LOGAN AIRPORT TRAVEL STUDY 

TRUCK OPERATIONS 

THIRD HARBOR CROSSING BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES 

JOINT DEVELOP AND REPLACEMENT FACILITIES 

SV/PARCEL PRESENT ON HAR ALEWlFE TUNNEL 

TRANSP SYSTEM FOR NORTHWEST 

STATUS OF ALEWIFE DEVELOP PLANS 

BRIDGE MEMO VAN NESS BATES 

JOINT DEVEL IMPLICATION OF SW OPEN SPACE 

REPORT ON FOWL MEADOW 

BRIEFING WITH EVERETT 

1-95 RELOCATED NO-EXP ALTERNATIVES 

THIRD HARBOR CROSSING MASSPORT BRIEFING 

POTENTIAL MHFA ROLE IN SW CORRIDOR 

GREEN LINE SERVICE TO SOMERVILLE 

SOUTHWEST ARTERIAL SPECIFIC ACTIONS 

SOUTHWEST IMPLEMENTATION IF NO EXP BUILT 

SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DETAILS 

EARLY ACTION ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 

RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TAKINGS COST 

B-S BRIDGE 

HWY TRAFF ANAL REQUIREMENTS NW ARTERIAL 

DODOTRANS IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION 

POP AND EMPLOY ADJUSTMENTS FOR TASK A 

CORE AREA GROWTH PROJECTIONS 

COMMON DEFINITIONS 

TRIP TABLES AVAILABLE 

INTRO TO BTPR DATA GATHERING 

CENSUS DATA BY TRAFFIC ZONES 

REGIONAL TRAFFIC DATA 

REGIONAL TRAFFIC DATA 

SEMINAR ON METRO ECONOMIC GROWTH 

199C FORECASTS OP CORE EMPLOYMENT 



AUTHOR 

MILLER 

MILLER 

LANE 

LOCKWOOD 

MILLER 

LOCKWOOD 

LANE 

SANDERS 

KILLINGER 

LANE 

KILLINGER 

SANDERS 

HOPKINSON 

MARTIN 

MILLER 

MILLER 

MILLER 

LANE 

MARTIN 

MILLER 

HOPKINSON 

MARTIN 

MARTIN 

MARTIN 

SOUTHWEST TEAM 

MILLER 

HOPKINSON 

BARBER 

HOPKINSON 

MARTIN 

HANSEN 

SIMPSON 

SIMPSON 

SIMPSON 

HOPKINSON 

LANE 

WOFFORD 

HOPKINSON 

MARTIN 

BTPR STAFF 

LANE 

HOPKINSON 

LANE 

LANE 

LANE 

HOPKINSON 

SIMPSON 

HOPKINSON 

SIMPSON 

KARASH 

BARBER 

LOCKWOOD 

HANSEN 

BARBER 

MCCANN 

WEY 

BREVARD 

BREVARD 

BARBER 

BTPR STAFF 



DATE 

03/14/72 
03/21/72 
03/21/72 
03/22/72 
03/23/72 
03/27/72 
03/30/72 
03/30/72 
03/30/72 
03/30/72 
03/3C/72 
03/30/72 
04/00/72 
04/0C/72 
04/03/72 
04/04/72 
04/10/72 
04/10/72 
04/12/72 
04/19/72 
05/00/72 
05/03/72 
05/03/72 
05/08/72 
05/C9/72 
05/09/72 
05/10/72 
05/15/72 
05/17/72 
05/23/72 
05/24/72 
05/25/72 
05/25/72 
05/26/72 
05/31/72 
06/12/72 
06/15/72 
07/05/72 
07/14/72 
07/20/72 
07/26/72 
10/18/72 
11/09/72 
11/13/72 
11/13/72 
11/13/72 
12/01/72 
01/19/73 
08/23/73 

05/05/71 
09/07/71 
09/15/71 
09/20/71 
09/22/71 
09/23/71 
09/23/71 
09/24/71 
09/24/71 
09/28/71 
10/05/71 



SE FAC FILE 

B05 
305 
BC5 
B05 
B05 
B05 
B05 
B21 
B05 
B05 
BC5 
B21 
B05 
BC5 
B05 
B05 
BC5 
B05 
B05 
B05 
B05 
B05 
B21 
B05 
BC5 
B05 
B05 
B13 
B05 
B05 
BC5 
B05 
B05 
B05 
B05 
B05 
B05 
B05 



44 



6 

1 

24 

60 

50 



BC5 
B05 
B05 
BC5 
B05 
B15 
B05 
Bll 
B05 
BO 5 
B05 
BC5 
B05 
B05 
B05 
B05 
B05 
BC5 
B21 
B05 
B15 
B05 
Bll 



TITLE 

FUTURE POPULATION ESTIMATES 

DEMIOGRAPHIC LAND USE AND DEV-EL DATA 

DEMOGRAPHIC LAND USE AND DEV DATA 

SELECTED LINK ASSIGNMENTS FROM PMM MODEL V AL 

1990 SELECTED LINK ASSIGNMENTS 

1990 PROJECTIONS AND POLICY SENSITIVITY 

EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS 

CROSS HARBOR TRAFFIC 

POP EMP INCOME CHANGES IN MODEL "CITIES 

COST BENEFIT ANAL OF CAMBRIDGE INNER BELT 

ANAL OF EMRPP L TASK A TRAVEL FORECASTS 

AIRPORT ACCESS IMPACT STUDY OBJECTIVES 

CONFIGURATION OF INTERSTATE 93/695 

1970 US CENSUS DATA BY BLOCK GROUP 

DAILY ANNUAL TOTALS FOR LOGAL TRAVELERS 

TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODS FIRST RND HWY 

1973 BASE HIGHWAY NETWORK 

STATUS OF PMM SELECTED LINK OUTPUT 

STATUS OF PMM SELECTED LINK OUTPUT 

HWY ALTERNATIVES IN FIRST ROUND NETWORK ANAL 

CREATION OF TRIP TABLES FOR PHASE II ANAL 

CREATION OF TRIP TABLES FOR PHASE II ANAL 

GROUND TUNNEL FORECAST FOR LOGAN 

FOURTH COUNT 1970 CENSUS INFORMATION 
BTPR ZONE SYSTEM 
BTPR ZONE SYSTEM 

FOURTH COUNT US CENSUS TABULATIONS 
RECOMMENDATION FOR SOMERVILLE SUPMKT ANAL 
HWY ISSUES IN FIRST POUND NETWORK ANAL 
PRELIMINARY MODEL VALIDATION RESULTS 
RESULTS OF PMM SEL LINK OUTPUT FOR BS BRDGE 
ASSIGNMENT 
IN TRAVEL TIME 

TRAVEL TIME BY PRIV AUTO 

TRAVEL TIME BY PRIV CAR 

REGISTRATION 

FIGURES 

MEASUREMENTS OF TRANS IMP 
SOMERVILLE SHOP TRAVEL 
POPULATION CAPACITY OF VACANT DEVELOP LAND 
BACKGROUND ON EMPIRIC MODEL LOW INCOME FAM 
PMM PROPOSAL TO RECALIBRATE EMPIRIC MODEL 
REITERATION OF HWY ALT TESTED IN FIRST ROUND 
MEMO ON AIR TRAVEL AND OPERA IN MASS 
TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 

BALLPARK ANAL OF MODAL SPLIT TO DOWNTOWN 
SELECTED LINK ANALYSIS OF ROUTE 1 TRAFFIC 
SELECTED LINK ANAL OF ROUTE 1 TRAFFIC 
BOSTON TOTAL EMPLOYMENT FIGURES 
BOSTON TOTAL EMPLOYMENT FIGURES 
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TURN MOVEMENTS NO SHORE 
BTPR POP AND EMPL FORECASTS 
DIRECT DEMAND MODEL SOFTWAR'E 
DIRECT DEMAND MODEL SOFTWARE 
SMALL AREA MODEL FOR PLANNERS 
SMALL AREA MODEL FOR PLANNERS 
SUMNER CALLAHAN TUNNEL TRAVEL TO LOGAN 
MODIFICATION OF PERSON TRIPS 
LOGAN AIRPORT TRAVEL STUDY 

ADDITINAL WORK PR OGRAM/ MATTAPAN-SOMERV ILLE 
WORK PROGRAM TO RESPOND TO MATT/SOMERVL LINE 



IN 
IN 



TRAFFIC 
CHANGES 
CHANGES 
CHANGES 
AUTOMOBILE 
POPULATION 
ACCESSIBILITY OF 
ANALYSIS OF 1963 



AUTHOR 

BARBER 

MARTIN 

MARTIN 

BARBER 

BREVARD 

LOCK WOOD 

BARBER 

BREVARD 

MAHADY 

ZELLNER 

BARBER 

LOCKWOOD 

MACMANN 

HANSEN 

MBTA 

SYSTEM ANAL 

SYSTEM ANAL 

BREVARD 

BREVARD 

MACMANN 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BARBER 

MACMANN 

MACMANN 

HANSEN 

BREVARD 

WEST 

HOPKINSON 

VOLPE 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BREVARD 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BARBER 

WEST 

BARBER 

PEERS 

BRAND 

BREVARD 

BREVARD 

BARBER 

BARBER 

FISTEL 

BARBER 

MDMANN 

MACMANN 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BARBER 

WONG 

BARBER 

PEERS 

PEERS 



TEAM 
TEAM 



DATE 

10/22/71 
10/22/71 
10/22/71 
10/28/71 
11/09/71 
11/10/71 
11/11/71 
11/16/71 
11/18/71 
11/22/71 
11/30/71 
12/15/71 
12/20/71 
12/23/71 
12/23/71 
01/03/72 
01/03/72 
01/04/72 
01/04/72 
01/10/72 
01/11/72 
01/11/72 
01/25/72 
01/26/72 
01/27/72 
01/27/72 
01/28/72 
02/00/72 
02/03/72 
02/10/72 
02/18/72 
02/18/72 
02/21/72 
02/21/72 
02/21/72 
02/23/72 
02/28/72 
02/29/72 
02/29/72 
03/03/72 
03/C7/72 
03/09/72 
03/16/72 
03/17/72 
03/23/72 
03/23/72 
03/27/72 
03/27/72 
03/29/72 
03/29/72 
04/07/72 
04/12/72 
04/17/72 
04/17/72 
04/24/72 
04/24/72 
05/08/72 
05/09/72 
05/15/72 
05/19/72 
05/19/72 



SEFACFILE TITLE 

06 10 B05 NO SHORE TRANSIT OEMANO LEVELS 

11 B05 CRA DIRECT DEMAND MODEL 

16 B05 PROC TO CAL INDUCED AUTO TRIP DEMAND 3HC 

15 B21 1-95 RELOCATED MODAL SPLIT 

50 B05 SW CORRIDOR SYS ANALYSIS WORK PROGRAM 

11 B05 US CENSUS 4TH COUNT SUMMARY TAPES 

11 B05 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODELS 

11 805 US CENSUS 4TH COUNT SUMM TAPES 

11 B05 TRANSIT OUTPUT FOR SYSTEMS 

15 Bll 1-95 RELOCATED 

16 B21 THIRD HARBOR CROSSING FINANCIAL QUES 
16 B21 ON NOT BUILDING A THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 
11 B05 ALLOCA OF POP AND EMP ANAL RANGES 
11 8C5 DIRECT DEMAND MODEL WORK PROGRAM 
25 B05 CALCULATING INDUCED HWY TRAV€L 
11 B05 US CENSUS FOURTH COUNT DATA FOR 1970 
29 805 SOUTHWEST ARTERIAL 
29 Bll SOUTHWEST ARTERIAL 

24 B15 BUS/LIMO SERVICE TO LOGAN AIRPORT 

11 B05 1980 DAILY AIRPORT VEHICLE TRIPS 

44 B22 IMDACT OP PROPOSED RAILROAD TUNNEL 

11 BO 5 BTPR MODE SPLIT MODEL 

11 BOO CENSUS DATA 

11 B05 USE OF CROSS ELASTICITY TRAVEL FORECAST MOD 

11 BC5 CROSS ELASTICITY 

11 B05 N-DIMENSIONAL LOGIT FUNCTION 

60 Bll COST ANA FOR CANTON-NEEDHAM-ORANGE LINE EXT 

50 B05 LAND AREAS AND REIMBUR ISSUES IN SW CORR 

11 B05 MODAL SPLIT ANA 

24 B15 BUS/LIMO SERVICE TO LOGAN AIRPORT 

11 B05 BTPR MODE SPLIT MODEL COMPUTER PROGRAM 

11 B05 P2 STATISTIC MADE SIMPLE 

11 B15 BUS/LIMO SERV AND MASS PIKE EXTENSION 

11 B05 FINAL SUMMARY SE 6 REPORT 



AUTHOR 

BREVARD 

MACMANN 

BARBER 

PEERS 

PEERS 

BARBER 

MACMANN 

BARBER 

PEERS 

PEERS 

PEERS 

BARBER 

BARBER 

MACMANN 

BRAND 

BARBER 

PEERS 

PEERS 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BATCHELDER 

MACMANN 

BARBER 

BRAND 

PEERS 

MACMANN 

BREVARD 

LANE 

BATCHELDER 

BARBER 

MACMANN 

MACMANN 

BARBER 

PEERS 



DATE 

05/24/72 
05/26/72 
06/07/72 
06/10/72 
06/13/72 
06/15/72 
06/15/72 
06/15/72 
06/16/72 
06/16/72 
06/29/72 
07/00/72 
07/1C/72 
07/18/72 
07/20/72 
08/03/72 
08/11/72 
08/11/72 
08/21/72 
09/00/72 
10/00/72 
10/12/72 
10/13/72 
10/17/72 
10/17/72 
10/17/72 
10/17/72 
10/18/72 
10/24/72 
11/07/72 
11/14/72 
11/14/72 
11/15/72 
12/00/72 



23 B13 STUDY ELEMENTS 7 
23 B13 TASK BRIEF FOR NE 
23 B13 SE7 SPECIAL MOBIL 
23 B13 SPECIAL MOB SUBAR 
23 B13 RESOURCE GROUP ON 
23 B13 SOCIOECONOMIC SUR 
23 B13 REACTIONS TO SPEC 
23 B13 REVIEW OF R0X3URY 
23 B13 ANAL FRAMEWORK FO 
44 B13 SIMULA OF 1970 AU 
44 B13 MOBILITY NEEDS QU 
33 B15 FORD MOTOR CO PRT 
44 B13 SOMERVILLE SPEC M 
43 B13 SOMERVILLE SUPERM 
23 B13 PRE SURVEY 



AND 14 

IGHBORHOOD COHESION 

ITY PROBLEMS 

EA STUDY PROPOSAL 

NEIGHBORHOOD COHESION 
VEY DATA 
IAL MOBILITY QUESTIONNAIRE 

SPECIAL MOBILITY QUEST 
R SPEC MOB SURVEY RESULTS 
TO OWNERSHIP DIS SOMERVILLE 
ESTIONAIRE FOR CAMBRIDGE 

SYSTEM 
OBIL SURVEY PROPOSAL 
ARKET SUR ANAL 



BLUMENTHAL 

COMPTON 

SLOANE 

CIRCLE ASSO 

WOFFORD 

BREVARD 

MILLER 

FEHR 

BREVARD 

BREVARD 

KARASH 

MILLER 

BARBER 

BREVARD 

CROCKETT 



08/24/71 
09/27/71 
10/15/71 
12/17/71 
01/10/72 
01/18/72 
01/28/72 
02/02/72 
02/16/72 
02/16/72 
02/17/72 
02/18/72 
03/23/72 
05/00/72 
09/00/72 



11 B06 DUAL POWER VEHICLE PRELIM FINDINGS ZELLNER 

11 B06 INFORMATION ON MTA DUAL POWER VEHICLE ZELLNER 

33 B15 UMTA PEOPLE MOVER DOMO GRANT INFORMATION ZELLNER 

33 B15 PARKING VIOLATIONS/STREET CAPACITY LACROSS 

33 B15 TRIP TYPES AND ROUTING FOR TRANS CIRCUM MILLER 

33 B15 TRAFFIC GENERATORS IN TRANSIT CIRCUM CORR MILLER 

33 B15 TRANSIT CIRCUMFERENTIAL MILLER 

11 BC6 POWER CAR SOLUTION TO DUAL PROPULSION VEH ZELLNER 

11 B06 DOUBLE DECKER BUSES ZELLNER 

11 B06 FINDINGS ON DUAL PROPULSION VEHICLE ZELLNER 



12/08/71 
01/11/72 
01/11/72 
02/15/72 
02/25/72 
03/14/72 
04/10/72 
04/11/72 
05/01/72 
05/09/72 



SE FAC FILE TITLE AUTHOR DATE 

08 11 R06 PRT CONSTRUCTION COST SZILLASY Qb/22/12 

08 11 B06 DUAL PROPULSION RAPID TRANSIT POWER CAR ZELLNER 10/10/72 

09 11 BO? PRINCIPAL FEDERAL HEARINGS AND REVIEW STAT SMITH 08/00/71 
09 11 B02 IMMEDIATE WORK ITEMS SMITH 08/20/71 
p9 11 B02 DEADLINE FOR PS&E SUBMISSION SMITH 08/27/71 
09 13 B24 FUNDING OF B-S BRIDGE £ 1-95 CONNECTOR SMITH 08/27/71 
09 11 B02 SEQ ANALYSIS REPLACEMENT HOUSING SMITH 08/30/71 
09 11 B02 SE9 ANAL EXCLUS OR PREFERENTIAL BUS LANES SMITH 08/31/71 
09 11 B02 SE9ANALYSIS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS SMITH 09/01/71 
09 11 BC2 SE9 ANALYSIS FEDERAL AID FOR PARKING FAC SMITH 09/01/71 
09 11 B02 TOLL BRIDGE AND TOLL TUNNEL PROJCTS GREESON 09/17/71 
09 11 802 REPLACEMENT HOUSING MAHADY 09/17/71 
09 16 B21 LEGIS RELATING TO TOLL BRIDGE/TOLL TUNNEL SMITH 09/17/71 
09 11 B02 RELOCATION AND REPLACEMENT HOUSING MAHADY 09/20/71 
09 11 B02 PUBLIC HEARINGS SMITH 09/22/71 
19 11 B02 ISSUES OF STATE LAW CURRY 09/27/71 
09 11 B02 BTPR DECISION OPTION SMITH 09/28/71 
09 11 B02 SEWERS WATER AND PARKS SMITH 10/00/71 
09 11 B02 ACOUSTIC DAMAGE CASES SMITH 10/04/71 
09 11 B02 ISSUES OF STATE LAW CURRY 10/21/71 
09 11 BC2 FEDERAL AID FOR PARKING FACILITY SMITH 10/25/71 
09 11 B02 MBTA BACKGROUND MEMO SMITH 10/26/71 
09 11 B02 PHASE I EVALUATION S E 9 SMITH 10/26/71 
09 11 BC2 THREE SISTERS BRIDGE CURRY 11/03/71 
09 11 B02 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTH CURRY 11/24/71 
09 11 B02 UMTA ADVANCE ACQUISITION LOANS REQUIRE SMITH 12/01/71 
09 11 BC2 REVIEW COMMENT SMITH 01/06/72 
09 16 B21 THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL TOLL OPTIONS SMITH 01/07/72 
09 13 B24 BEVERLY SALEM BRIDGE LEGALOADMIN ISSUES SMITH 01/12/72 
09 11 B02 BACK BAY FENS ETC / SMITH 01/27/72 
09 11 B02 GOVERNORS DECISIONS^ SMITH 01/31/72 
09 11 BC2 MID SUMMER DECISION SMITH 02/09/72 
09 11 B02 WORKING PAPER ON HIGHWAY SMITH 02/10/72 
09 11 B02 LEGAL £ FACTUAL POINTS ON PARKING STUDY SMITH 03/00/72 
09 11 B02 OVERTON PARK CASE SMITH 03/03/72 
09 11 B02 USE OF ACCEL HWY PRGM FUNDS AND MBTA SMITH 03/07/72 
09 25 302 SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR HEARINGS SMITH 03/08/72 
09 11 R22 LFG & ADM PROC FOR CONSTRUC REPL HOUSING HARRISON 03/16/72 
09 11 B02 NOHFICATION PROCEDURES SMITH 03/22/72 
09 11 B02 UMTA PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS SMITH 04/05/72 
09 11 B02 UMTA PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS SMITH 04/05/72 
09 11 B02 STATE AND LOCAL JURIS AFFECTING PARKING CURRY 04/11/72 
09 11 B02 POLICY PROCESS FOR PARKING CURRY 04/27/72 
09 11 B02 USE OF FED FUNDS FOR TOLL ROADS SMITH 06/12/72 
09 11 B02 INCLUSION OF 4F AND NATL REGISTER SITE DAT SMITH 06/14/72 
09 11 B02 NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS SMITH 06/20/72 
09 16 B02 THIRD HARBOR CROSSING LEGAL ISSUES SMITH 06/20/72 

'09 16 B21 THIRD HARBOR CROSSING LEGAL ISSUES SMITH 06/20/72 

09 11 BC7 DISPOSITION OF LANDS NOT USED FOR HWYS SMITH 06/22/72 

,09 11 B02 MBTA BOND LEGISLATION WOFFORD 07/10/72 

09 11 B02 REPAYMENT OF FUNDS FOR PE ROW ETC ON HWY CURRY 07/21/72 

09 6C B02 LEGAL ADMIN WORK REQUIRED FOR NORTHWEST CURRY 07/31/72 

09 11 B02 BT^R DESIGN STANDARDS POLICIES GUIDELINES SMITH 09/00/72 

09 11 B02 TRANS INVEST DECISIONS BY MBTA CURRY 09/07/72 

09 11 B02 USE OF ST HWY FUNDS FOR HWY PLANNING ACTIV CURRY 09/25/72 

09 11 802 LEG AOMIN ANAL METRO PARKING POLICIES CURRY 09/30/72 

09 36 BG2 LEGAL AD* AFFECTING CONTROL OF TRUCK TRAFF CURRY 10/06/72 

09 25 802 NO EXP AS PRUDENT ALT UNDER SECTION 4F CURRY 10/13/72 

09 25 B02 REPAYMENT OF FED AID FUNDS FOR SW EXP CURRY 10/15/72 

09 25 B02 SW EXPRESSWAY POSS BASES FOR ILLEGALITY CURRY 10/16/72 



SEFACFILE TITLE - 

09 25 B02 MANAGED SOUTHWEST EXPRESSWAY LEGAL IMPLICA 
09 U BC2 AUTH TO CONSTR OR IMPL PROJ FOR TRAFF MGMT 
09 16 B21 THIRD HARBOR CROSSING TRANSP PROGRAM 
09 10 BOO NORTH SHORE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM 



SALT RUNOFF 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF BTPR 

HARVARD ALEWIFE 

RETAIL CENTERS IN SW SUBREGION 

SALEM HISTORIC PRES AND TRANSPORTATION 

RECREATION TRAVEL IN METRO AREA 

PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM 

ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM PACKAGES 

ECOL EVALUATION IN FOWL MEADOW AREA 

SE2 STAFF QUESTIONS 

NORTHWEST CORRIDOR QUESTIONS 

ENVIRONMENTAL POSITION PAPER 

MAJOP ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN SOUTHWEST"' 

ISSUE OF CLEARED LAND IN SW CORRIDOR 

OPTIONS FOR VACANT LAND REUSE OF I-95S 

RED CONTAMINANT LEVELS FROM VEHICLE DENSITY 

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS IN DEVEL TRANS GOALS* 

SW CLEARED LANDS 

OF 2 

SUMMARY 



10 


11 


B07 


io 


11 


B07 


10 


11 


BO 7 


10 


11 


B08 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


11 


BC7 


10 


11 


B08 


10 


11 


B08 


10 


26 


B07 


10 


11 


B08 


10 


11 


B08 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


26 


B07 


10 


26 


B07 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


11 


BC7 


10 


26 


B07 


10 


26 


B07 


10 


50 


B07 


•10 


11 


B07 


10 


11 


BOB 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


26 


B07 


10 


11 


BC7 


10 


26 


B07 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


11 


BO 7 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


13 


BO 7 


10 


11 


BC7 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


11 


BO 8 


10 


13 


B07 


10 


13 


B07 


10 


13 


B07 


10 


13 


BO 7 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


25 


B07 


10 


13 


B07 


10 


50 


B07 


10 


26 


B07 


10 


11 


BOO 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


15 


B07 


10 


15 


B07 


10 


13 


B07 


10 


50 


B07 


10 


50 


BOO 


10 


50 


307 


10 


10 


B07 


10 


50 


B07 


10 


50 


B07 



/ 



vacant land reuse 

cleared land data 

ecol impact study 

communications 

am3ient air quality data 

sw cleared land reuse policy options 

air pollution mobile sources 

typiecal sec for cons in cleared land study 

ert air pollutions studies 

ert air pollutions studies 

natl historic landmarks 

frfsh pond and surrounding 

open space human use env 

considerations 

STAND for open 



OPEN SPACE AREAS 
CONCERNS NW 

INFLUEN REUSE OF CLEARED LAN 

SPACE AND RECRE AREAS 



ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

PUBLIC TRANS IN NORTHSHORE 

PINES RIVER DENTENTION BASIN 

NORTH SHORE 4F STATUS 

NORTH SHORE 4F INVOLVEMENT 

1-95 4F LANDS 

PRANKERS POND CONSERVATION AREA 

FOWL MEADOW 4F INFORMATION 

LYNN 1-95 REMEDIAL RECREATION PROGRAMS 

BLANDINGS TURTLE 

FOWL MEADOW BASE AND DPW ALT 

NO SHORE DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYMENT CENTER 

NOISE STANDARDS 

1-95 RELOCATED OPEN SPACE 

CONSERV AND OPEN SPACE ASPECTS FOR I-95R 

I-95N0RTH IMPACTS 

NATIONAL REGISTRY PROPERTIES 

JF REVIEW STATEMENTS SW CORRIDOR 

SW CORRIDOR 4F REVIEW 

I-95N AND I-95R INDIRECT 4F 

ARNOLD ARBORETUM 

SW CORRIDOR ZONE DESCRIP AND 4F STATEMENTS 



AUTHOR 


DATE 


CURRY 


10/27/72 


SMITH 


10/31/72 


SMITH 


12/00/72 


SMITH 


12/00/72 


HANSEN 


02/00/71 


HANSEN 


08/19/71 


ROUDEBUSH 


08/31/71 


ECON TEAM 


09/00/71 


HOPKINSON 


09/2C/71 


LINSKY 


09/22/71 


WALBRECKER 


09/22/71 


WOFFORD 


09/3C/71 


YONIKA 


10/05/71 


SE2 


10/20/71 


OSDOBY 


10/2C/71 


WALLACE 


10/24/71 


KILLINGER 


11/05/71 


HARRISON 


11/15/71 


GILCHREST 


11/16/71 


BELLOMO 


11/18/71 


ENV COALITION 


11/23/71 


STEINMAN 


12/00/71 




12/0C/71 


CROCKETT 


12/00/71 


CORTELL 


12/17/71 


HANSEN 


12/20/71 


LOCKWOOD 


12/21/71 


STIENMAN 


12/23/71 


LEE 


12/23/71 


KILLINGER 


12/29/71 


WILLIS 


01/05/72 


WILLIS 


01/14/72 


ENV TEAM 


01/19/72 


DWORSKY 


01/19/72 


ENV TEAM 


01/24/72 


HARR ISON 


01/31/72 


REG TEAM 


02/27/72 


REG ENV TEAM 


02/29/72 


ESL 


03/02/72 


ROBBINS 


03/03/72 


DWORSKY 


03/09/72 


DWORSKY 


03/13/72 


WALLACE 


03/13/72 


WALLACE 


03/17/72 


LINSKU 


03/21/72 


WALLACE 


03/21/72 


SANDERS 


03/29/72 


YONIKA 


03/31/72 


YONIKA 


04/05/72 


WALLACE 


04/11/72 


WOFFORD 


06/06/72 


WELLER 


06/13/72 


WALLACE 


06/16/72 


WALLACE 


06/21/72 


WALLACE 


07/19/72 


WALLACE 


07/27/72 


WALLACE 


07/27/72 


WALLACE 


07/27/72 


WALLACE 


08/01/72 


WALLACE 


08/04/72 



SE FAC FILE 


10 


50 


B07 


10 


11 


B08 


10 


16 


B07 


10 


60 


B07 


10 


50 


B07 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


60 


BC7 


10 


60 


B07 


10 


11 


B07 


10 


39 


B07 


10 


60 


B07 


10 


60 


B07 


10 


11 


B07 


11 


11 


B03 


11 


11 


B03 


11 


11 


B03 


11 


11 


BC5 


11 


13 


B03 


11 


11 


B03 


11 


11 


BC3 


11 


11 


B05 


11 


11 


B03 


11 


11 


B03 


.11 


36 


B03 


11 


11 


B07 


11 


11 


B03 


11 


14 


B03 


11 


11 


B07 


11 


11 


B03 


11 


11 


B03 


11 


13 


BOO 


11 


11 


B07 


11 


25 


BOO 


11 


13 


BC7 


11 


11 


B05 


11 


11 


B03 


11 


11 


Bll 


11 


14 


B03 


11 


14 


B03 


11 


11 


BO 3 


11 


11 


B04 


11 


11 


BC3 


11 


11 


B03 


11 


11 


B03 


11 


11 


BC3 


11 


25 


B03 


11 


11 


B04 


xl 


11 


BC3 


11 


14 


B03 


11 


06 


B05 


ii 


11 


B03 


11 


11 


B04 


11 


11 


B05 


11 


16 


821 


11 


11 


B04 


11 


16 


BC3 


11 


15 


B03 


11 


15 


B21 


11 


24 


B15 



TITLE 

ALIGNMENT EVALUATION OF MOTHER BROOK 

COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS 

THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 4F INVOLVEMENT 

NORTHWEST 4F LANDS 

FOG 

AIR QUALITY IMPACT 

LOCAL RECREATION TRAVEL IN METRO AREA 

NW 4FS DETERMINED 

NW TRANSIT EIS 

AIR MONITORING REPORT 

NW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

NW GENERAL ENVIRONMENT 

NW TASK STUDY 

AIR POLLUTION 

METHODOLOGY FOR REG & SECTOR ECON ANAL 

CBD OFFICE STUDY 

CORE AREA GROWTH 

COMMON DEFINITIONS ; 

ECONOMIC OVERVIEW OF NORTH SHORE 

CAMBRIDGE URBAN RENEWAL PICTURE 

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS 

DATA ON BUS SYSTEMS 

DOWNTOWN EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS 

FUTURE OVERALL ECONOMIC TRENDS 

NW SUBREGIONAL ECONOMIC OVERVIEW 

MAJOR PROPOSALS FROM MAPC OPEN SPACE PLAN 

REGIONAL INPUT OUTPUT ECONOMIC STUDY 

CIRCULARITY IN MODEL FORMULATIONS 

ENV CONCERNS NOPTHSHORE 

PRELIM VIEW OF REGIONAL POPULATION & EMPLOY 

PRELIM ECON OVERVIEW OF NORTH SHORE 

SPEC ECON DEV STRATEGY STUDY FOR LYNN 

OPTIONS FOR VACANT LAND REUSE 

CLEARED LAND IN SW CORRIDOR 

OPEN SPACE HUMAN USE ENV CONCERNS NO SHORE 

BOSTON PROGRAMS 

REVISED POP & EMPLOY PROJ 1990 

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RAIL RAPID TRANSIT 

ROUTE 1 BUSINESS IMPACT STUDY 

ROUTE 1 BUSINESS IMPACT STUDY 

ROUTE AND BUSINESSMEN SURVEY 

THEMES FOR THE FUTURE 

BTPR DATA REQUEST STOP & SHOP 

MASTER PLANNING ISSUES 

PHASE II WORK PROGRAM 

MODEL CITIES CONCERNS 

PROPERTY VALUE RANGES FOR SW CORRIDOR 

DEVELOPMENT OF PROBABLE FUTURES 

ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM PACKAGES 

ROUTE 1 COMMERCIAL AREA 

POOR FAMILIES IN RELATION TO TRANSP FACIL 

REGIONAL TASK FORCE REPORT 

REGIONAL THEMES 

BTPR POP AND EMPLOY FORECASTS 

ECON IMPACT OF THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL ALT 

COMPLETION OF REGIONAL PAPER 

THIRD HARBOR CROSSING STUDY 

ECON OVERVIEW OF INNER NORTH SHORE 

1-95 RELOCATED CORRIDOR DESCRIPTIONS 

LOGAN AIRPORT 



AUTHOR 


DATE 


WALLACE 


08/04/72 


HANSEN 


01/20/72 


WALLACE 


08/29/72 


WALLACE 


09/07/72 


PEERS 


09/11/72 


ERT 


10/00/72 


LINSKU 


10/18/72 


WALLACE 


10/19/72 


CURRY 


10/19/72 


ERT 


10/24/72 


SIMPSON 


10/25/72 


WALLACE 


10/27/72 


WALLACE 


11/10/72 


PEERS 


12/02/72 


HARRISON 


09/07/71 


HARRISON 


09/08/71 


LOCKWOOD 


09/15/71 


HARRISON 


09/20/71 


HARRISON 


09/23/71 


HANDY 


09/24/71 


ROUDEBUSH 


09/28/71 


BARBER 


10/01/71 


REG ECON TEAM 


10/05/71 


ECON TEAM 


10/07/71 


HARRISON 


10/10/71 


LINSKY 


10/13/71 


BARBER 


10/14/71 


ROMANOFF 


10/15/71 


WALLACE 


10/18/71 


REG ECON TEAM 


10/29/71 


HARRISONY 


U/01/71 


HARRISON 


11/05/71 


LOCKWOOD 


11/10/71 


HARRISON 


11/15/71 


WALLACE 


11/15/71 


HANSEN 


11/16/71 


HARRISON 


11/22/71 


MARTIN 


11/29/71 


MARTIN 


12/06/71 


MARTIN 


12/06/71 


HARRISON 


12/15/71 


REG ECON TEAM 


12/16/71 


REG ECON TEAM 


01/00/72 


ROUDEBUSH 


01/05/72 


MAHADY 


01/07/72 


HARRISON 


01/14/72 


HARRISON 


01/20/72 


MARTIN 


01/21/72 


WOOD 


02/01/72 


MARTIN 


02/09/72 


WILDER 


03/01/72 


REG TEAM 


03/07/72 


WOOD 


03/20/72 


BARBER 


04/12/72 


WOOD 


05/08/72 


WOOD 


05/22/72 


ROMANOFF 


06/09/72 


HARRISON 


06/09/72 


HARRISON 


06/16/72 


ROMANOFF 


06/20/72 



SEFACFILE TITLE 


AUTHOR 


DATE 


1 


15 


B03 


COMMUNITY ECON IMPACT - 1-95 RELOCATED 


HARRISON 


07/19/72 


1 


15 


B21 


COMMUNITY ECON IMPACTS - 1-95 RELOCATED 


HARRISON 


07/19/72 


1 


16 


B21 


FORT POINT CHANNEL/THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 


ROMANOFF 


07/24/72 


1 


25 


B03 


SOCIO ECON FACTORS RELATING TO SW CORR 


HARRISON 


07/28/72 


1 


11 


B21 


RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ABOUT SO BOSTON 


HARRISON 


07/31/72 


1 


16 


B03 


QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 


HARRISON 


07/31/72 


1 


25 


B03 


COMMUNITY ECON IMPACT - SOUTHWEST 


HARRISON 


08/10/72 


1 


11 


B21 


ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES 


HARRISON 


08/15/72 


1 


16 


B03 


ECON IMPLICATIONS FOR THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 


HARRISON 


08/15/72 


1 


11 


BC3 


REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PAPER 


WOOD 


08/29/72 


1 


44 


B03 


ECON IMPACT OF DEPRESSING CENTRAL ARTERY 


HARRISON 


10/15/72 


1 


36 


B03 


ECONOM BACKGROUND FOP TRUCK ANALYSIS 


MARTIN 


10/18/72 


1 


36 


B03 


ECON IMPACT OF TRUCK SCHEMES 


MARTIN 


10/18/72 


2 


11 


BOO 


GAS TAX REFERENDUM 


MAHADY 


11/17/71 


2 


37 


B22 


CAMBRIDGE INNER BELT FAMILY RELOCATION 


MAHADY 


12/06/71 


2 


37 


B22 


PRELIM FINDINGS ON CAMBR INNER BELT £ RTE 2 


NORTHWEST TEAM 


12/07/71 


2 


11 


BOO 


BETTER PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 


MAHADY 


12/22/71 


2 


25 


B03 


ANAL OF POOR FAM RELATIVE TO SW FACILITIES 


WILDER 


03/01/72 


2 


11 


B02 


LEG/ADMIN PROC FOR CONST REPLACEMENT HSNG 


HARRISON 


03/16/72 


2 


11 


B03 


TASK FORCE ON HOUSING REPLACEMENT/RELOCA 


LOCKWOOD 


03/27/72 


2 


11 


B03 


REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL RELOCA FOR TRANSP ALT 


MAHADY 


04/13/72 


2 


14 


B03 


1-95 NO ALIGN VARIATIONS ROUTE 1 CORR 


MAHADY 


04/26/72 


2 


10 


B21 


1-95 RELOCATION COSTS 


MAHADY 


05/10/72 


2 


11 


B03 


H-6177 DPW BOND ISSUE 


MAHADY 


06/00/72 


2 


50 


B03 


REPLACEMENT HOUSING SW CORRIDOR 


MAHADY 


06/09/72 


2 


15 


B21 


1-95 RELOCATED RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION 


MAHADY 


06/27/72 


2 


15 


B03 


PRELIM ANAL OF RELOCA NEEDS FOR 1-95 NORTH 


MAHADY 


07/00/72 


2 


25 


B03 


INVENTORY OF SW CORR STRUCTURES 


MAHADY 


07/10/72 


2 


10 


B03 


RELOCATION NO SHORE HEARING 


MAHADY 


07/27/72 


2 


11 


B03 


RELOCATION PROCESS FOR FED AID HWY/TRANS PRO 


MAHADY 


07/28/72 


2 


25 


BO 3 


REPLACEMENT HOUSING SW CORR NO BUILD 


MAHADY 


07/28/72 


2 


11 


B03 


MHFA AND REPLACEMENT HOUSING 


MAHADY 


07/31/72 


2 


11 


B03 


REPLACEMENT HSG CONSTRUC CONSTRAINTS 


MAHADY 


09/29/72 


2 


11 


B03 


BUSINESS DISPLACEMENTS 


MAHADY 


10/11/72 


2 


11 


B03 


FAMILY RELOCA AND REPLACEMENT HOUSING 


MAHADY 


10/11/72 


2 


60 


BO 3 


RELOCATING RESIDENTS FROM PROS ST 


MAHADY 


10/23/72 


2 


37 


B03 


RESIDENTIAL RELOCA WESTERN CONNECTOR SCHEM 2 


MAHADY 


11/04/72 


2 


37 


B03 


VASSAR STREET TRUCK ROUTE IMPACTS 


MAHADY 


11/04/72 


2 


39 


BC3 


RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION - RED LINE EXTENSION 


MAHADY 


11/04/72 


2 


50 


B21 


DISPOSITION OF DPW-OWNED LAND IN SW CORR 


MAHADY 


11/09/72 


2 


36 


B03 


EST DISPLACE MASSPIKE TO BINNEY ST TRUCK RD 


MAHADY 


11/14/72 


2 


41 


BO 3 


RAIL ACCESS AT ALEWIFE 


WILDER 


12/01/72 


2 


37 


B03 


BUS AND RES TAKINGS I NV WEST CONN 


WILDER 


12/04/72 


2 


60 


B03 


DAVIS SQUARE BUS RELOCATION 


WILDER 


12/18/72 


2 


36 


B23 


TRUCK ROAD RELOCATION 


WILDER 


01/05/73 


.3 


11 


B03 


BUSINESS RELOCATIONS 


MAHADY 


04/05/72 


3 


50 


B03 


BUS RELOCATION IN SW CORRIDOR 


WILDER 


04/17/72 


.3 


11 


B03 


BUS RELOCATION MOVING EXPENSE 


WILDER 


04/20/72 


.3 


11 


B03 


UNIFIED TRANS PLAN WORK PROGRAM 


MAHADY 


05/15/72 


.3 


14 


B03 


REVISED ROUTE 1 DISPLACEMENT 


MARTIN 


06/00/72 


.3 


14 


B03 


RELOC INFO FROM BRA SITE OFF 


WILDER 


06/15/72 


.3 


15 


BC3 


BUS DISPLACE/EMP IMPACT 1-95 RELOCATED 


HARRISON 


06/22/72 


.3 


50 


B03 


SO BOSTON BUS DISPLACEMENT 


WILDER 


06/27/72 


.3 


15 


B03 


BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT 1-95 RELOCATED 


HARRISON 


07/27/72 


3 


15 


303 


BUS DISPLACEMENT 1-95 RELOCATED 


HARRISON 


08/02/72 


.3 


50 


B03 


BUS RELOCATION PROGRAM FOR SO BOSTON 


HARRISON 


08/17/72 


.3 


50 


BC3 


BUS TAKINGS IN SW CORRIDOR 


LANE 


11/03/72 


3 


25 


B03 


ANAL OF JOB GAINS IN SW CORRIDOR 


MARTIN 


11/14/72 



SE 


FAC FILE 


04 


10 


POO 


04 


10 


p 11 


05 


10 


POO 


04 


10 


R ll 


05 


10 


P ?1 


06 


10 


P05 


05 


10 


B21 


04 


10 


P?2 


04 


10 


P14 


04 


10 


R ?0 


12 


10 


P21 


06 


10 


P05 


0^ 


10 


B23 


04 


10 


BIO 


10 


10 


P07 


12 


10 


BOB 


04 


10 


BOO 


04 


10 


Rll 


04 
09 


10 


P14 

POO 


05 




82^ 


10 




B07 


56 




R05 


03 




POO 


09 




P02 


10 
09 




P07 
B02 


05 




POO 


D<5 




B02 


04 
09 

09 




P10 
R*2 
B02 


10 




B07 


04 




POO 


10 




BOP 


09 




B02 


C9 




B02 


05 




POO 


06 




a 05 


11 




B03 


11 




B03 


05 




BOO 


04 




B!0 


06 




B05 


11 
09 
09 
06 




BO 3 
B02 
B02 
BO 5 


09 




P02 


10 




P07 


11 




B05 


06 




PO^ 


09 




B02 


10 




B07 


10 




BOP 


C6 
06 




BOO 
B05 


06 
06 




P05 

R05 



TITLE 

PROP M6TA WORK PRGM 
NORTH SHORE TRANSIT 
WORK PROGRAM PROD AN 
NORTH SHORE LINE TAB 
1-95 LAND USE INVENT 
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND 
1-95 COMPLFTION ALTE 
LYNN /GENERAL ELECTRI 
NORTH SHORF FXPRESS 
SPFCIAL PURPOSE LANE 
1-95 RELOCATION COST 
NO SHORE TRANSIT DEM 
1-95 NORTH ALTERNATI 
NORTH SHORE MET COST 
I-95N AND I-95R INDI 
RELOCATION NO SHORE 
NORTH SHORE NET COST 
NORTH SHORE EXP BUS 
NORTH SHOR c EXPRESS 
NORTH SHOR c TPANSPOR 
B-S BRIDGE 



OPER ANA OF NO SHORE 

WORK PROGRAM PRIORITIES 

D NO SHORE EIS 

LE TRANS ANAL 

ORY 

TURN MOVEMENTS NO SHORE 

PNATIVES 

C COMPANY AXCESS 

BUS OPERATING COST 

S - NORTH SHORE 

S 

AND LEVELS 

VES 

OF SERVICE IMPACT 
RECT 4F 
HEARING 

OF SERVICE IMPACT 
OPERATING COSTS 
BUS OPER COSTS 
TATION -PROGRAM 



SALT RUNOF«= 

OOnOTRANS IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION 

EVALUATION CRITERIA 

PRINCIPAL c EOERAL HEARINGS AND REVIEW STAT 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF BTPR 

IMMEDIATE WORK ITEMS 

ISSUE PAPER 

DEADLINE FOP P S GE SUBMISSION 

TRANSIT PARTICIPANT IN CORE TEAM 

SFQ ANALYSIS REPLACEMENT HOUSING 

SE9 ANAL FXCLUS OR PREFERENTIAL BUS LANES 

HARVARD ALEWIFE 

PUB TRANS SERV IN INNER CITY 

RETAIL CENTERS IN SW SUBREGION 

SE9ANALYSIS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS 

SF9 ANALYSIS FEDERAL AID FOR PARKING FAC 

BTPR APPROACH 

POP AND EMPLOY ADJUSTMENTS FOR TASK A 

METHODOLOGY FOP REG £ SECTOR ECON ANAL 

CBD OFFICE STUDY 

TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS 

BOSTON TRANSIT STUDIES 

CO&E AREA GROWTH PROJECTIONS 

CORE AREA GROWTH 

TOLL BRIDGE AND TOLL TUNNEL PROJCTS 

REPLACEMENT HOUSING 

COMMON DEFINITIONS 

RELOCATION AND REPLACEMENT HOUSING 

SALEM HISTORIC PRES AND TRANSPORTATION 

COMMON DEFINITIONS 

TRIP TABLES AVAILABLE 

PUBLIC HEARINGS 

RECREATION TRAVEL IN METRO AREA 

PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM 

INTRO TO BTPR DATA GATHERING 

CENSUS DATA PY TRAFFIC ZONES 

REGIONAL TRAFFIC DATA 

REGIONAL TRAFFIC DATA 



AUTHOR 

TRUST 

NO SHORE TFAM 

LOCKWOOO 

cp H R 

SANDERS 

FISTEL 

MARTIN 

BLUMENTHAL 

MCBRAYER 

NO SHORE TEAM 

MAHADY 

BREVARD 

LEISCH 

KIDSTON 

WALLACE 

MAHADY 

KIDSTON 

KIDSTON 

KIDSTON 

SMITH 

HOPKINSON 

HANSEN 

KARASH 

LOCKWOOD 

SMITH 

HANSEN 

SMITH 

BTPR STAFF 

SMITH 

COOGAN 

SMITH 

SMITH 

ROUDEBUSH 

ECON TEAM 

SMITH 

SMITH 

BTPR STAFF 

BARBER 

HARRISON 

HARRISON 

ROUDEBUSH 

DEEN 

LOCKWOOD 

LOCKWOOD 

GREESON 

MAHADY 

HANSEN 

MAHADY 

HOPKINSON 

HARRISON 

BARBER 

SMITH 

LINSKY 

WALBRFCKER 

MCCANN 

WEY 

BREVARD 

BREVARD 



DATE 

01/06/7? 
03/0^/72 
03/22/7? 
03/28/72 
03/30/7? 
04/07/72 
04/12/7? 
04/1P/7? 
05/00/72 
05/00/7? 
05/10/72 
05/24/72 
06/12/7? 
07/06/7? 
07/27/72 
07/?7/72 
07/2P/72 
^8/15/72 
08/15/72 
12/00/72 
01/19/73 

02/00/71 
05/05/71 
07/00/ti 
08/00/71 
08/1^/71 
08/20/71 
08/26/71 
08/27/71 
08/30/71 
08/30/71 
08/31/71 
08/31/71 
09/00/71 
09/00/71 
09/01/71 
09/01/71 
09/07/71 
^9/07/ti 

0<V07/71 
09/08/71 
09/13/71 
09/14/71 
09/15/71 
09/15/71 
09/17/^1 
39/17/71 
09/20/71 
09/20/71 
09/20/71 
09/20/71 
09/22/71 
09/22/71 
09/22/71 
09/22/71 
09/23/71 

09/23/71 
09/24/71 

09/24/71 



SE FAC FILE 


11 1 


1 R">3 


C2 1 


1 POO 


09 i 


1 P02 


05 1 


1 POO 


06 1 


1 BO^ 


09 1 


1 B02 


11 1 


1 P^3 


10 1 


1 BOP 


09 1 


1 602 


11 1 


1 BO* 


OP i 


1 BO 2 


06 1 


1 P05 


11 1 


1 B03 


11 1 


1 B03 


CA 1 


1 BIO 


11 1 


1 B07 


11 1 


1 D ")3 


11 1 


1 ROT 


10 1 


1 BOB 


10 1 


1 B ">8 


09 1 


1 P02 


06 1 


1 B05 


06 1 


1 B05 


06 1 


1 B05 


10 ! 


1 B07 


ro i 


1 BO 2 


04 1 


1 BIO 


09 1 


1 BO? 


09 1 


1 P 2 


04 1 


1 BOO 


06 1 


1 B05 


11 1 


1 *03 


02 1 


1 BOO 


11 1 


1 B03 


04 1 


1 BIO 


OA 1 


1 8 20 


05 1 


i Bn 


09 1 


1 BO? 


04 1 


1 POO 


05 1 


1 BOO 


05 1 


1 BIO 


10 1 


1 R07 


06 1 


1 B05 


04 1 


1 BIO 


06 1 


1 R">5 


11 1 


1 BQ7 


06 1 


1 B0 C 


11 1 


1 B05 


04 1 


1 BIO 


04 1 


1 P 20 


12 1 


1 BOO 


06 1 


1 B05 


10 1 


1 B07 


04 1 


1 B?0 


5 1 


1 BOO 


C6 1 


1 P0 5 


11 1 


1 E03 


10 1 


1 P07 


09 1 


1 PO? 


05 1 


1 BOO 


04 1 


1 R 10 



5 



TITLE 

CAMBRIDGE URBAN RENEWAL PICTURE 

MATCO PARTICIPATION IN RESTUDY 

ISSUES OF STATE LAW 

PUPLIC TRANSPORTATION 

SEMINAR ON METRO ECONOMIC GROWTH 

BTPR DECISION OPTION 

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS 

AITERNATIVE PROGRAM PACKAGES 

SEWERS WATER AND PARKS 

DATA ON BUS SYSTEMS 

ACOUSTIC DAMAGE CASES 

19 Q0 FORECASTS OF CORE EMPLOYMENT 

DOWNTOWN EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS 

FUTURE OVERALL ECONOMIC TRENDS 

TRANSIT TASK FORCE WORK PROGRAM 

MAJOR PROPOSALS FROM MAPC OPEN SPACE PLAN 

REGIONAL INPUT OUTPUT ECONOMIC STUDY 

ENV CONCERNS NPRTHSHORE 

SE2 STAFF QUESTIONS 

NORTHWEST CORRIDOR QUESTIONS 

ISSUES OF STATE LAW 

FUTURE POPULATION ESTIMATES 

DEMIOGPAPHIC LAND USE AND DEVEL DATA 

DFMOGRAPHIC LAND USE AND DEV DATA 

ENVIRONMENTAL POSITION PAPER 

FEDERAL AID FOR PARKING FACILITY 

NORTH SHORE ALT PARKING TRANSIT BUSWAY 

MBTA BACKGROUND MEMO 

PHASE I EVALUATION S E 9 

PRELIM PHASE I ALTERNATIVES 

SELECTED LINK ASSIGNMENTS FROM PMM MODEL V AL 

PPFLIM VIEW OF REGIONAL POPULATION £ EMPLOY 

COORDINATING HARVARD MED 

PRFLIM ECON HVERVIEW OF NORTH SHORE 

PROTOTYPICAL TRNSIT STUDIES 

MASTER PARKING STRATEGY FOR BOSTON PROP 

BOSTON TRAMSIT CRISIS 

THREE SISTERS BRIDGE 

OPTIONS FOR PUB TRANS SERV IN INNER CITY 

PHASE II STiJOY 

PHASE II 

MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN SOUTHWEST 

1990 SELFCTFO LINK ASSIGNMENTS 

BRITISH TRANSIT SYSTEM PLANNING 

1990 PROJECTIONS AND POLICY SENSITIVITY 

OPTIONS FDR VACANT LAND REUSE 

EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS 

BOSTON PROGRAMS 

TRANSIT SUGGESTIONS 

TOPICS PROGRAM 

GAS TAX REFERENDUM 

POP EMP INCOME CHANGES 

RED CONTAMIMANT LEVELS 

TOPICS 

IMTERMODAL CORRIDORS 

COST BENEFIT ANAL OF CAMBRIDGE INNER BELT 

RFVIS C D POP t EMPLOY PPOJ 1990 

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS IN DEVEL TRANS 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTH 

PHILOSOPHY G PLAN FOR AVOID TRANSPOR 

PROTOTYPICAL TRNSIT STUDIES 



IN MODEL CITIES 
FROM VEHICLE DENSITY 



GOALS 



CRISIS 



AUTHOR 

HANDY 

SLOAN 

CURRY 

KILLINGER 

BARBER 

SMITH 

ROUDEBUSH 

WOPFORD 

SMITH 

BARBER 

SMITH 

BTPR STAFF 

REG ECON TEAM 

ECON TEAM 

FEHP 

LINSKY 

BARBER 

WALLACE 

SE2 

OSDOBY 

CURRY 

BARBER 

MARTIN 

MARTIN 

WALLACE 

SMITH 

HANSEN 

SMITH 

SMITH 

BTPR STAFF 

BARBER 

PEG ECON TEAM 

SLOAN 

HARPISONY 

FEHR 

HANSEN 

HANSEN 

CURRY 

SW TEAM 

STEINMAN 

STEINMAN 

KILLINGER 

BREVARD 

ZELLNER 

LOCKWOOD 

LOCKWOOD 

BARBER 

HANSEN 

MILLER 

HANSEN 

MAHADY 

MAHADY 

BELLOMO 

HANSEN 

LOCKWOOD 

ZELLNER 

HARRISON 

ENV COALITION 

CURRY 

NICHOLAS 

KIDSTON 



DATE 

09/2A/71 
09/27/71 
09/27/71 
09/28/71 
09/28/71 
09/2B/7! 
09/2B/71 
09/30/71 
10/00/71 
10/01/T1 

10/0A/71 
10/05/71 
10/05/71 
10/07/71 
10/12/71 
10/13/71 
10/1A/71 
10/18/71 
10/20/71 
10/20/71 
10/21/71 
10/22/71 
10/22/71 
10/22/71 
10/24/71 
10/25/71 
10/26/71 
10/26/71 
10/26/71 
10/28/71 
10/28/71 
10/29/71 
11/01/71 
11/01/71 
11/02/71 
11/^2/71 
11/02/71 
11/03/71 
11/04/71 
11/05/71 
11/05/71 
11/05/71 
11/09/71 
11/10/71 
11/10/71 
11/10/71 
11/11/71 
11/16/71 
11/17/71 
11/17/71 
11/17/71 
11/18/71 
11/18/71 
11/21/71 
11/22/71 
11/22/71 
11/22/71 
11/23/71 
11/24/71 
11/26/71 
11/29/71 



SE FAC FILE 

Bll 
Bll 
B05 
BO 2 
BIO 
&06 
RIO 
Pio 

BIO 
P03 
B>" 

B04 
P07 

P05 

eoft 

RIO 

PQ7 

POO 

R05 
BO 61 
P17 
603 
P05 
BO 5 
?0* 
B05 
B07 
R03 
PIO 
PIO 
RO? 
*03 
P0 C 
R05 
B05 
R06 
BIO 
B07 
B03 
P20 
P07 
820 
*04 
B07 
82 
P0 K 
BO 5 
P05 
BO 2 
B05 
D 2 
607 

B03 
B05 

B02 
P05 
R02 

BOO 
R 20 

P20 
BIO 



TITLE 

PROTOTYPICAL TRANSIT STUDY 

c CHNOMIC IMPACT OF RAIL RAPID TRANSIT 

ANAL OF EMRPP £ TASK A TRAVEL FORECASTS 

U^ta ADVANCE ACQUISITION LOANS REQUIRE 

WASHINGTON STREET EL REHABILITATION 

DUAL POWER VFHICLE PRELIM FINDINGS 

POSSIBLE TRANSIT SITES ALONG ROUTE 128 

CPO ACCESSIBILITY STUDIES 

WASHINGTON STREET EL REHAB WORK PROGRAM 

ROUTE AND BUSINESSMEN SURVEY 

OPE FOR DEV OF ALT ALIGN FOR 1-95 IN PTE 1 

THEMES FOR THE FUTURE 

ECOL IMPACT STUDY 

CONFIGURATION OF INTERSTATE ^3/695 

COMMUNICATIONS 

PRELIM FINDINGS ON TRANSIT 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA 

BFTTER PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

1970 US CENSUS DATA BY BLOCK GROUP 

OAILY ANNUAL TOTALS FOP LOGAL TRAVELERS 

ATP POLLUTION MOBILE SOURCES 

RTpp DATA REQUEST STOP £ SHOP 

TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODS FIRST RND HWY 

1973 RASE HIGHWAY NETWORK 

STATUS OF PMM SELECTED LINK OUTPUT 

STATUS OF RMM SFLFCTED LINK OUTPUT 

EPT AIR POLLUTIONS STUDIES 

MASTFR PLANNING ISSUES 

TFNTATIVE TRNSIT STUDY WORK 

PPOPOSED MBTA WORK PROGRAM FOR NS ANAL 

REVIEW COMMENT 

PHASE II WORK PROGRAM 

HWY ALTERNATIVES IM FIRST ROUND NETWORK ANAL 

CREATION OP TRIP TABLES FOR PHASE II ANAL 

CREATION OF trip TABLES FOR PHASE II ANAL 

INFORMATION ON MTA DUAL POWER VEHICLE 

PTS SUMMARY AND FINDINGS 

ERT AIR POLLUTIONS STUDIES 

MODEL CITIES CONCERNS 

PARKING STUDY 

NATL HISTORIC LANDMARKS 

DEVELOPMENT OF AERIAL OBLIQUE PHOTOS 

DEVELOPMENT OF PROBABLE FUTURES 

OPEN SPACE HUMAN USE ENV CONCERNS NW 

PARKING STUDY 

FOURTH COUNT 1970 CENSUS INFORMATION 
BTPR ZONE SYSTEM 
BTPR ZONE SYSTEM 
BACK BAY FENS ETC 

FOURTH COUNT US CENSUS TABULATIONS 
GOVERNORS DECISIONS 

CONSIDERATIONS INFLUEN REUSE OF CLEARED LAN 
AL T ERNATIVE PROGRAM PACKAGES 
HWY ISSUES IN <=IRST POUND NETWORK ANAL 
MID SUMMER DECISION 

PRELIMINARY MODEL VALIDATION RESULTS 
WORKING PAPE& ON HIGHWAY 
PHASE II FNGINEERING WORK 
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND ENGR IMPROVEMENT 
PARKING VIOLATIONS/STREET CAPACITY 
PTS SUMMARY AND FINDINGS 



AUTHOR 

KIDSTON 

MARTIN 

BARBER 

SMITH 

BENSON 

ZELLNER 

CLAPP 

FEHR 

BENSON 

HARRISON 

HANSEN 

REG ECON TEAM 

CORTELL 

MACMANN 

HANSEN 

DEEN 

LOCKWOOD 

MAHADY 

HANSEN 

MBTA 

LEE 

PEG FCON TEAM 

SYSTEM ANAL TEAM 

SYSTEM ANAL TEAM 

BREVARD 

BREVARD 

WILLIS 

ROUOEBUSH 

HANSEN 

TRUST 

SMITH 

MAHADY 

MACMANN 

BARBER 

BARBER 

ZELLNER 

FEHR 

WILLIS 

HARRISON 

LEVINSON 

ENV TEAM 

MARTIN 

MARTIN 

ENV TEAM 

LEVINSON 

BARBER 

MACMANN 

MACMANN 

SMITH 

HANSEN 

SMITH 

HARRISON 

WOOD 

WEST 

SMITH 

SMITH 

VOLPE 

HANSEN 

LACROSS 

KINDSTON 



DATE 
11/29/71 
11/2<V71 
11/30/71 
12/01/71 
12/06/71 
12/08/71 
12/10/71 
12/10/71 
12/14/71 
12/15/71 
12/16/71 
12/16/71 
12/17/71 
12/20/71 
12/20/7! 
12/21/7^ 
12/21/71 
12/22/71 
12/23/71 
12/23/7! 
12/23/71 
01/00/72 
01/03/72 
01/03/72 
01/04/72 
D1/C4/72 
01/05/72 
01/05/72 
01/06/72 
01/06/72 
01/06/72 
01/07/72 
01/10/72 
01/11/72 
01/11/72 
01/11/72 
01/14/72 
01/14/72 
01/14/72 
01/17/72 
01/19/72 
01/20/72 
^1/21/72 
01/24/72 
01/26/72 
01/26/72 
01/27/72 
01/27/72 
01/27/72 
01/28/72 
01/31/72 
01/31/72 
02/01/72 
02/03/72 
02/09/72 
02/10/72 
02/10/72 
02/11/72 
02/14/72 
02/15/72 
02/18/72 



SE FAC FILE 

Pll 
B05 
R05 
80 5 
P05 
B05 
RIO 
B05 
B07 
R05 
RO^ 
PO* 
B07 

^02 

B07 

805 
B02 

BOP 
BIO 
*0 5 
P02 
R03 

BIO 
B05 
B05 
B2? 
B02 
RIO 
B04 
B">7 
B02 
B05 
Pll 
B2 2 
B35 
B05 
B03 
B05 
ROR 
BOO 
ROO 
B15 
BO? 
B02 
R03 
R21 
BO 6 
B02 

B05 
B05 

B03 
R05 
B05 
B03 
815 
R05 
*05 
Bll 
&02 
B?l 



TITLE 

PROTOTYPICAL transit STUDIES 
PFSULTS OF PMM S EL LINK OU T PUT 

ASSIGNMENT 

IN TRAVEL T IME 

IN TRAVEL TIMe BY PRIV 

IN TRAVEL TIME BY PRIV 



FOR BS BRDGE 



AUTO 
CAR 



WORK PROGRAM 



AREAS 



TRAGIC 

CHANGES 

CHANGES 

CHANGES 

PROPOSES INNOVATIVE TRANSIT 

AUTOMOBILE REGISTRATION 

STAND FOR OPEN SPACE AND RECRE 

POPULATION FIGURES 

ACCESSIBILITY 0<= MEASUREMENTS OF TRANS IMP 

ANALYSIS OF 1963 SOMERVILLE SHOP TRAVEL 

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

LEGAL £ FACTUAL POINTS ON PARKING STUDY 

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

PHPULATION CAPACITY OF VACANT DEVELOP LAND 

°VERT3N PA*K CASE 

PUBLIC TPANS IN NORTHSHORE 

RAPID TRANSIT OPERATING COST COMPARISONS 

BACKGROUND ON EMPIRIC MODEL LOW INCOME FAM 

USE OF ACCEL HWY PRGM FUNDS AND MBTA 

REGIONAL TASK FORCE REPORT 

PTS INTERES T RATE ASSUMPTIONS 

t>MM PROPOSAL TO RECALIBRATE EMPIRIC MODEL 

REITERATION! OF HWY ALT TESTED IN FIRST POUND 

LFG G ADM PROC FOR CONSTRUC PEPL HOUSING 

LFG/ADMIN PROC FOR CONST REPLACEMENT HSNG 

TRANSIT ALT LINE HAUL AND COMMUTER RAIL 

REGIONAL THEMES 

PRANKERS POND CONSERVATION AREA 

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES 

T RANSIT ALTERNATIVES 

BALLPARK ANAL OF MQDAL SPLIT TO DOWNTOWN 
HOUSING RELOCATION 
ANALYSIS OF ROUTE 1 TRAFFIC 
ANAL OF ROUTE 1 TRAFFIC 
HOUSING PEPLACEMENT/RELOCA 
EMPLOYMENT FIGURES 



TASK FORCE ON 
SELECTED LINK 
SELECTED LINK 
TASK FORCE ON 
ROSTON TOTAL 



BOSTON TOTAL EMPLOYMENT FIGURES 

JOIN T DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 

PHASE II URBAN DESIGN 

CPD ACCESSIBILITY SUMMARY 

UMTA PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS 

UMTA PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS 

BUSIN..ESS RELOCATIONS 

1-95 ALTERNATIVES 

POWER CAR SOLUTION TO DUAL PROPULSION VEH 

STATe AND LOCAL JURIS AFFECTING PARKING 

NO SHORE DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYMENT CENTER 

BTPR POP AND EMPL FORECASTS 

BTPR POP AND EMPLOY FORECASTS 

REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL RELOCA FOR TRANSP ALT 

DIRECT DEMAND MODEL SOFTWARE 

OIRFCT DEMAND MODEL SOFTWARE 

BUS RELOCATION MOVING EXPENSE 

BTPR TRANSIT STRATEGY 

SMALL AREA MODEL FOR PLANNERS 

SMALL A&FA MODEL FOR PLANNERS 

oe NN CENTRAL OPERATING COST DATA 

P n LICY PRnrc SS F hr PARKING 

AUTOMOTED GUIDEWAY APPLICA IN SO BOSTON 



AUTHOR 

KIDSTON 

HOPKINSON 

VOLPE 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BARBER 

LOWSON 

BARBER 

REG TEAM 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BREVARD 

PEG ENV TEAM 

SMITH 

ESL 

BARBER 

SMITH 

POBBINS 

KIDSTON 

BARBER 

SMITH 

REG TEAM 

KIDSTON 

BARBER 

WEST 

HARRISON 

HARRISON 

PEEPS 

WOOD 

LINSKU 

SMITH 

DEERS 

BRAND 

LOCKWOOD 

BREVARD 

BREVARD 

LOCKWOOD 

BARBER 

PARBER 

LANE 

KILLINGER 

COOGAN 

SMITH 

SMITH 

MAHADY 

LANE 

ZELLNEP 

CURRY 

WALLACE 

PARBER 

BARBER 

MAHADY 

MDMANN 

MACMANN 

WILDER 

COOGAN 

BARBER 

PARBER 

ZELLNER 

CURRY 

COOGAN 



DATE 

02/1A/7? 
-)?/l»/72 

2/18/72 

02/21/7? 
02/21/72 
02/21/ 7 ? 
02/22/7? 
02/23/72 
02/2T/7? 
32/28/7? 
02/2°/7? 
02/?°/7? 
0?/2Q/72 
OR/DO/ 7 ? 
03/02/7? 
r> 3/"» v? 
03/03/72 
03/03/7? 
33/07/72* 
03/07/7? 
3/07/7? 
"»3/07/7? 
03/08/7? 
03/09/72 
0*»/16/72 
03/16/72 
33/16/72 
03/20/7? 

33/20/72 

"3/21/7? 

03/22/72 
03/23/7? 
03/23/7? 
03/27/72 
03/27/72 
03/27/^2 
03/27/72 
03/29/72 
03/29/72 
03/30/72 
03/30/72 
04/0^/72 
04/05/7? 

04/05/ 7 2 
04/05/T2 
04/1^/7? 
04/H/7? 
04/11/7? 
04/11/7? 
04/12/72 
04/12/72 
04/13/72 
04/17/7? 
34/17/72 
04/20/72 
04/24/7? 
04/24/72 

04/24/7? 
04/27/7? 

04/27/72 

05/00/7? 



SE FAC FILE 

B2H 
P10 
BIO 
R^6 
BO? 
P05 
R06 
BOO 
R03 
POO 
BIO 
B04 
B15 
Rll 
R02 
B05 
BOO 
P 21 
BO 3 
RIO 
B07 
BIO 
R02 
BO? 
P05 

P05 
pf!5 

BIO 
P05 
BO? 
B15 
RQ6 
B07 
B21 
R15 
BOO 
BOO 
BO 5 
B02 
B)5 
B02 
B02 
R03 
B21 
B03 
B^5 
RIO 
Bll 
B21 
BOB 
BOO 
B15 
BOO 
BO 3 
R05 
B02 
BO? 
B02 
B15 
B02 
BOO 



TITLE 

CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING AND RATE REGULA 

GENERAL CHAPACTERIS OF ALT TRANSIT MODES 

DOUBLE DECKER BUSES 

nnuBLE OECKER BUSES 

INTERSTATE TRADEOFF 

MODIFICATION OP PERSON TRIPS 

FINDINGS ON DUAL PROPULSION VEHICLE 

AREA WIDE TOPICS REPORTS 

UNIFIED TRANS PLAN WORK PROGRAM 

TRUCK OPERATIONS 

TRANSIT DEMAND DATA 

COMPLETION OF REGIONAL PAPER 

TRANSIT CIRCUMFERENTIAL T&CH MEETING 

SUB MODAL ASSIGNMENTS 

JOINT DEVELOP AND REPLACEMENT FACILITIES 

CPA DIRECT DEMAND MODEL 

TRANSPORTATION CRISIS 1972 

SUMMARY EVAL OF 1-95 ALIGNMENTS 

H-6177 DPW BONO ISSUE 

TOPICS RELATIVE TO TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT 

NOISE STANDARDS 

MISCELLANEOUS MISFORTUNES 

USE OF FED FUNDS FOR TOLL ROADS 

INCLUSION OF 4F AND NATL REGISTER SITE DAT 

US CENSUS 4TH COUNT SUMMARY TAPES 

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODELS 

US CENSUS 4-TH COUNT SUMM TAPES 

CHOICE RIDER SURVFY 

TRANSIT OUTPUT FOR SYSTEMS 

NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS 

CONSTRUCTION COST OF PRT 

PPT CONSTRUCTION COST 

DISPOSITION OF LANDS NOT USED FOR HWYS 

CONSTRUCTION OPERATICNS ON ACTIVE HWYS 

TPANSPO 72 

DAVIS SQUARE PROJECT 

BRIEFING WITH EVERETT 

ALLOCA OF POP AND FMP ANAL RANGES 

MBTA BOND LEGISLATION 

DIRECT DEMAND MODEL WORK PROGRAM 

INTERSTATE TRADE OFF 

R C PAYMENT 0^ FUNDS C 0R PE ROW ETC ON HWY 

RELOCATION PROCESS FOR FED AID HWY/TRANS PRO 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ABOUT SO BOSTON 

MHFA AND REPLACEMENT HOUSING 

US CENSUS FOURTH COUNT DATA FOR 1970 

COMPLETION OF PHASF II TRANSIT STUDIES 

POWER CAP/CATENARY COST ANALYSIS 

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OP ALTERNATIVES 

COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS 

TIMING OF SO BPAINTREE EXTENSION 

TIMING 0<= SO BPAINTREE EXTENSION 

BEVERLY SALEM BRIDGE 

D EGIONAL FRAMEWORK PAPER 

1QR0 DAILY AIRPORT VEHICLE TRIPS 

BTPR DESIGN STANDARDS POLICIES GUIDELINES 

TRANS INVEST DECISIONS BY MBTA 

INTERSTATE RFDESIGNATION 

TRANSIT PLANNING STPATEGY 

USE OF ST HWY PUNDS FOR HWY PLANNING ACTIV 

NW ENG PROGRESS NW CORR HWY IMPROVEMENT 



AUTHOR 

MCBPAYER 

BTPR STAFF 

ZELLNER 

ZELLNER 

COOGAN 

WONG 

ZELLNER 

HOPKINSON 

MAHADY 

HOPKINSON 

KIDSTON 

WOOD 

BTPR STAFF 

KIDSTON 

HANSEN 

MACMANN 

BTPR STAFF 

BTPR STAFF 

MAHADY 

MCBRAYER 

WOPFORD 

MCBPAYER 

SMITH 

SMITH 

BARBER 

MACMANN 

BARBER. 

MCBPAYER 

PEERS 

SMITH 

SZILLASSY 

SZILLASY 

SMITH 

BENSON 

MCBRAYER 

TEPPILL 

HOPKINSON 

BARBER 

WOFFORD 

MACMANN 

COOGAN 

CURRY 

MAHADY 

HARRISON 

MAHADY 

BARBER 

MCBRAYER 

KIDSTON 

HARRISON 

HANSEN 

COOGAN 

COOGAN 

NO SHORE TEAM 

WOOD 

BARBER 

SMITH 

CURRY 

COOGAN 

COOGAN 

CURRY 

SZILLASSY 



DATE 

05/^0/72 
05/00/72 
05/01/7? 
05/01/7? 
05/09/72 
05/^9/72 
05/0°/' r ? 
05/10/7? 
05/15/72 

05/17/7? 

c /22/72 
05/22/72 
05/23/72 
05/?3/7? 
)5/?4/7? 
A ^/?6/7? 
06/00/72 
06/00/7? 
06/00/" 7 ? 
06/0?/7? 
?6/ r 6/72 
06/08/7? 
06/12/7? 

C6/14/72 
06/15/7? 
06/15/7? 
06/1^/7? 
06/16/7? 
06/16/7? 
06/20/72 
06/22/72 
36/22/^2 
06/??/7? 
06/?3/7? 
06/27/72 
06/?8/7? 
07/05/7? 
07/10/72 
07/10/72 
07/1B/72 
07/19/7? 
07/?!/7? 
07/28/72 
07/31/72 
07/31/72 
08/03/72 
08/07/72 
ft 3/ll/72 
03/15/7? 
0|/?0/7? 
03/23/72 
03/23/72 
08/25/7? 
08/29/7? 

09/00/72 
09/00/72 
09/07/72 
09/20/72 
09/25/72 
09/25/7? 
09/?*/72 



SE FAC FILE 


12 




B^3 


0<3 




no2 


10 




B07 


08 




B06 


1? 




P03 


12 




B03 


06 




BO 5 


Of 




ROO 


06 




BO 5 


06 




B05 


06 




B05 


10 




B07 


06 




B05 


10 




B07 


09 




B02 


05 




P22 


06 




BO* 


06 




P05 


06 




B15 


02 




pnn 


06 




B05 


05 




B21 


10 




BO"' 


04 


\\ 


B26 


05 


12 


POO 


05 


12 


BOO 


04 


13 


BOO 


04 


1 7 


B21 


09 


13 


B24 


05 


13 


BOO 


04 


13 


B?4 


05 


13 


B24 


05 


13 


B20 


05 


13 


boo 


05 


13 


BIO 


04 


13 


B24 


11 


13 


B r 3 


05 


13 


BOO 


04 


13 


P10 


04 


13 


BIO 


04 


13 


P20 


5 


13 


P10 


05 


13 


BIO 


04 


13 


P?l 


11 


13 


p^n 


04 


13 


BOO 


04 


13 


B21 


11 


13 


B07 


04 


13 


B21 


04 


13 


B21 


04 


13 


B20 


OP 


13 


B24 


C4 


13 


Bll 


04 


13 


621 


05 


13 


B?4. 


10 


13 


B07 


05 


\ 3 


BIO 


04 


13 


P i « 


0* 


13 


P21 



TITLE 

REPLACEMENT HSG CONSTRUC CONSTRAINTS 

LEG ADMIN ANAL METRO PARKING POLICIES 

AIR QUALITY IMPACT 

DUAL PROPULSION RAPID TRANSIT POWER CAP 

BUSINESS DISPLACEMENTS 

FAMILY RELOCA AND REPLACEMENT HOUSING 

BTPR MODE SPLI T MODEL 

C=NSUS DATA 

USE OF CROSS ELASTICITY TRAVEL * FORECAST MOD 

CROSS ELASTICITY 

N-DIMFNSIONAL LOGIT FUNCTION 

LOCAL RF^REATION TRAVEL IN METRO AREA 

MODAL SPLIT ANA 

AIR MONITORING REPORT 

AU T H TO CONSTP OR IMPL PROJ FOR TRAFF MGMT 

EARLY ACTION ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 

BTPR MODE SPLIT MODEL COMPUTER PROGRAM 

R2 STATISTIC MADE SIMPLE 

BUS/LIMO SEPV AND MASS PIKE EXTENSION 

PUB HEARING TEST AND RESPON 

C INAL SUMMARY SE 6 REPORT 

RIGHT-OC-WAY AND TAKINGS COST 

AIR POLLUTION 

PARKING AS AN URBAN LAND USE 

NORTH SHORE NO EXPRESSWAY OPTION 
NO BUILD PRODUC T 

NO SHORE TRANSP 

PRELIM EXAM OF ALT ALIGN FOR 1-95 N 

FUNDING OF B-S BRIDGE £ 1-95 CONNECTOR 

NO SHORE PHASE I SUMMARY REPORT 

A NEW BEV SALEM BRIDGE 

B-S BRIDGE SCHEMATIC DESIGNS 

NORTH SHORE HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVES 

POTENTIAL PROG PKGS FOR NO SHORE 

RANGE OF TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 

WOPK PROGRAM BEV SALEM BRIDGE PHASE II 

ECONOMIC OVERVIEW 0*= NORTH SHORE 

PRELIM DEF HE ISSUES IN INNER NO SHORE 

NORTH SHORE TRANSIT ALT PROGRAM 

EARLY ACTION PRGM FOR TRANSIT IMPROVE NS 

MOPTH SHORE TOPICS 

SUMMARY OF NO SHORE TOPICS PLANS 

SOME COMMENTS ON NOPTH SHORE TRANSIT ALT 

ROUTE 1-95 ALTERNATIVES NO SHORE CORRIDOR 

SPEC ECON OEV STRATEGY STUDY FOR LYNN 

STUDY FOR LYNN 

ROUTE 1-95 ALTEPNA T IVES EXTPA TOPOGRAPHY 

OPEN SPACE HU*AN USE ENV CONCERNS NO SHORE 

COMTR FOR B-S BRIDGE TO INCLUDE ALT CONN 

IMPROVEMENTS TO 128 AND ALT ALIGN FOR 1-95 

NO/SO VEHICULR ROUTES THRU REVE ALT ALIGN 

BEVERLY SALEM BRIDGE LEGALDADMIN ISSUES 

MB T A WORK PROGRAM FOR NOPTH SHORE ANAL 

PHASE II NOPTH SHORE 

PEVEPLY SALPM BRIDGE 

FRESH POND AMD SURROUNDING OPEN SPACE AREAS 

POTENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR LYNN TRANSIT DEMO 

TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES NORTH SHORE 

I-Q* LYNN WOODS 



AUTHOR 


DATE 


MAHADY 


09/2Q/72 


CURRY 


09/30/72 


ERT 


10/0O/7? 


ZELLNER 


10/10/72 


MAHADY 


10/11/72 


MAHADY 


10/11/72 


MACMANN 


10/12/72 


BARBER 


10/13/72 


BRAND 


10/17/72 


PEERS 


10/17/72 


MACMANN 


1^/17/72 


LINSKU 


10/1P/72 


8ATCHELDER 


10/2^/72 


ERT 


10/24/72 


SMITH 


10/31/72 


HOPKINSON 


11/13/72 


MACMANN 


11/14/72 


MACMANN 


11/14/72 


BARBER 


11/15/7? 


SE2 STAF«= 


11/16/72 


PEERS 


12/00/72 


SIMPSON 


12/^1/72 


PEERS 


12/02/7? 


LEVINSON 


12/05/72 


BTPR STAFF 


09/00/ 7 l 


HOPK INSOM 


02/14/72 


SYS DES TEAM 


07/29/71 


SYS DES CON 


08/19/71 


SMITH 


08/27/71 


NO SHRE TEAM 


09/00/71 


ZELLNER 


09/02/71 


HOPKINSON 


09/17/71 


LANE 


09/20/71 


LANE 


09/21/71 


LANE 


09/22/71 


NO SHORE TEAM 


09/2V71 


HARRISON 


09/23/71 


NO SHRE STAFF 


10/12/71 


NS TEAM 


10/20/71 


NS STUDY TEAM 


10/20/71 


MILLER 


10/20/71 


MILLER 


10/20/71 


HANSEN 


10/26/71 


HANSEN 


11/^0/71 


HARRISON 


11/05/71 


HANSEN 


11/09/71 


HANSEN 


11/15/71 


WALLACE 


11/15/71 


HANSEN 


12/15/71 


HANSEN 


12/15/71 


HANSEN 


12/21/71 


SMITH 


01/12/7? 


TRUST 


01/13/72 


HANSEN 


01/18/72 


NO SHORE TEAM 


01/19/7? 


DWOPSKY 


01/1^/72 


LANE 


01/27/72 


FEHR 


02/17/72 


JOHANSON 


03/06/72 



SE 


FAC HLt 


TITLE 


AUTHOR 


DATE 


10 


i 3 


R")T 


PINES RIVFR DEMTFNTIGN BASIN 


DWOPSKY 


03/0<VT2 


10 


13 


POT 


NORTH SHORF 4F STATUS 


DWOPSKY 


03/13/T? 


10 


13 


POT 


NORTH SHORE 4F INVOLVEMENT 


WALLACE 


03/13/T2 


04 


1? 


PU 


I-9 C THROUGH LYNN ROAD ALIGNMENTS 


WILLIAMS9 


03/14/72 


04 


13 


P?l 


1-^5 THROUGH LYNN ROAD ALIGNMENTS 


WILLIAMS 


03/14/7? 


10 


13 


ROT 


1-95 4P LANDS 


WALLACE 


03/1T/T2 


04 


13 


P?l 


TPAFF LEVELS ON RTE 1 £ 1-95 THRU LYNN WOODS 


LANE 


03/21/72 


04 


13 


«10 


NORTH SHORE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 


MCBPAYER 


03/28/T2 


04 


13 


Pll 


LINF HAUL TRANSIT ANAL NORTH SHORE 


FEHR 


03/28/72 


04 


13 


RIO 


NORTH SHORE TRANSIT CAPITAL COSTS 


MCBRAYER 


03/2°/T2 


10 


13 


ROT 


LYNN 1-95 REMEDIAL RECREATION PROGRAMS 


SANDERS 


03/29/T2 


04 


13 


R?l 


1-95 COMPLFTION ALTERNATIVES 


MARTIN 


34/12/T2 


04 


13 


P21 


TRAFFIC ESTIMATES FOR LYNN WOODS ALIGNMENT 


HANSEN 


04/14/72 


10 


13 


BOT 


I-05NORTH IMPACTS 


WALLACE 


06/21/T2 


04 


13 


P?4 


WHETHFR TO BUILD B-S BRIDGE 


NO SHORE TEAM 


08/25/72 


04 


14 


B30 


NORTH SHORE ARTERIAL STUDY 


HANSEN 


99/17/71 


04 


14 


poo 


NORTH SHHRE ARTcp IAL STUDY 


HANSEN 


09/17/71 


11 


14 


R03 


CIRCULARITY IN MOOFL FORMULATIONS 


ROMANOFF 


10/15/71 


11 


14 


BO -3 


ROUTE 1 BUSINESS IMPACT STUDY 


MARTIN 


12/06/71 


11 


14 


BO? 


ROUTE 1 BUSINESS IMPACT STUDY 


MARTIN 


12/06/71 


04 


14 


B21 


COS T OF PFHABIL OF RTE 1 CORRIDOR 


MALONE 


01/20/7? 


11 


14 


P03 


ROUTE 1 COMMERCIAL AREA 


MARTTN 


02/09/^2 


04 


14 


R">4 


ROUTE I ENGINEERING STUDY RECORD 


JOHANSON 


03/06/72 


04 


14 


8?4 


COST on REHABILITATION OF RTE 1 CORRIDOR 


MALONF 


")3/Oo/72 


05 


14 


B?4 


HWY ALT UNDER CONSID IN RTE 1 CORR 


LANE 


03/0Q/72 


05 


14 


B21 


TRAFFIC LEVELS ON ROUTE 1 


LANF 


03/21/72 


05 


14 


R")0 


LAND USE INVENTORY «= G R ROUTE 1/1-95 


SANDERS 


13/30/72 


05 


14 


BOO 


JOINT DEVELOP OPPORTUNITIES RTE 1 CORRIDOR 


LANE 


03/30/72 


05 


14 


B21 


RTF 1 HWY IMPROVEMENTS 


HOPKnSOM 


34/00/72 


12 


14 


R*>3 


1-95 NO ALIGN VARIATIONS ROUTE 1 CORR 


MAHADY 


04/26/72 


05 


14 


ROO 


BRIDGE MEMO VAN NESS RATES 


HOPKINSON 


05/31/72 


13 


14 


P03 


REVISED &OUTE 1 DISPLACEMENT 


MARTIN 


06/00/72 


13 


14 


B03 


oflOC INFO FPOM BRA SITE OFF 


WILDER 


06/15/T2 


05 


15 


B?l 


T-95 RELOCATED EXP ALTERNATIVES 


MARTIN 


05/08/72 


11 


15 


R03 


ECON OVERVIEW OF INNER NORTH SHORE 


HARRISON 


06/09/72 


06 


15 


82! 


1-95 RELOCATED MODAL SPLIT 


PEERS 


06/10/72 


10 


15 


BOT 


T-95 RELOCATED OPEN SPACE 


WELLER 


06/13/72 


06 


15 


Pll 


1-95 RELOCATFD 


PEERS 


06/16/72 


10 


15 


BOT 


CONSEPV AND nPEN SPACE ASPECTS FOP I-95R 


WALLACE 


06/16/72 


11 


15 


B21 


1-95 RELOCATFD CORRIDOR DESCRIPTIONS 


HARRISON 


06/16/72 


13 


15 


P03 


BUS DISPLACE/EMP IMPACT 1-95 RELOCATED 


HARRISON 


06/22/72 


12 


15 


R21 


I-Q5 RELOCATED RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION 


MAHADY 


06/2T/T2 


12 


15 


B03 


PRELIM ANAL OF RELOCA NEEDS FOR 1-95 NORTH 


MAHADY 


0T/00/T2 


05 


15 


B21 


1-95 RELOCATED NO-EXP ALTERNATIVES 


MARTIN 


0T/14/T2 


11 


15 


R03 


COMMUNITY FOON IMPACT - 1-95 RELOCATED 


HARRISON 


0T/19/T2 


11 


15 


P?l 


COMMUNITY ECON IMPACTS - 1-95 RELOCATED 


HARRISON 


0T/19/T2 


13 


15 


P03 


BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT 1-95 RELOCATED 


HARRISON 


0T/2T/T2 


13 


15 


803 


RUS DISPLACEMENT 1-95 RELOCATED 


HARRISON 


08/02/T2 


09 


16 


B21 


LEGIS RELATING TO THLL BRIDGE/TOLL TUNNEL 


SMITH 


D°/1T/T1 


04 


16 


B?n 


FRFE HARBOR CROSSING 


HANSEN 


10/18/T1 


05 


16 


ROO 


FREE HARBOR CROSSING 


HANSEN 


10/18/T1 


05 


16 


R21 


THIRD HARROP TUNNEL ISSUES 


MILLER 


10/18/T1 


04 


16 


R15 


AIRPORT TRAFFIC VERSUS TUNNEL TRAFFIC 


MILLER 


11/09/T1 


06 


16 


R21 


CROSS HARBOR TRAFFIC 


BREVARD 


11/16/T1 


04 


16 


Pll 


TUNNEL COSTS 


BENSON 


11/29/Tl 


05 


16 


R21 


THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL 


LOCKWOOD 


12/15/T1 


09 


16 


B21 


THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL TOLL OPTIONS 


SMITH 


01/OT/T2 


05 


16 


B?l 


THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 


MARTIN 


01/19/T2 



SE FAC FILE 


06 


16 


Q?l 


04 


16 


P?l 


04 


16 


B21 


11 


1* 


R05 


04 


16 


B?l 


04 


16 


P21 


04 


16 


R?l 


04 


16 


B?l 


05 


16 


B21 


05 


16 


B21 


05 


16 


8?1 


05 


16 


P21 


06 


16 


R21 


11 


16 


P21 


05 


16 


B?l 


C6 


16 


R'>5 


!1 


16 


R03 


OP 


16 


R02 


09 


16 


P21 


06 


16 


P21 


06 


16 


R21 


04 


16 


B21 


04 


16 


Bl^ 


05 


16 


P21 


j i 


16 


P21 


11 


16 


B33 


04 


16 


P15 


11 


16 


*03 


10 


16 


BO 7 


09 


16 


B21 



TITLE 

GPOUND TUNNEL FORECAST FOR LOGAN 

THPO HARBOR CROSSING 

THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 

POOR FAMILIES IN RELATION TO TRANSP FACIL 

EMGR FEAS STUDY OF THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 

THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL LAND USE ACCESS REQUIRE 

TUNNEL 

CROSSING WORK PROGRAM 

TUNNEL NO BUILD HWY ELEMENTS 

TUNNEL 

CROSSING ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVES 



HARBOR 
HARBOR 
HARBOR 
HARBOR 
HARBOR 
HARBOR 



THIRD 

THIRD 

THIRD 

THIRD 

THIRD 

THIRD 

SUMNER CALLAHAN TUNNEL TRAVEL TO LOGAN 

ECON IMPACT OF THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL ALT 

THIPD HARBOR CROSSING BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES 

PROC TO CAL INDUCED AUTO TRIP DEMAND 3HC 

THIRD HARBOR CROSSING STUDY 

THIRD HARBOR CROSSING LEGAL ISSUES 

THIRD HARBOR CROSSING LEGAL ISSUES 

THIRD HAPBOP CROSSING FINANCIAL QUES 

ON NOT BUILDING A THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 

3HC FORT POINT CHANNEL STUDY AREA 

THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL 

THIRD HARBOR CROSSING MASSPORT BRIEFING 

PORT POINT CHANNEL/THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 

QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 

PROPOSED tunnel CROSSING TRANSIT WORK ITFM 

ECON IMPLICATIONS FOP THIRD HARBOR. CROSS ING 

THIRD HARBOR CROSSING 4F INVOLVEMENT 

^HIPD HARBOR CROSSING TRANSP PROGRAM 



AUTHOR 

BARBER 

HOPKINSON 

HANSEN 

WILDER 

MAZZA 

MARTIN 

MAZZA 

BTPP STAFF 

MARTIN 

HOPKINSON 

MARTIN 

MARTIN 

BARBER 

WOOD 

MARTIN 

BARBER 

ROMANOFF 

SMITH 

SMITH 

P E ER S 

PARBER 

DURNING 

KIDSTON 

BTPP STAFF 

POMANOFF 

HARRISON 

KIDSTON 

HARRISON 

WALLACE 

SMITH 



DATE 

01/2 c /72 
02/15/72 
02/18/72 
03/01/72 
03/0P/7? 
03/24/7? 
03/3^/72 
03/30/^? 
04/00/7? 

05/00/72 
05/03/72 
05/03/72 
05/08/72 
05/0P/72 
05/23/72 
06/07/7? 

06/09/7? 
06/20/72 
06/20/t? 
06/?9/7? 
07/00/72 
07/06/72 
07/11/72 
07/20/72 
07/24/72 
07/31/7? 
09/15/72 
08/l c /7? 
Q /29/7? 

12/00/72 



04 17 P21 TRAFFIC CONTPOL AND MANAGEMENT FOP 1-93 



LEVINSON 



11/00/71 



0* 19 «00 REVERE 



MILLFR 



09/17/71 



04 22 B15 PROPOSED BLUE LINE SCHEME 



ZELLNER 



07/18/72 



07 23 B13 STUDY ELEMENTS 7 AND 14 

07 23 B13 TASK BRIF C = HR NEIGHBORHOOD COHESION 

07 23 R13 SF7 SPECIAL MOBILITY PROBLEMS 

07 23 B13 SPECIAL MOB SUBARFA STUDY PROPOSAL 

07 23 P13 RESOURCE GROUP ON NEIGHBORHOOD COHESION 

07 23 B13 SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEY DATA 

07 23 B13 REACTIONS TO SPECIAL MOBILITY QUESTIONNAIRE 

07 23 *13 REVIEW 0^ ROXBURY SPECIAL MOBILITY QUFST 

07 23 B13 ANAL FRAMEWORK FOR SPEC MOB SURVEY RESULTS 

07 23 P13 PRF SURVEY 



BLUMFNTHAL 

COMPTON 

SLOANE 

CIRCLE ASSO 

WOFFORD 

BREVARD 

MILLER 

FEHR 

BREVARD 

CROCKETT 



08/24/71 
09/27/71 

10/15/71 
12/17/71 
01/10/7? 
01/18/72 
01/28/72 
02/02/72 
02/16/72 
09/00/72 



05 24 BOO EAST BOSTON 

05 24 B15 AIRPORT TRAFFIC VERSUS TUNNEL TRAFFIC 

£6 24 B21 AIRPORT ACCESS IMPACT STUDY OBJECTIVES 

05 24 Pll MPTA BUS SERVICE AT LOGAN 

05 ?4 R15 m «t& BUS S C RVICE AT LOGAN 

06 24 R15 MEMO ON AIR TRAVEL AND OPERA IN MASS 

05 ?4 B21 LOGAN AIRPORT TRAVEL STUDY 

06 24 B15 LOGAN AIPPTRT TRAVEL STUDY 
11 24 B15 LOGAN AIRPORT 

06 ?4 B15 BUS/LIMO SERVICE TO LOGAN AIRPORT 



MILLER 

MILLFR 

LOCKWOOD 

MARTIN 

MARTIN 

BARBER 

BARBER 

BARBER 

POMANOFF 

BARBER 



OQ/21/71 
11/09/71 
12/15/71 
02/18/72 
02/18/72 
03/17/72 
05/15/72 
0^/15/72 
06/20/72 
"8/21/72 



SE FAC FILE 

06 24 R15 BUS/LIMQ 



TITLE . 

SERVICE TO 



LOGAN AIRPORT 



AUTHOR 

BARBER 



DATE 

11/07/7? 



04 2* B2(l SW EXTENSTION W/O 

04 25 BIO RTPR SQUTHWES T COR 

04 25 B20 SF HIGHWAY ALTERNA 

nt. 25 P20 SOUTHWEST HIGHWAY 

04 25 POO HYOE PARK RFPOPT 

05 25 BOO WORK ASSIGNMENTS F 
11 2* BOO CLEARFD LAND IN SW 
04 25 Pll SOUTHWES T TRANSIT 
04 25 POO SW r OR R I DOR v x 

04 2=1 BIO BTPR SOUTHWEST COR 

04 25 P21 IMPROVE Tn 129 £ A 

11 2 5 B^3 PROPERTY VALUE RAN 
04 25 R?! DFSIGN WORK ON 1-9 
0^ ->* R )0 SW CORRIDOR 

0* 25 POO GOALS HF SW CORRID 

12 2 5 R03 ANAL O c POOP F AM R 
l q 25 B1? SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR 
04 25 Pll MBTA WORK PROGRAM 

10 25 POT FPWL MEADOW 4F INF 
04 ?5 R21 STATUS 0<= WORK ON 
04 2* B21 1-95 SOUTH FOW mc A 
04 25 B21 FPW MEADOW HIGHWAY 
04 25 P?2 SOUTHWEST FXPRESSW 
04 25 B21 ADV & DISAOV OF I- 
12 25 *03 INVENTORY OF SW CO 

06 25 PO^ CALCULATING INDUCE 

11 25 R03 SOCIO ECCN FACTORS 

12 2^ P03 REPLACEMENT HOUSIN 
11 25 P03 COMMUNITY ECCN IMP 
09 25 P02 NO EXP AS PRUDENT 
09 25 P02 REPAYMENT OF FFD A 
09 25 B02 SW EXPRESSWAY POSS 
09 25 R 52 MANAGED SOUTHWEST 

13 25 P03 ANAL OF JOB GAINS 



HWY COST OF CONSTRUCTION 

RIDOR 

TIVES 

ALTERNATIVES 

OR SW STAFF 

CORRIDOR * 

ALTERNATIVES U - 

RIDOR 

LT ALIGN TO 1-95 IN RTE 1 
GES FOR SW CORPIDOP 
3/1-95 CONNECTOR ROUTE 

OR 

ELATIVE TO SW FACILITIES 

HEARINGS 
FOR SW COPR ANAL 
ORMATION ' 
1-95 SOUTH 
DOW 

ALT UNDER CONSIDERATION 
AY MO BUILD OPTION 
95 ALIGN AT FOWL MEADOW 
PR STRUCTURES 
D HWY TRAVEL 

RELATING TO SW COPR 
G SW CORR NO BUILD 
ACT - SOUTHWEST 
ALT UNDER SECTION 4F 
ID *=UNDS C 0R SW EXP 

BASES FOR ILLEGALITY 
EXPRESSWAY LEGAL IMPLICA 
IN SW COPRIDOR 



WILLIAMS 

CUNLI^FE 

SOUTHWEST TEAM 

SOUTHWEST TEAM 

KELLEY 

KILLINGER 

HARRISON 

MILLER 

PIERCE 

CUNLIFFE 

HANSEN 

HARRISON 

HANSEN 

CUNLIFFE 

DIMANCESCO 

WILDER 

SMITH 

TRUST 

WALLACE 

SOUTHWEST TEAM 

SOUTHWEST TEAM 

KILLINGER 

WOF^ORD 

SOUTHWEST TEAM 

MAHADY 

BRAND 

HARRISON 

MAHADY 

HARRISON 

CURRY 

CURRY 

CURRY 

CURRY 

MARTIN 



03/16/71 
09/29/71 
10/06/71 
10/06/71 
10/12/71 
10/13/71 
11/15/71 
11/30/71 
12/04/71 
12/09/71 
12/15/71 
01/20/72 
02/0^/72 
12/0Q/72 
02/26/72 
03/01/72 
03/**/72 
03/13/72 
03/21 /72 
03/22/7? 

03/22/72 
3/2O/ 7 ? 
03/2Q/ T ? 

07/00/72 
07/10/72 
07/20/72 
07/2P/72 
07/2P/72 
08/10/7? 
10/13/72 
10/15/72 
10/16/72 
10/27/^2 
11/14/7? 



04 26 BIO DISCUSSION OF SW TRANSIT WORK PROGRAM BTPR 

10 26 B07 ECOL EVALUATION IN FOWl MEADOW AREA YONIKA 

10 26 P07 ISSUE OP CLEARED LAND IN SW CORRIDOR HARRISON 

10 26 P"»7 OPTIONS FOP VACANT LAND REUSE OF I-95S GILCHREST 

10 26 P07 SW CLEARED LANDS STEINMAN 

10 ?6 B07 VACANT LAND REUSE OF ? 

10 26 B07 SW CLEARED LAND REUSE POLICY OPTIONS STIENMAN 

10 26 B07 TYPIECAL SEC *0° CONS IN CLEARED LAND STUDY KILLINGER 

04 26 P24 PROGRAMS FOR SE EXPRESSWAY HANSEN 

04 26 B?4 SE EXP FEASIPILITY STUDY BENSON 

04 26 P?4 SPUTHFAST EXP WIDENING STUDY BENSON 

T4 26 BIO SOUTHWEST TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES KIDSTON 

10 26 BO 7 FOWL MEADOW BASE AMD DPW ALT YONIKA 



0^/15/71 
10/05/71 
11/15/71 
11/16/71 
12/00/71 
12/00/71 
12/23/71 
12/29/71 
02/14/72 
02/14/72 
02/28/72 
03/02/72 
04/05/72 



04 27 B20 SF/MASSPIKE /SO STA 

04 27 B22 WFSTERN INNER BELT 

04 27 R?2 WESTERN INN C R BELT 

04 27 R?2 WFSTERN IMMEP BELT 

04 27 R22 WESTERN INNER RFLT 

04 27 R22 WFS T ERN INNER *ELT 



RAMP PROBLEM 



LOCK WOOD 
SZILASSY 
SZILASSY 
SZILASSY 
SZILASSY 
SZILASSY 



01/19/72 
02/01/72 
02/29/72 
03/01/72 
03/17/72 
09/03/72 



04 2P BIO HIGH SPEED GROUND MIDLANDS VS MAINLINE 
06 2* P05 SCU T HWEST ARTFRIAL 



HANSEN 



PEERS 



12/20/71 
08/11/72 



SE FAC FILE 

06 29 Rll 
05 29 B22 



SOUTHWEST 
SOUTHWEST 



TITLE 

ARTERIAL 
ARTERIAL 



SPECIFIC ACTIONS 



AUTHOR 

PEERS 
LANE 



04 ?n ROC ORANGE LINE 

04 30 Rll NFW ORANGE LINE WITH OP WITHOUT 



LOCKWOOO 
HIGHWAY COST LOCKWOOD 



DATE 

08/11/72 
11/09/72 

11/10/71 
11/10/71 



33 


BIS 


UMTA PEOPLE MOVER DOMO GRANT INFORMATION 


ZELLNER 


ni/11/72 


3^ 


BIS 


INNER TRANSIT CIRCUMFER SUMMARY 


MILLER 


01/18/72 


33 


R15 


PARKING VIOLATIONS/STREET CAPACITY 


LACRO-SS 


02/15/7? 


33 


BIS 


FORD MOTOR CO PRT SYSTEMS 


M ILLER 


02/1P/ 7 ? 


33 


R15 


FORD MOTOO Cn PCT SYSTFM 


mjllFR 


02/lR/7^ 


33 


PIS 


TRAFFIC G c NFPATOPS IN CAMBRIDGE CIRCUM COR 


MILLER 


02/21/7? 


33 


B15 


TO ip TYPES ANO ROUTING FOR TRANS CIRCUM 


MILLER 


02/2S/72 


33 


B15 


TPAFF GENERATORS IN BOSTON CIRCUM CORR 


MILLFR 


03/14/72 


33 


315 


TRAFFIC GENERATORS IN TRANSIT CIRCUM CORR 


MILLER 


03/14/72 


33 


P15 


TRANSIT CIRCUMFERENTIAL 


MILLER 


03/21/7? 


33 


B15 


CIRCUM SERV AREA POTENTIAL RIDERSHIP 


MILLER 


04/03/72 


33 


B15 


TRANSIT ALT UNDER CONSIO IN CIRCUMFEREN CORR 


MILLER 


*U+/f)i>/12 


33 


*15 


CIRCUMFERENTIAL PRESENTATION 


MILLER 


04/10/7? 


33 


B15 


TRANSIT CIRCUMFERENTIAL 


MILLER 


04/10/72 


33 


R15 


TRANSIT CIRCUMFERENTIAL 


MILLER 


H4/1Q/7? 


3^ 


B15 


RATIONALE FOP CIRCUMFERENTIAL 


MILLER 


04/24/72 


33 


BIS 


TRANSIT CIRCUMFERENTIAL PRODUCT 


MILLER 


05/11/72 


33 


BIS 


OBSEPVA AND OUES ON SO STATION RENEWAL PLAN 


ZELLNER 


07/14/72 


34 


B12 


EVAL AND POTENTIAL USE OF EXISTING RAIL ROW 


CUNLIFFF 


09/2B/71 


34 


B12 


RCM LINES C IELD RECONNAISSANCE TRIP 


ROUDEBUSH 


10/26/71 


34 


B12 


COMMUT c R PAIL MEETING^ 


WARSHER 


11/16/71 


34 


P12 


COMMUTER RAILPOADt 


KILLINGER 


11/17/71 


34 


R12 


COMMUTER RAIL ISSUES L 


KILLINGER 


11/19/71 


34 


Rl ? 


PENN CENTRAL P IGHTS -OF-WAY 


HANSEN 


11/30/71 


34 


P12 


SUPPORT PERSONNEL FOR RAIL PLANNING 


WARSHER 


01/21/72 


34 


R12 


SUMM OF PENN CENTRAL WEEKDAY OPER STAT 


WARSHER 


01/24/72 


34 


B12 


COMMUTER RAIL 


WARSHER 


01/25/72 


34 


R12 


PRELIM APP FOR ADV LAND ACQUISITION LOAN 


ZELLNER 


01/25/72 


34 


B12 


COMMUTER RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY PURCHASE OPER 


WARSHEP 


01/27/72 


34 


Bl 2 


COMMUTER RAIL SYS WORK PROGRAM 


WARSHER 


01/31/72 


34 


B12 


MANPOWER RESOURCES OF PRIVATE COMPANIES 


WARSHER 


01/31/72 


34 


B12 


COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM ACTION PLAN 


WARSHER 


02/01/72 


34 


R12 


COMMUTER RAIL SYS ACTION PLAN 


WARSHER 


02/02/72 


34 


R12 


COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 


ZELLNER 


03/00/72 


34 


B12 


COMMUTER RAIL OPERATIONS 


BAILFY 


03/01/72 


34 


B12 


STEPS IN PFNN CENTRAL LOAN APP COMPLETION 


ZELLNER 


03/02/72 


34 


B12 


SFRV AND OPEP ASSIJMP FOR COMMUTER RAIL 


KIDSTON 


03/13/7? 


34 


Rll 


SW CORRIDOR MIDLSNADS BRANCH PAIL 


BENSON 


06/14/72 


36 


BOO 


ECONOMIC DEVELOP OF CAMBRIDGE 


SIMPSON 


OQ/28/71 


36 


BOO 


RFVIEW OF SUBAR EA 


D SIMPSON 


10/01/71 


36 


P23 


GOODS MOVEMEMNT STUDY 


BREVARD 


10/07/71 


36 


P03 


NW SUBREGIONAL ECONOMIC OVERVIEW 


HARRISON 


10/10/71 


36- 


P23 


TPUCK TRAVEL WORK PROGRAM 


KIDSTON 


10/20/71 


36 


B23 


GOODS MOVEMENT 


LACROSS 


11/04/71 


36 


R23 


GOODS MOVEMENT 


HANSEN 


ll/0°/71 


36 


R2 3 


MAJOR TRUCK ROUTE LOCATION BY TOWN 


BRAY 


12/15/71 


^ 


R23 


GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY 


LACROSS 


12/28/71 


36 


P23 


GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY 


BRAY 


02/02/72 


36 


P10 


RFDFORD BRANCH TRANSIT EXTENSION 


GRAHAM 


02/11/72 


36 


b?3 


GOODS MOVEMENT IN EAST CAMBRIDGE 


NORTHWEST TEAM 


03/16/72 



SE FAC FILE 


TITLE - 


AUTHOR 


DATE 


04 


36 


823 


GOODS MOVEMENT/EAST CAMBRIDGE 


HOPKINSON 


03/22/72 


02 


36 


B23 


CAMBRIDGE/SOMERVILLE TRUCK PROBLFM 


OSDOBY 


05/22/72 


02 


36 


Bll 


CAMBRIDGE/SOMERVILLE TRUCK PROGRAM 


OSDOPY 


06/08/72 


04 


36 


82"* 


TRUCK ROAD ALTERNATIVES 


MAZZA 


07/00/7? 


04 


36 


B23 


GOODS MOVEMENT INTFRIM REPORT 


BTPR STAFF 


07/00/72 


04 


36 


B23 


TRUCK PROBLEM IN C AMBR IDGE/SOMERVILLE 


GAILINAS 


07/13/7? 


04 


36 


B^3 


GHODS MOVEMEMENT DATA 


BTPR STAFF 


^7/13/72 


C4 


36 


B23 


TRUCK WORK PROGRAM 


PARKER 


08/28/7? 


04 


36 


B23 


TRUCK MOVEMENT STUDY 


MADISON 


08/28/72 


09 


36 


B02 


LEGAL ADM AFFECTING CONTROL OF TRUCK TPAFF 


CURRY 


10/06/7? 


11 


36 


P03 


ECONOM BACKGROUND FOR TRUCK ANALYSIS 


MARTIN 


10/18/7? 


11 


36 


B03 


ECON IMPACT OF TRUCK SCHEMES 


MARTIN 


1 0/18/7? 


12 


36 


B03 


EST DISPLACE MASSPIKE TO 8INNEY ST TRUCK PD 


MAHADY 


11/14/7? 


12 


36 


B23 


TRUCK ROAD RELOCATION 


WILDER 


01/05/73 


12 


37 


B22 


CAMBRIDGF INMER RFLT FAMILY RELOCATION 


MAHADY 


12/06/71 


12 


37 


B22 


PRELIM FINDINGS ON CAMBR INNER BELT £ RTF 2 


NORTHWEST TEAM 


12/07/71 


05 


37 


P2? 


ALT UNDER CONSID FOR WESTERN INNER BELT 


R0UDE3USH 


03/07/72 


05 


37 


B22 


PRELIM FINDINGS ON WESTERN INNER BELT 


ROUDEBUSH 


03/07/72 


12 


37 


B03 


RESIDENTIAL RELOCA WESTERN CONNECTOR SCHEM 2 


MAHADY 


11/04/72 


12 


37 


R^3 


VASSAL STREET TRUCK ROUTE IMPACTS 


MAHADY 


11/04/72 


12 


37 


B03 


e>US AND of=S TAKINGS INV WEST CONN 


WILDER 


12/04/7? 


0^ 


30 


POO 


WORK PROGRAM ALFWI^E 


LANF 


01/07/71 


04 


39 


Bll 


ALEWIFE EXT TUNNELING 


GERSHOWITZ 


1 1/05/71 


05 


39 


BOO 


PRELIM OBSEPVA ON ALFWIFE FRESH POND 


KLEIN 


11/09/71 


04 


39 


Bll 


RFD LINE PROM HARV TO ALEWIFE 


KIDSTON 


12/00/71 


04 


39 


*11 


C MGR WORK ON HARVARD ALEWIFE TUNNEL 


CAMBRIDGE ADV 


01/14/7? 


04 


3° 


Bll 


PEDLINE EXTENSION FROM HARV TO ALEWIFE 


KIDSTON 


03/00/7? 


04 


30 


82 


HARVARD ALEWIFE TUNNELLING 


SVDOUP/PAPCEL 


05/00/72 


04 


3° 


B?4 


MBTA HARV ALEWIFE PRELIM TUNNEL STUDY 


SV PARCEL 


05/02/72 


05 


39 


BOO 


SV/PARCEL PRESENT ON HAR ALEWIFE TUNNEL 


SIMPSON 


05/25/72 


05 


39 


BOO 


STATUS OF ALEWIFE DEVELOP PLANS 


SIMPSON 


05/26/72 


04 


39 


Bll 


ALEWIFE STATION LOCATION 


NORTHWEST TEAM 


06/05/72 


04 


39 


B72 


RIDERSHIP FOP HARVARD ALEWIFF ALIGNMENTS 


COOGAN 


06/08/7? 


04 


39 


Bll 


ALEWIFE EXTENSION COST ESTIMATES 


SIMPSON 


06/20/72 


04 


3° 


Bll 


PRELIM REIDEPSHIP EST FOR HAPV/ALE 


COOGAN 


06/23/72 


04 


39 


Bll 


HARV ALEWIFE EXTENSION ENGR FEAS STUDY 


SIMPSON 


07/10/72 


04 


39 


Bll 


HARVARD ALFWIFE FXT 


LISSER 


08/1^/72 


04 


3° 


Bll 


CORRECTIONS TO HARV ALEWIFE MEMO 


SIMPSON 


10/00/72 


04 


39 


Bll 


HARVARD ALEWIFE BASE MAPS 


SIMPSON 


10/11/72 


in 


-jo 


B07 


NW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 


SIMPSON 


10/25/7? 


12 


39 


B03 


RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION - RED LINE EXTENSION 


MAHADY 


11/04/72 


04 


39 


Bll 


ALEWIFE B&OOK STATION PARKING 


KIDSTON 


11/21/72 


0^ 


40 


BJ1 


GREEN LINF CAPACI T Y 


KIDSTON 


05/00/72 


C4 


40 


Bll 


PRELIM DESCRIPTION OF GREEN LINE EXT 


NORTHWEST TEAM 


06/06/72 


0* 


40 


Bll 


GRFEN LINE SERVICE TO SOMEPVILLE 


HOPKINSON 


10/18/72 


T4 


41 


pne; 


rpMMUT«=p RAILt RAPID TPANSI T TRAVEL TIME 


KIDSTON 


05/18/72 


04 


41 


B05 


FXPRFSS BUS AND COMMUTER RAIL 


KIDSTON 


05/18/72 


04 


41 


B12 


EXPRESS BUS/COMMUTER RAIL 


KIDSTON 


05/18/72 


04 


41 


P12 


TRANSPORTATION CRISIS 


BTPR STAFF 


06/00/7? 


04 


41 


B12 


CPIP-CRAP 


HANSEN 


06/05/7? 


C4 


41 


B12 


USE OP MIDLANDS POP LIGHT PAIL 


KILLINGER 


06/28/72 


04 


41 


B12 


COMMENTS ON PPELIM CRIP DRAFT / 
COMMUTER RAIL I RAPID TRANSI IN SW CORR y 


ZELLNER 


09/27/72 


04 


41 


P12 


ZELLNEP 


10/00/72 


04 


41 


B12 


CIP PRELIM DRAPT 


ZELLNER 


10/13/72 


04 


41 


P12 


ALT SFRVICE PERCENTAGE 


ZELLNER 


11/01/72 


04 


4 1 


p 12 


CPI° PROGRAM SUMMARY 


ZELLNER 


11/15/7? 



SE FAC FILE 

12 41 P03 RAIL 



TITLE 

ACCESS AT ALFWIFE 



AUTHOR 

WILDER 



DATE 

12/01/72 



07 43 P13 SOMERVILLE SUPERMARKET SUR ANAL 

06 44 B13 RECOMMENDATION' FOR SOMERVILLE SUPMKT ANAL 

07 44 B13 SIMULA OF 1970 AUTO OWNERSHIP DIS SOMERVILLE 
07 44 P13 MOBILITY NEEOS QUESTIONAIRE FOR CAMBRIDGE 

07 44 B13 SOMFPVILLF SPEC MOBIL SURVEY PRTOPOSAL 

06 44 B22 IMPACT OF PROPOSED RAILROAD TUNNEL 

T4 44 P22 RAILROAD TUNNEL 

11 44 B03 E^ON IMPACT OF DEPRESSING CENTRAL ARTFPY 



BREVARD 

BREVARD 

BREVARD 

KARASH 

BARBER 

BATCHELOER 

ZELLNER 

HARRISON 



05/00/72 

02/00/72 
02/16/72 
12/17/7? 
03/23/7? 
13/00/72 
10/03/7? 
10/15/72 



10 50 BO 7 CLEANED LAND DATA SUMMARY 

05 50 BOO URP DESIGN G PLANNING DESIGN SPEC SW COPR 

10 5^ BO - ' 3LANDINGS TURTLE 

13 50 PO? BUS RELOCATION IN SW CORRIDOR 

04 50 BOO COST BFNEFTT CONSIDERATIONS OF SW CORR ALT 

04 50 R^S HWY ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSID AT FOWL MEADOW 

05 50 POO APV S DISADV OF ALT 1-95 ALIGN AT FOWL MEAD 

05 50 BOO SEPV OBJEC WA SH/WAPR EN/BLUE HILL CORP 

04 50 Bll SW RAPID TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY ASSUMP 

04 50 Bll PCOSPECTUS ^OP TRANSIT *>LAN IN SOMERVILLE 

C4 50 B15 CIDDUMFER TRANSIT IN SOMERVILLE 

06 50 Bll WORK PROGRAM tq RESPOND TO MATT/SOMEPVL LINE 

04 5) ROO SW FEASIBILITY STUDY TRANSIT PACKAGE 

12 50 B03 REPLACEMENT HOUSING SW CORRIDOR 

05 50 POO JOINT DEVFL IMPLICATION OF SW OPEN SPACE 

04 50 Bll SW CORRIDOR TR ANSI T/COMMUTFR RAIL ASPECTS 

06 50 R05 SW CORRIDOR SYS ANALYSIS WORK PROGRAM 

05 50 BOO REPORT ON FOWL MEADOW 

13 50 p 03 SO BOSTON BUS DISPLACEMENT 

04 50 Bll PPELIM COST ESTIMATES FOR SW TRANSIT OPTIONS 

04 50 Bll MATTER OF CANTON PIDERSHIP 

04 50 BOO PRELIMINARY SW TRANSIT PROGRAM PACKAGES 

04 50 POO SW CORR ALT - COST BENEFIT ISSUES 

04 50 Rll SW TRANSIT PHASING 

04 50 BOO SW CORRIDOR TPANSIT ALTERNATIVES 

04 50 Pll SW CORRIDOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 

10 50 PO 7 NATIONAL REGISTRY PROPERTIES 

04 50 Bll TPANSIT SERVICE AMD PARKING IN SW CORR 

04 50 BOO ATP RIGHTS DECKING SW CORRIDOR 

04 50 Bll ALTSHULER SPEECH ON SW TRANSIT 

05 50 P21 POTENTIAL MHFA ROLE IN SW CORRIDOR 
10 50 POO JE REVIEW STATEMENTS SW CORRIDOR 
10 50 B07 SW CORRIDOR 4F REVIEW 

04 50 Bll SW TRANSIT OPTIONS/CAP COSTS/MAINT FACIL 

10 50 P07 ARNOLD ARBORFTUM 

10 50 B07 SW CORRIDOR ZONE DESCRIP AND 4F STATEMENTS 

10 ^0 P 07 ALIGNMENT EVALUATION OF MOTHER BROOK 

13 50 B03 BUS RELOCATION PROGRAM FOR SO BOSTON 

0? 50 POO FURTHER DEVEL OF SW CORRIDOR TRANSIT OPTION 

10 50 B07 POG 

06 50 B05 LAND AREAS AND REIMBUR ISSUES IN SW CORP 

04 50 B21 MANAGED EXPRESSWAY CONCEPT 
13 50 P03 BUS TAKINGS IN SW CORRIDOR 

12 50 B21 DISPOSITION OF DPW-OWNED LAND IN SW CORR 

05 50 POO SOUTHWEST IMPLEMENTATION I c NO EXP BUILT 
C5 50 P°o SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT DETAILS 



CROCKETT 

KILLINGER 

YONIKA 

WILDER 

ZELLNER 

SW TEAM 

SOUTHWEST TEAM 

MILLER 

BREVARD 

HORKINSON 

MILLER 

PEERS 

BREVARD 

MAHADY 

LANE 

BAILEY 

PEERS 

WOFFORD 

WILDER 

GRAHAM 

COOGAN 

BTPR STAFF 

ZELLNER 

KIDSTON 

MCBPAYER 

MCBRAYER 

WALLACE 

LANE 

BENSON 

COOGAN 

LANE 

WALLACE 

WALLACE 

BENSON 

WALLACE 

WALLACE 

WALLACE 

HARRISON 

SE2 STAFF 

PEERS 

LANE 

HANSEN 

LANE 

MAHADY 

LANE 

LANE 



12/00/ 7 l 
03/30/7? 

03/31/^2 
04/17/7? 

04/25/7? 

05/00/7? 

05/00/72 

0^/09/7? 

05/10/7? 
05/15/7? 
05/17/7? 
05/10/72 
05/24/72 
06/09/72 
06/12/7? 
06/13/72 
06/1^/72 
06/15/72 
06/27/7? 

06/28/72 
07/0^/72 
07/07/72 
07/12/72 
07/17/72 
07/19/72 
07/19/72 
07/19/72 
07/24/72 
07/26/72 
07/26/72 
07/26/72 
07/27/7? 

07/27/72 
07/30/72 
03/01/72 
08/04/7? 
08/04/72 
08/17/72 
09/00/72 
OQ/11/72 
10/18/72 
1 0/3O/72 
11/03/7? 

11/09/72 
11/13/72 
11/13/72 



r OST BENEFTT ANAL OF CAMBRIDGE INNER BELT ZELLNER lT/22/71 

TP&NSP FACILITIES AFFECT ING . FENWAY MILLER 03/23/72 

NEW MB T A BUS nPUTE MILLER 03/24/7? 

ORANGE LINE CAPACITIES KIDSTON 0*/27/72 

NW CORRIDOR TRANSIT EVALUATION KIDSTON 05/05/72 

NW CORRIDOR TRANSIT EVALUATION KIDSTON 35/05/72 

MBTA WORK PROGRAM NW CORRIDOR T&UST 05/18/72 

ADDITINAL WORK PPQGR AM/ MATT APAN-SOMERV I LLE PEEPS 05/l°/72 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FOR NORTHWEST HOPKINSON ^5/23/72 

SW FEASIBILITY STUDY TRANSIT PACKAGES BREVARD 05/2^/72 

TRANSP SYSTEM FOR NORTHWEST SIMPSON 05/2*/7? 

SW TRANSIT GRANGE LINE EXT TO RTE 128 BATCHELDER 06/00/72 

NW CORRIDOR STATUS REPORT SIMPSON 07/11/72 

LEGAL ADMIN WP&K REQUIRED' FOR NORTHWEST CUR&Y 37/31/72 

ENGR ANAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NW TRANSIT EXT SIMPSON 08/18/ 7 2 

NORTHWEST 4P LANDS WALLACE 0^/07/7? 

C0S7 ANA FOR CANTCN-NEEDHAM-ORANGE LINE EXT BREVARD 10/17/72 

NW 4FS DETERMINED WALLACE 10/10/72 

NW TRANSIT EIS CUOPY 10/1 / 7 ? 

RELOCATING RESIDENTS FROM PROS ST MAHADY 10/23/72 

NW GENERAL ENVIRONMENT WALLACE 10/27/7? 

NW TASK STUDY WALLACE 11/1C/7? 

DAVIS SQUARE BUS RELOCATION WILDER 12/18/7? 

05 60 B05 HWY TRAFF ANAL REQUIREMENTS NW ARTERIAL SIMPSON 08/2?/ 7 3 



SE FAC FILE 


04 


6* 


BOO 


05 


60 


Bll 


04 


60 


Bl* 


C4 


60 


Bll 


04 


60 


BOO 


04 


60 


«ll 


04 


60 


mo 


06 


60 


n05 


04 


60 


B0O 


0^ 


60 


Bll 


05 


60 


P05 


04 


60 


Bll 


04 


60 


Bll 


oq 


60 


BO? 


04 


60 


Bll 


10 


60 


B07 


06 


6 


Bll 


10 


60 


BO 7 


10 


60 


P 07 


12 


6* 


B">3 


10 


60 


R07 


10 


60 


B07 


12 


60 


P03 



HANDOUTS AT WORKING COMMITTEE MEETINGS 



TITLE 



AUTHOR 



DATE 



SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR — RAIL S 
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 

SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR ADDENDUM TO 
9/28/71 MEMO 

M.A.P.C. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
LIST OF MEMBERS 

LETTER RE AIR AND NOISE CONSULTANTS 

G.B.C. POSITION PAPER 



ENDORSEMENT OF GBC PAPER 

REMAINDER OF WORK IN PHASE ONE 

REVIEW OF PHASE I ALTERNATIVES 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF AD HOC TRANSIT 
COMMITTEE 

REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE — PHASE I 

M.A.P.C. ENDORSEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 
COALITION POSITION PAPER 

WORK PROGRAM — PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 
STUDIES IN COVERAGE AND SPECIAL 
MOBILITY NEEDS 

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS IN DEVELOPING 
TRANSPORTATION GOALS 

POSITION PAPER — LONGWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD 
ASSOCIATION AND COTTAGE FARM ASSOCIATION 

PHASE I OBJECTIVES 

REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE, PHASE I (Revised) 

- S.E. 9 PRIORITIES — DRAFT 



P Cunliffe 



P Cunliffe 



M.A.T.C, 



O LETTER RE PHASE II 



WORK PROGRAM 

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS STATEMENT 

RESPONSE TO PRESENTATION TO 
STEERING COMMITTEE, NOV. 30 



L. LaCross 

Greater Boston Committee 
on the Transportation 
Crisis 

M.A.T.C.O. 

E. Wood 

J. Wofford 

D. Graham, T. Lee, 
A. Sloan 

Environmental Coalition 
P. McBride 



BTPR 

Environmental Coalition 

Longwood Neighborhood Assn. 
Cottage Farm Assn. 

BTPR 

Environmental Coalition 

J. Wofford 

J. Carroll 

League of Women Voters 

G.B.C. 



9/28/71 

9/29/71 
9/71 

10/19/71 

10/26/71 
11/1/71 
11/2/71 
11/2/71 

11/6/71 
11/14/71 

11/17/71 

11/23/71 

11/23/71 

11/24/71 
11/30/71 
11/30/71 
12/7/71 

12/7/71 
12/14/71 

12/14/71 



TITLE 



AUTHOR 



DATE 



COMMUNICATIONS 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE II 
PHASE I ALTERNATIVES 



W. Hansen 



Co Johnston 



12/20/71 
12/21/71 
12/27/71 



PHASE II WORK PROGRAM 

PROTOTYPICAL TRANSIT STUDIES 
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS — REFINED 
PASS II 

HIGHWAY ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED 

IN THE FIRST ROUND NETWORK ANALYSIS 

MEETING OF 15th FEBRUARY 

GOALS: BTPR STUDY 

TRANSPORT SERVICE ALTERNATIVES 

LETTER TO GOVERNOR SARGENT 

LETTER FROM NEPONSET CONSERVATION 
ASSOCIATION 

BOSTON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REVIEW 

LETTER TO GOVERNOR SARGENT RE MASTER 
TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR BOSTON REGION 

LETTER TO GOVERNOR SARGENT RE 
AM. SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS 
ACTION PROGRAM COMMITTEE 

PRESS RELEASE 

DRAFT OF DRAFT REPORT ON 
NORTH SHORE 

SUMMARY OF SENATOR BURKE'S BILL 
CREATING THE COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS 

NORTHWEST FACILITIES ISSUES 

TRANSIT IN THE NORTH SHORE 

LETTER RE SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR 



Am. Society of Civil 
Engineers/ Boston Society 
of Civil Engineers/ Consulting 
Engineers Council of New England 

S. Lockwood 1/18/72 

J. A. Fehr 1/21/72 

M. West 2/3/72 

Regional Study Group 2/15/72 
Regional Working Committee 

BTPR Unknown 

Senator Burke 3/21/72 

W. Holcombe 3/30/72 

Environmental Coalition 3/30/72 

Maurice Freedman 3/31/72 

R. Barton 4/5/72 

Senator Burke 4/11/72 

BTPR 4/25/73 

Senator Burke 4/27/72 

S. Osdoby 5/2/72 

Draft Excerpt from 

No. Shore Report 5/3/72 

M.A.T.C.O. 5/8/72 



TITLE 



AUTHOR 



DATE 



NEXT STEPS IN NORTHWEST 
SUB-REGION 



N.W. Corridor 



LETTER TO GOVERNOR SARGENT 

LETTER TO GOVERNOR SARGENT 

UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 
WORK PROGRAM — BOSTON REGION 

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODELS 

REVIEWING DRAFT TECHNICAL MATERIAL 

1973 UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 
WORK PROGRAM (DRAFT) 

LETTER — POSITION OF TOWN OF CANTON 

PRESS RELEASE: ANTI-HIGHWAY GROUP 
CALLS FOR M.B.T.A. TASK FORCE 

COMMENTS ON NORTH SHORE AND 
1-95 RELOCATED REPORTS 

COMMENTS ON NORTH SHORE 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

LETTER TO CONSERVATION COMMISSION 
MEMBERS 

BUS/LIMO SERVICE TO LOGAN 

LYNN WOODS DECISION 

3rd DRAFT — NORTHWEST REPORT 
OUTLINE 

CALENDAR OF COMING MEETINGS 

BTPR MODE SPLIT MODEL 

DRAFT PUBLIC TRANSIT ACTION PLAN 

NORTHWEST CORRIDOR SUMMARY — 
STATUS REPORT 



Municipal Caucus 


Unknown 


Boston Society of 




Architects 


5/5/72 


Environmental Coalition 


5/9/72 


J. Wofford 


5/16/72 


J. Peers & J. MacMann 


6/72 


S . Lockwood 


6/13/72 


J. Wofford 


6/13/72 


Canton Board of 




Selectmen 


6/12/72 


G.B.C. 


7/12/72 


U.S. Dept. of 




Transportation 


8/14/72 


Environmental Coalition 


8/17/72 


S . Osdoby 


8/18/72 


B. Barber 


8/21/72 


Greater Boston Chamber 




of Commerce 


8/24/72 


D. Simpson 


8/29/72 


S.E 2 


10/3/72 


J. MacMann 


10/12/72 


G.B.C. 


10/72 



D. Simpson 



12/5/72 



- 



■ . - 



■M