Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs 

Department of Environmental Protection 

One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 •617-292-5500 

RICHARD K. SULLIVAN JR 

Secretary 

KENNETH L. KIMMELL 

Commissioner 

BUREAU OF WASTE PREVENTION 

DIVISION OF AIR AND CLIMATE PROGRAMS 

Summary of Comments and Response to Comments 

on the Proposed Amendments to the Regulation and 

State Implementation Plan for Ozone 

310 CMR 7.36: 

Transit System Improvements 

Regulatory Authority: M.G.L. c. Ill , Sections 142A through 142M 

November 2013 
SUMMARY OF AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON 310 CMR 7.36: 

TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) proposed amendments 

to 310 CMR 7.36, Transit System Improvements, and, in accordance with the public review 

process requirements of M.G.L. Chapter 30A, made the proposed amendments available for 

public review, published notification of the amendments, and held a public hearing on September 

13, 2012 to solicit public comment on the proposed regulation. The public comment period 

ended on September 24, 2012. Relevant comments are summarized and responded to below. A 

list of all parties who submitted oral and/or written testimony on the proposed amendments is 

included in Attachment 1. 

Comment: MassDEP received numerous comments opposing the Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation (MassDOT) request to MassDEP to remove the design of the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector as a requirement in 310 CMR 7.36 and the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Those 

opposed to removing the requirement include Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo, State 

Representatives Carlo Basile and Kathi-Anne Reinstein, State Senator Anthony Petrucelli, 

Congressmen Capuano and Markey, A Better City, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), the 

Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), John Vitagliano, (former Transportation 

Commissioner for the City of Boston), and individual citizens. 

Response: MassDEP recognizes the support for the project. However, MassDEP's reviewed 

MassDOT's request to determine whether the removal of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 

design from 310 CMR 7.36 would have an impact on the air quality emission reductions 

calculated for the projects included in the regulation and approved by EPA as part of the SIP. 

MassDEP has determined that because there are no air quality benefits associated with the design 

of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project, removal of this design requirement will not affect 

the total emission reductions achieved from the remaining projects included in the regulation and 

the SIP. Therefore, the final regulation does not require MassDOT to complete the final design 

of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector. 

Comment: Numerous comments indicated that completion of the environmental review and 

final design for the Red Line/Blue Line Connector (the Project) is a legal requirement in the 

regulation and the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and that the Commonwealth should not be 

relieved of the obligation without substitution. 

Response: 310 CMR 7.36 and the SIP do not require environmental review of the final design 

for the Red Line/Blue Line Connector. See 310 CMR 7.36 (3), Project Interim Deadlines. This 

subsection of the regulation contains the requirements for environmental review, which are not 

applicable to the Project. 

The intent of the substitution provisions included in 310 CMR 7.36 (5), Substitute Transit 

System Improvement Projects, as amended on December 1, 2006, is to ensure that the air quality 

benefits of the projects required to be built are achieved in the event a project needs to be 

substituted after the procurement process, environmental review, and other preconstruction 

2 
processes are completed. The final design for the Red Line/Blue Line Connector has no 

associated air quality benefits and does not require substitution pursuant to 310 CMR 7.36(5). 

Comment: CLF commented that any immediate funding concerns could be addressed by 

amending the regulation to provide for a deadline extension. 

Response: The current state of transportation funding makes this an especially bad time to 

spend an estimated $50 million to design a project where the ultimate implementation of the 

project is uncertain and for which the design itself would have a limited shelf life. Allowing 

additional time to for MassDOT to complete this SIP requirement will not alter the fundamental 

financial facts faced by MassDOT. It is the considerable construction cost of the Red Line/Blue 

Line Connector that makes it unaffordable in the foreseeable future (e.g., within the 20 year 

timeframe of the current Long-Range Plan for the Boston region), not the costs of environmental 

review and design. Furthermore, even if Governor Patrick's proposed transportation financing 

plan {The Way Forward: A 21st-Century Transportation Plan) is ultimately approved, the needs 

articulated by MassDOT in the finance plan do not include the construction of the Red Line/Blue 

Line Connector. 

Comment: CLF cited the air quality, public health, mobility, environmental justice, and 

economic development benefits associated with the Red Line/Blue Line Connector. Specifically, 

CLF commented that by inclusion in the SIP, the Commonwealth recognized and relied on the 

associated air quality benefits and should be precluded from arguing that the Project has no 

calculable air quality benefits. CLF cited the 2006 air quality estimates for construction of the 

Project and indicated that although these calculations were not included in the revised SIP, it 

does not make the Project any less of an obligation. MassDOT's reference to the Project as 

"purely procedural requirement" raised the question why the Commonwealth would have 

included the Project in the revised SIP in the first place. 

Response: In response to this comment, MassDEP is including the following information from 

the Background Document and Technical Support for the proposed regulation. 

Reevaluation of the Three Remaining Transit Projects Required by 310 CMR 7.36 

In 2005, MassDEP, MassDOT, and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 

conducted a public process to reevaluate the three outstanding projects required by 310 

CMR 7.36 and whether these projects should be constructed. The outstanding projects 

that had not been completed were: 1) the Green Line Arborway Restoration; 2) the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector1; and 3) the Green Line Extension to Ball Square/Tufts 

University. The purpose of MassDOT's reevaluation was to ensure that the best 

transportation projects be pursued while meeting its air quality commitments. As part of 

this process, MassDEP provided MassDOT with the air quality goal (i.e., the level of 

emission reductions) that any potential project substitutions would be required to meet 

under a revised regulation and the SIP. In response, MassDOT developed a preferred 

alternative to the outstanding projects, which included the following three projects: 

1

 This project would connect the Red Line's Charles Street station to the Blue Line's Bowdoin Street station. 

3 
1. Green Line extension beyond Lechmere to the West Medford and Union Square 

areas; 

2. Fairmount Line improvements; and 

3. 1,000 additional park and ride parking spaces serving commuter transit facilities 

in Boston MPO region. 

Subsequently, MassDOT submitted a request to MassDEP to amend 310 CMR 7.36 and 

the SIP to include the three alternative projects. MassDEP agreed to propose 

amendments to the Transit regulation to include the alternative projects and delete the 

Red Line/Blue Line Connector project. MassDEP held a public hearing on the 

amendments on December 21, 2005. 

Also in 2005, the Conservation Law Foundation ("CLF") filed a complaint against the 

Commonwealth for failing to complete transportation improvement projects required 

under the 1991 Transit regulations (310 CMR 7.36) and the SIP approved by US EPA in 

1994.2 In its complaint, CLF alleged that the Commonwealth was in violation of the SIP 

because it failed to complete certain public transportation improvement projects, 

including completion of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector Project by December 31, 

2011. In order to resolve the litigation, on November 28, 2006, the parties in CLF v. 

Romney entered into an out of court settlement agreement that allowed the Court to 

dismiss the case with prejudice. The relevant section of the settlement agreement required 

MassDEP to adopt final amendments to the Transit regulation that deleted the 

requirements for the original three transit projects, including the Red Line/Blue Line 

Connector, added the requirements for the three alternative transit projects and also 

required MassDOT to complete the design phase of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector by 

December 31,2011. The settlement agreement did not require MassDOT to complete the 

construction of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector. 

On December 1, 2006, in response to comments on the proposed amendments to the 

Transit regulations, and in accordance with the November 28, 2006 settlement agreement 

in CLF v. Romney, MassDEP promulgated amendments to the Transit regulation that 

included MassDOT's preferred alternative projects and required MassDOT to complete 

the design phase of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project by December 31, 2011. 

MassDOT was no longer required to construct the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 

project.3 

Comment: CLF, ABC, and others suggested that MassDOT exaggerated the costs of the Project 

compared with other transit projects, including the South Coast Rail Project, to justify the 

proposal to amend the regulation. Since potential federal funding for construction is increasingly 

inclined to shovel-ready projects, it follows that a transit project must be designed for it to be 

constructed. 

2

 CLFv. Romney, et al. United State District Court for the District of Massachusetts Civil Action No. 05-10487 (hereafter 

referred to as CLF v. Romney) 

3 See 310 CMR 7.36(2)(i) which became effective on December 1, 2006. 

4 
Response: According to MassDOT, this is not correct, in several ways. The cost projections for 

final design and construction of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector were prepared by a capable 

team of technical professionals as part of the development of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Report for the project. This work represented the first time in more than two decades that the 

costs for the project had been estimated in a detailed and comprehensive way; previous estimates 

had simply been inflations of earlier estimates, crudely projected into the future. The current 

cost estimate for the Red Line/Blue Line Connector may seem high to those who are accustomed 

to earlier estimates, but they reflect contemporary professional standards and a clearer 

understanding of the technical challenges of the project. The Red Line/Blue Line project - a 

subway project, requiring an underground tunnel to be bored in one of the densest corridors of 

downtown Boston - is a completely different project than is the South Coast Rail project. 

Furthermore, the experience of MassDOT and the MBTA indicates that many projects can come 

in over their original cost estimates, not under. MassDOT did not manipulate the process of 

estimating the costs. 

While the comment about shovel-ready projects was an accurate statement about many of the 

discretionary grant programs available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

instituted in 2009, it overstates and incorrectly generalizes the case. The scale of the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector project makes it an unlikely candidate for a quick-turnaround, smalldollar discretionary grant program like TIGER (which has been retired per MAP-21). The more 

likely source of federal funds for a project of this size will continue to be the Federal Transit 

Administration's New Starts program, which still employs a more incremental approval process 

in which MassDOT would actually be penalized for moving ahead with design too quickly. 

Comment: Several comments indicated that the proposed Suffolk Downs casino will become a 

major destination raising a greater need for transit service connections, specifically the Red 

Line/Blue Line Connector. Several commented that the proposed Suffolk Downs casino 

developers should also contribute significantly to the Project. 

Response: The casino proposal at Suffolk Downs is one of at least three proposals for a new 

casino in the Greater Boston/Worcester region, and only one of the proposing teams will 

ultimately receive a casino license. While it is likely that the Red Line/Blue Line Connector 

would make casino-oriented trips better for some customers/employers traveling to a potential 

casino facility at Suffolk Downs, no analysis has been conducted to determine how significant 

would be the benefits of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector given the particular 

origins/destinations and timing of casino-bound trips. 

Comment: Congressmen Capuano and Markey and several legislators refer to binding 

agreements made in 1990 to expand transit service following the completion of the Central 

Artery/Tunnel Project (CA/T). 

Response: In December 1990, the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOTC) 

(now MassDOT), the Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDP W) (now MassDOT, 

Highway Division) and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU), which committed the transportation agencies to implement air quality 

mitigation measures for the CA/T project. Among these measures was a list of transportation 

5 
system improvement projects designed to maximize the use of mass transit. The MOU was 

endorsed by the Boston MPO as a proposed amendment to the SIP and was subsequently 

submitted to the Department. In response, the Department promulgated 310 CMR 7.36 and 

submitted the regulation to EPA as a SIP Revision. EPA approved the SIP revision in October of 

1994. 

MassDEP notes that many of the projects required by 310 CMR 7.36 were completed on 

schedule. However, other commitments were delayed and/or not completed by the regulatory 

deadlines. Many of these issues were addressed in a Administrative Consent Order between 

MassDEP and the transportation agencies. Other issues were addressed in a revision to 310 CMR 

7.36, effective December 1, 2006, and the SIP (approved by EPA on July 31, 2008). 

Comment: Congressmen Capuano and Markey, several legislators, and others noted that the 

Project will serve the North Shore communities and Cambridge, provide enhance job and 

housing access, increase transit service to Logan Airport, and decrease subway congestion. For 

these reasons, the Project deserves to be fully funded. The comments urge MassDEP to keep the 

Project requirement in place. 

Response: According to MassDOT, the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project would have 

many benefits, including those articulated in these comments. However, MassDOT does not 

currently have the capacity to fund the project over the next two decades covered by financially 

constrained Long-Range Plan for the Boston region. MassDOT's recently released finance plan 

- The Way Forward: A 21st-Century Transportation Plan - argues that, while the Commonwealth 

should continue to pursue critical expansion projects, it also recognized that not all worthy 

projects could be funded even with additional resources. The Way Forward did not identify the 

Red Line/Blue Line Connector as one of the recommended expansion projects. 

Comment: Partners HealthCare comments include support for the Project and recommends that 

the Project should be included as part of the transportation system's future capital needs planning 

required by section 13 of Chapter 132 of the Acts of 2012. 

Response: MassDOT submitted the finance plan required under section 13 of Chapter 132 of 

the Acts of 2012. The Way Forward: A 21st-Century Transportation Plan did not identify the 

Red Line/Blue Line Connector project as one of the recommended expansion projects for the 

MBTA system. 

6 
Attachment 1 

Name Affiliation 

1. Honorable Michael E. Capuano U.S. Congressman 

2. Honorable Edward J. Markey U.S. Congressman 

3. Honorable Robert DeLeo Speaker of the House 

4. Honorable Carlo Basile State Representative 

5. Honorable Kathi-Anne Reinstein State Representative 

6. Honorable Anthony Petrucelli State Senator 

7. Richard A. Dimino, Richard Parr A Better City 

8. Rafael Mares Conservation Law Foundation 

9. Marc Draisen Metropolitan Area Planning Council 

10. Kaththyn E. West Partners HealthCare 

11. Karen O'Donnell, John Kyper Sierra Club 

12. John Antonellis citizen 

13. August Blake citizen 

14. Carla Ceruzzi citizen 

15. Mathew Danish citizen 

16. Brian Gannon citizen 

17. Steven Gaun citizen 

18. Tina St. Gelais citizen 

19. Tanya Hahnel citizen 

20. Scott Kane citizen 

21. Kenneth J. Krause citizen 

22. John Leahy citizen 

23. Karen Magdalena citizen 

24. Chris Marchi citizen 

25. Gail Miller citizen 

26. Evelyn Morash citizen 

27. Ryan Murphy citizen 

28. Donna Segreti Reilly citizen 

29. Ellin Reisner citizen 

30. Ryan Rolin citizen 

31. Jean Staropoli citizen 

32. John Vitagliano citizen 

33. Antoine Vo citizen 

34. John Walky citizen 

35. Mary Ellen Welch citizen 

36. Joanne Welch citizen