Commonwealt h o f Massachusett s Executiv e Offic e o f Energ y & Environmenta l Affair s 

# Departmen t o

f Environmenta l Protectio n On e Winte rStree t Boston , M A 0210 8 •617-292-550 0 RICHAR D K . SULLIVA N J R Secretar y KENNET H L . KIMMEL L Commissione r 

### BUREA U O F WAST E PREVENTIO N DIVISION O F AI RAN

D CLIMAT E PROGRAM S

Summar y o f Comment

s an d Respons

e t o Comment

s o n th e Propose d Amendment

s t o th e Regulatio

n an d Stat e Implementatio

n Pla n for Ozon

e

31 0 CM R7.36 : Transi tSyste m Improvement s

Regulator y Authority : M.G.L . c

. Ill , Section

s 142 A throug h 142 M Novembe r 201 3

### SUMMAR Y O F AN D RESPONS E T O COMMENT S O N 31 0 CM R7.36 :

TRANSI T SYSTE M IMPROVEMENT S Th e Massachusett

s Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protectio n (MassDEP

) proposed amendment

s t o 31 0 CM R7.36 , Transit Syste mImprovements , and , i n accordanc e wit h th e publi c revie w proces s requirements o f

M.G.L . Chapte

r 30A , mad

e th e propose d amendment

s availabl e fo r publi c review , publishe d notificatio n o f th e amendments , an

d hel d apubli c hearing on Septembe r 13 , 201 2 to solici t

publi c commen

t o n th e propose d regulation . Th

e publi c commen

t perio d ende d o n Septembe

r 24 , 2012 . Relevan

t comment s ar e summarized an

d responde

d to below . A lis t o f al l partie s who submitte d ora l and/o r writte n testimon

y on th e propose d amendment

s i s include d i n Attachmen

t 1 . Comment : MassDE

P receive d numerou s comment s opposing th

e Massachusett

s Departmen

t o f Transportatio n (MassDOT ) request t o MassDE

P t o remov

e th e design o f

th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r a s arequiremen

t i n 31 0 CM R7.3 6 an

d th e Stat e Implementatio n Pla

n (SIP) . Those oppose d to removin g th

e requiremen

t include Speake

r o f th e House Rober

t DeLeo , Stat

e Representative s Carl o Basil e an d Kathi-Ann e Reinstein , Stat e Senato r Anthony Petrucelli , Congressme

n Capuan

o an d Markey , A Bette

r City , Conservation La

w Foundatio n (CLF) , th

e Metropolita

n Are aPlannin g Counci l (MAPC) , Joh n Vitagliano , (former

Transportatio n Commissione

r fo r th e City o f Boston) , an

d individua l citizens . Response : MassDE

P recognize s th

e suppor t fo r th e project . However , MassDEP' s reviewe d MassDOT' s request

t o determin

e whethe r th e remova l o f th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r desig n fro m31 0 CM R7.3 6 woul d hav e a n impac t o n th e ai r qualit y emission reduction s calculated fo r

th e project s include d i n th

e regulatio n an

d approved b y EP

A a s par t o f th e SIP . MassDE P ha s determined tha

t becaus e ther e ar e n o ai r qualit y benefit s associate

d wit h th e design o f th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r project , remova

l o f thi s design requiremen

t wil l not affec t th e total emission reduction s achieved fro mth e remainin g project s include d i n th e regulatio n an

d th e SIP . Therefore , th

e fina l regulatio n doe

s not requir e MassDOT t o complet

e th e final design o f th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connector . Comment : Numerou s comment s indicate d tha

t completio n o f

th e environmenta

l revie w an

d fina l design fo r

th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r (th e Project) i s alega

l requiremen

t i n th e regulatio n an

d th e Stat e Implementatio n Pla

n (SIP ) an

d tha t th e Commonwealt

h shoul d no t

b e relieve d o f

th e obligatio n withou t

substitution . Response : 31 0 CM R7.3 6 an d th e SI P d o no t requir e environmenta

l revie w o f

th e fina l design fo r th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connector . Se e 31 0 CM R7.3 6 (3) , Projec t Interi mDeadlines . Thi s subsectio n o f th e regulatio n contain s th

e requirements fo r

environmenta

l review , whic h ar

e not applicable t

o th e Project . Th e intent o f th e substitutio n provision s include d i n 31 0 CM R7.3 6 (5) , Substitut e Transit Syste mImprovemen

t Projects , a

s amende d o n Decembe

r 1 , 2006 , i s to ensur

e tha t th e air qualit y benefit s o f

th e project s require d t o b

e buil t ar e achieved i n th

e even t aprojec t need s to b e substituted after

th e procuremen

t process , environmenta

l review , an

d othe r preconstructio n 2processes ar e completed . Th

e final design fo r

th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r ha s n o associate d air qualit y benefit s an

d does no t

requir e substitutio n pursuan

t t o 31 0 CM R7.36(5) . Comment : CL

F commente

d tha t an y immediat

e fundin g concern s coul d be addresse d b y amendin g th e regulatio n to provid e fo r adeadlin e extension . Response : Th

e curren t stat e o f transportatio n fundin g makes thi s a n especiall

y ba d time to spen d a n estimated $5 0 millio n to design aprojec t wher e th e ultimat e implementatio n o f

th e projec t i s uncertain an

d fo r whic h th e design itsel f

woul d hav

e alimite dshel f

life . Allowin g additiona l time to fo r

MassDO T to complet

e thi s SI P requiremen

t wil l no t alte r th e fundamenta

l financia l fact s face d b y MassDOT . I t i s th e considerable constructio n cost o f th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto

r tha t make s i t unaffordabl e i n th

e foreseeabl

e futur e (e.g. , withi n th

e 2 0 yea r timeframe o f

th e curren t Long-Range Pla

n fo r th e Bosto n region) , no t

th e cost s o f environmenta

l revie w an d design . Furthermore , eve n i f Governo r Patrick' s propose

d transportatio n financin g pla n {Th e Wa y Forward : A 21 st -Centur y Transportatio n Plan ) i s ultimatel y approved , th e need s articulate d by MassDO T i n th e financ e pla

n d o not include th

e constructio n o f

th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connector . Comment : CLF cite d th e ai r quality , publi c health , mobility , environmenta l justice , an

d economi c developmen

t benefit s associate

d wit h th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connector . Specifically , CL F commente

d tha t b y inclusio n i n th

e SIP , th e Commonwealt

h recognize d an

d relie d o n th

e associate d ai r qualit y benefit s an

d shoul d b

e preclude d fro marguing tha t th e Projec t ha s n o calculable ai

r qualit y benefits . CLF cite d th

e 200 6 air

qualit y estimate s fo r

constructio n o f

th e Projec t an d indicate d tha

t although these calculation s wer e not include d i n the revise d SIP , i t doe s no t mak e th e Projec t an y les s o f a n obligation . MassDOT' s referenc e to th e Projec t a s "purely procedura

l requirement " raised th

e question why th

e Commonwealt

h woul d hav

e include d th

e Projec t i n th e revise d SI

P i n th e firs t place . Response : I n response t o thi s comment , MassDE P i s includin g th

e followin g informatio n fro m th e Background Documen

t an d Technica

l Suppor t fo r th e propose d regulation . Reevaluation of

the Three Remaining Transit Projects Required

by 310CMR 7.36 I n 2005 , MassDEP , MassDOT , an d th e Massachusett

s Ba y Transportatio n Authority conducte d apubli c proces s to reevaluat e th e thre e outstanding project s require d b y 31 0 CM R7.3 6 an

d whethe r these project s shoul d b

e constructed . Th

e outstanding project s tha t ha d no t bee n completed were : 1 ) th

e Gree n Lin e Arborwa

y Restoration ; 2 ) th

e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connector 1 ; an d 3 ) th e Gree n Lin e Extensio n t o Bal l Square/Tuft s University . Th

e purpos e o f

MassDOT' s reevaluatio n wa s t o ensur e tha t th e bes t transportatio n project s be pursued whil e meeting it s air qualit y commitments . A s par

t o f thi s process , MassDE

P provide d MassDOT wit h th e air qualit y goa l (i.e. , th e leve l o f emission reductions ) tha

t an y potentia

l projec t substitution s woul d b

e require d to mee

t unde r arevise d regulatio n an

d th e SIP . I n response , MassDOT developed apreferre d alternativ e to th

e outstanding projects , whic h include d th e followin g thre

e projects :

1 Thi s projec

t woul d connec t th e Re d Line' s Charle

s Stree t statio n t o th e Blu e Line' s Bowdoi

n Stree t station . 31 . Gree n Lin e extension beyon

d Lechmer

e to th e Wes t Medfor d an

d Unio n Squar

e areas ; 2 . Fairmoun

t Lin e improvements ; an

d 3 . 1,00 0 additiona

l par k an d rid e parkin g space

s serving commute

r transi t facilitie s i n Bosto n MP O region . Subsequently , MassDO T submitte d areques t to MassDE

P t o amen

d 31 0 CM R7.3 6 an

d th e SI P to include th

e three alternativ e projects . MassDE P agree d t o propos e amendment

s to th e Transit regulatio n t o include th

e alternativ e project s an

d delet e th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r project . MassDE

P hel d apubli c hearing o n th e amendment

s o n Decembe

r 21 , 2005 . Als o i n 2005 , th

e Conservation La

w Foundatio n ("CLF" ) file dacomplain t against th e Commonwealt

h fo r failin g to complet

e transportatio n improvemen t project s require d unde r th e 199 1 Transi t

regulation s (31 0 CM R7.36 ) an d th e SI P approved b y US EP

A i n 1994. 2 I n it s complaint , CL F allege d tha

t th e Commonwealt

h wa s i n violatio n o f

th e SI P becaus e i t faile d t o complet

e certai n publi c transportatio n improvemen t projects , includin g completio n o f

th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r Projec t b y Decembe

r 31 , 2011 . I n orde

r to resolv e th

e litigation , o n Novembe

r 28 , 2006 , th

e partie s i n CL F v . Romne y entere d int o a n ou t o f cour t settlemen t agreemen

t tha t allowe d th

e Cour t t o dismis s th e cas e wit h prejudice . Th

e relevan t section o f

th e settlemen

t agreemen

t require d MassDE P t o adop t final amendment

s t o th e Transit regulatio n tha

t delete d th e requirements fo r

th e origina l thre

e transit projects , includin g th

e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connector, adde

d th e requirements fo r

th e thre e alternativ e transit

project s an

d als o require d MassDO T t o complet e th e design phas

e o f th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r by Decembe r 31,2011 . Th

e settlemen

t agreemen

t di dnot requir e MassDO T to complet

e th e constructio n o f

th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connector . O n Decembe

r 1 , 2006 , i n respons

e to comment

s o n th e propose d amendment

s t o th e Transit regulations , an

d i n accordanc

e wit h th e Novembe

r 28 , 200 6 settlemen

t agreemen

t i n CL F v . Romney , MassDE P promulgate d amendment s t o th e Transit regulatio n tha

t include d MassDOT' s preferre d alternativ e project s an d require d MassDOT t o complet e th e design phas

e o f th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r projec t b y Decembe

r 31 , 2011 . MassDOT wa

s n o longe r require d to construct

th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r project. 3 Comment : CLF , ABC , an d others suggeste

d tha t MassDOT exaggerate

d th e cost s o f th e Projec t compare d wit h othe

r transi t projects , includin g th

e Sout h Coas t Rai l Project , to justif

y th e proposa l to amen d th e regulation . Sinc

e potentia

l federa l fundin g fo r

constructio n i s increasingly incline d to shovel-read

y projects , i t

follow s tha

t atransit projec t mus t b e designe d fo r i t t o b e 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 Se e 31 0 CM R7.36(2)(i ) whic h becam e effectiv e on Decembe

r 1 , 2006 . 4Response : Accordin g t o MassDOT , thi s i s no t correct , i n severa

l ways . Th

e cost projection s fo r final design an

d constructio n o f

th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r wer e prepare d by acapabl

e tea mo f technica l professional s a

s par t o f th e developmen

t o f th e Draf t Environmenta

l Impact Repor t fo r th e project . Thi s wor

k represente

d th e firs t time i n mor

e tha n tw o decade

s tha t th e cost s fo r th e projec t ha d bee n estimated i n adetaile d an d comprehensiv

e way ; previou s estimate s ha d simpl y bee

n inflation s o f

earlie r estimates , crudely projecte d into th e future . Th

e curren t cos t estimat e fo r th e Red Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r ma y see mhig h to thos e wh o ar

e accustome

d to earlie r estimates , bu t

the y reflec t contemporar

y professiona

l standard s an d acleare r understandin

g o f th e technica

l challenge s o f

th e project . Th

e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e projec t

- a subwa y project , requirin g a

n underground tunne l to b e bored i n on

e o f th e denses t corridor s o f downtow n Boston - i s acompletely differen t projec t tha n i s th e Sout h Coas t Rai l project . Furthermore , th

e experience o f

MassDOT an

d th e MBT A indicate s tha

t man y project s ca

n com e i n ove r their origina l cos

t estimates , no t

under . MassDO T di dnot manipulat

e th e proces s o f estimatin g th

e costs . Whil e th e commen

t abou t shovel-read

y project s wa

s a n accurat e statemen

t abou t man y o f th e discretionar

y gran t program s availabl e unde r th e America

n Recover

y an d Reinvestmen

t Ac t institute d i n 2009 , i t

overstate s an

d incorrectl y generalize s th e case . Th

e scal e o f th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r projec t makes i t a n unlikel y candidat

e fo r aquick-turnaround , small

dolla r discretionar

y gran t progra mlik e TIGE R(whic h ha

s bee n retire d pe

r MAP-21) . Th

e mor e likel y sourc

e o f federa l fund s fo r aprojec t o f thi s siz e wil l continue to b

e th e Federa l Transit Administration' s Ne w Starts program , whic h stil l employ s amor e incrementa

l approva l proces s i n whic h MassDOT woul d actually b e penalized fo r

movin g ahea

d wit h design to o quickly . Comment : Severa

l comment

s indicate d tha

t th e propose d Suffol k Down s casin

o wil l becom

e a majo r destinatio n raisin g agreate r nee d fo r transi t servic e connections , specificall y th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connector . Severa l commente

d tha t th e proposed Suffol k

Down s casin

o developer s shoul d als o contribut

e significantl y to th

e Project . Response : Th

e casin o proposa l a t Suffol k Down s i s on

e o f a t least thre e proposal s fo r

ane w casin o i n th e Greate r Boston/Worceste

r region , an

d onl y on e o f th e proposin g team

s wil l ultimatel y receive acasin o license . Whil e i t

i s likel y tha

t th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r woul d mak

e casino-oriente d trip s bette r fo r som e customers/employers travelin g t o apotentia l casin o facilit y a

t Suffol k Downs , n

o analysi s ha

s bee n conducted to determin

e ho w significan t woul d b e th e benefit s o f

th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r give n th e particula

r origins/destination s an

d timin g o f

casino-boun

d trips . Comment : Congressme

n Capuan

o an d Markey an

d severa l legislator s refer

to bindin g agreement

s mad e i n 1990 t o expan

d transi t servic e followin g th

e completio n o f

th e Centra l Artery/Tunne l Projec t

(CA/T) . Response : I n Decembe

r 1990 , th e Executiv e Offic e o f

Transportatio n an

d Constructio n (EOTC ) (no w MassDOT) , th

e Massachusett

s Departmen

t o f Publi c Work s (MD P W ) (no w MassDOT , Highwa y Division ) an

d th e Conservation Law Foundatio n (CLF ) signe d aMemorandu

mo f Understanding (MOU) , whic h committe d th e transportatio n agencies to implemen t air qualit y mitigatio n measure

s fo r th e CA/T project . Amon g these measures wa s alis t o f transportatio n 5syste

mimprovemen

t project s designe

d t o maximiz e th

e us e o f mas s transit . Th

e MO U wa

s endorse d by th e Bosto n MP O a

s apropose

d amendmen

t to th e SI P an d wa s subsequentl

y submitted t o th

e Department . I n response , th e Departmen

t promulgated 31 0 CM R7.3 6 an d submitted th

e regulatio n t o EP

A a s aSI P Revision . EP

A approve

d th e SI P revisio n i n Octobe

r o f 1994 . MassDE P note s tha

t man y o f th e project s require d b y 31 0 CM R7.3 6 wer e completed o n schedule . However , othe

r commitment s wer

e delayed and/o

r no t completed b y th

e regulator

y deadlines . Many o f

these issue s wer

e addresse

d i n aAdministrativ e Consen t Orde r betwee n MassDE P an d th e transportatio n agencies . Othe r issues wer

e addresse

d i n arevisio n to 31 0 CM R 7.36 , effectiv e Decembe

r 1 , 2006 , an

d th e SI P (approved b y EP

A o n Jul y 31 , 2008) . Comment : Congressme

n Capuan

o an d Markey , severa

l legislators , an

d other s noted tha

t th e Projec t wil l serv e th e North Shor

e communitie s an

d Cambridge , provide enhanc e jo b an d housin g access , increas e transi t

service to Loga

n Airport , an

d decreas e subwa y congestion . Fo

r thes e reasons , th

e Projec t deserves to b

e full y funded . Th

e comment

s urg e MassDE

P to kee p th e Projec t requiremen

t i n place . Response : Accordin g to MassDOT , th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r projec t woul d hav

e man y benefits , includin g thos e articulate d i n these comments . However , MassDOT doe s not currently hav

e th e capacit y to fun d th

e projec t ove r th e nex t tw o decade

s covered b y financiall y constrained Long-Range Pla n fo r th e Bosto n region . MassDOT' s recently release d financ e pla

n

- Th e Wa y Forward : A 21 st -Centur y Transportatio n Pla n - argues that , whil e th e Commonwealt

h should continue t o pursu

e critica l expansion projects , i t als o recognized tha

t no t al l worthy project s coul d b

e funde d eve

n wit h additiona

l resources . Th

e Wa y Forwar d di dnot

identif y th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r a s on e o f th e recommende

d expansion projects . Comment : Partner

s HealthCar

e comment

s include suppor

t fo r th e Projec t an d recommend

s tha t th e Projec t shoul d b e include d a

s par t o f th e transportatio n system' s futur e capita l need s plannin g required b y section 1 3 o f Chapte r 13 2 o f th e Act s o f 2012 . Response : MassDOT submitte d th e finance pla

n require d unde

r sectio n 1 3 o f

Chapte r 13 2 o f th e Act s o f 2012 . Th

e Wa y Forward : A 21 st -Centur y Transportatio n Plan di dno t identif y th e Re d Line/Blu e Lin e Connecto r projec t a s on e o f th e recommende

d expansion project s fo r

th e MBT A system .

6Attachmen t1 Nam e Affiliatio n 1 . Honorable Michae l E . Capuan o U.S . Congressma n 2 . Honorable Edwar

d J . Markey U.S . Congressma n 3 . Honorable Rober

t DeLeo Speake r o f th e House 4 . Honorable Carl o Basil e Stat e Representativ

e 5 . Honorable Kathi-Ann e Reinstein Stat e Representativ

e 6 . Honorable Anthon y Petrucell i Stat e Senato r 7 . Richar

d A . Dimino , Richar

d Par r A Bette

r City 8 . Rafael Mare s Conservation La w Foundatio n 9 . Mar c Draise n Metropolitan Are aPlannin g Counci l 10 . Kaththy n E . West Partner s HealthCar

e 11 . Karen O'Donnell , Joh n Kype r Sierr

aClu b 12 . Joh n Antonelli s citize n 13 . Augus t

Blak e citize n 14 . Carl aCeruzzi citize n 15 . Mathew Danis h citize n 16 . Brian Ganno

n citize n 17 . Steve n Gau n citize n 18 . Tin aSt . Gelai s citize n 19 . TanyaHahnel citize n 20 . Scot t Kan e citize n 21 . Kennet

h J . Kraus e citize n 22 . Joh n Leah y citize n 23 . Karen Magdalen a citize n 24 . Chri s March i citize n 25 . Gai l Mille r citize n 26 . Evely n Moras h citize n 27 . Rya n Murphy citize n 28 . DonnaSegret

i Reill y citize n 29 . Elli n Reisne

r citize n 30 . Rya n Roli n citize n 31 . Jea n Staropol i citize n 32 . Joh n Vitaglian o citize n 33 . Antoin e V o citize n 34 . Joh n Walk y citize n 35 . Mar y Elle n Welc h citize n 36 . Joann e Welc h citize n