Minutes of March 8, 2006 at the SRPEDD Office, 4:00 PM

Members Present:

Robert Overholtzer, OCPC Robert W. Carney, Dartmouth

David A. Tibbetts, South Coast on Track Linda Grubb, Lakeville

Robert Luongo, NBEDC David Kennedy, New Bedford

Dr. Susan Peterson, SRPEDD Richard McCarthy, Raynham

Diana Shearstone, Taunton Area Chamber Lou Gitto, Stoughton

John Bullard, Vision 2020

Others Present:

David Farmer, Edwards & Kelcey William Clark, MAPC

Pat Ciaramella, OCPC Ed Coviello, OCPC

Stephen Smith, SRPEDD Roland Hebert, SRPEDD

Louise Daley, SRPEDD Marijoan Bull, SRPEDD

Greg Guimond, SRPEDD Linda Lally, SRPEDD

Katie Murray, SRPEDD

1. Call to Order

Steve Smith called the meeting to order at 4:15 PM.

3. Presentation and Discussion of Task 3: General Community and Regional Recommendations

Marijoan Bull gave a presentation of a draft report as part of Task 3 that looks at the anticipated growth impacts from commuter rail. One part of Task 3 includes updating previous EOEA buildouts with an aerial analysis and new calculations regarding buildout capacity. This part is in progress. Tonight’s presentation is an analysis of the amount, location and type of growth in the study area. In the next couple of months, SRPEDD will make recommendations about growth management techniques for communities that will be impacted.

Ms. Bull explained how she analyzed Census data for the study area communities, comparing them to communities on the Old Colony line and the Attleboro line.

The region is already growing, without rail, due to its proximity to Boston and an existing transportation system that allows for commuting to Boston. Rail will have some impact, but not great impact. She noted there is no big discrepancy in growth rates from 1990-2000 when comparing Old Colony line communities and non-rail communities. Housing affordability was the top factor on where to live in a 2005 commuter survey of rail users. Also, coastal access and access to Providence attract people to this region.

There are too many variables to quantify how much of new growth is attributable to the existence of rail. The results of Task 1, which the MBTA is hiring a consultant to do, may help to answer what studies completed elsewhere have determined as new growth attributable to rail. A simple comparison with Old Colony Line communities does not do it.

Where is growth expected? An OCPC license plate study found about 80% of cars registered within 5 miles at most stations that are not termini. Also, twenty-minute commutes, as the SRPEDD travel demand model can map, are a reasonable predictor as survey data has shown that commuters are willing to commute longer. Where growth occurs depends on what communities do to encourage or discourage growth.

Rail does change the characteristics of the workforce over time, resulting in changes to the community profile, which in turn, affects the type of development that can be expected to occur as a result of rail. Commuter rail provides a Boston-centric connection.

Boston is the knowledge sector of the state. Workers going there have higher pay and education levels. Commuter rail surveys show that train riders are higher income, higher education workers. Their incomes are much higher than the median income for the counties. The issue of gentrification is an issue that will be touched upon in the recommendations. Dave Tibbetts said that much of the new growth includes rehabbing of vacant buildings--not conversion of existing housing. Ms. Bull agreed, but it is the increase in property values that impacts housing affordability and thus can promote gentrification. Dave Tibbetts said he would put a pdf file of the BOSTON GLOBE articles about Haverhill and Lowell on the South Coast on Track website.

Due to rail rider profiles, communities can expect to have higher end housing development. Providence has had much new townhome development downtown aimed at a market of Boston commuters. Dave Tibbetts added that has been the case north of Boston also. Attleboro is just now getting new residential development around the train station to support downtown uses. Higher end housing is also expected in the suburbs. Commercial uses are not supported in the suburbs. Urban areas are not projecting huge numbers of commuters, but the households they bring are a catalyst. Growth is a process over time.

Rail service could be a tourism benefit for New Bedford and Fall River. There is more flexibility in weekend train service and a good connection to the Island ferry.

Short rail trips to jobs further north (e.g., Myles Standish Industrial Park in Taunton or Stop & Shop in Freetown) are possible if connections are provided from the train. A reverse commute is not supported by the commuter rail schedule.

John Bullard then asked if Ms. Bull is concluding that rail does or does not cause growth. Ms. Bull answered that rail, where it exists, is one of many factors that are causing growth; however, growth attributed to it cannot be quantified. Growth is happening in the absence of rail.

Mr. Bullard noted that rail does take cars off the highway. The question then is--is rail accommodating growth more than causing it? Susan Peterson asked about the time and cost comparison of commuting from New Bedford to Cambridge, driving vs. rail. Ms. Bull said that Route 24 is already at LOS ‘D’ at peak period. If an accident occurs, there is gridlock, which is a common occurrence. Ms. Peterson commented that even if the rail trip is 2 hours, it is a controlled time. Dave Tibbetts added, that you can also read or do other things while on the train.

Rich McCarthy asked about differences in growth impacts in communities with and without infrastructure, and those closer to Boston, along with highway access. John Bullard noted that growth is already happening in Raynham. The mission of the task force is to find things to do to channel rail induced growth where it is wanted, but the recommendations are valid regardless of whether or not the growth is solely attributable to rail. It appears that rail is not a major growth catalyst. He added that although rail may not shift where a person works, it may shift how they get there.

Ms. Bull asked for input on the draft report she submitted. Buildout figures will quantify potential growth and growth management recommendations are forthcoming.

Steve Smith said that we don’t know that people are moving because of the train. We do know about the people who are using rail and there is a huge discrepancy between the jobs they have and the lack of those jobs in our area. Rail commuter characteristics plus the fact that up to 80% of rail commuters live within 5 miles of existing stations has implications for Task 4, and indicates that TOD around rail stations in urban areas can succeed.

4. Strategic Environmental Permitting Plan (SEPP): What it is; what questions it will answer; Status

Joe Cosgrove of the MBTA was not able to attend and give an update. Steve Smith noted that the RFP went out in July 2005 and could be modified, so the final scope of work has not been seen. No contract has been signed yet, although it was supposed to be signed originally by December 31, 2005. The original scope calls for 8 months of work to be concluded within 2006. The scope deals with sequencing, hurdles in the permitting process and the question of federal funds—which trigger new environmental hurdles if used. One federal hurdle is to meet the LEDPA (Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative) standard. Dave Tibbetts said there is a question as to who should sign the contract—EOT or the MBTA. The MBTA issued the RFP. It is to be signed “any day now”. Mr. Smith added that he hopes to have someone from the MBTA or the consultants update the task force at a future meeting.

5. Status of TOD Planning and Development at MBTA Stations

Greg Guimond of SRPEDD, Ed Coviello of OCPC and Bill Clark of MAPC gave updates on the status of TOD planning and development projects at MBTA stations on the Attleboro line, Old Colony lines to Lakeville and Kingston and the proposed Fall River/New Bedford line. Ms. Bull noted that projects in Brockton are now happening eight years after the rail line restarted. One reason is that the City was not proactive in TOD planning.

6. Future meetings

Ed Coviello invited the Task Force to meet in Brockton and tour what is happening around the station at one of the upcoming meetings. The next meeting is May 10, 2006. The members of the Task Force decided to have the following meeting on June 14 and not have a meeting in July or August.

Item taken out of order:

2. Minutes of Meeting, January 11, 2006

It was voted unanimously to accept the minutes of January 11, 2006.

7. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 PM.