Letter to DEP Deputy Commissioner Edward P. Kunce

Franklyn Salimbene, Chair, Arborway Committee

24 December 2001

Edward P. Kunce
Department of Environmental Protection
1 Winter Street
Boston 02108

Re: Arborway Green Line Restoration

Dear Mr. Kunce,

I write to comment on the MBTA response to DEP’s feasibility determination and order of November 7, 2001. In that order, DEP required that by December 31, 2001, EOTC provide "a schedule for design and construction of the Arborway project" with "benchmarks, milestones, and action items." As a courtesy, Michael Mulhern forwarded to me a copy of that schedule, which he incorporated in a letter to you dated December 3, 2001.

In regard to that schedule, the Arborway committee understands that Arborway Green Line service cannot be restored without considerable work being done along the line. We understand also that such work requires appropriate design services, reconstruction of track and power systems, and a parallel community process. For these reasons, we concur that the steps outlined in Mr. Mulhern’s schedule from "advertising for designer" to "construction phase" are essential to restoring service. We also commend Mr. Mulhern for his quick action in issuing the RFP for the project and hiring a national expert on urban light rail design and construction.

Nevertheless, we believe that as proposed, the schedule is overly protracted and lacks the specificity implied by the phrase "benchmarks, milestones, and action items." In this regard, the Arborway Committee would like to make several specific comments and a recommendation.

First and foremost, the proposed schedule offers no date certain for the resumption of Green Line service. Service implementation dates are incorporated into every transit improvement regulation within 310 CMR 7.36. In our view, a schedule for design and construction of this project that omits the date by which this project is to be fully open to the public is inconsistent both with the requirements of the regulation and the November 7 order.

Second, the schedule for the project, running from November 21, 2001 to August 17, 2006, is overly long. Mr. Mulhern’s letter of December 3 does not make clear why the MBTA requires 57 months to restore a two-mile line. In order to gauge the validity of the timeframe as proposed, more information needs to be provided. Otherwise, there is no assurance that the schedule is realistic, expeditious, and consistent with DEP’s November 7 order.

Third, the proposed schedule lacks any verifiable construction "benchmarks, milestones, and action items." For example, the schedule neither indicates when track reconstruction for the project will be completed nor when the power system will be rebuilt. Further, while the MBTA has indicated elsewhere that the Arborway Yard bus facility will be completed by 2004, it does not indicate whether the light rail facility will be completed as part of the bus facility project. Under normal circumstances, these omissions might be understandable given the vagaries of the construction process. The Arborway project, however, is not a "normal circumstance." Its history is littered with broken promises and false starts. While we accept Mr. Mulhern’s good faith and appreciate his prompt initial response to the November 7 order, the history of institutional inertia at EOTC and the MBTA and the record of his predecessors regarding this project require specific, verifiable, and enforceable construction benchmarks. This is the only way that the public and DEP can be assured of EOTC’s continued compliance with the order of November 7.

A final comment on two additional points is necessary. Regarding funding, Mr. Mulhern’s letter indicates that a funding source for the Arborway project will be identified sometime during the preliminary design phase. Given the history of this project and the fact that the MBTA knew that it would have spent a large amount of money regardless of which Arborway transit project was ultimately selected, it is surprising that a funding source cannot be identified sooner. Also regarding the timeframe between design and construction, there appears to be an inconsistency between Mr. Mulhern’s letter of December 3 and the schedule that accompanied it. The schedule indicates that construction is to begin four months after completion of design. The letter, however, in the very last sentence of the first page states: "Construction will begin two years after the completion of the design." A two-year delay between design and construction surely cannot be contemplated and, in any case, is unacceptable.

Because the order of November 7 requires that the schedule for the Arborway project be subject to approval by DEP, the Arborway Committee makes the following recommendation regarding that approval. We make our recommendation in the knowledge that the only safeguard for this project is on-going oversight by the Department of Environmental Protection.

Therefore, we recommend that DEP approve the schedule conditionally, the condition being that on or before June 30, 2002, or some other reasonable date, EOTC and the MBTA report again to DEP. This subsequent report should follow a determined and confirmed effort by the MBTA to reduce the overall projected length of the design and construction process and should provide additional schedule information subject to DEP approval. The additional information should include:

1. the identification of a funding source and the affirmation that the Arborway project is included in the current MBTA Capital Investment Plan;
2. the specification of a construction date by which track work is to be complete;
3. the specification of a construction date by which the power system is to be complete;
4. the specification of a date by which the project is to be open to full public use.

Further, we recommend that EOTC and the MBTA be required to report to DEP annually on the progress of the project. We believe that such a report should be a matter of public record and an opportunity for public comment.

The Arborway Committee is aware that factors may arise during a project of this type that could require an extension of the project schedule. Provided that the process remains open to public comment and that the MBTA continues to proceed in good faith, reasonableness would favor the granting by DEP of any necessary extension. The point is, however, that extensions ought to be verified for necessity after the fact and not built in for bureaucratic convenience before the fact.

In closing, the Arborway Committee restates its great thanks to the Department of Environmental Protection in regard to the finding and order of November 7. We appreciate DEP’s continued interest in Arborway restoration and urban public transit generally. Finally, we pledge our on-going cooperation with the MBTA and EOTC in this process.

Sincerely yours,

Franklyn P. Salimbene