The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-02-13-TAC-minFebruary 13, 2024 Minutes Transportation Advisory Committee Town of Lexington, Massachusetts Location:Pursuant to the Open Meeting Law, the meeting was held remotely by Zoom teleconferencing session open to the public following updated guidance posted by the Office of the Attorney General on June 28, 2023. Scheduled time:7:30pm Members Present:Vinita Verma (chair), Pamela Lyons (co-chair), Jonathan Schwarz, Kunal Botla, Sally Castleman, Mark Andersen, Nishanth Veeragandham. A quorum was present throughout the meeting. Members Absent:None. Liaisons Present:Susan Barrett, Town Transportation Manager; Melanie Thompson, Planning Board; Sudhir Jain, Council on Aging; Sebastian Fairbairn, Student Liaison. Liaisons Absent:Jill Hai, Select Board. Others Present:None. Vinita Verma called the meeting to order at 7:33 pm. Pamela Lyons reviewed the authorization for meeting remotely under the Open Meeting Law. Vinita Verma conﬁrmed attendance by roll call; all attending remotely. Public Comment There were no public comments from members, liaisons, or members of the public in the meeting. Minutes Meeting minutes for January 16, 2024 were approved by a motion duly made and seconded with an edit clarifying the 2024 Annual Town Meeting article pertaining to MBTA service was inserted by the Select Board at the request of the Transportation Advisory Committee with a unanimous roll-call vote. January 9, 2024 meeting minutes are to be considered at the following meeting. Review MBTA Related Warrant Article Presentation Members received a draft article motion for the resolution and presentation prior to the meeting from K. Botla by email on February 11.See items 5 and 6 in Documents Referenced. S. Castleman asked for conﬁrmation feedback sent by email was received by K. Botla; receipt was conﬁrmed, but was not discussed. K. Botla presented the draft slides. V. Verma made a positive remark about the slides. A discussion of members and liaisons contributed feedback for K. Botla to edit the phrasing of slides numbers 6 and 2. S. Castleman suggested consolidating references to town and state sustainability goals for clarity. M. Thompson contributed feedback for K. Botla to edit the phrasing of slide number 3. V. Verma and J. Hai clariﬁed the name and title of MBTA General Manager Philip Eng. M. Andersen asked about the idea behind the MBTA information presented; K. Botla noted it is targeted to be state level context and reduce down to Lexington in the following slide. J. Hai noted that the context may not help with building sympathy at Town Meeting. S. Castleman suggested abridging the MBTA context to be a single bullet point and condensing and reducing the ask. M. Andersen noted appreciation for how the motion is structured and its addressing of missing service components. M. Andersen suggested that the presentation highlight those gaps in MBTA service and clarify a request for improved service in the context of the Multi-Family Zoning Requirement for MBTA Communities (MBTA community zoning) and the MBTA’s Bus Network Redesign (BNRD) plan. K. Botla noted that the timeline of BNRD is not completely known at this time. S. Castleman asked about what the timeline for the request is; members and liaisons discussed what the timeline for the request is, in the context of MBTA Community zoning. S. Barrett shared context of Governor Maura Healey’s Transportation Funding Task Force related to MBTA funding and the representation of municipalities through the MBTA Advisory Board and the MBTA’s beginning of meetings with municipalities for Bus Network Redesign (BNRD) planning and implementation. Lexington is a later phase; the MBTA has go-no-go thresholds for bus operators for each of the phases. K. Botla suggested discussing the motion text and then returning to discussing the slides; V. Verma agreed. Edits to slides were incorporated during the meeting and following it to create a second draft. K. Botla presented the motion text. M. Andersen noted the loss of Sunday service and other losses of service unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic, and suggested that edits be received by email and incorporated to be presented at the next meeting. K. Botla noted that the presentation to the Select Board is scheduled for March 4; J. Hai informed that the deadline for the document is March 1. K. Botla requested initial feedback from this meeting. P. Lyons and J. Hai suggested explicit mention to the Multi-Family Zoning Requirement for MBTA Communities and Lexington being the ﬁrst in the Commonwealth; some terminology was clariﬁed by M. Thompson. S. Fairbairn and M. Andersen discussed timeline as part of “S.M.A.R.T.” goals. K. Botla noted that it’s difficult to set a single date, but it may be possible to set one relative. J. Hai suggested linking it to the occupancy of housing built under the new zoning districts created to comply with the MBTA community zoning requirement and that its nonbinding and contains thresholds that could be used for follow up. M. Andersen and K. Botla expressed support and noted it completes the link to MBTA community zoning. Edits were discussed to be included in a second draft of the motion text. M. Andersen and J. Hai discussed approving K. Botla to make edits to the slides and motion and minor edits following the presentation to the Select Board. A motion was duly made by M. Andersen and seconded by P. Lyons to support Kunal presenting a motion, resolution, and slidedeck to the Select Board and giving him some discretion to make edits as he sees ﬁt inclusive of the feedback received today, by a unanimous roll-call vote. J. Hai informed members of the Town Meeting Member Association forums on March 12 and 14 that may bring substantive feedback. V. Verma noted that the next meeting date will be conscious of those dates. Discussion on Peer Review Recommendations of Tri-Town Transit Study Members received a draft article motion for the resolution and presentation prior to the meeting from V. Verma by email on February 10.See items 3 and 4 in Documents Referenced. S. Barrett presented background about an $80,000 grant from the state in November 2017 called the Efficiency and Regionalization grant program. Lexington, Burlington, and Bedford were meant to develop solutions on regionalizing transportation services, with Lexington as the lead. Around that time a report came from Middlesex 3 saying coordination could improve services. The Town Managers of all three towns were interested and hoping for a cost reduction, however, since they were all barebones there was not much of an opportunity to. Microtransit was discussed at that point with consideration for its increased cost. 128 Business Council completed the peer review of the recommendations. An idea was integrating school and municipal transportation resources through holistic discussion of active transportation and reducing dependence on school buses for those who could walk a short distance, or utilize existing MBTA or Lexpress infrastructure. The school buses are facing many challenges: many families use the school bus as a backup option, they are rushing between schools, the 36 buses don’t ﬁt on the high school property, and many leave the high school empty. A survey at that point got similar results to one in 2012, families and students wanted more frequent service, more after school. S. Barrett noticed that when taking the MBTA buses, many students would be waiting for school buses along the MBTA routes; using the MBTA buses would have saved money. The conversations related to the reports never moved forward. S. Barrett is asking for the involvement of the Committee, especially in the context of the new high school’s design for parking, bus, bike, and other travel options. S. Barrett mentioned that Deepika Sawhney (School Committee member) has asked about increased Lexpress service targeted at student schedules, however, changes will impact the rest of the day’s schedule without greater investment. The Climate Action Plan and a number of other plans call for similar improvements. N. Veeragandham asked about when the study was completed; S. Barrett responded with 2018/2019 by Foursquare ITP and peer review and follow up correspondence from 128 Business Council. S. Barrett asked about next steps and what stakeholders from town and school staff or other boards and committees could be involved and asked J. Hai about presenting to the Select Board. J. Hai said that the Town Manager informed her it was a non-starter since the schools were not interested in immediate changes. The deep municipal-school relationship involved with any proposals around LPS transportation was discussed. S. Barrett noted that conversations in Ad-Hoc Transportation Committee meetings included the allocation of the $4 million for school buses and the Town Meeting action to create a subsidy for LPS school buses. S. Fairbairn asked if it was the school committee or staff that were not on board; J. Hai answered that she was not sure, but it was likely a combination. S. Castleman brought up the concerns with congestion and transportation that led to the increase in school buses and funding for subsidies. S. Castleman recalled the idea that there could be potential for efficiency without reducing service if more youth transitioned to public transit when applicable being missing in discussions. K. Botla noted that there’s a signiﬁcant population that knows ﬁrst hand about the transportation issues affecting students, but is not party to these conversations, and that encouraging a meeting or an update to reports about where improvements can be made to support students would be most helpful. M. Andersen noted that the topic has been brought up multiple times and a low chance for success; M. Andersen suggested setting actionable steps. V. Verma noted a previous letter to the School Committee from the Committee. J. Hai informed the Committee that transportation is not considered a shared expense and that the School Committee creates the budget for schools for Town Meeting to consider; opening that conversation for which expenses are allocated where may be contentious. S. Barrett noted there are many overlapping interests with town and schools for students, but a lack of a work group or conversations. K. Botla agreed having a group discuss the ideas together is the primary challenge and that much of the action could be informational or operational strategy rather than budget changes. S. Castleman offered context on Town Meeting funding for the school bus subsidy; J. Hai noted that it may have been from an override that stays in perpetuity. S. Barrett will work with town staff to create plans for parking and transportation for the new high school. Transportation Manager’s Update No further updates were made on this agenda item. Discussion on Roles and Responsibilities on the Committee V. Verma asked M. Andersen to speak on the item. M. Andersen acknowledged V. Verma’s leadership of the Committee and K. Botla’s contributions to the Committee in the context of crafting items and the warrant article. M. Andersen suggested a restructuring of the Committee with K. Botla as chair and V. Verma as vice-chair. M. Andersen noted asking P. Lyons about passing the role on, and was supportive. S. Castleman said she needs to think about the idea and asked for the opinion of and how long V. Verma has been in the position; V. Verma expressed willingness to mentor and for someone to take over, even as vice-chair, and that she has been chair for 2 years and 8 months, since July 2021. When asked if M. Andersen would consider the vice-chair role, he noted prior commitments would make it challenging, but noted K. Botla’s concern of the MBTA as a major area of his interest. K. Botla responded that he is willing, has the bandwidth, and shared about the Committee’s involvement as part of greater interests. S. Castleman noted that the Committee chair is often someone with a long tenure and strong familiarity with the town’s governance. J. Schwarz noted not having any comments at that point. M. Andersen suggested that the Committee return to the topic at a future meeting and that having K. Botla represent the Committee at Town Meeting could be favorable. J. Hai noted that many committees reorganize following the Annual Town Meeting. Liaison Updates ●Select Board, Jill Hai:The Board took initial positions on warrant articles for Town Meeting the night before, but not the Committee’s article since they had not seen a presentation yet. The Board considered the crosstown bus route that would come from the MassDOT Regional Transit Innovation Grant when discussing Article 33; S. Barrett is anticipating hearing back in April, noted that there is $15 million in funding available and $60 million in request, and highlighted that there is already Lexpress service on Lowell Street and is within walking distance to Market Basket. ●Planning Board, Melanie Thompson:The Board is working on public hearings for amendments to zoning regulations for Town Meeting, including short-term rentals, inclusionary housing, signs, and max height for the village overlays. There are two owner petitions to be added to a village overlay district, the Planning Board did not vote in the affirmative, but Town Meeting will consider them. ●Council on Aging, Sudhir Jain:The Council is discussing if Lexington wants to pursue recognition as an age friendly community, potential grants. Small groups are forming to visit senior homes to meet seniors and hear about their concerns. A list of snow cleaning services is being prepared for seniors. ●Student Liaison, Sebastian Fairbairn:Currently looking at the new schools and how transportation will play a role in them. Future Meetings The next meeting was not scheduled during the meeting. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 pm by a motion duly made, seconded, and approved unanimously by roll-call vote. Documents Referenced 1. February 13, 2024 Agenda, Transportation Advisory Committee, Town of Lexington ○On ﬁle with the Town Clerk 2. Draft — Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes for January 16, 2024 ○Attached to these minutes ○Approved minutes on ﬁle with the Town Clerk 3. 128 Business Council Correspondence dated December 13, 2019 to the Town of Lexington regarding Lexington Transportation Service Integration ○Attached to these minutes 4. 128 Business Council Peer Review of Foursquare ITP’s Tri-Town Efficiency & Regionalization Transit Study with the ﬁnal report dated Tuesday, June 26, 2019 ○Attached to these minutes 5. Draft — Town Meeting Presentation for Annual Town Meeting 2024 Article 41: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Resolution ○Attached to these minutes 6. Draft — Town Meeting Motion Text for Annual Town Meeting 2024 Article 41: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Resolution ○Attached to these minutes Respectfully submitted, Kunal Botla Transportation Advisory Committee Tuesday, February 13, 7:30 PM Conducted by Remote Participation* AGENDA 1. 7:30 – 7:40 Remote welcome statement & public comments 2. 7:40 – 7:45 Approve minutes 3. 7:45 – 8:05 Review MBTA related Warrant Article presentation 4. 8:05 – 8:15 Discussion on Peer Review Recommendations of Tri-Town Transit Study 5. 8:15 – 8:30 Transportation Manager’s Update 6. 8:30 – 8:45 Discussion on roles and responsibilities on the committee 7. 8:45 – 8:55 Liaison Reports (Select Board, Planning Board, Council on Aging & LHS) 8. 8:55 – 9:00 Set next meeting date *Remote Participation details: You are invited to a Zoom webinar. When: Feb 13, 2024 07:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Every month on the Second Tue, until Dec 10, 2024, 12 occurrence(s) Mar 12, 2024 07:00 PM Apr 9, 2024 07:00 PM May 14, 2024 07:00 PM Jun 11, 2024 07:00 PM Jul 9, 2024 07:00 PM Aug 13, 2024 07:00 PM Sep 10, 2024 07:00 PM Oct 8, 2024 07:00 PM Nov 12, 2024 07:00 PM Dec 10, 2024 07:00 PM Topic: TAC Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83792800750?pwd=dWpZV2ZndXdDaStYeU9oNUkyamdWQT09 Passcode: Lexpress Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your calendar system. Monthly: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/tZcqfuugrjstH9QFfUiGRs5fM8bNQYG- Q9Lh/ics?icsToken=98tyKuGrqTIoEtSVtxyHRpwqB4r4a_zziGJagvpsuhnQCgdhcVbwG7pAHINGN5Xh ! "#)! ,% *+" ("! "#("<07;("<09: (!,/ ( ,8;/979:/)1 ! !"0" 4 5,!"/ !/ ,!/ !" /(" !"*!*" "!( "("2!#- # "979: * # ! )"+"1 " """( !//"""*(!,* " % """ /( " " )! )*" )""" "&* " #" ( * #3 " !(""" "(*,1("( !( " " #!,"" #/) ",#!/""( "1 !!!""*!!("2!("%#""!!( !*,1"!*"""(#" *," " ) !1,!"( ""!" "3"!!!(! " /" !, "("*"1" ("!(!"""*!) 2!) " !!(!1 !" "" "" (#!)!!! #!"2!( ""*"1("""" *!!* " #!!( # 4,*"5" (#!" ,!/ !!" !"!(!/("*% ! )"*""1 ! $ # %))$%$%*!)") # /!$ - /,,,%' (*&&%')(*()!$"&'!$)!$&')!(%'#%'!$%'#)!%$%$ %,.%*$(*&&%')'$*(!$(((+!(!),,,%' December 13, 2019 Superintendent Dr. Julie Hackett, Lexington Public Schools 146 Maple Street, Lexington, MA 02420 James J. Malloy, Lexington Town Manager Town Office Building, 2nd Floor 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Lexington, MA 02420 Lexington School Committee 146 Maple Street, Lexington, MA 02420 Lexington Board of Selectman Town Office Building, 2nd Floor 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Lexington, MA 02420 RE: Lexington Transportation Service Integration Superintendent Dr. Hackett & Town Manager James J. Malloy, My name is Monica G. Tibbits-Nutt, AICP, LEED AP BD+C, and I am the Executive Director of 128 Business Council. The Council is a transportation management association (TMA) and a non-profit regional transportation planning organization dedicated to alternative transportation and pro- sustainability solutions for the 128 West region. Our shuttles provide several hundreds of thousands of rides annually and connect major employers and communities to public regional transit locations, making commuting more productive and reducing congestion along Route 128 West and related roadways. This transportation solution enhances our region’s economic vitality and attractiveness. The Council has provided public transit options to the 128 Corridor for over 30 years. We were founded by employers and developers along Route 128 to connect better their tenants, residents, and %))$%$%*!)") # /!$ - /,,,%' (*&&%')(*()!$"&'!$)!$&')!(%'#%'!$%'#)!%$%$ %,.%*$(*&&%')'$*(!$(((+!(!),,,%' employees to the employment and educational opportunities that these communities deserved. We have continued our mission of reducing congestion by partnering with these constituents and communities to fill the first/last mile gap that inhibits many residents of the Commonwealth from accessing the opportunities and services they need. Utilizing private sector investment, we have been able to continue to grow our shuttle programs and ridership in the face of declining national usage of public transit. 128 Business Council is invested in the Town of Lexington’s transportation and sustainability future on a number of levels: The Town is a member of our transportation management association; we run one of our most successful shuttle programs (the REV Bus) within and through the Town of Lexington; and we have advised the Town on a range of transportation matters, both as part of its yearly TMA workplan and through discrete consulting contract. This past spring and summer, we completed an extensive Peer Review of the Tri-Town Efficiency & Regionalization Study completed by Foursquare. Then in September of this year, we brought a team (composed of myself, our Director of Operations, and another member of our Research & Development group) to complete a day-long, in-depth analysis of Lexington’s current transportation options alongside Susan Barrett. Furthermore, we are currently undertaking an extensive, first-of-its-kind survey to collect specific point-to-point origin/destination data of a statistically-significant representation of the trips taken within Lexington, Waltham, and Bedford— the results of which will begin to be available in Spring 2020. Finally, 128 Business Council is invested in the Town’s future simply as part of its long-term, non-profit mission to improve transportation options for everyone throughout the 128 Corridor. As just mentioned, one of our more successful shuttle programs has been the REV Bus, which connects residents of the Town of Lexington to the MBTA Red Line service at Alewife Station. In addition to this essential community connection, we bring employees from the inner core out to the employment centers of Lexington and Bedford. It has been so successful that we have had to increase service hours to meet the demand. The central mechanism that the Council has used over the last 30 plus years is partnerships. Partnerships between competing developers, competing companies, and competing Towns. These stakeholders are brought together by the Council to better understand the transportation issues, opportunities, and mechanisms for funding. Through our guidance, backed by quantitative and qualitative research, we have been able to pool the funds of these competing entities to create larger, more holistic systems that serve the residents, employees, and local businesses. These systems are %))$%$%*!)") # /!$ - /,,,%' (*&&%')(*()!$"&'!$)!$&')!(%'#%'!$%'#)!%$%$ %,.%*$(*&&%')'$*(!$(((+!(!),,,%' frequent, predictable, and reliable bus services. Being a non-profit, we can leverage these funds to create world-class services that are entirely open to everyone. We strongly believe that these types of partnerships are the only opportunity the Commonwealth and its municipalities have for large-scale mode shift. And large-scale mode shift made possible through pooled interests is essential to easing the congestion on our roadways. Whether it is congestion on the way to work or school, it harms all of us. A concept that many regions have been testing, including Boston, is the idea of creating unified systems. So instead of parents commuting one way, students another, school staff another, all of these trips are pooled into a coordinated system. Larger-scale coordinated systems allow municipalities (and even entire regions) to create real public transit that is of a high enough quality to actually get commuters out of their single-occupancy vehicles. In turn, high-occupancy transportation options ease congestion on the roadways, give everyone more sustainable transportation options, and create a more sustainable funding mechanism for all involved. The United States is one of the few countries in the world that segments its students from the rest of the public. The assumption that students need to be on a separate form of transportation—or even that their transportation needs to be planned and paid for separately—from their parents, teachers, administrators, and everyone living and working around them is finally beginning to be questioned by many planners across the United States. Let’s just focus on teachers and administrators for a moment: Traditional American school bus systems exclude the teachers and administrators who need direct access to the same destination as their students. Many teachers and administrators actually lack access to any public transportation options—even as their school districts devote huge portions of their yearly budgets to transportation for their students, which is often underutilized. Better transportation options for teachers and administrators alone (without yet considering consolidation of transportation resources more generally) would create a much more equitable work environment. Imagine a community where teachers didn’t have to own cars, and where parents could commute with their children, rather than chauffeuring their children. Operating underutilized student-only transportation comes at a massive cost culturally, financially, environmentally, and equitably. In a time when many residents are struggling to afford to live, work, and educate their children, it is more important than ever for us as a community to work together to create transportation options for everyone. %))$%$%*!)") # /!$ - /,,,%' (*&&%')(*()!$"&'!$)!$&')!(%'#%'!$%'#)!%$%$ %,.%*$(*&&%')'$*(!$(((+!(!),,,%' The Town of Lexington is currently rethinking much of its transportation system. As part of this re- envisioning, you have an opportunity to not just redraw lines on a map. You have an opportunity to create a public transit system that serves the community as a whole, at a financial cost significantly lower than what you are paying now. Please accept our support for a more innovative and high-quality transportation solution. Let’s build upon Lexington’s preexisting history of a deep commitment to public transportation, while setting aside past assumptions about how transportation ‘must’ work and exploring all available options. Lexington can become a premier transportation community—a community that is better connected, more inclusive, and more innovative than any other town in the Commonwealth. Now is the time. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can be of any assistance. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. Respectfully Submitted, Monica G. Tibbits-Nutt, AICP, LEED AP BD+C--Executive Director Aer Foursquare ITP completed its dra final report of “Tri-Town Efficiency & Regionalization Transit Study” for the towns of Lexington, Bedford, and Burlington in January of 2019, the Town of Lexington contracted 128 Business Council to conduct a broadly-oriented peer review of this dra final report. We conducted our peer review in three parts: (1) The “Market Analysis,” survey tool, and general approach to public outreach, data collection, and data analysis were specifically analyzed by 128BC’s Executive Director. (2) The service scenarios and service recommendations were independently analyzed by our Operations department. (3) Our Research & Development department went through the document page-by-page, comparing the contents to outside materials as appropriate. Following this independent analysis, we presented an initial peer review dra document containing questions, concerns, and corrections to representatives of the three towns at an in- person meeting on May 29, 2019. Aer receiving their thoughts and feedback at that meeting, we invited the three towns to submit additional line-specific comments for integration into the document and submied an updated dra to both the towns and Foursquare ITP, with whom we met on June 12, 2019. This document represents the final report, updated following these meetings and following additional town feedback regarding their needs and priorities. 128 Business Council Peer Review of Foursquare ITP’s Tri-Town Efficiency & Regionalization Transit Study final report dated Tuesday, June 26, 2019 DOCUMENT CONTENTS p. 2 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS & CONCERNS p. 5 RESPONSE TO SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS p. 6 NEAR-, MEDIUM-, AND LONG-TERM ACTION SUGGESTIONS p. 8 LINE-SPECIFIC DOCUMENT COMMENTS p. 25 APPENDIX: SOME RESOURCES FOR FURTHER REVIEW 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 125 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS & CONCERNS 1. Did the survey tool gather all of the data that is needed? Especially given that the primary data sources available for Foursquare’s construction of transportation demand models are up to nine years old, a systematic and explicit surveying of origin-destination pairings, mapped against current mode and (potentially even more importantly) mapped against trip time of day, would provide a more robust assessment of the Tri-Town Area’s transportation needs. This data from this surveying could then be combined with specific origin-destination trip data that already exists in the form of Bedford DASH trip records and other variable-route service manifests. 2. Were all relevant data sources exhausted? We would recommend a review of the following additional materials, as available, examples and starting places for which are provided in the Appendix on p. 23: (a)any preexisting origin-destination pairings documenting real trips. such as the variable-route service manifests listed immediately above; (b)up-to-date municipal density and zoning maps, which provide a context for future development; (c)any and all available data sources documenting more recent residential construction; (d)ridership for shule-based services throughout the three towns; (e)ridership across all service types normalized by time of day and season; (f)and current routing and ridership for all three town’s school transit. 3. Do the proposed fixed routes effectively and non-redundantly connect with other public transportation options? We would recommend a more explicit description of the proposed fixed routes’ interaction with preexisting MBTA routes — in particular, routes 62, 350, 351, 77, and 79, in addition to the routes’ interaction with preexisting LRTA services and 128 Business Council’s REV Bus. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 225 4. How do the proposed routes compare to the three towns’ preexisting services’ routing, as well as the three towns’ prior transportation plans? It would be extremely helpful to see a mapped comparison of the proposed routes to the services that already exist in the three towns (and which the proposed routes might replace). Much more broadly, some additional reflection would be helpful regarding the relationship of these routes and services to the three towns’ documented transportation, housing, and economic development plans. 5. Do the proposed fixed routes respond to (what information we have) about current and potential demand? In addition to explicitly overlaying the proposed fixed routes with each and all of the analytic maps produced within Foursquare’s “Market Analysis” section (as noted below, the proposed routes are compared to some but not all of the market analysis mappings), this question would need to be informed by responses to Concern #1 and Concern #2. 6. Would the proposed fixed routes beer meet the needs of different populations by varying throughout the day? The current dra of the study does not consider a potential ‘intermediate’ option between traditional fixed routes and demand-responsive services — namely, routes that vary by time of day. The study touches upon but does not explicitly break out the needs of several distinct populations: (1) students, (2) seniors, (3) adults working a traditional 9-5 schedule, and (4) adults working in the service sector, oen with start and end times outside the traditional 9-5. The transportation needs of these four populations are quite different, both in terms of destination and trip time. 7. Can a microtransit model work in this context? The proposal to pilot a microtransit service cannot be evaluated without further information regarding costs-per-ride, accessibility, driver consistency, and dispatching options. Even aer these questions are answered, there may still be concerns regarding the appropriateness of this model for, specifically, youth and senior populations — as well 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 325 as the appropriateness of an operational model such as that of Via to a geography that is neither densely urban nor rural. 128 Business Council’s research into preexisting microtransit pilot services suggests that Via and similar services have been most successfully applied to contexts in which there has been a significant allocation of funds and employee hours toward the creation of a municipally-run infrastructure for the service — in other words, in contexts in which the service was not treated as turnkey — and with pilots that established, from the outset, an expansive service area. 8. Are the projected budgets realistic? 128 Business Council’s own budget projections and potential budget additions are included below. A complete budget projection would need to include: (1) up-to-date hourly vehicle costs, (2) accurate costs for the technologies necessary to create a dependable and predictable service for a modern ridership, and (3) a significant financial investment in service dispatching, marketing & communication, and management. 9. Is the projected transition timeline realistic? 128 Business Council’s experience with the preparation required for major service transitions would suggest that a more realistic timeline for service changes of this magnitude — from initial planning to vehicles hiing the road — would take several years, even with the benefit of a full-time staff dedicated to those service changes. These nine questions are touched upon more below, with the comments organized to follow the structure and content of Foursquare’s Dra Final Report. Feedback from Lexington, Bedford, and Burlington are integrated alongside questions, observations, and suggestions from 128 Business Council. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 425 RESPONSE TO SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS Foursquare ITP broke their service recommendations into three categories: (1) the creation of a streamlined fixed-route service connecting the three towns, (2) undertaking a microtransit pilot program through the vendor Via, and (3) continuing to fund a demand-response service as a “safety net” for populations who would not be well-served by the first two service categories. 1. Regarding the proposed fixed-route service: In terms of establishing a new fixed-route system or systems, 128 Business Council believes that the towns should retain and plan to use the data sets included in the “Market Analysis” section to inform future routing decisions, but only once that data is placed alongside additional necessary data sets—including all of the types of of data listed under No. 2 on P. 2 above. Perhaps even more importantly, it is essential to bridge the divide between, on the one hand, background market data (such as the types of data included in Foursquare ITP’s “Market Analysis” section and the list of data sources just cited) and, on the other hand, the kind of preference-based information and non-systematized service requests traditionally collected through surveys and public forums. In 128 Business Council’s experience, the most efficient way to bridge this divide is through the ambitious collection of origin-destination trip data, which is included in the action suggestions below. 2. Regarding the proposed microtransit pilot: In terms of jumping into the exciting world of microtransit, 128 Business Council encourages the three towns to wait to explore this new service model until other municipalities that have already heavily invested can finish their pilot projects—and only aer securing some outside sources of financial support. In the Commonwealth this technology is relatively new. While there have been at least two microtransit companies that have aempted to break into the transportation market, neither has been successful. For-profit companies struggle to create lasting services because transportation is such a heavily subsidized industry. When there is a lack of long-term subsidies it is very hard for companies to invest the time and capital needed to create stable and long lasting systems. Adoption and transition of individuals’ commuting paerns takes time, and, if it is solely profit driven, you inherently lack the time and commitment to create durable systems. Communities need durable systems to address the transportation challenges of the modern day. We urge the communities to follow the pilots being funded by MAPC (Metropolitan Area Planning Council) and use the data gathered to inform any decisions made in regards to microtransit. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 525 3. Regarding the demand-response service as “safety net”: All three communities currently have on demand services that many within their communities have come to rely on, especially vulnerable populations. Any time that you are either making a large service adjustment or creating new routes and services entirely, you need a reliable back up or “safety net”. This is to ensure that no population has a lapse in service during either pilot periods or service transition periods. Without this, you either strand existing riders or force them into less desirable modes such as single occupancy vehicles. Once you do this, it is very hard to get those riders back. Municipalities have a responsibility to maintain service options during any system overhaul or system expansion. NEAR-, MEDIUM-, AND LONG-TERM ACTION SUGGESTIONS In light of this peer review and in light of our ongoing conversations with the three communities, 128 Business Council recommends breaking any potential transportation system overhauls into the following near-, medium-, and long-term steps: 1.Re-evaluate current schedules and routing within the parameters of existing contracts. This simply means looking at the contractual service hours and routing to establish any thresholds for adjustment. If this flexibility exists, you use these parameters to make the best service adjustments possible to beer serve the communities, existing riders, and desired rider populations. 128 Business Council does this regularly with our own services through either quarterly service adjustments or service expansion where interest and potential ridership has been established. 2.Systematize daily ridership counting procedures to record every ride without the need for separate study. This is simply establishing a consistent protocol across services within each town and across towns for how ridership is collected and analyzed. 128 Business Council records every person boarding, where they boarded, where they exited, and at what time the service used. This is for every rider, every service, and every day. This allows for informed service changes and allows for analysis of capacity to determine where expansion is needed and justified. We currently do this by hand and are moving towards a more automated system. Again, ideally this would be done on every service in all three communities. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 625 3.Undertake data collection across both residential and employee populations to gather real-trip origin-destination pairings tied to current mode usage and trip time of day. This should be a yearly process used to not only build a database but to maintain connections to potential users whether through businesses or residential complexes. 4.Start talking to municipal leaders and the public about integrating school transportation budgets, contracts, and infrastructure with other public transportation needs. It is imperative that all transportation modes be examined together, even if they are targeted toward different populations. It is in the best interest of the communities to evaluate a transportation system as a whole, as it will create a more holistic picture from both a service planning and budgetary standpoint. 5.Overhaul town permiing processes to start building incentivized private-sector partners for local public transportation financing and route-building. The aim should be to create TDM strategies and pursue those defined goals through the permiing process. 6. Revisit the integration of transportation services across town boundaries in the context of these public-private partnerships. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 725 LINE-SPECIFIC DOCUMENT COMMENTS 1. Executive Summary p. 1 ¶. 2 128BC Comment: The TMAs operating in this region have, in some cases, higher ridership than the local MBTA or municipal bus services, and thus merit more specific inclusion — especially given that a key criteria for the study’s service recommendations is “to serve the areas with the greatest existing ridership…” (2). More is said about this issue below. p. 1 ¶. 3 Lexington Clarification: The Town of Lexington did not “introduce” school bus service in 2014. Rather, the Town started to subsidize it to encourage greater ridership. 1 p. 1 ¶. 3 Lexington Clarification: Lex-Connect is not entirely funded by gis, grants, and revenue from the purchase of taxi vouchers. The administration is funded by the Town, supported by the Transportation budget which is within the Human Services budget. Lex-Connect has not seen steady growth, as shown in the submied data. It grew during the 2 first year of operation (FY13) aer hosting a 2-for-1 deal, but has been stagnant since. In FY18, 206 people used the service, of which 75 people used it once, some used it more than once, and a small batch of people are “super users.” On average, 3-4 people use the service each day, totaling 6-8 rides/day, and approximately 30 people buy vouchers each month. p. 1 ¶. 4 Typographic Error: “… but the service is used primarily of [by] seniors.” The schools needed to increase their ridership in order to justify adding more buses, which would 1 reduce the trip length and therefore encourage greater use. They had seen a decline in ridership over the years and more families requesting “MBTA like service.” The cost of the school bus is currently $815/ per students ($821 next year), of which the Town pays $485 per non-mandated student rider and the families pay the difference of $330. (If they pay late, they pay more.) Increased usage may have been implied by an ever-growing list of eligible program applicants. However, 2 these lists had not been updated to remove riders who no longer use the service (including those who are deceased). 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 825 2. Market Analysis p. 5 ¶. 3 “… the safety and comfort of the walking environment strongly affects ridership.” 128BC Comment: This is an excellent point, especially when considering both young and elderly ridership. The Towns should consider pedestrian access and universal design issues when seeking further community feedback and potentially designating new pick-up/drop-off locations. p. 5 ¶. 4 “Data sources include the U.S. Census, the 2011-2015 American Community Survey, and online research….” 2.1.1. Population Density p. 6 ¶. 1 “Population data is based on the 2010 Census; as such, these maps do not accurately reflect housing developments built since 2010.” 128BC Question: Were municipal zoning maps, potentially more up-to-date municipal density maps, and any data sets providing insight into post-2010 development trends considered in addition to these sources? Especially in light of the growing housing crisis in the Greater Boston Area, we strongly believe that up-to-date studies should anticipate recent and near- future changes in live/work paerns. 2.1.2. Employment Density p. 8 ¶. 1 “… traveling to and from work accounts for the largest single segment of transit trips in most markets.” 128BC Question: Do we actually know if this is true specifically in this market? Given the heavy importance of senior and student transportation for these communities, population and employment density data definitely needs to be supplemented by systematic destination information for senior populations and by a more systematic study of school-related transportation needs. Lexington Comment: Beyond the transportation needs of the students, the schools themselves are also employment centers. (Lexington has 11 public schools with 1600 staff total. ) There is a 3 separate education job density map on p. 34, but should this be integrated into the data on pp. 8-9, rather than treating it as a separate phenomenon? While the middle and high schools are larger, even the elementary schools have, on average, about 100 3 employees each. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 925 Similarly, were the municipal bodies themselves considered as density-generating employment centers? Lexington has 406 employees, most of whom work in the Town Center, and an additional 600 staff hired seasonally. Again, there is a separate government job density map on p. 35, but should this be integrated into the data on pp. 8-9, rather than treating it as a separate phenomenon? p. 8 ¶. 1 “The employment data used in these maps is from the 2015 Longitudinal Employer- Household Survey (LEHD); as such, the maps may not reflect jobs added or lost since then.” 128BC Question: Were aempts made to gather more current data sets from the Towns’ Economic Development departments, Chambers of Commerce, or other business groups? Furthermore, a thorough study of employment-related transportation demand relevant to these Towns needs to include major employment centers in Waltham, thanks to the impact that Waltham developments have on Lexington in particular. p. 8 ¶. 3, bullet 3 Bedford Comment: It’s not clear which large business park is being referred to on Middlesex Turnpike. There is high-density employment on Crosby Drive in Bedford (mainly, several business parks) and at MITRE Corporation at Burlington Road in Bedford. 2.1.3. Transit Potential Index pp. 10-11, incl. figure 5 Bedford Comment: Crosby Drive in Bedford should be added to the listed areas of high employment density, both in the description and on the map. p. 10 ¶. 3, dash 1 Bedford Comment: Bedford Town Green should be changed to the Bedford Town Common. 2.2. Transit Need pp. 15-29 Burlington Question: Referring to the entirety of this section, the Town of Burlington would like to beer understand how the population concentration/density of specific populations was determined, e.g. older adults along Terrace Hall Ave. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 10 25 p. 15 ¶. 2 128BC Question: Were the primary data sources for the establishment of these categories also the U.S. Census and the 2011-2015 American Community Survey? If so, the same issues apply here as above. 2.2.1. Older Adults p. 15 ¶. 7 Lexington Question: How was the senior population determined? For example, does the Older Adults mapping include: Brookhaven (at Waltham and Concord), Manor Terrace (new 4 construction on Manor Terrace/Lowell), Drummer Boy (Fifer Lane near Bedford/Hartwell), Youville Place Senior Living (Mass Ave near Community Center), and Artis Senior Living (which will be opening up on Concord Ave soon, near Waltham St)? Also note that a new senior living complex is slated for development in on a portion of the Belmont Golf Club property that is within Lexington. 2.2.2. Youth and Young Adults p. 17 ¶. 1 128BC Comment: Millennials are defined as those currently aged 22-37 years old (exact ranges differ), and thus a study regarding Millennial transportation preferences does not, primarily, apply to “young adults and youth aged 10 to 24.” This is not to say that the findings of a study regarding Millennial transportation preferences are not relevant to this study as a whole. Rather, these findings should be used to reflect upon the preferences of employment-age populations more in general. In fact, these findings perhaps call into question the common assumption that youth and young adults are more likely to use public transportation than are those in their mid-20s to late-30s because of aitudinal factors . 2.2.3. Persons with Disabilities p. 19 ¶. 1 Typographic Error: “… must walk to [must transport themselves to]…” 2.2.4. Low-Income Households p. 21 ¶. 1 “This analysis used the Census classification of poverty status to identify those living in poverty.” Manor Terrace and Drummer Boy are not exclusively senior living centers, but rather multifamily 4 communities that include seniors. Those two complexes generate requests for bus service. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 11 25 128BC Comment: The Poverty Threshold used by the U.S. Census is a national standard that does not take into account local conditions. Since the Cost of Living in Massachuses specifically is very high, it would be helpful to use a Massachuses-specific threshold for identifying transit-dependent populations. 2.2.6. Composite Transit Need Index p. 29 figure 15 Bedford Question/Comment: Does the mapping of multi-family housing include recent developments such as the multi-family development at 54 Loomis Street (19 units) or at Bedford Green (70 affordable rental units at the VA Hospital at 200 Springs Road)? There is also a residential development at Pine Hill Crossing (a 29-unit coage-style development under active construction), as well as 52 units approved but not yet constructed at 100 Plank Street. 2.2.6. Composite Transit Need Index p. 29 figure 17 Lexington Comment: It is surprising that the Avalon Ridge and Avalon Lexington Hills areas are not identified here as having a higher transit need, since residents of these locations receive many of our subsidized passes. These complexes accept Section 8 housing and have an “affordable” rental program of their own. However, the influx of lower-income families into these complexes may be too new to be captured in the data used to generate these maps. 5 2.3.3. Non-Work Trip Destinations p. 31 ¶. 3 “… these sectors oen include low-skilled jobs that are more likely to be performed by transit-dependent populations.” 128BC Comment: The Towns themselves report having received feedback from restaurant employers, retail employers, hotel employers, and healthcare-related employers that transportation is a major impediment to sourcing workers. However, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the ability of the proposed fixed routes to address these needs without being able to pair specific origin/destination information with specific trip times. In other words: Do we know that the (potential) transit-dependent employees of these locations are actually commuting from within the towns themselves (rather than from, say, southern New Both Avalons offer shule service to/from Alewife at peak hours for Avalon residents only. They just 5 entered into a new 5 year contract for this service. However, this shule service does not provide for a number of basic needs: People at Avalon Hills frequently specifically request a way to get to a grocery store. Star Market in Waltham is the closest option, but there is currently no efficient way to reach this destination by bus. Some residents at Avalon also struggle to get to the Food Bank on Saturdays, when there is no relevant bus service. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 12 25 Hampshire)? And do we know whether the proposed service schedules would accommodate the necessary work start times for these sectors? 2.3.3. Travel Paerns p. 42 ¶. 1 128BC Comment: 128 Business Council strongly recommends the gathering of up-to-date, specific, thorough origin-destination data over and against the use of the CTPS Travel Demand Model. p. 45 ¶. 1-2 Bedford Comment: This description of peak period travel does not seem to highlight peak period travel (very high traffic) along Route 4 and along The Great Road in Bedford during commute hours. p. 48 ¶. 3, bullet 3 Bedford Question: Is there an explanation of the high level of home-based trips from Western Bedford to the VA Hospital/MCC? p. 48 ¶. 5, bullet 2 Bedford Correction: Please include “of Bedford” aer “VA Hospital/Middlesex Community College area.” p. 53 ¶. 2 “… two different demand-responsive services.” Bedford Question: Should it be demand responsive? Or demand response? 128BC Answer: Demand response and demand responsive are both used in industry- standard publications. 3. Assessment of Current Services 3.1.1. Lexpress p. 57 ¶. 1 Lexington Correction: The trip average on Lexpress in May 2018 did not exceed 20 when you simply take the monthly total and divide by the 23 service days. However, in actuality, there were times during the month of May when the buses were at or exceeded capacity. Sometimes 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 13 25 this can be predicted; sometimes it cannot. In most cases, high capacity is due to large groups traveling together, such as students or our Indian Seniors of Lexington groups. p. 61 table 5 Lexington Comment: Please update whole chart before final copy. 3.1.2. Lex-Connect p. 63 ¶. 3 Lexington Comment: As mentioned above, please correct the statement that Lex-Connect is funded entirely by fares and donations. The administrative costs are absorbed by the Town of Lexington, and add up to around $22K annually. While the overall cost of Lex-Connect is low due to low number of users, administrative staff hours are high. More users would require more administrative time, unless another method of payment and accounting is developed. p. 64 figure 43 Lexington Comment: It is worth noting that the Peacock Farm area shows high ridership on Lex-Connect mainly because there are 2 “super users” in that area who use the service on a regular basis. The Peacock Farm neighborhood would not otherwise function as a major destination — unlike, for example, Brookhaven. 6 3.2.1 Bedford Local Transit p. 65 ¶. 3 Bedford Correction: Bedford’s new Town Manager is Sarah Stanton. 3.3.1. Burlington Public Transit pp. 76-81 128BC Comment: We really need beer ridership data here. This gets to an issue with comparing the ridership data across transportation providers: In order to be meaningfully grouped together, the data from each municipal provider should be from the same service period and the same time of day. 3.4.1. MBTA Fixed-Route Services Brookhaven is likely to remain a hotspot partially because their residents tend to have greater means 6 than other seniors. In this sense, the taxi program seems to have further segregated seniors with money from those without, though the Town of Lexington does have some funding to provide free vouchers to those in need. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 14 25 pp. 89-91 Lexington Question: Would it be possible to alter the routing of the MBTA #351 to stop in Lexington and provide service both to and from Alewife? Ridership is currently extremely low, and thus is would potentially be in both the municipality’s and the MBTA’s best interest. 128BC Answer: This would have to be a part of the MBTA’s Beer Bus Project, and the existing recommendations do not include anything for the 351. The BBP team will be working on implementing the initial service recommendations before moving on to other routes such as the 351. 3.4.2. MBTA The RIDE p. 92 ¶. 1-2 Lexington Question: Can we include specific RIDE data? We understand that there are about 3,000 trips per month via The RIDE in our 3 communities, and, of these, about 800 stay within the Tri-Town area. Do we have a further breakdown? 128BC Answer: For July 2018 - April 2019, the numbers are Bedford: 5,985, Burlington: 7,505, and Lexington: 10,892. 3.6.1. Other Services pp. 93-95 128BC Comment: 128 Business Council strongly recommends mapping and accounting for the specific ridership on any TMA-based services, as well as any private shules that run through a study area, and placing this data alongside the more traditional public transportation usage data reported in the study. What ridership data is provided in this section is only provided as a daily average taken from a single month’s total, whereas annual totals are provided for the municipal services. Both of these numbers — daily averages and annual totals — are needed in order to understand the scale and impact of a service. For example, 128 Business Council’s REV Bus (which is mentioned on p. 93 ¶. 2 and in figure 66) has an annual ridership over 20,000 (and growing), achieved within around 2000 annual revenue hours. This puts it well above the annual ridership of most of the Tri-Town area municipal services. In order to understand the demand reflected by the Alewife TMA, the Avalon services, and the other private shules listed, similar data would be necessary. Bedford Comment: The Town of Bedford also has ridership of close to 20,000 annually on the Middlesex 3 TMA shules to the Crosby Drive area of Bedford. 3.7. Conclusions 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 15 25 pp. 96-97, incl. figure 67 128BC Question: How were these cross-service totals calculated when different types of ridership data was collected for different types of services? Data types need to standardized if they are going to be compiled. Furthermore, given that shule-based services are known to have higher ridership than some of the municipal public transportation services in the Tri-Town area, figure 67 would have more validity with the inclusion of the ridership from those shules. 4. Stakeholder and Public Outreach 4.1.2. Survey Responses p. 99 onward 128BC Comment: Data in terms of age, employment status, car ownership, and the usage of certain services for Lexington residents in particular may have been confused by the fact that the survey was distributed to Lexpress contacts (among others), who were likely to be parents potentially responding on behalf of their children (who use the Flexpass as an alternative to 7 the school bus aer 3PM). Thus, these respondents may have answered ‘as themselves’ on some questions, but as their children on others. 4.1.2. Key Findings p. 99 ¶. 5 128BC Comment: Of the 1,504 responses, almost 40% of them could not be assigned an origin. Mappable frequent trip destination information was not requested, and thus this survey cannot be used to generate trip data or inform a needs analysis. We don’t know, for example, where the 8% of respondents who “cited no access to an automobile as a reason they were using transit” are trying to go using that transit. Likewise, we don’t know where the 13% of respondents who reported not having an automobile might need to go (whether they are currently making those trips by public transportation or not). p. 105 ¶. 1 Typographic Error: There’s a bolded error message in the fih line of the main paragraph under figure 78. Flexpass holders are middle and high school students that take the school bus, but add on the Flexpass 7 option to ride Lexpress aer 3PM on school days. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 16 25 p. 112 figure 90 Bedford Comment: The survey results indicate that Bedford residents desire “new routes connecting my community to other communities. ” It would be helpful to know which communities they most want to be connected to. p. 115 ¶. 1 Lexington Comment: The reported ridership for Lexpress is high, and potentially supports the idea that adult parents answered questions ‘on behalf of’ the children (as noted by 128BC also above.) p. 115 ¶. 1 Typographic Error: “… due [do] not provide a compelling level of service…” 4.2.1. Suggestions for Improving Transit Service in Bedford p. 120 ¶. 1, bullet 9 128BC Comment: Bedford already is part of the Lime Bike bike share system. In general, these comments should be contextualized to make it clear which comments reflect a potential need, and which (like the comment just cited) reflect a lack of information. 4.2.3. Suggestions for Improving Transit Service in Lexington p. 122 ¶. 1, bullet 3 “Offer services for elementary and middle school students” Lexington Comment: There is no age limit to ride Lexpress, although kids need to know how to ride and parents need to feel comfortable that they can. The Flexpass is currently only available to middle and high school students, as that is the age range the Lexington Public Schools felt comfortable with when this agreement was set in 2012. p. 122 ¶. 1, bullet 6/8 Lexington Comment: Lexpress already goes to senior living centers and other housing developments that include senior residents (Brookhaven, Greeley Village, Countryside Village, Vynnebrook, Emerson Gardens, Minuteman Village, Captain Parker, Poer Pond, Muzzey, the Avalons) during the day and to key senior destinations (Community Center, Lex Center, Lahey Lexington, Stop N’ Shop). p. 122 ¶. 1, bullet 9 “Coordinate between Lexpress and school bus transportation to reduce empty seats on school buses” 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 17 25 Lexington Comment: Not sure what is intended here, as the public cannot ride on yellow school buses. It seems beer to invest in public transportation that students can ride, since the general public would also benefit. p. 122 ¶. 2, bullet 1 “Service to Lahey Burlington” Lexington Comment: There is service to Lahey Burlington via a free transfer to Burlington Public Transit; however, those connections are tricky and limited. p. 122 ¶. 2, bullet 6 “Service to Arlington Heights” Lexington Comment: There is already service to Arlington Heights busway a couple times in the AM and a couple times in the PM via Lexpress, in addition to the MBTA #62. p. 122 ¶. 2, bullet 6 “Service to Hayden Avenue” Lexington Comment: Lexpress already serves Hayden via Route 3, and riders could take this as a lunch bus departing from Hayden/Spring at 11:45, 12:45, 1:45 and returning about an hour later. p. 122 ¶. 2, bullet 6 “Service to movie theatre across from Burlington Mall” Lexington Comment: Lexpress bus will stop on that side of Middlesex Turnpike if the driver is notified in time and has a lot to pull into. p. 122 ¶. 2, bullet 12 “Earlier service to Community Center” Lexington Comment: There is earlier service to the community center. Service starts at 6:35AM, but it is not free for seniors until 9AM and does not pull up to the front-door until 8:35AM. p. 122 ¶. 2, bullet 15 “Marketing and branding improvements” Lexington Comment: The 128BC shules are advertised at the Community Center. They are also listed on all Lexpress schedules, advertised in the library, at the Town Building, and in an annual mailing with the real estate taxes. That said, it appears the Town used to do a beer job of marketing transportation services. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 18 25 5. Service Scenarios 5.1.1. Prioritize areas with highest transit potential p. 122 ¶. 3 128BC Comment: In order to gauge transportation potential, as mentioned above, it’s important to source data for recent and near-future development trends. Lexington Comment: The transit potential of south Lexington seems to be growing with new developments. Brookhaven has an extensive addition for independent living that will soon be open, Artis Senior Living has recently opened, the Goddard School opened in the same area, and there is another proposed development near that intersection. There is also a large, vacant office building next to 1050 Waltham Street. 5.2. Preliminary Scenario 1 [Fixed-Routes] p. 125 ¶. 3 128BC Comments: A- This route seems most oriented to students. Is that the intention? Avalon at Lexington Hills is a large residential property, but it is unclear whether residents there are looking for weekday travel to Lexington Center. B- There is lile traffic generated by Hayden Avenue other than Lahey Clinic. Commuter traffic through here is largely not oriented to Lexington Center. C- This route overlaps significantly with the MBTA 62 bus. D- This is perhaps the best-placed of the four routes, featuring many retail, medical, and employment options in the mall area. However, serving workers in retail, hospitality and medical fields may be difficult due to shi schedules. pp. 127-128 figures 102-103 128BC Comment: The figures show the comparison of the route scenario to existing ridership activity (relating back to p. 97) and transit potential (relating back to pp. 11-14). However, it would be useful to see how this route scenario overlays onto the transit need index maps (pp. 26-29) and the composite services index maps (pp. 38-41). Without these comparisons, it is hard to determine how the proposed routes compare to transportation needs as analyzed. p. 129 ¶. 4 128BC Comment: The projected rate of $60/hour does not reference a specific vehicle size. We would assumed that this is for a 20-24 passenger bus, but the rate is still low in comparison 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 19 25 to recent proposals, and would not include a variety of operational costs. Potential budgets are described in more depth below. 5.3. Preliminary Scenario 2 [Proposed Microtransit] pp. 129-131 128BC Question: Were other Microtransit providers besides Via seriously considered? If so, how did those services compare, in terms of operating model, budget, etc.? Lexington Comment: Susan Barre has also reached out to Ride Systems to inquire about their merger with Double Maps and ask about their demand-response services. 8 The Ride Systems one costs about $1,500 for initial set-up, plus the cost of a tablet and the mounting hardware for the tablet. Then it is about $45/month per vehicle to operate. The Double Maps service reportedly has more features and is more expensive. 128BC Question: Does the vendor have any data that could be brought to bear on whether 6-7 vehicles could be sufficient for covering the demand across three towns? Lexington Question: How would dispatch work? Many seniors and children do not have smartphones. 128BC/Lexington Question: Can we see an estimation of the costs broken down by ride? TransLoc and TransDev specifically stated during the MAPC RFI meetings that microtransit services serve an average of 1-3 passengers per vehicle hour, which would not be an improvement upon current services. Lexington Comments: Via does not have a stable fleet of drivers, but rather depends on 1099 contract workers who can work irregular schedules. How oen are shis missed? Relatedly, we have heard feedback from users of our current services that they appreciate the stable presence of known drivers who know their routes and their ridership. The fact that the drivers are not strangers is part of what makes seniors and parents comfortable with many of our current services. p. 130 ¶. 6 Correction: Minimum contract is $800,000, not $700,000. For now, Ride Systems and Double Maps will keep their separate identities. Double Maps tends to have 8 larger clients, while Ride Systems has tended to have the smaller ones like towns and universities. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 20 25 5.4. Public Feedback pp. 131-135 Lexington Comment: The public were not asked how much they are willing to invest in public transit. This question should be part of next round of public comment. pp. 134-135 Lexington Comment: Where are the notes from the final forums in November? Lexington had two forums on 11/29. 6. Service Recommendations p. 137 ¶. 3, bullet 3 Typographic Error: “… intended to test the effectiveness of the innovative service model in meeting the mobility needs of area residents” repeated twice. 6.1. Streamlined Fixed-Route Service 128BC Comments: Careful pairing of routes operationally will be needed to balance the needs of through-routing to certain destinations versus running time needs (in order to maintain the pulsed connections). In general, it is difficult to maintain reliability with coordinated/pulsed services, and coordination with MBTA and LRTA service will be hard from a scheduling perspective. •Route 4 might make sense as a loop (as suggested on p. 141) if it would reduce running time. As currently drawn, riders on the outer end of the route face significant backtracking distance either way. •Route 6 has considerable overlap with the with MBTA 62 bus, but may be necessary in order to provide a sense of service equitability across the Town. Since MBTA schedules are difficult to coordinate with, riders may oen see Route 6 buses running close in time to 62's. •Pairing Routes 5 & 6 doesn't provide a cross-town travel option, since both serve the northwest area. •Connections with MBTA 350/351 will be essential for making the most of Routes 10 and 20. •Why are Routes 10 & 20 presented as two separate routes? •It is not reasonable to expect riders to wait 30 minutes for a connection, especially when you consider full door-to-door trip times. Riders will find another travel mode. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 21 25 •No routes cover the Hartwell Ave area, which has not basic weekday MBTA service despite being a major employment area. •No routes provide access to high-frequency MBTA 77 and 79 at Arlington Heights. This may prove to be more of an issue for weekend service (not proposed here) than it would be for weekday service. Bedford Comment: How do these new proposed routes relate to and/or complement existing MBTA service routes and schedules? 6.1.1. Route-by-Route Service Description p. 142 ¶. 3, bullet 5 Lexington Comment: There seems to be some confusion about the relationship between Drummer Boy, youth riders, and high Lexpress Route 6 ridership: Drummer Boy is a large condo complex with residents of all ages, and we do have many requests for service here. However, there seemed to be an assumption made early in the study that the reason the current Lexpress Route 6 has so many kids on it was that they were coming from Drummer Boy, which isn’t true Route 6 has the most annual passholders of any of the current routes, and they live all around the Route 6 area. None of them have Drummer Boy addresses. 6.1.3. Service Delivery p. 145 ¶. 1 Lexington Comment: Students are also a major source of ridership for Lexpress. In fact, they are the main source of revenue with with about 500 student pass holders. On some days, student ridership is actually higher than senior ridership. p. 146 ¶. 2 Lexington Comment: In addition to a management commiee, there should be a public commiee composed of actual bus riders from each community — or rather one commiee that includes both management and bus riders. A mobility working group that includes staff across departments would also be helpful for beer coordinating all aspects of transportation services and mobility. pp. 146-147 128BC Comment: The cited rate of $65/hour is extremely low and based upon a limited contact. Towns should plan on a rate closer to $78/hour, which would bring the total for the proposed system up to $1,095,822. Even at this hourly rate, a bus vendor could only provide limited technology, dispatching, and other support, and a variety of cost categories are not 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 22 25 considered. The report does mention “one-time start-up costs, but many of these costs are ongoing — even if they are cheaper in future years. For comparison, here are our cost projections, beyond the hourly rate already cited that covers the vehicle and labor: p. 147 ¶. 2/7 Typographic Error: Please input missing numbers. p. 149 ¶. 4 “Proceeds from this fund are used by Lexington for Lexpress.” Lexington Comment: Not all proceeds are used for Lexpress. Funds are used for Lexpress, REV, taxi, and other transportation costs. 6.1.5. Ridership Estimates pp. 155-156 figures 108-109 128BC Comment: As above, the figures show the comparison of these routes to existing ridership activity (relating back to p. 97) and to transit potential (relating back to pp. 11-14). However, it would be useful to see how the routes overlay onto the transit need index maps (pp. 26-29) and the composite services index maps (pp. 38-41). Without these comparisons, it is hard to determine how the proposed routes compare to transportation needs as analyzed. Initial Year Subsequent Years Branded Shule Wraps $40,000 (for all five buses) n/a Design and initial printing of schedules $40,000 $15,000 Design and initial printing of tickets and passes $20,000 $8000 Updating of all three towns’ transportation pages and social media accounts $40,000 $15,000 Management & Administration of System $150,000 $150,000 Onboard GPS and rider-facing tech $36,000 (for all five buses) $36,000 (for all five buses) On-board Wifi $23,000 (for all five buses) $2500 (for all five buses) Surveillance cameras $11,500 (for all five buses) $2500 (for all five buses) 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 23 25 6.3. Microtransit Pilot Program p. 161 figure 110 Bedford Comment: The Potential Microtransit Pilot Zone seems limited in coverage of highest need/demand areas for Bedford, such as near the VA, Middlesex Community College and east of Route 3 (multi-family and commercial development). 128BC Response: In speaking with MAPC, King County Metro, and other parties that have piloted and/or analyzed specifically Via, as well as similar services, it seems clear that pilots with a large service area (and thereby able to accommodate a wide variety of trip types) have yielded the most successful outcomes. 6.3.1 Potential Funding Sources p. 162 ¶. 7 “.organizations that would benefit from the existence of microtransit… might be willing to contribute to the cost of such services.” 128BC Comment: Historically, we have found that it is very difficult to acquire voluntary contributions to municipal transit services from private businesses/organizations. 7. Implementation Tasks and Timeline pp. 167-170 128BC Comment: This timeline is not realistic for the redesign and coordination of multiple systems. For the sake of comparison, we recently completed a three-year long process to overhaul all of the 128 Business Council routes — which represent about a quarter of a million rides annually, but which were all already part of a single system under unified management. 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 24 25 APPENDIX: SOME RESOURCES FOR FURTHER REVIEW The following is a sample of some of the data and background information that we requested from the towns as part of our peer review. Web-based and DropBox links are provided. Zoning Maps • Lexington Zoning Map (2018) • Burlington Zoning Map (2017) • Bedford Zoning Map (2018) Data Sources documenting more recent residential construction • Lexington documentation on new construction •Bedford’s chronological list of housing developments newly built since 2010. Also see the materials available here and here. Local public transportation and shule-based services •Lexington • Lexpress Ridership •Burlington • Burlington Public Transportation Schedule • Burlington Public Transportation Map • Burlington Public Transportation Ridership School transportation •Lexington • Bus Ridership • Addresses for Flexpass Holders •Burlington • Current Bus Schedules •Current Bus Routes (no physical maps) • Schools, Timings, and Ridership •Bedford •Current Bus Routes (no physical maps) • Snapshot of Ridership 128 Business Council Tri-Town Peer Review of 25 25