Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Massachusetts Department of

Transportation

Non-Radioactive Hazardous Material

Route Designation Findings for

Travel in the Metropolitan Boston Area or

Through Downtown Boston

In accordance with:

United States Department of Transportation

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 397

May 14, 2012

Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

INTRODUCTION The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (“MassDOT” or the “Department”) is the designated routing agency for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 397.1 MassDOT must ensure compliance with the Federal routing laws, standards, and criteria when political subdivisions propose establishing, maintaining, or enforcing specific NonRadioactive Hazardous Material (“NRHM”) routing designations2 over which NRHM may or may not be transported. Additionally, MassDOT must supervise, coordinate, and approve of all NRHM routing designations made by the Commonwealth’s political subdivisions. MassDOT therefore, is the responsible state entity charged with evaluating and approving the City of Boston’s (the “City”) proposed NRHM routing designation and resolving potential disputes which may arise during the routing analysis between political subdivisions within the Commonwealth. In April of 2011, the City provided MassDOT with a draft of the City of Boston Hazmat Route Evaluation (Apr. 22, 2011) (hereinafter, the “Battelle Report”), prepared by its consultant the Battelle Memorial Institute (“Battelle”). MassDOT performed a preliminary review of the Battelle Report and met with representatives from the City and Battelle to discuss the proposed routing designation.3 The Battelle Report evaluated approximately 20 hazardous material routes, including many local alternatives, in addition to the current proposed routing designation, which recommends Route 128 as the preferred hazardous material route and restricts all throughtransportation of hazardous material in the downtown area of the City unless the carrier has an origin or destination in the City. The Battelle Report presents the technical background of the routing analysis for the City’s recommendation to MassDOT regarding suitable alternative routes for hazardous material within the greater metropolitan area and through downtown Boston. As the state routing agency, MassDOT will recommend the route identified as enhancing the overall public safety to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) for publication in the national hazardous material route registry. Following designation and submission of the route to the FMCSA, all hazardous material cargo carriers conducting business in the Commonwealth will be required to operate in accordance with the routing designation.

1

The Department’s involvement in this routing designation process dates back to 2008, when the state routing agency was the former Massachusetts Department of Highways (“MassHighway”). Many of the original regulatory filings, correspondence, and other documentation reference MassHighway or the former Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works (“EOTPW”). For purposes of clarity and uniformity, this Recommendation refers at all times to MassDOT as the designated state routing agency (and successor to, among others, MassHighway and the EOTPW). See St. 2009, c. 25, § 150.

2

Routing designations include “[a] ny regulation, limitation, restriction, curfew, time of travel restriction, lane restriction, routing ban, port-of-entry designation, or route weight restriction, applicable to the highway transportation of NRHM over a specific highway route or portion of a route.” 49 C.F.R. § 397.65.

3

After a preliminary review of the routing study, MassDOT submitted questions to the City on May 18, 2011 and July 8, 2011 for comment. MassDOT received a response to these questions on June 17, 2011 and August 2, 2011, respectively. See City of Boston Proposed Hazmat Route, available at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ProposedHazmatRoute.aspx (last visited, February 1, 2012). May 14, 2012

1

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

Part I of this Recommendation (“Recommendation”) provides a detailed description of the City’s original and proposed NRHM routing designations. Part II provides a discussion of the procedural and historical background, which led the City to perform a routing evaluation and propose a new NRHM route designation to the Department. Part III identifies and discusses the applicable Federal routing standards all States must follow when establishing, maintaining, or enforcing a NRHM routing designation. Part IV provides a brief summary of the Battelle Report and identifies MassDOT’s findings, which are based on the comments received during the consultative process, an in-depth analysis of the conclusions made in the Battelle Report, and the application of the federal routing requirements. Finally, Part V identifies MassDOT’s recommendation based on the overall record and proposes a fair and reasonable routing designation which will enhance public safety. I.

ROUTE BACKGROUND a. Boston’s Original Routing Designation

The City’s original routing designation was authorized pursuant to an ordinance passed by the City on December 19, 1979, regulating the transportation of hazardous materials within and through Boston. The City’s ordinance was enacted pursuant to M.G.L. c. 148, § 9 and M.G.L. c. 111, § 112 which authorized the Commissioners of Fire and Health & Hospitals to take steps necessary to ensure the public safety and health. On December 15, 1980, the City promulgated “Regulations Controlling the Transportation of Hazardous Materials in Boston” (the “Boston Regulation”), which incorporated both state (720 C.M.R. § 8.00) and federal (49 C.F.R. § 397) regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials.4 The Boston Regulation, or original routing designation, specifically (i) prohibited the transport of certain classifications of hazardous materials, including certain explosives, poisonous gases, flammable solids, and other specific materials, (ii) through the “Downtown Area”5 of the City (iii) during the hours between 6 AM and 8 PM, except Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. BOSTON REGULATIONS § 5.02. The City also enforced, through its permitting practices, a peak hour/time of day hazardous material restriction on the use of City streets within the Downtown Area between 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM This permit restriction applied to all hazardous material trucks, including those with points of origin or destination within the City. Carriers transporting hazardous materials anywhere in the City, both through Boston and with a point of origin/destination in Boston, were required to obtain a permit from the Boston Fire Department. Additionally, all hazardous material trucks were authorized to travel through the City anytime during the nighttime hours from 8:00 PM to 6:00 AM

4

The state regulations were repealed on December 27, 1996. The federal regulations have been updated routinely since first promulgated.

5

The Downtown Area is “defined as the area bounded by and including Massachusetts Avenue at the Mass. Ave. Entrance Ramp to the Southeast Expressway, the Southeast expressway to the Kneeland Street Ramp, along Kneeland Street to Atlantic Avenue then along a line following the waterfront to the Charles River, along the Charles River to Massachusetts Avenue to Mass. Ave Entrance Ramp to the Southeast Expressway all as shown on the map attached….” BOSTON REGULATIONS § 5.03 (1980).

May 14, 2012

2

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

In 1986, the City, through the Local Emergency Planning Commission (“LEPC”), designated a system of two primary hazardous cargo routes6 in and through the City in the Downtown Area. Construction impacts from the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel (“CA/T”) Project significantly disrupted the downtown transportation infrastructure and the primary hazardous cargo routes. Although the CA/T Project was originally designed to facilitate hazardous cargo vehicles, with an emergency response system consisting of fire/foam suppression sprinklers and a monitoring station, the Boston Fire Chief and member of the LEPC opposed the plan. In response, the former MassHighway requested a study of proposed alternative hazardous material routes. The study was completed by Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. in 1994, and then forwarded to the LEPC for review. The study proposed several routes depending on the construction phase, and largely complied with the then applicable federal regulatory requirements later outlined in 49 C.F.R. § 397.71. The selected route along surface streets in Boston (the “City Surface Route”), Figure 1, was then posted on the former Massachusetts Turnpike Authority website (now posted on MassDOT’s website) and printed in the Federal Register. See Transportation of Hazardous Materials; Designated, Preferred, and Restricted Routes, 65 Fed. Reg. 75771, 75791 (Dec. 4, 2000). Figure 1: City Surface Route7 Northbound: Start at Exit 9 on I-93 North on I-93 North on I-93 Frontage Road Northeast on Atlantic Avenue Northwest onto Commercial Street (See footnote 7 below) North on North Washington Street Northwest on Rutherford Avenue Northeast on Alford Street/MA-99 End on Alford Street/MA-99 Bridge just before Everett

Rt. Alt. No.1 (Map image from Battelle Report, p. 6)

Southbound: Start at the Alford Street Bridge/MA-99 just before Everett Southwest on Alford Street/MA-99 Southeast on Rutherford Avenue South on North Washington Street Southwest onto John F. Fitzgerald Surface Road South on Purchase Street South on Surface Road South on Albany Street South on I-93 Frontage Road South on I-93 End on I-93 at Exit 9Alford Street/MA-99 Bridge just before Everett

6

The first route required northbound hazardous material trucks to exit “I-93 to the Kneeland Street off-ramp, then Kneeland Street to Atlantic Avenue, Atlantic Avenue to Commercial Street, and Commercial Street to the Charlestown Bridge.” The second route “[was] the Mass. Ave Connector to Massachusetts Avenue and then Massachusetts Avenue to Commonwealth Avenue.” BECHTEL/PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF & CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS, INC., Transportation of Hazardous Cargo 25-29 (June 1994). The first route is very similar to the current City Surface Route listed on the MassDOT website (with the exception of the Commercial Street/Cross Street modification). The Kneeland Street ramp has also changed as a result of the CA/T. The second route, however, is not currently posted and hazardous material carriers are not permitted to use this to access I-90 westbound. 7

The map image does not reflect the original route, which used Commercial Street rather than Cross Street going north. May 14, 2012

3

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

In 2006, the City made two changes to its routing designation. First, the City physically changed the City Surface Route in the North End section of the City by diverting trucks from Commercial Street to Cross Street. Second, the City notified all permit holders transporting hazardous material through the City that its permitting practices would be changed and no new permits would be issued unless the carrier could demonstrate a “compelling interest” and show that the transportation of the hazardous material was in the public interest. This second change resulted in the loss of all through-permits that had previously allowed hazardous material carriers to cut through the Downtown Area. b. Boston’s Proposed Routing Designation The City’s proposed routing designation, which is identified as Route Alternative 3 in the Battelle Report, establishes a 24 hour time of travel restriction on the use of the Downtown Area City streets for the “through” transportation of NRHM where there is neither a point of origin nor destination within the City of Boston. The City has stated that it will require hazardous material carriers with a point of origin or destination within the City to apply for a permit with the Boston Fire Department and operate on major thoroughfares when making deliveries. Additionally, the city’s proposal designates Route 128 (I-93/I-95) as the preferred “through route” over which all NRHM shipments approaching the City should be transported, see Figure 2. Only shipments to destinations or with points of origin located within the City would be permissible in the Downtown Area. Figure 2: Route 128 (Beltway Route) Northbound: Start on I-93 at Exit 9 South on I-93 to I-95N access ramp North on I-95 to I-93S access ramp South on the I-93 to Route 38 ramp South on Route 38 South on Maffa way to Rutherford Avenue Northwest on Rutherford Ave to Alford Street Northeast on Alford Street/Route 99 End on Alford Street/Route 99 Bridge before Everett. Southbound: Start on Alford Street/Route 99 Bridge just before Everett Southwest on Alford Street/Route 99 Northwest onto Main Street to Mystic Avenue/Route 38, North on the Mystic Avenue to I-93 ramp North on the I-93 to I-95S ramp South on I-95 to I-93N ramp North on I-93 End on I-93 at Exit 9.

Rt. Alt. No.3 (Map image from Battelle Report, p. 10)

May 14, 2012

4

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

II.

BACKGROUND

The original Boston Regulation was the subject of two prior consistency determinations by the United States Department of Transportation (“USDOT”) as well as a judicial decision issued by the U.S. District Court in Boston in 1981. See American Trucking Assoc., Inc. v. City of Boston, No. 81-628-MA, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18423 (April, 6, 1981). On March 26, 1981, USDOT, through the Research and Special Programs Administration, issued an Inconsistency Determination for the Boston Regulation finding several provisions in the regulations inconsistent with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (“HMTA”). On April 6, 1981, the U.S. District Court denied a motion filed by the American Trucking Association (“ATA”) for a preliminary injunction regarding enforcement of the Boston Regulation. The Court found that the ATA had failed to show that the Boston Regulation was preempted by federal law. The USDOT thereafter issued a Consistency Determination that comported with the Court’s decision. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the City began strictly enforcing the Boston Regulation for security reasons. Motor carriers were cited for violations under the Boston Regulation as well as under federal law. See MassHighway Application for Preemption, at p. 4, FMCSA-2008-0204 (July 18, 2008) see also Comments of the City of Boston in Response to ATA’s Application for Preemption, at p. 22, FMCSA-2008-0204 (Oct. 16, 2008). Following the modification to the City Surface Route and the changes in the City’s administration of its permitting system,8 motor carriers were no longer issued through-permits for travel through the Downtown Area. This change resulted in the loss of all though-permits to hazardous material carriers previously using the City Surface Route. When carriers attempted to go through the Downtown Area, they were cited by the Boston police for violating 49 C.F.R. § 397.67 (operating through or near heavily populated areas). According to the City, the Boston Regulation prohibits through-permit seekers from using economic harm (presumably increased travel time and fuel costs) as a justification for being issued a through-permit. In 2008, MassDOT conferred with Boston officials and verified that no new through-permits have been issued in the past several years.9 MassDOT met with City officials on February 25, 2008 and May 5, 2008 to discuss the routing issues raised by the City’s enforcement of the Boston Regulation. The City believed that both the 1979 ordinance and the Boston Regulation were grandfathered under two federal provisions, 49 U.S.C. § 5125(c)(2)(A) and § 5112(c)(2)(B). MassDOT also met with representatives from the Massachusetts Motor Transportation Association (“MMTA”) on March 4, 2008 to discuss concerns raised by their membership. The MMTA believed that the City’s route designation modifications failed to comply with federal requirements enacted in accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 5112(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 397.71 and that by modifying the City Surface Route, the City had triggered the provisions of § 397.71.10 In 2008, both the ATA11 and 8

See supra Part II.A for discussion of the 2006 route designation modifications.

9

The ATA also indicated in its Application for Preemption that following the adoption of the new permitting scheme, the City was not authorizing or issuing any permits to motor carriers, which “[a]s a result of this new policy, Boston’s previous limitations on the through transportation of hazardous materials effectively has been converted into a total ban….” ATA Application for Preemption, at p. 4, FMCSA-2008-0204 (May 30, 2008). 10

The MMTA specifically argues that the City failed to (i) hold a public hearing; (ii) provide interested parties with notice and an opportunity to comment; (iii) consult with officials of neighboring jurisdictions; (iv) consult with MassHighway; (v) perform a risk analysis; and (vi) perform an analysis of population density or special populations May 14, 2012

5

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

MassDOT12 applied for an administrative determination regarding whether the Federal hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. §5101 et seq., and FMCSA regulations, 49 C.F.R. Part 397 et seq., preempt the hazardous material routing designation modifications made by the City.13 In their preemption application, the ATA and regulated community argued that by not issuing any through-permits to hazardous material carriers, the City had effectively adopted a new de facto routing restriction that did not comply with the FMCSA regulations. The ATA further noted that hazardous material carriers, who were denied through-permits, were required to use I-95 which passes through multiple communities including Dedham, Needham, Newton, Waltham, Lexington, Burlington, Woburn, and Wakefield. According to the ATA, this detour increased the amount of time hazardous material carriers would be on the road, exported risk to other communities incapable of handling and responding to potential emergencies, and deprived the public of involvement in the routing process. In its response comments to the ATA and MassHighway preemption applications, the City argued that the Boston Regulation and the City Surface Route had not changed since their original adoption, with the exception of the minor modification from Commercial Street to Cross Street as a result of the change in character of the neighborhood and to ensure the overall public safety. Additionally, the City indicated that its increased enforcement and non-issuance of through permits had been conducted in full accordance with its permitting authority. The City defended the non-issuance of through-permits due to the increased security concerns following September 11, 2001 and according to its evaluation criteria, which it held, did not include economic hardship as a factor in determining whether to issue a through-permit. On November 16, 2009, the FMCSA issued its preemption determination finding that the City, in altering the physical surface route from Commercial Street to Cross Street and eliminating the issuance of through-permits to hazardous material carriers, violated federal routing requirements because it had not followed the federal standards for risk analysis or been subject to public comment and approval by the state routing agency. See 74 Fed. Reg. 59021, 59026 (Nov. 16, 2009). The City was required to conduct a risk analysis on alternative hazardous material routes and follow the requirements for public participation and MassDOT approval as the designated routing agency. In response to the FMCSA preemption determination, the City hired Battelle to perform a series of highway routing analyses in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 397. Battelle was charged with providing the technical basis for a hazmat route risk assessment to identify routes through downtown Boston and proposed alternatives in accordance with 49 CFR 397.71(b)(1)(i)-(ii). In in adjacent communities, impacts to carriers, emergency response capabilities, delays in transportation, and motor vehicle accident experiences. 11

See 73 Fed. Reg. 46349 (Aug. 8, 2008) (Notice of ATA Application).

12

See 73 Fed. Reg. 51335 (Sept. 2, 2008) (Notice of MassDOT Application).

13

Recognizing the complexity of the issue, the FMCSA issued a notice of delay regarding its preemption determination in order to conduct additional factual and legal analysis. See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. 9328, 9329 (Mar. 3, 2009). May 14, 2012

6

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

April of 2011, the City presented its draft report to MassDOT. The draft report concluded that travel through Boston imposes a greater risk to the public than using the preferred14 alternative ­ Route 128.15 III.

FEDERAL ROUTING STANDARDS

All States, including the political subdivisions of a State, must follow the federal HMTA statutes and FMCSA regulations when establishing, maintaining, enforcing, or modifying a hazardous material highway routing designation. 49 U.S.C. 5125(C); 49 U.S.C. 5112(b). The Federal Regulations and the FHWA Highway Routing Guidelines provide direction to the States in applying and implementing the federal standards. The federal standards are identified in 49 C.F.R. § 397.71 et seq. (“Federal Regulations”) and provide that the State must find that the proposed route enhances public safety. These federal standards are identified and discussed in greater detail below. a. Enhancement of Public Safety

49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(1)

MassDOT’s role as the state routing agency is to “make a finding, supported by the record… that any NRHM routing designation enhances public safety in the areas subject to its jurisdiction and in areas which are directly affected by such highway routing designation.” 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(1). In making this finding, MassDOT must consider information received through the public participation process, including additional information or data related to the proposed route as well as information evaluated through the consultative process. MassDOT must also consider factors such as: (i) population density, (ii) type of highway, (iii) types and quantities of NRHM, (iv) emergency response capabilities, (v) results of consultation with affected persons, (vi) exposure and other risk factors, (vii) terrain considerations, (viii) continuity of routes, (ix) alternative routes, (x) effects on commerce, (xi) delays in transportation, (xii) climatic conditions, and (xiii) congestion and accident history. 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(9). While the Federal Regulations require States to analyze these additional 13 factors, the FMCSA does not assign any factor a specific weight. Additionally, in making its routing designation, States must use the “DOT ‘Guidelines for Applying Criteria to Designate Routes for Transporting Hazardous Materials,’ DOT/RSPA/OHMT-89-02, July 1989 or its most current version; or an equivalent routing analysis which adequately considers overall risk to the public.” Id. § 397.71(b)(1)(ii). b. Public Participation

49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(2)

Public participation is a critical component of the routing selection and designation process. States must “provide the public with notice of any proposed NRHM routing designation and a 30-day period in which to comment.” 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(2)(i). While the FMCSA regulations do not require a public hearing, if a State elects to hold one, it must provide the 14

Route Alternative 3 identified the I-93/I-95 corridor (also termed the Beltway Route or Route 128) as the “preferred” (as opposed to prescribed) alternative route. Hazardous material trucks could still use other legally permissible routes to transport their cargo from points north and south of the City provided they do not travel through the Downtown Area. 15

See infra Part IV for discussion of the Battelle Report.

May 14, 2012

7

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

public with “30-days prior notice of the public hearing.” Id. Notice for the comment period (and hearing, if held) must be published in at least 2 newspapers of general circulation in the affected area or areas and shall contain a complete description of the proposed routing designation….” Id. If a public hearing is held, it must be “on the record during which the public will be afforded the opportunity to present their views and any information or data related to the proposed NRHM routing designation.” Id. at § 397.71(b)(2)(ii). Additionally, the State must make the hearing transcript and all exhibits/documents available following the hearing. Id. Given the wide geographical impact of the City’s proposed routing designation, MassDOT determined that a comment period-alone would be insufficient without providing the public with an opportunity to voice their support or opposition in a public forum. MassDOT selected four municipalities along the proposed route to hold public hearings. The locations were evenly distributed to provide convenient access to all potentially impacted municipalities. As part of the required public participation process, on July 25, 2010, MassDOT published the notice for the four public hearings and for the comment period along with a complete description of the proposed routing designation in the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and Patriot Ledger. Additionally, notice of each hearing included a significant level of outreach by MassDOT’s government and communications departments to impacted agencies, individual communities, and elected representatives.16 MassDOT conducted the four public hearings17 on the record in accordance with the Federal Regulations and provided access to the official transcripts for each hearing on the MassDOT hazardous material website dedicated to the City’s proposed routing designation. The City and its consultant provided testimony18 at each public hearing following an introductory statement by MassDOT regarding the hearing procedures, hazardous material background history, and the proposed routing process prior to opening the hearing to public comment.

16

On July 22, 2011, MassDOT sent notice to the following: (1) Braintree, Burlington, Cambridge, Canton, Dedham, Lexington, Medford, Needham, Milton, Newton, Quincy, Randolph, Reading, Somerville, Stoneham, Waltham, Wellesley, Watertown, Weston, and Woburn; (2) the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, the Massachusetts Port Authority, the Massachusetts State Police, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, the 128 Central Corridor Coalition, the Massachusetts Motor Transportation Association, the American Tucking Association, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the Departments of Transportation for both New Hampshire and Rhode Island; and (3) 70+ state representatives/senators and local elected officials. MassDOT issued a press release on July 25, 2011and coordinated with the Boston MPO to include the hearing notices in the “Transreport” newsletter. Finally, MassDOT created a website to provide background information regarding the routing process, frequently asked questions, a copy of the City’s routing analysis, information on attending the hearings and submitting comments (available in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, Chinese, Cape Verdean Creole, and Vietnamese), and a copy of the FMCSA preemption determination http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ProposedHazmatRoute.aspx. 17

A total of 69 people/organizations testified at the public hearings. The MMTA testified three times (Boston, Waltham, and Stoneham), the 128 Business Council testified two times (Boston and Waltham), and J&S Transport Company also testified twice (Boston and Stoneham). If you count these organizations once, then a total of 65 people/organizations provided unique testimony. 38, or 58.4%, testified in opposition, 23, or 35.4%, testified in favor, and 4, or 6.2%, testified but took no position for the proposed routing designation. 18

Thomas Tinlin, Commissioner of the Boston Transportation Department testified in support of the proposed routing designation and provided some background history regarding the original City Surface Route. Additionally, Dr. Arthur Greenberg, principal investigator and project manager for Battelle, provided a brief summary analysis of the Battelle Report prepared on behalf of the City. May 14, 2012

8

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

 The Boston public hearing was held on August 23, 2011 at the State Transportation Building at 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA. A total of twenty-eight individuals testified at the hearing including state elected officials representing the Boston region, representatives from the trucking industry, local community and business organizations, and local residents. Nineteen speakers, including elected officials, neighborhood community organizations, and local residents testified in support of the proposed routing designation; seven members representing the trucking industry or other community/business organizations testified in opposition to the routing designation; and two individuals testified without taking a specific position on the proposal.  The Quincy public hearing was held on August 24, 2011 at the Thomas Crane Public Library at 40 Washington Street, Quincy, MA. A total of nine individuals testified at this hearing including state elected officials representing the Quincy region, local elected officials from Braintree, and local residents from the Quincy area and Boston. Six speakers testified in opposition to the City’s proposed routing designation; two Boston area residents testified in favor of the proposed routing designation; and one individual testified without taking a specific position on the proposal.  The Waltham public hearing was held on August 30, 2011 at the Clark Government Center at 119 School Street, Waltham, MA. A total of seventeen individuals testified at this hearing including state elected officials representing the Waltham region, local elected and public safety officials from Burlington, Needham, Newton, and Waltham, and one local resident from Boston. Fifteen speakers testified in opposition to the City’s proposed routing designation; one Boston area resident testified in favor of the proposed routing designation; and one individual testified without taking a specific position on the proposal.  Finally, the Stoneham public hearing was held on September 1, 2011 at the Stoneham Town Hall Auditorium at 35 Central St, Stoneham, MA. A total of fifteen individuals testified at this hearing including state elected officials representing the Stoneham region, local elected and public safety officials from Medford, Reading, Stoneham, and Woburn, and one resident. Fourteen speakers testified in opposition to the City’s proposed routing designation and one Boston area resident testified in favor of the proposal. In addition to the four public hearings, MassDOT provided an extended comment period (through close of business on October 7, 2011) for the submission of written comments regarding the proposed routing designation. The Department received 16619 written comments by hand, first class mail, and electronic submission. 110 (67%) of the comments received were in strong support20 of the City’s proposed NRHM routing designation, 54 (33%) of the comments received were in clear opposition to or identified concerns21 with the City’s proposed NRHM 19

Two of the individuals submitting comments were neither in favor nor opposed to the routing designation.

20

84 comments came from concerned residents located in the North End and Waterfront neighborhoods of the City of Boston. 10 comments came from residents outside these neighborhoods. 9 comments (8%) came from community or business organizations. 5 comments came from state elected representatives and municipal officials from Boston. 2 comments came from public safety organizations, specifically the Boston Fire and Boston Police Departments. 21

22 comments came from concerned state elected representatives and municipal officials representing Bedford, Braintree, Burlington, Cambridge, Everett, Lexington, Milton, Needham, Newton, Reading, Stoneham, Waltham, May 14, 2012

9

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

routing designation.22 Figure 3 below provides an overview of the quantity of comments received. Figure 3: NRHM Routing Public Comments 84

90 80 70 60 Quantity of 50 Comments 40

Support Routing

17

20

10

12

9 5

10

Oppose Routing

22

30

0

2

3

0 Neighborhood Local Residents ResidentsA

State/Local Elected Officials

Business Public Safety Organizations OrganizationsB

Origination of Comments

A

“Neighborhood Residents” includes individuals located in the North End/Waterfront neighborhoods in the City.

B

“Public Safety Organizations” includes comments from MetroFire, Inc., an association of 34 metropolitan Boston Fire Departments and the Fire Chief’s Association of Massachusetts.

c. Consultation with Others

49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(3)

States must also provide “notice to, and consult with, officials of affected political subdivisions, States and Indian tribes, and any other affected parties.” The Federal Regulations authorize the state routing agency to determine the appropriate level of consultation required in complying with § 397.71(b)(3). In meeting the federal consultation requirement, MassDOT sent notice to impacted political subdivisions, affected parties, other Massachusetts state agencies, and the Departments of Transportation for New Hampshire and Rhode Island.23 Additionally, and Woburn. 17 comments came from community or business organizations. 12 comments came from residents outside of Boston, primarily in Arlington. 3 comments came from public safety organizations, specifically the Waltham Fire Department, Metrofire, Inc., and the Fire Chiefs’ Association of Massachusetts. 22

In the spring of 2011, the City Council for the City of Waltham passed a resolution opposing the implementation of the City of Boston’s proposed routing designation or “any such ban or any such move that would shift Boston truck traffic, and any associated risk, to the residents of Waltham.” On September 12, 2011, the City Council for the City of Cambridge issued an Order (i) requesting a report of the impact of the proposed route on Cambridge, (ii) proposing a similar ban for Cambridge, and (iii) opposing any changes to NRHM routes that would increase traffic in Cambridge. On November 3, 2011, the City of Somerville discussed in committee the “legality and feasibility of banning hazmat trucks from driving through the City.” 23 See supra note 16. May 14, 2012

10

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

MassDOT provided an extended comment period (identified in the public notice) in which affected political subdivisions, impacted parties, and other state DOTs could submit their concerns. In accordance with § 397.71(b)(3), MassDOT requested written approval of the proposed routing designations to the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (“NHDOT”) and Rhode Island Department of Transportation (“RIDOT”). NHDOT provided its written approval of the proposed routing designation on August 16, 2011, while RIDOT did not formally respond within the 60 day period for approval; however, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(3), RIDOT is deemed to have approved the NRHM routing designation. MassDOT also solicited comments from several state agencies regarding environmental and public safety concerns raised during the public comment period. Specifically, MassDOT consulted with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MassDEP”) regarding potential impacts to environmentally sensitive areas along the proposed route. The MassDEP provided its written comments regarding the environmental analysis in the Battelle Report and the consolidated environmental public comments to the Department on January 25, 2012. MassDOT also consulted with the Massachusetts Department of Fires Services (“DFS”) and Massachusetts State Police regarding the emergency response evaluation discussed in the Battelle Report and the emergency response concerns raised by many individuals through the public comment period. The DFS provided its written comments regarding the fire emergency response evaluation to the Department on January 19, 2012. All comments received from political subdivisions during the hearing and comment process were also evaluated as part of MassDOT’s route evaluation and final recommendation.24 MassDOT has maintained a record of all public officials and municipalities notified as part of the routing evaluation process and documented the concerns those individuals or communities raised. d. Through Routing; Agreement of Other States; and Burden on Commerce 49 C.F.R. §§ 397.71(b)(4) and § 397.71(b)(5) States must ensure “through routing” for the transportation of NRHM between adjacent areas, which means that the proposed routing designation “must ensure continuity of movement so as to not impede or unnecessarily delay the transportation of NRHM.” Additionally, a State must make a finding, based on a risk analysis performed in accordance with § 397.71(b)(1) that the proposed routing designation enhances public safety.25 If the risk analysis shows that the current route presents at least 50% more risk to the public than the proposed deviation, then the route may go into effect. If the current route presents a greater risk but less than 50% more risk to the public than the proposed deviation, then it shall go into effect provided it does not force a deviation of more than 25 miles or result in a an increase of more than 25% of that part of a trip affected by the deviation, whichever is shorter. Finally, if the risk analysis shows that the current route has the same or less risk than the proposed deviation, then the proposed routing designation shall not be allowed. In reviewing the impact to “through routing” MassDOT evaluated the responses and comments received during the consultative process provided in 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(2) and 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(3) and made findings, discussed in Part IV, based on the federal standards and relative route risks.26 24

On October 12, 2011, MassDOT sent confirmatory letters to 14 political subdivisions and 29 state/local elected

officials regarding their written comments submitted during the official comment period.

25 See supra Part II.A.

26

See supra Part II.b and II.c.

May 14, 2012

11

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

The Federal Regulations further prohibit establishing, maintaining, or enforcing any NRHM routing designation affecting another State if the proposed designation unreasonably burdens commerce and the affected State(s)27 do not agree to the proposed designation. 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(5) (emphasis added). As discussed in Part II.c above, MassDOT requested written approval from New Hampshire and Rhode Island regarding the proposed routing designation. NHDOT provided its written approval to the Department, and RIDOT—in missing the timeframe for a response to the Department—was also considered to have approved the proposed designation. e. Timeliness; Public Information; and Reporting & Publishing Requirements 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(6) & § 397.73 MassDOT must complete the routing analysis within 18 months of commencement of the public participation or consultative process. MassDOT began this process on July 22, 2011, and therefore must complete the routing analysis no later than January, 2013. The new NRHM routing designations “shall be furnished within 60 days after establishment to the FMCSA. This information will be made available from the FMCSA consolidated by the FMCSA, and published annually in whole or as updates in the Federal Register. Each state may also publish this information in its official register of State regulations.” f. Reasonable Routes to Terminals and Other Facilities; Responsibility for Local Compliance; and Factors to Consider 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(7), § 397.71(b)(8), § 397.71(b)(9)(i-xiii) In establishing any NRHM, MassDOT must ensure reasonable access for motor vehicles transporting NRHM to reach (1) terminals, (2) points of loading, unloading, pickup, and delivery, and (3) facilities for food, fuel, repairs, and safe havens. MassDOT is responsible for ensuring that all political subdivisions comply with the provisions of 49 C.F.R. § 397.71 and resolving any conflicts that may arise between political subdivisions within its jurisdiction. This includes addressing concerns that one community may be unreasonably exporting risk onto another community. In establishing or providing for reasonable access to and from designated routes, the State must use the “shortest practicable route considering the [13] factors provided in [49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(9)].” 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(7). The thirteen factors include: (i) population density, (ii) type of highway, (iii) types and quantities of NRHM, (iv) emergency response capabilities, (v) results of consultation with affected persons, (vi) exposure and other risk factors, (vii) terrain considerations, (viii) continuity of routes, (ix) alternative routes, (x) effects on commerce, (xi) delays in transportation, (xii) climatic conditions, and (xiii) congestion and accident history. 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(9). Importantly, “[t]he State routing agency has discretion not only in selecting the level of analysis for each factor but also in deciding how to apply the results of the analysis. For example, the location of one hospital along a route may be difficult to justify as the final decision-making factor. On the other hand, the locations of several medical and primary education facilities as well as emergency response stations may be decisive in differentiating routes that have similar risk.” Highway Routing Guidelines at 14; 59 Fed. Reg. 51824 (Oct. 12, 1994) (“…the FHWA will not assign any specific weight to be given by the States or Indian Tribes in considering the factors.”); and 49 U.S.C §

27

See supra Part II.c (discussing other States and written approval).

May 14, 2012

12

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

5112(b)(2) (“The Secretary may not assign a specific weight that a State or Indian tribe shall use when considering the factors under paragraph (1)(I) of this subsection.”). IV.

THE BATTELLE REPORT AND MASSDOT FINDINGS

As the state routing agency, MassDOT is required to “make a finding, supported by the record” developed in accordance with the Department’s public participation and consultation requirements that the recommended highway routing designation “enhances the public safety in the areas subject to its jurisdiction and in other areas which are directly affected by such highway routing designation.” 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(1). In making such a finding, MassDOT evaluated the Battelle Report and the weight given to the factors provided in § 397.71(b)(9). Additionally, MassDOT evaluated all the information included as part of the official record and performed an independent review/validation of the information contained in the Battelle Report. a. The Battelle Report The Battelle Report was performed using the federal routing standards provided in 49 C.F.R. § 397.71 and the NRHM Routing Guidelines identified in 49 C.F.R. § 397.71(b)(1)(ii). See Battelle Report at 3. Representatives from the City, MassDOT, Central Transportation Planning Staff, and the MMTA participated in the initial selection of routes for evaluation. Battelle also relied heavily on accident and crash data requested of, and provided by, the University of Massachusetts – Amherst, UMassSAFE Office. The majority of the 20 routes identified for evaluation showed “overlap on the outermost north and south ends of the routes, with more variation in the middle segment of the routes….” Id. This terminus overlap represented the origin/destination pairings used as part of the analysis. The relative risk between the various alternative routes was identified according to the following formula: Risk = Accident Rate x Number of People Adjacent to Route (i.e., Population). This basic method for determining risk is identified in the federal NRHM Routing Guidelines. Highway Routing Guidelines at 11. Population is a critical component for determining the relative risk along the various routes. In evaluating the population figures, the Battelle Report included the residential populations as well as employment figures, hotel occupancy, hospitals (in and out patient), schools, nursing homes, tourists, and at the request of MassDOT, major shopping malls and market places. The population figures along the various routes were determined using CTPS Traffic Analysis Zone (“TAZ”) information and were segmented generally between daytime (7:00 AM – 7:00 PM) and nighttime (7:00 PM – 7:00 AM) populations. As documented in the Battelle Report, there was insufficient truck crash data for the roads within the City of Boston to obtain a truck accident rate. The Accident Rates used in the Battelle Report were calculated with Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) crash data requested from UMassSAFE. In order to calculate the Accident Rate, Battelle provided UMassSAFE with estimates of truck flows that were used to develop truck vehicle miles of travel. Assisting Battelle, UMassSAFE provided estimated accident rates for the various FHWA roadway classification types divided into urban areas, urban clusters, and rural areas. Based on the results of the alternative routes evaluated using this risk formula, the Battelle Report concluded that the routes through the downtown area (i.e., the City Surface Route – Route Alt. 1) are significantly higher in risk than those outside the City (i.e., Route 128 – Route Alt. 3). See Tables 1 and 2. The Battelle Report highlighted Route 128 as the leading candidate for designation as the proposed through route, noting that during the daytime the City May 14, 2012

13

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

Surface Route had almost 4 times more risk (3.67 northbound and 3.72 southbound) than Route 128. See Table 2. During the nighttime, the City Surface Route had almost 2 times more risk (1.82 northbound and 1.93 southbound). Id. In accordance with § 397.71(b)(4), the Battelle Report noted that the current route meets the required threshold (at least 50% more risk to the public) than the proposed deviation – Route 128 – and therefore should go into effect. The Battelle Report evaluated the additional federal standards provided in § 397.71(b)(9), including emergency response capabilities, sensitive environmental features, climate, and burden on commerce, but did not believe these factors “effectively discriminated among the alternative through routes.” Battelle Report, at 107. Table 1 – Ratio of Risk Between Routes (Daytime versus Nighttime) Distance Miles Northbound – Quincy to Everett Alt. 1: Through Boston 10.7 Alt. 2: Through Cambridge 33.2 Alt. 3: Route 128 47.0 Southbound – Everett to Quincy Alt. 1: Through Boston 10.6 Alt. 2: Through Cambridge 33.8 Alt. 3: Route 128 47.8 Route Description

Daytime Population

Nighttime Population

Daytime Risk

Nighttime Risk

309,000 245,000 204,000

173,000 218,000 173,000

.29 .18 .072

.14 .14 .063

301,000 249,000 203,000

169,000 223,000 171,000

.28 .18 .070

.14 .15 .062

Table 2 – Ratio of Risk Between Routes – Alt. 1 and Alt. 3 – Original Risk Ratio and Modified Risk Ratio After Including Visitors At Malls Within Half Mile of Each Route (Daytime versus Nighttime)28 Ratio of Risk Between Routes

Northbound Day Night

Southbound Day Night

Original Risk Ratios (See Table 2)

Route Alt. 1/Route Alt. 3

4.0

2.2

4.0

2.2

Risk Ratios if Max. No. of Shoppers is Added to Population

Route Alt. 1/Route Alt. 3

3.67

1.82

3.72

1.93

b. MassDOT Findings Following an in depth review of the information presented in the Battelle Report and our own internal review, calculations, estimates, and assumptions, MassDOT concluded that the public risk in the daytime hours is sufficient to support the City’s proposed routing designation during the daytime. However, MassDOT determined that the statistical uncertainty in the data requires further analysis to justify the nighttime route designation. MassDOT reviewed the crash data, truck flow percentages, accident rates and the population information with respect to the nighttime risk calculation and determined that based on our internal review there is not sufficient justification to warrant a full nighttime restriction as proposed. During our internal review process MassDOT inquired about the use of crash severity and hazardous material release 28

During MassDOT’s initial review of the Battelle Report, the Department requested additional analysis of the potential exposure to shopping populations along the proposed routes. Battelle provided a response and indicated that the “relative daytime and nighttime risk ratios compared alternatives RA-1 and RA-3 are lower with the added population represented by the peak mall visitors….” Battelle Response to MassDOT Questions, at 16 (Aug. 2, 2011). May 14, 2012

14

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

information from the Battelle, but was told that the information was not required due to the routing analysis method selected by the City. MassDOT requested this additional information so that a more in-depth (and accurate) analysis of comparable risk and probability of crashes could be generated. The “estimated” crash rates provided in the Battelle Report are not specific to the area in question and add to the level of uncertainty in the overall analysis. i. Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash Data The Massachusetts State Police (“MSP”) Commercial Motor Vehicle (“CMV”) Truck Team, at the request of the City, authorized UMassSAFE, the transportation safety research team at UMass to provide its truck crash data for utilization/interpretation in the completion of the risk analysis study. On July 23, 2010, UMassSAFE provided Battelle with the complete database of CMV SafetyNet crashes from 2004 to 2009 (Crash Level Data). The complete SafetyNet database contained 10,104 records for crash data from 2004 to 2009. UMassSAFE made note that in order for the crash record to be contained in this database, the following criteria must be met: o A Truck with a gross vehicle weight more than 10,000 lbs; a Hazmat placard; or A Bus with seats for more than 8 people including the driver AND o A person fatally injured; an injured person taken away for medical attention; or any vehicle towed from the scene Several other crash data sets were considered. UMassSAFE provided Battelle with a database which isolates all of the hazardous material crashes (Vehicle Level Data) in the CMV system for the time period. UMassSAFE gave Battelle more data than requested so they would not be limited in the application of the information. MassDOT worked with FMCSA to obtain national data on hazardous material spills. MassDOT reviewed the Statewide crash data for all truck crashes because the data in SafetyNet excludes property damage only crashes in which a vehicle was not towed. However, in the end, both Battelle and MassDOT utilized the same SafetyNet dataset even though MassDOT had reservations with these data. Some of the reservations with the data include the following:  Boston Police Department does not send most of the crash reports to the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV), the agency that compiles the statewide crash file, and this is one primary basis of the SafetyNet data. This calls into question the quality/quantity of the local Boston crashes contained within SafetyNet.  The CMV SafetyNet dataset excludes all truck crashes not meeting the SafetyNet criteria, which would include property damage-only crashes where no tow was required, and perhaps more importantly, property damage-only crashes that may have had a hazardous material spill. By utilizing crash data from SafetyNet, there is no significant representation of the severity of crashes, or the potential exposure of material release, which is a critical component to establishing the public safety risk.  In addition, slightly more than 15% of the crashes contained in SafetyNet are comprised of bus crashes. MassDOT determined that this would bias the analysis since bus crashes (school buses and transit buses) are more likely to occur on non-interstate roadways. Examination of the dataset shows that less than 5% of the bus crashes occur on the May 14, 2012

15

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

interstate system versus over 60% on roadways that are typical of a downtown area (functionally classified as urban principal arterials, urban minor arterials, rural minor arterials or rural major collectors).  The definition for inclusion of trucks in SafetyNet and FHWA Freight Analysis Network (FAF) used by Battelle appears to be very different. Not having the full understanding of how the FAF network data was utilized, MassDOT questions what impact the varied definitions have on the analysis. Ultimately, Battelle asked UMassSAFE to calculate crash rates using the truck flow data calculated from the percentage of trucks in FAF and the average annual daily traffic (AADT) obtained from the MassDOT Roadway Inventory File. Using the 2004-2009 SafetyNet data, MassDOT separated the crashes into nighttime (7:00 PM – 6:59 AM) and daytime (7:00 AM – 6:59 PM) based on the crash time contained within a field of the database. This resulted in 82% of the crashes during the daytime and 18% during the nighttime. MassDOT used the direct linkage to the road inventory file for the geocoded crashes to directly obtain the functional classification and urban type. It was unclear how UMassSAFE / Battelle derived the functional classification of the crash data that was presented in the summary report of crash rates. The resulting summary comparing the Battelle numbers to MassDOT numbers for SafetyNet crashes is shown in Table 3 Table 3: 2004-2009 SafetyNet Crash Data Urban Type

Urbanized Area

Urbanized Cluster

Rural

May 14, 2012

Functional Classification

Local Interstate Principal Arterial Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector Unknown Subtotal Local Interstate Principal Arterial Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector Unknown Subtotal Local Interstate Principal Arterial Rural Minor Arterial Rural Major Collector Rural Minor Collector

Presented by: Battelle / UMassSAFE 1347 1881 1096 1893 2200 847 9264 35 14 49 43 50 11 202 101 172 59 89 95 34

MassDOT with Link to Road Inventory File 743 1696 1029 2099 2219 604 32 8422 17 14 48 28 37 9 0 153 59 205 59 81 87 23

MassDOT - Day Crashes

MassDOT - Night Crashes

627 1195 835 1787 1902 534 24 6904 15 8 44 23 32 9 0 131 52 121 48 70 74 18

116 501 194 312 317 70 8 1518 2 6 4 5 5 0 0 22 7 84 11 11 13 5 16

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

Unknown urban type

ALL Urban Type Crashes

ALL Urban Type Crashes (reapportioning the non-geocoded crashes)

Urbanized Area Crashes (reapportioning the non-geocoded crashes)*

% by Functional Classification of Urbanized Area Crashes (reapportioned non-geocoded crashes)

Unknown Subtotal

550

2 516

1 384

1 132

Unknown

-

1013

829

183

1483 2067 1204

819 1915 1136

694 1324 927

125 591 209

2025

2208

1880

328

2345

2343

2008

335

892

636

561

75

10016 1483 2067 1204

1047 10104 914 2136 1267

854 8248 774 1477 1034

192 1855 139 659 233

2025

2463

2097

366

2345

2614

2240

374

892

710

626

84

10016 1347 1881 1096

10104 829 1892 1148

8248 699 1333 932

1855 129 559 216

1893

2342

1994

348

2200

2476

2122

354

847

674

596

78

9264 15% 20% 12%

9360 9% 20% 12%

7675 9% 17% 12%

1684 8% 33% 13%

20%

25%

26%

21%

24%

26%

28%

21%

9%

7%

8%

5%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Local Interstate Principal Arterial Urban Principal Arterial or Rural Minor Arterial Urban Minor Arterial or Rural Major Collector Urban Collector or Rural Minor Collector Unknown TOTAL Local Interstate Principal Arterial Urban Principal Arterial or Rural Minor Arterial Urban Minor Arterial or Rural Major Collector Urban Collector or Rural Minor Collector TOTAL Local Interstate Principal Arterial Urban Principal Arterial or Rural Minor Arterial Urban Minor Arterial or Rural Major Collector Urban Collector or Rural Minor Collector TOTAL Local Interstate Principal Arterial Urban Principal Arterial or Rural Minor Arterial Urban Minor Arterial or Rural Major Collector Urban Collector or Rural Minor Collector TOTAL

*It should be noted, that this method overestimates the percentage of SafetyNet crashes on the Interstate System because crashes on these highways have relatively low geocoding rates because enforcement has a difficult time pinpointing the exact location of the crash on the roadway when a reference point is not readily available. It should also be noted that the functional classification assigned to the crash is based on the geocoding which is not precise and leads to a degradation in the data when the exact location of the crash is not correctly input.

ii. Traffic Volumes and Classification Counts May 14, 2012

17

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

MassDOT also performed a thorough review of the traffic volumes on a sampling of roadways in the Metropolitan Boston area to get a breakdown of the volume percentages in the daytime versus the nighttime. The general ADT review was completed for all vehicle classifications on the roadway to gain an understanding of the magnitude of vehicles in each time period reviewed. To break this down further, MassDOT examined eighteen permanent traffic count stations that provide a breakdown of vehicle classification types in the traffic stream. This process allowed MassDOT to separate out the vehicles classified as “trucks” from the general traffic volume and further examine the breakdown of daytime versus nighttime percentages. The following presents our findings regarding this data analysis: 

Table 4 below shows the breakdown of daily traffic volumes for various roadway classifications relative to the proposed routing of hazardous material in the metropolitan Boston area. Freeways and roadway types similar to the downtown route alternatives studied (functionally classified as urban principal arterials, urban minor arterials, rural minor arterials or rural major collectors) were examined. Non-freeway counts were concentrated in the immediate Boston area to reflect conditions that could be expected along the downtown hazardous material route considered. Similarly, the freeway counts were examined for routes that reflect the characteristics of the route that travels around the I-95 (Route 128) beltway. A detailed breakdown of the count data examined is included in the appendix. Table 4: Metro-Boston: Day / Night Traffic Volume Comparison Count Locations Reviewed

# of Sites

Daytime

Nighttime

Interstates / Freeways (Metro-Boston)

9-Counts

586,593

219,765

72.75%

27.25%

Boston Roadways - Downtown Haz Mat Area

20-Counts

169,765

70,851

70.55%

29.45%

Boston Roadways - Back Bay/Charles River Area

35-Counts

365,454

153,220

70.46%

29.54%

1,121,812

443,836

71.65%

28.35%

Total Count Locations Reviewed:

% Daytime

% Nighttime

 From the traffic volumes summarized in Tables 4, it can be seen that the nighttime volumes (7:00 PM to 6:59 AM) for all vehicles drop off dramatically over what the recorded daytime traffic volumes are. While this is only a sample, it provides a reasonable estimate of what can be expected on similar roadway types in the area. It should be noted that the traffic volumes are for all vehicles and not exclusive to trucks versus other vehicle classifications. The focus of the table is to demonstrate that the roadways within the City of Boston have a day-night split of general traffic that corresponds to the observed split on Freeways.  In order to get an understanding of truck flow rates during the course of the day MassDOT did a review of vehicle classification counts available for the metro-Boston area. Eighteen permanent count stations were reviewed to determine the count of vehicles classified as trucks were measured in the general traffic stream. The daily traffic volumes for each of the stations were compared to historical AADT volumes for the roadways to validate the data. No vehicle classification data was available for any of the roadways within the downtown Boston area. MassDOT considered placing tube counters along these roadways, but the validity of the data would be questionable due to the May 14, 2012

18

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

presence of stopped traffic during peak periods of the day. Therefore, the only relevant available data reviewed was for locations on Interstate 93 both north and south of Boston, Interstate 95 and Interstate 90. Table 5 below provides a summary of the classification data evaluated. Table 5: Interstate Vehicle Classification Review - Truck Percentages Day versus Night Location

Direction Northbound

I-93, South of Boston Southbound

Northbound I-93, North of Boston Southbound

Northbound I-95, Beltway Around Boston Southbound

Volume

All Vehicles

Trucks Only

Truck Percentage

% Trucks

Daytime

934,755

109,025

Day %

74.55%

11.66%

Nighttime

400,632

37,215

Night %

25.45%

9.29%

Daytime

925,293

116,872

Day %

81.58%

12.63%

Nighttime

378,580

26,392

Night %

18.42%

6.97%

Daytime

936,839

70,146

Day %

81.41%

7.49%

Nighttime

348,861

16,023

Night %

18.59%

4.59%

Daytime

898,238

90,194

Day %

71.80%

10.04%

Nighttime

411,391

35,416

Night %

28.20%

8.61%

Daytime

904,487

69,200

Day %

74.73%

7.65%

Nighttime

290,112

23,397

Night %

25.27%

8.06%

Daytime

853,389

40,265

Day %

76.76%

4.72%

Nighttime

271,270

12,188

Night %

23.24%

4.49%

Daytime

5,453,001

495,702

Day %

76.69%

9.09%

Nighttime

2,100,846

150,631

Night %

23.31%

7.17%

All Routes - Grand Total Trucks

 It can clearly be seen from Table 5 that the truck classification counts closely resemble what was observed for all traffic as provided in Table 4 with an average of 76.7% of the total daily truck traffic counted in the daytime, and 23.3% measured at night. The overall percentage of trucks counted in the traffic stream is 8.56% which is higher than what has historically been measured. This can be attributed to the classification method utilized by the permanent count stations where only a 4-bin classification system is used versus Haw’s standard Scheme F Classification System. This approach provides a more conservative measure of the quantity of trucks in the traffic stream and was considered acceptable for MassDOT’s analysis. While the results may overestimate the percentage of trucks on the roadway, we are confident that it does not underestimate the total. A full breakdown of the classification count data used to prepare Table 5 is included in the appendix.  Where there is no classification data presently available for the City of Boston roadways and no feasible means to efficiently collect this information, MassDOT chose to correlate the classification results for truck percentages found on the Interstate Highway System with the roadways reviewed along the hazardous material route. This was deemed to be an acceptable means to estimate the percent of trucks along the City of Boston roadways in the absence of actual data. The statistical significance of the method used is no less uncertain than the approach that Battelle used in applying general statewide urban May 14, 2012

19

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

accident rates by functional classification in order to calculate the risk along the hazardous material routes. iv. Calculation of Accident Rates The focus of MassDOT’s internal review was to evaluate the daytime versus nighttime conditions along the proposed hazardous material routes. In order to accomplish this task it was necessary to generate new crash rates for each time period. Starting with the CMV SafetyNet crash data set that was provided by UMassSAFE and serves as the basis for the accident rates provided in the Battelle Report, MassDOT determined that it was necessary to walk through the rate calculation on a step-by-step basis. The following provides a summary of the process followed. 

As defined in sub-section i. above, MassDOT found some slight differences in the breakdown of the crash records according to functional classification from our review and what was included in the Battelle Report. As previously stated, MassDOT linked the crashes to the Roadway Inventory File to generate roadway classification based crash totals. MassDOT will use the results of our internal crash data classification effort for the calculation of crash rates by functional classification.



While MassDOT understands that the methodology used by Battelle to generate truck flow estimates based on the FHWA Freight Analysis Network (FAF) may be valid, the decision was made to focus on the use of Massachusetts specific data available through MassDOT’s Roadway Inventory File.



Calculating the truck crash rates in Massachusetts first requires determining the total annual truck miles traveled in the Commonwealth on each roadway type. To do this, MassDOT utilized the information collected through the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). HPMS is a program administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to provide data that reflects the extent, condition, performance, use, and operating characteristics of the Nation's highways.



Through HPMS, MassDOT collects data annually on general traffic volumes and truck percentages along segments of all non-local roadways throughout the state. It is important to note that due to the large amount of data collection that would be required, MassDOT – like all other states – does not collect data on 100% of the roadways each year. Instead, MassDOT utilizes an FHWA-approved method to collect sampled data which is reflective of the system as a whole. The coverage of each roadway type is shown in Table 6. Table 6: Coverage of 2009 HPMS Samples in Urban Areas by Roadway Type Roadway Classification

Total Miles

Sampled Miles

Coverage

Interstate

482

482

100%

Principal Arterial

312

140

45%

Urban Principal Arterial

1,847

218

12%

May 14, 2012

20

Massachusetts Department of Transportation



Urban Minor Arterial

3,755

239

6%

Urban Collector

2,912

146

5%

As part of the FHWA-approved sampling method, factors are used to apply the sampled data to the remaining roadway segments. Using the HPMS data, the annual truck miles traveled were calculated and are shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Calculated Annual Truck Miles Traveled by Roadway Type in Urban Areas Roadway Classification

2009 HPMS Sample

Total Miles with Truck Flow Data

Annual Truck Miles Traveled

Total Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled

Truck Percentage

Interstate

482

482

1,181,778,515

15,098,310,887

7.83%

Principal Arterial

312

140

309,492,656

5,657,490,766

5.47%

Urban Principal Arterial

1,847

218

442,293,435

10,797,961,020

4.10%

Urban Minor Arterial

3,755

239

310,419,694

8,677,740,571

3.58%

Urban Collector

2,912

146

103,013,772

2,854,888,285

3.61%



Crash rate calculations were developed by annualizing the 2004-2009 SafetyNet crashes (presented in Table 3) by the annual million truck miles travelled (as presented in Table 7) for each functional classification for urbanized areas. There is a clear split daytime versus nighttime truck crashes (82% versus 18%) and a clear traffic volume split between daytime and nighttime (about 76.7% versus 23.3%). This supports the notion that there are fewer crashes with lower volumes. However, there is a noticeable difference in split of daytime versus nighttime truck crashes on the various functional classifications. As shown in Table 3, 17% of the truck crashes occur on the interstate highways during the daytime but at night that percentage jumps to 33%. This raised the question if there is a significant difference in crash rates on the various functionally classified roads between daytime and nighttime. To perform this analysis, the SafetyNet nighttime versus daytime crashes were used from Table 3. To obtain the night versus day vehicle miles traveled was more complicated. There is consistency in data to indicate the overall total traffic volumes (not just trucks) along Boston roadways and the interstates are generally split 71.7% during the daytime and 28.3% during the nighttime. The actual percentage of truck traffic during the daytime versus nighttime is not readily available and is difficult to obtain for the Boston roadways, although there are some vehicle classification counts on the Interstate system. Therefore, using the classification count data that was available, MassDOT multiplied the truck vehicle miles traveled by the day versus night split to obtain annual daytime and nighttime truck vehicle miles travelled. The annualized SafetyNet crashes, for daytime and nighttime, were then divided by the annual truck million miles traveled to obtain the crash rates for each functional classification for the urbanized areas. The breakdown of the crash rate calculations using the process described above is included in the appendix, but a summary is shown in Table 8.

May 14, 2012

21

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

Table 8: Crash Rates by Functional Classification for Urbanized Areas Battelle Information Crash Rate* / 10^6 Miles

MassDOT Daily Crash Rate* / 10^6 Miles

MassDOT DAYTIME Crash Rate* / 10^6 Miles

MassDOT NIGHTTIME Crash Rate* / 10^6 Miles

Interstate

0.15

0.27

0.25

0.32

Principal Arterial

0.15

0.62

0.66

0.48

Urban Principal Arterial

0.51

0.88

0.99

0.54

Urban Minor Arterial

0.61

1.33

1.51

0.78

Urban Collector

0.83

1.09

1.28

0.52

Roadway Functional Classification

* - Crash Rate Summary - Based on a 6-year Denominator

iv. Influence of Speed  The difference in travel speeds along the two routes varies considerably. The Battelle Report did not include a factor that calculated the probability of material release, in addition to the chance of collision. MassDOT understands that Battelle followed the requirements set forth under the Federal NRHM routing designation guidelines. Recognizing that under the routing analysis method selected by Battelle does not require an examination of material release probabilities, MassDOT as the lead routing agency believes that it is an important public safety factor to examine. Recent case history has shown that most - if not all - explosions or major material releases in the Commonwealth were the result of high-speed situations - and that must be considered and appropriately weighed by the routing agency to determine enhanced public safety. Of the eleven (11) recent rollover incidents in Massachusetts involving tankers carrying fuel reviewed by MassDOT staff, nine (9) were on high speed facilities, and one of the incidents at a lower speed location (Everett, Route 99 on December 5, 2007) was due to excessive speed on a restrictive geometric (terrain/roadway) condition.  In order to establish/determine free flow speeds and nighttime traffic conditions through the current hazardous material route in the City of Boston, trial runs were conducted by MassDOT staff through the downtown on January 12, 2012 at 1:00 AM and again at 3:00 AM. The travel time runs were conducted to compare speeds/risks in association with the prior assumptions on truck flow rates through the City. MassDOT wanted to review the late night conditions based on statements made at the Public Hearings relative to public safety and the speed of truck traffic flows through downtown Boston. The trial runs showed that volumes were light, as expected. On the 1:00 AM trial run, an oil delivery truck was followed southbound from North Washington Street to Kneeland Street (approximately 1.5 miles). The truck’s speed never exceeded 24 miles per hour. There are twenty-five (25) traffic signals in the southbound direction, and twenty (20) in the northbound direction. On the initial run, eight (8) were green, seventeen (17) were red on the southbound trial run, and the northbound run realized ten green lights and ten red lights. Taking into consideration these conditions, (low speed, frequent stops, low volume and the absence of critical geometric conditions) it is MassDOT’s opinion that the probability of a major incident occurring at nighttime (tanker rollover with a material release) is lower along the City Surface Route than public sentiment would suggest. May 14, 2012

22

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

MassDOT recognizes that one night of observations is far from statistically significant, but warrants further observation. v. Burden on Commerce  What constitutes an unreasonable burden on commerce is largely subject to a case-by­ case determination by the routing agency. See Highway Routing of Hazardous Materials: Guidelines for Applying Criteria, FHWA-HI-97-003, p. 33 (Nov. 1996) (“Highway Routing Guidelines”). During the public hearing and comment period, many members of the trucking and shipping industry submitted comments regarding the anticipated burden on commerce if the City’s proposed routing designation was implemented. The industry challenged the Battelle Report’s analysis of the burden on commerce and indicated that the actual impact would be significantly higher if the proposed routing designation goes into effect. The Battelle Report does not identify the number of hazardous material trucks using the current surface route through the Downtown Area of the City as a “through­ route.” While this is not a requirement of the risk analysis or FMCSA regulations, it is important to understanding the number of vehicles likely to divert onto local roadways, impacts to neighboring communities, and the potential impact on commerce. The City’s routing analysis identifies Route 128 as the preferred alternative; however it does not address the number of hazardous material trucks using other roadways in neighboring communities if a 24-hour time of travel ban were to go into effect. Many of the public comments received reflected a concern that the number of trucks going through their communities would increase based on the proposed routing designation.  An important factor when comparing the proposed hazardous materials routes is the overall mid-day travel time (i.e., between peak travel times, or 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM) along each route. To estimate the travel times it was assumed that there was no congestion along the interstate highways and therefore trucks would be able to travel at the speed limit. To get an average travel time, a series of timed runs were conducted along the City Surface Route in downtown Boston, where there are delays due to signals and mid-day congestion. This was then combined with the highway travel times to develop the overall travel time along each route. Trucks traveling from the Quincy/Milton town line to the Alford Street Bridge in Everett currently take 25.08 minutes along the current Commercial Street route. It would require 27.15 minutes to travel between these two points using Cross Street, approximately two minutes longer than the existing route. Trucks would require 50.06 minutes to travel between these two points using the Route 128 Route, almost 25 minutes longer than the existing route during mid-day conditions. See Table 9. Table 9 - Travel Times for Northbound Route (Quincy to Everett) Route Commercial Street Cross Street Route 128 Distance (miles) 11.2 10.9 45.7 Travel Time (min.) 25.08 27.15 50.06 TT Difference (min.) N/A +2.07 +24.98  Trucks traveling in the opposing direction, from the Alford Street Bridge in Everett to the Quincy/Milton town line, currently take 30.15 minutes along the current Commercial Street route. It would require 23.55 minutes to travel between these two points using May 14, 2012

23

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

Cross Street, approximately six minutes shorter than the existing route. Trucks would require almost 52 minutes to travel between these two points using Route 128, approximately 22 minutes longer than the existing route during mid-day conditions. See Table 10. Table 10 - Travel Times for Southbound Routes (Everett to Quincy) Route Commercial Street Cross Street Route 128 Distance (miles) 11.2 10.9 47.3 Travel Time (min.) 30.15 23.55 51.59 TT Difference (min.) N/A -6.60 +21.44 vi. Population While the data shows a significant daytime population difference between the existing downtown route and Route 128, due in large part to employment figures and visitors to the downtown, the nighttime population data reflects almost the same number of potentially affected individuals along the routes. Additionally, the City noted that the justification for restricting nighttime through-hazmat shipments through downtown Boston is not as robust as the rationale for the daytime restriction. Without the benefit of having the detailed population analysis model used in the risk assessment, MassDOT has compiled the following questions regarding the material presented in the Battelle Report:  In their estimation of the potential exposed populations, the City of Boston includes a number of procedures that appear to lead to an overestimation of people living along the routes. The report claims that these overestimations provide a more conservative approach to assessing the risk. This statement is misleading as the facilities (schools, nursing homes, hotels, etc.) are not shared among the routes or uniform in their distribution throughout the study area. To have a fair comparison of the routes, the estimation method should be to find the most accurate representation of exposed population that neither leads to an overestimation or underestimation.  The questionable procedures used in the report are as follows: 1. Adding the population in Nursing Homes when they are already accounted for in the Census Data provided. 2. Not accounting for the members of the local population who are present at the schools, hospitals, and hotels. 3. Using a default value of 2 occupants per hotel room throughout the study area when the incidence of business travel (with fewer guests per room) is more likely during the week. 4. Distributing visitor trips evenly throughout the week instead of accounting for the clustering of visits during nights and holidays, times when a majority of employees are generally not present 5. Not accounting for chained trips at the NPS facilities – tourists often visit multiple attractions throughout the day.

May 14, 2012

24

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

Overestimating Nursing Home Population – The City of Boston report accounts for the resident nursing home population separately, and in addition, to the general population along each route. People living in nursing homes are already accounted for in the general population data supplied by the Census Bureau. A nursing home is a type of group quarters, which by Census definition is a place where people live or stay, in a group living arrangement that is owned or managed by an entity or organization providing housing and/or services for the residents. Other group quarters include such places as college residence halls, residential treatment centers, group homes, military barracks, correctional facilities, and workers’ dormitories. All people living in group quarters are included in population figures released by the Census Bureau. In adding these people to the calculations, the report inflates the exposed population. The impact on the risk assessment of each route would vary depending on the number of nursing homes within the ½-mile buffer. Double Counting of Local Residents Visiting the Schools, Hospitals, and Hotels – It is probable that some members of the calculated at-home population along each route during the day are the same people who are visiting the schools, hospitals, and hotels located within the corridor. The City of Boston report does not include a discussion of this fact. Assumptions Regarding Hotel Occupancy – The City of Boston report does not provide any scientific basis for its use of an average occupancy of two persons per hotel room. This number may actually vary during the week with a lower average number during the week when business travel is the dominant activity and higher average occupancy during the weekend when family and tourist travel is more dominant – which would be offset by the lower levels of employment during those times. Evenly Distributing Visitor Trips Throughout the Week – Similar to the assumptions on hotel occupancy, the City of Boston report estimates that visitor trips to Boston are evenly distributed throughout the week. In fact, it is more likely that visitor trips to Boston are clustered during nights and weekend, times when there are fewer employees present. Not Accounting for Chained Trips at NPS Facilities – The estimation of visitors to the National Park Service facilities does not include any discussion of chained trips, where tourists visit multiple facilities throughout the day. This type of activity is likely, due to the popularity of tour buses and the various walking trails within the City of Boston. Without accounting for the fact that many tourists are likely to visit multiple locations in a single day, the estimation procedures are likely to lead to an over count of visitors. vii. Sensitive Environmental Concerns The numerous environmentally sensitive areas along the proposed route, although mentioned in the Battelle Report, were not given an adequate level of consideration. For instance, the Cambridge (Hobbs Brook) Reservoir and the Stony Brook Reservoir, which abut Route 128 in Waltham, feed the Fresh Pond reservoir via aqueduct and represent the sole drinking water supply for the City of Cambridge. Taking into consideration the 105,000+ Cambridge residents, numerous schools, businesses and hospitals that would be adversely affected by an incident affecting these resources, it was concluded in the Battelle Report that “[f]actors besides risk such as emergency response capabilities, the location of sensitive May 14, 2012

25

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

environmental features, climate and the burden on commerce – while worthy of consideration – do not represent factors that can be used to effectively discriminate among the alternative through routes.” Battelle Report, at p. 107. MassDOT feels that these factors, combined with the speed and release risks, need a higher weight in our evaluation process. Consultation with Sister Commonwealth Agencies – In order to address the public comments related to sensitive environmental concerns, MassDOT consulted with, and requested technical assistance from, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MassDEP”). MassDEP is an agency within the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and is the Commonwealth agency responsible for ensuring clean air and water, the safe management of toxics and hazards, the recycling of solid and hazardous wastes, the timely cleanup of hazardous waste sites and spills, and the preservation of wetlands and coastal resources. MassDEP’s comments with respect to routing materials forwarded for their review were as follows: 1. MassDEP determined that the City of Boston’s analysis did include an evaluation of potential impacts to sensitive environmental resources along the alternative routes. However, based on the level of detail provided in the DOT package reviewed by DEP, it appears that the environmental issues within DEP’s jurisdiction have been appropriately identified and we find no major issues of facts, e.g. the discussion of ethanol issues. In addition, the analysis’s use of the MassGIS data layers is an appropriate reference to identify and locate sensitive environments and key resource areas along the alternative routes studied. There are issues, however, regarding the GIS data layers Battelle used in “Identifying Sensitive Environments near Routes being Evaluated.” Battelle’s methodology references specific GIS layers (all available from MassGIS) in their methodology to identify and assess three (3) types of sensitive environmental sites: a. Areas of ecological importance such as wetlands and habitats of threatened or endangered species. b. Watersheds, major aquifers and reservoirs that serve as water sources for drinking water or critical habitats. c. Natural areas of exceptional recreational value such as scenic rivers and wilderness areas. The list does not include several Public Water Supply (“PWS”) specific GIS data layers that we feel could be useful for this type of assessment. The list references the PWS “Surface Water Supply Watersheds”, but does not include any PWS groundwater information such as “Approved Wellhead Protection Areas” (Zone II) or “Interim Wellhead Protection Areas” (“IWPA”). There are multiple Zone II and IWPA areas that are within .5 miles of the proposed alternative routes, but we found no reference to PWS groundwater areas in the study (Appendix E: Environmental Tables or Figure 20: Major Sensitive Environmental Areas Located Within One Half Mile of the Routes). 2. The Battelle Report also states that the methodology included aquifer information, but the only MassGIS layer in the list that contains aquifer areas is the “Non-Potential Drinking Water Source Areas” (“NPDWSA”). The NPDWSA layer is a MassDEP developed subset of the MassGIS “Potentially Productive Aquifers” (“PPA”) layer. The NPDWSA May 14, 2012

26

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

layer contains only the medium and high yield PPA areas that are not required to support OHM clean up to GW-1 standards under the MCP. There are several PPA areas (that are not NPDWSA), which fall within .5 miles of the alternative routes. A detailed description of the NPDWSA layer can be found at (http://www.mass.gov/mgis/npdwsa.htm). 3. The Battelle Report included a quantitative analysis of the environmental risks for the alternative routes. This analysis is based on FHWA guidance that presents a method for quantifying the relative risk to sensitive environments based on measuring the area of environmental resources. The analysis found that from an environmental risk point of view, the route through Boston has the lowest environmental risk. MassDEP believes that the use of the aforementioned GIS layers would likely support this conclusion. 4. There are many natural and man-made sensitive resource features along Route 128 that could be adversely impacted by accidental releases of OHM. Many of these sensitive areas are critical and include wetland resource areas, some of which may be hydraulically connected to public water supplies. The analyses identified many of these key resource areas, which are of particular significance as they serve as valuable drinking water resources. These areas of MassDEP response activities (both long term and immediate) will always consider potential imminent threats to public health (e.g., from contamination of water supplies). There are also many other natural resource areas along this highway corridor that could be adversely impacted by the release of OHM, particularly since many roadway drainage systems can lead to regulated wetland resource areas. The Battelle Report appears to have done an adequate job in identifying and characterizing these risks to environmentally sensitive areas. 5. While the City route alternatives do not have as many sensitive resource areas as the “128” alternative, there are several key issues that MassDEP “first responders” focus on in this urban environment. The potential for imminent threats from the release of OHM are a key concern -- particularly short and longer term air quality impact issues. The urban core is already stressed from an air quality perspective, so any transportation related release of OHM that can impact air quality, particularly to the degree that any such release may represent an imminent threat to public health, is a key concern and will be a key focus of MassDEP “first responders.” 6. Potential impacts to Boston Harbor and associated coastal/wetland resource are also a key concern for highway related releases in the City area. Many roadway drainage systems are connected hydraulically to the Harbor so OHM releases can make their way into the Harbor environment. In recent years this has become more of a concern after billions of dollars have been invested to improve the water quality and ecological health of the Boston Harbor natural system. 7. Finally, the presence of combined sewage/drainage systems in the Boston area leads to concerns over impacts to wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., a release of a toxic material into a storm drain that disrupts biological treatment processes at a wastewater facility, which could impact communities relying on the MWRA treatment facility). In order to address the public comments related to emergency response, MassDOT consulted with, and requested technical assistance from, the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services (“DFS”) and the Massachusetts State Police (“MSP”). Both the DFS and the MSP are May 14, 2012

27

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

public safety agencies housed within the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (“EOPSS”). The mission of the DFS is, through coordinated training, education, prevention, investigation, and emergency response, to provide the citizens of Massachusetts with the ability to create safer communities; to assist and support the fire service community in the protection of life and property; to promote and enhance firefighter safety; and to provide a fire service leadership presence in EOPSS in order to direct policy and legislation on all fire related matters. The mission of the MSP is, among other things, to form partnerships with federal, state and local public safety entities, promote highway safety through enforcement and education, investigate and suppress violent crimes, protect civil rights, support homeland security and criminal intelligence, support forensic science and information technology, and support the statewide emergency 911 system. DFS’s comments with respect to routing materials forwarded for their review were as follows: 1. During high traffic flow periods, any accident on Route 128 will quickly develop a traffic congestion impact that will extend beyond Route 128 onto surface feeder roadways. This will impact hazardous material response to the primary event. The Battelle Report, however, does not contain any comprehensive assessment of local fire department responses nor were they consulted according to the report. Anecdotally, hazardous materials spills from trucks in transportation generally involve roll-over incidents or load shifting incidents from sudden stops. Higher travel speeds increase the probability of either type of event. 2. The Battelle Report’s assessment that “many” of the fire departments along Route 128 “have” volunteers is not accurate, nor reflective of capability. The State Fire Marshal recommends that further study be conducted to garner a true assessment of local fire department capabilities along the Route 128 corridor. The report does not identify what additional training and equipment will be required. The report references a lack of “special services,” but does not support the claim nor provide a definition of “Special Services” such that a cogent response is possible. It should be noted that hazardous materials presently travel along Route 128; however, the Battelle Report implies the opposite. The objective response time for the regional hazardous materials teams, operated by the Department of Fire Services is, 30 – 60 minutes. 3. No comprehensive data is provided to support the claims as to foam availability for either Boston or the communities along Route 128. To properly evaluate this metric, it would be necessary to survey three types of assets in both environments: (1) dedicated foam assets, such as foam trailers, (2) foam capable apparatus, e.g. engine companies with foam appliances and/or modules, and (3) specialized apparatus. It is important to note that aircraft crash rescue apparatus cannot be equipped with alcohol resistant foam per Federal Aviation Administration requirements. It is also necessary to evaluate the foam types, compatibilities and volumes on hand. Finally, response plans and training in the selection and application of foam, foam appliances, and methods must be assessed in order to determine a capability. 4. The Battelle Report provides no analysis of response capabilities or supporting documentation, simply a narrative. Neither the report, nor its “Appendix A: References” list an evaluation of plans, training and equipment for the management of hazardous May 14, 2012

28

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

materials releases from over-the-road transportation vessels, nor references and applicable standards. The Battelle Report provides no basis for conclusion of emergency response capabilities MSP’s comments with respect to routing materials forwarded for their review were as follows: 1. Emergency response to an accident on 128 will be a challenge, especially when the breakdown lanes are opened to accommodate heavier traffic flow. TRUE. Speeds on 128 will also lead to greater, more severe accidents. The faster a vehicle is going, the more difficult it is to stop. Hazmat trucks traveling at high rates of speed are more likely to rollover and/or result in an uncontrolled release of hazardous materials compared to travelling at lower speeds through surface streets on the existing route. True. Although gasoline tanker trucks rollovers are infrequent, they are commonly caused by passenger cars cutting off tankers and forcing the tanker driver to engage is a risky highway speed evasive maneuver that frequently ends in a tanker rollover. These events are normally associated with 55 or 65 mph interstate roadways. 2. Route 128 communities are not equipped with special services (many have volunteer fire fighters) for hazmat response and operations, unlike Boston and Cambridge. The proposed route will require the Route 128 communities to provide additional training and equipment (at higher cost than cities/towns are resourced for). The 30-60 minute response times are much higher for the Route 128 communities (which do not have dedicated hazmat response teams) compared to the “minutes” needed to respond in Boston. Access to foam is limited (readily available on the current route in Everett, Cambridge, and Revere).True. The new gasoline formulations with ethanol pose new challenges and require special foam not readily available. 3. The Battelle report fails to give adequate consideration and weight to the emergency response capabilities and times for the 128 communities. True. The regional hazardous materials teams may arrive quickly but need time for all the equipment and command staff to arrive and initiate operations. Road closure times can range from eight to twentyfour hours. VIII.

CONCLUSION & ROUTING RECOMMENDATION

Based on the above findings and the information presented during the public participation and consultative process, MassDOT recommends - in the interest of ensuring enhanced public safety - revising the City’s proposed routing designation. This determination was not taken lightly, and combined weighting the exposures as they relate to enhanced public safety under the regulations. MassDOT has determined that the speed and volumes of the routes examined must be taken into consideration as they relate to potential release and potential crash exposure, during the daytime and nighttime hours. MassDOT believes the City justified the daytime “time of travel” restriction for the Downtown Area29 of the City. MassDOT’s findings support this justification and show that the relative risk between the City Surface Route and Route 128 remains greater than 50% during the daytime hours. MassDOT recommends adopting Route 128 29

See supra note 5.

May 14, 2012

29

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

as the preferred daytime designated through route and adopting a restriction, from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM, for the through transportation of hazardous material without a point of origin or destination in the City. Based on our review of the Battelle Report, the corresponding question and answer documentation provided by the City of Boston and Battelle and our internal data analysis, MassDOT does not believe the Battelle Report provides sufficient justification to enact the nighttime “time of travel” through transport restriction for the City Surface Route.30 A review of the crash data and accident rates based on the roadway classifications along the City Surface Route, show a decrease in the overall percentages of crashes and lower accident rates over what is presented in the Battelle Report. Conversely, our review of the crash data and accident rates for the Interstate shows a significant increase in the percentage of crashes observed in the nighttime versus the daytime, and a higher accident rate than what the Battelle Report shows. The “Risk Summary of Six Alternative Through Hazmat Routes” (Table 28) presented in the Battelle Report indicates the relative risks associated with the various routes by day and night, where the risk is simply the accident rate multiplied by the population (along to the route). If the accident rate were significantly higher then presented, than the resulting risk would be significantly higher and vise versa. When calculating the relative risks between nighttime and daytime the Battelle report utilized a constant accident rate specific to the functional classifications of roadways considered. Table 8, in this document, summarizes the comparison in accident rates between nighttime and daytime. The Table indicates that the accident rate on the interstate is approximately 25% higher in the nighttime (0.32 night versus 0.25 day) and the accident rates on the Urban Principal Arterial is nearly halved at nighttime (0.54 night versus 0.99 day). Furthermore, because the predominant route around Route 128 (I-95) is on the interstate and the predominant preferred route through Boston is on Urban Principal Arterials, it would appear that the relative risk between the two routes dramatically changes between nighttime and daytime. In addition, MassDOT has some concerns regarding the population assumptions but, at this time, was unable to reproduce the nighttime versus daytime data presented in the Battelle Report. If the population adjustments, as identified in this report, were considered, perhaps the change in the relative risk between nighttime and daytime for the routes would be even greater. This leads MassDOT to conclude that nighttime truck travel through the City Surface Route (Figure 1) is safer than along the Route 128 Beltway (Figure 2). Therefore, MassDOT recommends hazardous material carriers use the prescribed surface route for travel through the Downtown Boston Area between the hours of 8:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Refer to the detailed route listing provided in the “Metro-Boston Non-Radioactive Hazardous Material Route Designation” notice. As part of this recommendation, MassDOT further recommends implementing a truck speed restriction along the downtown route, providing assistance to the City in altering the nighttime timing for signals along the on Downtown surface route, posting allowable time of day use tabs on all Hazardous Cargo route signs, and working with City and State Public Safety Officials regarding increased speed enforcement during the nighttime hours. 30

The City has also stated that the data and justification for the nighttime through hazardous material restriction is not as persuasive as the daytime restriction. This is also reflected in the Battelle Report, which notes the inherent “uncertainties in any risk assessment” and provides that the “results for nighttime transport are less robust.” Battelle Report, at 108. “[C]are should also be taken in assigning undue importance to relatively small differences in risk values among route. In such cases, some consideration should be given to the statistical uncertainty of the underlying data.” Id. at 84. May 14, 2012

30

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

MassDOT will, however, continue to monitor and evaluate additional traffic and safety data analysis on the nighttime ban requested. In addition, MassDOT intends to conduct a Regional Hazardous Material Routing study. The study is necessary to adequately assess and address the safety implications of the routing designation on all affected communities. A better understanding of the regional hazardous material flow properties needs to be provided prior to making an ultimate determination on the implementation of the nighttime ban of hazardous material routing through the City of Boston. MassDOT believes this recommendation enhances the public safety in accordance with the Department’s regulatory requirements provided in 49 C.F.R. § 397.71 and is a fair and reasonable approach based on the comments and consultative materials received through the routing designation process.

May 14, 2012

31

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION – HIGHWAY DIVISION

NOTICE OF REGULATION Metro-Boston Non-Radioactive Hazardous Material Route Designation Effective June 13, 2012: The Non-Radioactive Hazardous Materials (“NRHM”) route designation is divided into two main categories as follows: (1) Restricted Route for ALL NRHM and (2) Designated NRHM Route. Each route is identified with one or more restriction or designation codes which follow the route description. Restriction codes identify which materials may not be transported along the given route, while designation codes indicate which materials the routing authority has determined should be shipped along the preferred/recommended or prescribed route. These codes can be deciphered using the Restriction/Designation key which precedes the route listing. Note that the designation code “A” when used in conjunction with code “PREF” indicates a preferred route designated for transport of ALL NRHM hazmats. Use of “PRES” with designation code “A” represents the prescribed route for the transport of ALL NRHM hazmats.

Restrictions

RESTRICTION/DESIGNATION KEY Designations

0—ALL Hazmats 1—Class 1—Explosives 2—Class 2—Gas 3—Class 3—Flammable 4—Class 4—Flammable Solid/Combustible 5—Class 5—Organic 6—Class 6—Poison 7—Class 7—Radioactive 8—Class 8—Corrosives 9—Class 9—Dangerous (Other) i—Poisonous Inhalation Hazard (PIH)

May 14, 2012

A—ALL NRHM Hazmats B—Class 1—Explosives I—Poisonous Inhalation Hazard (PIH) M—Medical Waste P—Preferred Route Class 7—Radioactive DESIGNATION TYPE REST = Restricted Route PREF = Preferred Route PRES = Prescribed Route RECOM = Recommended Route

32

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

NON-RADIOACTIVE HAZMAT (NRHM) ROUTES MASSACHUSETTS NRHM Designated Routes Designation Date: June 13, 2012

Route Description

Restrict Desig 01234567 89i ABIMP

[PREFERRED THROUGH ROUTE FOR ALL NRHM HAZMATS APPROACHING THE CITY OF BOSTON WITHOUT A POINT OF ORIGIN OR DESTINATION WITHIN THE CITY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6:00 AM AND 8:00 PM] For vehicles approaching Boston from Quincy and points south, the northbound route starts at Exit 9 on I-93 and continues as follows: Start on I­ 93 at Exit 9, South on I-93 to its termination at Exit 1 where the roadway continues as I-95N, North on I-95 to Exit 37A to I-93S, South on I-93 to the MA-38 ramp, South on MA-38, South on Maffa Way to Cambridge Street, East on Cambridge Street to Alford Street/MA-99, Northeast on Alford Street/MA-99, End on Alford St./MA-99 Bridge before Everett.

A; PREF & RECOM

For vehicles approaching Boston from Everett and points north, the southbound route starts on MA-99 Bridge before Everett and continues as follows: Start on Alford Street/MA-99 Bridge just before Everett, Southwest on Alford Street/MA-99, Northwest onto Main Street to Mystic Avenue/MA­ 38, North on the Mystic Avenue to I-93N ramp, North on I-93 to the I-95S ramp, South on I-95 to Exit 12 where the roadway continues as I-93N, North on I-93, End on I-93 at Exit 9. Hazmat through cargoes approaching from other points west, north or south, may access and join the preferred hazmat route at the nearest logical access point outside of Downtown Boston along I­ 93N, I-93S or I-95. [PRESCRIBED THROUGH ROUTE FOR ALL NRHM HAZMATS APPROACHING THE CITY OF BOSTON WITHOUT A POINT OF ORIGIN OR DESTINATION WITHIN THE CITY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 PM AND 6:00 AM] For vehicles approaching Boston from Quincy and points south, the northbound route starts at Exit 9 on I-93 and continues as follows: Start at Exit 9 on I-93, North on I-93, North on I-93 Frontage Road, Northeast on Atlantic Avenue, Northwest onto Cross Street, North on North Washington Street, Northwest on Rutherford Avenue, Northeast on Alford Street/MA-99, End on Alford Street/MA-99 Bridge just before Everett.

A; PRES

For vehicles approaching Boston from Everett and points north, the southbound route starts on MA-99 Bridge before Everett and continues as follows: Start at the Alford Street Bridge/MA-99 just before Everett, Southwest on Alford Street/MA-99, Southeast on Rutherford Avenue, South on North Washington Street, Southwest onto John F. Fitzgerald Surface Road, South on Purchase Street, South on Surface Road, South on Albany Street, South on I-93 Frontage Road, South on I-93. May 14, 2012

33

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

NON-RADIOACTIVE HAZMAT (NRHM) ROUTES MASSACHUSETTS NRHM Restricted Routes Designation Date: June 13, 2012

Route Description

City of Boston [City Streets in Downtown Area] [Use of City Streets in the Downtown Area for the through transportation of ALL NRHM in the City of Boston is prohibited between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. where there is neither a point of origin nor destination (delivery point) within the City. For local deliveries within Boston, use of City Streets in the Downtown Area for the transportation of NRHM is further STRICTLY PROHIBITED during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, except on Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. When city streets are to be used for local deliveries, the transporter must use Major Thoroughfares to a point as close as possible to the destination and comply with 49 CFR 397.67.] Downtown Area is defined as the area bounded by and including Massachusetts Avenue at the Mass. Ave. Entrance Ramp to the Southeast Expressway, the Southeast Expressway to the Kneeland Street Ramp, along Kneeland Street to Atlantic Avenue then along a line following the waterfront to the Charles River, along the Charles River to Massachusetts Avenue and along Massachusetts Avenue to the Mass. Ave Entrance Ramp to the Southeast Expressway, all as shown on the map attached and incorporated as Exhibit A to the City of Boston’s Regulations Controlling the Transportation of Hazardous Materials, issued December 15, 1980.

May 14, 2012

Restrict Desig 01234567 89i ABIMP

1,2,3,4,5, 6,8,9, i;, REST

1,2,3,4,5, 6,8,9, i; REST

34

Massachusetts Department of Transportation

APPENDIX

May 14, 2012

35

City of Boston Roadways: Day / Night Traffic Volume Comparison #

Area

Count Location

Functional Classification

Date

Direction

Daytime

Nighttime

Total

% Daytime % Nighttime

1

Back Bay Columbus Ave., East of Dartmouth St.

Urban Principal Arterial

10/26/2011

EB

3,645

1,742

5,387

67.66%

32.34%

2

Back Bay Columbus Ave., East of Dartmouth St.

Urban Principal Arterial

10/26/2011

WB

4,607

2,597

7,204

63.95%

36.05%

3

Back Bay Ruggles Street, North of Tremont St.

Urban Minor Arterial

10/26/2011

NB

8,183

2,809

10,992

74.45%

25.55%

4

Back Bay Ruggles Street, North of Tremont St.

Urban Minor Arterial

10/26/2011

SB

7,775

3,258

11,033

70.47%

29.53%

5

Back Bay Marginal Road, West of Shawmut Ave.

Urban Minor Arterial

10/25/2011

W

4,317

1,710

6,027

71.63%

28.37%

6

Back Bay Herald Street, East of Tremont St.

Urban Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

E

9,599

4,747

14,346

66.91%

33.09%

7

Back Bay E. Berkely Street, West of Albany St.

Urban Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

W

11,065

3,957

15,022

73.66%

26.34%

8

Back Bay E. Berkely Street, East of Tremont St.

Urban Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

W

10,391

3,968

14,359

72.37%

27.63%

9

Back Bay Berkely Street, North of Chandler St.

Urban Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

N

6,993

2,522

9,515

73.49%

26.51%

10

Back Bay Berkely Street, North of Columbus Ave. Urban Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

N

7,938

3,121

11,059

71.78%

28.22%

Back Bay Tremont Street, North of E. Berkely St.

Urban Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

N

5,307

2,098

7,405

71.67%

28.33%

Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

E

13,655

5,807

19,462

70.16%

29.84%

11 12

Bowker I/C Boylston Street, North of Park Dr.

13

Bowker I/C Boylston Street, North of Park Dr.

Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

W

13,959

5,099

19,058

73.24%

26.76%

14

Bowker Int. Boylston Street, East of Yawkey Way

Principal Arterial

10/26/2011

EB

11,897

5,437

17,334

68.63%

31.37%

15

Bowker Int. Boylston Street, East of Yawkey Way

Principal Arterial

10/26/2011

WB

13,326

5,954

19,280

69.12%

30.88%

16

Bowker Int. Boylston Street, East of Muddy River

Principal Arterial

10/26/2011

EB

11,743

4,969

16,712

70.27%

29.73%

17

Bowker Int. Boylston Street, East of Muddy River

Principal Arterial

10/26/2011

WB

10,240

4,786

15,026

68.15%

31.85%

18

Bowker Int. Bowker Overpass over Comm. Ave.

Principal Arterial

10/26/2011

NB

18,129

8,164

26,293

68.95%

31.05%

19

Bowker Int. Bowker Overpass over Comm. Ave.

Principal Arterial

10/26/2011

SB

19,663

7,234

26,897

73.10%

26.90%

20

Bowker Int. Beacon Street over Mass Pike

Urban Principal Arterial

10/26/2011

EB

5,541

2,301

7,842

70.66%

29.34%

21

Bowker Int. Beacon Street over Mass Pike

Urban Principal Arterial

10/26/2011

WB

7,722

4,018

11,740

65.78%

34.22%

22

Bowker Int. Brookline Avenue over Mass Pike

Urban Principal Arterial

10/26/2011

EB

3,999

1,606

5,605

71.35%

28.65%

23

Bowker Int. Brookline Avenue over Mass Pike

Urban Principal Arterial

10/26/2011

WB

4,888

1,841

6,729

72.64%

27.36%

Urban Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

E

11,885

5,341

17,226

68.99%

31.01%

Gilmore Bridge

Urban Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

W

11,535

4,286

15,821

72.91%

27.09%

Charles River Dam

Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

N

11,398

4,897

16,295

69.95%

30.05%

Charles River Dam

Principal Arterial

4/27/2010

S

15,483

6,458

21,941

70.57%

29.43%

O'Brien Highway, North of Land Blvd.

Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

N

10,276

4,718

14,994

68.53%

31.47%

O'Brien Highway, North of Land Blvd.

Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

S

13,323

5,126

18,449

72.22%

27.78%

Land Boulevard, West of O'Brien Hwy.

Urban Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

E

10,750

5,012

15,762

68.20%

31.80%

Land Boulevard, West of O'Brien Hwy.

Urban Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

W

11,831

3,855

15,686

75.42%

24.58%

Longfellow Bridge

Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

N

8,637

3,054

11,691

73.88%

26.12%

Longfellow Bridge

Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

S

9,028

3,960

12,988

69.51%

30.49%

Harvard Bridge (Mass. Ave.)

Urban Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

N

11,245

5,546

16,791

66.97%

33.03%

Harvard Bridge (Mass. Ave.)

Urban Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

S

9,889

4,982

14,871

66.50%

33.50%

365,454

153,220

518,674

70.46%

29.54%

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River

Gilmore Bridge

City of Boston -- Haz Mat Route Roadways: Day / Night Traffic Volume Comparison #

STA

Count Location

Date

Direction

Daytime

Nighttime

Total

% Daytime % Nighttime

1

Downtown Surface Artery S. of New Chardon St.

Urban Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

S

3,430

1,285

4,715

72.75%

27.25%

2

Downtown Surface Artery S. of North St

Urban Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

S

4,620

1,857

6,477

71.33%

28.67%

3

Downtown Surface Artery, South of Summer St.

Urban Principal Arterial

3/27/2012

S

11,686

4,985

16,671

70.10%

29.90%

4

Downtown Congress St., East of Purchase St.

Urban Principal Arterial

3/27/2012

W

8,981

3,471

12,452

72.12%

27.88%

Urban Collector

3/27/2012

E

4,364

1,777

6,141

71.06%

28.94%

5

Seaport

Northern Ave., West of D St.

6

Seaport

Northern Ave., West of D St.

Urban Collector

3/27/2012

S

6,167

2,418

8,585

71.83%

28.17%

7

Seaport

Northern Ave., North of Seaport Blvd.

Urban Collector

3/27/2012

E

1,386

410

1,796

77.17%

22.83%

Seaport

Northern Ave., North of Seaport Blvd.

Urban Collector

3/27/2012

S

1,053

323

1,376

76.53%

23.47%

Alford St., South of West St.

Urban Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

E

12,042

6,673

18,715

64.34%

35.66%

Alford St., South of West St.

Urban Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

S

7,125

2,958

10,083

70.66%

29.34%

Rutherford Ave., North of Baldwin St.

Urban Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

E

10,361

4,326

14,687

70.55%

29.45%

Rutherford Ave., North of Baldwin St.

Urban Principal Arterial

10/25/2011

S

13,541

4,711

18,252

74.19%

25.81%

Charlestown Bridge

Urban Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

N

11,025

4,746

15,771

69.91%

30.09%

Charlestown Bridge

Urban Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

S

16,521

7,251

23,772

69.50%

30.50%

Rutherford Avenue, North of Austin St.

Urban Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

N

27,141

11,815

38,956

69.67%

30.33%

Urban Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

S

12,339

4,954

17,293

71.35%

28.65%

Urban Minor Arterial

4/13/2011

S

5,291

2,516

7,807

67.77%

32.23%

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River E. Charles River

Rutherford Avenue, North of Austin St.

17 Leverett Cir. Martha Road 18 Leverett Cir. Nashua Street

Urban Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

E

4,057

931

4,988

81.34%

18.66%

19 Leverett Cir. Nashua Street

Urban Principal Arterial

4/13/2010

W

6,244

2,793

9,037

69.09%

30.91%

20

Urban Principal Arterial

3/27/2012

E

Downtown High St., North of Congress St.

2391

651

3042

78.60%

21.40%

169,765

70,851

240,616

70.55%

29.45%

Metro-Boston - Freeways: Day / Night Traffic Volume Comparison #

City / Town

1

Quincy

I-93, 1.1 km North of Route 28

Quincy

I-93, 1.1 km North of Route 28

2

Count Location

Functional Classification

Date

Direction

Daytime

Nighttime

Total

Interstate

11/18/2011

N

66,722

25,729

92,451

Interstate

11/18/2011

S

72,577

26,508

99,085

73.25%

26.75%

6/3/2011

N

43,518

18,722

62,240

69.92%

30.08%

3

Stoughton Route 24, South of Route 139

Principal Arterial

4

Stoughton Route 24, South of Route 139

Principal Arterial

% Daytime % Nighttime 72.17%

27.83%

6/3/2011

S

44,655

21,291

65,946

67.71%

32.29%

5

Medford

I-93 at Stoneham T.L.

Interstate

11/10/2011

N

61,213

32,841

94,054

65.08%

34.92%

6

Medford

I-93 at Stoneham T.L.

Interstate

11/10/2011

S

66,135

27,168

93,303

70.88%

29.12%

7

Weston

I-95 Weston, 0.3 mi. South of Rt. 20

Interstate

11/15/2011

N

73,230

18,572

91,802

79.77%

20.23%

8

Boston

I-90 Alston/Brighton Tolls

Interstate

3/7/2012

E

80,865

23,196

104,061

77.71%

22.29%

9

Boston

I-90 Alston/Brighton Tolls

Interstate

3/7/2012

W

77,678

25,738

103,416

75.11%

24.89%

586,593

219,765

806,358

72.75%

27.25%

I-93 / Southeast Expressway - South of Boston

Week of March 19-23 I-93 SB 0.3 mi. North of Savin Hill

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

312,795

30,319

9,690

3,230

43,239

Night Total

148,153

6,937

2,809

937

10,683

Day %

67.86%

81.38%

77.53%

77.51%

80.19%

Night %

32.14%

18.62%

22.47%

22.49%

19.81%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

266,028

12,009

5,843

658

18,510

Night Total

107,885

2,869

2,011

175

5,055

Day %

71.15%

80.72%

74.40%

78.99%

78.55%

Night %

28.85%

19.28%

25.60%

21.01%

21.45%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

304,762

22,239

8,012

2,111

32,362

Night Total

135,868

7,339

3,447

671

11,457

Day %

69.17%

75.19%

69.92%

75.88%

73.85%

Night %

30.83%

24.81%

30.08%

24.12%

26.15%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Week of March 19-23 I-93 SB 0.2 mi. South of Granite St. (Rt. 37)

Week of March 19-23 I-93 NB 0.2 mi. South of Granite St. (Rt. 37)

Week of March 19-23 I-93 NB

Day Total

289,645

36,080

14,198

4,845

55,123

0.3 mi. South of Furnace Brook Pkwy

Night Total

143,702

13,775

5,111

911

19,797

Day %

66.84%

72.37%

73.53%

84.17%

73.58%

Night %

33.16%

27.63%

26.47%

15.83%

26.42%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

259,867

22,686

2,168

0

24,854

Night Total

96,150

9,814

840

0

10,654

Day %

72.99%

69.80%

72.07%

0.00%

70.00%

Night %

27.01%

30.20%

27.93%

0.00%

30.00%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

231,323

14,534

6,264

742

21,540

Night Total

83,847

3,389

2,445

127

5,961

Day %

73.40%

81.09%

71.93%

85.39%

78.32%

Night %

26.60%

18.91%

28.07%

14.61%

21.68%

Total Day/Night Truck Split

Day Vol Tot:

195,628

Day %

75.46%

(I-93 South of Boston)

Night Vol Tot

63,607

Night %

24.54%

Week of March 19-23 I-93 SB 0.3 mi. South of Ponkapoag Trail

Week of March 19-23 I-93 NB 0.3 mi. South of Ponkapoag Trail

I-93 - North of Boston

Week of March 19-23

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

305,456

19,399

7,603

1,880

28,882

Night Total

141,669

8,719

3,504

613

12,836

Day %

68.32%

68.99%

68.45%

75.41%

69.23%

Night %

31.68%

31.01%

31.55%

24.59%

30.77%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

334,944

17,812

6,893

1,390

26,095

Night Total

124,519

4,194

1,898

70

6,162

Day %

72.90%

80.94%

78.41%

95.21%

80.90%

Night %

27.10%

19.06%

21.59%

4.79%

19.10%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

281,052

22,511

7,798

3,318

33,627

Night Total

123,715

7,274

2,723

591

10,588

Day %

69.44%

75.58%

74.12%

84.88%

76.05%

Night %

30.56%

24.42%

25.88%

15.12%

23.95%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

299,341

17,285

7,002

823

25,110

Night Total

109,665

3,873

2,197

100

6,170

Day %

73.19%

81.69%

76.12%

89.17%

80.27%

Night %

26.81%

18.31%

23.88%

10.83%

19.73%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

221,536

18,894

6,323

2,468

27,685

Night Total

110,591

8,268

3,101

623

11,992

Day %

66.70%

69.56%

67.09%

79.84%

69.78%

Night %

33.30%

30.44%

32.91%

20.16%

30.22%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

232,408

13,570

4,317

1,054

18,941

Night Total

98,654

2,565

1,068

58

3,691

Day %

70.20%

84.10%

80.17%

94.78%

83.69%

Night %

29.80%

15.90%

19.83%

5.22%

16.31%

Total Day/Night Truck Split

Day Vol Tot:

160,340

Day %

75.71%

(I-93 South of Boston)

Night Vol Tot:

51,439

Night %

24.29%

I-93 SB 0.3 mi. South of Montvale Ave.

Week of March 19-23 I-93 NB 0.3 mi. South of Montvale Ave.

Week of March 19-23 I-93 SB 400 ft. North of Webster St.

Week of March 19-23 I-93 NB 400 ft. North of Webster St.

Week of March 19-23 I-93 SB 0.1 mi. North of Shore Dr.

Week of March 19-23 I-93 NB 0.1 mi. North of Shore Dr.

I-95 Beltway Around Boston

Week of March 19-23

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

331,043

13,595

8,368

874

22,837

0.4 mi. North of Night Total Cambridge Street Day % (US 3) Night %

103,928

4,222

3,179

192

7,593

76.11%

76.30%

72.47%

81.99%

75.05%

23.89%

23.70%

27.53%

18.01%

24.95%

Week of March 19-23

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

301,991

12,887

5,934

975

19,796

0.4 mi. North of Night Total Cambridge Street Day % (US 3) Night %

95,049

2,938

2,522

71

5,531

76.06%

81.43%

70.18%

93.21%

78.16%

23.94%

18.57%

29.82%

6.79%

21.84%

Week of March 19-23

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

303,564

20,219

8,491

1,666

30,376

Night Total

85,599

4,501

3,353

273

8,127

Day %

78.00%

81.79%

71.69%

85.92%

78.89%

Night %

22.00%

18.21%

28.31%

14.08%

21.11%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

257,244

3,187

287

0

3,474

Night Total

87,000

1,234

165

0

1,399

Day %

74.73%

72.09%

63.50%

0.00%

71.29%

Night %

25.27%

27.91%

36.50%

0.00%

28.71%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

224,837

8,788

4,180

986

13,954

Night Total

68,154

1,642

1,498

56

3,196

Day %

76.74%

84.26%

73.62%

94.63%

81.36%

Night %

23.26%

15.74%

26.38%

5.37%

18.64%

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Trucks (Class 2-4)

Day Total

229,732

15,919

3,109

0

19,028

Night Total

86,067

7,795

1,944

0

9,739

Day %

72.75%

67.13%

61.53%

0.00%

66.15%

Night %

27.25%

32.87%

38.47%

0.00%

33.85%

Total Day/Night Truck Split

Day Vol Tot:

109,465

Day %

75.47%

(I-95 Beltway Around Boston)

Night Vol Tot

35,585

Night %

24.53%

I-95 SB

I-95 NB

I-95 NB 0.2 mi. North of Trapelo Rad

Week of March 19-23 I-95 SB 0.2 mi. North of Trapelo Road

Week of March 19-23 I-95 SB 0.3 mi. South of BostonProvidence Tpk

Week of March 19-23 I-95 NB 0.6 mi. North of Great Plain Ave.

Crash Rates - Battelle Procedure

Interstate Principal Arterial Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector

Total Road Miles 982 1,091 1,816 3,962 2,876

Battelle Report Procedure Total Miles with Truck Annual Truck Miles Total Truck Crashes Flow Data Traveled (2007 to 2009)* 932 2,085,665,880 1,881 986 1,237,903,630 1,096 1,580 613,415,784 1,893 182 603,623,948 2,200 1 170,704,340 847

Haz Mat

Route Study

Crash Rates

Crash Rate / 10^6 Miles* 0.30 0.30 1.03 1.21 1.65

* - Battelle Report used a factor for 3-years of crash data in calculation, but actual data reviewed was for 6-years (2004-2009)

Comparison of Crash Rates - Following Battelle Procedure with HPMS Data & Battelle Crashes**

Interstate Principal Arterial Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector

MassDOT Estimation Procedure with Battelle Crashes Total Miles with Truck Annual Truck Miles Total Truck Crashes 2009 HPMS Sample Flow Data Traveled (2004 to 2009)** 482 482 1,181,778,515 1,881 312 140 309,492,656 1,096 1,847 218 442,293,435 1,893 3,755 239 310,419,694 2,200 2,912 146 103,013,772 847

Crash Rate / 10^6 Miles 0.27 0.59 0.71 1.18 1.37

Battelle Report Crash Rate / 10^6 Miles 0.15 0.15 0.51 0.61 0.83

% Increase in Crash Rate from Battelle to MassDOT 76% 300% 39% 94% 66%

** - Adjusted the Battelle Report Crash Rates to reflect use of 6-years of crash data (2004-2009) in calculations

Comparison of Crash Rates - Following Battelle Procedure with HPMS Data & MassDOT Crashes**

Interstate Principal Arterial Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector

MassDOT Estimation Procedure with MassDOT Crashes Total Miles with Truck Annual Truck Miles Total Truck Crashes 2009 HPMS Sample Flow Data Traveled (2004 to 2009)** 482 482 1,181,778,515 1,892 312 140 309,492,656 1,148 1,847 218 442,293,435 2,342 3,755 239 310,419,694 2,476 2,912 146 103,013,772 674

Crash Rate / 10^6 Miles 0.27 0.62 0.88 1.33 1.09

Battelle Report Crash Rate / 10^6 Miles 0.15 0.15 0.51 0.61 0.83

% Increase in Crash Rate from Battelle to MassDOT 78% 319% 72% 119% 32%

** - Adjusted the Battelle Report Crash Rates to reflect use of 6-years of crash data (2004-2009) in calculations

Daytime Crash Rates - Following Battelle Procedure with HPMS Data & MassDOT Crashes

Interstate Principal Arterial Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector

MassDOT Estimation Procedure with MassDOT Crashes Total Miles with Truck Annual Truck Miles Daytime Truck Miles Total Truck Crashes 2009 HPMS Sample Flow Data Traveled Traveled (2004 to 2009) 482 482 1,181,778,515 892,833,668 1,892 312 140 309,492,656 233,821,702 1,148 1,847 218 442,293,435 334,152,690 2,342 3,755 239 310,419,694 234,522,079 2,476 2,912 146 103,013,772 77,826,905 674

Daytime Total Truck Crashes 1,333 932 1,994 2,122 596

DAYTIME Crash Rate / 10^6 Miles 0.25 0.66 0.99 1.51 1.28

Nighttime Crash Rates - Following Battelle Procedure with HPMS Data & MassDOT Crashes

Interstate Principal Arterial Urban Principal Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector

MassDOT Estimation Procedure with MassDOT Crashes Total Miles with Truck Annual Truck Miles Nighttime Truck Miles Total Truck Crashes Nighttime Total Truck 2009 HPMS Sample Flow Data Traveled Traveled (2004 to 2009) Crashes 482 482 1,181,778,515 288,944,847 1,892 559 312 140 309,492,656 75,670,954 1,148 216 1,847 218 442,293,435 108,140,745 2,342 348 3,755 239 310,419,694 75,897,615 2,476 354 2,912 146 103,013,772 25,186,867 674 78

NIGHTTIME Crash Rate / 10^6 Miles 0.32 0.48 0.54 0.78 0.52

OIL/GAS TANKER ROLLOVERS IN MASSACHUSETTS

DATE

TIME

LOCATION

9/10/2003

1:50 AM

128S at I-93 - Reading

12/5/2007

1:40 AM

Route 99 - Everett

3/14/2008

2:50 PM

7/12/2008

ROADWAY CLASS Interstate

MPH

MATERIAL

SEVERITY

CAUSE

55

Liq. Methane

PI

Excessive Speed

UPA*

25A

Gas

PI

Excessive Speed

Great West Road - Harwich

RMC **

40

Oil

PI

Unknown

5:40 AM

Route 128S - Needham

Interstate

55

Gas

PI

Debris in Road

4/20/2009

5:30 AM

Rt. 60W at Brown Circle - Revere

PA ***

25

Diesel

PI

Excessive Speed

7/6/2009

9:30 AM

I-95N - Newburyport

Interstate

65

Oil

PI

Secondary / Cut Off

12/7/2009

5:30 AM

Rt. 128N at Rt. 3 - Lexington

Interstate

55

Empty

PI

Icy Road / Cut Off?

1/12/2010

9:30 AM

Route 2W - Lincoln/Concord

PA ***

45

Oil

PI

Driver Error / Speed

4/22/2010

11:48 AM

Route 8 at Route 9 - Dalton

RMC **

30

Diesel

PDO

Unknown

6/27/2010

4:40 AM

I-95S Ramp to I-495S - Foxboro

Interstate

25A

Jet Fuel

PI

Inattention / Speed

7/23/2011

2:30 AM

Route 1N - Saugus

PA ***

50

Gas

F (driver)

Secondary Crash

* Urban Principle Arterial ** Rural Major Collector *** Principle Arterial