Note: Mr. Burrington works for Douglas Foy.

He was just in western Massachusetts. His comments: He notices the diversity of situations around the state. He is impressed by the parochialism of Boston. In Massachusetts, there is a range of situations, presenting a challenge to the State to prevent sprawl. An early conclusion is that it doesn’t make sense for the State to prepare zoning for the entire state, since it could prove counterproductive. We are trying another approach, that of presenting guidelines.

SMART GROWTH is transit-oriented development, traditional development. We are in the earliest stage of the process, where we are scoring activities for their "smartness". This is not just a matter of calling something smart growth. Consider Milton, Vermont, which wanted sprawl along a highway "growth node", where they installed sewerage. In this case, they employed the phraseology of smart growth, but it really was sprawl. Doug Foy makes the evaluation simpler: Ask if kids can walk to a library. Actually, they should be able to walk to a larger range of activities.

What kind of infrastructure is already in place? We are interested in your input for developing criteria. In other states, which have gone through the exercise we are entering, there are tax credit programs.

A second aspect is a multi-disciplinary approach to everything, i.e. not just superimposing a new staff on other bureaucracies, but causing people to work in the Governor’s restructuring, co-ordinating agenda.

One of the great challenges for us is the focus on the housing crisis. It makes it easier for us to do the right thing. In other words, it makes it easier for us to say yes. Housing production in this state is difficult. We have to make it clear to developers what we want--To make the tools available.

Transit-oriented development is important. Why hasn’t it happened in the past? How to make it happen. The North Point project is an example. The T has some very good leadership. Dennis DiZoglio is an example. The Highway Department is organizing development initiatives to organize what fix-its are to be made. Dan Grabauskas is interested in new bicycle and trail development. Rails to trails conservancy. Corridor planning and management. Jane Garvey had arranged a process, using the power to grant curb cut access. If a corridor gets sprawled out, access is reduced. Work on this has continued in the Berkshires.

FUNDS: This is a rich society. We have a lot of resources at our disposal. There is a proposal in the House of Representatives to cut the bond cap by one-third. It includes road and bridge and T development. We are going to do two related things about the MBTA. There is a gap between the Program for Mass Transportation (PMT), which is financially unconstrained, and a capital investment plan (CIP). Three expansions are planned: The Silver Line, Arborway and [?]. We cannot do anything beyond this. This is not our doing. Anything beyond Greenbush and Medford is fantasy.

The Governor wants things done on the basis of realistic criteria. We have to get real on expansion projects. We have to look at what has to get dropped from the list.

Related is the T fare raise proposal. This is the impetus for discussion of fare structures and transfers. How to set up this process.

Curtis Davis of Move Massachusetts.: We want comments about the methods of planning rather than specific projects:

Vineet Gupta [Boston Transportation Dept.] on Boston’s efforts.

There is the release of our priorities with land use at the time where the State wants to set priorities. Our priorities are set by the FIX IT FIRST initiative of the State. Improve and fix existing facilities and focus on expanding existing transit service, such as the Silver Line, rather than new projects. Walking to Fairmount Line development. Using stations in existing districts. The expansion of the Silver Line beyond Dudley Sq. southward.

Another project is the Crosstown area and the emerging South Boston area. The Longwood Medical Area, the Urban Ring, the South Boston area--Tying access to jobs with potential development.

Mark Draisen, head of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC).

We are both participants in and critics of the transportation planning process. Points:

1. There is a lack of adequate public input into the planning process, especially in low income areas.

2. There is more concern about land use patterns and transportation development. Both flow both ways.

3. The issue of the environmental process.

We have asked the Governor to establish a major commission for transportation review, now that the Big Dig is nearly over. There are structural criteria and a critique of the planning process, region by region on an MPO process.

The Regional vision and growth strategy process: What we want Boston to look like. We are developing a steering committee.

Former Rep. John Businger.

There is an impression of a contractional philosophy. We have to show what we can do, not what we can’t do. Doug Foy and you say you have $15 billion for projects. You are taking $7 billion from the North-South Rail Link. The the NSRL has never been a T project, posed against other T projects, but [indeed] it doesn’t relate to them. It is an Amtrak and a State project. We are setting good people against each other.

How is the Administration assigning costs to these projects? Are inflated costs assigned to projects the State doesn’t want, vs. pre-inflation costs to other projects?

We have to change the mental landscape, not just the physical landscape. For example, it is Bike Week this week. To slam the City of Boston for what they haven’t gotten to yet. How can we build on what we already have?

Government subsidy of sprawl. Ask the right questions. Do you like to drive? Yes. Do you like to sit in traffic? No. Intermodalism.

Shared use of vehicles. ZipCars. The State should "incentivize" this.

Barry M. Steinberg, APT:

There should be a development of non-parking railroad commuter stations in tandem with the now-familiar railroad passenger platform in the middle of a sea of parking. APT believes in interconnections of transit, to make transit more functional. Projects we support that tie together transit are the Red-Blue Connection, which involves perhaps a quarter of a mile of construction in order to make the Blue Line more useful, [as well as to position it for future growth]. Also, the NSRL, which is a mile of construction, but which would tie together the entire railroad passenger network of the area, both for national and regional purposes. [The NSRL would also make railroad passenger service vastly more functional, providing destination connections that today are only theoretical.] We also support the [integration of the] Silver Line into the Green Line.

You should consider the model of the Ft. Collins, Colorado, planning and zoning. It is based on a point system, where a lot of thought has gone into assigning priorities, embodied in a specified number of points awarded for each positive element of a proposal. For example, if it is near an existing sewer line, there are a certain number of points awarded. If it is near public transportation, more points are awarded. [Presumably, the quality of those connections are reflected in the number of points awarded for that specific category compared to the potential points available for that category.] The project is approved if it amasses a passing score. The effect of this is to encourage certain phases of a project without micro-managing it.