Last Thursday, March 6th, the Senate passed its version of the Transportation Bond Bill, authorizing $13 billion of capital spending over the next 5 years. The House passed its version on January 29th. Senator Brownsberger in collaboration with House and Senate colleagues secured funding for several projects that will impact residents of Allston, Back Bay, Belmont, Brighton, Fenway, and Watertown. I have created a table summarizing district and other relevant local projects which appear below.
The next step is a conference committee, where the differences between the House and Senate versions will be reconciled and sent back to both chambers for a vote. The compromise bill will then go to the governor’s desk to be signed into law. It is important to note that this bill simply authorizes the state to issue debt to fund these projects and improvements. It is up to the administration to determine which projects they will fund and when to start the work.
Andrew Bettinelli
Legislative Aide
Office of State Senator William N. Brownsberger
| Name | Town | Amount | Text | Bill |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| An Amendment to fund construction in Belmont Center | Belmont | $1,520,000 | provided further, that $1,520,000 shall be expended for construction and oversight of the reconstruction of Belmont Center in Belmont; | House, Senate, Conference |
| Coordinated Multi Use Community Path in Watertown | Watertown | $725,000 | provided further, that $725,000 shall be expended for the various improvements and to create a coordinated multi-use community path through the center of the town of Watertown; | House, Senate, Conference |
| Improvements at the intersection of Fresh Pond Parkway and Mount Auburn Street in Cambridge | Cambridge | $500,000 | provided further, that $500,000 shall be expended for design and permitting to improve safety, bus prioritization, and accessibility at the intersection of Fresh Pond parkway and Mount Auburn street in the city of Cambridge; | House, Senate, Conference |
| Design and construction of Phase II of the Watertown Greenway | Watertown & Cambridge | $1,300,000 | provided further, that $1,300,000 shall be expended for construction of Phase II of the Watertown Greenway multi-use path from Arlington street in the town of Watertown to Fresh Pond Reservation in the city of Cambridge; | House, Senate, Conference |
| MBTA Capacity Investments | MBTA | na | and further by inserting in line 485 after the words “procurement, construction,” the following words:- "including without limitation planning, design and construction of vehicle storage and maintenance facilities and public process related thereto" | Senate, Conference |
| Reconstruction of Waltham Street | Watertown | $1,300,000 | provided further, that $1,300,000 shall be expended for reconstruction of Waltham street from the Waltham line to Rosedale road in the town of Watertown; | House, Conference |
| New Boston Landing | Boston | $10,000,000 | provided further, that $10,000,000 shall be expended for the design and construction of a pedestrian footbridge over the Massachusetts Turnpike with an entry and exit point for the north side of the footbridge on Lincoln street between Antwerp street and South Waverly street in the city of Boston and an entry and exit point on the south side of the footbridge at the proposed New Boston Landing commuter rail stop; | House, Conference |
| Design and construction of bicycle/pedestrian bridge linking Alewife MBTA station to Alewife Triangle and Quadrangle in Cambridge | Cambridge | $500,000 | provided further, that $500,000 shall be expended for the design of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge linking the Alewife quadrangle to the Alewife triangle and the MBTA Alewife station in the city of Cambridge; | House, Conference |
| Watertown Transportation Hub Improvements | Watertown | $500,000 | provided further, that $500,000 shall be expended for transportation hub improvements at Watertown square, including redesign of the delta and improved signage for Galen street in the town of Watertown; | House, Conference |
| Study of transportation improvements on Arsenal Street in Watertown | Watertown | $200,000 | provided further, that $200,000 shall be expended for a study of transportation improvements in support of land use changes and economic development on Arsenal street in the town of Watertown; | House, Conference |
| Priority Intersections | Boston | $4,200,000 | provided further, that $4,200,000 shall be expended for improvements to 11 priority intersections in the Dorchester, South End, East Boston, Mattapan and Roxbury sections of the city of Boston | House, Senate, Conference |
| Complete Streets | na | $50,000,000 | For the complete streets certification program established in chapter 90I of the General Laws to be disbursed in the form of grants to certified cities and towns for infrastructure and planning; provided, that not less than 33 per cent of the grants awarded shall be issued to cities and towns with a median household income below the average of the commonwealth | House, Senate, Conference |
| Intelligent Transportation Upgrades | Boston | $5,000,000 | For the acquisition of information technology and related expenses including, but not limited to, renovation of the operations center and intelligent transportation systems and the development of an asset management system required pursuant to section 6 of chapter 6C of the General Laws; provided further, that not less than $5,000,000 be expended for technology upgrades and intelligent transportation system upgrades in the city of Boston. | House, Conference |
| Ruggles Station | Boston | $25,000,000 | provided further, that $25,000,000 shall be expended for upgrades to Ruggles subway station in the city of Boston; | House, Conference |
| Boston Transit Capacity Study | Boston | $5,000,000 | provided further, that not less than $5,000,000 shall be expended on an analysis of transit capacity issues in greater Boston, including recommendations and preliminary engineering for addressing these challenges | House, Senate, Conference |
| River Street Bridge | Boston | $1,000,000 | provided further, that $1,000,000 shall be expended for the reconstruction and widening of the River Street bridge in the city of Boston | House, Conference |
| Grand Junction Bike Path | Boston, Cambridge, Somerville | $1,500,000 | provided further, that $1,500,000 shall be expended for the design of a rail trail in the Grand Junction railroad corridor in the cities of Cambridge, Somerville and Boston | House, Conference |
From a local perspective, it is also worth mentioning that the bill authorizes $1.5 billion in local assistance for roads under the Chapter 90 program. If we can resolve differences between the House and Senate versions in a timely way, municipalities will be able to get started on their summer road construction in a timely way.
As Andrew notes, bond bill earmarks have no binding force. Many are never funded. Bond bill earmarks serve essentially express to legislative interest in projects. So, Andrew’s list does identify some of the priorities that we in your legislative delegation are trying to advance. I have tried to advance on the Senate side the same priorities as my eight colleagues on the House side who share portions of my district. Working together, we have the best chance of getting things done.
As a matter of policy, I try to avoid earmarks for particular private entities, but I do support earmarks to advance local public projects.
For additional perspective see my comments on the bond bill in the topic titled “Advocating for the Green Line”.
Good job, everyone. It’s important to ‘think ahead!’ ~Blake
The transportation bond bill conference committee has filed its report. I have updated the table posted above to reflect the current status of local projects in the conference committee report. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the transportation bond bill on Thursday, April 17th.
Andrew Bettinelli
Legislative Aide
Office of State Senator William N. Brownsberger
I have always wondered why when a project is undertaken on our roads, be it simply some utility work, why the utility in question doesn’t post a sign that says “NStar” or “Belmont Light” or “National Grid”, or what have you. I lived in Europe 20 years. Such signage is mandatory there. The sign would also indicate the start and end date of the project.
We pay dearly with dimples and pot holes left behind by these utilities that have no idea how to cover a hole and repave properly, so the least they could do is stop being anonymous.
School Street in Belmont was paved in its entirety a couple of years ago, perhaps three (my memory fails me), and here we are with the inevitable dimples left on long sections of the road, dimples created by shoddy repaving after a utility has done some work. I shudder to think what Trapelo road will be like a couple of years after it is completed.
Will,
Why no money for Charles River underpasses? Isn’t this issue worthy of some funding, particularly given the recent delays in the bridge reconstruction schedule? Thanks,
Doug Brown
Hopefully, we’ll be able to keep utilities off Trapelo for a few years — that’s always the goal . . . to get things done ahead of time and a lot of utility work has been done on Trapelo in anticipation of the repaving.
We’ll ask DPU about the signage rules and report back.
To Doug, fair question — we continue to support those underpasses and they are eligible for funding under this bill. They just didn’t get an earmark.