The study, which began in August 2006, was completed in December 2008. The study included three phases. Phase 1 included the developing of the Purpose and Need statement, setting goals and objectives, identifying issues, developing and implementing a Public Involvement Plan, collecting and analyzing data, and developing the initial alternatives. Phase 2 included refining alternatives, developing draft recommendations, and developing the travel demand model and alternative analysis. Phase 3 included developing and presenting a strategic plan.

The I-93 Transit Investment Study requires an appropriate balance among three critical elements:

• a multi-jurisdictional decision-making process;
• built on sound technical analysis; and
• informed by an effective public/stakeholder involvement strategy.

Project Scope

The project scope included three phases of work over a 20-month period.  Phase 1 included the developing of the Purpose and Need statement, setting goals and objectives, identifying issues, developing and implementing a Public Involvement Plan, collecting and analyzing data, and developing the initial alternatives.  Phase 2 included refining alternatives, developing draft recommendations, and developing the travel demand model and alternative analysis.  Phase 3 included developing and presenting a strategic plan. 

A general outline of the scope is listed below:

1: Purpose and Need, alternatives development
1.1: Review studies, reports; summary
1.2: Identify, evaluate existing data
1.3: Research legal, institutional, land-use policy dependencies potentially impacting transit implementation
1.4: Develop outreach plan
1.5: Two public meetings
1.6: Meet interested parties; 20 in Phase I
1.7: Purpose and Need statement
1.8: Identify initial alternatives

2: Refinement, screening of alternatives
2.1: Land-use policy report
2.1.1: Baseline report; existing conditions
2.1.2: Transit-supportive policy alternatives
2.1.3: Station-area development potential
2.1.4: Impact of land-use policy scenarios
2.2: Alternatives evaluation criteria
2.3: Define conceptual alternatives (up to eight): HOV, rail, TSM, BRT
2.4: Evaluation
2.5: Present to committees
2.6: Finalize, alternatives
2.7: Benefits, impacts: economic, environmental, cultural, secondary growth
2.8: Two informational meetings
2.9: Develop TDF model – based on Nashua model
2.10: Alternative forecasts
2.11: TDF report
2.12: Define Tier 2 alternatives (up to four)
2.13: Evaluate alternatives
2.14: Three conceptual station design approaches
2.15: Define, illustrate TOD opportunities
2.16: Benefits, impacts
2.17: “Regulatory framework report”

3: Strategic implementation plan
3.1: Committee discussion
3.2: Draft plan, including financial plan
3.3: Public information meetings
3.4: Advisory committee approval
3.5: Finalize plan, including study deliverables