fbpx

Category: Comment Letter

Support for S.1376 ‘An Act relative to automated enforcement’

Support for S.1376 ‘An Act relative to automated enforcement’

October 22, 2019
Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
Michael O. Moore, Senate Chair
State House, Room 109-B
Boston, MA 02133
Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
Harold P. Naughton, Jr., House Chair
State House, Room 167
Boston, MA 02133

Re: Support for S.1376 ‘An Act relative to automated enforcement’

Dear Chair Moore, Chair Naughton, and members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and
Homeland Security:

Thank you for holding a hearing on legislation that promotes road safety in Massachusetts. We are asking you to favorably report out S.1376 An Act relative to automated enforcement. Let’s prevent fatalities, crashes, and injuries on Massachusetts streets.

When employed properly, automated enforcement has been shown to effectively reduce unsafe driving behavior, the number of crashes, and the severity of crash-related injuries. This approach also de-emphasizes officer-initiated traffic stops that can cause concern about racial profiling. Automated enforcement is used in 29 other states.

This bill protects the privacy of drivers and other vehicle occupants, since it requires that only photographs of the rear license plate are recorded. Addressing concerns around equity, it requires cameras be placed in locations with a nexus to safety, has fines limited to $25, and would require a statewide study of any racial and socioeconomic disparities three years after enacted. Cities and towns would only be able to receive revenue that accounts for the costs of the program, and any additional revenue received would go to the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund.

Serious injury and death from traffic crashes continue with troubling frequency on our streets. S.1376 An Act relative to automated enforcement is a comprehensive piece of legislation which aims to create safer streets for all users.

We encourage you to report this legislation out favorably.

Please find the testimony shared this morning at the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security hearing attached (as prepared).

Sincerely,
Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition


Testimony at hearing:

Brendan Kearney, WalkBoston:
Good Morning Chairs and members of the committee. My name is Brendan Kearney, Deputy Director at WalkBoston. Thank you for the opportunity for myself and two of my colleagues from the Vision Zero Coalition to testify in support of Senate Bill 1376, An Act relative to automated enforcement.

The Vision Zero Coalition was formed in fall 2015 to advocate for the implementation of Vision Zero in Boston, and for the reduction of traffic injuries and deaths across Massachusetts. Our coalition includes community-based organizations, nonprofits, businesses, civic groups, and individuals.

Speeding is a huge public safety issue: the Governor’s Highway Safety Association Report “Speeding Away from Zero” released earlier this year shared that 28% of fatal crashes in 2017 in MA were speeding-related. Higher speed, regardless of limit, is a factor in every traffic fatality or serious crash: there is less reaction time for a person driving to brake or avoid a crash, and a fast moving vehicle inflicts higher blunt force trauma on crash victims. Lower speeds have been found to be safer on our roads.

We are thankful that the Municipal Modernization Act of 2016 gave cities and towns the ability to opt-in to lower the prevailing speed limit to 25 miles per hour and create 20 mph safety zones. Similarly, this bill would allow municipalities to opt-in to a safety camera program, within parameters and limits.

Enforcement is one of the tools that we have to reduce traffic speeds on our roadways. Yet, according to EOPSS statistics, motor vehicle citations have declined close to 25% over the past 5 years. Several factors have contributed to this decline – and we think automated enforcement could help address some of these factors.

Traffic enforcement is an important measure for safety — but it must be done equitably. Equitable automated enforcement could allow enforcement within limited budgets and help to remove police bias in traffic stops, if implemented well.

This bill has several measures to design an equitable program. Local municipalities would approve the locations after a public process, with a limit of one fixed camera per 2,500 residents. This bill calls for an annual report to be sent to MassDOT with locations; and after 3 years, requires a statewide study of racial or socioeconomic enforcement disparities from this act. We are happy to engage with committee and stakeholders on any of the language.

Louisa Gag, LivableStreets Alliance:
Good Morning, my name is Louisa Gag and I’m the Public Policy and Operations Manager at LivableStreets Alliance.

The 2018 Massachusetts Strategic Highway Safety Plan recommended automated enforcement legislation be developed to give municipalities “opt in” authority to issue citations through the use of cameras and radar technology.

And there’s a reason for that. It works – some sort of automated enforcement is used in 29 other states and 130 countries. In Maryland, a study showed that the proportion of drivers traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit declined by about 70% for locations with warning signs and speed camera enforcement. A National Transportation Safety Board review of 28 automated speed enforcement studies found that cameras reduced crashes between 8-49%. And a UNC study found that for red-light cameras, while sometimes there is a slight increase in rear-end crashes, there is almost always a significant reduction in side-impact crashes, which are typically more severe.

One common concern with automated enforcement is privacy. We believe that these concerns are addressed very well in this bill, but we’d be happy to engage with the committee and other stakeholders to improve it even further. Only photographs of the rear license plate are recorded, so that means no faces are photographed. Photos are only captured when a camera-enforceable violation occurs. 48 hours after final disposition of a violation, images are permanently deleted. Any use of a photograph before that would require a court-approved warrant.
Thank you.

Charlie Ticotsky, Transportation for Massachusetts:
Thank you, my name is Charlie Ticotsky and I’m the Policy Director at the Transportation for Massachusetts Coalition.

This bill, which if passed would likely create most thoughtful automated enforcement regulatory structure in the country, clearly presents automated enforcement in the context of safety. It is NOT a money grab for cities and towns. In fact, cities and towns would only be able to receive revenue that accounts for the costs of the program, and any additional revenue would go to the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund. The idea is that drivers would not be tricked into violations–the cameras must be clearly marked and obvious and a public awareness campaign prior to them going live would be required. The bill also allows a grace period where motorists would receive only warnings. This bill sets up a system meant to be a deterrent to dangerous driving, not a revenue scheme.

Fines would be limited to 25 dollars, and would not escalate for multiple offenses. It would not lead to increased insurance points. And while it could put your car registration status in jeopardy after serial nonpayment to force repayment, it cannot lead to license suspensions. The fine is on the car owner because there will be no photos of anything but the license plate. There is a provision for emergencies and other exemptions, and an appeals and hearing process.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, unlike in other jurisdictions, private vendors of these cameras would only be allowed to be paid based on the value of equipment and service provided–not on the number of citations issued or revenue generated–so that there will not be pressure from the private companies to increase the number of citations issued or revenue generated.

Thank you very much.

Comments on proposed MassDCR amendments 302 CMR 11 + 12

Comments on proposed MassDCR amendments 302 CMR 11 + 12

July 24, 2019

Laura Dietz
Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114

Dear Ms. Dietz,

WalkBoston has reviewed the amendments to “302 CMR 11.00: Parkways, Traffic, and Pedestrian Rules” and “302 CMR 12.00: Parks and Recreation Rules,” and attended the public hearing on July 2, 2019 in Brighton.

This process should be put on hold until laws on micro-mobility and e-bikes are established by the legislature so there is cohesion between the law and regulations.

We also have some questions and comments based on our review:

  • What data are these proposed changes based on?
  • Are there any successes or failures in other states that MA is trying to emulate or avoid?
  • We have concerns about setting a limit of 20mph for shared use pathways. How was that speed limit established, and what is it based on? We need context sensitive speed limits, not one limit for all places. A 20mph limit is a speed limit that is recommended on residential streets, which include sidewalks for separation.
  • There are long section of definitions including BOULEVARD, PARKWAY, ROADWAY, STREET, but there is no definition of the different types of trails. Some of the suggested regulations describe ‘improved or natural surface trail’ vs. other types of trails; with no easy definition, this could lead to confusion.
  • Section 12.12(4) states they are ‘not permitted on improved trails less than 8 feet,’ would this mean certain sections of contiguous trails would allow/prohibit use?
    • Additionally, while we recognize the intent to create safe areas where there could be conflict, we fear that setting a regulation by width could have unintended consequences for future trail development.
  • The section on Violations/Fines/Penalties only includes info about parking.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Brendan Kearney
Communications Director

Comments on Planned Development Area for the Air Rights Parcel 12 Project

Comments on Planned Development Area for the Air Rights Parcel 12 Project

July 22, 2019

Aisling Kerr
Boston Planning & Development Agency
City Hall, 9th Floor
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201-1001

Re: Development Plan for the Planned Development Area for the Air Rights Parcel 12 Project

Dear Ms. Kerr:

WalkBoston has reviewed the proposal for the development of Parcel 12 in Boston’s Back Bay, and believe that it will significantly improve the pedestrian environment on what is now a wind- swept and uncomfortable bridge above the MassPike. The site design shows significant attention to the movement, comfort and amenities of people coming to and through it, and should provide an inviting new space for people to walk and linger. We are pleased that the tunnel under Mass Ave will be reopened allowing people to make intermodal transfers between buses, blue bikes, and walking and the Green Line without crossing Mass Ave. We do have some thoughts about some of the complex pedestrian and bicycle movements that the site must accommodate and would like to share the following comments.

Our Understanding of the Parcel 12 Development Project

The proposed development of Parcel 12, located between Newbury and Boylston Streets, and fronting on Massachusetts Avenue, consists of two towers – an office tower and a residential/ hotel tower on either side of a park located above the Turnpike. The two towers are located partially on existing terra firma and partially on air rights above the Turnpike and the commuter rail tracks. The proposed park, situated primarily on a platform using air rights above the Turnpike, contains facilities for both pedestrians and bicycles.

Public open space for the project totals 28,000 square feet on three levels. The public space facing Mass Ave is likely to be the most heavily used space for pedestrians and is described as a public gathering space where 16,000 square feet on the street level is dedicated to primarily pedestrian activities. The remainder of the open space is located either along Boylston Street or on two raised levels that bridge the space between the two dominant on-site buildings.

In the 16,000 square feet of open space along Mass Ave – a large triangle – a significant number of activities are planned. These include generous sidewalks of varying widths along Mass Ave and along the facades of the two proposed buildings. The open space also contains landscaping, bicycle facilities, bike racks, trash receptacles, lighting, street trees in raised planters, an expanded bus shelter on Mass Ave, a new headhouse (called a kiosk) with elevator and stairway to Hynes Green Line Station via a tunnel under Mass.Ave, and seating elements integrated into the rim of the bicycle path or in treed areas. Outdoor dining areas line two sides of the triangular open space.

The lobby entrance into the hotel-residential building faces this Mass Ave oriented open space, and the lobby entrance of the office building is located on Boylston St.

Access to the frequent buses on Mass Ave is a dominant use of the Mass Ave fronting sidewalk. The existing bus stop shelter is to be replaced next to a wider Mass Ave sidewalk with a larger shelter to serve the 140’ long bus stop on Mass Ave which can serve as many as three buses at a time. A new connection to the Green Line is provided, connecting the Parcel 12 site and the entrance to the subway on the east side of Mass Ave via on-site access to a stairway and elevator that links to an abandoned under-street tunnel for pedestrians. In addition to the Mass Ave sidewalk, a broad and generally parallel sidewalk leads from the Boylston Street entrance to the site to the Newbury Street entrance. A bicycle path is located between this sidewalk and the Mass Ave sidewalk.

Signal timing

The Project will include a full intersection redesign and the installation of new traffic signal equipment at the intersection of Mass Ave and Newbury Street, with a more limited set of intersection and signalization improvements planned for the intersection of Mass Ave and Boylston Street.

  • Per the MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Design Guide, pedestrian signal timing near separated bike lanes should include sufficient clearance time for a pedestrian to cross the entire roadway including the bike lanes and street buffers. Both intersections fit this description, and should have that additional time included for people walking.
  • In the Boston Smart Utilities filing (p 584-585), ‘Adaptive Signal Technology’ is referenced as a consideration, “where appropriate, and feasible.” We would encourage the proponent to adhere to the forward-looking signal policies put forth in the GoBoston 2030 plan, since the City of Boston’s current Signal Timing Guidelines do not yet reflect that same vision. ‘Smart Signals’ should be able to ‘see’ and serve the needs of people walking and biking as well as people in vehicles. Likewise, we urge the timing be used to improve bus service along Mass Ave and not be allowed to delay buses along Mass Ave in order to push more vehicles through the Mass/Newbury intersection to access the I-90W ramp.

Plaza level bicycle path

The bicycle path is a potential problem for people circulating throughout the new plaza, raising several issues:

  • Both north and south of the boundaries of Parcel 12, the bicycle lane is a protected lane located behind a row of parked cars along Mass Ave on the west side of the street. On the proposed plaza between Newbury Street and Boylston Street, the proposed bicycle path leaves the street and crosses the land included in the new park provided by Parcel 12. Although this appears to have been planned to avoid having bicycles compete with buses on-street, it results in bicycles having to compete for space with pedestrians.
  • Bicycles on the bike path will intersect at a right angle with an important pedestrian route between the bus stop and access to the Green Line in the new kiosk. At this location, many transit riders are changing modes (bus to Green Line, Green Line to bus). People who are connecting between these two transit services will be required to cross the bicycle path to make the connection, unless they cross Mass Ave midblock illegally or use the Boylston St. or the Newbury St. crosswalks. We are concerned that the large pedestrian volumes in this area, and especially the potentially large groups of people transferring between buses and the Green Line, may result in conflicts between people walking and biking. We would encourage a close examination of this issue with the use of projected bus transfer, pedestrian and bicycle volumes.
  • There are potential bicycle/pedestrian conflicts at the crosswalks on Newbury and Boylston Streets. Bicycles make the move from the street-based bike route north of the site into the on-site bike path across pedestrian flows on the crosswalk at Newbury Street and leave the Parcel 12 site by crossing pedestrian traffic on the Boylston Street crosswalk to reach the street-based route of the bicycle path on Mass Ave south of the site. We would encourage making the spaces for pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross the street generous, to discourage further conflicts and enable efficient crossings.
  • The proposed open space containing the Mass Ave sidewalk, the bicycle path, the wider sidewalk between Newbury and Boylston Streets, the bus stop and the kiosk leading to the underground tunnel to the Green Line Hynes Station comprises a 16,000 square foot destination. We urge you to compare the proposed space with the downtown park at the intersection of Washington Street and School Street, sometimes called “Readers Park.” The plaza and street area in both locations are roughly similar in dimensions. The Downtown plaza is occupied by outdoor tables, landscaping, benches, the Irish Famine Memorial, benches and street trees. A wide sidewalk stretches along Washington Street, and an even wider sidewalk fronts onto Walgreens. Both are flooded with pedestrians every day, and the plaza seems to offer little space where a bike path could be threaded through it. It would be interesting to compare projected numbers of pedestrians in Parcel 12 with the actual numbers at Readers Park.

We encourage the proponent to consider some options that could minimize potential conflicts between the on-site bicycle path and pedestrians including the following:

  1. Keep bicycles on-street on Mass Ave. This could be a shared bus/bike lane allowing a direct continuous path for cyclists on Mass Ave since southbound cyclists north and south of Parcel 12 are already in the street and not potentially conflicting with pedestrian space on the sidewalk.
  2. A separated, on-street bike lane with a floating bus stop. As an alternative, consider the possibility of a separated, marked bike lane on-street with a floating bus stop: similar to what is being built in the Commonwealth Ave Phase 2A Project, even if it means taking space from the plaza. This would avoid requiring cyclists to leave the Mass Ave pavement, and cross several different pedestrian paths at north and south crosswalk entrances to the Parcel 12 development to get to a 260’ long bicycle path through this busy plaza.
  3. Move the Green Line kiosk and stairway east, to be closer to the bus stop. It may be possible to reposition the kiosk with access to the Green Line via elevator and stairs closer to the bus stop. This shortens and makes the route more direct between the bus stop and the kiosk, and would allow the bicycle path to be moved a bit further away from potential conflicts with transit riders making connections between buses and the Green Line, but bicycles would not be trying to move through the group of people making the connection.
  4. Design the proposed bicycle path 2”-3” lower than the pedestrian areas. A 2”-3” vertical difference drop with angled edges would emphasize the path, and make its edges less abrupt. There would need to be one or more raised crosswalks, especially for the potentially heavily used route between the bus stop and the Green Line access kiosk. The raised crossing would clearly help direct pedestrians while signaling to, and slowing down, bicycle riders as they pass through the pedestrian crossing. There may need to be warning signs to avoid pedestrians tripping at the edge of the path. The proponent could add tactile longitudinal strips to guide visually impaired people and further warn pedestrians near the bike path. The proposed parallel row of bollards helps to define the bike path, but some cyclists view bollards as dangerous if one needs to jump in or out of the bike path.
  5.  Make sure that there is a back on the “bench” that is next to the cycle track behind the bus stop to eliminate people sitting facing Mass Ave with their legs going into the cycle track.

Boylston Street Access

  1. Another design issue that we believe should be re-considered is the Boylston St. vehicular access to the office building. At the loading zone and vehicle entrance to the office building on Boylston Street, trucks may have to back into the loading zone area, creating a difficult safety issue for pedestrians walking along the street, as well as the traffic disruption that backing vehicles may cause on Boylston St. Requiring police units to help trucks or parkers seems to indicate that a certain level of difficulty in using this space is anticipated and the difficulty cannot be resolved in the present design. Perhaps the proposed parking spots along Boylston St. could become truck loading zones to alleviate the problem.
  2. The proponent and the City should evaluate requiring all vehicles exiting the parcel to turn right on Boylston Street. We believe that left-turning vehicles would pose a hazard to pedestrians walking along the sidewalk and would also disrupt traffic on Boylston Street. We do not believe that the proponent will be able to have a police officer directing traffic at all times.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Comment Letter on Kenmore Hotel Project (560-574 Commonwealth Avenue)

Comment Letter on Kenmore Hotel Project (560-574 Commonwealth Avenue)

June 27, 2019

Brian Golden, Director
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Attn: Tim Czerwienski
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201-1007

Re: Kenmore Hotel, 560-574 Commonwealth Avenue, WalkBoston Comments

Dear Director Golden:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Kenmore Hotel Project.

WalkBoston believes that the re-configuration of Kenmore Square proposed by the proponent will significantly enhance the environment and improve the safety and convenience of people walking to and through Kenmore Square. It will also create new pedestrian-focused civic space that is presently missing from this important Boston crossroads – where many residents, transit users, students, Red Sox fans and Boston Marathon fans will find new space to enhance their experience of Kenmore Square.

We believe that the re-configuration will also significantly improve the safety of bicyclists and drivers, with its simplified pattern of movement. Based on the traffic analysis provided in the DPIR it also appears that the new traffic pattern will improve the levels of service for vehicles, potentially providing a benefit for the many bus riders who pass through the Square each day.

We are very pleased that the proponent has proposed building a hotel without on-site parking or below-grade service access – either of which would require a curb cut interrupting the sidewalk. With Kenmore Square’s good transit access the hotel will truly reflect an urbanist vision for the City which we applaud. While we have not reviewed any financial information about the project, we wonder whether the decision to forgo the construction of parking spaces (@ approximately $25,000 – $30,000/space) has provided the proponent with the financial capacity to build the extensive plaza and streetscape improvements that are proposed. If this is the case, we hope that future Boston development projects will be encouraged by the City to take advantage of this opportunity.

We urge the City to work with the proponent to bring this new vision for Kenmore Square to fruition.

We have several questions and comments about the project that we urge the City to work with the proponent to address.

  1. The new, much safer, bicycle circulation system is an important improvement for Kenmore Square. We urge the design team to carefully design the western edge of the site to actively discourage eastbound cyclists on Commonwealth Avenue from riding through the plaza area rather than taking the New Road-Beacon Street-Commonwealth Avenue bike route that is the intended route.
  2. Based on the wind study results presented at the June 19 public meeting, several spots on the plaza may be quite windy. We urge the proponent to develop designs that both reduce the wind and avoid the use of walls along Commonwealth Avenue. We believe that walls will serve to privatize the feel of the space and may also cause unintended noise impacts (wooshing sounds) as traffic passes by the intermittent walls.
  3. We hope that the plaza will include seating that has a softer feel than that which seems to be illustrated to date – seating that invites people to linger and enjoy the great people-watching.
  4. For how many years has the proponent committed to maintaining and programming the Plaza?
  5. It appears from the site plan that there are two left turn lanes from westbound Commonwealth Avenue feeding into one receiving lane on Brookline Avenue – is this intended, or is the site plan incorrect? In addition, westbound Commonwealth Avenue traffic will need very clear lane markings (and perhaps a tweaking of the shape of the nose of the plaza) to ensure that traffic does not mistakenly head westbound on Beacon Street.

We look forward to a significantly improved walking experience in Kenmore Square when the project is realized.

Please let us know if you have any questions about our comments.

Best regards,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Comment Letter for Regional Transit Authorities in the FY2020 Budget – Amendment 1136

Comment Letter for Regional Transit Authorities in the FY2020 Budget – Amendment 1136

Massachusetts State Senate
The State House
Boston, MA 02133

May 16, 2019

Regional Transit Authorities in the FY2020 Budget – Amendment 1136

Honorable Members of the Senate:

We, a group of elected, nonprofit, community, and business leaders who support RTAs and their riders, support amendment 1136, which would provide $90.5 million in base funding for the regional transit authority (RTA) line item (1595-6370) in the FY2020 budget, and identifies separate, additional funding for performance targets and innovations, subject to Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between RTAs and MassDOT. Stable base funding is essential to protect riders from service cuts, and for RTAs to provide predictable service as they continue to improve performance and accountability. We are very pleased that the Senate Ways and Means budget includes language that ties state assistance to RTAs to inflation.

To count any MOU-based funding towards the base, as the Senate Ways and Means budget does, amounts to a cut in service which penalizes riders who are transit-dependent. Here is why: MOUs and the underlying performance targets take months to develop, and the transit service that results is not assured to continue. As an example, the $4 million in MOU-based funding that the legislature voted as part of the FY 2019 budget has still not been released, 10 1⁄2 months into the fiscal year, and several service cuts have not been restored as a result.

Senators may recall that the FY 2019 budget also established the Task Force on RTA Performance and Funding. Constituted in October 2018, the Task Force completed its work and delivered a report to the legislature on April 5, 2019, titled A Vision for the Future of Massachusetts’ Regional Transit Authorities.

This Task Force report included several recommendations to improve service. These included $90.5 million in base funding from the state budget; indexing of future state appropriations to CPI; establishment of MOUs with MassDOT to ensure future performance goals; and other recommendations to promote accountable, statewide public transit.

In conclusion, we cite the first recommendation from Choices for Stewardship, the December 2018 report of the Baker Administration’s Commission on the Future of Transportation:

  1. Prioritize investment in public transit as the foundation for a robust, reliable, clean, and efficient transportation system.

In this spirit, we thank the Senate for making investment in public transit a priority for FY 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

Mayor Jon Mitchell, City of New Bedford

Mayor Daniel Rivera, City of Lawrence

Mayor Alex Morse, City of Holyoke

Mayor Paul Heroux, City of Attleboro

Mayor Stephen L. DiNatale, City of Fitchburg

William F. Martin, Mayor, City of Greenfield

Linda Dunlavy, Executive Director, Franklin Regional Council of Governments

Tim Brennan, Executive Director, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission

Frederick Kidder, President/CEO, SouthCoast Chamber

Maddie Ribble, Director of Public Policy and Campaign Strategy, Massachusetts Public Health Association

Andre Leroux, Executive Director, Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance

Chris Dempsey, Director, Transportation for Massachusetts

Nancy Goodman, Vice President for Policy, Environmental League of Massachusetts

Stacy Thompson, Executive Director, LivableStreets Alliance

Heather McMann, Executive Director, Groundwork Lawrence

Mayor Donna Holaday, City of Newburyport

Mayor David Narkewicz, City of Northampton

Mayor Thomas W. Bernard, City of North Adams

Cathy Ann Viveiros, City Administrator, City of Fall River

Thomas Matuszko, Executive Director, Berkshire Regional Planning Commission

Marc Draisen, Executive Director, Metropolitan Area Planning Council

Jack Lank, President/CEO, The United Regional Chamber of Commerce

Marie Oliva, President & CEO, Cape Cod Canal Region Chamber

Wendy Garf-Lipp, Executive Director, United Neighbors of Fall River

Janet Domenitz, Executive Director, MASSPIRG

Joseph Kriesberg, President, Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations

Deb Pasternak, Chapter Director, Sierra Club, Massachusetts Chapter

John MacDougall, Sylvia Parsons and Jack Spence, Co-Chairs, 350Mass Transportation Working Group

Elena Letona, Executive Director, Neighbor to Neighbor

Wendy Landman, Executive Director, WalkBoston

Scott Zadakis, Director, CrossTown Connect TMA

Judith L. Kirk, Director of Community Impact, YouthConnect Worcester

Kevin McCaffrey, Director of Government and Community Relations and Special Projects, Office of Advancement, Mount Holyoke College

Jim Kolesar, Vice President, Berkshire Interfaith Organizing

Elizabeth Isherwood, Communications Director, Rail to Boston Coalition

Jennifer Lee, Systems Advocate, Stavros

Corinn Williams, Executive Director, Community Economic Development Center

Janie Katz-Christy, Director, Green Streets Initiative

Jessica Collins, Executive Director, Public Health Institute of Western MA

Victoria Waterman, Chief Executive Officer, Girls, Inc. of Worcester

Staci Rubin, Senior Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation

Carolyn Villers, Executive Director, Massachusetts Senior Action Council

Kerry Conaghan, VP Community Impact, United Way of Central Massachusetts

Patty Flanagan, Director of Wellness and Health Equity, YWCA Central Massachusetts

Samuel Masinter, Associate Vice President for College Relations, Smith College

Margaret Coffin, CEO, Center for Living & Working, Inc.

David Connell, Vice President/Chief Human Resource Officer, YMCA of Central Massachusetts

Gordon Hargrove, Executive Director, Friendly House, Inc.

Alan Dallmann, Coordinator The Coalition to End Hunger

Justin Lawson, Fund Mass RTAs

Samuel Martin, Executive Director, Worcester Youth Center

Susan Moriarty, MASS Central Regional Coordinator, Mass Advocates Standing Strong

K. Lev Ben-Ezra, Executive Director, Amherst Survival Center

Deb Fastino, Executive Director, Coalition for Social Justice

Christopher M. O’Keeffe, Vice President for Programs, Greater Worcester Community Foundation

Drew Grande, Clean Energy Program Director, Massachusetts Climate Action Network

Joyce Mandell, Founder and Director, Jane Jacobs in the Woo

Lew Finfer, Co-Director, Massachusetts Communities Action Network

Adam Thielker, Transportation Advocacy Coalition

Liz Hamilton, Executive Director, Boys & Girls Club of Worcester

Joe Bellil, VP of Public Affairs & Youth Services, Easter Seals of Massachusetts

Mary Haroyan, Bay State Council of the Blind

Ali, Amrana and Shabaz Soofi, Worker-Owners, WooRides

Scott Avedisian, CEO, Rhode Island Public Transit Authority