Analysis of Federal Aid Highway Program
Project Distribution and Title VI
Populations in Massachusetts
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
July 2014
Executive Summary
As a recipient of federal funds, as well as a distributor of funds to sub-recipients such as Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs), the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) complies
with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) in all of its work. Title VI prohibits discrimination
based upon race, color, and national origin. Additional federal nondiscrimination laws considered by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and MassDOT also prohibit discrimination on the basis of age,
sex, and disability status. Within this report, Title VI minority populations are defined as all non-white
races, including all persons of Hispanic origin (regardless of race). They are geographically identified by
U.S. Census block groups where the percentage of Title VI minority population is above the statewide
average of 23.87% (in 2010).
In conducting further analysis based on Phase I, which was submitted to FHWA in September of 2013,
this Phase II analysis seeks to resolve the question put forth by FHWA in response to Phase I and thereby
evaluate the factors that may influence the distribution of Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
highway projects in the Commonwealth. Using GIS maps, statistical analysis, and qualitative methods as
tools to identify any disparate impact as a result of the 25% municipal design requirement stipulated by
MassDOT, this Phase II analysis demonstrates that highway projects and funds have been distributed
equitably in minority and non-minority communities across the Commonwealth.
Based on the hypothesis from FHWA that suggested the municipal design requirement posed a potential
burden on municipalities with Title VI populations and affected their participation for federal highway
funding, the first step in this Phase II analysis was to look for any correlations between these two
factors. Since the presence of a minority population in itself might not tell us enough about why some
communities were receiving more or less than others, a more nuanced approach also examined related
factors that might contribute to the number and costs of projects on the TIP. Other data that was
analyzed included the percentage of Limited English proficiency (LEP), income, and Chapter 90
apportionment. The goal of Phase II was to look for patterns and correlations, as well as to understand
any outliers for unique situations, in an effort to understand if, and why, there might be any
communities experiencing an inequitable distribution of highway funds.
Neither the statistical nor mapping analysis of project data indicates negative correlations between
municipalities with minority populations and project funds distributed throughout the Commonwealth.
This leads to the conclusion that there has been an equitable distribution of funds for highway projects
during the look back period and no apparent disparities for Title VI populations. The municipal design
requirement, household income, and limited English proficiency appeared not to play a role, either. The
strongest correlation seen was for the distribution of Chapter 90 funds related to project expenditures –
as funds increased, so did the project expenditures and number of projects in a municipality.
MassDOT’s Office of Transportation Planning (OTP) will continue to improve upon methodologies for
public outreach and participation by the MPOs. Each MPO has been asked to include a task in their
Unified Program Work Plan (UPWP) to conduct a benefit and burdens analysis on an annual basis. By
continually looking at which communities receive the most projects over time, OTP can analyze the
MassDOT Planning
Page 1 of 46
7/17/14
factors that influence the distribution of projects and apply best practices from those communities that
are successful in implementing projects in order to help inform how to increase project benefits across
all communities. Future analysis will likely include an assessment of how transportation needs of
minority communities, which tend to be more urban, may benefit from public transit services. OTP will
continue to focus on engaging the public in an inclusive planning process and improve outreach to
minority and LEP populations so that the input and feedback we receive is from as diverse a population
as possible. By working with the RPA staffs, OTP will also conduct a survey to critically examine why
some municipalities are not participating in the MPO process, as well as how municipalities spend their
Chapter 90 funds. Along with the RPAs, we will then work with the communities to educate them on the
benefits of MPO participation, as well as on the resources available to them.
MassDOT’s Office of Transportation Planning will work with the MPOs to conduct ongoing analyses such
as this one, at least once every 3 years, to monitor progress in mitigating any disparate impacts in
project distribution across the Commonwealth.
Introduction
As a recipient of federal funds, as well as a distributor of funds to sub-recipients such as Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs), the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) complies
with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) in all of its work. Title VI prohibits discrimination
based upon race, color, and national origin. Specifically, 42 USC 2000 states that “No person in the
United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance.” Additional federal nondiscrimination laws, considered by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and MassDOT as an integral part of recipient Title VI compliance, prohibit
discrimination on the basis of age, sex, and disability. Within this report, Title VI communities are
defined as municipalities and/or U.S. Census block groups with greater than 23.87% minority population
(above the statewide average). Further expansion and detail of outlined minority areas within the maps
are included in the methodology section and in the Appendix.
On September 30, 2013, MassDOT submitted to FHWA a collection of maps depicting the distribution of
municipally proposed Federal-aid Highway Program funded transportation projects for the previous five
years (the “Phase I” submittal). These maps were produced as part of MassDOT’s response to the
August 7, 2012 findings of FHWA’s Title VI compliance review of the agency. The finding at issue stated:
“MassDOT requires LPAs [local public agencies] to cover costs incurred
as a project is developed to 25% Design. As the exclusive use of this
measure may exclude Title VI/Nondiscrimination populations from
participation in Federally-funded programs/projects, MassDOT should
conduct an analysis and, where necessary, explore measures that may
offset or mitigate the ability for the Title VI/Nondiscrimination
populations to participate in the Federal-aid Highway Program, apart
from any State program”.
MassDOT Planning
Page 2 of 46
7/17/14
Following the Phase I submittal, MassDOT committed to further analysis of project distribution
characteristics across Title VI populations, the results of which are presented here. The methodology
described below (and in the Appendix) has been made part of ongoing annual assessments on the
equitable distribution of state and federal highway funds. This “Phase II” analysis consists of a
quantitative and qualitative assessment of trends and patterns of fund distribution throughout the
municipalities of the Commonwealth. This report uses U.S. Census, American Community Survey,
Highway Division and MassDOT data to investigate various contributing factors which have the potential
to influence fund distribution and impact the participation in this program by Title VI communities.
Our Phase II analysis seeks to better understand the distribution of Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) highway projects in the Commonwealth, using both GIS maps and statistical analysis as
tools to help determine whether projects and funds have been distributed equitably. We also tested
several relationships for correlation in an attempt to quantify and visualize which factors played a role in
the number of projects and funds received by each municipality. Yet, since the presence of a minority
population in itself might not tell us enough about why some communities were receiving more or less
than others, we took a more nuanced approach and also looked at related factors that might contribute
to the number and costs of projects on the TIP. Other data that we analyzed included the percentage of
Limited English proficiency (LEP), income, and Chapter 90 apportionment.
This report will focus on minority groups after Phase I identified that municipalities did not have
significant concentrations of varying ages, gender and disability groups. Our goal was to look for
patterns and correlations, as well as to understand any outliers for unique situations, in an effort to
understand if, and why, there might be any communities experiencing an inability to meet the 25%
design requirement.
Methodology
This report will primarily use statistical analysis to help describe the content of supporting maps and
trends of Title VI characteristics in municipalities within Massachusetts. A statistical correlation analysis
was deemed appropriate to assess inequities in fund distribution, as it helps to show relationships
between two factors which may influence the ability of minority or non-minority areas in funding the
25% design costs. For example, if there was a strong relationship between Chapter 90 funds and nonminority areas, this would clearly show a bias towards these areas, indicating an equity issue. Yet, no
relationship would indicate the opposite, suggesting an equitable distribution of funds supporting
minority groups in potentially raising the money to fund design.
The majority of the data collection for the map and statistical analysis was taken from U.S. Census data
and the American Community Survey (ACS). Data for income and Chapter 90 funds was originally
arranged in census blocks but subsequently changed and averaged by municipality to allow comparative
analysis throughout Massachusetts with the other data variables done by municipality. Further
discussion of methodologies is contained in the Appendix.
MassDOT Planning
Page 3 of 46
7/17/14
Results and Discussion
Municipal Design Requirement
Of the municipalities that had projects only reaching the Approved stage (meaning they received
approval from the MassDOT Project Review Committee – PRC), but not progressing into design, 22 out
of 130 were in minority communities. This does not seem to be an issue in of itself because it is only a
small percentage of the projects that were approved, and this status applies to both minority and nonminority areas. The method of looking at project status provides little insight into the question of
barriers to participation since projects going to PRC have already passed the hurdle of a municipality
beginning project design and assumes that additional design funds have been or will be allocated as the
design continues to develop. Consequently, a more useful analysis would be to examine which
communities, over time, do not have any advertised or constructed projects, which is covered in a later
section of this report.
As an overarching conclusion, our research found there is no inherent causal link between there being a
statistically significant percentage of protected groups present in a community and whether that
municipality has the funding and staffing resources to bring projects to 25% design. Those are two very
different issues that are not necessarily linked. Furthermore, even if there happened to be a correlation
in Massachusetts, which there is not, that would not mean there was causation. Most of the
municipalities in the Commonwealth that did not advance municipally designed projects are rural and
do not have high minority populations.
There are many factors that affected why some municipalities did not have any federally funded
projects during the look back period. When we spoke with RPA transportation program managers,
anecdotal information offered insight about why some municipalities in their region received funds for
highway projects while others did not. Most of the communities that did not fare well were small and
rural, and a common challenge identified for them was often design follow through after project
initiation. Several factors may influence the ability of rural municipalities to advance projects, such as:
•
Municipal Staffing Resources
o Towns might have a Public Works director busy maintaining local roads, a changeover in
public works staff, no planning staff, and/or are not be equipped to find a designer and
manage the project through design.
o A lack of staffing resources can also make it difficult for a municipality to have the time
to attend MPO meetings.
o Sometimes a municipality was active in the MPO process but then a staffing change or
appointment led to a decrease in participation.
•
Some municipalities had a tendency to be involved in the process when they wanted to get a
project on the TIP, and then would stop coming to meetings after that funding was secured.
•
Anecdotally, there does not seem to be a correlation between the size of the municipality and
their level of participation at the MPO level.
•
Another issue for small towns is that they often spend all of their Chapter 90 funds on local
roads and do not have the capacity to save funds for larger future projects.
MassDOT Planning
Page 4 of 46
7/17/14
•
Many municipalities also expressed concern regarding how long the TIP process was and that
their needs were more immediate; and therefore, they would prefer to locally fund their
projects to get them constructed sooner.
•
Another important factor is that many of the smallest towns in the Commonwealth do not have
very many road miles of federal-aid eligible roads, which may or may not show a link with
receiving a proportional amount of state and federal funding. An analysis of this might be
worthwhile in the future, however when we looked at total road miles in terms of project
expenditure per capita per mile (Figure 15), we did not see a correlation for smaller
communities or minority communities.
It should be noted that MPOs across the Commonwealth do offer technical assistance and conduct
planning studies for their municipalities that need aid due to a lack of local resources. Therefore, better
outreach about these resources will also be a focus for MassDOT as an immediate step to improve
participation by rural communities. It should also be noted that Massachusetts is one of only a handful
of states that provide funding to municipalities for local projects. This local assistance is provided
through the Chapter 90 program, which is based on legislated, long-standing formula of roadway
mileage, population, and employment. Chapter 90 funds may be used for roadway projects, such as
resurfacing and related work and other work incidental to roadways such as preliminary engineering,
including State Aid/Consultant Design Agreements, right-of-way acquisition, shoulders, side road
approaches, landscaping and tree planting, roadside drainage, structures (including bridges), sidewalks,
traffic control and service facilities, street lighting (excluding operating costs), and for such other
purposes as MassDOT may specifically authorize. Further analysis of the allocation and utilization of
Chapter 90 can be reviewed in the Appendix.
In an effort to further understanding of the reasons behind municipalities’ participation in the MPO
process, OTP has developed a survey that will be provided to the RPAs for refinement and distribution
within their regions after working with MPO staff to determine the optimal distribution list, including
but not limited to Chief Elected Officials, Department of Public Works Directors, and City/Town Planners.
A draft survey is available in the Appendix and will be made available to FHWA for review prior to
dissemination. The results of this survey will help to identify and address gaps in participation in an
effort to bring more communities into the process, hopefully increasing their share of RPA assistance
and improving access to state and federal funding.
Conclusion
Neither the statistical nor mapping analysis done through this review of project data indicated patterns
between municipalities with minority populations and the distribution of project funds throughout the
Commonwealth. This assessment leads to the conclusion that there has been an equitable distribution
of funds for highway projects during the look back period and that there are no substantive disparities
for Title VI populations. This analysis has identified and reviewed other potential contributing factors as
well. Higher minority areas were all within the same threshold for project expenditures as other
municipalities with lower minority concentrations for each factor that was considered.
MassDOT Planning
Page 5 of 46
7/17/14
In some instances, municipalities appeared as outliers in terms of per capita distribution but this
correlation is complicated by most of them being urban areas with denser populations, and as such was
considered within the bar chart analysis showing no inequity. Therefore, the municipal design
requirement, household income, and limited English proficiency do not appear to play a role in the
distribution of project funds.
The strongest link that we saw was for the distribution of Chapter 90 funds related to project
expenditures – as funds increased, so did the project expenditures and number of projects in a
municipality.
This Phase II analysis has fostered additional equity questions, into which MassDOT will continue to
examine in an effort to constantly improve our public outreach and participation. By looking at which
communities received the most projects, OTP can consider why that was, and apply best practices from
those communities to help inform how we might increase projects to benefit minority communities
(even though no disparity was evident). OTP will continue to focus on engaging the public in an inclusive
planning process, and reach out to minority and LEP populations so that the input and feedback we
receive is from as diverse a population as possible. OTP will also work with the RPA staffs to critically
examine why some municipalities are not participating in the MPO process and work with the localities
to educate them on the benefits of doing so, as well as the resources available to them.
OTP anticipates conducting a similar analysis as this one every 3 years in collaboration with the MPOs as
an update to make sure that project expenditures across the Commonwealth continue to not show
disparities in distribution.
MassDOT Planning
Page 6 of 46
7/17/14
Appendix A - Analysis
Project Costs
Map 4 illustrates that high per capita spending tends to be associated with rural communities, shown by
the predominance of dark green colored towns (the highest 20%) in the western part of the state.
Municipalities receiving the highest per capita spending are towns with a population of less than 1,400
(18 out of the top 20 municipalities for per capita funding). Exceptions to this include Groveland (1
project), and Deerfield (10 projects) which had far greater project expenditure on a scale of 2
magnitudes greater than the highest per capita expenditures of similar, smaller populated municipalities
(Table 4). High spending in non-rural areas include Quincy and Weymouth but there is no obvious
pattern related to minorities since Quincy has a high proportion of minorities (34%) and Weymouth
does not (12%).
There appears to be an issue with urban communities receiving less per capita project expenditures than
rural areas, and this is complicated by the fact that urban communities are also the ones with the
highest percentage of minorities. The low per capita expenditures could therefore possibly be explained
by the density of people compared to the miles of roadways, rather than a higher presence of
minorities. A further analysis was therefore taken to account for the project expenditure per capita with
the number of roadway miles. As Figure 10 shows, per capita expenditure per roadway mile and
municipal minority percentage have no significant correlation, confirming that comparatively smaller
municipal road mileage does not create a disparate impact on minority communities.
In conclusion, this analysis shows those areas which have more expensive projects (but a smaller
number of them), and those which have a greater number of projects but at moderate costs – have the
highest per capita project costs. It seems per capita project costs are highest in municipalities with the
lowest populations. To remove the bias of population, the bar chart compares minority and nonminority municipalities for similar population sizes, showing that per capita expenditure does not vary
significantly – only when a large expensive project is undertaken, the per capita cost generally increases.
Project Costs in Minority Municipalities and All Massachusetts Municipalities
Looking at Maps 4 and 5 and the data in Table 1, there appears to be a correlation between the
municipalities with the highest percentage of minorities and those that receive low amounts of per
capita project expenditure. Per capita spending is lowest in the municipalities with highest percentage of
minorities, and the highest per capita spending occurs in the municipalities with the lowest percentage
of minorities (<7%). Lawrence, Chelsea, Randolph and Springfield stand out as high minority areas that
received relatively less funding per capita. These municipalities have more than 60% minority
populations and received less than 50% of the median project expenditure (per capita).
It is important to note, however, that many of the other municipalities receiving low per capita project
expenditures have lower minority populations. So although being a high minority area might correlate
with lower per capita project expenditures, there are other factors at play that affect any community.
For example, of the 16 municipalities that had no projects during the look back period (Table 9), only
MassDOT Planning
Page 7 of 46
7/17/14
one of those is considered a minority community. There appears to be no pattern to this lack of projects
solely with regard to the percentage of minorities in each municipality, but instead likely related to total
population. Many of these towns have low populations (other than Groton, less than 7,500), and
perhaps little regional representation to vie for state and federal funding.
Of the 32 minority communities in the state (those above the statewide minority average), only 4
exceeded the median per capita expenditure: Quincy, Marlborough, Fitchburg and Southbridge. From a
statistical perspective, Figure 1 shows that the percentage of minorities within a municipality does not
correlate well with per capita expenditure. This suggests that the cost of a project per person is not
concentrated in or separate from high minority areas. However, the graph indicates that higher minority
areas tend to have lower per capita expenditure. This is more likely due to the high population densities
in these urban areas of Lawrence, Springfield, Chelsea, Randolph and Brockton. Consequently, project
expenditure is being divided amongst larger population sizes, resulting in lower per capita figures.
To account for the population bias, Chart 2 shows that (for a population size of 50,000 – 617,594) the
spread of per capita expenditures is even between minority and non-minority areas, suggesting these
significantly higher minority municipalities are unlikely to have found the provision of 25% design costs
as a barrier due to the similar per capita expenditure values. There are a few anomalies due to
expensive projects in Quincy ($113,153,083), Haverhill ($43,470,193), Taunton (22,912,818) and
Weymouth ($74,652,004) all of which were in the top 10 most expensive project expenditures. To
reinforce this point, Chart 4 shows there seems to be no indication within the 30,000 – 50,000
population group that there is an inequitable distribution of project expenditure with both minority and
non-minority groups showing similar patterns in per capita expenditure.
Figure 2 shows the majority of municipalities including those higher percentage minority areas have
similar project expenditures to lower percentage minority areas, all below or around $20,000,000.
Outliers such as Quincy (27) and Weymouth (10) are due to a greater number of projects amounting to
greater project expenditure. In conclusion, the spread of per capita expenditure was relatively even
throughout Massachusetts, including within the various population categories for both minority and
non-minority communities. The even spread suggests that the municipal design requirement is not
causing a barrier for minority municipalities.
Project Costs and Limited English Populations
Looking at Map 7, there does not seem to be a strong correlation between municipalities that receive
the lowest amount of funds and those that have the highest percentage of people with limited English
proficiency. There are many municipalities with both high LEP and high project expenditures, so this
suggests an equitable distribution (Table 5). Both Figures 5 and 6 show no relationship between lower
levels of LEP in relation to the number of projects or project expenditure per capita. This leads us to
believe that there is an equitable distribution amongst groups where English may not be the first
language for much of the population.
In conclusion, LEP does not seem to have significant influence on the accessibility of municipalities to
access project funding or contribute to an inequitable distribution of funds.
MassDOT Planning
Page 8 of 46
7/17/14
Chapter 90 Funds
The Chapter 90 program is a reimbursable program by which municipalities in the Commonwealth are
entitled to spend funds for capital improvements on highway construction, preservation and
improvement projects. Looking at the distribution of Chapter 90 funds is useful because the formula for
determining the amount allocated to each municipality factors in road miles (weighted 58.33%),
population (20.83%), and employment (20.83%). Ideally, it is an objective distribution of funds that
cannot take into account minority populations and therefore can be used to tell us how projects might
be distributed regardless of demographics. Given this, we would not expect to see a correlation
between Chapter 90 funds and minority populations. It is slightly complicated, however, by the fact that
urban areas which would get a high amount of Chapter 90 funds would also be high minority areas
(Table 6). As Table 6 shows, two of the top four highest minority municipalities were in the Top 10 for
highest amount of Chapter 90 funds, which in some cases were used to help offset project design costs.
A few examples of this alignment are Lawrence, Chelsea and Springfield. Of the 32 minority
municipalities (those above state average of 23.87%), 22 of them are in the highest 20% for Chapter 90
fund distribution amongst all towns.
Looking at Chapter 90 funds distribution can also help us understand why some towns receive fewer
projects due possibly to the fact that they have fewer roads. The more roads a municipality has, the
more opportunities there are for roadway projects.
Figure 8 shows there is a somewhat moderate correlation between minority groups and Chapter 90
funds, suggesting to some extent the availability of more funds in minority areas. However, the
threshold line indicates the available Chapter 90 funds are spread evenly across the various
municipalities in Massachusetts including those higher percentage minority areas. Also, as mentioned
earlier, Chapter 90 funds are higher in urban areas and urban areas tend to have higher minority
populations.
Chart 3 indicates that Chapter 90 funds appear well distributed amongst the various municipalities in
the 50,000 – 617,594 population category. The only municipality where it varies is Boston; however, as
the biggest city in Massachusetts, this would be expected due to the scale of infrastructure required.
There is no distinct pattern of a decline or increase in minority areas, which suggests that a lack of funds
available for the 25% design costs were not linked as a barrier in high minority areas. When speaking
with RPA staff we learned that smaller towns with long term vision are sometimes able to save up
Chapter 90 funds for the 25% design requirement, therefore warranting the inclusion and conclusion
here that the Chapter 90 funds can help certain municipalities (including high minority areas) with
raising the funds to meet the 25% design costs. For the population category 30,000 – 50,000 it seems
minority municipalities may receive slightly less Chapter 90 funds, however only by a small margin.
Accounting for the equal distribution of projects in this population category, the marginal reduction in
Chapter 90 funds does not seem to prevent projects from passing the design stage (Chart 6).
In conclusion, the analysis of the Chapter 90 program shows an equitable spread of funds, as evidenced
by a lack of significant correlation between minority groups and Chapter 90 funds.
MassDOT Planning
Page 9 of 46
7/17/14
Number of Projects in Title VI Areas
Map 10 & 11 depicts the number of projects rather than the project expenditures. This comparison is
helpful since some municipalities rank higher for number of projects than they do for project
expenditures, and vice versa. The map shows that Cambridge and Boston are the only two municipalities
with more than 50 projects during the look back period (Table 8). Paired with Map 11, Number of
Projects in Title VI Areas, it appears visually that municipalities with a large orange area (minority
populations above the state average) receive a high number of projects. For example, the communities
with predominant orange areas all have between 11-50 projects (Lynn, Lawrence, Lowell, Fitchburg,
Worcester, Springfield, Holyoke, Chelsea, Everett, Quincy, Randolph, Brockton, New Bedford,
Barnstable). The map demonstrates that there does not seem to be a problem in terms of more projects
being located in non-minority areas.
This conclusion is supported by Figure 3, which shows a low correlation between minority areas and
number of projects. All of the high minority areas are within the same threshold as lower minority areas,
with Worcester and Springfield having over 40 projects irrespective of their higher minority populations.
In terms of number of projects, Figure 3 shows that there is an even spread of projects irrespective of
minority percentages. The majority of municipalities in Massachusetts are below 40 projects, with only
Boston, Cambridge, Worcester and Springfield (63.25% minority) above 40 projects.
Figure 9 shows a lack of significant correlation between the number of projects and mean household
income, suggesting the even distribution of projects irrespective of income.
Chart 1 clearly shows that minority areas have an equal amount of projects compared to non-minority
areas, and in some municipalities such as Boston, Worcester, Cambridge and Springfield, the number of
projects is greater than in non-minority areas of a similar population size. The dotted line across the
graph indicates the mean number of projects in this population size (26.48), of which 8 minority
municipalities exceed, compared to only 2 non-minority municipalities. Similar to the 50,000 to 617,594
population category, there seems to be an equal distribution of projects within the 30,000 – 50,000
population minority and non-minority municipalities, suggesting the 25% design costs was not a barrier
within minority and non-minority populations (Chart 5).
In conclusion, Boston, Cambridge, Worcester and Springfield show the greatest number of projects,
which aligns with Chapter 90 fund allocations where the same four municipalities also rank first to
fourth respectively. Springfield is also classified as a Title VI community, which suggests that Chapter 90
funds may have a role in allowing high minority municipalities to access federal funds.
Statistical Analysis
The various correlation analyses were performed using data variables such as population, minorities,
number of projects, project expenditure, per capita project expenditure, and Chapter 90 funding levels
(see appendix for full list of variables). The chosen variables were correlated against one another to
produce R2 values, indicating whether the relationship was statistically significant or not. An R2 value
MassDOT Planning
Page 10 of 46
7/17/14
indicates how well data points fit a statistical model, in this case the regression line. This can help in
showing disparate impacts, where a significant correlation between two of the variables would suggest
in some cases that there an inequitable distribution of funds and potentially disparate impacts. A linear
regression was applied to the correlation to test the significance of the relationships.
Bar charts were also used to investigate minority versus non-minority areas with similar population
sizes. The bar charts were used to help address the limitation of using solely a per capita approach for
comparison over the Commonwealth. Using similar population categories in comparing minority and
non-minority areas can make it easier to compare without the per capita bias. The population categories
chosen were 30,000 – 50,000 and 50,000 - 617,594 due to most of the minority communities existing in
these size populations. Another reason for these categories was that among municipalities with
population sizes below 30,000, only three were minority municipalities, making comparison with nonminority areas difficult. The chart values go from left to right in order of highest to lower minority
percentages by municipality.
Table 1 displays the complete dataset with all the working variables included within this report. The
various columns are outlined within the table, although for ease of display, some background
calculations are not included. For example, the combined minority spending index is calculated through
Title VI minority rank (numerical value from highest to lowest percentage of minorities) plus spending
ranks (the amount of funds available for a municipality to start a project). Per capita variables are
calculated through population divided by project expenditure. Due to U.S. Census data limitations, it
should be noted that there are a few missing data points; and this highlights the opportunity to continue
this type of analysis as more data becomes available.
Municipal Design Requirement (Maps 1 and 2)
The maps from the Phase I analysis (Maps 1 and 2) illustrate the locations of highway projects that were
municipally-designed and those that were MassDOT-designed. The intent was to understand whether
project design costs incurred by municipalities imposed a disproportionate burden on localities with
significant Title VI populations, and thereby acted as a barrier to participation in the federal aid highway
program. Table 2 shows the projects analyzed by how far along in the process they were. For example,
an Approved status means that the project went to the Project Review Committee (PRC), but had not
progressed beyond this stage (as of September 2013). Other status categories include 25% Design, 50%,
100%, and Final Design. For the purposes of this analysis, we looked at the difference between
Approved projects and those that had progressed to any level of design since that would mean that the
municipality had hired a designer and funded the project to at least 25%.
Minority Municipalities (Map 3)
To calculate the percentage of minorities in a municipality, we used 2010 U.S. Census data. The minority
definition used was all non-white races, including Hispanic origin of any race, equaling a statewide
average of 23.87%. Any municipality with a minority population exceeding the statewide average is
regarded as having a “meaningfully greater” Title VI-defined minority population, for purposes of this
report, due to the smaller number of minority communities compared to non-minority communities.
MassDOT Planning
Page 11 of 46
7/17/14
Defining minority municipalities in this way ensures this report focuses on all areas where inequality of
funds may affect a statically significant minority population. For the Minority Municipalities map,
minority population is shown as it relates to the state average of 23.87%. For example, the gray areas
indicate below 49% of the state average, white shading is 50-99% of the state average, and so on, for
five categories, with dark orange representing the municipalities with the highest minority proportions
of their total population. For this report, it was deemed appropriate to use 23.87% as a threshold due to
a limited number of municipalities which are above this mean.
Map 3 and Table 1 include the base data regarding minority populations, against which we are testing
factors that might play a role in determining where projects are funded across the Commonwealth. The
top ten minority communities in order from highest percentage are Lawrence (79.53%), Chelsea (74.75),
Springfield (63.25), Randolph (60.91), Brockton (57.07), Holyoke (53.23), Boston (52.99), Lynn (52.43),
Malden (47.5) and Lowell (47.16) (Table 3). There are 32 municipalities (351 total in MA) with minority
populations exceeding the state average of 23.87%, and it is these that have been assessed for equitable
distribution of state and federal funds for highway projects.
In conclusion, the analysis for minority municipalities shows that the high minority populations mainly
reside in urban areas particularly municipalities such as Lawrence, Chelsea, Springfield, Randolph and
Brockton. With these five municipalities having large populations as well as high minority densities, they
will be the focus of closer analysis later in the report investigating further into inequity concerns.
Project cost (Map 4)
The Project Expenditure map was created by first adding up the costs for projects within each
municipality, including a half mile buffer for urban areas and a one mile buffer for rural areas. Those
values were then used to calculate project spending per capita in each municipality for better
comparison purposes, and mapped in five equal categories (lowest 20%, etc.) A hatched area indicates
no projects were programmed in that municipality during the look back period, while dark green means
that that municipality was in the highest 20% category for project expenditures per capita. The project
expenditure data was obtained from MassDOT’s Highway Division.
Project cost and Minority Municipalities (Map 5)
The minority municipalities were used as an outline to display the project expenditure within each of the
minority municipalities. As the map shows, the categories were split into three percentage groups for
project expenditure, ranging from less than 50% of the median among all Massachusetts municipalities,
to greater than 100% of the median. Three categories were also used for percentage minorities above
the state average of 23.87%, ranging from 24 – 35%, 36 – 60% and greater than 60%. The darker red
shades show areas where there is a higher minority area and less than 50% of the median project
expenditure among all Massachusetts municipalities. The figures for minority municipalities were
obtained and calculated from the U.S. Census data for 2010.
MassDOT Planning
Page 12 of 46
7/17/14
Project cost in All Massachusetts Municipalities (Map 6)
For the map of Project expenditures in all Massachusetts municipalities, the minority percentage were
broken down into three categories of less than 11% (or below 49% of state average), 11-24% (or 50-99%
of the state average) and finally greater than 23.87% (above the state average). This scale means that
the darkest colors on the map indicate the highest percentage of minority population. Project
expenditure per capita is mapped against minorities in a spectrum, broken down into three categories
around the municipal median which is $234 per person (<50% median. 50-100% median, and >100%
median). The lightest blue shade indicates fewest minorities and most expenditure, while the darkest
red represents the least project expenditure per capita and the highest percentage of minorities.
Project cost and Limited English Populations (LEP) (Map 7)
The map Project Expenditure and LEP was created through the combination of the project expenditure
map outlined above with LEP data from the U.S. Census 2010. The combination of these two variables
led to the same three categories for project expenditure outlined above, but for the LEP population
includes the range of no LEP population, less than 29%, to more than 29%. The 29% threshold was
chosen due to this being the state average of persons with limited English proficiency. The same color
scheme was used with dark red indicating high percentage LEP areas and less than 50% median of
project expenditure per capita. LEP was defined within the scope of this report through the US Census
Bureau classifying language proficiency based on decennial survey respondent’s self-perceived ability to
speak English very well, well, not well, or not at all. In the first round of mapping, census blocks in which
a percentage of households with no persons over 14 speaking English only or very well were identified
as Limited English Proficiency areas and population living in those areas were described as LEP
populations.
Fiscal Year 2015 Chapter 90 Apportionment Chapter 90 (Map 8)
The map for the Chapter 90 Fund Distribution was created by using data from the FY2015 Chapter 90
distribution table. Each municipality was then categorized into five equal ranges from less than $202,000
(lowest 20%); $202,001 - $312,000; $312,001 - $486,000 (middle 20%); $486,001 - $757,000; and finally
greater than $757,000 (highest 20%). The darker blue municipalities show areas where a greater amount
of Chapter 90 funds were received, relative to the palest green areas which represent municipalities
receiving the lowest 20% of funds.
Number of Projects (Map 10)
This map shows the number of projects constructed in each municipality, regardless of project cost, so
that we could control for dollars spent in each municipality and only analyze how many projects from
each municipality were financed. Five categories were used to delineate the range. They were broken
down into no projects, 1 project, 2 – 10 projects, 11 – 50 projects, and greater than 50 projects. The data
used for the number of projects is derived from project Locations and project expenditure data. There
were 16 municipalities with no projects and 2 municipalities with more than 50 projects.
MassDOT Planning
Page 13 of 46
7/17/14
Number of Projects in Title VI areas (Map 11)
The map for number of projects in Title VI areas was created using a map overlay of Title VI and low
income areas, with the number of projects within each municipality indicated on top by symbols. The
categories for the Title VI areas were yellow for low income, orange for minority and red to indicate the
overlap of low income and minority categories. The data used for Title VI areas was from the U.S. Census
2010. For the number of projects, the same categories were used as Map 8 above but, to assist in
visualizing patterns it uses small circles (no projects), circles (1 project), triangles (2 – 10 projects),
squares (11 – 50 projects) and hexagons (greater than 50 projects).
Other Issues and Observations
Future analysis of rural participation could look at the percentage of federal eligible roads versus the
project expenditure to see if those municipalities which have less federal eligible roads receive more or
less funds compared to those who have greater federal eligible road miles. The current analysis
satisfactorily describes the current question regarding disparate impacts to minority populations and
therefore this additional consideration of rural municipalities suggests an area for ongoing analysis. This
examination of equitable distribution of projects among rural and urban areas is the subject of
discussion and deliberation by the recently formed Project Selection Advisory Council (PSA Council)
which will report to the Massachusetts Legislature by December 31, 2014 to recommend uniform
project evaluation criteria and a prioritization formula that address issues of regional equity in addition
to concerns such as Safety, Sustainability and Mobility/Access for all residents of the Commonwealth. It
is recommended that any further analysis of rural vs. urban project distribution be conducted following
the review and/or implementation of the recommendations by the PSA Council, as the
recommendations may address some of the challenges identified in this analysis that rural communities
must overcome.
To investigate further, this report looked at the TIP (2014 – 2017) and interviewed RPA staff to see
whether there were any barriers as to why they had no projects either planned or in design. Table 9
shows that there were 16 municipalities which did not have any projects in the look back period,
including only one minority community (Aquinnah). To investigate whether this was just an isolated
occurrence for the look back period or potentially a continuous trend, this report looked at the 2014 2017 TIP to see whether there were any planned projects in the future and whether they had or did not
have funding. Of the 16 municipalities, only 4 municipalities have planned projects but no funding, and
2 municipalities have planned projects with funding. With the majority of the municipalities not having
any projects either in the look back period and the latest TIP, this may suggest there is an issue with
funding for the 25% design costs, but no apparent correlation between this financial challenge and
municipalities with statistically significant minority populations. Potential explanations as to why some
of these municipalities have no planned or proposed projects for funding can be found in the previously
discussed section regarding the municipal design requirement and our qualitative assessment with RPA
transportation program managers.
MassDOT Planning
Page 14 of 46
7/17/14
Appendix B - Figures
Figure 1: Percentage Minority vs. Per Capita Expenditure ($) for All Massachusetts Municipalities.
Figure 2: Percentage Minority vs. Project Expenditure ($) for All Massachusetts Municipalities.
MassDOT Planning
Page 15 of 46
7/17/14
Figure 3: Percentage Minority Population vs. Number of Projects for All Massachusetts Municipalities.
Figure 4: Income vs. per capita expenditure for All Massachusetts Municipalities.
In terms of how income may affect per capita project expenditure, Figure 4 shows there is no statistical
relationship, indicating that the mean household income within a municipality does not affect the
amount of project investment. This lack of relationship is interesting as the size of a population, for
example in Boston and Cambridge, would be a large factor for investment; however, this figure again
illustrates the relatively equitable distribution of funds to all municipalities in regards to income bias.
MassDOT Planning
Page 16 of 46
7/17/14
Figure 5: Per Capita Project Expenditure vs. Percent Limited English Proficiency (LEP) for All
Massachusetts Municipalities.
Figure 6: Percent LEP vs. Number of Projects for All Massachusetts Municipalities.
MassDOT Planning
Page 17 of 46
7/17/14
Figure 7: Chapter 90 Fund Apportionments vs. Number of Projects for All Massachusetts Municipalities.
Figure 7 shows an expected strong relationship between the availability of funds and the amount of
projects within each municipality in Massachusetts. This is because if a municipality receives a high
amount of Chapter 90 funds, they are able to advance more projects through the design phase and have
them ready to be eligible for state and federal funding on the TIP.
Figure 8: Chapter 90 Fund Apportionments vs. Percent Minority for All Massachusetts Municipalities.
MassDOT Planning
Page 18 of 46
7/17/14
Figure 9: Income vs. Number of Projects for All Massachusetts Municipalities.
Note: Mean household income chosen due to U.S. Census data availability at the municipal level.
Per Capita expenditure per Roadway
Miles ($)
Figure 10: Title VI Minority Percentage by Municipality vs. Per Capita Expenditure Per Roadway Mile
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0.00%
R² = 0.0249
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
% Title VI Minority
In Figure 10, the per capita expenditure per roadway mile data plotted against municipal minority
percentage shows no significant correlation between the two variables, suggesting that the distribution
of funds depending upon both population and roadway miles does not have any bias towards either
minority or non-minority municipalities. Several outliers showing higher per capita expenditures per
mile for low minority municipalities (the “spike” in the left side of the graph) is due to their very small
population sizes. Overall, the graph shows the relatively equal distribution of funds, irrespective of
minority percentage and per capita expenditure based on roadway mileage.
MassDOT Planning
Page 19 of 46
7/17/14
Appendix C – Charts and Master Data Table
Chart 1: Number of Projects for the Largest Municipalities in Massachusetts (50,000+ Population)
140
Minority
Number of Projects
120
Non-Minority
100
Mean
80
60
40
20
Plymouth
Weymouth
Peabody
Taunton
Fall River
Newton
Haverhill
Chicopee
Medford
Brookline
Somerville
Waltham
New Bedford
Quincy
Framingham
Revere
Cambridge
Worcester
Lowell
Malden
Lynn
Boston
Brockton
Springfield
Lawrence
0
Municipality
This Chart shows the number of projects in both Minority and Non-Minority populations with a population size
between 50,000 – 617,594. On the municipality axis from left to right reflects the decline in percentage minority
until the mean minority threshold of 23.87% is reached.
Chart 2: Per Capita Expenditures for the Largest Municipalities in Massachusetts (50,000+ Population)
Per Capita expenditure ($)
1600
Minority
1400
1200
Non-Minority
1000
Mean
800
600
400
200
Plymouth
Weymouth
Peabody
Taunton
Fall River
Newton
Haverhill
Chicopee
Medford
Brookline
Somerville
Waltham
New Bedford
Quincy
Framingham
Revere
Cambridge
Worcester
Lowell
Malden
Lynn
Boston
Brockton
Springfield
Lawrence
0
Municipality
MassDOT Planning
Page 20 of 46
7/17/14
Chart 3: Total Chapter 90 Expenditures for Massachusetts Municipalities (50,000+ Population)
16000000
Chapter 90 Funds ($)
14000000
Minority
12000000
Non-Minority
10000000
Mean
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
Plymouth
Weymouth
Peabody
Taunton
Fall River
Newton
Haverhill
Chicopee
Medford
Brookline
Somerville
Waltham
New Bedford
Quincy
Framingham
Revere
Cambridge
Worcester
Lowell
Malden
Lynn
Boston
Brockton
Lawrence
Springfield
0
Municipality
This chart shows Chapter 90 funds for each municipality in Massachusetts with a population from 50,000 –
617,594. The large amount of funds distributed to Boston is not usual due to its relative size of population
compared to the rest of Massachusetts. Springfield and Worcester also receive greater amounts due to their
higher total populations. The remaining municipalities have similar Chapter 90 fund distributions.
Chart 4: Per Capita Expenditures for Municipalities in Massachusetts (30,000 to 50,000 Population)
Per Capita expenditure ($)
1200
Minority
1000
Non-Minority
800
Mean
600
400
200
Municipality
MassDOT Planning
Page 21 of 46
7/17/14
Franklin
Beverly
Falmouth
Westfield
Dartmouth
Billerica
Barnstable
Pittsfield
Chelmsford
Natick
Braintree
Arlington
Attleboro
Andover
Watertown
Woburn
Shrewsbury
Salem
Leominster
Marlborough
Methuen
Lexington
Amherst
Fitchburg
Everett
Holyoke
Randolph
Chelsea
0
Chelsea
Randolph
Holyoke
Everett
Fitchburg
Amherst
Lexington
Methuen
Marlborough
Leominster
Salem
Shrewsbury
Woburn
Watertown
Andover
Arlington
Attleboro
Braintree
Natick
Pittsfield
Chelmsford
Barnstable
Billerica
Westfield
Dartmouth
Falmouth
Beverly
Franklin
Chapter 90
2500000
2000000
1500000
MassDOT Planning
Page 22 of 46
Westfield
Franklin
Beverly
Falmouth
Dartmouth
15
Billerica
20
Barnstable
25
Chelmsford
30
Pittsfield
Natick
Braintree
Attleboro
Arlington
Andover
Watertown
Woburn
Shrewsbury
Salem
Leominster
Marlborough
Methuen
Lexington
Amherst
Fitchburg
Everett
Holyoke
Randolph
Chelsea
Number of Projects
Chart 5: Number of Projects for Municipalities in Massachusetts (30,000 to 50,000 Population)
Minority
Non-Minority
Mean
10
5
0
Municipality
Chart 6: Total Chapter 90 Expenditures for Massachusetts Municipalities (30,000 to 50,000 Population)
Minority
Non-Minority
Mean
1000000
500000
0
Municipality
7/17/14
Table 1: Master Data Table (Sorted by Descending Title VI Minority Percentage)
Lawrence
76,377
All Minority
(incl. White
Hispanic)
Pop.
60,740
Chelsea
35,177
Springfield
Municipality
2010 Total
Population
Percent
Title VI
Minority
Number
of
Projects
Project
Expenditures ($)
Per Capita
Expenditure
($)
80%
12
$3,780,834
$50
26,295
75%
20
$1,997,770
$57
153,060
96,812
63%
42
$8,872,822
$58
Randolph
32,112
19,559
61%
11
$2,785,989
$87
Brockton
93,810
53,542
57%
15
$6,077,417
$65
Holyoke
39,880
21,229
53%
28
$4,040,827
$101
Boston
617,594
327,282
53%
124
$41,045,887
$66
Lynn
90,329
47,360
52%
11
$5,077,161
$56
Malden
59,450
28,239
48%
2
$1,011,362
$17
Lowell
106,519
50,239
47%
24
$15,367,846
$144
Everett
41,667
19,351
46%
21
$9,732,232
$234
311
137
44%
0
$0
$0
Worcester
181,045
73,231
40%
49
$29,231,155
$161
Cambridge
105,162
39,903
38%
64
$8,171,981
$78
Revere
51,755
19,456
38%
9
$9,360,116
$181
Framingham
68,318
23,693
35%
28
$4,463,550
$65
Quincy
92,271
31,823
34%
27
$113,153,083
$1,226
New Bedford
95,072
30,474
32%
18
$9,349,802
$98
Fitchburg
40,318
12,816
32%
12
$12,886,705
$320
Southbridge
16,719
5,254
31%
6
$8,502,182
$509
Waltham
60,632
18,954
31%
17
$9,459,797
$156
Somerville
75,754
23,395
31%
29
$2,415,189
$32
Brookline
58,732
15,692
27%
27
$2,221,506
$38
Amherst
37,819
10,102
27%
10
$3,901,691
$103
Lexington
31,394
8,256
26%
22
$4,795,105
$153
Methuen
47,255
11,868
25%
14
$8,284,486
$175
Westborough
18,272
4,549
25%
20
$1,525,071
$83
Marlborough
38,499
9,546
25%
13
$9,857,246
$256
Leominster
40,759
10,014
25%
16
$3,932,931
$96
Acton
21,924
5,369
24%
6
$5,067,282
$231
Milton
27,003
6,514
24%
15
$5,426,453
$201
Salem
41,340
9,963
24%
10
$3,124,107
$76
Medford
56,173
13,384
24%
17
$12,480,357
$222
Shrewsbury
35,608
8,074
23%
13
$37,114,460
$1,042
Stoughton
26,962
5,822
22%
6
$2,552,957
$95
4,996
1,056
21%
7
$3,658,686
$732
Aquinnah
Boxborough
MassDOT Planning
Page 23 of 46
7/17/14
Table 1 (continued):
Burlington
24,498
All Minority
(incl. White
Hispanic)
Pop.
5,106
Chicopee
55,298
11,360
21%
32
$5,672,491
$103
Haverhill
60,879
12,485
21%
16
$43,470,193
$714
Shirley
7,211
1,472
20%
7
$5,215,753
$723
Newton
85,146
17,345
20%
32
$3,499,493
$41
Clinton
13,606
2,722
20%
3
$2,594,613
$191
Nantucket
10,172
1,980
19%
5
$2,560,390
$252
Holbrook
10,791
2,070
19%
2
$365,766
$34
Sharon
17,612
3,341
19%
7
$5,492,237
$312
Belmont
24,729
4,611
19%
9
$743,826
$30
Ayer
7,427
1,382
19%
0
$0
$0
Lancaster
8,055
1,487
18%
13
$4,946,374
$614
Ashland
16,593
3,063
18%
14
$5,073,865
$306
Woburn
38,120
6,990
18%
11
$2,318,976
$61
Watertown
31,915
5,850
18%
16
$622,294
$19
West Springfield
28,391
5,085
18%
32
$3,013,223
$106
Wellesley
27,982
4,921
18%
12
$4,119,956
$147
Milford
27,999
4,895
17%
5
$1,285,317
$46
Oak Bluffs
4,527
790
17%
6
$3,615,740
$799
Norwood
28,602
4,960
17%
6
$4,441,470
$155
Lincoln
6,362
1,096
17%
14
$8,997,523
$1,414
Avon
4,356
741
17%
2
$851,284
$195
Canton
21,561
3,610
17%
13
$14,264,987
$662
Fall River
88,857
14,750
17%
18
$9,031,864
$102
Weston
11,261
1,868
17%
23
$1,109,162
$98
Andover
33,201
5,503
17%
25
$15,845,720
$477
Arlington
42,844
7,040
16%
15
$2,083,915
$49
Westford
21,951
3,526
16%
12
$4,073,703
$186
Bedford
13,320
2,136
16%
6
$1,924,118
$144
Attleboro
43,593
6,985
16%
16
$6,213,482
$143
Northampton
28,549
4,519
16%
31
$4,939,571
$173
Tisbury
3,949
615
16%
4
$51,384
$13
Taunton
55,874
8,653
15%
13
$22,912,818
$410
Norfolk
11,227
1,734
15%
5
$2,361,641
$210
Sunderland
3,684
566
15%
1
$1,027,603
$279
Williamstown
7,754
1,167
15%
6
$3,608,022
$465
Municipality
MassDOT Planning
2010 Total
Population
Percent
Title VI
Minority
Number
of
Projects
Project
Expenditures ($)
Per Capita
Expenditure
($)
21%
10
$2,566,357
$105
Page 24 of 46
7/17/14
Table 1 (continued):
Dedham
24,729
All Minority
(incl. White
Hispanic)
Pop.
3,682
Wareham
21,822
3,228
15%
6
$5,123,294
$235
Braintree
35,744
5,273
15%
13
$2,805,636
$78
Wayland
12,994
1,912
15%
13
$4,510,060
$347
Natick
33,006
4,817
15%
17
$2,628,729
$80
Winchester
21,374
3,065
14%
5
$2,400,841
$112
North Andover
28,352
3,997
14%
7
$2,242,743
$79
Northborough
14,155
1,995
14%
8
$3,489,794
$247
Pittsfield
44,737
6,300
14%
19
$3,785,164
$85
Southborough
9,767
1,362
14%
19
$1,336,623
$137
Harvard
6,520
852
13%
9
$7,141,574
$1,095
Gardner
20,228
2,633
13%
9
$4,294,576
$212
Grafton
17,765
2,288
13%
16
$3,960,289
$223
Chelmsford
33,802
4,347
13%
16
$5,639,462
$167
Concord
17,668
2,266
13%
10
$14,040,561
$795
Great Barrington
7,104
904
13%
3
$965,370
$136
Edgartown
4,067
517
13%
4
$873,788
$215
Middleton
8,987
1,142
13%
4
$2,033,904
$226
South Hadley
17,514
2,206
13%
22
$2,579,256
$147
Webster
16,767
2,109
13%
7
$782,102
$47
Barnstable
45,193
5,681
13%
14
$3,012,639
$67
Peabody
51,251
6,317
12%
17
$2,199,338
$43
Mashpee
14,006
1,725
12%
3
$280,674
$20
4,852
595
12%
3
$480,352
$99
Weymouth
53,743
6,379
12%
10
$74,652,004
$1,389
Dracut
29,457
3,492
12%
5
$4,281,412
$145
Billerica
40,243
4,675
12%
12
$9,314,165
$231
Westfield
41,094
4,764
12%
16
$14,194,428
$345
Municipality
Carlisle
Provincetown
2010 Total
Population
Percent
Title VI
Minority
Number
of
Projects
Project
Expenditures ($)
Per Capita
Expenditure
($)
15%
12
$35,303,377
$1,428
2,942
339
12%
0
$0
$0
Winthrop
17,497
2,011
11%
1
$1,508,689
$86
Hudson
19,063
2,118
11%
11
$5,975,883
$313
7,669
852
11%
4
$391,058
$51
Bridgewater
26,563
2,941
11%
10
$6,001,392
$226
Needham
28,886
3,156
11%
6
$22,139,719
$766
Sudbury
17,659
1,880
11%
3
$128,751
$7
Hadley
5,250
555
11%
15
$1,286,234
$245
West Boylston
MassDOT Planning
Page 25 of 46
7/17/14
Table 1 (continued):
Melrose
26,983
All Minority
(incl. White
Hispanic)
Pop.
2,822
Saugus
26,628
2,768
10%
4
$8,173,601
$307
Greenfield
17,456
1,781
10%
22
$3,510,641
$201
Ludlow
21,103
2,140
10%
11
$2,702,199
$128
Easton
Municipality
2010 Total
Population
Percent
Title VI
Minority
Number
of
Projects
Project
Expenditures ($)
Per Capita
Expenditure
($)
10%
2
$3,729,843
$138
23,112
2,327
10%
8
$5,960,182
$258
Shutesbury
1,771
176
10%
2
$3,433,756
$1,939
Mansfield
23,184
2,285
10%
13
$6,215,045
$268
Maynard
10,106
996
10%
2
$453,874
$45
Montague
8,437
816
10%
15
$5,123,055
$607
Dartmouth
34,032
3,230
9%
13
$9,167,980
$269
Stoneham
21,437
2,033
9%
9
$2,074,215
$97
Tyngsborough
11,292
1,055
9%
2
$868,637
$77
Longmeadow
15,784
1,462
9%
13
$480,915
$30
Falmouth
31,531
2,919
9%
10
$5,116,141
$162
Walpole
24,070
2,222
9%
7
$1,777,472
$74
Rockland
17,489
1,610
9%
5
$6,746,161
$386
Leicester
North
Attleborough
North Adams
10,970
1,009
9%
5
$1,321,986
$121
28,712
2,583
9%
14
$1,915,777
$67
13,708
1,210
9%
5
$7,067,550
$516
Yarmouth
23,793
2,095
9%
11
$2,077,811
$87
Dover
5,589
490
9%
0
$0
$0
Hamilton
7,764
676
9%
2
$582,293
$75
Leverett
1,851
161
9%
3
$4,767,125
$2,575
Beverly
39,502
3,397
9%
7
$3,703,343
$94
Easthampton
16,053
1,376
9%
15
$5,615,369
$350
Franklin
31,635
2,709
9%
11
$2,966,104
$94
Abington
15,985
1,368
9%
3
$1,012,880
$63
1,321
112
8%
4
$2,067,944
$1,565
Westwood
14,618
1,237
8%
8
$16,750,793
$1,146
Foxborough
16,865
1,400
8%
10
$3,168,011
$188
Hopkinton
14,925
1,238
8%
16
$2,152,426
$144
Bellingham
Pelham
16,332
1,347
8%
9
$9,587,662
$587
Lee
5,943
490
8%
13
$1,770,388
$298
Marion
4,907
398
8%
1
$883,128
$180
Winchendon
10,300
824
8%
5
$2,497,532
$242
Raynham
13,383
1,064
8%
9
$8,324,741
$622
MassDOT Planning
Page 26 of 46
7/17/14
Table 1 (continued):
Municipality
2010 Total
Population
Belchertown
14,649
All Minority
(incl. White
Hispanic)
Pop.
1,145
Wilbraham
14,219
Ware
Stow
Number
of
Projects
Project
Expenditures ($)
Per Capita
Expenditure
($)
8%
6
$3,318,033
$227
1,111
8%
6
$2,069,753
$146
9,872
771
8%
6
$1,825,957
$185
6,590
511
8%
1
$373,192
$57
22,325
1,725
8%
14
$7,784,005
$349
8,924
685
8%
9
$6,555,198
$735
14,207
1,090
8%
9
$4,586,756
$323
Boylston
4,355
334
8%
2
$1,468,842
$337
Agawam
28,438
2,151
8%
27
$2,322,676
$82
Bourne
19,754
1,493
8%
14
$7,210,223
$365
Reading
24,747
1,870
8%
12
$1,810,932
$73
Paxton
4,806
361
8%
3
$1,198,554
$249
Plymouth
56,468
4,230
7%
9
$8,327,173
$147
Harwich
12,243
896
7%
2
$4,148,403
$339
7,891
576
7%
2
$2,134,477
$270
Holden
17,346
1,260
7%
10
$7,256,561
$418
Millbury
13,261
952
7%
19
$3,676,811
$277
Tewksbury
28,961
2,075
7%
16
$9,139,396
$316
Norton
19,031
1,362
7%
6
$2,633,979
$138
East Longmeadow
15,720
1,108
7%
3
$1,201,077
$76
Wilmington
Littleton
Dennis
Millis
Lenox
Percent
Title VI
Minority
5,025
354
7%
8
$2,857,096
$569
Wakefield
24,932
1,751
7%
8
$2,392,707
$96
Swampscott
13,787
963
7%
3
$282,561
$20
692
48
7%
6
$3,984,241
$5,758
Plainville
8,264
573
7%
5
$1,266,380
$153
Auburn
16,188
1,106
7%
24
$2,344,654
$145
Orange
7,839
530
7%
8
$6,174,345
$788
11,584
780
7%
11
$4,776,266
$412
Savoy
Athol
Deerfield
5,125
344
7%
10
$22,093,416
$4,311
Oxford
13,709
918
7%
16
$2,830,201
$206
Holliston
13,547
902
7%
4
$1,781,832
$132
Sherborn
4,119
274
7%
1
$1,338,052
$325
Lynnfield
11,596
758
7%
8
$2,332,976
$201
Bolton
4,897
320
7%
5
$2,329,980
$476
Sturbridge
9,268
603
7%
18
$3,811,851
$411
12,752
828
6%
4
$2,422,806
$190
Medway
MassDOT Planning
Page 27 of 46
7/17/14
Table 1 (continued):
10,646
All Minority
(incl. White
Hispanic)
Pop.
682
6,916
440
6%
8
$3,505,141
$507
Lunenburg
10,086
635
6%
3
$3,468,096
$344
Northbridge
15,707
987
6%
5
$12,349,083
$786
Danvers
26,493
1,654
6%
11
$8,828,387
$333
Dudley
11,390
708
6%
5
$6,513,676
$572
1,947
121
6%
9
$1,616,646
$830
228
14
6%
3
$747,941
$3,280
Whitman
14,489
886
6%
2
$932,826
$64
Medfield
12,024
731
6%
0
$0
$0
6,081
368
6%
2
$2,199,310
$362
North Reading
14,892
901
6%
4
$1,164,344
$78
Seekonk
13,722
824
6%
4
$4,170,212
$304
Middleborough
23,116
1,386
6%
13
$5,216,808
$226
Truro
2,003
120
6%
0
$0
$0
Hopedale
5,911
350
6%
2
$1,613,547
$273
West Tisbury
2,740
162
6%
2
$711,644
$260
Gloucester
28,789
1,689
6%
3
$4,345,138
$151
Dunstable
3,179
186
6%
3
$804,905
$253
Rutland
7,973
463
6%
9
$1,347,790
$169
Municipality
Groton
West Bridgewater
Stockbridge
New Ashford
Ashburnham
Upton
2010 Total
Population
Percent
Title VI
Minority
Number
of
Projects
Project
Expenditures ($)
Per Capita
Expenditure
($)
6%
0
$0
$0
7,542
437
6%
7
$69,234
$9
Charlton
12,981
748
6%
15
$1,148,656
$88
Hull
10,293
591
6%
1
$1,301,539
$126
3,257
187
6%
2
$3,371,272
$1,035
East Bridgewater
13,794
790
6%
3
$1,078,755
$78
Palmer
12,140
694
6%
20
$9,362,696
$771
Westminster
7,277
409
6%
7
$3,646,849
$501
Wenham
4,875
268
5%
2
$1,569,841
$322
Spencer
11,688
627
5%
4
$6,491,840
$555
Tolland
485
26
5%
5
$428,714
$884
Ipswich
13,175
704
5%
4
$2,791,058
$212
Phillipston
1,682
89
5%
9
$1,391,358
$827
Fairhaven
15,873
839
5%
10
$1,468,208
$92
Berlin
2,866
151
5%
10
$1,082,059
$378
Blackstone
9,026
471
5%
4
$2,151,595
$238
13,457
701
5%
5
$6,546,954
$487
Sheffield
Uxbridge
MassDOT Planning
Page 28 of 46
7/17/14
Table 1 (continued):
848
All Minority
(incl. White
Hispanic)
Pop.
44
Brimfield
3,609
186
5%
12
$2,559,261
$709
Chatham
6,125
314
5%
2
$10,400,120
$1,698
11,509
587
5%
2
$9,452,261
$821
Municipality
Wendell
Carver
Ashfield
2010 Total
Population
Percent
Title VI
Minority
Number
of
Projects
Project
Expenditures ($)
Per Capita
Expenditure
($)
5%
4
$1,361,317
$1,605
1,737
87
5%
3
$1,264,034
$728
19,808
990
5%
1
$19,320
$1
Southwick
9,502
474
5%
4
$1,957,751
$206
Boxford
7,965
395
5%
2
$1,761,143
$221
Monroe
121
6
5%
1
$1,231,771
$10,180
Holland
2,481
123
5%
0
$0
$0
Rochester
5,232
259
5%
3
$154,860
$30
Amesbury
16,283
804
5%
13
$12,948,225
$795
Marblehead
Barre
5,398
266
5%
12
$3,358,091
$622
17,416
842
5%
12
$9,208,246
$529
Salisbury
8,283
399
5%
10
$8,356,311
$1,009
Pepperell
11,497
551
5%
2
$3,849,629
$335
6,240
299
5%
4
$564,700
$90
648
31
5%
4
$1,361,657
$2,101
2,183
104
5%
1
$15,669
$7
Kingston
12,629
598
5%
5
$13,688,767
$1,084
Scituate
18,133
856
5%
2
$1,582,720
$87
Warren
5,135
242
5%
6
$1,196,266
$233
Norwell
10,506
495
5%
11
$2,357,527
$224
Townsend
8,926
420
5%
4
$4,188,572
$469
Sterling
7,808
367
5%
3
$2,152,901
$276
Douglas
8,471
397
5%
3
$1,232,137
$145
Topsfield
6,085
283
5%
4
$3,104,828
$510
990
46
5%
2
$4,114,064
$4,156
1,897
88
5%
3
$1,062,758
$560
1,509
70
5%
3
$1,266,862
$840
22,157
1,022
5%
6
$3,167,042
$143
Brewster
9,820
450
5%
3
$3,493,798
$356
Charlemont
1,266
58
5%
14
$4,580,283
$3,618
Williamsburg
2,482
113
5%
3
$1,202,716
$485
Mattapoisett
6,045
275
5%
4
$492,787
$82
Shelburne
1,893
86
5%
3
$599,757
$317
Newburyport
Granby
Plainfield
East Brookfield
New Salem
Conway
New
Marlborough
Hingham
MassDOT Planning
Page 29 of 46
7/17/14
Table 1 (continued):
8,560
All Minority
(incl. White
Hispanic)
Pop.
388
11,608
524
5%
5
$899,003
$77
Becket
1,779
80
4%
10
$4,354,671
$2,448
Hampden
5,139
231
4%
2
$2,040,579
$397
Nahant
3,410
153
4%
0
$0
$0
Dighton
7,086
317
4%
5
$8,733,759
$1,233
Berkley
6,411
286
4%
8
$17,212,737
$2,685
Templeton
8,013
357
4%
7
$2,533,387
$316
Orleans
5,890
260
4%
4
$873,608
$148
Egremont
1,225
54
4%
2
$3,508,082
$2,864
Freetown
8,870
390
4%
7
$16,852,877
$1,900
Royalston
1,258
55
4%
4
$4,016,466
$3,193
Municipality
Monson
Rehoboth
Sandisfield
2010 Total
Population
Percent
Title VI
Minority
Number
of
Projects
Project
Expenditures ($)
Per Capita
Expenditure
($)
5%
10
$7,270,534
$849
915
40
4%
7
$1,946,976
$2,128
Oakham
1,902
83
4%
3
$865,690
$455
Hancock
717
31
4%
3
$3,567,538
$4,976
Georgetown
8,183
351
4%
3
$1,772,835
$217
West Stockbridge
1,306
56
4%
5
$1,705,390
$1,306
Merrimac
6,338
271
4%
8
$2,844,070
$449
Dalton
6,756
287
4%
5
$4,926,100
$729
North Brookfield
4,680
198
4%
1
$407,067
$87
Windsor
899
38
4%
7
$867,316
$965
Wales
1,838
77
4%
0
$0
$0
Colrain
1,671
70
4%
4
$3,415,105
$2,044
Wellfleet
2,750
115
4%
1
$106,005
$39
Hardwick
2,990
125
4%
4
$678,059
$227
Hanover
13,879
579
4%
9
$1,499,448
$108
1,775
74
4%
11
$456,846
$257
Chilmark
866
36
4%
0
$0
$0
Eastham
Russell
4,956
206
4%
2
$758,888
$153
Hawley
337
14
4%
8
$1,695,312
$5,031
Hanson
10,209
424
4%
2
$1,030,174
$101
Sandwich
20,675
858
4%
10
$3,137,182
$152
Lanesborough
3,091
128
4%
6
$2,469,198
$799
Huntington
2,180
90
4%
7
$2,145,299
$984
Rockport
6,952
286
4%
0
$0
$0
West Brookfield
3,701
152
4%
4
$3,257,555
$880
MassDOT Planning
Page 30 of 46
7/17/14
Table 1 (continued):
Gill
1,500
All Minority
(incl. White
Hispanic)
Pop.
61
Sutton
8,963
359
4%
7
$4,004,810
$447
Erving
1,800
72
4%
8
$2,516,901
$1,398
75
3
4%
0
$0
$0
Marshfield
25,132
1,005
4%
5
$6,025,058
$240
Princeton
3,413
136
4%
5
$1,811,548
$531
Plympton
2,820
112
4%
2
$4,217,484
$1,496
838
33
4%
9
$267,156
$319
Pembroke
17,837
699
4%
5
$1,770,131
$99
Lakeville
10,602
415
4%
9
$4,266,054
$402
Ashby
3,074
120
4%
1
$234,055
$76
Northfield
3,032
117
4%
3
$574,809
$190
Essex
3,504
135
4%
4
$5,545,798
$1,583
Buckland
1,902
73
4%
7
$1,174,174
$617
Cohasset
7,542
288
4%
2
$2,111,109
$280
Worthington
1,156
44
4%
5
$1,886,329
$1,632
10,955
414
4%
7
$2,750,133
$251
Adams
8,485
319
4%
8
$987,677
$116
Halifax
7,518
282
4%
2
$761,037
$101
Whately
1,496
56
4%
5
$1,940,781
$1,297
Acushnet
10,303
384
4%
3
$1,021,793
$99
Duxbury
15,059
560
4%
3
$989,137
$66
Granville
1,566
58
4%
0
$0
$0
Brookfield
3,390
125
4%
1
$3,699,050
$1,091
West Newbury
4,235
156
4%
4
$7,289,348
$1,721
706
26
4%
2
$121,857
$173
Millville
3,190
117
4%
2
$2,796,201
$877
Swansea
15,865
578
4%
9
$3,295,164
$208
Hubbardston
4,382
157
4%
7
$2,080,916
$475
Manchester
5,136
184
4%
2
$1,385,154
$270
Mendon
5,839
208
4%
2
$663,766
$114
Groveland
6,459
229
4%
1
$33,131,246
$5,129
Richmond
1,475
51
3%
6
$1,858,612
$1,260
752
26
3%
6
$2,079,609
$2,765
Southampton
5,792
199
3%
6
$1,704,277
$294
Hatfield
3,279
111
3%
11
$402,793
$123
Municipality
Gosnold
Montgomery
Wrentham
Heath
Florida
MassDOT Planning
2010 Total
Population
Percent
Title VI
Minority
Number
of
Projects
Project
Expenditures ($)
Per Capita
Expenditure
($)
4%
15
$2,824,039
$1,883
Page 31 of 46
7/17/14
Table 1 (continued):
18,165
All Minority
(incl. White
Hispanic)
Pop.
610
5,856
196
3%
5
$400,602
$68
Warwick
780
26
3%
2
$896,238
$1,149
Rowe
393
13
3%
5
$2,124,218
$5,405
Municipality
Somerset
Rowley
Otis
2010 Total
Population
Percent
Title VI
Minority
Number
of
Projects
Project
Expenditures ($)
Per Capita
Expenditure
($)
3%
7
$1,476,348
$81
1,612
53
3%
9
$1,625,717
$1,009
Cummington
872
28
3%
6
$4,635,388
$5,316
New Braintree
999
31
3%
4
$207,680
$208
Middlefield
521
16
3%
2
$1,097,205
$2,106
15,532
476
3%
7
$1,205,878
$78
Westhampton
1,607
49
3%
5
$1,745,767
$1,086
Goshen
1,054
32
3%
3
$397,142
$377
Newbury
6,666
198
3%
4
$2,329,109
$349
Cheshire
3,235
96
3%
5
$2,261,902
$699
Bernardston
2,129
59
3%
10
$681,932
$320
Blandford
1,233
34
3%
12
$4,795,777
$3,890
Hinsdale
2,032
56
3%
5
$3,757,248
$1,849
327
9
3%
7
$3,894,317
$11,909
1,222
33
3%
4
$4,220,806
$3,454
Alford
494
13
3%
1
$739,108
$1,496
Leyden
711
18
3%
0
$0
$0
Westport
Tyringham
Chesterfield
Petersham
1,234
30
2%
5
$1,864,437
$1,511
Mount Washington
167
4
2%
0
$0
$0
Monterey
961
23
2%
2
$1,076,169
$1,120
Washington
538
12
2%
3
$5,609,123
$10,426
Peru
847
18
2%
1
$3,509,617
$4,144
Clarksburg
1,702
34
2%
2
$54,002
$32
Chester
State Total or
Average
1,337
24
2%
11
$3,942,022
$2,948
6,547,629
1,562,829
23.87%
3,002
$1,642,580,776
$251
MassDOT Planning
Page 32 of 46
7/17/14
Appendix D – Additional Tables
Table 2: This table shows the projects in various municipalities throughout Massachusetts which have reached approved status. These projects
may already have funding in place due to the projects being approved (for design and build). Of the 130 projects which fall into this category, 22
of them are within minority communities and 12 out of the 22 projects are within the top 10 minority communities mainly Boston and Holyoke.
With the majority of the ‘approved’ projects in non-minority areas this suggests the 25% design question is not a barrier in high minority areas,
as it seems this ‘problem’ exists all over Massachusetts. Projects listed in red are located in one of the top ten minority municipalities. Yellow
indicates the municipalities within the 32 minority municipalities.
BOSTON- TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON BLUE HILL AVENUE AND WARREN
STREET
Approved
BILLERICA- REHABILITATION ON BOSTON ROAD (ROUTE 3A) FROM BILLERICA TOWN
CENTER TO FLOYD STREET
Approved
FITCHBURG- LUNENBURG- LEOMINSTER- RECONSTRUCTION OF SUMMER STREET AND
NORTH STREET
Approved
SOUTHWICK
SOUTHWICK- RECONSTRUCTION OF FEEDING HILLS ROAD (ROUTE 57), FROM COLLEGE
HIGHWAY TO THE AGAWAM T.L.
Approved
UXBRIDGE
UXBRIDGE- SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TRUNK TRAIL CONSTRUCTION
Approved
Municipal
BROCKTON
BROCKTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ CRESCENT STREET (ROUTE 27)/QUINCY
STREET/MASSASOIT BOULEVARD
Approved
Municipal
FRAMINGHAM
Municipal
MENDON
FRAMINGHAM- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 126
MENDON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HARTFORD AVENUE EAST, FROM PROVIDENCE STREET
TO SOUTH MAIN STREET (ROUTE 140)
Municipal
NORWOOD
NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 1 & UNIVERSITY
AVENUE/EVERETT STREET
Approved
Municipal
WORCESTER
WORCESTER- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT WINTHROP STREET & PROVIDENCE
STREET, VERNON STREET & GRANITE STREET
Approved
Municipal
BOSTON
Municipal
Municipal
BILLERICA
FITCHBURG LEOMINSTER LUNENBURG
Municipal
Municipal
MassDOT Planning
Page 33 of 46
7/17/14
Approved
Approved
Municipal
GROVELAND
Municipal
HOLLISTON
GROVELAND- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 97 (SCHOOL STREET) FROM PARKER STREET
TO GARDNER STREET
HOLLISTON- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 16 (WASHINGTON STREET), FROM QUAIL
RUN TO THE SHERBORN T.L.
Municipal
TAUNTON
TAUNTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT THE HON. GORDON M. OWEN RIVERWAY
& WILLIAMS STREET
Approved
Municipal
DUXBURY
Municipal
MILLBURY
DUXBURY- SIGNAL INSTALLATION @ ROUTE 3 (NB & SB) RAMPS & ROUTE 3A (TREMONT
STREET)
MILLBURY- RECONSTRUCTION ON McCRACKEN ROAD & GREENWOOD STREET,
INCLUDES REHAB OF M-22-058, McCRACKEN ROAD OVER ACCESS ROAD
Municipal
CHELSEA
CHELSEA- RECONSTRUCTION ON WASHINGTON AVENUE, FROM REVERE BEACH
PARKWAY TO HEARD STREET
Municipal
WORCESTER
Municipal
MILLIS
Municipal
OXFORD
Municipal
LEICESTER
WORCESTER- RECONSTRUCTION ON HARDING STREET, FRANKLIN STREET & WINTER
STREET (WORCESTER REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY)
MILLIS- RECONSTRUCTION OF VILLAGE STREET, FROM MAIN STREET (ROUTE 109) TO
THE MEDWAY T.L.
OXFORD- RECONSTRUCTION OF SUTTON AVENUE, FROM ORCHARD HILL ESTATES
EASTERLY TO SUTTON T.L. (PHASE II)
LEICESTER- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ON ROUTE 56, FROM ROUTE 9 TO THE
PAXTON T.L. (PHASE I)
Municipal
BOLTON
BOLTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 110 (STILL RIVER ROAD)
Approved
Municipal
MENDON
MENDON- RECONSTRUCTION ON PROVIDENCE STREET AND MAIN STREET
Approved
Municipal
WESTBOROUGH
WESTBOROUGH- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 30 & ROUTE 135
Approved
Municipal
STERLING
Approved
Municipal
AUBURN
Municipal
BROOKFIELD
Municipal
NORTHBRIDGE
STERLING- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 12 AND CHOCKSETT ROAD
AUBURN- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 12 (SOUTHBRIDGE ST.), FROM
DRURY SQ. (AUBURN STREET INTER.) NORTHERLY TO WORESTER C.L.
BROOKFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 148 (FISKDALE ROAD) FROM MOLASSES HILL
ROAD TO STURBRIDGE T.L. INCL. WEBBER ROAD
NORTHBRIDGE- RECONSTRUCTION ON QUAKER STREET, FROM CHURCH STREET TO
UPTON T.L.
MassDOT Planning
Page 34 of 46
7/17/14
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Municipal
SOUTHWICK
Municipal
WESTFIELD
SOUTHWICK- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT FOUR LOCATIONS ON ROUTE 57
(FEEDING HILLS ROAD)
WESTFIELD- ROUTE 20 ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS ON COURT STREET & WESTERN
AVENUE
Municipal
HADLEY
HADLEY- RECONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH MAPLE STREET, FROM ROUTE 9 (RUSSELL
STREET) SOUTHERLY TO BAY ROAD, INCLUDES REHAB OF H-01-006 (2.7 MILES)
Approved
Municipal
WORCESTER
WORCESTER- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ HOLDEN STREET,
DRUMMOND AVENUE & SHORE DRIVE
Approved
Municipal
BLACKSTONE
BLACKSTONE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-13-025, LINCOLN STREET OVER FOX BROOK
Approved
Municipal
SOUTHAMPTON
Approved
Municipal
OXFORD
Municipal
MEDWAY
Municipal
HARVARD
Municipal
NEWTON
Municipal
HOLLISTON
SOUTHAMPTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-19-024, VALLEY ROAD OVER MOOSE BROOK
OXFORD- RECONSTRUCTION OF SUTTON AVENUE, FROM I-395 RAMP TERMINAL
EASTERLY TO ORCHARD ESTATES (PHASE I)
MEDWAY- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON A SECTION OF MEDWAY VILLAGE
STREET
HARVARD- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 110 (STILL RIVER ROAD) FROM
BOLTON T.L. TO ROUTE 110/11 INTERSECTION (3.4 MILES)
NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 30 (COMMONWEALTH AVENUE) FROM
WESTON T.L. TO AUBURN STREET (1.1 MILES)
HOLLISTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF NORFOLK STREET, FROM SABINA DRIVE TO HOLLY
LANE
Municipal
ASHLAND
Approved
Municipal
BOSTON
ASHLAND- RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN & PROSPECT STREETS
BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF TREMONT STREET, FROM STUART STREET TO
MARGINAL ROAD (5,400 FT.)
Municipal
MELROSE
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Municipal
MELROSE- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT MAIN STREET & ESSEX STREET
MIDDLEBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 18/28 (BEDFORD STREET) BETWEEN
MIDDLEBOROUGH ROUTE 18/28/44 CIRCLE AND ROUTE 18/28/CAMPANELLI DRIVE
BROCKTON- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON PERKINS AVENUE, FROM SUMMER
BROCKTON
STREET TO MAIN STREET (2,800 FT.)
Municipal
WORCESTER
WORCESTER- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 122 (CHANDLER
STREET), MAIN STREET & IRVING STREET
Approved
Municipal
ASHBURNHAM
ASHBURNHAM- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 101
Approved
Municipal
MassDOT Planning
Page 35 of 46
7/17/14
Approved
Approved
Approved
Municipal
Municipal
ADAMS
CLINTON
Approved
Approved
NORTHFIELD
ADAMS- RECONSTRUCTION OF FRIEND STREET AND WEST ROAD
CLINTON- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 110 (HIGH STREET)
NORTHFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION & IMPROVEMENTS ON MAIN STREET, ROUTES 10 & 63
(PHASE II)
Municipal
Municipal
CANTON
CANTON- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 138, FROM I-93 TO DAN ROAD
Approved
Municipal
BELLINGHAM
Municipal
CHICOPEE
Municipal
BOSTON
Municipal
ASHLAND
Municipal
NORTHAMPTON
Municipal
NEW BEDFORD
Municipal
AMHERST PELHAM
Municipal
BUCKLAND
Municipal
NORTHAMPTON
Municipal
PITTSFIELD
Municipal
BOSTON
Municipal
BOXFORD
Municipal
ADAMS
Municipal
NORTON
MassDOT Planning
BELLINGHAM- IMPROVEMENTS AT 2 LOCATIONS: MECHANIC STREET/MENDON STREET
(ROUTE 140) & NORTH MAIN STREET/SOUTH MAIN STREET (ROUTE 126)
CHICOPEE- RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ON FULLER ROAD, FROM MEMORIAL
DR (RTE 33) TO SHAWINIGAN DR (2.0 MILES)
BOSTON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE
CHARLES RIVER
ASHLAND- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 126 (POND STREET), FROM THE FRAMINGHAM
T.L. TO THE HOLLISTON T.L.
NORTHAMPTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT KING STREET, NORTH STREET &
SUMMER STREET AND AT KING STREET & FINN STREET
NEW BEDFORD- CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED WORK ON KINGS HIGHWAY,
FROM CHURCH STREET TO THE KINGS HIGHWAY BRIDGE (N-06-036) OVER ROUTE 140
AMHERST- PELHAM- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 9 FROM SOUTHEAST
ST IN AMHERST THROUGH PELHAM TO THE BELCHERTOWN T.L. (2.2 MILES)
BUCKLAND- RECONSTRUCTION & MINOR WIDENING ON CONWAY STREET, SOUTH
STREET & CONWAY ROAD
NORTHAMPTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ NORTH ELM STREET, ELM STREET
& WOODLAWN AVENUE
PITTSFIELD- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT FIRST STREET & NORTH
STREET (NEAR BERKSHIRE MEDICAL CENTER)
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
BOSTON- TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT 8 LOCATIONS
BOXFORD- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 133 (WASHINGTON STREET) FROM THE
NORTH ANDOVER TL TO MAIN STREET
Approved
ADAMS- PAVEMENT REHABILITATION & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 8
NORTON- CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON EAST MAIN STREET
(ROUTE 123), FROM PINE STREET TO I-495
Approved
Page 36 of 46
7/17/14
Approved
Approved
Municipal
LYNNFIELD WAKEFIELD
Municipal
COLRAIN
Municipal
ATTLEBORO
Municipal
LAKEVILLE
Municipal
BARNSTABLE
Municipal
BOSTON
Municipal
BOSTON
Municipal
LONGMEADOW
Municipal
MILFORD
Municipal
LEXINGTON
Municipal
WINTHROP
Municipal
WESTMINSTER
Municipal
Municipal
BARNSTABLE YARMOUTH
WELLFLEET
Municipal
SEEKONK
Municipal
SHREWSBURY
Municipal
FITCHBURG
MassDOT Planning
WAKEFIELD- LYNNFIELD- RAIL TRAIL EXTENSION, FROM THE GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL TO
LYNNFIELD/PEABODY T.L.
COLRAIN- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ MAIN ROAD, JACKSONVILLE ROAD (ROUTE
112) & GREENFIELD ROAD
ATTLEBORO – INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 1 (WASHINGTON
STREET)/ROUTE 1A (NEWPORT AVENUE) AND ROUTE 123 (HIGHLAND AVENUE)
LAKEVILLE- RECONSTRUCTION AND RELATED WORK ON RHODE ISLAND ROAD (ROUTE
79), FROM THE TAUNTON CITY LINE TO CLEAR POND ROAD
BARNSTABLE- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT IYANOUGH ROAD (ROUTE 28) AND
YARMOUTH ROAD
BOSTON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-16-184, NORTHERN AVENUE OVER THE FORT
POINT CHANNEL
BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON BOYLSTON STREET, FROM INTERSECTION OF BROOKLINE
AVENUE & PARK DRIVE TO IPSWICH STREET
LONGMEADOW- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON LONGMEADOW STREET (ROUTE
5), FROM THE CT S.L. TO CONVERSE STREET (2.88 MILES)
MILFORD- RESURFACING & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 16 (MAIN
STREET), FROM WATER STREET TO THE HOPEDALE T.L.
LEXINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION ON MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, FROM MARRETT ROAD
TO PLEASANT STREET
WINTHROP- RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ALONG WINTHROP STREET & REVERE
STREET CORRIDOR
WESTMINSTER- REHABILITATION & BOX WIDENING ON ROUTE 140, FROM PATRICIA
ROAD TO THE PRINCETON T.L.
YARMOUTH- BARNSTABLE- CAPE COD RAIL TRAIL EXTENSION
WELLFLEET- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK AT ROUTE 6 & MAIN ST
SEEKONK- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK AT FALL RIVER AVENUE
(ROUTE 114A) AND COUNTY STREET
SHREWSBURY- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 140 (BOYLSTON STREET),
FROM I-290 TO PROSPECT STREET
FITCHBURG- RECONSTRUCTION OF RINDGE ROAD, FROM ROUTE 31 (ASHBY STATE
ROAD) TO ASHBY T.L.
Page 37 of 46
7/17/14
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Municipal
SUNDERLAND
Municipal
Municipal
CHATHAM
GARDNER
Municipal
NEW BEDFORD
Municipal
MONTAGUE
Municipal
HOLYOKE
Municipal
SHREWSBURY
Municipal
Municipal
WESTMINSTER
PRINCETON
Municipal
Municipal
MATTAPOISETT
HUBBARDSTON
Municipal
HALIFAX
Municipal
NORTHAMPTON
Municipal
Municipal
WORTHINGTON
LEE
Municipal
HOLYOKE
Municipal
QUINCY
Municipal
PITTSFIELD
Municipal
AGAWAM
MassDOT Planning
SUNDERLAND- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON A SECTION OF NORTH MAIN STREET
(ROUTE 47), FROM ROUTE 116 TO CLAYBROOK DRIVE
CHATHAM- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK AT MAIN STREET (ROUTE
28), DEPOT ROAD, QUEEN ANNE ROAD AND CROWELL ROAD
GARDNER- BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION, NORTH CENTRAL PATHWAY (PHASE VI)
NEW BEDFORD- CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED WORK ON COGGESHALL
STREET, FROM PURCHASE STREET TO MITCHELL AVENUE
MONTAGUE- CANALSIDE BIKE PATH & PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS,
MONTAGUE CITY ROAD AT SOLAR AVENUE & DEPOT STREET (850 FEET)
HOLYOKE- TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADES AT 15 INTERSECTIONS ALONG HIGH & MAPLE
STREETS
SHREWSBURY- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 140 (MEMORIAL DRIVE),
FROM ROUTE 9 TO THE GRAFTON T.L.
WESTMINSTER- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 140, FROM ROUTE 2A TO
PATRICIA ROAD
PRINCETON- RECLAMATION ON ROUTE 140, FROM STERLING T.L. TO ROUTE 31
MATTAPOISETT- CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED WORK ON MAIN STREET,
WATER STREET, BEACON STREET AND MARION ROAD.
HUBBARDSTON- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON BURNSHIRT ROAD
HALIFAX- REHABILITATION OF MONPONSETT STREET (ROUTE 58) FROM PLYMPTON T.L.
TO LINGAN STREET
NORTHAMPTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ PROSPECT STREET, JACKSON
STREET & WOODLAWN AVENUE
WORTHINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 143
LEE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-05-004, MEADOW STREET OVER POWDER MILL BROOK
HOLYOKE- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON HERITAGE STREET, FRONT STREET &
DWIGHT STREET FROM MAPLE ST TO THE 1ST LEVEL CANAL (.54 MILES)
QUINCY- CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CONNECTION (BRIDGE) FROM BURGIN PARKWAY
OVER MBTA
PITTSFIELD- STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON NORTH STREET, FROM LINDEN STREET
TO KENT AVENUE (PHASE III)
AGAWAM- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 187, FROM ALLISON LANE TO THE WESTFIELD
CITY LINE (1.69 MILES - PHASE III)
Page 38 of 46
7/17/14
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Municipal
Municipal
MASHPEE
ADAMS -NORTH
ADAMS
Municipal
MONROE
Municipal
Municipal
HARWICH
ACTON CONCORD
Municipal
BOSTON
Municipal
EASTON
Municipal
AGAWAM
Municipal
HARDWICK
Municipal
BECKET -CHESTER
-MIDDLEFIELD
Municipal
DARTMOUTH
Municipal
HINGHAM
Municipal
MASHPEE- CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON NATHAN ELLIS HIGHWAY
(ROUTE 151), FROM MASHPEE ROTARY TO FALMOUTH T.L.
ADAMS- NORTH ADAMS- ASHUWILLTICOOK RAIL TRAIL EXTENSION TO ROUTE 8A
(HODGES CROSS ROAD)
Approved
Approved
MONROE- RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ON READSBORO ROAD
HARWICH- RECONSTRUCTION OF PLEASANT LAKE AVENUE (ROUTE 124) FROM
HEADWATERS DRIVE TO BREWSTER T.L.
Approved
Approved
SPENCER
ACTON- CONCORD- BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION (PHASE II-B)
BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO
SULLIVAN SQUARE
EASTON- CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS ON DEPOT STREET (ROUTE 123), FROM NEWELL
CIRCLE TO WASHINGTON STREET (ROUTE 138)
AGAWAM- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 187, FROM SOUTHWICK/SPRINGFIELD STREET
TO ALLISON LANE (1.29 MILES - PHASE II)
HARDWICK- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON THE GILBERTVILLE SECTION OF ROUTE
32
BECKET- CHESTER- MIDDLEFIELD- REHABILITATION OF B-03-017=M-19-017 & B-03018=M-19-018, OLD "WESTERN RAILROAD" KEYSTONE ARCH BRIDGES OVER THE
WESTERN BRANCH OF WESTFIELD RIVER
DARTMOUTH- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK AT CHASE ROAD &
OLD WESTPORT ROAD
HINGHAM- RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ON DERBY STREET, FROM POND PARK
ROAD TO CUSHING STREET
SPENCER- REHABILITATION ON ROUTE 9 (MAIN STREET), FROM HIGH STREET TO GROVE
STREET
Municipal
HOLYOKE
HOLYOKE- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-91 INTERCHANGE 17 & ROUTE 141
Approved
Municipal
DENNIS YARMOUTH
Municipal
Municipal
TAUNTON
BILLERICA
DENNIS- YARMOUTH- CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-USE PATH OVER THE BASS RIVER (D07-007=Y-01-010)
Approved
TAUNTON- CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON BROADWAY (ROUTE 138),
FROM TAUNTON GREEN NORTHERLY TO JACKSON STREET
Approved
BILLERICA- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 3A (BOSTON ROAD) AT CHARNSTAFFE LANE
Approved
MassDOT Planning
Page 39 of 46
7/17/14
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Municipal
HAVERHILL
Municipal
CHATHAM
HAVERHILL- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 97 (BROADWAY), FROM SILVER BIRCH LANE
TO RESEARCH DRIVE
CHATHAM- IMPROVEMENTS ON WEST MAIN STREET (ROUTE 28), FROM GEORGE RYDER
ROAD TO BARN HILL ROAD
Municipal
PAXTON
PAXTON- RECLAMATION ON ROUTE 31 (HOLDEN ROAD)
Approved
Municipal
WILLIAMSTOWN
Approved
Municipal
WESTFORD
Municipal
SPENCER
Municipal
Municipal
REHOBOTH
LUNENBURG TOWNSEND
WILLIAMSTOWN- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 43 (MM 7.9 TO MM 10.9)
WESTFORD- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 110 & TADMUCK
ROAD
SPENCER- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 31 (MAPLE STREET & CHARLTON
ROAD)
REHOBOTH- RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY REPAIR) OF WHEELER STREET CULVERT (R04-002)
Approved
Municipal
BOSTON
Municipal
HUBBARDSTON
Municipal
SHARON
TOWNSEND - RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 13
BOSTON- ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION ON CAMBRIDGE STREET FROM COURT STREET
TO WEST CEDAR STREET
HUBBARDSTON- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 68, FROM
WILLIAMSVILLE ROAD TO THE RUTLAND T.L.
SHARON- RECONSTRUCTION OF NORTH AND SOUTH MAIN STREETS ( INCLUDING PART
OF DEPOT STREET ) POST OFFICE SQUARE IMPROVEMENTS
Municipal
FOXBOROUGH
FOXBOROUGH- ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Approved
Municipal
Municipal
WORCESTER
BOSTON
WORCESTER- STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AT MAIN STREET & MAYWOOD STREET
BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD
Approved
Approved
MassDOT Planning
Page 40 of 46
7/17/14
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Variables Table: All variables used within the regression and maps analysis
MassDOT Planning
Variables
Data Source
Total Population
U.S. Census 2010
All Minority population
U.S. Census 2010
Percent Title VI Minority
U.S. Census 2010
Number of Projects
Project Expenditure (MassDOT)
Project Expenditure
MassDOT Highway Division
Per Capita Expenditure
Project Expenditure (MassDOT)
Bachelor’s Degree
American Community Survey 2012
High School Graduates
American Community Survey 2012
Road Miles
Chapter 90 FY 2015 Table
FY 2015 Apportionment
Chapter 90 FY 2015 Table
Mean Household Income
U.S. Census 2010
Page 41 of 46
7/17/14
Table 3: Top 10 Highest and Lowest Minority Municipalities in Massachusetts
Top 10 highest percentage minority municipalities
Muncipality
Percent Title VI Minority
Lawrence
79.53%
Chelsea
74.75%
Springfield
63.25%
Randolph
60.91%
Brockton
57.07%
Holyoke
53.23%
Boston
52.99%
Lynn
52.43%
Malden
47.50%
Lowell
47.16%
Top 10 lowest percentage minority municipalities
Muncipality
Percent Title VI Minority
Chesterfield
2.70%
Alford
2.63%
Leyden
2.53%
Petersham
2.43%
Mount Washington
2.40%
Monterey
2.39%
Washington
2.23%
Peru
2.13%
Clarksburg
2.00%
Chester
1.80%
Table 4: Top 10 Highest and Lowest Per Capita Expenditure Municipalities in Massachusetts
Top 10 Highest Per Capita Expenditure
Municipality
Per Capita Expenditure
Tyringham
$
11,909.23
Washington
$
10,425.88
Monroe
$
10,179.93
$
5,757.57
Savoy
Rowe
$
5,405.13
Cummington
$
5,315.81
Groveland
$
5,129.47
Hawley
$
5,030.60
$
4,975.65
Hancock
Deerfield
$
4,310.91
MassDOT Planning
Page 42 of 46
Top 10 Lowest Per Capita Expenditure
Muncipality
Per Capita Expenditure
Rochester
$
29.60
Swampscott
$
20.49
Mashpee
$
20.04
$
19.50
Watertown
Malden
$
17.01
Tisbury
$
13.01
Upton
$
9.18
Sudbury
$
7.29
East Brookfield
$
7.18
Marblehead
$
0.98
7/17/14
Table 5: Top 10 Highest and Lowest English Proficiency Level Municipalities in Massachusetts
Top 10 highest percent LEP
Municipality
LEP (%)
Aquinnah
Lawrence
Chelsea
Everett
Randolph
Malden
Revere
Springfield
Brockton
Lowell
100
100
98
96
91
88
77
75
75
74
Top 10 lowest percent LEP
Municipality
LEP (%)
Yarmouth
Whitman
Franklin
Milton
Dartmouth
Gloucester
Falmouth
Stoneham
Beverly
Plymouth
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
2
2
Note: LEP defined through the US Census Bureau classifying English proficiency based on decennial survey respondent’s self-perceived ability to speak English
very well, not well, or not at all.
Table 6: Top 10 Highest and Lowest FY 2015 Chapter 90 Apportionment Municipalities in Massachusetts
Top 10 highest FY 2015 Apportionment
Municipality
FY 2015 Apportionment
Boston
$
14,439,069
Worcester
$
4,109,477
Springfield
$
3,640,415
Cambridge
$
2,569,670
Newton
$
2,326,126
New Bedford
$
2,122,341
Brockton
$
2,030,878
Barnstable
$
2,018,738
Quincy
$
1,916,378
Fall River
$
1,902,500
MassDOT Planning
Page 43 of 46
Top 10 lowest FY 2015 Apportionment
Municipality
FY 2015 Apportionment
West Tisbury
$
82,464
Clarksburg
$
75,287
Alford
$
72,605
Mount Washington $
71,055
Hancock
$
69,326
Monroe
$
67,398
Chilmark
$
65,426
New Ashford
$
43,755
Aquinnah
$
35,663
Gosnold
$
8,937
7/17/14
Table 7: Top 10 Lowest and Highest and Lowest Mean Household Income Municipalities in Massachusetts
Municipality
Adams
Orange
New Bedford
Holyoke
Fall River
Springfield
Lawrence
Gosnold
North Adams
Monroe
Top 10 lowest Mean Household Income
Mean Household Income Title VI Minority (%)
$
52,606
3.76
$
50,477
6.76
$
49,506
32.1
$
47,944
53.23
$
47,898
16.6
$
47,711
63.25
$
47,114
79.53
$
46,369
4
$
45,382
8.83
$
42,646
4.96
Municipality
Weston
Dover
Wellesley
Sherborn
Sudbury
Carlisle
Concord
Lexington
Wenham
Winchester
Top 10 highest Mean Household Income
Mean Household Income Title VI Minority (%)
$
295,822
16.59
$
255,815
8.77
$
231,669
17.59
$
216,686
6.65
208,309
10.65
$
$
205,298
12.26
$
191,925
12.83
$
191,350
26.3
$
190,262
5.5
$
181,124
14.34
Table 8: Top 10 Highest and Lowest Numbers of Projects for Massachusetts Municipalities
MassDOT Planning
Top 10 highest Number of Projects
Municipality
Number of Projects
Boston
124
Cambridge
64
Worcester
49
Springfield
42
West Springfield
32
Chicopee
32
Newton
32
Northampton
31
Somerville
29
Holyoke
28
Top 10 lowest Number of Projects
Municipality
Number of Projects
Sunderland
Marion
Hull
North Brookfield
Winthrop
Ashby
Stow
Wellfleet
East Brookfield
Marblehead
Municipalities with zero projects
Mount Washington
Leydon
Chilmark
Rockport
Holland
Truro
Dover
Provincetown
Granville
Wales
Medfield
Ayer
Page 44 of 46
Gosnold
Nahant
Groton
Aquinnah
7/17/14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 9: This table shows the municipalities which have planned projects but no funding, and those which have planned projects and funding in
the look back period from 2008 – 2013 and TIP (2014 – 2017). As the table shows, the majority of the municipalities with no projects during the
look back period also have no projects in the latest TIPs. These towns include Mount Washington, Dover, Medfield, Nahant, Rockport, Leydon,
Aquinnah, Chilmark, Gosnold, Groton, and Granville.
Municipality with no
federally-funded projects in
the look back period
(2008 – 2013)
MPO
Mount Washington
Dover
Medfield
Nahant
Rockport
Provincetown
Truro
Leydon
Aquinnah
Chilmark
Gosnold
Ayer
Groton
Granville
Holland
Wales
Berkshire
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Cape Cod
Cape Cod
Franklin
Martha’s Vineyard
Martha’s Vineyard
Martha’s Vineyard
Montachusett
Montachusett
Pioneer Valley
Pioneer Valley
Pioneer Valley
MassDOT Planning
Page 45 of 46
% Minority
Number of Projects with
no funding in the TIP
(2014 – 2017)
Number of Projects
with funding in the TIP
(2014 – 2017)
2.40 %
8.77 %
6.08 %
4.49 %
4.11 %
11.52 %
5.99 %
2.53 %
44.05 %
4.16 %
4%
18.61 %
6.41 %
3.70 %
4.96 %
4.19 %
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7/17/14
Appendix E – Survey
Survey for Local Stakeholders
MassDOT conducted a study with a five year look back period (2008 – 2013) to analyze how state and
federal highway funded projects were distributed across the Commonwealth. In an effort to understand
why some municipalities had either no projects or very few relative to others, we are conducting this
survey to help us identify factors so that we can attempt to change this pattern going forward. Thank
you for helping us to reach this goal.
1) In the past year, did you attend any MPO meetings for your region?
a. Yes
b. No
If Yes how many as a percentage of all MPO meetings held? ______________
2) If yes, what motivated you to attend?
a. It was required as part of my job
b. I wanted to secure funding for a project in my community
c. I want to be involved in regional issues
d. Other _______________________________________________________
3) If no, why did you not attend?
a. I do not have time or staffing resources to attend meetings
b. I do not find the meetings to be relevant
c. My community does not have projects ready for funding
d. Other _______________________________________________________
4) Were there any projects in your community that received state and federal funding?
a. Yes
b. No
5) In the past five state fiscal years, has your municipality utilized Chapter 90 funding for
transportation project design?
a. Yes
If Yes, for how many projects? ______________
b. No
c. I do not know.
MassDOT Planning
Page 46 of 46
7/17/14