Study Advisory Group Meeting #2
January 17, 2012 Attendees • MassDOT Secretary’s Office: Thom Dugan; Board of Directors: Liz Levin; Highway Division: Dave Anderson, Tom DiPaolo; Planning: Trey Wadsworth, Performance Management: Rachel Bain; Rail and Transit Division: Cathy Lynds; Aeronautics Division: Denise Garcia; Registry Division: Erin Deveney; Office of Civil Rights: Heather Hamilton • FHWA: Pam Stephenson • MPO Representative: Mary Ellen Blunt (Central Mass MPO) • RPA representatives: Linda Dunleavey, and Maureen Mullaney (Franklin Region Council of Governments (FRCOG) • Martha’s Vineyard Nantucket Steamship Authority: Wayne Lamson • Executive Office of Health and Human Services: Rachel Fichtenbaum • Consultant Team: Marc Cutler (CS), Sam Lawton (CS), Dan Beagan (CS), Joe Guerre (CS), Bill Schwartz (TCI), Lauren Schunk (TCI), Don Cooke (VHB), Nancy Farrell (RVA), Regan Checchio (RVA) SAG members not in attendance: RTA representative Ed O’Neil (Worcester Regional Transit Authority); Massport: Jennifer Eve; Transportation Finance Commission/MBTA Advisory Board: Paul Regan, Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (HED): Victoria Maguire; Executive Office of Administration and Finance (A&F): Rob Dolan; Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEA)/Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR): Jack Murray; Executive Office of Elder Affairs: Sandra Albright (attempted to participate via phone). Introduction/Presentation Part 1/Group Discussion Trey Wadsworth made introductions of attendees, followed by the first part of Marc Cutler’s presentation on progress made to date and themes emerging from the Task 2 baseline data collection effort. The presentation, which is available separately, covered major project accomplishments thus far, a reiteration of the project’s philosophy and anticipated outcomes, and a summary of the main themes. The main themes covered the number of projects in the system, the relationship between projects and policy, the way projects are evaluated, and coordination challenges. The attendees, all of whom were assigned to one of four breakout groups, then convened for a discussion on how accurately the presentation identified the major issues and what noteworthy practices should be identified. Each group reported back the following: Group 1 Felt that the presentation covered the key issues. A major theme is managing expectations about what it means to have a project in the system versus having funding for implementation. Title VI issues need to be discussed more. The approaches used in roadway planning and transit planning differ. Perhaps the roadway side can learn from transit, particularly when one is working in urbanized areas. Group 2 Concerned that themes we identified are too negative and not talking about MassDOT’s accomplishments, particularly related to transportation reform and other new initiatives We need to keep the customer in mind in terms of what they understand and need. Goals need to be integrated into overall processes and become a part of everyday way of doing business. Group 3 Agreed with assessment of the themes and surprised about amount of discretionary funding. Important to relate to needs assessment. PRC approval continues to be misinterpreted as approval for implementation; funding availability needs to be more strongly emphasized. There is a disconnect at regional boundaries, and perhaps too many regions altogether. Noteworthy practices­ the existing 5 year Capital Improvement Plans as used by the Aeronautics Division and the Steamship Authority that highlight the advantages of multiyear documents over the focus on the first year of highway funding as in the federal TIP.] Group 4 The bottom­up process is not necessarily bad thing for rural areas or small communities. The themes do not talk enough about other MassDOT divisions including education activities at RMV or Aeronautics Division. The PRC issue whereby approval is interpreted as meaning “the project is going to happen” is significant and there needs to be a creative solution, perhaps making the approval letters be more direct about funding, listing the number of projects in the pipeline already, establishing sunset provisions, requiring that project sponsors describe how they are going to fund project, etc. Presentation Part 2 Marc Cutler presented an overview of Task 3, Informing the Development Process – Decision­Making Framework. This is included in the separate copy of the presentation and covered the allocation of 2
funds across modes, establishment of priorities within modes, and prioritization of projects by need. Examples were given showing the relationship between priorities and themes from youMove Massachusetts, specific policy objectives, and other considerations. The presentation concluded with a discussion of the project schedule and next steps. Comments and Responses Pam Stephenson – We should be clear about the focus on projects versus needs and how this is framed. Response: Projects are covered in the third tier of decision­making, meaning there should be more of a needs­based focus in the first two tiers. Liz Levin – Health issues should be included as well as sustainability, and greenhouse gas reductions. How do MassDOT’s mission and vision as well as these policy initiatives fit into this framework? Response: The framework has a policy overlay that considers these points and is included later in the presentation. Liz Levin: How would the policy overlays be incorporated? Response: If you had a mode shift goal or a goal of reducing greenhouse gases, you would use these goals to inform the analysis using specific measures. Liz Levin: In terms of things that are considered “inside the gate,” could you look at highway & transit as having some inside the gate operations? Response: Yes, for example, bridge analysis is a specialized “inside the gate” function within the highway department, which already has specific tools and processes, but which needs to better understood and integrated throughout the rest of the organization and process. Comments on Key Decision Point (KDP) 1 Question: How will this KDP address the issues that we were talking about? Liz Levin: We should move policy process up front and explain what it means to allocate funds across
mode by need and policy overlay.
Response: Agree. The policy process and decision­points need to move in parallel.
Comments on KDP 2 No comments. 3
Comments on KDP 3 Liz Levin: It is difficult to respond because it’s not clear what is not addressed. There might be some important themes such as Environmental Justice (EJ) considerations. Comment: Will the tool will have associated weights so that priorities can be based on comparative scores. Response: There will be project­level prioritization that will connect to priorities and policies and be weighted based on discussions with stakeholders. Comment: The wording of the first bullet (‘policy filter’) should be changed as it sends a negative message. In order to reduce the project backlog, several steps need to be taken before the last step of looking at the remaining projects. Response: It is possible that a separate process will be needed to address those stagnant projects that are already in the system and that the tool will be used for new projects. Tom DiPaolo – While the weeding out process is not perfect, it does occur informally between the districts and municipalities such that some projects do not make it to PRC. Next Steps The consultant team is preparing a report for staff review. Over the next several months, we will have discussions about how to refine the processes and expect to report back to the SAG in late April or early May for further discussion. 4