Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 14, 2015
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting
2:00 pm – 4:00 pm, MBTA Board Room, 10 Park Plaza, Boston
Secretary Stephanie Pollack, Chair, Secretary of Transportation, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT)
The Secretary chose to skip opening remarks, so as to begin with the topics on the agenda.
Prioritization Formula Updates
Scott Hamwey, Manager of Long-Range Planning, explained that, in response to public comment from
the previous Council meeting, the prioritization formula had been updated. The MassDOT state of good
repair (SGR) category would have the “environmental objective” with a weight of 10 points, taking away
5 each from “preservation” and “cost effectiveness.”
Prioritization Processes: Existing
At this meeting, MassDOT and MBTA experts will present on the existing processes, while explaining
project origin, timing of prioritization, evaluation criteria, staff responsible for scoring, and how this fits
in with the PSAC. Existing processes include:
•
•
•
•
•
Bridge Program
Pavement Program
Municipal Projects
MBTA Capital Investment Program
Regional Transit Authority Capital Requests
Bridge Program
Alex Bardow, Director of Bridges and Structures in MassDOT’s Highway Division, presented an overview
of the Bridge Program selection process.
•
•
•
•
This process has been in use since 2008, and in the last three years, it has been used towards
the yearly Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP)
The criteria used are Highway Evaluation Factor (30%), Condition Loss (40%), and Health Index
Change (30%)
Once the bridge projects are scored along these three criteria, they are arranged by statewide
ranking, and by District ranking
In consultation with District bridge engineers, and in relation to local considerations (economic
impact, related projects, etc.), projects are selected in order to preserve bridges and avoid
deterioration, service delays, and closings
1
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 14, 2015
•
Cost is evaluated and the projects must fit into the TIP
Asked by the Council members to provide more details, Mr. Bardow explained that MassDOT inspects its
more than 5,000 bridges, as well as approximately 1,500 municipal bridges, in accordance with federal
requirements. The inspectors assess all factors of bridge health (using PONTIS) to generate a report,
which considers what the impacts of closing the bridge would be (GHG emissions, congestion, delays,
etc.) if repairs were forestalled to that point. The MBTA inspects its bridges, not MassDOT. Staff noted
that there simply isn’t enough funding to repair all of the critical bridges, and also spend money to
preserve the others so as to avoid costly repairs later on. This would require a separate funding bucket
for preservation.
The Secretary wondered if it would be possible to include more factors (such as economic impact) into
the bridge rating analysis so as to be more transparent. The Chief Engineer, Patricia Leavenworth,
agreed that there may be more factors to consider including, but emphasized that regardless, the
Division will still need to depend on local knowledge after the initial ranking to inform the final bridge
program.
Pavement Program
Dave Anderson, Deputy Chief Engineer for Design in the Highway Division, presented on the Pavement
Preservation Project Identification process.
•
•
•
•
Data Collection: MassDOT uses the Pathrunner, a van outfitted with advanced sensors, to collect
data annually on pavement roughness and condition.
Data Analysis: MassDOT uses two indexing systems, the International Roughness Index (IRI),
which is required by the FHWA, as well as the Pavement Serviceability Index (PSI), which staff
believes to be more comprehensive and accurate.
Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies: DTIMS asset management software is used to assess
MassDOT’s network of approximately 5,000 pavement sections, creating a program for
pavement preservation and resurfacing. Once the initial program is suggested by the software
tool, the Division coordinates with the Districts for feedback. As in the Bridge program, local
knowledge is important for ultimate selection. Projects with a need for safety are prioritized (ex.
if a median barrier is needed)
Project Scope: May include safety, bridges, stormwater, ITS, multimodal accommodations
Council member, Jeff Mullan, asked for clarification on the regional equity of selection. Mr. Anderson
explained that MassDOT looks at historical project funding and lane miles to make fair allocations across
the Districts.
Council member David Mohler, MassDOT’s Executive Director of Planning, said that he understands why
we don’t normally do just resurfacing, but wonders if it is the best policy to always look for other
improvements (safety, stormwater, etc.) because of the sharp increase in price, which then limits the
total pavement projects for which MassDOT has funding. Mr. Anderson pointed out that it is difficult to
determine which factor should be left out, and that safety and stormwater are often both critical.
2
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 14, 2015
Steve Silveira, PSA Council member, asked about the PSI ratings and impacts on drivers. Mr. Anderson
explained that it would correspond to driver rideability, with a rating of 0-5.
Municipal Projects
Mr. Anderson presented on the Project Review Committee (PRC) and the steps municipal projects go
through in order to be considered eligible for federal and state funding for design and implementation.
•
•
•
•
Project Need Form: This is prepared by the Project Proponent and describes the problem to be
addressed (safety, congestion, multimodal needs, facility condition). The proponent is in
communication with the District Office, which will either suggest proceeding, request more
planning, or reject the project. The Project Initiation Form is the next step, prepared by the
proponent with assistance from the District Office.
Pre-Project Review Committee: Meets three times per year, two weeks before the PRC
meetings. It includes Highway Division leadership and technical experts, as well as Office of
Transportation Planning and the Federal Aid Expenditure and Programming Office (FAPO). All
projects are scored using the same evaluation criteria, though they often end up with close
scores.
Project Review Committee: Meets three times per year, chaired by Chief Engineer with
members of the Highway Division from each District, Office of Transportation Planning, and
FAPO. The Committee reviews the information provided from the Pre-PRC process and can
either deny, table (additional information required), or approve a project.
PRC Notification: if a project is approved, the District Office sends a letter to the Project
Proponent
In response to clarifying questions from the Council, Mr. Anderson informed the Council that most
projects are around $2-3 million. The Chief Engineer explained that funding has dried up to such an
extent that the Highway Division is in the position of being reactionary, focusing on the most critical
projects. This is not where we would like to be, as it does not allow for strategic asset management, so
as to lower long-term costs with preservation measures. The Chief said that this is being addressed in an
ongoing manner by the Asset Management Advisory Council.
MBTA State of Good Repair
The MBTA’s Thomas Dugan, Senior Director of Capital Budget, and Robert Guptill, Manager of Systems
Integration, presented on the MBTA’s project selection process, noting that a more extensive version of
this presentation is available on the MBTA website. This presentation will focus more on the process,
whereas the one from last year was primarily on the tool.
•
Project Selection Schedule: Submissions for capital funding requests are received in June-July,
and after the August rating period, the initial project selection is conducted in September. Final
selection occurs in October, and the draft CIP is released in November.
3
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 14, 2015
•
•
•
Project Development: Initial requests are at the conceptual level, and once selected, design is
completed before applying for federal funds. Application for FTA grants depends on availability
in the TIP.
DST Metrics and Weights: These include the overarching criteria of environmental impact (10%),
system preservation (35%), financial considerations (15%), and operations impact (40%), each
with sub-criteria.
DST Rating Methodology: The “SGR database rating,” within the system preservation criteria, is
quantitative, as is “number of riders affected,” within operations impact. All other criteria are
assessed qualitatively.
Mr. Guptill explained that after two years using this process, the tool seems to select the least costly
projects and many projects receive similar ratings. In response to the Council’s questions, Mr. Guptill
noted that the system does promote collaboration and that a project may involve various asset classes,
with Directorates working together. Total cost itself is not included as a criterion, though it is addressed
at the backend. The Secretary noted that some projects are too costly and would represent more than
an entire year’s budget, which is why we need programs like the Accelerated Bridge Program, to handle
these large projects separately.
Illustrative Projects
Mr. Hamwey concluded the meeting by describing the process for evaluating illustrative projects. While
14 projects were rated using a working set of objectives/metrics in 2014, significant changes to the
scoring system suggest that a repeat of this exercise will be necessary. The goals are to understand how
projects will be categorized and see the impacts of the weights/objectives. He asked the Council to
provide feedback on the metrics by 4/17 so that staff may work on reviewing the illustrative projects.
The results will be presented at the next meeting (April 30th, joint meeting with AMAC).
4