Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of March 3, 2015
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting
3:00 pm – 5:00 pm, Boston Common Conference Room, 10 Park Plaza, Boston
Secretary Stephanie Pollack, Chair, Secretary of Transportation, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT)
Welcome and Introductions
Scott Hamwey began with some housekeeping remarks:



The next Meeting scheduled for the March 18th 2015.
The Council is still aiming to meet every two weeks with a proposed meeting in the first week of
April.
Agenda:
- How are we going to bucket and prioritize projects?
- Agree on metrics and objectives outlined previously
- Agreement on regional equity and how the Council will define regions
Topic 1: How are we going to bucket and prioritize projects?
Jennifer Slesinger opened her presentation to the Council by defining key terms for the discussion. The
term “categories” would refer to groupings of projects that would require their own scoring system.
“Buckets,” on the other hand, would reference groupings of projects that would have their own funding
allocation, but may be scored the same way. The focus of the discussion today would be on categories.
The first option she presented was the staff recommended option as it is the most simple. The
categories in option 1 were: MassDOT State of Good Repair, MassDOT Capacity, MBTA State of Good
Repair, and MBTA Capacity projects. Ms. Slesinger stated it would be important to define a clear divide
between state of good repair and capacity projects as many projects have both components.
Some Council members thought that separating out RTAs as a third high level category would make the
delineations more transparent. The Council was in agreement that moving forward using MassDOT,
MBTA and RTA high-level categories with state of good repair and capacity sub-categories would be the
best option. The Council decided that the second option, which had a greater number of sub-categories,
was unnecessary and could get overly complex.
Topic 2: Agree on metrics and objectives outlined previously
Mr. Hamwey referenced the metrics and objectives, which have previously been identified in the interim
report. He wanted to gain clarification that the Council were happy with the metrics outlined and
determine which metrics would be applicable to which categories.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of March 3, 2015
MassDOT State of Good Repair
Mr. Hamwey began with the MassDOT state of good repair category and asked whether mode shift
should be considered in this bucket. Secretary Pollack said mode shift may not be the right
nomenclature but modal options would be a better name, as highway projects could aim to improve
modal options. Jim Lovejoy stated that you don’t want to incentivize people to include a multi-modal
build if it doesn’t make sense. Steve Silveira suggested it would have a low weight to make a difference
on the margin but not change the outcome significantly, so this should not be a large concern.
The Council agreed the following metrics should be included; ensure preservation, improve reliability,
efficiency, greenhouse gas (GHG) and safety. The Council was confused about sustainable development
and then the Secretary suggested using economic development instead as she was aware this was
absent from the selection process. Mr. Hamwey stated the sustainable development metric was defined
like this because the staff felt like this could be measured, whereas it may be harder to measure general
economic benefits. Mr. Silveira then stated that economic development needs to be considered because
someone may want to make a sizeable private contribution to a project and this needs be factored in.
He continued saying economic development should replace sustainable development as other aspects
of sustainable are picked up in the other metrics.
The Council agreed that freight should be considered as well as Title VI and Environmental Justice. Mr.
Hamwey asked the Council whether the health metrics should be included. The Secretary stated that it
is an important issue however it may not fit within this bucket. Mr. Silveira stated that people may begin
gaming the system if they realize you can get extra points for adding a sound barrier, for example. The
Secretary said that at this point we need to be clear on what gets points, and then Mr. Mohler said at
some point it is MassDOTs responsibility to decide and provide logic whether or not project designs
make sense. The Council agreed that health did not fit here, but included resiliency and evacuation.
Linda Dunlavy questioned why resiliency should be considered, as no project should be designed
without considering resiliency and climate change.
Mr. Mohler suggested that the list should be a lot shorter and recommended that the Council reevaluate
the list. John Pourbaix then described a stripped down version of list stating preservation, safety,
reliability, freight, economic development and evacuation. The Council agreed Title VI would be better
suited to capacity due to looking at where certain projects occur. They also agreed GHG and modal
options would also be removed.
MassDOT Capacity
Mr. Hamwey then moved onto MassDOT capacity and the Council agreed to keep modal options,
efficiency, reduce GHG, safety, economic development, freight, Title VI/Environmental Justice and
evacuation. Mr. Mohler then suggested reduced GHG to be removed due to the majority of highway
projects not achieving this aim particularly over a long time horizon. Mr. Hamwey then asked the
Council whether it was possible for them to mention a project which would rate highly on this bucket, in
which they replied I93/5 or the Add-a-Lane project.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of March 3, 2015
MBTA State of Good Repair
Mr. Hamwey then began the discussion on the MBTA SGR category. The Council decided to keep
preservation, reliability, GHG, safety, economic development and freight yet this would have a lower
weighting. Scott Hamwey proposed this list would be the same for the RTA buckets, except for freight,
and the Council agreed.
MBTA Capacity
Mr. Hamwey then introduced the MBTA capacity category with the assumption it translates to the RTA
capacity. The Council decided to include modal options, reliability, economic development, efficiency,
GHG, economic development, safety, Title VI/Environmental Justice and health. The Council agreed this
would be applied to RTAs as well.
Topic 3: Agreement on regional equity and how we will define regions
Mr. Hamwey stated the Council agreed in the last meeting that the regional equity screen would come
at the end of the process. Chapter 90, at least for highway projects would be used as the benchmark for
an ideal distribution of funds. Mr. Hamwey outlined both the pros and the cons of the two options for
regions (MPOs or Highway Districts). He said the staff recommended option would be to use highway
districts because the focus is on projects funded with state dollars, which are administered by the
districts. Moreover, districts are generally more logical regions than MPO boundaries.
Ms. Dunlavy raised the concern that neither MPO nor district boundaries would get to the rural vs.
urban issue. Mr. Lovejoy raised the concern that the Berkshires were not getting enough money and
that the Chapter 90 formula may not be the most appropriate given that regions with significant tourism
are under-funded by the formula. Mr. Hamwey proposed a secondary analysis looking at rural versus
non-rural to account for debates such as Chicopee, Holyoke and Springfield getting a disproportionate
amount of the money. The Council agreed that a primary analysis based on district and a secondary one
based on rural/urban would be applied.
Mr. Hamwey said staff would get back with the proposed metrics and objectives. He said the focus of
the next meeting would be the cost screen. Mr. Mohler advocated for Council members to think about
additional metrics or objectives before the next meeting.