Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of November 12, 2014
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Public Hearing and Meeting
6:30 pm – 8:00 pm, Union Station (Union Hall), Worcester,
Frank DePaola, Chair, Acting Secretary of Transportation, Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT)
Welcome and Introductions
Jennifer Slesinger, MassDOT, welcomed everyone to the meeting and let attendees know public
comment would be taken at the end. She noted that this is the sixth and final PSA Council hearing, which
completes the commitment of holding one in each of the six MassDOT Highway Districts.
Frank DePaola introduced himself as the acting Secretary of Transportation, taking the role of former
Secretary Richard Davey, who is no longer a member of the PSA Council. He described how the selection
process has gathered information from Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and reached out to
other states to identify best practices for determining project funding schedule and budget. In the short
term, with lower gas tax revenue as a result of the recent ballot initiative eliminating the indexing of the
gas tax to inflation, there is a greater need for active projects to be prioritized to determine which need
to be cut from the budget.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Slesinger provided an overview of the meeting agenda and gave a brief description of the PSA
Council and the background of work accomplished to date. She went over the revised schedule,
highlighting that the final report deadline was extended from December 31, 2014 to June 30, 2015.
Ms. Slesinger welcomed the members of the council. In addition to Acting Secretary DePaola, she
introduced Steve Silveira, ML Strategies, former MassDOT Secretary Jeffrey Mullan, Foley Hoag LLP;
Linda Dunlavy, Franklin Regional Council of Governments; David Mohler, MassDOT Executive Director of
Planning; John Pourbaix, Executive Director of the Construction Industries of Massachusetts; and Jim
Lovejoy, Chairman of the Board of Selectman for the Town of Mount Washington.
Ms. Slesinger listed the six broad criteria categories and the twelve objectives. She stated that the
council had agreed on the criteria and objectives, but would finalize the metrics and weights once the
incoming administration has an opportunity to inform the process. She then described how 15
illustrative projects were used to test the scoring criteria.
Ms. Slesinger next discussed the topic of regional equity and the goal of including equity measures into
the new prioritization formula. The major funding sources analyzed were the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), the Capital Investment Program (CIP), and Chapter 90 Apportionment
Funding (Chapter 90). She displayed a graph comparing each of these sources by MPO, resulting in a
generally consistent distribution.
Ms. Slesinger addressed a question raised at the previous meeting, stating that no GANS payments were
included in the analysis, and that only one interest payment was included, amounting to less than 0.1%
of the total.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of November 12, 2014
Ms. Slesinger described how different analyses of the data, such as per capita and per lane mile, show
different “winners” and “losers” based on regional equity. In their analysis inequity was
generallycreated by the top 2.5% of projects by cost, thus it would be important to track regional equity
over time to determine regional equity trends.
Ms. Slesinger went on to describe the outstanding considerations that have been raised during outreach
efforts. These included incorporating project cost, number of people impacted, i.e. potentially benefiting
from a project, funding categories, regional priorities, tiers of scoring, coordination with other systems,
aspirational data, point scale, what counts as a project, and who will be performing the scoring.
Ms. Slesinger presented the newly developed four tiered prioritization process flow chart (seen in slide 9
of the presentation), stating that feedback is welcome.
•
•
•
•
In Tier 1, projects are evaluated based on the determined criteria and given an initial score.
Projects that do not pass a threshold are rejected. The result of this tier is a preliminary ranked
list of projects.
In Tier 2, projects are evaluated based on a cost benefit analysis. Projects with good scores are
passed on to a final ranked list. Low scores are returned to the preliminary ranked list to be
reevaluated against higher scoring projects from Tier 1.
In Tier 3, the final ranked list is compared against available funding by category. Top scoring
projects eligible for available funding availability are advanced, while projects for which eligible
funding is not available are held back.
In Tier 4, the filtered list is checked for balance (for considerations such as regional equity or
allocation of resources across asset categories). If inequity exists, it is either justified or projects
in the final program may be replaced in order to eliminate the inequity.
Ms. Slesinger pointed out that questions remain from this process such as the definition of “all
projects,” regional equity, and the timeframe for each tier. She then turned discussion over to the
Council.
Council Discussion
Acting Secretary DePaola stated that he liked the flowchart and agreed with the overall process. He
asked what happened when projects are brought back from Tier 4.
Ms. Slesinger answered that they would be compared against top rated projects from Tier 3. That would
be an opportunity to justify the current program or bring projects forward from Tier 3, if the current
plan could not be justified.
Ms. Dunlavy asked if/how projects ever got out of the yellow “limbo” phase?
Ms. Slesinger stated that the evaluation process would occur multiple times, perhaps annually, and that
projects stuck in this phase may need to eventually be revised or rejected.
Mr. Silveira asked what point in a project’s life does this process take place and if the process will
include existing projects.
Ms. Slesinger said that the first two steps would likely take place upon the projects inception and the
second two would be considered with the STIP/CIP funding allocation process.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of November 12, 2014
Mr. Lovejoy asked how the rating scheme worked with a multiyear project. Will projects be reevaluated
each year?
Ms. Slesinger stated that this could happen and is still an outstanding consideration.
Ms. Slesinger continued with the presentation, highlighting mega-projects as a possible need for
separate consideration. Currently, very few states have a robust process for screening and ranking
mega-projects. Wisconsin DOT makes recommendation to a legislative commission after the
environmental state to encumber funds for larger projects.
Ms. Dunlavy asked if these mega-projects are all state funded.
Ms. Slesinger replied that they all are, at least in part.
Ms. Slesinger continued, stating that a risk feasibility study would be beneficial prior to funding megaprojects to provide a comparable analysis and weed out untenable projects.
Mr. Pourbaix asked if the federal government requires a financial forecast for mega-projects. Ms.
Slesinger noted that the Federal Transit Authority does require a financial capacity analysis for major
investments through its New Starts grants program. There was some discussion among council
members, finding that the federal government does require continuous monitoring that shows these
mega-projects are financially attainable, but does not necessitate a prioritization process that the megaproject selected is the best one.
Mr. Silveira asked if there is a current definition of “mega-project.”
Mr. Mohler stated that MassDOT uses a loose definition of “significant dollar value” that could vary by
region.
Ms. Slesinger added that as part of the Projects of National and Regional Significance program, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sets a floor for such projects in Massachusetts at $293 million,
but the PSA process might want to consider a regional definition.
Mr. Mullan agreed with the regional definition. He asked if a separate process was being proposed for
mega-projects.
Ms. Slesinger replied that a separate process is still under consideration.
Mr. Mullan stated that part of the mega-project definition is public perception and involvement,
perhaps more so than a dollar value.
Mr. Mohler stated that safety is incorporated under current processes, and that high cost projects need
to be explained in terms of regional equity.
Mr. Mullan stated that he is in support of a separate mega-project process.
Ms. Slesinger stated that a mega-projects process would be considered in greater depth as the staff
continues to develop recommendations in advance of the June 30, 2015 deadline..
Ms. Slesinger continued on to bridge projects, which have their own robust prioritization process. The
two methods will need to communicate well with each other and likely incorporate concepts from each
other. The final products should yield similar project ranking scores.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of November 12, 2014
Mr. Lovejoy emphasized that having bridges out of service due to their poor condition is a large
transportation issue in Berkshire County. Safety is priority, and bridges contain a large safety aspect.
Ms. Slesinger continued, stating that the overall project selection process needs to be flexible enough to
accommodate preservation projects. She presented the four tiers of the preservation project selection
process, currently in development from the Asset Management Advisory Council (AMAC).
Mr. Mohler asked where the AMAC is in the process of defining project selection, and if cost benefit has
been considered.
Mr. Pourbaix stated that he is on that council and that these proposals are at early stages and cost
benefit has been considered. The council, headed by Patty Leavenworth, has only met once.
Mr. Mohler stated that both processes need to work together, so one does not define the other.
Acting Secretary DePaola described an asset management strategy for ADA ramps that has been
successful in identifying unacceptable locations. They are allocated $5 million every year for a
systematic approach to remedy the problem.
Mr. Lovejoy asked how emergency maintenance funding was handled to ensure nothing is excluded.
Acting Secretary DePaola stated that there is separate funding for emergencies of about $90 million
annually.
Ms. Slesinger continued with the presentation, highlighting outstanding issues. New issues include MPO
project treatment, testing this method to ensure that the Council achieves the desired result, number of
iterations of review, incorporating project readiness, and determining appropriate balance. She added
multiyear projects as an issue raised in this meeting that would be addressed.
Ms. Slesinger then described the interim report outline. It will incorporate a cover letter, a review of the
current practices, a regional equity assessment, an explanation of prioritization, a discussion of
outstanding issues, and a roadmap for further analysis. She reminded attendees that further meetings
would be held monthly, alternating between Worcester and Boston.
Scott Hamwey, MassDOT, noted that the next meeting would be in Boston on December 17 and would
be the last opportunity to make comments before the interim report.
Public Comment
Ms. Slesinger then opened the meeting to public comment.
Mary Ellen Blunt, Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission (CMRPC), stated it would be
beneficial to define which projects would be passing through the process. She liked the overall process
framework. She asked if STIP numbers were removed from the CIP in the analysis.
Ms. Slesinger stated STIP projects were not removed from the CIP project lists, but that there was no
double counting because the regional equity analysis compared spending across regions within a single
funding program.
Ms. Blunt continued, asking how the state process will affect the MPO selection process. She asked if
the state will develop a process that will work with MPOs, especially in regards to mega-projects.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of November 12, 2014
Ms. Slesinger stated that early stages of the state process would occur prior to the MPO process, but
that open communication would exist throughout the whole process.
Ms. Blunt stated that it would be good to have MPOs involved in early evaluation.
Mr. Silveira stated that her point was valid, and requested that she put it in writing and submit it to the
council.
Sujatha Mohanakrishnan, CMRPC, commented to make sure a complete data analysis was included in
the study and emphasized in project scoring.
Steve O’Neil, Worcester Regional Transit Authority Administrator, asked if all project types are
encompassed by this process including regional transit authority (RTA) assets.
Acting Secretary DePaola stated that all projects would be included.
Mr. O’Neil reminded the council to be aware of grant opportunities such as the toll credits that the RTAs
have been able to pursue with good results in the past.
Rich Rydant, CMRPC, asked how MAP-21 performance based planning initiatives will be incorporated
into the project selection criteria.
Ms. Slesinger stated that MAP-21 has been kept in mind when developing the criteria, and that the
process will remain flexible to be able to respond to the new performance targets once they are
released.
Andrea Freeman, Massachusetts Public Health Association, noted that the process should include modeshift goals.
Arthur Frost, MassDOT District 3 asked if the evaluation would occur at inception and if projects would
be evaluated multiple times over the years.
Mr. Mohler referenced Acting Secretary DePaola’s comments regarding the gas tax index ballot initiative
and the reality that some projects will need to be cut from the program. There will be situations where
projects may be subject to re-evaluation should the funding or policy framework change.
Jonathan Church, CMRPC, reminded the council to keep the EPA’s Title VI - Environmental Justice in
mind during this process.
Mr. Silveira reminded the public that suggestions are encouraged in addition to asking questions.
Jo Hart expressed concern with this process, stating that the meeting is just obfuscation will not produce
results. She also stated that the meeting notice in the newspaper should have identified it as a state
project.
Ms. Blunt suggested that performance management leverage state funds and that the state work with
MPOs to acquire funds based on MPO need. Projects spanning MPO boundaries may not be prioritized
by individual MPOs and that state needs to take notice of these.
Karin Valentine Goins, Walk Bike Worcester, urged the council to consider promoting projects that
foster physical activity in locations with high levels of obesity.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of November 12, 2014
Steve Tyler, MPO Advisory Committee, suggested scoring based on a 1 through 5 scoring scale: 5 is
highly exceeds, 4 is exceeds, 3 is meets, 2 is best practical alternative, and 1 is failure.
Ms. Slesinger replied that this format makes sense and would be considered. She then thanked all for
attending and closed the meeting.