Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of October 20, 2014
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Public Hearing and Meeting
2:30 pm – 4:30 pm, Cape Cod Commission, 3224 Main Street, Barnstable.
Richard Davey, Chair, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT)
1. Welcome and Introductions
Scott Hamwey, MassDOT, welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave a brief overview of the Public
Selection Advisory (PSA) Council. He noted that this is public hearing number five of six to occur, each in
one of the MassDOT Highway Districts. The sixth meeting will be held on November 12 in Worcester.
2. Discussion of PowerPoint Public Presentation
Mr. Hamwey reviewed the meeting agenda, which included a brief PSA Council overview, the revised
schedule, the interim report, outstanding issues, and an opportunity for public comment. He described
the goal of the PSA Council is to develop a prioritization method for selecting future projects.
Secretary Richard Davey added that the resulting criteria will determine how administrations prioritize
projects, but will not supersede the current Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) selection
process.
Mr. Hamwey introduced each of the attending council members. In addition to Secretary Davey, he
introduced former MassDOT Secretary Jeffrey Mullan, Foley Hoag LLP; Frank DePaola, MassDOT
Highway Administrator; David Mohler, MassDOT’s Executive Director of Planning; and John Pourbaix,
Executive Director of the Construction Industries of Massachusetts. Those members not able to
participate in this hearing were Steve Silveira, ML Strategies; Jim Lovejoy, Chairman of the Board of
Selectman for the Town of Mount Washington; and Linda Dunlavy, Franklin Regional Council of
Governments. Mr. Hamwey noted that this would be the last meeting with Secretary Davey chairing the
Council, as he will be stepping down as Secretary on October 31. At that point, Administrator DePaola
will be taking his place as Secretary of Transportation and Chair of the Council.
Mr. Hamwey then listed the six proposed criteria objectives and their twelve objectives. He then
described the review of 15 illustrative projects to test the initial set of objectives. He pointed out that
although the Causeway Reconstruction project still rated the highest, it remained on top of the list
primarily because of the staff assessment that it should score highly on the system preservation criteria,
which is heavily weighted in the “new” weighting scale established at the Haverhill meeting. The “old”
scores on the slide are from the first attempt to weight the objectives and metrics, which weighted
mode shift much higher. The Boston MPO also scored the Causeway project well under their system
preservation scoring criteria. Mr. Hamwey noted that the weights are still subject to change and that no
new work has been done since the meeting in Haverhill to rescore projects or test new weights.
Mr. Hamwey continued on to the topic of regional equity. The current state of regional equity was
assessed in order to determine if and how accommodations should to be made in a new prioritization
process to ensure regional equity going forward. He described how regional equity was determined by
analyzing major project funding sources over geographic and demographic measures such as Regional
Planning Agency/MPO, Highway District, urban vs. rural, per capita and per lane mile. The major funding
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of October 20, 2014
sources considered were the Highway State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the Capital
Investment Program (CIP). Chapter 90 Apportionment Funding (Chapter 90) for municipalities was used
as a point of comparison.
Mr. Hamwey showed a chart displaying the allocation of the three major funding sources among MPOs.
He described how a similar trend exists between funding sources, but that some discrepancies exist due
to different funding sources pertaining to different project types. He then showed a chart comparing
Highway STIP funding per capita by district. Districts 1 and 2 ranked as the top two on the per capita
funding measure. He then displayed another chart comparing Highway STIP funding per lane mile by
district, which showed District 6 above all others for funding.
Secretary Davey pointed out that numbers could be misleading if there is a combination of debt service
spending and actual spending. Other council members agreed and suggested focusing on actual
spending as opposed to debt service spending. Mr. Hamwey stated that further analysis would be
conducted on the type of spending and be presented at the next council meeting. Secretary Davey
suggested specifically looking out for large Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) repayments.
Mr. Hamwey then showed a chart comparing Highway STIP and CIP funding per capita expenditures by
urban and suburban/rural regions. He described how the STIP funding is fairly equitable, but CIP funding
allocation generally favors urban regions because it includes transit.
Mr. Hamwey then displayed a chart for percent of fair/poor quality pavement by MassDOT highway
district which showed a relatively equitable distribution. He then displayed a chart comparing percent of
Highway STIP funding with percent of fair/poor pavement quality by district. He pointed out the general
sense of equity, but slightly higher fund allocations in District 2 and slightly lower in District 5. He noted
that the reason for MPOs like Old Colony ranking low on funding may be a result of that MPO having a
high percentage of its bridges already in a good state of repair and a relatively low number of bridges
overall.
Secretary Davey noted that existing transportation funding patterns across the Commonwealth are
already showing generally good regional equity, and suggested that the funding allocation model should
refine the current process, but need not reinvent it.
Mr. Mullan commented that tourism and seasonal population may affect per capita analyses for
locations such as District 5. Mr. Hamwey responded, stating that discrepancies were noted as they arose
and generally helped to explain a perceived inequity. However, he noted that it does appear that District
5, which already is on the lower end of the spectrum for Highway STIP spending per capita, would be
even more inequitable if the peak population were used in the analysis. Mr. Mullan stated that he would
like to see tourism data if available. Mr. Hamwey stated it would be considered more closely in future
analysis.
Jennifer Slesinger, MassDOT, detailed the outstanding issues and considerations. These included
schedule, cost, number of people impacted, funding categories, regional priorities, tiers of scoring,
timing of scoring, coordination with other efforts, point scale, project definitions, other system
coordination, and who will be scoring the projects. She then went on to describe the revised schedule,
highlighting that the six-month extension has been requested and that an interim report was promised
in lieu of a final report for the December 31, 2014 deadline. Ms. Slesinger stated that the interim report
would likely include memos explaining the portions of the prioritization formula already developed, a
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of October 20, 2014
memo on regional equity, a memo explaining outstanding issues, and a roadmap for the next six
months.
Secretary Davey stated that he has spoken with the Chairmen of the Transportation Committee and that
we can proceed with the six month extension with the interim report as described.
Mr. Hamwey asked the PSA Council members if they are in agreement to accept the objectives that have
been presented at the last several meetings. All of the council members present agreed.
Secretary Davey followed up, stating that the final report should be a living document, continually
updated with new data and analysis.
Mr. Mullan suggested incorporating a roadmap forward and, if possible, to make the decision formula
simpler so to be easily communicated.
Secretary Davey noted that Public Private Partnerships (P3) may play a role on the issue of who is
scoring projects.
Ms. Slesinger went on to describe the interrelated criteria for project scoring. She stated that the project
cost criteria is required by legislation and that a full cost benefit analysis can be timely and costly to
determine. She suggested the possible solutions of modifying the formula to include cost benefit for
various metrics such as cost per points scored and a cost/benefit metric for various objectives such as
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction per dollar, mode shift per dollar, and reliability increase per dollar. She
then asked the opinion of the council on conducting an investment analysis or cost benefit analysis.
Mr. Pourbaix stated that the cost of no action should be included.
Mr. DePaola stated that projects of a similar type should be compared to each other. For example,
bridge projects are very expensive, so bridges should be compared against bridges, and there should be
a minimum investment to maintain bridge condition.
Mr. Mullan stated that the proposed GreenDOT regulation should be considered and items such as GHG
reduction and mode shift should be included.
Mr. Mohler stated that people served or average daily travel (ADT) vs. cost is the easiest way and to not
dig too deep into specific categories. He recognized that this could skew lower use projects such as bike
paths, but this should be taken care of by comparing bike paths to bike paths.
Mr. Pourbaix suggested determining what types of funds are available/restricted, developing funding
buckets for each project type and have one unrestricted bucket to make sure no money is being turned
away. Criteria for each funding bucket may change depending on specific federal regulations.
Ms. Slesinger asked the Council’s opinion of a first tier overall scoring then a second tier scoring by
funding buckets.
Mr. Mohler commented that he is not yet sure, and that more input may be needed.
Mr. DePaola stated that MAP-21 targets identify a maximum proportion of structurally deficient bridges.
Mr. Mohler stated that this standard needs to be met for federal funding, which the STIP is currently
doing.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of October 20, 2014
Secretary Davey suggested that decision criteria could show why some metrics are not good for certain
project types and that separate metrics based on project type would produce a better decision
outcome.
Secretary Davey suggested including a metric of size verses cost and performing a more rigorous scoring
for large scale projects. He stated that thresholds for project cost could determine the thoroughness of
their scoring. He stated that the state does not want to throw away money on projects that might be
built such as the South Coast Rail project and that projects need to be secured before receiving large
amounts of funds. He added that projects to be considered must undergo a full review prior to scoring.
Ms. Slesinger noted that Washington State has a tier-based approach based on project value that she
could look into further.
Secretary Davey noted that the Silver Line is a good example of the usefulness of a scoring system
because it is a cost effective people mover, but it not seen as a “sexy” project type.
Mr. Mullan stated that the scoring process needs to go on record. He asked if the unallocated funds go
to the districts. He suggested there be a low cut-off point for cost to meeting scoring eligibility, in other
words, the scoring method should not consider low-value projects.
Mr. DePaola stated that not all projects have impacts only in one region. He gave the example of I-93,
reducing congestion across Districts and MPOs. He suggested that projects like these be compared
against similarly sized corridor projects.
Mr. Mullan stated that District 1 has relatively high funding on a per capita basis but analyzing people
served may not disfavor District 1 based on ADT/ridership.
Mr. Mohler stated that locations such as the town of Mount Washington will not serve a lot of people
but still need to be considered.
Mr. DePaola stated that people served, factoring in tourism, is a good general metric.
Secretary Davey stated that in addition to people served a broader definition of people impacted should
be included for factors such as noise and pollution. He stated that Chapter 90 helps with this issue.
Other Council members present agreed.
Mr. Hamwey asked the council if people impacted should be put into the scoring system. All Council
members present agreed.
Mr. Mullan and Secretary Davey relayed how Chapter 90 was established as a temporary program, but
has stayed in existence due to its usefulness to act as a fail-safe in times of scarce resources.
Ms. Slesinger stated that in the interest of time, they would close the discussion on outstanding issues.
The Council agreed to move onward.
Mr. Hamwey stated that the next and final public hearing will be held on November 12 at Union Station
in Worcester from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm. He proposed the Council meet once per month after this
hearing, alternating between Boston and Worcester.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of October 20, 2014
Secretary Davey stated that the outcome of the meeting on November 12th should have all issues
resolved for the writing of the interim report due on December 31st.
Mr. DePaola stated that the draft report will identify any holes and provide a good path moving forward.
Mr. Hamwey stated that the draft report will be ready by the December meeting.
3. Public Comments
Glenn Cannon, Cape Cod Commission, stated that he supports the formula based approach and the
deadline extension. He suggested focusing on peak hour planning, especially for seasonal areas. He
stated that the Outer Cape has its first TIP funded project. He suggested keeping other funding sources
in mind such as the Rural Roads program. He encouraged the Council to look into safety and megaproject review. He stated that performance measures should be established as part of this process to
revisit past projects for evaluation.
Patty Daley, Deputy Director for the Cape Cod Commission, stated that seasonal regions do not produce
accurate funding per capita, and that analyses should take tourism into account. Mr. Pourbaix added
that this may affect both Cape Cod and Western Massachusetts.
Mr. Mullan stated that performance measure should have a built in audit function with features such as
a 5-year project look-back.
Mr. DePaola stated that all the MassDOT highway districts have individual priority lists, enumerating
their top 20-25 projects. Other sources, such as crash data, also produce project lists. All districts have a
backlog of projects.
Paul Mission, Transportation Program Manager for the Southeastern Regional Planning and
Development District (SRPEDD), stated that rural communities will score low and do not want to rely on
Chapter 90 funds which are variable from year to year. They do not need fully upgraded sidewalks on
rural roads. Funding sources like pavement management programs and federal-aid eligible roads avoid
political pressure.
Tim Kochan, MassDOT Transportation Planner and Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator for District 5, stated
that cost per ADT will not work because one size does not fit all. He suggested a breakdown by type
before scoring. For example, the Taunton interchange first scored an 18 then a 36 after a revisit. The
same mode needs to be compared to the same mode, for example, highway vs. highway. Shared use
paths are good, but not generally favorable in terms of dollars per person. Mr. DePaola echoed Mr.
Kochan’s comments, stating paths need to be compared with paths, transit vs. transit, etc.
Pamela Haznar, Project Development Engineer for MassDOT District 5, stated that the Project Review
Committee compares different project types depending on project measures and metrics. She stated
that a balanced program is important, and the cost of preservation needs to be compared against the
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of October 20, 2014
cost of new projects. Mr. Mullan agreed, stating that focus needs to be on balance and eliminating bias
toward expansion vs. preservation. Preservation needs should be incorporated into the first tier of
analysis.
Sue Rohrbach, Senator Dan Wolf’s District Director, stated that seasonality should be incorporated to
account for the need of local projects. There should be balanced pots of funding for project types, and
an additional pot for discretionary funding.
Mr. Mission, stated that specified funding allocations, such as 10% of TIP funding going towards smaller
projects such as bike paths and drainage, helps maintain equity. There should be dedicated funding for
each project type. In Southeast MA, one third of their spending goes towards community paths,
alternative modes of transportation, and system preservation, respectively.
Ms. Daley stated NO 2 pollution has been a problem in certain areas in Cape Cod and larger
environmental factors should be considered in funding allocation.
Mr. Mohler asked for any additional public comment. After there was none, he thanked all for attending
and closed the meeting.