Project Selection Advisory Council
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/PlanningProcess/ProjectSelectionAdvisoryCouncil.aspx
Public Hearing – Haverhill, MA
September 24, 2014
1
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
PSA Council Hearing Format
2

PSA Council Overview/Work to Date

Revised Scoring System and New Illustrative Projects

Regional Equity Analysis

Public Comment

Other Items
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
What is the Project Selection Advisory Council?

Established by the Massachusetts Legislature in Section 11
of Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013

Required to:

Develop uniform criteria and a transparent prioritization formula to be
used in the development of a comprehensive state transportation plan
 Deliver formal recommendations to the Legislature by December 31,
2014
 Hold 6 public hearings; one in each highway district

The inputs to the draft prioritization formula must be based
on several factors:






3
MassDOT’s Mission Statement, Vision, and Goals
MassDOT Policy Directives and Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Provisions of Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009
Provisions of Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013
Provisions from the latest Federal Transportation Authorization Bill - MAP-21
Input from the public
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Who is the Project Selection Advisory Council?
Membership defined by the Legislature to ensure the inclusion of a
range of perspectives (technical, political, regional, etc.)
4

Richard A. Davey, Secretary  David Mohler, Deputy
and CEO, MassDOT
Secretary, MassDOT

Frank DePaola, Highway
Administrator, MassDOT

Jeffrey B. Mullan, Foley
Hoag LLP

Linda Dunlavy, Executive
Director, Franklin Regional
Council of Governments

John M. Pourbaix,
Construction Industries of
Massachusetts

Jim Lovejoy, Selectman,
Town of Mount Washington

Steve Silveira, ML Strategies
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
PSA Council Terms
Criteria (or Goal): Broad statement of purpose aligned with
MassDOT’s overarching goals and policies
Example – Health and Environment – Does this project contribute
to the health and well-being of our people and environment?
Objective: A strategy for achieving this goal
Example – Reduce incidents of chronic disease related to
externalities of the transportation network.
Metric (or Measure): Basis for measuring a project’s contribution
towards an objective
Example –To what extent does the project have the potential to
increase physical activity in areas with high levels of obesity?
5
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Proposed Criteria Categories
SAFETY
Does a project address, maintain and
improve safety of the system while
ensuring the security of the people and
goods in transit?
SOCIAL EQUITY AND FAIRNESS
Does a project support equitable investment in
existing communities and distribute both the benefits
and burdens of development equitably among all
communities?
MOBILITY/ACCESS
Does a project provide transportation
choices, support mode shift goals, and
promote more connectivity within the
Commonwealth?
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Does a project increase access to safe and
comfortable healthy transportation options, or does
a project attempt to reduce GHG, and exposure
impacts to nearby populations?
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Does a project have the potential to
generate revenue or support economic
development?
6
SYSTEM PRESERVATION
Does a project contribute towards preservation of
existing assets and to what extent does it meet
operating objectives, as described in the
comprehensive state transportation plans and in
regional plans?
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Proposed Objectives
SAFETY
Reduce frequency and severity of
collisions for all modes
Improve evacuation routes
MOBILITY/ACCESS
Support mode shift
Improve reliability
Improve efficiency
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Support sustainable development
Ensure efficient movement freight
7
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
EQUITY
Target underserved communities
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Reduce GHG
Reduce incidents of chronic disease
SYSTEM PRESERVATION
Preserve existing infrastructure
Ensure resiliency
September 24, 2014
8
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 16, 2014
Illustrative Projects
9
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 16, 2014
Project
Project Type
Location
Score
Reconstruction of Causeway
On-Road Bike/Ped
Boston
66
Lynn/Chelsea
IllustrativeTransit
Project Scores
New DMU Service
57
Bus Rapid Transit
Transit
Springfield
47
Twin City Rail Trail
Off-Road Bike/Ped
Fitchburg/Leominster
46
Route 2
Safety/Roadway Realignment
Erving
45
Ferry Street/Elm Street
Traffic Calming
Everett
44
FRTA Maintenance Facility
Transit – Maintenance
Greenfield
43
Route 24/Route 140
Interchange Reconstruction
Taunton
28
Fenway Multi-use Path
Off-Road Bike/Ped
Boston
24
East Street
Roadway Widening
Pittsfield
17
I-495/Route 1A
New Ramp Construction
Wrentham
9
10
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 16, 2014
Feedback from Springfield
Mode shift should mean mode shift: Objective should reward projects
diverting trips from single occupancy vehicles
Avoid double counting: Projects appear to score similarly under mode
shift as they do under other objectives (particularly GHG)
System preservation is undervalued: should be weighted higher given
the state of good repair needs on the existing system
Test the system against truly rural projects: Illustrative projects did not
include rural projects where mode shift opportunities may be non-existent
Made the following changes:
1.
Modified mode shift scores
2.
Tested different weights for system preservation/mode shift/GHG
3.
Add two rural projects from Berkshire County
4.
Add two projects from MVPC area
11
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Illustrative Projects - Updated
12
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Illustrative Project Scores
13
Project
Project Type
Location
Old Score
New Score
Reconstruction of Causeway
On Road Bike/Ped
Boston
66
55 v
New DMU Service
Transit
Lynn/Chelsea
57
47 v
Bus Rapid Transit
Transit
Springfield
47
41 v
Twin City Rail Trail
Off-Road Bike/Ped
Fitchburg/Leominster
46
36 v
Route 2
Safety/Roadway Realignment
Erving
45
42 v
Ferry Street/Elm Street
Traffic Calming
Everett
44
44
FRTA Maintenance Facility
Transit - Maintenance
Greenfield
43
49 ^
Route 24/Route 140
Interchange Reconstruction
Taunton
28
32 ^
Fenway Multi-use Path
Off-Road Bike/Ped
Boston
24
21 v
East Street
Roadway Widening
Pittsfield
17
17
I-495/Route 1A
New Ramp Construction
Wrentham
9
9
Tyringham Road
Roadway Reconstruction
Lee/Tyringham
27
37 ^
Housatonic Street
Roadway Reconstruction/Ped
Dalton
19
19
Route 114 Improvements
Roadway Widening/Ped
Lawrence/North Andover
36
39 ^
Bus on I-93 Shoulder
Transit
MVPC portion of I-93
46
36 v
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 16, 2014
Outstanding Considerations
Schedule
Regional Equity
Readiness
Cost
When to Evaluate?
Funding Categories
Aspirational Data
14
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Regional Equity

Goal – See how transportation funding is being spent today as
we determine how to ensure regional equity through a
prioritization formula

Approach - analyze current transportation funding programs
across various geographic measures.

Funding programs:

15

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 2014-2017

Capital Investment Program (CIP) 2014-2018

Chapter 90 Apportionment Funding (Ch90) 2014
Geographic measures examined spending by:

Regional Planning Commission/MPO

District

Per capita

Per lane mile

Urban versus Suburban/Rural
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Regional Equity – Key Assumptions

Focused on funding patterns for highway, transit, pedestrian and
bicycle projects in specific geographic area(s) rather than
statewide programs, maintenance, or other modes.

Funding categories generally excluded:



16

Maintenance and cleaning

Information Technology

RMV
Only highway projects were assessed from the STIP
CIP includes highway, transit, and aeronautics
Both CIP and STIP include state and federal dollars
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Regional Equity – Chapter 90
Percent Chapter 90 Funding per MPO
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
17
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Regional Equity – Comparison with Chapter 90
Percentage Funding Spent in Each MPO
Percent Chapter 90 Funding by MPO
Percent Hwy STIP Funding per MPO
Percent CIP Funding per MPO
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
18
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Regional Equity – STIP Spending per Capita
Highway STIP Projects Spending per Capita
by Metropolitan Planning Organization (2014 - 2017)
$2,500
$2,304
Spending per Capita by MPO
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$873
$613
$546
$500
$178
$236
$299
$379
$305
$269
$240
$74
$0
19
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
$128
Regional Equity – CIP Spending per Capita
CIP Projects Per Capita Expenditure
by Metropolitan Planning Organization (2014 - 2018)
$3,000
$2,721
Per Capita Expenditure by MPO
$2,500
$2,198
$2,000
$1,493
$1,500
$1,048
$1,000
$828
$1,036
$910
$820
$635
$500
$196
$324
$448
$538
$0
Note: MPOs are arranged in the order of total population from largest to smallest.
20
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Regional Equity – STIP Spending per Lane Mile
Spending per Lane Mile by MPO - Highway STIP Projects (2014 - 2017)
$120,000
$109,960
Spending per Lane Mile by MPO
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$44,674
$36,498
$40,000
$30,632
$23,306
$18,984
$20,000
$20,599 $22,350
$22,137
$16,222
$10,198
$6,459
$5,829
21
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Nantucket
Martha's Vineyard
Franklin
Berkshire
Cape Cod
Montachusett
Northern Middlesex
Old Colony
Merrimack Valley
Central
Massachusetts
Southeastern
Massachusetts
Pioneer Valley
Boston Region
$0
Regional Equity – STIP per Capita by District
Highway STIP Projects per Capita Expenditure by District (2014 - 2017)
$700
$638
$620
$600
$500
$400
$300
$243
$234
$188
$200
$206
$100
$0
District 1
22
District 2
District 3
District 4
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
District 5
September 24, 2014
District 6
Regional Equity – STIP Spending per Lane Mile
Spending per Lane Mile by District - Highway STIP Projects 2014 - 2017
$120,000
Spending per Lane Mile by District
$97,998
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,001
$40,000
$20,000
$32,125
$21,053
$19,844
$15,707
$0
District 1
23
District 2
District 3
District 4
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
District 5
September 24, 2014
District 6
Regional Equity – Urban and Non-Urban Areas
24
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Regional Equity- Per Capita Urban & Non-Urban
Highway STIP and CIP Per Capita Expenditure
by Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas
$900
$800
$822
Per Capita Expenditure - Highway STIP
Per Capita Expenditure - CIP
$700
$600
$559
$500
$400
$300
$200
$237
$227
$100
$0
Urban
25
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
Suburban/Rural
September 24, 2014
Regional Equity – Observations
26

Geographic patterns are generally consistent across project
funding for STIP, CIP, and Ch90.

Analysis of funding programs show:

MPOs with highest population generally receive the highest total spending
and number of projects, e.g. Boston and Central Mass, while those with
lowest population generally receive lowest total spending and number of
projects

On per capital basis the pattern generally reverses, with the lowest
population MPOs receiving the highest spending per capita

The Pioneer Valley MPO ranked highly across most measures of
geographic equity, while the Old Colony MPO at or near the
bottom of all such measures

Boston, Pioneer Valley, and Merrimack Valley have high average
project values likely due to specific major projects
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
PSA Council Hearing Format

Hearing is an opportunity for Council members to hear from you

Please sign in if you would like to provide comment

Depending on the number of attendees, commenters may be asked
to limit the duration of their remarks

Email or written correspondence is also being accepted at:
Scott Hamwey
Office of Transportation Planning – MassDOT
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
scott.hamwey@dot.state.ma.us
27
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 24, 2014
Scoring Guidance
Improve Efficiency
+ 3 = Project significantly increases persons per
hour capacity on the existing transportation
network
+ 1 = Project moderately increases persons per
hour capacity using existing facilities or improves
persons per hour capacity by expanding the existing
network
0 = Project has no impact on travel speed or
efficiency
28
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 16, 2014
Scoring Guidance
Reduce exposure to noise, air, and water pollution
+3 = Project significantly reduces exposure to noise, air and
water pollution in an area with high exposure levels
+2 = Project moderately reduces exposure to noise, air and
water pollution in an area with high exposure levels
0 = Project has no impact on noise, air and water pollution either
because of no significant changes or because negative impacts
have been mitigated with trees or other exposure mitigation
efforts
-2 = Project increases exposure to noise, air, and water
pollution
-3 = Project significantly increases exposure to noise, air, and
water pollution
29
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 16, 2014
Illustrative Project Analysis:
Bike/Ped Projects
Causeway Reconstruction vs. Fenway Multi-use Path
Propensity for mode shift
Potential reliability improvements
30
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 16, 2014
Illustrative Project Analysis:
Highway Expansion Projects
Rt 2 Erving vs. East Street, Pittsfield
Potential impact of pedestrian improvements
Range of improvements: safety, reliability for all users
31
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 16, 2014
Illustrative Project Analysis:
Examples of Scoring Inflexibility
Interchange Projects – Route 140/24, 495/1A
• Proposed system is not currently structured to
rate auto-centric projects highly
Non-Revenue Transit Facilities – FRTA Garage
• Transit projects without a service improvement
component may have an upper limit to how
high they can score (benefits are more indirect)
32
| Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
September 16, 2014