Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of September 16th 2014
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Public Hearing and Meeting
September 16, 2014 Meeting
11:30 am – 12:15 pm, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, 60 Congress Street, Springfield, MA
David Mohler, Acting Chair, Deputy Secretary for Policy and Executive Director, Office of Transportation Planning,
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), on behalf of Richard Davey, Secretary and Chief
Executive Officer, MassDOT.
1.
Introductions
Deputy Secretary David Mohler began by thanking everyone for attending the public hearing. He noted that he is a
member of the Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council and is also chairing the meeting today because Secretary
Richard Davey is away on a trade mission. He then noted that the Council will hold an official meeting immediately
following the public hearing, and the public is invited to stay for that meeting where there will be additional
opportunity to provide comment and ask questions.
Public Meeting
2.
Discussion of PowerPoint Public Presentation
Jennifer Slesinger, MassDOT, provided an overview of the meeting agenda and encouraged attendees to provide
input either at the public hearing or at the Council meeting immediately following it. Contact information was
provided for those who want to provide input following the meetings. She explained that the Council was formed
last year through the Legislature under Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013, and is charged with recommending uniform
project selection criteria as well as a project prioritization formula for the Secretary of Transportation to deliver to
the Massachusetts Legislature before the end of the year. She noted that this is the third of the six required public
hearings, with one being held in each of the MassDOT Highway Districts. She then introduced all the Council
members present in the public hearing. In addition to Deputy Secretary Mohler, these were Frank DePaola,
MassDOT Highway Administrator; Steve Silveira, ML Strategies; Linda Dunlavy, Franklin Regional Council of
Governments; and Jim Lovejoy, Chairman of the Board of Selectman for the Town of Mount Washington and
representing Massachusetts Municipal Association. Those members not able to participate in this hearing were
MassDOT Secretary Richard Davey; former MassDOT Secretary Jeff Mullan, Foley Hoag LLP; and John Pourbaix,
Executive Director of the Construction Industries of Massachusetts.
Ms. Slesinger stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to get the public’s input on the full range of issues
that the Council is examining in the development of a prioritization formula. She specifically welcomed feedback
on the higher level criteria categories already proposed, the more specific objectives and metrics that are being
presented for the first time at this meeting, and the approach the Council is considering to address areas not
currently covered in the criteria, including project cost, project readiness, and regional equity. She said at the
previous meeting in July, the Council had asked staff to develop a draft prioritization formula and run an illustrative
set of projects through the formula to test the outcomes. She highlighted that the prioritization formula
developed must based on feedback from meetings with internal and external stakeholders, the core values and
policies of MassDOT, pertinent state and federal laws and regulations, as well as comments received from the
public.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of September 16th 2014
Ms. Slesinger went on to clarify a few terms that have sometimes been used interchangeably during the course of
the Council’s work. She defined criteria as being broad statements of goals and purpose. For example, the Health
and Environment goal asks whether the project contributes to the health and well-being of our people and
environment. Objectives are the strategies identified to help us achieve that goal. In the case of Health and the
Environment, an example of an objective might be to reduce the incidence of chronic disease related to
externalities of the transportation network. Finally, are the metrics or measures, which are the specific way in
which a project is evaluated for its effectiveness in satisfying these goals and objectives. The example given was a
project’s ability to increase physical activity in areas with high levels of obesity.
Ms. Slesinger then went through the six major criteria categories that were presented and approved by the Council
at earlier meetings:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Safety
Mobility and Access
Economic Development
Social Equity and Environmental Justice
System Preservation
Health and the Environment
She noted that the only change to the criteria had been with Health and the Environment, which had previously
just been called “Healthy Transportation.” By calling out the environment, MassDOT could elevate the importance
of greenhouse gas reduction, which is a significant goal of the DOT with the Global Warming Solutions Act.
Next, Ms. Slesinger stated that she would be presenting the proposed objectives to the public as well as the
Council for the first time. She explained that the goal in the development of the objectives was to reduce
redundancy and keep them as simple as possible to promote transparency and ease of use. She went over the
objectives (below), and explained how while they originally developed them so that each one would be tied to a
single criterion, this approach ignored the fact that most objectives helped satisfy multiple criteria. For example,
ensuring maintenance of existing infrastructure also could improve safety, mobility, and economic development.
SAFETY
•
•
EQUITY
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
•
Target underserved communities
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
•
•
Reduce GHG
Reduce incidents of chronic disease
SYSTEM PRESERVATION
•
•
Ensure maintenance of existing
infrastructure
Ensure resiliency
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of September 16th 2014
3.
Public Comments
Dick Grannells, member of the Joint Transportation Committee (JTC) of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
(PVPC), stated concerns with attempting to apply urban based project selection criteria in rural areas. For example,
many rural roads in remote lower density areas of the state don’t need sidewalks, so he questioned requiring
sidewalks, bike accommodation, and the mode shift goals in rural areas. He went on to note that the special
characteristics of rural areas need to be considered in the project selection criteria. He went on to say that criteria
and design standards appropriate for urban/suburban roadways are often not relevant in rural context. He
suggested three categories of geographic consideration shaped by demographic data:
•
•
•
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Gary Roux, Principal Planner/Traffic Manager at PVPC, started by thanking the PSA council members for reaching
out them in the development of the proposed prioritization formula. Mr. Roux stated that the PVPC has decided
to wait for the draft report before adopting its own MPO criteria.
Mike Percatti, City of Westfield, stated that the cost of addressing all identified transportation needs would exceed
available funding. He mentioned there is a need for a prioritization process because of the funding shortfall. Mr.
Percatti went on to say that the method used should be based on how revenues are collected and that there needs
to be a more direct method of linking transportation revenues and projects.
Rana Al-Jammal, PVPC staff member, asked whether the project criteria would be applied to all project types,
regardless of scale. Ms. Slesinger responded that the direction from the Council thus far was to apply the criteria to
both MPO and state projects. She clarified that Chapter 90 formula fund projects would be excluded.
Marvin Ward, Town of Windsor, asked how the project selection criteria would be applied so as to not disfavor
rural projects. It was explained that this topic would be addressed during the meeting portion of the agenda.
Mr. Mohler stated that public comments will also be taken during the Council meeting, which will be held
immediately following the Public Hearing.
Council meeting
Scott Hamwey, MassDOT, opened up the Council meeting with the list of items completed since the prior meeting
th
on July 29 in Boston. Mr. Hamwey mentioned that discussion of the regional equity criteria will be deferred to
th
the next meeting on September 24 in Haverhill. He went on to say that the current draft of the selection criteria
is still largely subjective, and that MassDOT is working to make it more quantitative, which in turn will make it
more transparent.
Mr. Hamwey gave examples of each metric and explained the use of a scoring system which ranges from -3 to +3
points. He showed a color flow chart graphic and pointed out the relationship between the criterion, objectives,
and metrics. He went on to explain the project weighting system and why certain categories were given more
weight. Mr. Hamwey then showed a statewide map with the name and location of illustrative projects that were
identified for testing the potential new scoring system. He pointed out that some bicycle projects score high and
others low based on the improvement over baseline conditions in terms of mode shift and connectivity. He also
used the illustrative projects list and draft scoring process to test whether urban projects always score high. The
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of September 16th 2014
results indicated they do not, such as with Route 2 in Erving vs. East Street Pittsfield. Also, the results showed that
in general, interchange projects are not rated highly by the draft scoring system, and non-revenue transit projects
may have a ceiling on high scores because they do not directly attract new ridership.
Mr. Mohler confirmed that the Council members received copies of handouts, which were also provided to the
meeting attendees. The handouts consisted of a list of illustrative projects with summary descriptions, and a copy
of the draft scoring matrix. Mr. Mohler asked what the scoring range is, and Mr. Hamwey responded that the
system scoring adds up to a maximum of 100 points. Mr. Mohler asked if Council members have any questions.
Jim Lovejoy asked how the needs of rural communities are being addressed with the draft scoring system. He cited
the example of a rural road that is in terrible shape, but located in an area of the Commonwealth with low
population density and low traffic volume. He asked how fixing such a road is prioritized in the system.
Linda Dunlavy expressed concern that the proposal goes too far on weighting the mode shift criteria. System
preservation is rated too low. She noted that maintenance of bridges and roads needs to be a higher/the highest
priority, and that the weighting needs to prioritize roads and bridges.
Steve Silveira started by recognizing the strong work completed by the staff to date. He noted that the legislative
mission is to recommend a system for project selection that is fair, transparent, and well understood. He doesn’t
think you can compare a Boston urban project to a rural roadway project. Therefore, we need to step back to the
“30,000 foot level” and re-examine the method of comparing and scoring projects. He suggests we need to ask the
MPOs what their priorities are and tie the state project selection criteria into them. Mr. Silveira suggested a
system that only rates and compares within a mode/type in a given MPO.
Highway Administrator Frank DePaola stated that urban/rural project comparisons are difficult. He doesn’t see
Causeway Street as a viable mode shift project because it would not take people out of cars, it would take
them off transit or from walking to biking. He suggested that the Erving roadway reconstruction project is a
better option that should score higher.
Marvin Ward noted that bicycles are not allowed on some state routes located in rural areas, including the Route
2, Erving illustrative project, and that requiring their accommodation to score well may not make sense on those
types of roads. MassDOT clarified that bicycles are allowed in the Erving section of Route 2 and are generally
allowed unless there is signage prohibiting their use on a facility. The reason why certain roadways have few if any
bicyclists is mostly a rider comfort issue.
Mr. Lovejoy stated that the individual regions/MPOs need to have input to the selection criteria.
Mr. Silveira asked if the Boston MPO must use the MassDOT criteria. Mr. Mohler responded that in theory the
state can deny matching funds for an MPO project that doesn’t score well.
Mr. DePaola noted that not all state money is the “same flavor.” In reality, bridge projects get compared to other
bridge projects because of designated bridge funding. The same is true for other funding programs such as
Interstate Highway maintenance.
Mr. Mohler acknowledged that developing criteria that balance these competing interests by the end of this
calendar year may be tough but it is the legislative charge. However, as the Secretary of Transportation likes to say
“less talk - more do” is needed. If mode shift is not the priority of the Council, the Council needs to inform staff.
Mr. Mohler stated that there is no formula that can do it all and that staff will follow this direction by testing
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of September 16th 2014
increasing system preservation weighting on the illustrative project set. He understands that several Council
members see benefit in comparing projects within categories not across.
Mr. Lovejoy noted that it sounds like there needs to be a way to prioritize rural projects. Perhaps the system
should compare, for example, rural projects only to other rural projects.
Tim Brennan, Executive Director of PVPC, stated that they identify and evaluate projects in “stereo”, meaning that
they consider both their own regional criteria as well as criteria established by the state in the pre-Project Review
Committee process. The state criteria provide a framework, which they then adapt to their regional situation and
needs, i.e. they “make it place specific.”
Ms. Dunlavy expressed concern with the project weighting system, and asked how the evacuation metric weight
was determined. She thought it deserved a much higher weight than two.
Mr. Hamwey justified the low ranking with the explanation that the metrics were generally meant to be applicable
for all projects, but only a small number of projects would be eligible to score points under this metric. Moreover,
many freight routes would also be evacuation routes, so that projects scoring well under freight or evacuation
would tend to score well under both. He asked the Council members if they generally agree that the objectives are
right, and Mr. Mohler asked if any objectives are missing.
Dick Grannells, JTC of the PVPC, offered praise for the project selection process used by PVPC, and asked why not
take the work already done by the MPOs. He thinks the MPO model is a good starting point. Mr. Mohler noted
that MassDOT did look at all 13 MPOs and other states for guidance.
Mr. Silveira suggested that the top crash location list should be a major source of project priorities. Mr. Hamwey
stated that MassDOT didn’t include it in the list, but it is available. Mr. Mohler responded that MassDOT cannot
use just crash/safety numbers for determining highway project priorities. He added that for projects to move
forward primarily on the basis of safety, the safety issue must be clearly defined and the project must address it.
Linda Dunlavy asked if air/rail projects will be subjected to this project prioritization process and Mr. Mohler said
air would not, but rail would. Mr. Mohler and Mr. DePaola cited the example of the Knowledge Corridor rail
project with a $117M total price. They stated there is $70M federal funding, but also $47M of non-federal and
state money for bridges, roads associated with the project. The allocation of this non-federal aid to the Knowledge
Corridor instead of highway projects is the type of choice that the evaluation system will be designed to make
more transparent. Mr. Mohler also mentioned the $800M for purchase of new Red and Orange Line cars as
another example of funding which would otherwise be available for other projects and thus should be compared
with other types of projects.
th
Mr. Hamwey referenced the Council schedule and that September 24 Haverhill is the next Council meeting,
th
followed by an October 20 meeting in Barnstable. The Draft Final Report to the Legislature is due for internal
st
th
review on October 31 , followed by the final scheduled public meeting November 12 in Worcester Union Station.
The Final Report is currently due to the Legislature by December 31, 2014.
Mr. Silveira stated that he would prefer not being held to an arbitrary date if more time is needed to prepare the
Final Report. Mr. Lovejoy also asked about the schedule.
Mr. Mohler stated that the Council and staff should stay the course at least through the next meeting in Haverhill.
He also asked whether and how to consider costs in the selection criteria. Mr. Silveira said yes – it is very important
to consider the cost/benefit analysis of such investments.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of September 16th 2014
Mr. DePaola noted that MassDOT has projects in the TIP that go up in cost during the time between being
approved for the list and the time they are ready for construction, as was the case with a recent project that
doubled in cost to $28M. He suggested that projects should be significant through the design before putting on
the TIP to reduce the cost risk.
Ms. Dunlavy cited similar examples where project costs increase significantly because of inadequate project
definition up front. Mr. Lovejoy suggests that “bang for the buck” should be a major consideration in project
selection criteria, because the ability of a project to leverage other money and investment should boost its score.
Mr. DePaola asked if we should have separate scoring for urban, suburban, and rural projects. Ms. Dunlavy
suggested keeping criteria for comparing across disciplines and programs the same, but create different score
ranges for urban, suburban, and rural. Mr. Mohler expressed concern that bucketing by category or region could
make the prioritization process too complicated, reducing the level of transparency and ease of understanding by
the public. Mr. Lovejoy noted that people want to know how the criteria impacts them, so having a double
process of both scoring and using a baseline minimum of funding by geographic region may make sense.
Mr. Hamwey noted that the staff’s findings on that current state of regional equity, which could inform this
discussion, would be presented at the next meeting in Haverhill on September 24th.