Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
Draft Memorandum for the Record Project Selection Advisory Council Public Hearing
July 29, 2014 Meeting
nd
11:00 am – 1:30 pm, Boston Regional Planning Commission, 10 Park Plaza, 2 Floor, Conference Room 2/3 Boston,
MA
Richard Davey, Chair, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT)
1.
Introductions
Secretary Richard Davey began by thanking everyone for attending the public hearing and also thanked those who
already submitted emails and letters. He then noted that the Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council will hold an
official meeting immediately following the public hearing, and the public is invited to stay for the meeting.
Secretary Davey stated the Council is mandated by statute to have their work done and submitted to the MassDOT
Board of Directors and the Legislature by December 31, 2014. Given this tight schedule, he again expressed
appreciation to the public for participating today.
Public Meeting
2.
Discussion of PowerPoint Public Presentation
Scott Hamwey, MassDOT’s Manager of Long-Range Planning, 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. He noted that this is the second of the six required public
hearings, with one being held in each of the MassDOT Highway Districts. He then introduced all the Council
members present in the public hearing. In addition to Secretary Davey, these were former MassDOT Secretary Jeff
Mullan, Foley Hoag LLP; Frank DePaola, MassDOT Highway Administrator; David Mohler, Deputy Secretary of
Policy and Executive Director of Office of Transportation Planning for MassDOT; Jim Lovejoy, Chairman of the
Board of Selectman for the Town of Mount Washington and representing Massachusetts Municipal Association;
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 and Linda Dunleavy, Franklin Regional Council of
Governments.
Mr. Hamwey stated the purpose of the public hearing is to get the public’s input on the full range of issues that the
Council is looking at, both higher level goals and criteria categories already proposed as well as more specific
objectives and metrics going forward. He said the issue of regional equity was one the Council had struggled with
and would welcome public input on. He emphasized that the hearing was not intended to be a forum for project
specific advocacy. Mr. Hamwey explained that the Council’s work thus far focused on identifying these six criteria,
which reflect the core values, and policies of MassDOT, are informed by various state and federal laws and
regulations, and those comments received thus far from the public.
Mr. Hamwey went on to clarify a few terms that have sometimes been used interchangeably during the course of
the Council’s work and have at time contributed to confusion. He defined the criteria as being broad statements of
goals and purpose. For example, the safety criterion establishes the goal of a safe and secure transportation
system. Objectives are the strategies identified to help us achieve that goal. In the case of Safety, an example of an
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
objective might be improving bicycle safety. 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 reduce the likelihood of crashes involving bicycles on a roadway where those types of crashes
are above average.
Mr. Hamwey then went through the remaining five major criteria, providing some additional examples of potential
objectives and metrics for each:





Mobility and Access - possible objectives may be to reduce vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and person
hours of travel.
Economic Development - standard metrics often assess whether a project is located within a pre-defined
zone, such as economically distressed or targeted growth areas.
Social Equity and Environmental Justice - the relative burdens and benefits of projects in relation to EJ
communities will be considered.
Healthy Transportation - Massachusetts is ahead of most of its peers in considering this goal. The
criterion focuses on environmental sustainability, access to safe and comfortable healthy transportation
options, mode shift and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals.
System Preservation - a primary focus of MassDOT over the past decade; potential objectives may be to
reduce the average age of our bus fleet, or to plan for resiliency in the face of climate change.
Mr. Hamwey then went over the various sources of public feedback received since the May 20 meeting, with
particular focus on the dialogue from the Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) event on the topic held the
week prior at Northeastern University. He then opened the hearing for public comments, encouraging anyone
uncomfortable offering oral testimony to submit their comments in writing.
3. Public Comments
1) John Businger (current VP of National Corridors Initiative and member of the Regional Transportation
Advisory Council and former transportation committee member in the state legislature) asked whether
the notice requirement has been followed. Mr. Businger noted that it is déjà vu all over again
mentioning that Dan Grabauskas tried to do the same thing back in 2003, in which the process then was
to develop a matrix and two meetings were held in that process in both cases with over 100 people
participating. However, the process then did not go anywhere because Doug Foy and Dan Grabauskas
were not in coordination with each other regarding the process and that as a result, the matrix was
never developed. Mr. Businger noted although there are good people at the table today they are
restricted by the structure imposed by the legislature, which results in the mission statement not being
supported by the composition of the PSA Council. He highlighted that, for example, regional equity is
1
part of the mission, but there is only one member from western MA in Franklin County , and there is no
one from an environmental advocacy group when environmental justice is one of the criteria. On a
broader basis, he said that transportation planning is inductive, not deductive. He expressed concern
that if an administration wants to do something, they will fit the projects to the criteria. Mr. Businger
cited examples from the 1990s of earmarks for certain projects that did not go through any selection
criteria process. He continued highlighting the need to be aware that sometimes bold visions don’t fit
within well-meaning but restrictive criteria. Mr. Businger stated a person on the Council had told him
that clear eyed decision making is needed, and cited weighting factors, but he questioned who and how
1
In addition to the Council member from Franklin County (FRCOG’s Linda Dunleavy), western Massachusetts is also represented on the Council
by Jim Lovejoy, selectman from the Town of Mount Washington.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
the weighting of the criteria will occur. He concluded stressing that transportation projects should be
selected on basis of inductive not deductive reasoning.
2) Lizzi Weyant, Advocacy Director at T4MA, alluded that several members and member groups will speak
today. Ms. Weyant described the mission of their organization, noting their group was behind the
legislation that created the PSA Council. She mentioned the T4MA Measuring Up: More Bang for the
Buck in Transportation Project Selection event last week, highlighting how relevant it was to the work of
the Council. She stressed that there is an opportunity now in this process to advance the goals of their
member organizations. Ms. Weyant highlighted the need for long term goals for 5, 10 and 15 years,
including reducing GHG from transportation sources, maximizing public health benefits, and achieving
regional and social equity. She stopped there, explaining that other T4MA members will be providing
additional comments.
3) Julia Prange Wallerce, Executive Director, MassCommute, cited their mission as a coalition of
Transportation Management Associations (TMAs). Ms. Wallerce noted that transportation is a means to
an end for their member TMAs, and presented her concerns about criteria for decisions. Their
members are commuters impacted by congestion and looking for improved quantity and quality of
transportation options. Ms. Wallerce stressed the need to use criteria that will enhance the entire
Commonwealth and support access to jobs, the economy, equity, and public health. She argued that
weighting must reflect the goals. Ms. Wallerce supported the mode shift goal of tripling the share of
travel by walking, biking, and transit but noted that some areas are tough to achieve mode shifts and
asked that criteria support making mode shifts easier. Ms. Wallerce commented on mobility and access
and suggested VMT reduction should be a metric. She also suggested adding a metric for whether a
project fills in gaps in the system, particularly for environmental justice populations currently
underserved.
4) Rafael Mares, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) Staff Attorney, noted that the work of the Council is
extremely important and emphasized that the process should reflect the priorities of the
Commonwealth, which include the GHG reduction goal and the GreenDOT, Healthy Transportation, and
the mode shift objectives. He added that CLF has done a lot of research on this and there are no
perfect solutions – but he sees good examples locally and cites the Boston MPO/CTPS as having
established a good process and criteria. In particular, Mr. Mares highlighted the TIP criteria as being a
good example, but that it had some gaps which need to be filled in but it will be good starting point. He
emphasized the need to figure how to weigh different modes fairly – it is an apples to oranges
challenge of trying to compare and rate across different modes. Mr. Mares suggested using one set of
rules for geographic equity then assigning a percentage of urban and rural instead of using a separate
rating process for each mode. He also suggested using a single scale for all modes and community types
but then applying weights to ensure the different modes and areas receive an equitable share
consistent with the policy goals and criteria. For important goals, Mr. Mares suggested using qualitative
data if quantitative data is not available.
5) Nancy Goodman, Vice President for Policy with the Environmental League of Massachusetts, started by
thanking PSA Council members, saying that she looked forward to a final set of criteria at the end of the
process. Ms. Goodman recognized resources are limited even with Transportation Act of 2013, and
mentioned the need to provide the public with a range of transportation choices. She highlighted the
need to prioritize projects and the need to address GHG targets, emphasizing they should potentially be
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
stand-alone criteria to recognize its importance. Ms. Goodman further highlighted the need to promote
compact development and smart growth served by transit, and cited South Coast Rail as a good
example of a planning process that supports those goals. She concluded, stating that this example of
South Coast Rail can urge the Council to integrate transportation plans and policies into the project
selection criteria.
6) Steve Miller, senior staff person at Harvard School of Public Health, Member of the Healthy
Transportation Compact Advisory Committee, and founding board member of Livable Streets Alliance,
brought three perspectives to his comments. Mr. Miller’s first point framed the topic of project
selection, regional equity, and some quick thoughts on specific metrics. Regarding framing, he
suggested the need to step back and realize the type of communities and quality of life we are
targeting, which in turn impacts the types of metrics to consider. Mr. Miller commented that it was
good news that the Commonwealth has great goals that embody the vision of quality of life. He
highlighted the goals of SomerVision in the City of Somerville as a good model, through seeking a place
that is an exceptional place to live, work, play and raise a family. He suggested the same themes are
seen nationally and in state policy: people want more bike-ability, walk-ability, transit, and the ability to
be together, not separate from each other. Mr. Miller continued stating we need criteria that measure
to what extent a project moves us toward or not toward these goals.
Mr. Miller then concentrated more on the metrics, highlighting noise as something to consider, as well
as healthy transportation needing to be more specific about encouraging activity and walking, as this is
universally recognized as being beneficial to public health. He emphasized that transit encouraged
walking and biking, noting that kids and seniors are the most vulnerable segment of population in the
transportation system as well as pedestrians and bicyclists. Mr. Miller then considered how facilitating
desired land use should be included as measure. He stressed the need to be more explicit about
prioritizing transportation projects that support smart growth and the economic development goals of
the Commonwealth. He also noted such criteria may need to be qualitative as well as quantitative, with
economic development focused on long-term jobs rather than only considering short term construction
phase jobs. Mr. Miller stated that transportation should be structured to support affordable housing
and that the Equity criterion needs to address areas lacking transportation resources as well as areas
overburdened by transportation resources.
Mr. Miller then went on to discuss regional equity and emphasized that resource allocation be
geographically based on urban, suburban, residential exurban and rural, whereby a formula for dividing
total resources among these groups by population and other factors such as travel distance and time, or
other measures that emerge from the public process should be produced. He urged the Council to
acknowledge that mobility in a rural area is different than in an urban area.
Finally, Mr. Miller noted that all projects that are not yet in a signed contract for construction should be
subject to project review, with some recognition of how long a project has been waiting. Mr. Miller said
there should not be a free pass but recognition and some points for having waited. He also noted that
the criteria should cover not just new investments, but should also evaluate operations and
maintenance in the existing system because that is such a large portion of current spending.
7) Rebekah Gewirtz. – Executive Director, Mass Public Health Association and Somerville Alderman, stated
that her organization has prioritized transportation as a key element of public health. Ms. Gewirtz
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
highlighted the need to promote public health and stated that problems in environmental justice
communities are preventable. She emphasized that increased walking and biking opportunities have
resulted in positive health outcomes in reducing diabetes, hypertension, and other health problems.
She also noted that public health issues cost significant public dollars and through encouraging healthy
transportation options of walking, biking, and transit, there will be reductions in very expensive public
health treatments. Ms. Gewirtz ended her comments by offering to help the members with additional
input on public health aspects of transportation and thanked the PSA Council.
8) Nick Downing, Government Affairs Office of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), began his
comments mentioning support for the mode shift goal and GHG goals, but asked how such criteria will
be applied. Mr. Downing asked whether these and other criteria developed by the Council will be
applied to just state funded project or to all projects including those at the MPO level without state
funding. Mr. Downing finished with the sentiment that criteria should be data driven, quantitative,
transparent and understandable by those looking at it from the outside.
9) Sarah Hamilton, Medical Academic and Scientific Community Organization (MASCO), explained that she
represents a non-profit organization representing institutions in the Longwood Medical Area where
there are approximately 46,000 employees, 19,000 students, 3.5 million annual visitors and 2.5 million
patients. Ms. Hamilton mentioned MASCO is also the TMA for the area and its goals include reducing
single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to address issues of traffic congestion. She said MASCO has found that
transit access is the most important strategy for “moving the needle” on mode shift and reducing GHG.
She stated that transportation should be focused not just on creating new jobs, but also on preserving
jobs and the potential for growth that can be lost where transportation is inadequate. Ms. Hamilton
suggested the following for improving criteria—a rating on level of congestion and how a project
reduces congestion, and a factor to count the square footage of existing and planned development
surrounding a project. She highlighted that MASCO is about jobs and the economy and that job
generation potential should be considered in the metrics, such as potential loss of existing or potential
jobs if a necessary transportation improvement is not implemented. Finally, Ms. Hamilton mentioned
the TIGER grant program, Ladders of Opportunity, and suggested considering some of the criteria from
that program in the process.
10) Wig Zamore mentioned the need to provide increased transportation capacity for those areas that are
the drivers of the economy, and agreed with Ms. Hamilton that transportation needs to focus on areas
where potential for growth can be established. He stated that leveraging investments to connect the
job centers to the other areas of the state, such as the Gateway Cities that need jobs, is important. He
then noted that the average municipal income gap between cities and towns in the Commonwealth is
growing, which is leaving some areas left out of the improving economy.
For mode shift, Mr. Zamore suggested that to prevent an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as we
shift modes away from single occupancy vehicles, we need to recognize that we cannot have 200 mile
bike rides. He argued that we should not let safety drive decisions that will undermine our health and
environmental goals. Mr. Zamore stressed that mode shift is desirable, and walking and biking are
beneficial but, for example, you should not put pedestrians and bicycles into roadways and
intersections where emissions create unhealthy air quality, which then undermines the ability to
actually achieve healthy transportation. Mr. Zamore then added to the above comments stating
accidental deaths along roadways are down, yet adverse health impacts from emissions and noise are
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
increasing. He said studies have showed that mortality is higher where intersection density is higher
and walkability is higher. He thus argued that there is a need for solid data on health and environmental
benefits. He concluded with an example of transit vehicle selection, whereby diesel may have BTU
efficiency, but black carbon contributes to environmental/climate change and lung cancer. He thus
stressed the need for electric power sources in transit.
11) Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director of CTPS at the Boston MPO, noted that the Boston Region has a
well-developed system for project selection, and the extent that the Council will emulate the Boston
MPO criteria, and that it is in his view a good thing. Mr. Quackenbush offered to help the PSA Council
on its work, including how to best tie-in the regional and state criteria.
12) Lisa Webber, Brighton resident, expressed the desire for the Council to use common sense and consider
real life. As an example, she explained that in winter walking is a problem as sidewalks and paths are
not always cleared in a timely manner. She also explained that often time, with the given transit
network, individuals will typically not consider a 2-hour T ride over a 15 minute car ride. Ms. Webber
stressed not to take all or nothing approach and suggested on making each mode as safe and reliable as
possible.
Secretary Davey then added the process the Council is charged with is more political science than art, and asked
that the advocates comment in the public process and review the draft criteria as they are being developed.
Secretary Davey then noted that the PSA Council is not required to implement, only to publish, its recommended
criteria by the end of the year.
Council meeting
Mr. Hamwey opened up the council meeting stating the challenge facing the Council in that the legislative deadline
for recommendations is five months away. He continued specifying a goal of providing sufficient feedback for staff
th
to take an initial cut at a project prioritization framework in advance of the September 16 meeting. He then
outlined the agenda for the meeting which included the review of the criteria; the universe of projects; regional
equity; and the approach to metrics and next steps.
Proposed Criteria Categories
Mr. Hamwey reviewed the various criteria including definitions set by the council previously.
Universe of Projects
Mr. Hamwey questioned whether the review process should be of only projects fully funded with state dollars or if
we should being reviewing all state and MPOs funded projects. Secretary Davey accepted the staff
recommendation of a design prioritization tool to evaluate all projects.
Jim Lovejoy stated that it is important how we structure the criteria, and he suggested we do an umbrella of
criteria that all MPOs can use, but still leave regional criteria in place to be applied for MPO project prioritization.
He does not want to create a process that overrides what the MPOs are doing.
Jeff Mullan responded that the statute refers to the comprehensive state transportation plan, which has left him
concerned about how to implement the recommendation and how to do this without “big footing” the regional
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
leadership. He suggested carrying out a poll of all the MPOs or making sure they are all consulted. Secretary Davey
noted that we are already looking at MPOs and the criteria they use.
Regional Prioritization
Jeff Mullan mentioned that he wants to see data from how regional prioritization is being done today and added
that this issue needs more research and data. Secretary Davey asked if we can do a chart of existing investment
levels by MassDOT district and other sub-regions. He then cited The Way Forward table showing District 1 had the
most dollars and District 3 the least (per capita). Secretary Davey added that we need to show where we are on
equity before we set a new direction.
Approach to Metrics
Mr. Hamwey asked whether qualitative measures can be considered, as well as new metrics that require new data.
First, Mr. Hamwey concentrated on quantitative vs. qualitative data whereby he used the City of Newton as an
example, as it was one of the highest rated projects for the Boston MPO. Mr. Hamwey highlighted Newton has
been identified as a place where we want to encourage compact development. It has transit, but it is more autooriented corridor and does not have population density and does not really have transit access at all locations.
Second, Mr. Hamwey talked about the availability of data and that we want to minimize new data collection and
start with the data we already have. Mr. Hamwey then used an example from the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority
(PVTA). PVTA has identified a couple of corridors in the City of Springfield for bus rapid transit service where
traditional metrics used to evaluate roadway projects (such as intersection LOS) may not adequately capture the
benefits/impacts of bus rapid transit. Mr. Hamwey recommended the council and staff identify the type of data
that we want to aspire to and at least set up some goals down the road. Secretary Davey responded stating that
we have to come up with criteria by the deadline, but that should not prevent us from aspiring to better metrics
that are more responsive to our values, and committing to gathering the data necessary to get there. Mr. Lovejoy
noted that we need a structure that makes qualitative criteria transparent, as this is more publicly acceptable.
Finally, Mr. Hamwey ended with the staff recommendation of an initial attempt at developing one universal set of
metrics that primarily rely on existing data, but also identifies--in consultation with the MassDOT Office of
Performance Management and Innovation (OPMI)--desired metrics that will require new data which MassDOT can
commit to adopting in the future. He also recommended allowing for the inclusion of qualitative metrics in cases
where quantitative ones do not fully align with our goals.
Applicability of Metrics – Challenge and Potential Solutions
Secretary Davey highlighted the need to perhaps separate out State of Good Repair projects from expansion
projects, in a bid to move beyond just existing Highway project criteria. Frank DePaola stated that Highway/Bridge
project priorities are very data driven by condition, etc, and therefore he asked that since the system is in better
shape now should we prioritize access/interchange improvements to Gateway Cities such as Brockton, Lawrence,
etc. Mr. DePaola suggested that we mix in some expansion projects so it is not just repaving the existing system.
After one final invitation for public comment, the meeting was adjourned.