Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of May 20th 2014
Draft Memorandum for the Record Project Selection Advisory Council
Public Hearing
May 20, 2014 Meeting
5:30pm – 7:00pm, Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, Suite 201, 1 Fenn Street, Pittsfield,
MA
David Mohler, Chair, Deputy Secretary for Policy and Executive Director Planning,
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT).
1. Introductions
David Mohler began with introductions of all present council members and members of the
public. Those members in attendance included Frank DePaola, MassDOT Highway
Administrator, John Pourbaix, Construction Industries of Massachusetts, Jim Lovejoy, Chairman
of Board of Selectman, Town of Mt. Washington representing Massachusetts. Those members
not in attendance include Richard Davey, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts
Department of Transportation (MassDOT), Linda Dunlavy, Gubernatorial Appointment
representing the planning agencies, and Franklin Regional Council of Governments, Jeff Mullan,
Foley Hoag LLP, Steve Silveira, MLS Strategies. Others in attendance included Clinton Bench,
Deputy Executive Director Office of Transportation Planning MassDOT, Sheri Warrington,
Manager of MPO activities, MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning, Matt Cairn, Executive
Director of the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, Sheila Irvin, Berkshire Regional
Planning Commission Chair, Clete Kus, Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, Peter Miles,
MassDOT, Mark Moore, MassDOT, Pete Fury, MassDOT, Jim Huebner, Member of the public.
2. Discussion of DRAFT Criteria
Sheri Warrington opened up discussion outlining the background of the formulation of the
council as a result of the Transportation Revenue Act 2013 and forth coming plans to deliver
recommendations to the legislature by calendar year end 2014. These recommendations
include uniform criteria for a prioritization formula to be applied across multi-model projects in
the state of Massachusetts. Additional comments included links with the Capital Improvement
Plan 2015, outlining the agenda of the meeting (including overview of current work to date,
opportunity for public comment and review of handouts provided at the meeting.
Safety
Mrs. Warrington defined safety as the ability of the transportation system to allow people and
goods to move freely, without harm in a secure environment. Tim Lovejoy highlighted that
small communities or regions may have trouble obtaining this data from the local police, which
is unfortunate as they will still have to use this criteria. He continued stating the need for
smaller communities and regions to make more of an effort to collect this type of data, to make
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of May 20th 2014
it useful for MassDOT decision making. Mr. Lovejoy mentions a Berkshire example where the
criteria doesn’t freeze out projects missing by a small margin, but broader categories group a
project together with other suggested projects and then a decision can be made. Matt Cairns
mentioned corridors are missing noting lane departure crashes in particular rather than
intersections, suggesting situational context to be considered when designing the metrics.
Mobility/Access
Mrs. Warrington defined Mobility/Access as the ability of a project to provide efficient
movement of people and goods between all destinations and by all modes. David Mohler states
these criteria under the Map-21 legislation would attempt to reduce congestion by 10%
measured by a metric, in which Mrs. Warrington highlights the handout with the reference to
another part of the legislation (Section of Acts of 2013 Chapter 46) stressing the goal of
reducing congestion was also that of government. Mr. Mohler states the addition of freight
mobility under Map 21 Federal Highway goal to be more obvious in the opening section.
Mr. Cairns suggests the importance of context and need for sensitivity towards what is relevant
in different regions. He noted that Berkshire’s TIP would include projects not serving many
people but representing critical access points such as Washington State Road. Mr. Lovejoy and
Jim Huebner support this notion stating the criteria do not make sense from region to region.
Economic Development
Mrs. Warrington defined Economic Development criteria as the ability of a project to facilitate
or support business development and employment. Mr. Lovejoy shows confusion over how a
‘High Employment Dense Area’ can be further enhanced economically by proposed projects.
Frank DePaola suggested the previous criteria may overlap and cover the same issues of
employment and congestion as economic development. Mr. Mohler acknowledged the
potential overlap, proposing that a project which has a congested road within high employment
areas warrants more points than those with just a congested road. In addition he notes this
may not have been how they were meant to be interpreted but, that is how it is designed.
John Pourbaix highlights the need for a tourism element accounting for seasonal adjustment in
traffic along certain roads. Mr. Mohler continues stating a need for economic development
areas separate to high employment areas, helping to spread the economic growth in areas
where employment is scarcer, helping to capture areas such as Tanglewood. These areas do not
have high employment but, are tourism hotspots and therefore roads are likely to have higher
demand in certain seasons. Mr. Cairns highlights the lexicon ‘located within’ as Tanglewood
would not be considered under this criterion but, would face problems if commuter roads to
Tanglwood were inadequate. He continues outlining the importance of regional equity that
those regions with high employment density do not attract all the projects and funds and leave
less densely populated regions ‘lagging behind’, ultimately leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy in
this criterion. Sheila Irwin comments on the importance of connectivity as a way for regions
such as the Berkshires to connect with higher employment areas and benefit and establish
economic development more evenly.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of May 20th 2014
Social Equity and Fairness
Mrs. Warrington defines Social Equity and Fairness criteria as the assessment of a project as it
relates to existing communities and population centers and to the ability of the transportation
system to efficiently move people, goods and services without excessive delay or inconvenience
and in accordance with state and federal laws that define protected groups. Also states there is
a supporting handout which defines federal and state law in reference to Environmental Justice
and Title VI in more detail. Mr. Cairns highlighted the importance of an aging population and
the inability of this metric to capture this issue. In which Clinton Bench adds the option of
improved frequency as an additional comment for transport in Berkshire and similar
communities. Mr. Bench adds that this could fit within Mobility/Access across both geographic
and temporal aspects.
Healthy Transportation
Mrs. Warrington defined Healthy Transportation criteria as an assessment of the transportation
system’s impact on quality of life, the natural environment and healthy transportation choices
with the recognition that we seek to act as better stewards of our environment. and states the
proposed metrics used for measuring healthy transportation. Mr. Lovejoy comments on the
difficulty of understanding what a ‘public health distress area’ is? Mr. Bench states it is yet to be
defined by the council in Massachusetts, but under the Transportation reform legislation
healthy transportation has become a central issue on the agenda of Massachusetts’s
transportation entities. In which both Massachusetts transportation and other organizations
are trying to understand health impacts from transport, for example Somerville. Mr. Cairns
suggests the Berkshire community would highlight the absence of the natural environment,
from encouraging healthy transportation. Mr. DePaola promotes the inclusion of park lanes and
recreation areas into the criteria. Mr. Huebner suggests he would like this criterion to be
weighted towards Massachusetts Transportation, as this is where the majority of the
commuters can be encouraged to change their behavior.
System Preservation
Mrs. Warrington defines System Preservation criteria as the ability of projects to improve the
physical condition of existing transportation assets and to ensure resiliency during extreme
weather conditions. Mr. Lovejoy identifies with a lack of resources, system preservation needs
to obtain a high weight due to the lack of funding within Berkshires and similar communities.
Mr. Mohler directs a question towards the local highway authorities asking how much data is
available for local road conditions. Mr. Cairns responds by stating 1/3 of the roads have
comprehensive pavement management. Is there a metric which deals with communities’ ability
to pay for roads in relation to federal highway funds? Mr. Lovejoy suggests the idea of public
private partnerships, and criteria which factors public commitment. Later discussion alludes to
additional weighting in this area. However, Mr. Cairns suggests this works well in high value
high demand markets and suggest caution and the idea of a self-fulfilling system. Mr. Mohler
identifies this as a special circumstance. Mr. Pourbaix suggests a metric, whereby there is a
ratio of major routes which serve a region, compared to local roads.
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of May 20th 2014
Weighting
David posed the question of how to weight these criteria. Mr. Lovejoy says preservation is
important around 40% weighting. Mr. Cairns says we may have a problem that the weighting
with shift projects towards a certain type. In the context of highway it can be looked at in terms
of system preservation but, transit needs to be system enhancement. Mr. Lovejoy enlightens
the council and public members on the Delaware criteria breakdown. Mr. DePaola suggests for
the first trial try 15% for the first five criteria and then 25% for preservation. Then ask the MPOs
to rank the criteria themselves and then run the projects again, to see if the projects come out
similar and if they do not then adjust the weightings appropriately. Mr. Huebner suggests that
the numbers used in the criteria are flexible, which prompts Mrs. Warrington to note the
possibility for having a compelling case situation. A compelling case scenario would be a
situation where two projects seem equal and certain other additional criteria are considered to
separate and decide on one project. Mrs. Warrington identifies experiences from other states
have more matured criteria projects, and therefore this process is will be an iterative process.
Regional Equity
Mrs. Warrington outlines the problem facing regional equity in terms of the current council
ideas and need for public input. Mr. Lovejoy said the Commonwealth is diverse resources
should be sent to areas where they are most needed. Mr. Mohler outlined the difficulty in
defining regional equity. Need to identify how people in general define regional equity. Mrs.
Warrington suggested the possibility of regional equity being an overview topic for the criteria
or as a criterion itself. Mrs. Irwin described the notion of connectivity between densely
populated needs and sparsely population needs. She continued stating that the needs of a
densely populated region in terms of transportation infrastructure will be different to that of a
sparsely populated area. Therefore, this could potentially affect how projects in these two
areas are affected by the criteria chosen. Mr. Cairns asks about the formula of Chapter 90
numerous members said it had been tweaked over several years but remained within the
Legislature so is hard to change. Mr. DePaola suggests looking at the distribution of highway
spending by district in per capita terms, in comparison to the chapter 90 distribution as a
percentage for the various regions.