Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 1, 2014
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting
April 1, 2014 Meeting
9:00 AM – 11:00 AM, Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Council, Union Station, 2 Washington
Square, 2nd Floor, Worcester, MA
1. Introductions
Jeff Mullan, Foley Hoag, acting Chairman of the project advisory council, introduced himself followed by
other members in the room. Steve Silveira MLS Strategies, House Minority Leader appointee, John
Pourbaix, Construction Industries of Massachusetts, Senate Minority leader appointee, Steve Woelfel
MassDOT, Linda Dunlavy, Franklin Regional Council of Governments, Gubernatorial appointee, Sree
Allam MassDOT, Sheri Warrington, MassDOT. Jeff Mullan also announced that Secretary Davey will be
arriving shortly, and will have to leave at 11:00 AM. Sheri Warrington stated the meeting is being
recorded and the meeting will start with several presentations. The first presentation is by James Corliss
from Transportation for America.
2. Presentations and Discussion
James Corliss, Director, Transportation for America a non-profit based in Washington, presented on
work that he had done while at his prior post at the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation
Commission. James indicated that the work that was done in California has a lot of relevance to what
the council is doing here in Massachusetts, using data and using performance measures and trying to
have a more transparent decision making process. The goal is to get to a place where you are picking
better projects. There are 2 ways to go about accessing projects. The first is to do a targets assessment
which is a more broad based qualitative process and the second is a benefit cost analysis process which
is more quantitative. James stated that efficiency projects generally do better, as well as non-capital
intensive transit and highway projects. He also indicated that this was really the first time that a
transparent public conversation had taken place in the region. It was the first time that the commission
was able to use the analysis to spotlight all projects that have been on the project list including old
transportation earmarks. James noted that all of the projects that were included in the transportation
plan had to go back into list to be evaluated. Some of the low scoring projects had to be withdrawn or
re-scoped because they did not score very well. Linda Dunlavy asked how far along the projects were
when they were redone? James indicated that some of the projects were up to 90 percent along in the
design process. He noted that the more transparent the process is, the more we build public trust.
Steve Silveira asked what the formula was for the cost benefits analysis. James explained that It’s not a
perfect science, targets were used such as GHG reductions, and then run through a model. John
Pourbaix asked if deferred maintenance costs factored into the quantitative process. James wasn’t sure
but he indicated he would look into it. Jeff Mullan made an observation about the lack of uniformity of
the data, the cost of developing data, and the evaluation based on regional targets and the siloed nature
of federal funding. James explained that that the region developed software for cities and towns to
analyze data and make it more uniform. He also noted that low performing projects were either kicked
out of the plan or re-scoped, while higher scoring projects got more funding. He also noted that
California is somewhat different from Massachusetts in that federal funds account for less than 15% of
total transportation funds in the state, there are many more state and local funding sources available.
Secretary Richard Davey explained that Massachusetts is grappling with urban versus rural funding
issues, with a potential of Boston area projects taking precedent at rural projects expense, and he asked
how it was dealt with in California. James noted that there is a big urban rural divide in most states. In
California, more of the projects were skewed towards efficiency projects, which are generally job
creator projects. But he also noted that having a more transparent process helps. Linda Dunlavy noted
that it appears that there doesn’t appear to be cost of the project to VMT rating which is hard for
projects in rural areas to score well. A question was asked about how the region dealt with the freight
movement? James noted that there were several freight projects but only made up a small portion of
the total projects. Jeff Mullan asked if all criteria should be equally rated. James noted that the
qualitative targets were equally weighted, but the benefit costs were not. Jeff Mullan also asked if this
process will ever be a science or will it be more of an art. James stated that we will probably not have
perfect data, but we can’t afford to wait for it. A question was asked if the high speed rail project was
evaluated. James noted that it was not.
Steve Woelfel, Director of Strategic Planning, MassDOT - OTP presented on weMove Massachusetts.
Steve explained that WeMove Massachusetts, which started at the beginning of the Patrick
administration, has been about opening up transparency with customers. weMove Massachusetts is the
statewide strategic multimodal plan which was developed to meet the requirements of the Federal
Highway Administration, and lead to the formal legislation that created the latest transportation bill.
The initial stage began with youMove Massachusetts, which was a 3 year process of civic engagement
that led to 10 themes of what public what customers wanted in state transportation. We move started
two years ago as analytical tool that allows MassDOT to look at highway and transit assets of how they
are performing now and in the future. This past February, 6 public meetings for weMove Massachusetts
were held in conjunction with release of the state CIP. This tool allows MassDOT to prioritize
investments for the future and it was guided by customer wants and needs, safety and security. This
tool is meant to meet the standards for FHWA performance measures. It is more of a long term tool for
the next 30 years. Compares against other states, worked with divisions to come up with metrics for the
tool. two scenarios no additional revenue and what happened with new revenue, but can look at any
revenue investment. Jeff Mullan noted that if 2.0 is the state of good repair what is the goal in terms of
percentage of MassDOT roads to be at 2.0. Steve noted that we would like to be at 100% but not
feasible, but 88% is the current status. John Pourbaix asked what roads are being included. Steve
explained that they are all federal aid roads. John also noted that 88% does not seem to be good
enough. Linda Dunlavy asked if we have the information for local roads. Secretary Richard Davey noted
that some of the cities and towns do. When a survey went out regarding Chapter 90 funding only about
a third of cities responded to survey. John Pourbaix asked how much would it cost for MassDOT to
survey of all roads. Jeff Mullan noted that vehicles like what the state uses would need to be purchased
in order to do local roads as well. Steve noted that going forward the next phase will be working with
Cambridge Systematics to develop up to five or six indicators like greenhouse gases, public health, etc.,
that will tie back to the model runs of weMove to see how we split the funding. Jeff Mullan asked if we
have an inventory of state assets. Secretary Richard Davey noted that we have moved forward with an
effort to inventory MBTA and bridge assets and the road inventory is improving. Steve noted that
MassDOT needs to do a better job with bicycle and pedestrian spending. As we move forward we need
to more accurately capture what we are spending in these areas. As imperfect as this process is, many
different states are asking how Massachusetts is doing this work.
Robert Guptill, Manager of Systems Integration, MBTA presented on MBTA Capitol Project Prioritization.
Robert oversees the implementation of the decision support tool and the state of good repair database.
He explained that there are 3 major reasons for capital project prioritization. There is the legislative
requirement per MAP-21, the FTA awarded MBTA a $950,000 pilot program grant to develop transit
asset management program, and it’s the right thing to do. The criteria for capital project prioritization
are impacts on the environment, system preservation, financial considerations, operations impacts and
legal commitments. Jeff Mullan asked about the operations critical component. Specifically, do the
project managers determine if their projects and how do they know it is critical? Robert explained that
the project manager must explain why the project is critical in the database. Secretary Richard Davey
noted that ultimately a separate committee will evaluate the project to determine its rating. Jeff Mullan
noted that the process needs to be transparent and that it should be made clear that there is a human
element in compiling the rating. Robert noted that the five 5 processes that are part of the decision
process tool are identify criteria, determine weights, establish rating scales, score, then prioritize
projects. Other functionality includes, sensitivity and analysis and reporting. The MBTA Identified
specific subject matter experts for each criteria. They were the people that decided what were the
appropriate scale and scores and then did the ratings for every project for those specific criteria. Robert
briefly explained that the schedule for using the tool. The MBTA has used it for the first year scenario
15-19, they will use again for 16-20, and they also have an option to use for a third year. Other
departments in the MBTA are interested in using the tool as well. He also noted that although it’s a
good tool, it doesn’t really do much more than what the MBTA was able to do before. In fact, it could
be done using an excel spreadsheet. A question was asked if the tool was custom made for the MBTA.
Robert noted that it is an off the shelf product, and the MBTA paid a license for two years. In the first
year, the MBTA used it specifically for the CIP process. Other transit agencies use this tool throughout
the country. Jeff Mullan asked how these decisions as applied to the public get sorted out, so that the
process appears to be transparent. Secretary Richard Davey noted that there will always be healthy
tension between priorities. Linda Dunlavy explained that it has been her experience that if there is
education and transparency in the MPO decision making process, it does make a big difference. If
information is available then it’s easier to get a compromise on decision making. Secretary Richard
Davey noted that a lot of the projects on the list will involve what the issue of the day is, the state of
good repair, legal commitments as well as expansion projects. I question was asked if the operating cost
and maintenance cost factored in the equation? Robert noted that operating cost and operating
revenue are part of the analysis. Jeff Mullan noted that the committee needs to have a discussion about
obligations and legal commitments and policy decisions which are determining the universe of projects.
For more detailed information regarding these presentations, please refer to the presentation
documents, posted on the MassDOT’s PSA Council web page.
3. Action Items



Approve Minutes from first two Council Meetings – Secretary Richard Davey asked for a motion
to approve meetings notes from first two council meetings. Sheri Warrington also noted that
the website is about to go live and would like approval to post the meeting notes on the
website. The motion to approve meeting notes was seconded and approved.
Approve or Revise Proposed Schedule for Council Meetings & Public Hearings: Sheri Warrington
noted that during the last council meeting there was a desire to have more working sessions
before the first public hearing. She recommends shifting the first Berkshire public hearing from
April May 29th to May 20th, which would mean having two public hearings in May. The
Merrimack Valley meeting would be scheduled for May 14th and then May 20th in Berkshire, to
allow 2 council meetings in April week on the week of the 14th and the week of the 28th.
Secretary Richard Davey recommends a schedule to have one of next council meetings in
Springfield or further west and the other in meeting in Worcester. Sheri Warrington then
confirmed with the committee that the tentative schedule would be to meet after the MVPC
MPO on May 14th and have a hearing immediately following after the council meeting, then
have the same set up for the Berkshire MPO meeting on May 20. Sheri also noted that there is a
short time frame for scheduling the council meetings in April. She also asked if a decision should
be made on how long the meetings should be scheduled for.
Approve or Revise Proposed Mission Statement for PSA Council: Sheri Warrington explained
that she would like to post the mission statement online this week. Linda Dunlavy noted that
the mission statement doesn’t include any language stating that we are going to create any
criteria. She suggested that the change would include creating criteria that reflect MassDOTs
mission, and also being flexible to respond to regional priorities. Jeff Mullan explained that we
need to capture the statute in the mission statement particularly because of legislature
observing this process. Secretary Richard Davey explained that there should be an attempt to
incorporate objectivity, and efficiency of how we run the transit system and the highway
system. Also the goals should include land use, outcome based. Under objectives, we should
include data quality, call out gaps in data, and call for continued investment and needs for
improvement. Steve Silviera noted that we need to be careful as to who the audience is and not
getting caught up into planning/government speak. The council should make sure that when
document is complete that we have something that the public will read. Jeff Mullan indicated
that there should be a component listing for availability of funding. How to prioritize use of
available funding. Sheri Warrington funding availability is mentioned under the potential risk
factors section. She also noted that the Mission Statement should only be included on the
website. Jeff Mullan asked if we should divide up responsibility to reach out to important
stakeholders. Secretary Richard Davey noted that we will take that back to staff first.

Approve or Revise Proposed Agenda and Materials for First Public Hearing: Sheri Warrington
explained that we need to post the agenda two weeks in advance of the meeting. She noted
that we need to post the agenda in the first week of May. One Idea is to have a discussion on
preliminary criteria. Jeff Mullan recommended changing findings to observations. Linda
Dunlavy asked if it is ok at the first meeting to have observations then as the months go on have
findings at later meetings. At the next two meetings, have longer work sessions to prepare for
the public meetings. Secretary Richard Davey recommends that on the week of the14th, we
have a preliminary observation report from staff. The Council then can make final comments on
the 28th. Sheri, will staff develop multimodal initiative report, are we looking at all modes to
discuss at this time? Secretary Richard Davey indicating that yes we do want to discuss all
modes.
4. Other Items



Website status: Sheri Warrington explained that the website will be posted by the end of the
week depending on how quickly the Mission Statement can be finalized.
Webinar on Wednesday April 3rd Lessons Learned from State DOT Activities Addressing Data for
Decision Making and Performance Measures: Sheri Warrington has reserved conference room
in Boston if anyone is interested in attending.
Agenda Items for next PSA Council Meeting: Sheri Warrington asked If the council has any
specific agenda items for the next meeting to please forward to me. Linda Dunlavy asked how
long next meeting the next meeting should last. Secretary Richard Davey noted that we will
shoot for two hours for the next meeting.
Additional attendees:
Nathan Higgins, Cambridge Systematics
Sujatha Mohanakrishnan, CMRPC
Rich Rydant, CMRPC
Ann McGahan, CMRPC
Charlie Ticotsky, MAPC
Nancy Goodman, Environmental League of MA
Lizzi Weyant, Transportation for MA
Sarah Bradbury, MassDOT District 3