Project Selection Advisory Council
Preliminary Recommendations
May 20, 2015
Contents




2
Background
Council Recommendations
Implementation
Appendices (separate files):
 Scoring System Recommendations
 MBTA Existing Scoring Information
 Highway Process Chart – Old and New
 Existing Asset Management Processes
BACKGROUND
3
Project Selection Advisory Council Origin

The Project Selection Advisory Council (the Council) was established by
the Massachusetts Legislature in Section 11 of Chapter 46 of the Acts of
2013

The legislation outlined the following requirements for the Council:
 Develop uniform criteria and a transparent prioritization formula to be
used in the development of a comprehensive state transportation plan
 Hold six public hearings to solicit public comment
The project selection criteria developed under this section shall include, but
not be limited to, the following factors:




4
Engineering
Condition of Existing
Assets
Safety



Economic Impact
Regional Priorities
Anticipated Cost

The Legislation provided for the following option:
 The factors chosen by the Council may be weighted to prioritize
specific factors and such weighting of factors may differ by project
category as determined by the Council.

An original deadline of December 31, 2014 was set, but the Council
received an extension to June 30, 2015 to allow the incoming
Administration to help guide the recommendations.
Council Membership and Appointing Authority
Member
Representation
Appointment
Stephanie Pollack,
Chair*
Secretary & CEO,
MassDOT
Legislation
Frank DePaola
Acting General Manager,
Governor
MBTA
David Mohler
Executive Director,
MassDOT Planning
Governor
Linda Dunlavy
Executive Director,
Franklin Regional
Council of Governments
Governor
Jim Lovejoy
Massachusetts
Municipal Association
Legislation
John M. Pourbaix
Construction Industries
of Massachusetts
Senate Minority Leader
Jeffrey B. Mullan
Foley Hoag LLP
Senate President
Steve Silveira
ML Strategies
House Minority Leader
*Richard Davey held this role during his tenure as Secretary.
5
Note: The legislation creating the Project Selection Advisory Council also provided for a member of an
advocacy organization designated by the Speaker of the House.
MassDOT: A Multimodal Agency
MassDOT includes four divisions: Highway, Rail & Transit, Aeronautics, and
Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Because of the size, flexibility of funding, and project-based nature of the
Highway and Rail & Transit Divisions, only projects under these divisions were
included in the Council review and the recommended project prioritization
framework. The following project types from these divisions are included in the
Council’s recommended project prioritization framework:
6

Highway Division (2014 5-year capital budget: $5.1 billion)
 All highways, vehicular bridges, and multi-use paths in the
Commonwealth. The Highway Division provides state match for
Federal funding programmed by the MPOs.

Rail & Transit Division
 MBTA (2014 5-year capital budget: $2.5 billion): Commuter rail,
rapid transit, bus, ferry, light rail, the RIDE paratransit, and all
supporting facilities and vehicles.
 Regional Transit (2014 5-year capital budget: $270 million):
Includes capital requests for the 15 regional transit authorities,
statewide paratransit, and intercity/commuter bus service.
MassDOT Project Prioritization Today

MassDOT currently utilizes a variety of systems to prioritize and select
projects.

Some projects do not pass through any formal evaluation process.

Projects that originate from municipalities with the intention of going
through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) process for federal
funding with state match, are scored, but after revisions, all projects
generally receive approval to begin the design phase, regardless of score.

Without a uniform and more centralized framework for prioritizing projects,
it is challenging to understand how to best allocate funding sources that are
able to be spent across various project types.
The Council’s recommendations hope to address these gaps by
developing a more uniform prioritization system that is transparent and
data-driven.
The Council hopes to leverage successful existing systems as much
as possible in the development of the prioritization system.
7
Council Mission Statement
The Council developed the following mission statement to guide its work:

With due consideration of the requirements of fiscal constraint, federal
funding restrictions, regional priorities, geographic equity, environmental
justice and state of good repair, and in a manner that balances the need for
responsive and transparent adaptability to unanticipated changes in
funding, project readiness or in the event of an emergency or public safety
need, the Project Selection Advisory Council, as established by the
Massachusetts Legislature in Section 11 of Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013,
seeks to review existing statewide project evaluation criteria and
prioritization processes for Massachusetts’ multi-modal transportation
system. The PSA Council will recommend changes for a more uniform,
transparent and data-driven prioritization process that reflects MassDOT’s
mission to provide our nation’s safest and most reliable transportation
system to strengthen our economy and quality of life across the
Commonwealth.
8
Input into Recommendations
The Project Selection Advisory Council took into consideration many factors in
the development of criteria. These factors included:








MassDOT’s Mission Statement, Vision, and Goals
MassDOT Policy Directives
Provisions of Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009
Provisions of Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013
Provisions from MAP-21
Public feedback from six public hearings and written comments
Best practices from MPOs, other states, and within MassDOT
MassDOT, MBTA, RTA, and MPO staff expertise
The Council met 18 times since January 2014 to consider information from
these sources and deliberate on appropriate recommendations.
Meeting notes, presentations, and handouts can be found on the Project
Selection Advisory Council website at:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/BoardsCommittees/ProjectSelectionAdvisoryC
ouncil.aspx
9
Prioritization Formula and Scoring Framework
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS
10
Multi-Step Framework for Project Prioritization

Score proposed
projects within 1
of 6 scoring
systems;
projects below
certain score will
not receive
funding from
MassDOT.**
The project prioritization formula is just one step in the development of
MassDOT’s multi-modal Capital Investment Plan (CIP).* The Council
proposes the following framework to select projects for funding:
2. Performance targets & funding need
Determine
financially
constrained
system-wide
targets and
subsequent
funding needs
agency-wide.
3. Funding allocation
4. Comparison to
Re-score
Targets
projects that
5. Rebalancing
scored above
Evaluate
threshold on an
annual basis.
Based on score
and project
readiness,
allocate to
appropriate
budget year.
outcome of
prioritized
projects against
asset targets
using WMM and
regional targets
using Chapter
90.
Rebalance
projects to better
meet asset
targets, or
regional equity;
or justify existing
program.
*The CIP is a fiscally constrained compendium of all infrastructure-related spending programmed by department
and meets the legislative requirements for the State Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which the project
selection process is supposed to inform. It includes the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) and MBTA
Capital Investment Program. See slide 28 for more information.
**Projects can be resubmitted and re-evaluated with revised scopes.
11
Capital
Investment
Plan
Step 1: Project Evaluation - Structure

The Council recommends the adoption of the legislative language’s
allowance to divide projects into categories. The Council selected the
following categories (defined on the next slide):






Highway Modernization
Highway Capacity
MBTA Modernization
MBTA Capacity
Regional Transit Modernization
Regional Transit Capacity

The Council recommends the separation of projects by division to allow for
a more focused comparison of projects with mode-specific data.

All projects that score below a certain threshold, based on projected
funding availability, should not be able to advance in the design process
with the expectation of receiving MassDOT funding. However, the scope
can be revised and resubmitted.
Project evaluation
12
Project Evaluation – Project Definitions
13

Modernization Projects: Projects aimed at leveraging the need to
rehabilitate or replace assets in poor condition to then also make broader
improvements. These improvements can include incorporating new
technology or making other enhancements to support economic
development, improve mobility, reduce negative impacts to the
environment, or increase safety. The impetus for these projects does not
come solely from an asset management system.
 Highway Examples: roadway reconstruction, upgraded tolling
infrastructure.
 Transit Examples: positive train control; bus stop, transit station or
maintenance facility upgrades; rehabilitating transit vehicles or bus
stops.

Capacity Projects: This category is for projects that add new connections
or expand existing ones that no longer address user demand.
 Highway Examples: new off-road multi-use paths, new bypass roads,
connector roads, frontage roads, fly-overs, new or re-engineered
interchanges.
 Transit Examples: extending a transit line, additional buses beyond a
1:1 replacement rate, new bus stops or transit stations, new or
expanded maintenance facilities.
Project Evaluation – Project Definitions
14

MassDOT, MBTA, and regional transit programs that utilize asset
management systems to prioritize asset management activities will not be
evaluated under formula recommended by the Council as part of Step 1 of
the evaluation framework.
 Examples include: the MassDOT and MBTA bridge programs
(preservation, rehabilitation, replacement), pavement management
(crack sealing, resurfacing), guardrail replacement programs, signal
and power programs.

This decision to exclude purely asset management activities was based on
extensive review and consideration of MassDOT and MBTA asset
management systems. The Council concluded that their recommendations
for project evaluation criteria will not be able to improve upon the existing
systems that are explicitly designed for asset management.

The Council is deferring to the Performance and Asset Management
Council, established under the same legislation as the Project Selection
Advisory Council, to make recommendations to address any deficiencies in
the asset management systems and better define how they prioritize state
of good repair projects going forward.

These asset management and capital maintenance programs are still
subject to Steps 2-5 of the Project Prioritization Framework outlined on
slide 13, as well as Council recommendations regarding transparency.
Project Evaluation - Principles
The Council recommends the scoring systems adhere to the following
principles:

Differentiability: Only apply criteria that differentiate between projects. A
project should not get credit for compliance with a policy that is applied to
all projects.

Limit redundancy: No two criteria should be framed in a way that if a project
gets credit under one, it would automatically get credit under both.

Maximize simplicity: The justification for each score should be easily
understandable by the public.

Promote efficiencies: Recommendations should leverage successful
existing systems when appropriate.
The accompanying document, “Scoring System
Recommendations” explains each recommended scoring system
and associated criteria in more detail.
15
Step 2: Performance Targets and Funding Needs

While the Council believes that project evaluation criteria can differentiate
between projects that address MassDOT and Commonwealth goals and
those that do not, it recognizes that transportation investments also need to
be considered on a system-wide basis.
 Provisions of Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009, Provisions of Chapter 46
of the Acts of 2013, and MAP-21 all reference performance targets
that project evaluation criteria cannot guarantee to achieve on their
own.
 Project evaluation criteria also cannot ensure that funding is equitably
distributed across the Commonwealth.

Because of these factors, the Council is recommending methods for
establishing targets within the framework of project prioritization.
Performance and funding targets should be re-assessed on an annual
basis (see slide 17). The Council is also recommending a specific method
for ensuring regional equity (see slide 18).
Performance & funding targets
16
Performance Targets and Funding Needs: Asset Categories
The weMove Massachusetts (WMM) Planning for Performance tool, developed
as part of MassDOT’s multi-modal long-range plan for 2040, allowed decision
makers to understand the long-term performance implications of funding
decisions across asset categories and across modes.
The Council recommends that this
tool be updated with current data and
additional asset categories and
performance measures. This will help
inform the development of realistic
performance and funding
targets across the six scoring
categories and asset management
programs.
17
Performance Targets and Funding Needs : Regional Equity

MassDOT would like asset condition and system performance to be
comparable across the Commonwealth and has historically used the
existing six highway districts to define regional areas.

The Council has determined that a reasonable measure of regional equity
for transportation funding would be to compare the distribution of public
(state and federal) dollars allocated to each highway district to the
distribution of Chapter 90 formula funding.
 The Chapter 90 allocates state funding to municipalities based on the
following formula:


18
Road Miles: 58.33%, Population: 20.83% Employment: 20.83%
To calculate regional equity targets, the distribution of funding for each
municipality will need to be rolled up to the highway district level in
order to determine the target proportion of funding that should be
allocated to each district.
Step 3: Preliminary Funding Allocation

The Council recommends that projects be re-evaluated on an annual basis
in order to capture any changes in scope, cost, and readiness. The funding
allocation in this step will be preliminary, subject to the Comparison to
Targets, and Rebalancing steps.

Depending on score and readiness, the projects should be allocated to the
appropriate budget year in the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) and CIP.
Funding allocation
19
Step 4: Comparison of Funding Allocation to Targets:
Asset Categories

The Council recommends that once all projects have been preliminarily
selected for funding that the anticipated performance outcomes be
compared to the targets established using Step 2.
 For Asset Categories, MassDOT should use the weMove
Massachusetts Planning for Performance tool to determine estimated
performance outcomes of the proposed program.
 If the preliminary program deviates +/- 10% from any target, then
rebalancing may need to occur.
Comparison to Targets
20
Step 4: Comparison of Funding Allocation to Targets:
Regional Equity

For Regional Equity, the distribution of funding from the preliminary
program should be mapped to determine how the program compares to the
regional equity targets for each highway district.
 If there is a greater than +/- 10% difference, MassDOT should
ensure that the selected program works towards a relatively
comparable state of good repair across districts.
 If the program is still found to be unequal, then rebalancing may
need to occur.

The Council also understands that the project prioritization formula may
result in a disproportionate share of projects going to urban areas.
 The Council recommends that MassDOT work to more systematically
track project locations going forward for the purpose of determining
whether a target needs to be set for rural projects or if other changes
need to be made to the scoring criteria and guidance.
Comparison to Targets
21
Step 5: Rebalancing

The Council understands that the immediate importance of some projects,
or other factors, may result in MassDOT leadership wanting to continue
with the set of projects preliminarily selected directly through the project
evaluation criteria, even if they differ from the established targets.

If the preliminarily selected projects significantly differ from the established
targets, and MassDOT has no justification for the deviation, then some
projects should be replaced in the program.
 Justification for deviating from the targets or making changes to meet
the targets should be made publicly available.
 The Council anticipates that there will be a sufficient set of projects
that score well in the project evaluation phase to warrant being
included in the plan, even if they are only included as part of the
rebalancing process.
Rebalancing
22
Council Recommendations
IMPLEMENTATION
23
Who should score projects? When?
24

A scoring committee comprised of subject matter experts and at least
one designee from the Office of the Secretary should be established
for each of the following scoring systems:
 Highway Modernization
 MBTA Modernization
 Regional Transit Modernization
 All Capacity Projects

The initiator of a project should indicate under which scoring system
the project should be scored. However, that committee is responsible
for confirming that the appropriate category was selected.

Each committee should score projects as they are received and meet
formally at least once a year to determine the cut-off score for that
period based on projected funding and to formally approve projects to
go through design.
 While these will not be public meetings, the conclusions from them
should be made publicly available.

Annually, each committee should re-score projects that have advanced
through design and develop a recommended program for the STIP and
CIP based on the full project prioritization framework.
Transitional Period

The Council recognizes that the implementation of a robust, uniform
scoring system across MassDOT and the MBTA will be an iterative
process; every other DOT that recently implemented a process has
made revisions to the scoring system after testing it on a full program.

The Council therefore recommends that the Secretary establish a
Project Selection Steering Committee to guide and monitor the
implementation of the prioritization framework. This committee will at a
minimum be comprised of subject matter experts from each division
and relevant shared service departments.

On an annual basis, the Steering Committee will review the process
and make any recommended changes available for review on the
MassDOT website.
The Project Selection Advisory Council was established to make recommendations
to the Legislature on a proposed project selection process. However, although its
role will cease after June 30, 2015, the Council recommends that all major revisions
be made available on an annual basis for public review.
25
Transitional Period
26

The Council recommends the preliminary implementation of the
framework begin with the development of the Fiscal Year 2017 STIP
and CIP.

Projects that have already made it formally through 25% Design will
not be subject to rejection during this transitional period.

The Steering Committee will develop full guidance for reviewing the
backlog of projects already in the universe of projects that have not
been funded or have not advanced significantly through the design
process.
How do the planning processes fit together?
The CIP represents all
MassDOT into our
transportation system including
federal and state funds
Capital Improvement
Plan
State Transportation
Improvement Plan
MBTA Capital
Investment Program
The MBTA CIP
represents all MBTA
investments including
MBTA, federal, and
state funds.
The STIP is a federally required
capital planning document that
represents all investments using
federal transportation funds
27
How do the planning processes fit together?

Because the projects in the STIP are also a part of the CIP, the project
prioritization framework must first be applied to the STIP process.

The Council recommends that to maximize efficiency, MassDOT
should aim to better align the development of the CIP with the
development of the STIP.

As part of the guidance it develops, the Steering Committee should
outline the process for beginning to implement the Council
recommendations for the development of the FY 2017 CIP and what
that means for the development of the STIP and the MBTA Capital
Investment Program (MBTA CIP).
April
Federal partners
provide MassDOT
with funding level
information for
development of the
STIP
28
May
MPOs release draft
TIPs with prioritized
investments for public
comment
June
MPOs vote on final
TIP and send to
MassDOT
July
MassDOT combines
13 TIPs into the STIP
and sends to federal
partners for approval
October
With approval from
federal partners
MassDOT can
advertise federally
aided projects
What is our recommended pathway to full implementation?
The Secretary should establish a
Steering Committee.
The Steering Committee should
refine guidance and develop
Standard Operating Procedures for
scoring.
The scoring committees should score
all projects under consideration for
the FY 2017 STIP and CIPs as well
as the backlog of projects.
The Steering Committee should then
review the process and release a
report of recommendations for any
changes that need to occur.
29
Simultaneously, the project
selection criteria should be
used in corridor and longrange plans, including the
MBTA’s Program for Mass
Transportation. Lessons
learned from these processes
will inform Steering
Committee work.
Committee Structure
Secretary
Project Selection
Steering
Committee
MBTA
Modernization
Scoring Committee
30
Regional Transit
Modernization
Scoring Committee
Highway
Modernization
Scoring Committee
Capacity Scoring
Committee
How will this process be transparent and data-driven?
31

Highway projects should leverage systems currently under
development, such as the MassDOT Project Planning System
(MaPPS) web-mapping tool, to consolidate all data required for
prioritization into a tool that can assist with scoring.
 MaPPS is a web application for online project planning, automated
Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis, Project Need and
Initiation Form generation, and internal / interagency collaboration.
 The MaPPS application supports this process by providing
functionality for project entry, location analysis, reporting, and a
map view of all user entered projects for a given area.
 The application has a public interface, ensuring transparency.

Project scoring and necessary backup should be made available online
during the public process component of the STIP and CIP.

As new datasets become available, they should be incorporated into
the scoring process, guided by the Steering Committee.
Summary
32

There are currently many existing project prioritization systems within
MassDOT that can be leveraged as part of Council recommendations.

The Council is seeking to develop a project prioritization system that
maximizes Massachusetts’ return on investment in a more uniform,
transparent, and data-driven manner.

The Council is recommending the establishment of six scoring systems to
directly compare projects with similar purposes and modes utilizing a single
universe of high level criteria.

The Secretary will determine funding for each scoring category based on
Federal and State targets and MassDOT policies using the weMove
Massachusetts Planning for Performance Tool to help inform the decision.

Projects that do not score well should not receive state funding, which
would be a new approach to treating municipal projects.

A steering committee of MassDOT personnel should be established to take
Council recommendations to actual implementation and to review the
process on an annual basis.
Next Steps



The Project Selection Advisory Council would like your feedback!
A final written report will be submitted to the Legislature on June 30, 2015.
Please provide any comments on these recommendations by June 5, 2015
to:
Scott Hamwey
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
Scott.Hamwey@state.ma.us
33