Scoring System Recommendations
Categories, Criteria, Weights, Objectives,
and Data needs for the Project Selection
Advisory Council’s recommended Project
Prioritization Formula
Project Evaluation – Highway Modernization
Definition
Projects aimed at leveraging the need to rehabilitate or
replace assets in poor condition that can no longer be
maintained to 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 from an asset management system.
Examples of projects:
Everett - Ferry St restructuring and intersection improvements
Dedham- Pedestrian improvements along Elm Street &
Rustcraft Road corridors
Athol - Rt 32 restructuring + shoulder widening for bikes
Springfield I-91 Viaduct Rehabilitation
2
Project Evaluation – Highway Modernization
3
Primary criteria
Weight
System preservation
(Condition)
35
Cost Effectiveness
(Anticipated Cost)
15
Mobility (Engineering)
10
Economic Impact
10
Environmental &
Health Effects
10
Safety
10
Policy Support
10
Total
100

The Highway Modernization scoring
system puts significant emphasis on
selecting projects that contribute to
system preservation goals.

Other policy benefits of modernization
projects receive roughly equal weight.
Project Evaluation – Highway Modernization
4
Criteria: System Preservation (Condition) – 35
points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project helps MassDOT
meet statewide asset management targets in
terms of asset condition, appropriateness of
treatment, consistency with asset management
plans, and obviating the need for expensive
maintenance.
• Asset condition, ideal treatments and timing,
maintenance costs on corridor as a result of
delaying the project.
• Not all assets have full asset management
plans in place. Condition data for municipally
owned assets are not as robust as MassDOT
owned and maintained assets.*
*MassDOT will share its asset management systems with municipalities after they’re upgraded.
Project Evaluation – Highway Modernization
5
Criteria: Cost Effectiveness
(Anticipated Cost) – 15 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the anticipated project cost
to the taxpayers is in line with similar projects
with similar benefits.
• Project costs, information on similar projects and
their costs, number of users.
• Cost records exist, but will need to be compiled
in a usable manner.
Project Evaluation – Highway Modernization
6
Criteria: Mobility (Engineering)
– 10 points
Objective:
• Improves mobility for all users (drivers, transit
users, bicyclists, and pedestrians) based on:
• The extent the project is engineered to improve
persons per hour throughput in congested
areas.
• The extent to which the project improves bicycle
or pedestrian access to transit or adds an
important bicycle/pedestrian connection based
on bicycle and pedestrian plans.
Required
Data:
• Average Daily Traffic (ADT), Transit trips and
ridership along the corridor, travel demand model
output, bicycle and pedestrian usage in the area.
Data
Status:
• The State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans are
currently under development. Better bicycle and
pedestrian data could help improve these plans
and how metrics under this objective are scored.
Project Evaluation – Highway Modernization
7
Criteria: Economic Impact - 10 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project is consistent
with local and regional economic development
plans.
• Investment priority areas defined by the
Executive Office of Housing and Economic
Development (EOHED).
• Some regions have defined Priority
Development Areas, but not all. The
Executive Office of Housing and Economic
Development (EOHED) is working to establish
a statewide plan for economic development.
Project Evaluation – Highway Modernization
8
Criteria: Safety – 10 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project addresses
priority transportation safety concerns.
• Vehicle crash data (property, injury, fatality),
bicycle and pedestrian crash data.
• There are currently data consistency issues
across municipalities. MassDOT can work to
develop crash reduction factors to make the
metric more quantitative.
Project Evaluation – Highway Modernization
9
Criteria: Environmental & Health Effects – 10
points*
Objective:
• The extent to which the project addresses
environmental or health impacts of
transportation projects in a positive or neutral
manner:
1. Avoids impacts to wetlands or resource areas
2. Preserves wildlife
3. Manages storm water
4. Improves air quality
5. Reduces greenhouse gas emissions
Required
Data:
• GIS environmental data layers.
Data
Status:
• MassDOT is currently working out a process to
measure greenhouse gas emissions for all
projects as well as criteria contaminants for
larger scale projects.
*Up to 5 negative points will be allocated for negative impacts
Project Evaluation – Highway Modernization
10
Criteria: Policy Support – 10 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project addresses policy
goals not accounted for or warrants credit
beyond the criteria weight.
• Factors may include: advancing social equity,
synergy with other projects, legal requirements,
climate change adaptation measures.
• As needed to justify policy support.
• Variable depending on project type.
Project Evaluation: Highway Capacity
Definition
This category is for projects that add new connections or
expand capacity on existing facilities that no longer address
user demand.
Examples of projects:
Canton Interchange
Needham-Wellesley Route 128 Add-A-Lane
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
11
Project Evaluation: Highway Capacity
12
Primary criteria
Weight
Mobility (Engineering)
25
Cost Effectiveness
(Anticipated Cost)
20
Economic Impact
15
Environmental &
Health Effects
10
Safety
10
Social Equity &
Fairness
10
Policy Support
10
Total
100

The Highway Capacity and Highway
Modernization scoring systems are
very similar; however, a greater
emphasis was given here to mobility
and economic impact—the two primary
drivers of capacity projects, as well as
cost-effectiveness—due to the
financial tradeoffs associated with
capacity versus modernization
projects.
Project Evaluation – Highway Capacity
Criteria: Mobility (Engineering)
– 25 points
13
Objective:
• Improves mobility for all users (drivers, transit
users, bicyclists, and pedestrians) based on:
• The extent the project is engineered to improve
persons per hour throughput in congested
areas.
• The extent to which the project improves bicycle
or pedestrian access to transit or adds an
important bicycle/pedestrian connection based
on bicycle and pedestrian plans.
Required
Data:
• Average Daily Traffic (ADT), peak period trips,
transit trips and ridership along the corridor,
bicycle and pedestrian counts, travel demand
model output, bicycle and pedestrian plans.
Data
Status:
• The State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans are
currently under development. Need better bicycle
and pedestrian data.
Project Evaluation – Highway Capacity
Criteria: Cost Effectiveness
(Anticipated Cost) – 20 points
14
Objective:
Required
data:
Data
status:
• The extent to which the project is an efficient
use of resources based on anticipated lifecycle costs* per benefiting user**, cost per
mile, and other relevant factors.
• Anticipated maintenance costs, anticipated
number of benefiting users 10 years out.
• Database of average project costs; better
modeling for multi-use paths.
*Life-cycle costs include both capital and maintenance costs.
**Benefiting users may just be road users in the peak period for roadway capacity projects if the
roadway is only congested during the peak. Should be based on user projections 10 years out.
Project Evaluation – Highway Capacity
Criteria: Economic Impact – 15 points
15
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project is consistent with
local, regional, and state economic development
plans and can have an impact on the economic
competitiveness of the region and the
Commonwealth as a whole.
• Investment priority areas defined by EOHED.
• Some regions have defined Priority
Development Areas, but not all. EOHED is
working to establish a statewide plan for
economic development.
Project Evaluation – Highway Capacity
Criteria: Environmental & Health Effects – 10
points*
16
Objective:
• The extent to which the project addresses
environmental or health impacts of
transportation projects in a positive or neutral
manner:
1. Avoids impacts to wetlands or resource areas
2. Preserves wildlife
3. Manages storm water
4. Improves air quality
5. Reduces greenhouse gas emissions
Required
Data:
• GIS environmental data layers.
Data
Status:
• MassDOT is currently working out a process to
measure greenhouse gas emissions for all
projects.
*Up to 5 negative points will be allocated for negative impacts
Project Evaluation – Highway Capacity
Criteria: Safety – 10 points
17
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project addresses
priority transportation safety concerns.
• Vehicle crash data (property, injury, fatality),
bicycle and pedestrian crash data.
• Data consistency issues, MassDOT can work
to develop crash reduction factors to make the
metric more quantitative.
Project Evaluation – Highway Capacity
Criteria: Social Equity & Fairness
– 10 points
18
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project provides
mobility and/or environmental benefits to
residents of environmental justice
communities
• GIS environmental data layers of
environmental justice areas.
• Data is available.
Project Evaluation – Highway Capacity
Criteria: Policy Support – 10 points
19
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project addresses
policy goals not accounted for or warrants
credit beyond the criteria weight.
• Factors may include: synergy with other
projects, legal requirements, climate change
adaptation measures, added system
preservation benefits, addresses local or
regional priorities.
• Variable depending on project type.
• Variable depending on project type.
Project Evaluation: MBTA Modernization
Definition
Projects aimed at leveraging the need to rehabilitate or
replace assets in poor condition that can no longer be
maintained to 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 is not coming from an asset management program.
Examples of projects:
Green Line collision avoidance project
Alewife garage repairs
Electronics room upgrade at Riverside carhouse
20
MBTA Modernization Criteria and Weights
21
Primary criteria
Weight
Mobility/Operations
Impact (Engineering)
35
System Preservation
(Condition)
30
Cost
Effectiveness/Financial
Considerations
(Anticipated Cost)
20
Policy Support
10
Environmental &
Health Impacts
5
Total
100

As the MBTA already utilizes a
prioritization process that is in line with
the investment priorities agreed to by
the Council, the Council recommends
to defer to their scoring framework in
all areas of overlap.

The following slides explain elements
not currently included in the MBTA
framework (a summary of which
accompanies this document).

The weights are only changed from the
MBTA framework to allow for a general
policy support criteria, and a costeffectiveness measure that was
recommended by the Governor’s
MBTA Special Panel report.*

*The purpose of the panel was to perform an in-depth,
rapid diagnostic review of the MBTA’s core functions in
response to failures that became apparent during the
2015 winter storms. The report was released in April
2015.
Project Evaluation – MBTA Modernization
22
Criteria: Cost Effectiveness/Financial
Considerations (Anticipated Cost) – 20 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• Cost per persons directly benefiting from the
project (as modeled 10 years from anticipated
completion).
• Impact on operating costs and operating
revenue.
• Anticipated number of persons directly
benefiting from the project; anticipated
operating costs as a result of the project;
anticipated revenue changes as a result of the
project
• Currently, the anticipated impact on operating
costs and revenue is a qualitative measure.
Project Evaluation – MBTA Modernization
23
Criteria: Policy Support – 10 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project addresses
policy goals not accounted for or warrants
credit beyond the criteria weight.
• Factors may include: synergy with other
projects, benefit to low-income or minority
populations, strong economic development
case for the project.
• Variable depending on project type.
• Variable depending on project type.
Project Evaluation: Regional Transit Modernization
Definition
Projects aimed at leveraging the need to rehabilitate or
replace assets in poor condition that can no longer be
maintained to 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 from an asset management system.
Examples of projects:
Replacement buses
Improvements to Springfield maintenance facility
New customer amenities (shelters, communication systems)
24
Project Evaluation –Regional Transit Modernization
25
Primary Criteria
Weight
Mobility (Engineering)
35
System Preservation
(Condition)
30
Cost Effectiveness
(Anticipated Cost)
20
Policy Support
10
Environmental & Health
Impacts
5
Total
100

The primary Criteria and weights for
Regional Transit Modernization mirrors
that of the MBTA.

However, the type and amount of data
differs significantly between regional
transit and MBTA activities, as well as
the range of activities undertaken.

The current recommendations for the
objectives adopts the Rail & Transit
Division’s language from their high
level RTA project review, where
relevant.
Project Evaluation – Regional Transit Modernization
26
Criteria: Mobility (Engineering) – 35 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data Status:
•The extent to which the project:
• Improves customers’ transit experience
through vehicle or facility improvements that
increase on-time performance, reliability,
route efficiency, passenger comfort, or
service frequency.
• Makes transit more accessible and
convenient for all riders.
• Leverages the latest technology to improve
the convenience and usability of transit.
• Types of improvements, user demographics.
• Currently, regional transit agencies do not
provide more than a project title and budget.
For a more robust analysis, more detailed
project information should be provided from
the RTAs.
Project Evaluation – Regional Transit Modernization
27
Criteria: System Preservation (Condition)
– 30 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data Status:
•The extent to which the project:
• Meets a need identified in an asset
management plan, fulfills asset
management goals, and is supported by
asset management data.
• Replaces or rebuilds vehicles, facilities,
and/or equipment that have reached or are
about to reach the end of their useful life.
• Supports preventive maintenance of
transit vehicles, facilities, and/or
equipment.
• Asset management information.
• Currently, regional transit agencies do not
provide more than a project title and budget.
For a more robust analysis, more detailed
project information should be provided from
the RTAs.
Project Evaluation – Regional Transit Modernization
28
Criteria: Cost Effectiveness (Anticipated Cost)
– 20 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• Anticipated cost per person directly benefiting
from the project.
• Impact on operating costs and operating
revenue.
• Anticipated number of people benefiting from
the project; anticipated operating costs as a
result of the project; anticipated revenue
changes as a result of the project.
• The ability to anticipate the number of users
can be challenging. Impact on operating costs
and revenues would likely be a qualitative
measure until methods are established for
anticipating quantitative impacts.
Project Evaluation – Regional Transit Modernization
29
Criteria: Policy Support – 10 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project addresses
policy goals not accounted for or warrants
credit beyond the criteria weight.
• Factors may include: synergy with other
projects or strong economic development
argument for the project.
• Variable depending on project type.
• Variable depending on project type.
Project Evaluation – Regional Transit Modernization
30
Criteria: Environmental & Health Effects
– 10 points*
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project impacts
greenhouse gas emissions and supports
smart growth development.
• GIS environmental data layers.
• MassDOT is currently working out a process
to measure greenhouse gas emissions for all
projects.
*Up to 5 negative points will be allocated for negative impacts
Project Evaluation:
MBTA and Regional Transit Capacity
Definition
Transit Capacity projects are those that require new capital
investments to increase capacity or expand the physical reach
of the system.
Examples of projects:
Silver Line to Chelsea (MBTA)
South Coast Rail (MBTA)
Vehicle procurements beyond a 1:1 replacement
New or expanded maintenance facilities
31
Project Evaluation – MBTA and Regional Transit Capacity
32
Primary criteria
Weight
Mobility (Engineering)
25
Cost Effectiveness
(Anticipate Cost)
25
Economic Impact
20
Social Equity and
Fairness
10
Environmental and
Health effects
10
Policy Support
10
Total
100

The Council recommends that both
MBTA And Regional Transit Capacity
projects are evaluated against the
same set of criteria (although MBTA
projects will not be directly compared
to regional transit projects).
Project Evaluation – MBTA & Regional Transit Capacity
33
Criteria: Mobility (Engineering) – 25 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• Improve mobility and access for the most
number of users.
• Anticipated number of users after
improvement.
• For projects with planning studies that have
been completed in the past, the data
underlying the projections may be inconsistent
since the studies were conducted at different
times.
Project Evaluation – MBTA & Regional Transit Capacity
34
Criteria: Cost Effectiveness (Anticipated Cost)
– 25 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project is an efficient
use of resources based on cost per person
who benefits and impact on operating
expenses/revenue.
• Anticipated peak period users and anticipated
total number of users; total capital costs;
anticipated maintenance costs.
• Consistent methods and data for predicting
the anticipated number of users is needed.
Project Evaluation – MBTA & Regional Transit Capacity
35
Criteria: Economic Impact – 20 points
Objective:
•The extent to which a proposed project:
• Induces additional, transit-supportive
development in the future (based on relation
to planning documents and/or economic
impact analyses).
• Addresses unserved or underserved transit
needs of existing development based on
demonstrated capacity issues on the existing
network.
• Increases access to jobs.
Required
Data:
• Planning documents, economic impact models,
employment center locations.
Data
Status:
• Much of the data would be available if the
project idea comes out of a transportation
planning exercise; otherwise additional data
may need to be gathered.
Project Evaluation – MBTA & Regional Transit Capacity
36
Criteria: Social Equity & Fairness
– 10 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project provides
mobility and/or environmental benefits to
residents of environmental justice
communities.
• GIS environmental data layers of
environmental justice areas and populations.
• Data is available.
Project Evaluation – MBTA & Regional Transit Capacity
37
Criteria: Environmental & Health Effects
– 10 points*
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project will reduce
VMT with resultant improvements in air quality,
criteria pollutants, or reduce GHG emissions in
the project corridor.
• FTA factors and calculations (or state
identified methods, as appropriate).
• MassDOT is currently examining methods for
calculating greenhouse gas impacts for all
transportation projects.
*Up to 5 negative points will be allocated for negative impacts
Project Evaluation – MBTA & Regional Transit Capacity
38
Criteria: Policy Support – 10 points
Objective:
Required
Data:
Data
Status:
• The extent to which the project addresses
policy goals not accounted for or warrants
credit beyond the criteria weight.
• Factors may include: synergy with other
projects, legal requirements, climate change
adaptation measures, added system
preservation benefits.
•Variable depending on project type.
• Variable depending on project type.