Project Selection
Advisory Council
Interim Report
December 30, 2014
Submitted by MassDOT staff on behalf of
the Project Selection Advisory Council
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3
1.1
Introduction to the Project Selection Advisory Council ................................................................... 3
1.2
About this Report ........................................................................................................................... 4
2
EXISTING AND BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY ........................................................... 6
2.1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2
Current MassDOT Evaluation Processes .......................................................................................... 6
2.3
Current MPO Evaluation Processes ................................................................................................. 8
2.4
MassDOT/MBTA Capital Planning: weMove Massachusetts (wMM) .............................................. 8
2.5
Review of State Practices ................................................................................................................ 9
2.6
Key Observations for the Development of Criteria........................................................................ 13
3
PROPOSED PROJECT PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK ..................................... 14
3.1
Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 14
3.2
Criteria .......................................................................................................................................... 15
3.3
Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4
Metrics ......................................................................................................................................... 18
3.5
Illustrative Projects Analysis ......................................................................................................... 20
3.6
Identified Issues to Address .......................................................................................................... 22
3.7
Proposed Four Tier Prioritization Process ..................................................................................... 22
3.8
Next Steps .................................................................................................................................... 23
4
OUTSTANDING ISSUES ................................................................................................. 25
4.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 25
4.2
Key Issue: Universe of projects for scoring .................................................................................... 26
1
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
4.3
Key Issue: Timing of scoring process ............................................................................................. 28
4.4
Key Issue: Determining program balance ...................................................................................... 31
4.5
Key Issue: Coordination with the Asset Management Advisory Council ........................................ 33
4.6
Key Issue: Definition of Regional Equity ........................................................................................ 34
4.7
Key Issue: Data ............................................................................................................................. 36
5
ADDITIONAL AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION ......................................................... 37
5.1
Project Readiness ......................................................................................................................... 37
5.2
Point Scale .................................................................................................................................... 37
5.3
Project Prioritization Software ...................................................................................................... 38
5.4
Scoring Process – Who and How ................................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX 1: SECTION 11 OF CHAPTER 46 OF THE ACTS OF 2013 ...................... 40
APPENDIX 2: DRAFT SCORING GUIDANCE .................................................................... 41
APPENDIX 3: ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ............................................ 50
APPENDIX 4: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK .......................................... 53
APPENDIX 5: WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ......................................... 54
2
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction to the Project Selection Advisory Council
The Project Selection Advisory Council (the Council), as established by the
Massachusetts Legislature in Section 11 of Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013 (see
Appendix 1), was charged with developing uniform criteria and a prioritization
process to be used by MassDOT in the preparation of the Commonwealth’s
Capital Investment Plan (CIP).
MassDOT published the Commonwealth’s first consolidated transportation plan
in May of 2014. The CIP is a five-year fiscally constrained compendium of all
infrastructure-related spending programmed by MassDOT. It encompasses
projects that were selected for the Statewide Transportation Investment Program
(STIP), which includes all Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs) as well as statewide line items that
encompass more than one region, the MBTA Capital Investment Program, and
Aeronautics/Federal Aviation Administration Investment Plans as well as
additional projects funded by state dollars.
The intent of the legislation was to create a uniform, transparent, data-driven
approach to determining how limited resources are allocated to preserve,
modernize, and expand the Commonwealth’s transportation system.
Explicit requirements of the legislation include for the Council to:




Review existing statewide and regional project evaluation criteria and
prioritization processes
Hold six public hearings to solicit public comment, one in each MassDOT
Highway District
Develop uniform criteria and a transparent prioritization formula
Deliver formal recommendations to the Legislature
The Council members were appointed as per specifications in the statute and
represent various interests from around the state. The Council has met 11 times
over the course of the year, including for the six required public hearings in each
Highway District.
In the beginning of the process, the Council established the following mission
statement to guide its work:
3
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
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 Project Selection Advisory 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.
In accordance with this mission statement, the Council has worked over the
course of the year to live up to its mission, meet the requirements of the
legislation, and to make progress towards developing a thoughtful approach to a
prioritization framework.
1.2 About this Report
This interim report has been prepared by MassDOT staff, which has supported
the Council in its work. The report offers a summary of the progress made by the
Council in 2014.
Chapter 2 reviews existing and best practices for prioritization systems, which
helped to frame the Council’s discussions.
Chapter 3 delves into the Council’s progress on developing a prioritization
framework. While a near complete project prioritization process is being laid out
in this report, it is being presented as work in progress and is subject to change as
the Council continues deliberations and as new information becomes available.
Chapter 4 discusses the major outstanding issues that the Council has discussed,
but still needs to address, while Chapter 5 highlights additional areas that the
Council has not yet considered extensively.
Appendices include supplementary information on the proposed prioritization
framework as well comments from the public. Included separately with this
4
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
report is a draft technical memo on regional equity and meeting agendas and
notes.
While the report is authored by MassDOT staff, Council members were given an
opportunity to comment, and their feedback has been incorporated into this
document. A report with final recommendations to the Legislature on a
prioritization formula and framework will be submitted no later than June 30,
2015.
5
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
2 Existing and Best Practices Summary
2.1 Background
In working to address its mission, the Council reviewed existing practices within
Massachusetts and best practices among other states. This review identified the
various approaches that are being used to prioritize projects.
While the Commonwealth’s 13 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs),
MassDOT’s Highway Division, and the MBTA all have mechanisms in place to
prioritize projects, the Council gained an appreciation through the process for
the challenges in developing a statewide, multimodal evaluation system.
2.2 Current MassDOT Evaluation Processes
For the 2014 CIP, there was no overall prioritization formula or specified process
for selecting projects. However, the following processes went into various
components of the plan. The Council has learned about and intends to leverage
the following project evaluation processes in order to develop a uniform,
transparent, and data-driven process for the entire CIP.

MassDOT Bridge Prioritization System:
Since 2008, MassDOT has used PONTIS to calculate a Health Index to rank
both Structurally Deficient and non-Structurally Deficient bridges. The Bridge
ranking uses three criteria to assess the association between a bridge’s
condition and the potential risk posed to the transportation network by the
current condition: Condition Loss (CL), Health Index (HI) and a Highway
Evaluation Factor (HEF). CL is based on the National Bridge Inspection
Standards Condition Rating system. HI is a ratio of the composite measure of
the condition states of all of a bridge’s Core Elements to that same composite
measure if the bridge were brand new. The HEF is the average of the five
component values expressed as a percent. The more important a route, the
longer the detour, the larger the average daily traffic, or the greater the
geometric or load carrying restrictions, then the higher the HEF is. With the
final Bridge Ranking Formula (.3 CL + .4 HI + .3 HEF = rank value), a higher
rank value equals higher priority.
6
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature

MassDOT Pavement Management Prioritization System:
The Highway Division uses the Pavement Serviceability Index as a tool for
ranking the condition of over 5,000 pavement sections in the MassDOT road
network. This composite index uses data for pavement distress, raveling,
rutting and ride quality. Ride quality is captured using the International
Roughness Index to create the Customer Ride Satisfaction Index. Data
collection for pavement condition is semi-automated using the “Pathrunner”
vehicle, which has full GPS and GIS integration for capturing road conditions.
The Highway Division then uses the Deighton DTIMS Pavement Management
Software for analysis of Incremental Benefit Cost. In reviewing a potential
multi-year pavement program, the Highway Division considers safety projects,
such as those projects in high crash locations, and sustainability factors before
assigning a final ranking.

MBTA Project Prioritization System:
The MBTA has used a tool called Decision Lens to assist in the prioritization of
its capital projects. Decision Lens was used originally in the MBTA’s Capital
Investment Program for FY 2015-FY2019 and FY 2016-2020. The tool helped
the MBTA in identifying project evaluation criteria, determining the criteria
weights, establishing rating scales, scoring capital funding requests and
prioritizing projects within fiscally-constrained scenarios.
The MBTA identified the impact on the environment/alignment with
GreenDOT objectives and System Preservation as overarching priorities. In
addition, they incorporated analysis of project impacts on operating costs,
operating revenues, customer experience and legal commitments in finalizing
its 5-year Capital Investment Program (MBTA CIP).

Asset Management Advisory Council (AMAC)
AMAC was established by the Legislature in Chapter 46 of Acts of 2013 along
with the establishment of the Project Selection Advisory Council and was
charged with developing a performance and asset management system. Such
a system would likely be able to prioritize state of good repair needs for the
transportation system. The AMAC is still in process of forming its mission and
scope, but the Council will need to work closely with AMAC over the next
several months to ensure that the recommendations from both Councils can
work together.
7
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
2.3 Current MPO Evaluation Processes
In addition to the internal MassDOT processes described above, the
Commonwealth’s 13 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) currently
employ varied transportation evaluation criteria (TEC) scoring systems and
ranking methods. Generally, the MPOs have endorsed criteria that reflect the
priorities of the regions’ Long Range Transportation Plans, such as maintaining a
state of good repair, focusing investments on existing activity centers, improving
mobility for people and freight, reducing the level of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, minimizing environmental burdens from transportation facilities on
low-income and minority populations, and providing safe transportation for all.
The MPOs implemented TEC scoring to make the process of evaluating and
selecting projects more understandable and transparent. Project scoring helps to
inform the decisions made by the MPOs in programing their target funds in each
four-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) document.
2.4 MassDOT/MBTA Capital Planning: weMove Massachusetts (wMM)
In May of 2014, MassDOT published its statewide multimodal plan, required
under both state and federal statute. The weMove Massachusetts: Planning for
Performance report represents MassDOT’s first attempt at introducing scenario
planning to its decision-making process, and has MassDOT well positioned to
meet the performance-based planning that is required under the federal Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). As part of the weMove
Massachusetts process, MassDOT developed an analytical tool that evaluates
asset conditions now and into the future and compares them against available
funding to assist in prioritizing investments across modes. The forecasted
algorithms behind the tool are based on a combination of U.S.DOT and
MassDOT data and methodologies. While it was not completed in time to shape
the 2014 CIP, it did help inform decision makers about the impacts of various
strategies.
MassDOT is currently advancing a second phase of weMove Massachusetts,
which will incorporate policy-related indicators to help decision makers
understand how a proposed capital program will impact mode shift, GHG
emissions, and health outcomes. Though beyond the scope of this second phase
of work, the weMove Massachusetts Planning for Performance tool may be
updated further in order to better integrate with existing and developing
processes.
8
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
2.5 Review of State Practices
In addition to a review of MassDOT processes, the Council reviewed best
practices for several other states that are at different stages of developing or
implementing a methodology for prioritizing projects to receive funding. Across
the country a variety of approaches exist. Some state DOTs rank projects by type
(e.g. bridges), by funding category (e.g. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement funding), by goal area (e.g. safety) or even more broadly by
maintenance or expansion. Very few states currently rank projects on a multimodal basis,
The passage of MAP-21 highlighted the national discussion concerning the
implementation of more transparent, data-driven methodologies for
programming projects. Every state that was reviewed by the Council described
the process as iterative, evolving and not absolute in terms of prescribing the
actual programming of projects. Rather, the evaluation processes shed light on
how specific projects impact policy direction and enable objective comparisons to
be made when difficult decisions arise. The states that were profiled ranged in
size from Delaware to California and are at various stages of developing their
own prioritization systems. Key facts about their processes are provided below.
Over the next six months, the Council will continue to monitor its peers’
prioritization systems in order to inform its work with the most up-to-date
strategies and lessons learned from other efforts.
Delaware
In Delaware, the Department of Transportation (DelDOT) prioritizes projects
through a three-step process. First, projects are ranked among individual
categories that include: state of good repair, dedicated funding sources,
management and operation projects, and those projects legally required through
contract, regulation, judicial action or legislation. Maintenance projects are
excluded from this evaluation. Their next step is to assess project readiness. The
final step is funding allocation, where DelDOT works down the list generated
from technical scores and assigns the most restricted funding categories first,
utilizing the most flexible funding categories at the end of the process.
In the first step of the process, DelDOT ranks projects based on weighted criteria
adhering to the vision and goals of the Department. Scoring is on a scale from -5
through 5 in several subcategories for each goal. Goals and weights are provided
below:
9
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Safety – 33%
System Operating Effectiveness – 24.8%
Multi-Modal Mobility/Flexibility/Access – 15.6%
Revenue Generation/Economic Development/Jobs & Commerce –
7.9%
o Impact on the Public/Social Disruption/Economic Justice – 7.2%
o Environmental Impact/Stewardship – 6.5%
o System Preservation – 5%
o
o
o
o
Florida
FloridaDOT established its Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) in 2003, and since
that time has developed a robust methodology of objective criteria and
quantitative thresholds to identify high-priority projects in its multi-modal
transportation network. This comprehensive planning and programming
process resulted in an “analytical toolbox” that has improved the efficiency and
effectiveness of coordination and communication among all stakeholders. Florida
prioritizes projects first, based on a set of evaluation criteria, and then based on
programming considerations such as funding commitments, project
phasing/timing, funding availability, and geographic distribution.
Florida’s project prioritization factors include District and Modal Plan priorities
and project scores through their Strategic Investment Tool, which features the
following five equally ranked criteria for highway projects:
o
o
o
o
o
Safety and security
System preservation
Mobility
Economics
Quality of life
The flowchart below illustrates Florida’s basic process for project prioritization:
10
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Figure 1: Florida Prioritization Process
Nevada
In Nevada, the “Connecting Nevada” 50-year plan includes urban and rural
projects with input from local, regional and state partners from other agencies.
Nevada DOT asks each division to create its own priority list of needs and then
uses performance-based measures to assign a funding percentage to each list.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire is working with its nine Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs)
to develop standard project evaluation and prioritization criteria for FHWAfunded projects and has determined that the first draft of criteria need to be
revised to fairly represent the needs of a multi-modal system. NHDOT completed
a LEAN1 process improvement, as part of the development of its Ten Year Plan,
which focused on a goal of more clearly communicating New Hampshire’s
transportation needs between regional planning organizations and the
Department of Transportation in the early phases of the Ten Year Planning
Process. According to NHDOT, the overall benefit was immense; it was the first
time in 25 years that the nine RPCs and NHDOT were on the same page
regarding the criteria being used to evaluate projects. All parties could “weight”
their criteria differently to match their regional long range priorities and all parties
communicated their weighted criteria prior to soliciting for new project needs.
North Carolina
Several years ago, North Carolina’s Legislature passed the Strategic
Transportation Investments (STI) law, requiring NCDOT to maximize existing
transportation funding to enhance the state’s infrastructure and support
1
LEAN is a set of tools used by public, private and non-profit sectors to improve processes by removing
waste, increasing efficiency and elevating quality.
11
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
economic growth, job creation and high quality of life. STI establishes the
“Strategic Mobility Formula,” a new way of allocating available revenues based
on data-driven scoring and local input. NCDOT’s Strategic Mobility Formula is in
its third iteration and prioritizes projects at the statewide, regional and Division
levels. It is a multi-modal prioritization system.
The prioritization process does not apply to most state-funded maintenance
projects. The general structure of the prioritization formula is as follows:
o Forty percent (40%) of the funds subject to this process are used for
Statewide Strategic Mobility projects. The criteria for selection of
these projects utilizes a numeric scale of 100 points, based on
consideration of the following quantitative criteria:
 Benefit cost
 Congestion
 Safety
 Freight
 Multimodal
 Economic competitiveness
 Pavement condition
 Lane width
 Shoulder width
o Thirty percent (30%) of the funds are used for Regional Impact
projects and allocated by population of Distribution Regions based
on the most recent estimates certified by the Office of State Budget
and Management. The criteria utilized for selection of Regional
Impact projects are based thirty percent (30%) on local input and
seventy percent (70%) on consideration of a numeric scale of 100
points based primarily on the same quantitative criteria used for the
Statewide Strategic Mobility projects.
o Thirty percent (30%) of the funds are allocated in equal share to
each of the Department divisions, and used for Division Need
projects. The criteria utilized for selection of Division Need projects
are based fifty percent (50%) on local input and fifty percent (50%)
on consideration of a numeric scale of 100 points based on the
same criteria as Regional Impact projects.
12
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
The scoring criteria and weights for all projects subject to the Strategic Mobility
Formula are normalized across all modes (highway, aviation, bike/ped, ferry,
transit, and rail). NCDOT guarantees a minimum of 90% of spending will go to
the highway mode.
Utah
Utah’s ranking and prioritization system is intended explicitly as a decision
support tool. Although the system is data-driven wherever possible and the
criteria were developed to reflect the goals of UDOT, the Utah Transportation
Commission retains the right to override rankings as long as it is discussed at a
public meeting.
2.6 Key Observations for the Development of Criteria
One consistent finding from this review of best practices is that any
recommendations from the Council will likely require modifications over time. The
Council will therefore need to consider a flexible prioritization formula that can
be modified as the formula is tested, as new data becomes available, and as
outcomes from the prioritization process become better understood. Other key
findings include:





MassDOT is ahead of the curve, being one of only a handful of states that
prioritize projects across modes.
Maintenance and preservation projects are often excluded from
prioritization.
For states that conduct multi-modal comparisons, most do not apply the
same set of criteria across modes.
It appears that no state relies 100% on a prioritization formula in order to
select a transportation program.
An effective, transparent prioritization process will provide for specific
opportunities to justify any decisions that do not rely on the formula.
Based on these findings, the Council has affirmed that ultimate recommendations
should provide for a robust structure for project prioritization, but one that is
simple to understand, and is sufficiently flexible to evolve over time to respond to
evolving goals and any improvements in data collection.
13
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
3 Proposed Project Prioritization Framework
3.1 Overview
The Council has worked over the course of the year to make progress on the
development of a project prioritization framework to meet the requirements of
the legislation that can be implemented successfully. Although the Council has
reviewed and generally accepted many of the elements of the formula included
in this report, no final recommendations are being made at this stage and all
elements are subject to change as the Council continues to work towards final
recommendations.
As a starting point to the development of a prioritization framework, the Council
focused on the following considerations that the legislation required as inputs
into the project priority formula:






Engineering
Condition of Existing Assets
Safety
Economic Impact
Regional Priorities
Anticipated Cost of the Project
In addition to the review of best practices described in Chapter 2, the Council’s
early meetings were opportunities for the members to become aware of state
and federal policies and statutes that the prioritization criteria will need to
address beyond those specifically called out by the legislation, including:





MassDOT’s Mission Statement, Vision, and Goals
MassDOT Policy Directives, such as GreenDOT, the Mode Shift goal, and
the Healthy Transportation Directive
Provisions of Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009
Provisions of Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013
Provisions from the latest Federal Transportation Authorization Bill - MAP21
This work informed the development of a preliminary formula, made up of
criteria, objectives and metrics. In this context, the criteria are broad areas of
focus aligned with the overarching goals identified by the Council. The objectives
are strategies for achieving each goal. Lastly, metrics are defined to determine a
14
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
project’s contribution towards meeting an objective. Staff to the Council tested
the initial proposed formula by applying it to a set of illustrative projects in order
to better understand the implications of such a uniform, multi-modal prioritization
formula. Based on feedback by the Council and other interested parties, a
proposed four-tier prioritization framework was then developed and presented to
the Council to address many of the concerns that were raised. Each part of the
formula, as well as the illustrative projects, and four-tier prioritization framework
are discussed in the following sections.
Also under review as of this report and discussed in this chapter is the overall
process by which the prioritization system would be employed—including
questions about timing, benefit/cost, project readiness, funding eligibility and
balance across asset categories. Proposals for how to address many of these
issues are included in the next chapter of this report, but the ultimate
recommendation to the Legislature will be informed by the public, internal
stakeholders to MassDOT, and the Council’s discussions over the next six months.
3.2 Criteria
The Council set an early goal of developing a prioritization system that, in
addition to being data-driven and transparent, would also be simple for external
stakeholders to understand. Consistent with this goal, the Council considered a
set of six overarching criteria, or goals presented by Council staff at its May 20
meeting/public hearing in Pittsfield. Based on discussions at subsequent
meetings, the criteria have been refined with the following descriptions:
Economic Development – The transportation system should support economic
growth in the Commonwealth in a sustainable manner.
Health and Environment – The transportation system should avoid or mitigate
negative environmental and health impacts, and allow all customers to have
access to safe and comfortable healthy transportation options.
Mobility and Access – The transportation system should provide options, support
mode shift goals, and promote more connectivity within the Commonwealth.
Safety – The transportation system should be safe and ensure the security of
people and goods in transit.
Social Equity and Fairness – The transportation system should distribute both the
benefits and burdens of development equitably among all communities.
15
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
System Preservation – The Commonwealth should focus on the proactive
preservation of assets to ensure that the existing transportation system can
support mobility, safety, economic development, and transportation equity in the
Commonwealth going forward.
In addition to these six goals, the Council deliberated over whether there should
be a seventh goal of regional equity. Ultimately, the Council decided that
regional equity was an important factor that needed to be included in the
prioritization system, but that it was necessary to first better understand the
current state of equity in the allocation of transportation funding. The Council
asked staff to undertake an analysis of regional equity in current Massachusetts
transportation funding programs and report back on the results. This analysis is
included as a separate memo to this Interim Report.
Beyond regional equity, the Council and other stakeholders wanted “program
balance” to be a goal of the prioritization process. This over-arching goal could
not be achieved on a project evaluation level, and is thus being considered at a
later stage of project prioritization. A more detailed discussion of program
balance can be found in Section 4-4.
At the July 29 meeting/public hearing in Boston, the Council agreed to adopt the
six broad goals listed above to guide the development of the project evaluation
system.
3.3 Objectives
After reaching agreement on a set of goals, the Council next considered various
objectives, or strategies by which transportation investments could help further
these goals. Objectives were proposed by staff at the September 16
meeting/public hearing in Springfield and refined over the next few meetings
until being adopted as the Council’s working objectives at the October 20
meeting/public hearing in Barnstable.
Although staff originally developed objectives that were intended to address a
specific goal, it became apparent that most of the objectives addressed more
than one of the Council’s six goals. The objectives and the Council goals they are
addressing are presented below:
16
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Table 1: Working Objectives
Objectives
Applicable Goal
Ensure preservation of existing
infrastructure
MOBILITY/ACCESS, PRESERVATION,
SAFETY
Support mode shift
MOBILITY/ACCESS, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT,
HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT, EQUITY
Improve system reliability
MOBILITY/ACCESS, PRESERVATION
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Improve system efficiency
MOBILITY/ACCESS, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Reduce GHG emissions
HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT
Reduce frequency and severity
of collisions for all modes
MOBILITY/ACCESS, SAFETY,
HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT
Support sustainable
development
MOBILITY/ACCESS, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT,
HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT
Ensure efficient movement of
freight
MOBILITY/ACCESS, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Target underserved
communities
MOBILITY/ACCESS, EQUITY
Reduce incidence of chronic
disease
HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT, EQUITY
Ensure resiliency of the
transportation system
MOBILITY/ACCESS, PRESERVATION,
SAFETY, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Improve evacuation routes
MOBILITY/ACCESS, PRESERVATION,
SAFETY
17
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
3.4 Metrics
After identifying working objectives, the Council’s next step was to develop a set
of metrics to measure a transportation project’s ability to meet those objectives.
Although the initial thinking was that each objective would have multiple
associated metrics, the first iteration included only one metric per objective,
except in the case of the objective to “Reduce Incidence of Chronic Disease,”
which had two. This result occurred as staff attempted to develop the simplest,
yet most comprehensive set of metrics possible that would limit redundancy and
directly support achieving MassDOT goals. Although this was the approach taken
to date, there is still an opportunity to consider additional or alternative metrics
for each objective.
The proposed metrics and their associated scoring guidance (see Appendix 2)
were developed in a manner that allowed staff to score the set of illustrative
projects given limited data. Many of the metrics are in the format of “to what
extent” questions, where quantitative thresholds are not yet clearly defined.
However, the intent is that they will be modified once desired thresholds and
data sets are defined.
Table 2 presents all proposed metrics, along with their associated objectives,
criteria and weights that were used to score the set of illustrative projects,
discussed in the next section.
Table 2: Working Objectives, Metrics, Criteria, and Weights
Objectives
Metrics*
Applicable
2
Criteria
Metric
Points
Support mode shift
To what extent does the project support mode shift
from single occupancy vehicles?
M, D, H, E
15/5*
Ensure preservation
of existing
infrastructure
How cost effective and appropriate is the system
preservation investment (based on Pavement
Service Index (PSI), PONTIS bridge software, the
MBTA State of Good Repair (SOGR) Database, etc.)?
P, M, S
15/25*
Improve reliability
To what extent does the project improve the
reliability of the transportation system?
M, D, P
10
2
Key: S – Safety; M – Mobility and Access; D – Economic Development, E – Equity,
H– Health and the Environment; P – System Preservation
18
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Objectives
Metrics*
Applicable
2
Criteria
Metric
Points
Improve efficiency
Does the project efficiently increase persons per
hour capacity?
M, D
10
Reduce GHG
What is the estimated change in GHG emissions?
H
10
Reduce frequency
and severity of
collisions for all
modes
To what extent does the project address strategies
in Strategic Highway Safety Plan for identified
3
problems along the corridor?
S, H, M
8
Support sustainable
development
To what extent does the project support smart
growth development patterns?
Ensure efficient
movement freight
To what extent does the project support efficient
movement of freight vehicles?
M, D
5
Targeted
underserved
communities
To what extent does the project benefit an EJ
community or Title VI populations?
M, E
5
Reduce incidence of
chronic disease
To what extent does the project have the potential
to increase physical activity in areas with high levels
of obesity?
H, E
5
To what extent does the project reduce exposure
to noise, air, and water pollution in areas with high
exposure levels?
H, E
5
P, M, S, D
5
S, M
2
Ensure resiliency
Does the project address future climate change
resiliency planning measures?
Improve evacuation
route
Does the project improve an identified issue along
an evacuation route or strategic corridor?
5
D, M, H
TOTAL
100
** These scores were modified for the October 20th meeting to address concerns about over-valuing mode
shift and undervaluing system preservation. All illustrative projects were scored with both set of weights for
comparative purposes.
19
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
3.5 Illustrative Projects Analysis
The staff to the Council applied the working criteria, objectives, and metrics
described above to test how an illustrative set of multimodal projects would fare
under a uniform scoring system that did not take into account project type or
regional equity. A list of 11 illustrative projects was selected to represent some of
the modal and regional diversity of projects found in the Commonwealth (see
Appendix 3 for the list of projects with brief descriptions). The projects all had
conceptual or early design work completed, but had not yet been programmed
in a regional TIP. It should be noted that this approach, while eliminating the
potential for a misinterpretation of results for projects that already have secured
funding, did leave staff with limited information on some project elements and
benefits that would typically be available in evaluating projects. Staff presented
the metrics, weights and the initial results of the illustrative project scoring at the
September 16 meeting in Springfield. The “1st Score” column of Table 3 presents
those initial results.
One key observation of the initial results was that, since the proposed scoring
system collectively weighted mode shift and other associated objectives highly
(such as reduce GHG emissions and support sustainable development), transit
and bike/pedestrian projects tended to score well. Conversely, interchange
projects generally scored towards the bottom. However, some non-automobile
focused projects did score towards the bottom and some automobile focused
projects scored towards the top. High and low-scoring projects seemed to be
evenly distributed between the Boston area and the rest of the state.
Because of concerns about the relative emphasis on mode shift and system
preservation, projects were scored a second time at the October 20th meeting in
Haverhill. One concern stemmed from the fact that several metrics addressed
mode shift in various forms, putting the total number of points related to multimodal projects well ahead of system preservation, which was determined to be
comparably important, if not more so, than mode shift. Thus, this second set of
weights gave “ensuring preservation of existing infrastructure” 25 points and
“mode shift” 5 points, versus 15 points for both in the first round of scoring. The
“2nd Score” column in Table 3 presents the results with the revised weights. The
re-weighting did not result in any major changes to the pattern described above,
although projects addressing system preservation needs tended to rank slightly
higher.
20
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
In the second round of scoring, some additional rural projects were also added to
ensure a more robust geographic representation. These projects are included in
Table 3.
Table 3: Illustrative Project Scores
nd
1st
Score
2
Score
Boston
66
55
Transit Maintenance
Greenfield
43
49
New DMU Service
Transit
Lynn/Chelsea
57
47
Ferry Street/Elm Street
Traffic Calming
Everett
44
44
Route 2
Safety/Roadway
Realignment
Erving
45
42
Bus Rapid Transit
Transit
Springfield
47
41
Route 114 Improvements
Roadway
Widening/Ped
Lawrence/North
Andover
36
39
Tyringham Road
Roadway
Reconstruction
Lee/Tyringham
27
37
Twin City Rail Trail
Off-Road Bike/Ped
Fitchburg/Leominster
46
36
Bus on I-93 Shoulder
Transit
MVPC portion of I-93
46
36
Route 24/Route 140
Interchange
Reconstruction
Taunton
28
32
Fenway Multi-use Path
Off-Road Bike/Ped
Boston
24
21
Housatonic Street
Roadway
Reconstruction/Ped
Dalton
19
19
Project
Project Type
Location
Reconstruction of Causeway
On Road Bike/Ped
FRTA Maintenance Facility
21
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
East Street
Roadway Widening
Pittsfield
17
17
I-495/Route 1A
New Ramp
Construction
Wrentham
9
9
3.6 Identified Issues to Address
Based on the feedback from the test of the illustrative projects as well as other
items that had been raised during public and stakeholder meetings, a list of
outstanding issues was developed to help frame the remaining work of the
Council. At the October 20th meeting in Barnstable, the following list was
presented:
Table 4: Items for Consideration after Development of Draft Formula
Reason for
Consideration
Items for Consideration
Incorporation of cost
Legislative Requirement
Raised by Council and
Advocates
How to consider number of people impacted
Should there be categories (preservation, expansion,
modernization for safety, local construction)
Should there be buckets by funding type or other category
(community projects versus maintenance)
Should there be tiers of scoring (current formula +
investment analysis, for example)
Timing of scoring
Incorporating project readiness into scoring
Understanding Regional Equity to date
How to consider regional priorities/ equity
What is considered a project and should be scored
Coordination with weMove Massachusetts
Coordination with the Asset Management Advisory
Council
Coordination with existing preservation systems (PONTIS)
Point scale
Who will be reviewing projects
How will projects be reviewed
Legislative Option
Raised by Council
Discussed at 9/24 meeting
Process
Process
Raised by Council
Legislative Requirement
Question from Council
Process/Efficiency
Process/Efficiency
Process
Process
Process
Process
3.7 Proposed Four Tier Prioritization Process
In an attempt to address many of the remaining concerns, staff proposed a four
tier prioritization process. The proposal was accepted as working framework for
22
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
project prioritization by the Council at the November 12th meeting in Worcester.
Details of how each tier could be implemented have not been finalized. An
explanation of the envisioned four tier process is as follows:
Tier 1 – Evaluation: The first tier of the evaluation process will be an application of
the refined objectives, metrics, weights, and scoring guidance. Projects that score
above a certain threshold will go to Tier 2. Projects that score below the
threshold will not be able to proceed in their existing form.
Tier 2 – Cost/Benefit: The second tier of the evaluation process will look at a cost
per persons served metric for the top set of projects from the Tier 1 evaluation.
Projects that have a high relative cost per persons served will not necessarily be
rejected, but will require justification to proceed, or will be replaced by a project
that may not have scored as highly in the Tier 1 evaluation, but that has a better
cost per persons served ratio.
Tier 3 – Funding Optimization: Similar to the STIP, MBTA and MassDOT CIPs
development processes, the available funding will be optimized by going down
the ordered list from the Tier 1 evaluation, but filtered by the most cost effective
in terms of cost per persons served from Tier 2. The funding sources that are most
restrictive will be assigned first. Projects that do not receive funding will be put on
hold for future years. Funding sources for the CIP include Federal Highway
Administration funding already allocated through the STIP process,
Commonwealth Borrowings, Accelerated Bridge Program, and Federal Transit
Administration grants. It is anticipated that STIP funding already allocated to a
project will continue to be allocated to that project through this process;
however, any state match that is required will be applied separately.
Tier 4 – Program Balance: The funding plan developed in Tier 3 will be assessed
in terms of asset balance and regional equity. This tier provides the opportunity
to justify the current program or replace certain projects to achieve a more
desirable state of program balance and/or regional equity. Potential methods for
these assessments are discussed in the Outstanding Issues section.
See Appendix 4 for a flow chart of the proposed process.
3.8 Next Steps
Although the four tier prioritization process addresses many of the outstanding
issues discussed at the October 20th public meeting, it did not address everything
regarding process and it also generated some additional questions. The
23
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
remainder of this document discusses many of the issues that need to be
addressed in order to make a robust set of recommendations to the Legislature. A
draft roadmap for addressing these issues and meeting the deadline is as follows:
Table 5: Road Map to June 30, 2015
Timeframe
Task
January
February
March April
May
June
Regular meetings with Council
Refine scoring guidance
Test additional illustrative projects
Refine formula
Propose process recommendations
Make draft report available for public
comment
Submit final report
24
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
4 Outstanding Issues
4.1 Introduction
Although the proposed four tier framework addresses several of the outstanding
issues discussed above, many issues remain. Introducing a new, uniform, multimodal project prioritization process that spans MassDOT Highway Division, Rail
and Transit Division, including the MBTA, is a challenging task that requires
extensive coordination, foresight, and strategic thinking. The following section
highlights some of the remaining key questions that the Council has discussed
and must resolve in the coming months in order to develop an effective and
efficient system for project prioritization. The following “key” issues have been
discussed more in-depth by the Council to date.
25
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
4.2 Key Issue: Universe of projects for scoring
Issue description. The Council has established that any project that might require
state funding (whether it is an entirely non-federal aid project or a project funded
primarily through the MPO, but that may receive state matching funds) should be
subject to review by the evaluation system developed by the Council.
Most of the discussion to date has focused on prioritizing highway and transit
projects, as these project types already undergo some form of structured
evaluation and represent the vast majority of MassDOT projects. However, the
Council has suggested that all projects in which the state has discretion,
including non-MBTA rail projects, should be considered. Aeronautics projects,
which receive a relatively small percentage of state funding and are intended to
address goals that are fundamentally different from those of road or transit
projects, have generally been excluded from the Council’s discussions. Similarly,
since the majority of Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) funding is operationsbased and the capital projects that do exist address very different goals than
community transportation projects, the Council has thus far not considered
scoring RMV projects.
Several questions have been raised through the process on this topic, including:



Should there be a dollar threshold for a project to be incorporated into the
project selection process?
Should maintenance projects be included, and what exactly would be
considered a maintenance project?
Should Public Private Partnership (P3) projects be treated differently?
Maintenance projects have been identified as a particular challenge for a new
approach to prioritization. For example, on the Highway side, there is currently a
set-aside for each District to use for emergency maintenance needs. This set-aside
does not call out specific project types or locations. Moreover, there is a general
understanding that a base amount of funding needs to be spent on maintenance
needs and that these types of projects may not score as well as modernization
and expansion projects in Tier 1 unless the criteria are heavily weighted towards
system preservation.
Existing and concurrent processes. Currently, other than structurally deficient
bridges eligible for the Accelerated Bridge Program, only municipally proposed
projects slated for an MPO TIP are scored for prioritization purposes by MassDOT.
These projects can range from small paving projects to the Route 128 widening.
26
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
There is no dollar value threshold or exclusion of maintenance projects. However,
the pre-PRC committee has a difficult time prioritizing maintenance projects
because they never score as highly as a modernization or expansion project.
The Asset Management Advisory Council (AMAC) is trying to establish a
mechanism for prioritizing maintenance and asset preservation needs. This
process will need to complement the Council process.
The MBTA currently assesses and prioritizes maintenance projects through their
Decision Lens tool; however, the metrics for assessing these projects are much
more qualitative than their assessment for replacement needs.
Potential Alternatives:



Exclude maintenance projects (definition to be established at a later date).
This is the approach taken by the majority of states currently applying a
prioritization process.
Apply a minimum dollar threshold of state funding (to be established at a
later date). Only scoring projects above a certain estimated cost could
conserve DOT resources. Some states, such as Washington, only prioritize
their most expensive projects.
Assess all projects. The prioritization process will be applied to each
project, or each line item, in the CIP. The desired outcome should be
achievable by applying the Tier 3 and 4 assessments, even if the evaluation
criteria from Tier 1 are somewhat biased towards certain modes or project
types.
Next Steps. The Council will conduct further research on other states’ practices
focused on these areas (maintenance projects, dollar thresholds, and P3 projects)
and continue to solicit both internal and public input as it develops a
recommendation on how these project types should be treated.
27
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
4.3 Key Issue: Timing of scoring process
Issue description. The question of what stage in project development projects will
be scored has not been addressed explicitly by the Council, but is a topic of great
interest to both the Council and project development stakeholders.
The issue is of paramount importance to project proponents who are reluctant to
spend resources advancing projects through the design phase only to learn that
the project will not make it through the screening process. However, there is less
information on projects before design work has been initiated, complicating the
evaluation process.
The two potential scoring times that stakeholders have suggested are at project
initiation (the pre-Project Review Committee stage for highway projects or
conceptual design proposal for the MBTA) and in the programming of projects
for the CIP.
Existing processes. The point at which projects are currently evaluated varies by
mode and by the entity conducting the evaluation. The timing of reviews under
existing processes in Massachusetts is described below:
Highway. Municipality initiated highway projects are reviewed by the
MassDOT pre-Project Review Committee (Pre-PRC) before they are
submitted for consideration by the MPO. These reviews are based on
information provided in the Project Need Form and Project Initiation Form.
Because not all municipalities can afford to hire a consultant and begin
design work before the project is approved, the pre-PRC criteria cannot be
too complex, time-intensive, or require information that requires
engineering expertise. MassDOT does not score District or MassDOT
initiated projects.
Once projects have been approved by the PRC, they are not re-scored.
Only projects in the 75% design stage are eligible for inclusion in the first
year of the CIP. There is no formal process for prioritizing projects to be
included in the CIP.
MBTA. The MBTA first scores projects based on a Capital Funding Request
(CFR) submitted at the conceptual design stage. The CFR is a form that the
project initiator completes that addresses the questions that go into the
MBTA’s prioritization score. Based on the project score, the project may or
may not get approval to proceed to apply for federal grants. This initial
28
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
scoring occurs at roughly the same time in the project development cycle
as when highway projects are scored. Projects are resubmitted and
rescored each year when the MBTA CIP is being developed, at which point
a potential start date is taken into consideration for the programming of
funding.
MPO. All MPOs prioritize their projects for the TIP in a slightly different
manner, but with the same overall structure. Each MPO receives a list of
accepted projects and funding targets from MassDOT. These projects are
then scored as part of the TIP development process. The scores, coupled
with the anticipated readiness date, are utilized to develop the four-year
plan. For a specific example, the Boston MPO prioritizes projects for the TIP
once those projects have reached 25% Design and have a completed
Functional Design Report. In preparation for the development of the TIP,
the staff uses evaluation ratings and project readiness information to
prepare a First-Tier List of Projects. This is a list of the projects with the
highest ratings that could be made ready for advertising within the TIP’s
time horizon (next four federal fiscal years). Other MPOs follow similar
processes.
Potential Alternatives. There has been general consensus that Tier 1 and Tier 2
evaluations should occur close to project initiation and can replace the pre-PRC
process (for highway projects). Suggestions for subsequent steps include:




Tiers 3 and 4 occur upon the development of the CIP. Only projects at the
appropriate state of readiness for the CIP will be scored.
Upon the development of the CIP, projects will go through Tier 1 and 2
again, as well as Tiers 3 and 4. Only projects at the appropriate state of
readiness for the CIP will be scored. Rescoring Tier 1 and 2 may change
the outcome for projects in which the scope has changed, more
information is known, or costs have increased.
Projects are rescored under Tier 2 if costs escalate by a certain amount
during the development process. These projects would be rescored in the
year in which the costs escalate.
All suggestions would result in projects that do not make it into the CIP
being rescored the following year.
Discussion and Analysis. Scoring projects can be a time intensive process.
Rescoring projects once more information is available may also result in
29
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
significant funds expended on a design for a project that will not advance.
Rejecting projects after design work has progressed also creates political and
public relations challenges for MassDOT. However, the opportunity cost of going
forward with a project that is not aligned with MassDOT policy goals, over
another project that has more merit, is also significant.
Consensus has seemed to be that Tier 1 needs to occur at or near project
initiation. Although information is limited at this stage, there should typically be
sufficient information to compare the merits of various projects. Conducting the
Tier 1 evaluation on an annual basis for the same project as more information
becomes available may not be worth the time and effort. However, it may be
beneficial to test this approach on a sample set of projects to determine the
sensitivity of Tier 1 scoring.
Next Steps. The Council and staff will discuss these options in more depth with
the Rail and Transit Division and the Highway Division to develop an approach
that balances the goals of limiting the resources invested in advancing less
beneficial projects with the desire to have a transparent, data-driven approach to
project evaluation and selection.
30
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
4.4 Key Issue: Determining program balance
Issue Description. Similar to regional equity, Tier 4 of the prioritization process
allows for a comparison of the prioritized program to an ideal state of program
balance. Program balance has not been explicitly defined, but could be thought
of as ensuring minimum levels of investment in preservation, modernization, and
expansion projects. Balance could also refer to asset categories like bridges or
pavement, or modal balance.
The goal is that a thoughtful set of evaluation criteria in Tier 1 coupled with the
Tier 3 consideration of available funding and project eligibility will result in a
balanced program. There is, however, the potential for certain project types to
consistently land toward the top of the priority list. The intent of Tier 4 is to
compare the recommended program to the desired state of program balance.
While the definition of a balanced program will likely change over time, the
Council’s charge is to develop an overall process that is as data-driven and
transparent as possible.
Existing Tools/Processes. Currently, there are a few existing tools or processes
that may be helpful in determining appropriate program balance:
- weMove Massachusetts: Planning for Performance, the scenario planning tool
MassDOT developed as part of its 2014 statewide strategic plan, can help
decision makers understand the state of good repair trade-offs of different
investment scenarios for both highway and transit. The Planning for
Performance tool could be modified at the Council’s direction to identify an ideal
allocation of funding across asset categories to be compared against the
program recommended from the first three tiers of the prioritization process.
Currently, asset categories considered by the Planning for Performance tool
include:
• Pavement
• Bridges
• Mobility (delay hours /1,000 VMT)
• Safety intersections or segments
• Bicycle facilities (Bay State Greenway)
• MBTA bridges
• MBTA subway elevators/escalators
• MBTA rolling stock MBTA track
• MBTA signal
31
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
While this tool informed the CIP development process in FY 2014, it has not been
fully implemented yet. The development of the State of Good Repair Database,
which is feeding the MBTA data for the tool, is still being finalized. Some
adjustments to the tool’s asset categories would be needed before it can be used
to develop an ideal capital investment program by asset category.
The Asset Management Advisory Council (AMAC) is working to catalog and
prioritize maintenance of all MassDOT highway assets. It is possible that through
their work, they could develop a mechanism to categorize projects by the
suggested categories. In March, AMAC expects to have final recommendations
that can be incorporated into the Council prioritization system. It is likely that a
number of methods will be used to understand an ideal state of program
balance. As with regional equity, the ideal state of balance across asset categories
may not be achieved, or even desired, every year. Tier 4 provides the opportunity
to justify the prioritized program against the ideal state of balance to allow for
greater transparency.
Best Practices. The Oregon DOT has developed Mosaic, a value and cost
informed planning tool. It offers Oregon transportation planners and decision
makers an efficient, transparent way to evaluate the social, environmental, and
economic costs and benefits of transportation programs and investments. By
helping decision makers identify investments that provide the best value for
money, Mosaic will help make the most of limited resources.
Mosaic can be used at the local, regional, and state levels, and is scalable to
accommodate varying staff sizes, available data, and unique community needs
and goals. Decision makers can also see the benefits and costs of potential
investment decisions more clearly, which makes it easier to identify the mix of
transportation investments that will provide the most value to their community.
This tool is still under development, but may prove useful to address program
balance. Although seemingly similar to the weMove Massachusetts Planning for
Performance tool, MassDOT may be able to learn from the genesis of this tool.
Next Steps. The Council will work over the next few months to better understand
the pros and cons of these and other methods for determining program balance.
32
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
4.5 Key Issue: Coordination with the Asset Management Advisory
Council
Issue Description. The Asset Management Advisory Council (AMAC) has been
tasked by the Legislature to come up with an asset management strategy that
prioritizes system needs. Because of potential duplicity, there needs to be
coordination with the AMAC process. However, to date, the timelines for each
Council have made collaboration difficult. Given the uncertainty surrounding the
scope of the end product from the AMAC process, the Council may need to
establish its prioritization framework to allow for several approaches for
accommodation of the outcome of the AMAC.
Proposals. It is possible that one or more of these proposals will need to be
selected:





Exclude certain types of maintenance projects from project prioritization
that would be covered under a system developed by the AMAC.
For Tier 1: Adapt evaluation criteria as needed to incorporate criteria and
data developed from AMAC.
For Tier 2: Incorporate AMAC measures of cost/benefit.
For Tier 3: Allocate funding specifically for the preservation of various
types of assets.
For Tier 4: Apply AMAC recommendations when ensuring asset balance.
Next Steps In January, staff to the Council will brief the AMAC on progress to
date. Beyond that briefing, the two Councils are working to hold a joint meeting
to foster further collaboration and ensure that the two processes are compatible.
33
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
4.6 Key Issue: Definition of Regional Equity
Issue Description. The Council has discussed the concept of regional equity
consistently and in great depth throughout the process. As documented in the
accompanying Regional Equity Technical Memo, the Council reviewed the
current state of transportation funding allocation across the state, by Highway
District, MPO, and by community types (urban vs. suburban/rural). The analysis
looked at total dollars by region, dollars per capita, and dollars per lane mile. The
purpose of the analysis was to get a better understanding of how equitable
current spending is and how the issue of regional equity should be incorporated
into a project prioritization process.
Although there was general agreement that current spending is not clearly
inequitable, the Council believes that there is potential for any formula to result in
unwanted disparities if it does not specifically allocate funding by region. Based
on the analysis of the state of regional equity in the current plans, it is clear that
full equity is not necessarily achievable or desirable every year as there are
different needs and goals over time (for example, higher levels of spending in
one region may be a response to a high number of bridges in poor condition, a
once in a generation mega-project, or natural occurring events). Moreover,
transit funding can never be equitable across the state as only certain types of
development adequately support and necessitate transit. Thus, there is a need to
define a desired state of regional equity, or the elements that would allow the
Council to determine an equitable program on a regional basis.
Due to data limitations, the Council was unable to conduct an historical
assessment of regional equity in Massachusetts.
Potential Solutions. As a result of the analysis, the Council believes regional equity
should be tracked going forward to ensure that there are no systematic,
unjustified regional disparities. Tier 4 of the proposed prioritization process was
designed to allow for a comparison of the prioritized program to a desired state
of regional equity. However, the Council has not yet established what a desired
state of regional equity would be. Some ideas that have been raised include:



Comparing the program to the Chapter 90 program
Allocating a proportion of funding across MPOs and/or highway districts
Allocating a proportion of funding to rural versus urban areas
34
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Next Steps. In finalizing the process, a clear definition of regional equity and a
clear explanation of how the program should be compared with that desired
state of regional equity needs to be established.
35
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
4.7 Key Issue: Data
Issue Description. There are many challenges associated with incorporating data
into a robust project selection process:
1. Suitability: Are the existing data appropriate for use in the formula?
2. Uniformity: Are the data collected the same way in all jurisdictions within the
state? If not, can this data still be used?
3. Cost: How costly is the data to gather and analyze for a project in terms of
time, money, and required expertise? Small municipalities, in particular, cannot
afford to hire consultants at the project initiation phase.
4. Aspirational Data: The Council must balance the need to recommend a
prioritization tool to the Legislature by June 2015, with the knowledge that new
and better data are becoming available to decision makers all the time. The
Council has expressed an interest in identifying aspirational data, and
recommending investments in the new data or data collection tools that can
enhance future iterations of the prioritization tool.
The Council has identified better information on bicycle and pedestrian demand
as an important example of aspirational data to pursue. Other areas include
improved origin/destination data for both highway and transit, as well as
expanded use of automated farebox collection (AFC) data for transit.
5. Adaptability: Is the formula flexible enough to be able to accommodate
improved data, or additional requirements, such as yet to be released in MAP-21
regulations?
Next Steps. As the Council works to refine the metrics and scoring guidance,
these five areas must be taken into consideration.
36
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
5 Additional Areas for Consideration
The following areas for consideration have been discussed by the Council, but
additional work needs to be done to define alternatives and develop solutions.
5.1 Project Readiness
Since the Council’s prioritization tool will be used in developing the MassDOT
five-year CIP, it must consider a project’s readiness for construction. In developing
the five-year transportation program, MassDOT must determine the likelihood
that projects will have completed the design process and any necessary right of
way acquisitions in advance of the year they are programmed for construction.
MassDOT and the MPOs make this decision annually in the development of TIPs
and the STIP. There is, however, significant opportunity to improve the process
for determining readiness, as projects are currently shifted around considerably.
There are also challenges, as certain municipalities do not have the financial
resources to significantly advance project design until they are certain that the
project will be programmed in the TIP.
Currently, only projects at 75 percent design or above can be programmed in the
first year of a STIP. The out years have less strict criteria for inclusion. Internal
MassDOT and MPO stakeholders believe the Council’s work may be an
opportunity to more fully incorporate project readiness into project prioritization.
One recommendation is to include criteria that take into account obstacles to
project initiation, such as right of way acquisition, environmental permitting, and
geotechnical issues.
The Council needs to consider in the coming months if and how project
readiness should be incorporated into the prioritization system and what the
tradeoffs may be.
5.2 Point Scale
The Council has discussed the appropriate point scale for the Tier 1 evaluation.
The initial draft normalized the total score to 100 points. Some Council members
suggested that a 100 point scale could create a sense of a false precision where
small differences in scores would be taken as evidence of one project’s
effectiveness over another, although it would be impossible to achieve a scoring
and weighting system that could be that precise. Conversely, a 10-point scale
would result in a significant number of “tie scores” which would require more
qualitative discussions of projects that score around the cutoff point for
advancement. This would represent both a reasonable approach to similar
37
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
scoring projects, and the introduction of another layer of subjectivity into a
process whose goal is transparency. While there are ways to combine both a
subjective and objective evaluation of projects for both point scale ranges, the
Council will need to reach an agreement on this before making a final
recommendation.
5.3 Project Prioritization Software
At an early meeting of the Council, MBTA staff gave a presentation about the
Budget Office’s experience with Decision Lens, an online decision-making
software. For the past two years, the MBTA has worked with Decisions Lens to
develop a new capital planning prioritization system and used the company’s
software and expertise to assist with the development, weighting, and scoring of
project selection criteria. The initial schedule for Council recommendations did
not allow for a thorough consideration of Decision Lens’ (or other similar
services’) capability of supporting the Council’s work. Given the extension, the
Council may want to reconsider using Decision Lens or a similar tool as an
improvement to a purely manual process.
5.4 Scoring Process – Who and How
It is a goal of the Council to reduce redundancies and streamline scoring
processes as much as possible. In conversations with MassDOT staff there has
been some consensus that the pre-PRC scoring process for municipal projects
would be expanded to implement the recommendations of the Council.
For pre-PRC, the District Project Engineers score all the projects in their district
and subject matter experts from MassDOT also weigh-in. Many MPOs score their
projects in a similar manner. However, at the Boston Region MPO, a subject
matter expert scores only those questions in their area of expertise, so that several
people score different aspects of each project. The MBTA utilizes a similar
structure where various departments score the elements relevant to their work.
A mapping tool is currently under development as part of the Everyday Counts
and SHRP2 initiatives on expediting project delivery to provide web mapping
capabilities that highlights environmental concerns early in the planning process.
While this tool is currently focused on environmental concerns, there may be an
opportunity to add relevant data layers to allow for automated or semiautomated scoring of projects. A similar tool was used in North Carolina for their
scoring needs.
38
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
In the coming months, the Council will need to determine the best way to
implement a multi-modal scoring process, which staff would be charged with
scoring projects against the qualitative criteria in the prioritization tool, and what
technological resources should be available to assist the scoring process. In
addition, an interim, potentially separate process for addressing the backlog of
projects will need to be developed.
39
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Appendix 1: Section 11 of Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013
Section 11A. (a) There shall be a project selection advisory council which shall be charged with
developing a uniform project selection criteria to be used in the development of a comprehensive
state transportation plan as required by section 11.
(b) The council shall consist of the following members: the secretary or the secretary’s designee,
who shall serve as chair; 3 members to be appointed by the governor, 1 of whom shall have
practical experience in transportation planning and policy, 1 of whom shall be a registered civil
engineer with at least 10 years’ experience and 1 of whom shall be a member of a regional
planning agency; 1 member to be appointed by the president of the senate, who shall be an
expert in the field of transportation finance; 1 member to be appointed by the minority leader of
the senate, who shall be a member of the construction industry; 1 member to be appointed by
the speaker of the house of representatives, who shall be a representative of a transportation
consumer organization or other public interest organization; 1 member to be appointed by the
minority leader of the house of representatives, who shall be a member of a business association;
and a representative of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. The department shall provide
the council with qualified administrative staff and the regional planning agencies may provide
qualified technical assistance to the council.
(c) The project selection criteria developed under this section shall include a project priority
formula or other data-driven process that shall include, but not be limited to, the following factors:
engineering; condition of existing assets; safety; economic impact; regional priorities; and the
anticipated cost of the project. The council may divide projects into several categories including,
but not limited to: preservation and maintenance of existing assets; modernization of existing
assets that improve safety; expansion projects that add to the existing system; and local
construction. 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.
(d) The council shall conduct at least 6 public hearings, 1 in each of the department’s highway
districts, before final approval of the project selection criteria. The council shall provide interested
persons with an opportunity to submit their views orally and in writing and the department may
create and maintain a website to allow members of the public to submit comments electronically
and to review comments submitted by others. The council shall provide notice of each public
hearing by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the highway district in which the
hearing is to be located in each of 2 successive weeks, the first publication to be at least 14 days
before the day of the hearing and, if feasible, by posting a notice in a conspicuous place in the
cities or towns within the highway district for at least 14 consecutive days immediately prior to
the day of the hearing.
40
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Appendix 2: Draft Scoring Guidance
Objectives
Metrics
Scoring
Support mode shift
To what extent does the project
support mode shift from single
occupancy vehicles?
+3 = Project expands or improves
transit, bicycle, pedestrian
accommodation in an area with land
uses likely to encourage greater use of
these modes and the expectation that
there will be a shift from single
occupancy vehicles
+2 = Project expands or improves
transit, bicycle, pedestrian
accommodation in an area with land
uses that lend themselves to these
modes, but it is unclear whether the
improvements will significantly impact
mode shift
+1 = Project maintains or preserves
transit, bicycle, pedestrian
accommodation in an area with
compatible land use; or
expands/improves transit, bicycle,
pedestrian accommodation in an area
with incompatible land use.
0 = Project does not improve
transit/bike/ped accommodation
because project type/location makes it
either physically impossible or
unnecessary.
-1 = Project does not
improve/expand/maintain
transit/bike/ped accommodation
though options are available for doing
so or project increases VMT
-3 = Project negatively impacts
transit/bike/ped accommodation
41
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Ensure
preservation of
existing
infrastructure
How appropriate and costeffective is the system
preservation investment (based
on PSI, PONTIS, SOGR database,
etc.)?
+3 = Preventive
maintenance/rehab/reclamation or
very appropriate
+2 =
+1 = Complete reconstruction or
moderately appropriate
0 = New road surface or no
improvement
-1 = Not appropriate, or detrimental
42
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Improve reliability
To what extent does the project
improve the reliability of the
transportation system?
+ 3 = Project incorporates one or more
of the following elements that are
anticipated to have a significant impact
on travel time reliability.
+ 1 = Project incorporates one or more
of the following elements that are
anticipated to have a moderate impact
on travel time reliability.
0 = Project has no impact on reliability
Reliability Features
Engineering design to
reduce collisions
Variable tolling
Interchange
improvements
Road/sidewalk/bike lane
widening for congested
areas
Signal coordination
improvements
ITS notifications
Access management
improvements
Relieve crowding on
transit
Reduce time-to-failure
rates for transit assets
Potential to reduce VMT
(transit, bike, ped
improvements - extra point
for off-road)
HOV lanes
*In the future planning time index for
transit and highway can be
considered.
43
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Improve efficiency
Does the project efficiently
increase persons per hour
capacity?
Reduce GHG
What is the estimated change in
GHG emissions?
+ 3 = Project significantly increases
persons per hour capacity on the
existing transportation network
+ 1 = Project moderately increases
persons per hour capacity using
existing facilities or improves persons
per hour capacity by expanding the
existing network
0 = Project has no impact on travel
speed or efficiency
Some elements that increase persons
per hour capacity:
Signal improvements
HOV lanes
Variable Tolling
Options that increase
reverse commuting
Faster or more frequent
transit service
Adding sidewalk/bike path
capacity
Encouraging separation of
modes
Identify the range of GHG emissions
changes likely to occur for a
transportation investment, award +3
for those in the top 20% of reductions,
+2 for those in the 20-60% range, +1
for 60%-100%. 0 for no impact, and
the reverse for GHG emission
increases.
44
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Support
sustainable
development
To what extent does the project
support smart growth
development patterns?
Ensure efficient
movement freight
To what extent does the project
support efficient movement of
freight vehicles?
+3 = Project improves ease of travel
within a town/village center, area
with a population density >5,000
people/sq mi, or a state priority
development area that fosters dense,
transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly
development within the area, or fosters
connections from one area of dense
development to another.
+1 = Project maintains or preserves
ease of travel within an area of
concentrated development or regional
priority development area, or between
such areas
0 = Project does not enhance mobility
within an area of concentrated
development or encourage
development in areas lacking mobility
options for most trips
-3 = Project will facilitate lower-density
development, or development that will
require access to a private automobile
in order to fully participate in the social
and economic opportunities afforded
by the new development
+3 = Project addresses a freight
mobility issue identified within the
statewide freight plan
+2 = Project is part of an identified
freight corridor and scores positively
for Ensure Maintenance of Existing
Infrastructure, or positively for both
Improve Reliability and Improve
Efficiency
0 = Project is not located on an
identified freight corridor
45
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Target
underserved
communities
To what extent does the project
benefit an EJ community or Title
VI populations?
+3 = Project improves mobility
(particularly for those without access to
a private automobile) within an EJ
community, or between an EJ
community and a major activity center
+2 = Project improves mobility
(particularly for those without access to
a private automobile) in a corridor that
is along the likely route of travel from
an EJ community to a major activity
center; OR Project maintains/preserves
mobility (particularly for auto-less
households) within an EJ community,
or between an EJ community and a
major activity center
+1 = Project improves mobility in an EJ
community primarily for the
automobile mode
0 = Project has no impact on EJ
communities
-3 = Project burdens an EJ community
46
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Reduce incidence
of chronic disease
To what extent does the project
have the potential to increase
physical activity in areas with high
levels of obesity?
+3 Points = Project is located in an area
with high obesity rates and provides
new facilities for walking, biking, and
transit that provide low-stress, familyfriendly options for accessing activity
centers
+2 Points = Project is located in an area
with high obesity rates and improves
existing facilities for walking, biking,
and transit that provide low-stress,
family-friendly options for accessing
activity centers
+1 Points = Project is located in an area
with high obesity rates and provides
facilities for walking, biking, and transit
that provide options for accessing
activity centers
0 = Project is not located in an area
with high obesity rates
-3 = Project reduces options for
walking/biking/transit to access
activities in an area with high levels of
obesity
47
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
To what extent does the project
reduce exposure to noise, air, and
water pollution in areas with high
exposure levels?
+3 = Project significantly reduces
exposure to noise, air and water
pollution in an area with high
exposure levels
+2 = Project moderately reduces
exposure to noise, air and water
pollution in an area with high
exposure levels
0 = Project has no impact on noise, air
and water pollution either because of
no significant changes or because
negative impacts have been mitigated
with trees or other exposure mitigation
efforts
-2 = Project increases exposure to
noise, air, and water pollution
-3 = Project significantly increases
exposure
Ensure resiliency
Does the project address future
climate change resiliency
planning measures?
+3 = Project is considered critical to the
transportation network and is
designed to ensure resiliency through
extreme weather conditions
+2 = Project is designed to ensure
resiliency through extreme weather
conditions
-3 = Project is considered critical to the
transportation network and is not
designed to ensure resiliency through
extreme weather conditions
48
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Reduce frequency
and severity of
collisions for all
modes
To what extent does the project
address strategies in Strategic
Highway Safety Plan for identified
4
problems along the corridor?
+3 = Project has the potential to have a
significant impact on one identified
safety concern at the project location
or project will have a positive impact
on multiple strategies.
+1 = Project has the potential to have a
positive impact on one identified safety
concern.
Improve
evacuation routes
Does the project improve an
identified issue along evacuation
route or strategic corridor?
+3 = if the project addresses an
identified issue along an evacuation
route or strategic corridor
+1 = if the project scores positive points
for increasing persons per hour
capacity
0 = no impact on evacuation routes
-1 = if the project does not score
positively for increasing persons per
hour capacity
4
Strategies include addressing bicycle, pedestrian, and truck/bus involved crashes. Other transit safety
metrics are covered in the Reliability and System Preservation areas.
49
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Appendix 3: Illustrative Project Descriptions
East Street Widening
Pittsfield
Bus Rapid Transit on State Street
Corridor
Springfield
DMU Service to Lynn via Chelsea
Lynn, Chelsea
Description
Widening of East Street (Route
9), a principal arterial between
Lyman Street and Merrill Road,
to 3 or 4 lanes, which will
accommodate travel to and
from the downtown Pittsfield
area. This project will also
include other features such as
landscaping and pedestrian
amenities.
Description
Upgrading the B7 bus route to Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) with service at
the Eastfield Mall and Downtown
Springfield via State Street. Project
will use bus signal priority and
queue jump lanes to decrease travel
time and will improve bus stops and
passenger amenities.
Description
Upgrading the
Newburyport/Rockport line to
incorporate lighter weight Diesel
Multiple Unit (DMU) rail
passenger vehicles for service
from North Station to Chelsea and
Lynn located north of Boston. The
project will increase service
frequency compared to existing
commuter rail service.




Mode:
Vehicular
and
Pedestrian
Setting: Urban
MassDOT District: D1
MPO: Berkshire Regional
Planning Commission





Mode: Transit
Setting: Urban
MassDOT District: D2
MPO: Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission
RTA: Pioneer Valley Transit
Authority
FRTA Maintenance Facility
Greenfield
Construction of I-495/Route 1A
Ramps
Wrentham
Description
Construction of a larger,
modern bus maintenance
facility to replace the existing,
outdated facility.
Description
Construction of ramps at the Route
1A and I-495 interchange to
accommodate increased traffic
volume from local developments.
Potential mitigation measures such
as a median island might also be
included to meet the Town’s long
range plan for the interchange.





Mode: Vehicular
Setting: Urban
MassDOT District: D2
MPO: Franklin Regional
Council of Governments
RTA: Franklin Regional
Transit Authority




Mode: Vehicular
Setting: Suburban
MassDOT District: D5
MPO:
Boston
Metropolitan
Organization
Region
Planning



Mode: Rail Transit
Setting: Urban
MassDOT District: D4 (Lynn)
and D6 ( Chelsea)

MPO: Boston Region
Metropolitan Planning
Organization

RTA: Massachusetts Bay
Transit Authority (MBTA)
Reconstruction of Causeway
Street
Boston
Description
Improvements for pedestrian and
bicycles, which will transform
Causeway Street into a pedestrian
oriented boulevard. Includes
reconstruction along with traffic
signals, modified lane usage
upgrades, cycle track, sidewalk
improvements, lighting and
landscaping.




Mode: Pedestrian and Bicycle
Setting: Urban
MassDOT District: D6
MPO:
Boston
Region
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
50
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Reconstruction of Route 2
Erving
Twin City Rail Trail
Fitchburg, Leominster
Route 24/Route 140 Interchange
Reconstruction
Taunton
Description
Reconstruction of Route 2 for a
1.7 mile stretch that includes
downtown Erving. The project
will include
intersection/roadway
alignment improvements,
signage, pavement markings,
new sidewalks, a potential
lowering of the vertical curve
between Mountain Road and
North Street and the
installation of a traffic signal at
North Street with a dedicated
left turn lane into the village
center.
Description
Construction of a 4.2 mile
pedestrian/bicycle path using the
existing CSX, Inc. rail corridor located
between downtown Leominster and
the Arthur DiTommaso Bridge in
Fitchburg (John T. Centrino
Memorial Drive), which is located
approximately a half-mile from
downtown via Water Street.
Description
Improvements to Route 24 and
Route 140 Interchange that will
include Route 24 bridge
replacement over Route 140. The
ramps will be modified to improve
vehicular flow to each highway
access.





Mode:
Vehicular
and
Pedestrian

Setting:
Rural
(Town
Center)

MassDOT District: D2

MPO: Franklin Regional
Council of Governments
Reconstruction of Ferry
Street/Elm Street
Everett
Description
Reconstruction of Ferry Street
from Belmont Street (Malden
city line) to Route 16 and Elm
Street between Ferry Street and
Woodlawn Street. The project
will include traffic calming, curb
extensions, new sidewalks, and
wheelchair ramps. Six traffic
signals will be upgraded, and
the Chelsea Street traffic signal
will be replaced with a
roundabout.




Mode:
Vehicular
and
Pedestrian
Setting: Urban
MassDOT District: D4
MPO:
Boston
Region
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
Mode: Pedestrian and Bicycle
Setting: Urban and Suburban
MassDOT District: D3
MPO: Montachusett Regional
Planning Commission




Mode: Vehicular
Setting: Suburban
MassDOT District: D5
MPO: Southeastern Regional
Planning
and
Economic
Development District
Tyringham Road
Lee
Housatonic Street
Dalton
Description
The purpose of this project is to
rehabilitate and improve Tyringham
Road through resurfacing, a minor
widening and the installation of a
closed draining system. The work
includes the construction of
retaining walls, a new sidewalk and
new guardrails. Traffic control signs
will be replaced as necessary.
Description
The work consists of the full depth
reconstruction of Housatonic
Street from Routes 8 & 9 (Main
Street) to just west of Route 8
(Hinsdale Road). Also included
are sidewalks, drainage
improvements, new pavement,
curbing, pavement markings, and
signing.





Mode: Vehicular
Setting: Rural
MassDOT District: D1
MPO: Berkshire Metropolitan
Planning Organization



Mode:
Vehicular
and
Pedestrian
Setting: Rural
MassDOT District: D1
MPO: Berkshire Metropolitan
Planning Organization
51
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Route 114 Improvements
North Andover and Lawrence
Bus on I-93 Shoulder
Description
Work consists of resurfacing,
widening, some bike lanes and
striped shoulders, and sidewalk
reconstruction on Route 114 in
Lawrence and North Andover.
Description
The Merrimack Valley Regional
Transit Authority (MVRTA) is
studying the feasibility of operating
“Bus on Shoulder” in the
breakdown lane of I-93 to allow
commuter bus routes to bypass
rush hour peak direction traffic.




Mode:
Vehicular
and
Pedestrian
Setting: Urban/Suburban
MassDOT District: D4
MPO: Merrimack Valley
Planning Commission





Mode: Vehicular
Setting: Suburban
MassDOT District: D4
MPO:
Merrimack
Valley
Planning Commission
RTA:
Merrimack
Valley
Regional Transit Authority
52
Appendix 4: Project Prioritization Framework
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report to the Legislature
Appendix 5: Written Comments from the Public
Available upon request: jennifer.slesinger@state.ma.us
54