Regional Equity Analysis
Of Current Funding
(Highway STIP and CIP)
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
3
Introduction and Analysis Framework ....................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
The Project Selection Advisory Council ........................................................................... 1-1
1.2
Analysis Methodology ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3
Metrics .............................................................................................................................. 1-4
1.4
Key Findings .................................................................................................................... 1-6
Chapter 90 Apportionment Funding .......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1
Chapter 90 Funding per Capita ........................................................................................ 2-1
2.2
Chapter 90 Funding per Roadway Lane Mile .................................................................. 2-3
2.4
Chapter 90 Allocation Summary ...................................................................................... 2-5
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ................................................................. 3-5
3.1
STIP Highway Funding per Capita .................................................................................. 3-6
3.2
STIP Highway Funding per Roadway Lane Mile ............................................................. 3-7
3.3
STIP Highway Funding by Urban and Suburban/Rural ................................................. 3-12
3.3.1 Urban and Suburban/Rural Analysis per Capita ................................................... 3-12
3.3.2 Urban and Suburban/Rural Analysis per Lane Mile .............................................. 3-14
3.4
4
STIP Highway Funding Allocation Summary ................................................................. 3-15
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) ..................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
CIP Funding per Capita ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2
CIP Funding by Urban and Suburban/Rural .................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Urban and Suburban/Rural Analysis per Capita ..................................................... 4-2
4.3
5
CIP Highway Funding Allocation Summary ..................................................................... 4-3
Qualitative Assessment of Regional Equity .............................................................................. 5-1
5.1
Funding Summary by District ........................................................................................... 5-1
5.2
Funding Summary by Metropolitan Planning Organization ............................................. 5-1
5.3
Funding Summary by Urban and Suburban/Rural ........................................................... 5-2
5.4
Bridge Analysis ................................................................................................................ 5-3
5.4.1
Bridge Sufficiency Rating .................................................................................... 5-3
5.5
Pavement Analysis........................................................................................................... 5-4
5.6
Project Value Outlier Analysis .......................................................................................... 5-5
5.6.1
Issue description and background ...................................................................... 5-5
5.6.2
Discussion and Analysis ..................................................................................... 5-5
5.6.3
Findings ............................................................................................................... 5-6
LIST OF FIGURES and Tables
Figure 1-1: MassDOT Highway Districts .................................................................................................... 1-1
Figure 1-2: Metropolitan Planning Organizations ...................................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-3: Urbanized Areas ...................................................................................................................... 1-3
Table 1-1: Urbanized Areas by District ...................................................................................................... 1-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 1-2: Urbanized Areas by MPO Region ............................................................................................. 1-4
Figure 1-4: Proportions of Statewide Population and Lane Miles by District ............................................. 1-5
Figure 1-5: Proportions of Statewide Population and Lane Miles by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest
to Lowest) ................................................................................................................................................... 1-5
Figure 1-6: Residents per Lane Mile by District ......................................................................................... 1-6
Figure 1-7: Residents per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest) ..................... 1-6
Figure 2-1: Chapter 90 Funding per Capita by District .............................................................................. 2-2
Figure 2-2: Chapter 90 Funding per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest) ........... 2-2
Table 2-1: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by District .......................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-3: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by District ......................................................................... 2-3
Table 2-2: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest) ...... 2-4
Figure 2-4: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest) ..... 2-5
Figure 3-1: STIP Highway Funding per Capita by District ......................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-2: STIP Highway Funding per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest) ...... 3-7
Table 3-1: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by District ..................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3-3: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by District .................................................................... 3-8
Table 3-2: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest)3-11
Figure 3-4: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest)3-11
Figure 3-5: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Capita by District ............. 3-13
Figure 3-7: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Lane Mile by District ....... 3-14
Figure 3-8: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered
by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest) ........................................................................................................... 3-15
Figure 4-1: CIP Funding per Capita by District .......................................................................................... 4-1
Figure 4-2: CIP Funding per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest) ...................... 4-2
Figure 4-3: Per Capita CIP Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas by District ............................... 4-3
Figure 5-1: Total Program Funding Comparison by District ...................................................................... 5-1
Figure 5-2: Program Total Funding Comparison by MPO (Ordered by Funding, Highest to Lowest) ....... 5-2
Figure 5-3: Suburban/Rural and Urban Funding Proportions by Funding Program .................................. 5-2
Figure 5-5: STIP Pavement Funding versus Fair/Poor Lane miles ........................................................... 5-5
Figure 5-6: Chapter 90 Total Funding Compared with Filtered STIP and CIP Total Funding .................. 5-6
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page ii
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP)
1
Introduction and Analysis Framework
1.1
The Project Selection Advisory Council
The Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council was established by the Massachusetts Legislature in
Section 11 of Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013 to review existing statewide project evaluation criteria and
prioritization processes for Massachusetts’ multi-modal transportation system. The PSA Council will
recommend changes for a more uniform, transparent and data-driven prioritization process that reflects
MassDOT’s mission to provide our nation’s safest and most reliable transportation system to strengthen
1
the economy and quality of life across the Commonwealth.
Initial PSA Council meetings have highlighted the importance of regional equity as one of the top level
criteria to be considered. Council members have requested data and charts to see how transportation
funding is being allocated regionally today, organized by MassDOT district, Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) region, and other regional and geographic measures. For purposes of this memo,
regional equity is a goal to ensure that the distribution of transportation funding across the
Commonwealth is not unreasonably higher or lower in certain geographic areas compared to others. PSA
Council members have also observed that all regions have transportation needs that exceed available
funding levels and that no municipality or region is receiving more transportation funding than they need.
1.2
Analysis Methodology
This technical memo provides an analysis of the regional allocation of transportation funding in three
major funding programs: 1) the Chapter 90 Apportionment Funding for 2015; 2) the current State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Highway projects only for 2014-2017; and 3) the current
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for 2014-2018. Chapter 90 is a formula driven state program with funding
allocation patterns considered to be generally equitable across the Commonwealth. Therefore, at the
suggestion of the PSA Council, the regional allocation pattern of Chapter 90 funding was used as a
measure for comparing the regional allocation patterns of the STIP and CIP programs. Through meetings
and ongoing coordination and feedback from the PSA Council, the project lists for the STIP and CIP
funding programs were refined for the analysis.
Each funding program was analyzed to determine spending levels by:





MassDOT Highway District,
2
MPO ,
Per Capita (based on 2010 census numbers),
Per Roadway Lane Mile (obtained from the 2013 MassDOT road inventory file), and
3
Urban compared to Suburban/Rural.
1
Project Selection Advisory Council Mission Statement, MassDOT website, August 2014.
In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, there are 10 designated MPOs and three Regional Planning Agencies, which are too
small to be officially designated as MPOs, but which function as MPOs. All 13 are included in this analysis as MPOs.
3
For the purposes of this analysis, urban areas were defined as municipalities containing census blocks with 5,000 persons or more
per square mile. All other municipalities were considered suburban and rural areas (suburban/rural). The data was obtained from
2010 Census Block Group Files supplied by MassGIS. Based on this definition, 73% of the total population is within the urban areas
and 27% of the population is within the suburban/rural areas.
2
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 1-1
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP)
Figure 1-1: MassDOT Highway Districts
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 1-1
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP)
Figure 1-2: Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 1-2
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP)
Figure 1-3: Urbanized Areas
Table 1-1: Urbanized Areas by District
District
1
Total Land
Area (Sq Mi)
1630
Urban Area
(Sq Mi)
86
Urban
Area (%)
5%
Population
(2010)
160,511
2
1621
303
19%
715,944
3
1715
302
18%
1,192,066
4
865
482
56%
1,699,341
5
1992
284
14%
1,453,045
6
260
197
76%
1,326,722
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 1-3
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP)
Table 1-2: Urbanized Areas by MPO Region
MPO
Berkshire
Boston Region
Cape Cod
Central
Massachusetts
Franklin
Martha's Vineyard
Merrimack Valley
Montachusett
Nantucket
Northern Middlesex
Old Colony
Pioneer Valley
Southeastern
Massachusetts
Total Land
Area
(Sq Mi)
946
1440
412
960
Urban Area
(Sq Mi)
Urban Area
(%)
Population
86
629
0
96
9%
44%
0%
10%
131,219
3,143,875
215,963
556,698
725
106
278
684
49
196
344
1179
806
53
0
148
88
0
62
73
250
187
7%
0%
53%
13%
0%
32%
21%
21%
23%
71,372
16,460
333,748
236,475
286,901
10,172
306,506
621,570
616,670
In addition to the funding analysis, additional analyses were conducted where potential inequity was
identified. Methods included an outlier analysis, an analysis on number and condition of bridges, and an
analysis on pavement condition.
1.3
Metrics
The metrics of funding per capita and funding per lane mile are used to determine relative allocations by
district and by MPO as they are two factors that would weigh heavily into determining appropriate funding
amounts. Figure 1-4 illustrates how these factors apply across the districts. District 1 is the most rural,
with the lowest population and the fewest lane miles per square mile. While District 6 is the most urban,
its population lies in the middle and its lane miles is actually the second smallest because the land area is
so small. Districts 4 and 5, which include the Boston suburbs, consist of larger land areas and have the
greatest populations. It is important to note, however, that populations fluctuate over time. District 6
increases several fold in population during the workday and District 5, for example, increases significantly
in population in the summer months due to tourism on Cape Cod and the Islands.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 1-4
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP)
Figure 1-4: Proportions of Statewide Population and Lane Miles by District
Population %
Lane Mile %
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Figure 1-5: Proportions of Statewide Population and Lane Miles by MPO (Ordered by Population,
Highest to Lowest)
Population %
Lane Mile %
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Analyzing districts and MPOs by residents per lane mile confirms the differences in population density by
region. Figure 1-6 shows that District 6 has over four times the population per lane mile of District 1.
Similarly for MPOs, Figure 1-7 shows that Boston has over five times the number of people per lane mile
as Franklin. These differences are important to note because they impact funding allocation patterns.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 1-5
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP)
Figure 1-6: Residents per Lane Mile by District
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Figure 1-7: Residents per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
-
1.4
Key Findings
The MassDOT highway districts and MPOs were ranked based on analysis of funding levels for Chapter
90, STIP highway, and the CIP across regional equity measures determined most relevant, which
included total funding for projects, funding per capita, funding per lane mile, and funding in urban
compared to suburban/rural areas. The key findings of the analysis are summarized below:

The Chapter 90 funding allocation shows good regional equity characteristics for both districts
and MPOs and is used as a benchmark for analyzing the STIP highway and CIP allocations. Per
capita and per lane mile analyses produce different funding distributions that are largely
dependent on relative proportions of population and lane miles in a given region. These trends
are important to note for comparison against the STIP and CIP funding programs (see Section 2).
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 1-6
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP)

STIP highway funds include many high value bridge projects not covered under Chapter 90
allotments. Thus, the per capita and per lane mile analyses show that District 2, Pioneer Valley
MPO, and Martha’s Vineyard MPO are proportionally greater than their Chapter 90 allotments.
District 5, Old Colony, and Nantucket have consistently low funding allocation among different
analyses (see Section 3).

Similar to STIP highway allocations, CIP funds include many high value bridge and transit
projects not covered under Chapter 90 allocations, which is why District 6, the Boston MPO, and
the Martha’s Vineyard MPO show proportionally higher funding levels when compared to Chapter
90. District 3, District 5, and Old Colony MPO have consistently low funding allocations across the
analyses (see Section 4).

For MassDOT Highway districts, District 5 receives the lowest funding per lane mile and per
capita compared to Chapter 90 allocations.

District 6 and District 2 receive relatively higher amounts of funding than other districts per lane
mile and per capita (see Section 5.1).

For MPOs, Old Colony receives the lowest funding per lane mile and per capita when compared
to Chapter 90 allocations. Martha’s Vineyard has both the highest funding per lane mile and per
capita compared to Chapter 90 (see Section 5.2).

On a per capita basis, the STIP has a relatively equal distribution between urban and
suburban/rural for highway projects (see Section 3.3). The CIP provides a larger share of funding
on a per capita basis to urban areas. Much of this additional funding is for large transit or bridge
projects.

Analyzing the number and condition of bridges in each MPO shows that although Old Colony
appears to have disproportionally low funding, it has the fewest number and best condition
bridges of all MPOs. Conversely, Martha’s Vineyard, often ranking highest among MPOs in
funding analyses, has the lowest average bridge rating (see Section 5.4).

Comparing STIP highway funding to pavement condition does not produce uniquely significant
results, but agrees with other analyses identifying relatively low funding allocation in District 5
(which contains Old Colony) (see Section 5.5).

Removing large value “outlier” projects decreases the variance in funding among MPOs, thus
providing results that exhibit a more consistent level of regional equity in the funding patterns.
However, Old Colony still seems to underperform even when outliers are removed. Nevertheless,
this analysis suggests that regional equity may warrant two levels of tracking going forward: By
removing outliers, or mega-projects, from the analysis to understand more consistent spending
habits, as well as by tracking mega-projects separately to understand how these one-off large
projects are distributed throughout the state (see Section 5.6).

Based on the entire analysis, District 5 may still warrant additional attention, given how it
consistently received a lower share of the funding than anticipated. Some of this apparent
inequity may be explained by the number and quality of bridges in Old Colony, but given that the
population of District 5 is often-times much greater than the stated population due to tourism,
MassDOT may want to pay closer attention to funding allocations in the District going forward.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 1-7
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
2
Chapter 90 Apportionment Funding
This section summarizes the distribution of the $200 million Chapter 90 Program funding for federal fiscal
year 2015. The Chapter 90 Program was enacted on March 23, 1973, by vote of the Public Works
Commission to entitle municipalities to reimbursement of documented expenditures under the provisions
of General Laws, Chapter 90, Section 34, and Clause 2(a) on approved projects. The funds provided from
transportation bond issues authorizes such capital improvement projects for highway construction,
preservation and improvement projects that create or extend the life of capital facilities. The formula for
determining Chapter 90 apportionment funding is based 60% on lane miles, 20% on population, and 20%
on employment.
Chapter 90 funds are allocated to roadway projects, such as resurfacing and related work and other work
incidental to the above such as preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, shoulders, landscaping
and tree planting, drainage, structures (including bridges), sidewalks, traffic control and service facilities,
and street lighting.
All Chapter 90 analyses are performed for the year 2015. Chapter 90 funding allocations are generally
regarded to be equitable, though insufficient to meet identified transportation funding needs.
2.1
Chapter 90 Funding per Capita
Figure 2-1 shows the per capita distribution of Chapter 90 funding by highway district. District 1 has the
highest funding per capita, which may be explained by its relatively large geographic area and low
population density. Districts 4 and 6 have the lowest funding per capita, but also have the highest
population compared to number of lane miles (see
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 2-1
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Figure 1-4).
Figure 2-1: Chapter 90 Funding per Capita by District
$90
$80
$70
$79
$60
$50
$40
$37
$30
$34
$32
$20
$25
$24
$10
$0
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Figure 2-2 shows the per capita distribution of Chapter 90 funding by MPO. While the absolute range
between the highest and lowest is somewhat similar for the MPO analysis as in the district analysis, there
is more variation within the range for the MPOs. The relatively small size and low total population
contained within some of the MPOs, such as for example the Franklin, Nantucket, and Martha’s Vineyard
MPOs, allows for single projects to have a more significant impact on the analysis for these areas. The
Franklin MPO has the highest funding per capita, which is expected given the formula because it also has
the lowest number of residents per lane mile (see Figure 1-7).
Figure 2-2: Chapter 90 Funding per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest)
$90
$80
$85
$70
$60
$63
$61
$50
$40
$40
$30
$20
$34
$26
$30
$43
$46
$35
$28
$27
$28
$10
$0
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 2-2
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
2.2
Chapter 90 Funding per Roadway Lane Mile
Chapter 90 funding distribution per lane mile by District and MPO was also reviewed. Table 2-1 shows
the Chapter 90 funding, lane miles per district, and funding per lane mile by district.
As shown in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-3, District 6 has the highest funding of nearly $4,500 per lane mile.
By comparison, the other districts have lower but generally consistent funding ranging from approximately
$2,300 to $3,000 per lane mile. Although District 6 has the lowest Chapter 90 funding per capita, it has
the highest funding per lane mile. (see Figure 1-6).
Table 2-1: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by District
MassDOT Highway
District
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Grand Total (All)
Chapter 90
Funding
Lane Miles
Funding per Lane
Mile
$ 12,666,953
$ 26,258,358
$ 40,289,795
$ 42,292,122
$ 46,712,262
$ 31,780,510
$ 200,000,000
5,613
10,769
15,336
14,166
20,360
7,104
73,349
$2,257
$2,438
$2,627
$2,986
$2,294
$4,473
$2,726
Figure 2-3: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by District
$5,000
$4,500
$4,473
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,986
$2,500
$2,000
$2,257
$2,438
$2,627
$2,294
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
As shown in Table 2-2 and
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 2-3
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Figure 2-4, Boston has the highest funding of nearly $3,400 per lane mile. Funding per lane mile values
for other MPOs are all less than $2,900 per lane mile. Cape Cod has the lowest funding of approximately
$1,800 per lane mile. Although the Boston MPO has the lowest funding per capita (see Figure 2-2), it has
the highest funding per lane mile. This is the expected result because Boston has the highest population
and employment per lane mile, which are the other factors in the formula (see Figure 1-7).
Table 2-2: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest)
Chapter 90
Funding
Lane Miles
Funding per Lane
Mile
Boston
$81,240,761
23,983
$3,387
Pioneer Valley
$21,324,850
8,535
$2,499
Southeast MA
$18,490,488
7,652
$2,416
Central MA
$19,270,845
7,524
$2,561
Cape Cod
$9,310,822
5,083
$1,832
Montachusett
$9,443,977
3,919
$2,410
Old Colony
$8,332,729
3,492
$2,386
Berkshire
$7,948,039
3,478
$2,285
Merrimack Valley
$9,221,708
3,468
$2,659
North Middlesex
$7,931,254
2,856
$2,777
Franklin
$6,089,525
2,789
$2,183
Martha's Vineyard
$758,893
345
$2,201
Nantucket
$636,108
224
$2,841
$200,000,000
73,349
$2,726
MPO
Total
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 2-4
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Figure 2-4: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest)
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
2.4
Chapter 90 Allocation Summary
The Chapter 90 funding program provides formula-driven allotments to ensure equity among
municipalities. Comparing funding per capita and funding per lane mile yields different results that are
largely dependent on population per lane mile. Low-density districts and MPOs generally have higher per
capita funding, but lower funding per lane mile. Conversely, districts and MPOs with higher population per
lane mile have lower per capita funding, but higher funding per lane mile. These trends are important to
note when comparing Chapter 90 against the STIP highway and CIP funding programs.
3
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
This section summarizes analysis of current funding programmed through the STIP for federal fiscal years
2014 to 2017. The STIP is a compilation of the individual Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs)
prepared annually by the state’s 13 MPOs. The STIP is a listing of transportation projects (roadway,
bridge, intermodal and transit projects) prioritized for funding over a five-year period, listed by funding
category and fiscal year. The STIP has two components: a highway component and a transit component.
This structure allowed the Council to focus on the highway component to understand how equitable
highway spending is across the Commonwealth. The MassDOT CIP (the focus of Chapter 4), which is
not organized as rigidly around mode, was used to understand the current state of equity in multimodal
investments in Massachusetts.
The funding programs for STIP highway projects include the following federal programs:






Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
Homeland Security Infrastructure Program (HSIP)
Scenic Byway Program
High Priority Projects
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 3-5
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)

National Highway Performance Program
Grant Anticipation Notes and other interest payments were removed from the analysis.
3.1
STIP Highway Funding per Capita
The analysis of highway projects for the STIP looked at spending per capita by highway district and by
MPO.
Figure 3-1 shows the per capita STIP funding for highway projects by district. Districts 1 and 2 have the
highest funding levels of $638 and $620 per capita, respectively, which is far higher than the other
districts. The other districts have funding levels ranging from $188 to $243 per capita. This pattern is
similar to that shown for Chapter 90 (see Figure 2-1), with the exception of District 2, where STIP per
capita highway funding is at nearly the same level as District 1. This is largely attributed to the high-value
STIP highway project on I-91 in Springfield, located in District 2.
Figure 3-1: STIP Highway Funding per Capita by District
$700
$600
$638
$620
$500
$400
$300
$243
$200
$234
$188
$206
District 5
District 6
$100
$0
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
Figure 3-2 shows the per capita expenditure of the STIP funding for highway projects by MPO. Martha’s
Vineyard has the highest funding of $2,300 per capita, and Old Colony has the least, with $74 per capita.
The reasons for the significantly wider range of funding per capita across the MPOs compared with the
highway districts is due to lower MPO populations, as described for the Chapter 90 analysis. There are
several low population MPOs where a handful of major projects (as in the case of Martha’s Vineyard) or a
relatively small highway network in good shape with relatively few bridges (as in the case of Old Colony)
results in per capita funding levels that are outliers. Although Boston has a large number of high value
projects, it has the third lowest funding per capita because of high population compared to the other
MPOs.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 3-6
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Figure 3-2: STIP Highway Funding per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest)
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
3.2
STIP Highway Funding per Roadway Lane Mile
STIP highway funding per lane mile was also analyzed by district and MPO. Table 3-1 shows the STIP
highway funding per lane mile by district. The total STIP highway funding available fiscal years 2014-2017
is $2.1 billion and the portion of that funding allocated to each of the six MassDOT Highway Districts is
$1.8 billion. The remaining STIP highway funding covers statewide initiatives and funding not allocated to
a specific district, (Statewide Storm Water Retrofits funding, for example) which have been allocated to
the “Other” category shown in the table.
As shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-3, funding per lane mile by district ranges from as low as $13,427 for
District 5 to as high as $41,242 for District 2. After District 2, District 6 has the highest funding of $38,413
per lane mile.
Table 3-1: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by District
MassDOT Highway
District
STIP Highway
Funding
Lane Miles
Funding per Lane
Mile
District 1
$102,426,047
5,613
$18,247
District 2
$444,149,330
10,769
$41,242
District 3
$289,693,445
15,336
$18,890
District 4
$397,318,487
14,166
$28,048
District 5
$273,374,909
20,360
$13,427
District 6
$272,906,576
7,104
$38,413
Other
$296,224,339
-
-
Subtotal (Districts only)
$1,779,868,793
73,349
$24,266
Grand Total (All)
$2,076,093,133
73,349
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 3-7
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Figure 3-3: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by District
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
STIP highway funding per lane mile by MPO was also analyzed and is described in
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 3-8
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Table 3-2. The total STIP highway funding for the 13 MPO regions is $1.7 billion, slightly different than the
amount allocated to specific districts as some projects are allocated district wide and not to specific
MPOs. The remaining STIP highway funding is grouped into the “Statewide” category, as shown in the
table.
As shown in
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 3-9
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Table 3-2 and Figure 3-4, funding per lane mile by MPO ranges from a low of $5,829 for Nantucket to a
high of $109,960 for Martha’s Vineyard. Martha’s Vineyard has only 345 total lane miles and its funding
per lane mile is particularly sensitive in this case to the presence of a large value bridge project. Funding
for other MPO regions are under $45,000 per lane mile. Nantucket and Old Colony both have the least
funding per lane mile (less than $7,000), for reasons explained in the per capita analysis (see Section
3.1).
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 3-10
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Table 3-2: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to
Lowest)
STIP Funding for
Highway Projects
Lane Miles
Funding per Lane
Mile
Boston
$543,686,717
23,983
$22,670
Pioneer Valley
$381,281,515
8,535
$44,674
Southeastern MA
$130,003,423
7,652
$16,990
Central MA
$166,553,769
7,524
$22,137
Cape Cod
$51,838,770
5,083
$10,198
Montachusett
$63,578,004
3,919
$16,222
Old Colony
$22,555,392
3,492
$6,459
Berkshire
$71,647,462
3,478
$20,599
$126,570,417
3,468
$36,498
N Middlesex
$87,487,735
2,856
$30,632
Franklin
$62,341,453
2,789
$22,350
Martha's Vineyard
$37,921,388
345
$109,960
$1,305,081
$329,322,007
224
-
$5,829
-
Subtotal (MPOs only)
$1,746,771,126
73,349
Grand Total (All)
$2,076,093,133
73,349
MassDOT Highway District
Merrimack Valley
Nantucket
Statewide
$23,813
Figure 3-4: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to
Lowest)
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 3-11
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
3.3
STIP Highway Funding by Urban and Suburban/Rural
While the question of regional equity is often focused on the share of funding going to the Boston MPO or
District 6 versus the rest of the state, there have also been concerns raised by the Council that
developing a project prioritization system based on current MassDOT goals and policies could favor
urban communities or other communities with older pre-automobile settlement patterns. Many of the
objectives identified by the Council thus far in the process—mode shift, GHG reduction, social equity and
increased physical activity—may be inherently easier to achieve in those areas of the Commonwealth
where current land use supports compact residential and commercial development. For these reasons,
the Council was interested in learning more about how current funding is allocated between areas of
compact development (for the purposes of this document, “urban”) and lower density suburban or rural
areas.
As explained in Chapter 1, “urban” was defined as areas (census blocks) with population density above
5,000 people per square mile. This is a density that is generally understood to be able to support fixed
route bus service, and also an environment conducive to making trips on foot or by bike. Due to the
complications of identifying hundreds of STIP and CIP projects by their census block, the analysis made
the compromise of categorizing an entire municipality as “urban” if any census blocks within it met the
density threshold. The result is an imperfect analysis that considers many municipalities in their entirety
as “urban” even though most would consider them to be either suburban or rural towns. All projects
within these municipalities were classified as “urban” as well. With more time, if the Council believes it
would be useful, the analysis could be more precise about these designations. But, since the concerns
raised were more related to the impact going forward of proposed PSA Council objectives and metrics on
lower-density communities, the imperfect classification of municipalities described above should be
sufficient for analysis of current trends. It is important, however, to remember that in this report the
definition of “urban” projects is much more expansive than just projects within areas above the 5,000
people/square mile threshold.
3.3.1 Urban and Suburban/Rural Analysis per Capita
Figure 3-5 shows per capita STIP highway funding in urban and rural/suburban areas by highway district.
More than 80 percent of the population in Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 live in towns classified as suburban/rural.
District 2 has significantly higher per capita funding in urban communities, largely due to the I-91 viaduct
project in Springfield. No suburban/rural STIP projects exist in District 6, where only four towns (Canton,
Dover, Westwood and Weston) representing 3.9% of the district’s population are considered
suburban/rural.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 3-12
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Figure 3-5: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Capita by District
Suburban/Rural STIP Spending per Capita
Urban STIP Spending per Capita
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Figure 3-6 shows per capita STIP highway funding in urban and suburban/rural areas for each MPO.
Boston highway STIP funding is almost completely proportional on a per capita basis. In Pioneer Valley,
as with District 2, urban funding is significantly higher due largely to the I-91 viaduct project. Similarly, In
Northern Middlesex, a few high value bridge projects may be skewing the distribution more towards urban
areas. Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket do not have any urban areas and Martha’s Vineyard
has a very large bridge project that is skewing the data.
Figure 3-6: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Capita by MPO
(Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest)
Suburban/Rural STIP Funding per Capita
Urban STIP Funding per Capita
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$-
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 3-13
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
3.3.2 Urban and Suburban/Rural Analysis per Lane Mile
Figure 3-7 shows STIP highway funding per lane mile in urban and rural/suburban communities by
highway district. District 2 has significantly higher funding per lane mile in urban municipalities, largely
due to the I-91 viaduct project. And again, no suburban/rural STIP projects exist in District 6.
Figure 3-7: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Lane Mile by District
Suburban/Rural STIP Spending per Lane Mile
Urban STIP Spending per Lane Mile
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Figure 3-8 shows the same breakdown of per lane mile STIP funding. Again, Pioneer Valley funding is
somewhat skewed by the I-91 viaduct project. Unlike the per capita distribution, which seemed relatively
equitable between urban and rural areas, most MPOs have greater spending per lane mile in urban
areas. The consistently higher levels of spending per lane mile across all regions in urban areas may be
an indication of both the greater wear and tear on urban roadways given their heavier usage and possibly
the more complicated nature of roadway projects in a more constrained urban environment.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 3-14
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Figure 3-8: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Lane Mile by MPO
(Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest)
Suburban/Rural STIP Funding per Lane Mile
Urban STIP Funding per Lane Mile
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$-
3.4
STIP Highway Funding Allocation Summary
STIP highway funds include many high value bridge projects that appear to result in some inequities
across regions. The largest of these is a $220 million viaduct deck replacement project on I-91 located in
Springfield. Similarly, the $38 million bridge replacement project in Martha’s Vineyard greatly impacts the
per capita and per lane mile funding levels for this small MPO due to the low population and number of
lane miles on the island. Overall, District 5, Old Colony, and Nantucket show consistently low funding
allocations across the different analyses. In Section 5, additional analyses are presented to try to explain
these findings.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 3-15
December 31, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
4
Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
This section summarizes funding programmed through the MassDOT CIP for federal fiscal years 2014 to
2018. The CIP provides the allocation of estimated state and federal revenues for the reconstruction,
maintenance and development of statewide highways, bicycle and pedestrian paths, bridges, local roads,
bus and rail networks and airports for the next five state fiscal years. In addition to the high value highway
projects also programmed through the STIP, the CIP includes a number of major transit projects such as
bus and rail vehicle procurements, the Green Line Extension project, and allocations to support the South
Coast Rail project.
The major funding programs for CIP include the following:





Transportation Bond Cap
Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP)
Federal Highway, Federal Aviation, Federal Transit, and Federal Railroad Administration Funding
Metropolitan Highway System (MHS) and Western Turnpike Toll Revenue,
Transportation Investment Fund (TIF)
Only one interest payment was included for CIP projects, totaling less than 0.1% of the CIP.
4.1
CIP Funding per Capita
Figure 4-1 shows per capita CIP funding by district. District 6 is the highest with almost $3,000 per capita.
District 3 has per capita funding of less than $700. District 6 has the lowest funding per capita for Chapter
90 (see Figure 2-1), but the largest per capita allocation of CIP funds. This is due to the large number of
high value bridge and MBTA projects in District 6 funded by the CIP.
Figure 4-1: CIP Funding per Capita by District
$3,500
$3,000
$2,984
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,762
$1,000
$1,198
$1,101
$879
$500
$685
$0
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Figure 4-2 shows per capita CIP funding by MPO. Martha’s Vineyard has the highest funding of $3,900
per capita. Montachusett, Northern Middlesex, and Old Colony all have per capita funding (below $500).
The Boston MPO has the third largest funding amount per capita.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 4-1
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Figure 4-2: CIP Funding per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest)
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
Since the CIP’s inclusion of transit funding makes regional comparisons of spending per lane mile less
informative (the comparison would want to look at spending across a more multimodal set of assets), the
per lane mile analysis conducted for the STIP was not repeated for the CIP.
4.2
CIP Funding by Urban and Suburban/Rural
CIP funding distribution across urban and suburban/rural areas was reviewed and compared. The
analysis used the same definitions of urban and suburban/rural as Chapter 90 (see Section 2.3).
4.2.1 Urban and Suburban/Rural Analysis per Capita
4
Figure 4- shows per capita CIP funding in urban and rural/suburban municipalities by highway district.
Compared to the Highway STIP (see Error! Reference source not found.) the CIP has a similar
distribution of suburban/rural funds. District 6 has significantly higher urban funding, owing both to several
expensive urban bridge projects and large MBTA transit projects.
4
See discussion of urban vs. suburban/rural analysis in Section 3.3.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 4-2
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Figure 4-3: Per Capita CIP Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas by District
Suburban/Rural CIP Spending per Capita
Urban CIP Spending per Capita
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Figure 4- shows per capita CIP funding for projects in urban and suburban/rural communities by MPO.
Boston’s per capita funding in urban municipalities is significantly higher than in suburban/rural areas.
Again, this is due to large MBTA projects, which were not included in the Highway STIP analysis.
Figure 4-4: Per Capita CIP Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas by MPO (Ordered by
Population, Highest to Lowest)
Suburban/Rural CIP Funding per Capita
Urban Chapter CIP per Capita
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$-
4.3
CIP Highway Funding Allocation Summary
CIP funds include many high value bridge projects, transit, and MBTA projects. In District 6 alone (and
thus the Boston MPO), the CIP funds four bridge replacement projects totaling $800 million, or four times
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 4-3
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
the total Chapter 90 allocation. The Boston MPO also has over $2 billion in MBTA projects to further skew
the allocation in the Boston region’s favor. Additionally, the $40 million bridge replacement project in
Martha’s Vineyard impacts the per capita and per lane mile funding levels for this MPO due to the low
population and number of lane miles on Martha’s Vineyard. Overall, District 3, District 5, and Old Colony
show consistently low funding allocations across the different analyses, which will be explored further in
Section 5.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 4-4
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
5
Qualitative Assessment of Regional Equity
Results for STIP and CIP funding analyses were compared against the proportion of Chapter 90 funding
allocated to each district and MPO to compare patterns of regional equity.
5.1
Funding Summary by District
Figure 5-1 (and subsequent figures in this chapter) shows the percentage of statewide Chapter 90, STIP
and CIP funding allocated to each region. The percent of total funding for Chapter 90, STIP highway, and
CIP are compared by district in Error! Reference source not found.. The greatest deviation occurs in
District 6 where the proportion of CIP funding is nearly triple that of Chapter 90 funding. The second
greatest deviation is in District 2 where the proportion of STIP funding is nearly double that of Chapter 90
funding. Districts 1, 3, and 5 all have lower STIP and CIP funding compared to Chapter 90 funding
allotments.
Figure 5-1: Total Program Funding Comparison by District
Chapter 90
STIP Highway
CIP
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
District 1
5.2
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Funding Summary by Metropolitan Planning Organization
The percent of statewide funding for Chapter 90, STIP, and CIP are compared by MPO in Figure 5-. For
reasons explained in the previous sections, in Martha’s Vineyard the proportion of STIP highway funding
is 5.7 times greater than Chapter 90 funding and the proportion of CIP funding is 1.5 times greater than
Chapter 90. Pioneer Valley’s highway STIP funding is twice its Chapter 90 allocation. Northern
Middlesex’s CIP is one quarter of its Chapter 90 allocation, but its highway STIP allocation is 1.25 its CIP
allocation. Old Colony has both STIP and CIP funding proportions about one quarter of its Chapter 90
proportion.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 5-1
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Figure 5-2: Program Total Funding Comparison by MPO (Ordered by Funding, Highest to Lowest)
Chapter 90
STIP Highway
CIP
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
5.3
Funding Summary by Urban and Suburban/Rural
Figure 5- shows the funding proportions of each funding program for urban and suburban/rural
municipalities. STIP highway funds are proportionally higher for urban areas than Chapter 90 funds, and
the CIP shows higher funding levels for urban areas than the STIP. One reason for this difference is
because the large size of STIP and CIP funds, they are able to fund large urban projects. For example,
the CIP allocates $280 million to the urban located Longfellow Bridge, which is larger than the total
amount of the $200 million Chapter 90 allotment.
Figure 5-3: Suburban/Rural and Urban Funding Proportions by Funding Program
Suburban/Rural
Urban
90%
80%
79%
70%
73%
60%
60%
50%
40%
30%
40%
27%
20%
21%
10%
0%
Chapter 90
STIP Highway
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
CIP
Page 5-2
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
5.4
Bridge Analysis
Approximately half of all transportation funding in the three programs reviewed go toward bridge projects.
A potential reason for significant differences in funding levels across regions using the various measures
used in this analysis is the number and condition of bridges in each region. These factors were analyzed
by MPO.
5.4.1
Bridge Sufficiency Rating
Bridges amount to approximately half of funding from the STIP and CIP, thus the number, length, and
condition of bridges by region is important to understand in an analysis of regional equity. The amount of
STIP bridge funding was estimated based on projects that contained the words “bridge” or “viaduct” in
their title. MassDOT uses a sufficiency rating with a 100-point scale to determine bridge status. Data was
5
obtained from the National Bridge Inventory Database.
Average bridge sufficiency ratings are compared with STIP bridge funding by MPO in Error! Reference
source not found.. The mean rating is 64 with a standard deviation of 12. Old Colony has an average
rating 1.3 standard deviations above the mean and Martha’s Vineyard’s rating is 2.1 standard deviations
below the mean. Thus, the apparent inequity shown in Error! Reference source not found., and other
cuts of the data from earlier sections, is at least partially a result of the state of bridges in each MPO. Old
Colony appears to have disproportionally low funding, however it has the highest rated and the fewest
bridges of all MPOs. Martha’s Vineyard, on the other hand, was often ranked high among MPOs for per
capita STIP and CIP funding, which can potentially be justified as it has the lowest average bridge rating.
As has been noted throughout the report, a large share of Martha’s Vineyard’s funding is going to a high
value bridge replacement project.
Figure 5-4: Average Bridge Sufficiency Rating by MPO, 2012 (Ordered by Sufficiency Rating,
Highest to Lowest)
5
http://nationalbridges.com/
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 5-3
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Table 5-1 may further help to explain variations in funding due to the number of bridges in each MPO.
Table 5-1: Number of Bridges by MPO
MPO
Number of
Bridges
Boston
930
Pioneer Valley
508
Central Massachusetts
459
Southeastern Massachusetts
322
Berkshire
297
Franklin
220
Montachusett
220
Merrimack Valley
181
Northern Middlesex
113
Old Colony
59
Cape Cod
46
Martha’s Vineyard
1
Nantucket
1
5.5
Pavement Analysis
Highway projects account for over one third of MassDOT funding allocations, and include a high
percentage of pavement and resurfacing projects. Pavement is rated by MassDOT as being in excellent,
good, fair or poor condition. An analysis was conducted to compare STIP highway funding to DOT
maintained lane miles rated fair or poor for pavement condition to determine whether regions with worse
pavement conditions are receiving more or less funding than regions with higher performing pavement.
Because it is difficult on a project level basis to isolate dollars spent on pavement, the entire STIP is used
to relate spending to pavement condition in the analysis. The results in Error! Reference source not
found. show that District 3 has a much greater proportion of statewide STIP highway funding than its
proportion of the state’s fair/poor lane miles. District 5 has the greatest discrepancy between STIP
spending and fair/poor lane miles, which agrees with other analyses pointing towards relatively low
funding levels for District 5 compared to the other districts.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 5-4
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
Figure 5-5: STIP Pavement Funding versus Fair/Poor Lane miles
STIP PAVEMENT SPENDING vs PAVEMENT CONDITION
40%
STIP Spending
Fair/Poor Lane Miles
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
5.6
Project Value Outlier Analysis
5.6.1
Issue description and background
District 5
District 6
Based on the analyses in this report, it has become apparent that geographic equity in transportation
funding can be impacted by large value projects. Large value projects can be considered outliers in the
total transportation funding patterns at the MPO or highway district level. Removing outliers allows the
analysis to focus on a more typical range of projects and project cost, as infrequent “mega-projects” can
easily skew the results when looking at a single plan horizon.
STIP and CIP project outliers are analyzed independently. Outliers are assumed to be greater than two
standard deviations away from the mean, based on ranked order. In other words, the highest 2.3% of
projects are assumed to be outliers, removing the eight highest value projects from the STIP and the 33
highest value projects from the CIP. For the STIP, the project outlier value is approximately $20 million
for the years 2014 to 2017, and the CIP outlier value is approximately $30 million for the years 2014 to
2018. Removing outliers decreases the funding distribution’s range and variance, especially for the CIP.
5.6.2
Discussion and Analysis
Metrics analyzed are total funding, funding per lane-mile, and funding per capita. The charts in this
section can be compared with the charts in Section 5-2 to understand the extent to which the removal of
outliers impacts the appearance of equity between the different funding sources.
Figure 5-6 illustrates the percentage of each funding source allocated to each MPO, when the outliers in
the STIP and CIP are removed. Compared with Figure 5-2, where the CIP relative allocation for the
Boston MPO is 1.5 the relative allocation for Chapter 90, when the outliers are removed, the CIP
allocation is only 1.02 the Chapter 90 allocation. With the outliers removed, the Southeastern
Massachusetts MPO, Franklin and Boston are the only two MPOs that receive a greater proportion of CIP
funding than Chapter 90. The differences in proportions are all less than 45 percent
The Boston MPO shows the largest discrepancy for the STIP in percentage terms, but still receives 80
percent of the relative allocation for STIP funds than Chapter 90 funds. Old Colony receives only half the
proportion of CIP funds compared to its Chapter 90 allocation, although it is only a 2 percent difference.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 5-5
December 2, 2014
REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (Highway STIP AND CIP)
For the remainder of the MPOs, the discrepancy is less than plus or minus 28 percent the relative
allocation of STIP funds to Chapter 90.
Figure 5-6: Chapter 90 Total Funding Compared with Filtered STIP and CIP Total Funding
Chapter 90
STIP - Outliers Removed
CIP - Outliers Removed
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Old Colony continues to appear to receive an inequitably low share of STIP and CIP funding even when
outliers are removed. However, based on the analysis in Section 5-5, the good quality and low number of
bridges, as well as the lack of interstates might justify systematic deviation from the Chapter 90 allocation.
5.6.3
Findings
Infrequent high cost projects have the potential to influence the short-term pattern of transportation
funding by region. Focusing on the lower 97.7 percent of projects results in a more equitable pattern of
funding levels. Additionally, the removal of outlier projects for STIP and CIP funding produces a more
equitable percentage based distribution by MPO than Chapter 90 funding. It is recommended that the
removal of outliers be considered when determining results of a region equity analysis for a given year or
plan. That is not to say, however, that mega-project should not be considered when trying to understand
regional equity. The outliers, or mega-projects, should be tracked separately to ensure that over time,
mega-projects are distributed appropriately across the state.
Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council – Draft Tech Memo
Page 5-6
December 2, 2014