Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report
Supplemental Documents
Meeting and Public Hearing Schedule
Agendas and Meeting Notes
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
1
Project Selection Advisory Council Meetings
January 28, 2014
Boston– 10 Park Plaza, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 2/3, Boston, MA, 02216
(9:30am to 11:00am)
March 13, 2014
Worcester - Union Station - 2 Washington Square - 2nd Floor
(10:00 am to12:00pm)
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Worcester - Union Station - 2 Washington Square - 2nd Floor
(9:00am to11:00pm)
April 16, 2014
Worcester - 60 Foster Street • Worcester, MA
(1:00pm to 3:00pm)
April 29, 2014
Greenfield - 12 Olive St., Greenfield, MA
(12:30pm to 4:30 pm)
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
2
Project Selection Advisory Council Public Hearings
May 20th 2014 – District 1 Public Hearing
Pittsfield – 1 Wendell Avenue, Pittsfield, MA 01201
(5:30pm to 7:00pm)
July 29th 2014 – District 6 Public Hearing
Boston– 10 Park Plaza, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 2/3, Boston, MA, 02216
(11:00am to 12:30pm)
September 16th 2014 – District 2 Public Hearing
Springfield – Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, 60 Congress Street, Springfield, MA
01104
(11:30am to 1:00pm)
September 24th 2014 – District 4 Public Hearing
Haverhill – Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, 160 Main Street, Haverhill, MA
01830
(2:30pm to 4:00pm)
October 20th 2014 – District 5 Public Hearing
Barnstable – Cape Cod Commission, 3225 Main Street, Barnstable, MA 02630
(2:30pm to 4:00pm)
November 12th 2014 – District 3 Public Hearing
Worcester – Union Station (Union Hall), 2 Washington Square, Worcester, MA, 01608
(6:30pm to 8:00pm)
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
3
Project Selection Advisory Council
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
9:30-11:30 a.m.
State Transportation Building
2 Floor Conference Rooms 2 & 3
10 Park Plaza
Boston, Massachusetts
nd
1. Safety Briefing
2. Introductions
3. Objectives of the Council
A. Develop Project Selection Criteria
B. Develop a Project Priority Formula
4. Explanation of Metropolitan Planning Regulations
5. Overview of Current Project Evaluation Criteria and Prioritization
A. Statewide
B. Regional by MPO
6. Schedule of Council Meetings
7. Schedule of Six Public Hearings
8. Other Items
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of January 28, 2014
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting
January 28, 2014 Meeting
9:30 AM – 11:30 AM, State Transportation Building, Conference Rooms 2&3, 10 Park
Plaza, Boston
Richard Davey, Chair, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts
Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
1. Safety Briefing
Safety Briefing was provided by Sheri Warrington, Manager of MPO Activities Group,
MassDOT- Office of Transportation Planning
2. Introductions
Secretary Davey introduced himself followed by the other members in the room. John
Pourbaix, Construction Industries of Massachusetts, Steve Silveira, MLS Strategies,
Jeff Mullan, Foley Hoag LLP, Frank DePaola, MassDOT Highway Administrator, David
Mohler, Deputy Secretary of Policy and Executive Director of Office of Transportation
Planning - MassDOT, Jim Lovejoy, Chairman of Board of Selectman, Town of Mt.
Washington representing Mass. Municipal Association and Berkshire MPO, Linda
Dunleavy, Gubernatorial Appointment representing the planning agencies, and Franklin
Regional Council of Governments
3. Objectives of the Council
Secretary Davey said the objective of the council is to bring more transparency to the
project selection process. In the past, projects were outlined/ ranked through the MPO
process, TIP process, litigation to some extent, and negotiations. He said given new
resources and revenues provided by the legislature to transportation, it’s time to think
more strategically as to how we invest into the system now and into the future.
He said the deliverables from the council will be; 1) one is to go across the state for the
next ten months and listen to folks, solicit feedback from average customer/ consumer,
from MPOs, regional planning agencies, consumer groups, and constituent groups, 2)
draft a report which will delineate how state should be selecting transportation projects
into the future. The Council will be looking at the MassDOT initiatives such as
GreenDOT, complete streets, mode shift goal, healthy transportation in selecting the
projects. The final report will be due to the legislature at the end of the 2014 calendar
year. As part of the statute, the council will be looking at the best practices from other
states around the country to develop the metrics and establish project selection criteria.
4
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
5
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of January 28, 2014
Ned Codd, Director of Project Oriented Planning, MassDOT- Office of Transportation
Planning talked about the mission of the council. He said the Chapter 46 of the 2013
Transportation Revenue Law calls on the Project Selection Advisory Council to develop
uniform project selection criteria to be used in the development of a comprehensive
state transportation plan. He talked about the MassDOT’s WeMove Massachusetts
statewide strategic transportation plan and the five year Capital Investment plan. He
added, Section11 of the Transportation Revenue Law, Chapter 46 talks about the
project selection advisory council and the criteria. Council may divide projects into
categories such as preservation and maintenance, modernization, expansion and Local
construction.
4. Explanation of Metropolitan Planning Regulations
Sheri Warrington, Manager of MPO Activities, MassDOT- Office of Transportation
Planning described the requirements of the MPO process. All federal funds need to be
programmed through the MPO process which includes regional target funding, and
regionally significant statewide projects. Requirements of MPO process should be
fulfilled in the prioritization of projects. She talked about the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process.
The four year TIP and STIP must be fiscally constrained and at each step they should
comply with Title VI and public participation plans that the regions have in place. MPOs
currently have their MPO approved evaluation criteria that is used to grade projects.
There is an overlap between some of the criteria the regions use in evaluating their
projects. The way the projects are scored and weighted is not consistent across the
regions. The council might want to standardize the scoring system for the state.
Ms. Warrington said, MAP-21 performance measures should be considered by the
council when selecting the projects. MAP-21 identifies specific performance measures
that the state DOT’s and MPOs should follow. MAP-21 is a two year transportation act
that extends through September 2014. Federal Government will be releasing the final
rule making in spring 2014. There are seven national goals defined by MAP-21. They
are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Safety
Infrastructure
Congestion Reduction
System Reliability
Freight Movement and Economic Vitality
Environmental Sustainability
Reduced Project Delivery Delay
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
6
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of January 28, 2014
There are six public meetings scheduled for the draft WeMove Massachusetts and
Capital Investment Plan documents. She suggested that the project selection advisory
council hearings could follow those meetings. It will be an opportunity for people to
understand all the components that come together in the state transportation plan.
For the council, the legislation specifically requires six public hearings held one in each
of the highway district of the state. These hearings will be subject to open meeting laws,
and notification should be posted 14 days in advance.
5. Council Members Discussion:
Jeff Mullen said the presentations seem to suggest that there are some mandatory
criteria established by federal and state law and that it is important the council know the
difference between the two. He suggested that it would be helpful to represent this
difference in a Venn or in an inverted pyramid diagram. He said it is ok to have nonuniform evaluation criteria for the selection of projects but it is necessary to have one
uniform dataset or one way to measure the data. He mentioned about looking at a table
of contents of deliverables.
Following-up on Mr. Mullen’s comments, Frank DePaola, MassDOT Highway
Administrator said that it will be helpful for the highway division to make a presentation
on bridge, and pavement data, and on crash locations collected by the division
throughout the state. It might be helpful for the council to know what’s available already.
Linda Dunleavy had suggested that she will find out about the data that regions are
collecting in this direction. She said a comparison can be made between the two sets of
data.
Secretary Davey said that it is important that the council clearly outline the specific
must-haves like safety criteria, and some nice-to-haves criteria such as reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions, and promoting economic development. He said that this
discussion of what is required to define the selection criteria will be on the agenda for
the next council meeting.
David Mohler, Deputy Secretary of Policy, and Executive Director of Office of
Transportation Planning-MassDOT added that it should be relatively easy to prioritize a
particular program given that the MassDOT highway division has a good way to
prioritize bridge projects.
Secretary Davey asked the staff to collect best practices from other states around the
country and focus on states that have a combination of rural, urban, and suburban
areas. He also talked about looking into Mass works process.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
7
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of January 28, 2014
Jim Lovejoy said that along with performance measures, prioritization of projects should
also be based on cost effectiveness.
Mr. Mullen said that MARPA should be informed about the council and he also wanted
to know what they felt should be the outcome of this process. He said it will be helpful to
hear from each of the MPOs about their views of some of these issues. This should be
reflected in the final report as a statement of purpose or goal. The council should set up
a process that will survive for a long time and one that can be easily understood by the
average citizen.
Secretary Davey suggested that the council meet on the same day the MPOs meet in
their regions so that the MPO members and other members of public can participate
and share their views. The Office of Transportation Planning will coordinate and
communicate about the council questions, research aspects etc. It might be a good idea
to schedule public hearings on the same day as the MPO meeting in the regions to
have good participation from the MPOs. Timelines for the council including the final
report should be defined by the next meeting. A draft calendar of the council meetings
and public hearings will be circulated to the council.
Items on the next meeting agenda
Best Practices from other states
MPOs in other states with urban/rural economy
MassDOT Highway Division presentation
Inverted Pyramid or Venn diagram with must-haves Vs. Nice-to-haves criteria
Council meeting/ public hearing schedule
Table of Contents of Deliverable
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
8
Project Selection Advisory Council
Meeting Agenda
Thursday, March 13, 2014
10:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m.
Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Council
Union Station - 2 Washington Square - 2nd Floor
Worcester, MA
1. Introductions
2. DRAFT Table of Contents for Final Report
3. Council Schedule, Public Hearing Schedule and Public Outreach
 Web Site for Council
 Email distribution list
 Required public notice
4. Project Selection Criteria and Evaluation of Best Practices
 Requirements for Massachusetts
 Implementation in other States
 Existing MassDOT Performance Objectives
5. Existing Evaluation Systems used by MassDOT Highway Division
 Bridge Index
 Pavement Management
 Highway Safety
6. Other Items
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. Accessibility
accommodations and language services will be provided free of charge, upon request, as available. Such services
include documents in alternate formats, translated documents, assistive listening devices, and interpreters (including
American Sign Language). For more information or to request reasonable accommodation and/or language services
please contact Sreelatha Allam at 857-368-8843 or Sreelatha.allam@state.ma.us .
If this information is needed in another language, please contact the MassDOT Title VI Specialist at 857-368-8580.
Caso esta informação seja necessária em outro idioma, favor contar o Especialista em Título VI do MassDOT pelo
telefone 857-368-8580.
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
9
Si necesita esta información en otro idioma, por favor contacte al especialista de MassDOT del Título VI al 857-3688580.
如果需要使用其它语言了解信息，请联系马萨诸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民权法案》第六章专员，电话857-3688580。
如果需要使用其它語言了解信息，請聯繫馬薩諸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民權法案》第六章專員，電話857-3688580。
Если Вам необходима данная информация на любом другом языке, пожалуйста, свяжитесь со cпециалистом
по Титулу VI Департамента Транспорта штата Массачусетс (MassDOT) по тел: 857-368-8580.
Si yon moun vle genyen enfòmasyon sa yo nan yon lòt lang, tanpri kontakte Espesyalis MassDOT Title VI la nan
nimewo 857-368-8580.
Nếu quý vị cần thông tin này bằng tiếng khác, vui lòng liên hệ Chuyên viên Luật VI của MassDOT theo số điện thoại
857-368-8580.
Si vous avez besoin d'obtenir une copie de la présente dans une autre langue, veuillez contacter le spécialiste du
Titre VI de MassDOT en composant le 857-368-8580.
Se ha bisogno di ricevere queste informazioni in un’altra lingua si prega di contattare lo Specialista MassDOT del
Titolo VI al numero 857-368-8580.
-
6
MassDot
857-368-8580
‫ يُرجى االتصال بأخصائي الفقرة السادسة على الهاتف‬،‫إن كنت بحاجة إلى هذه المعلومات بلغة أخرى‬
588-865-5858
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
10
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of March 13, 2014
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting
March 13, 2014 Meeting
10:00 AM – 12:00 PM, Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Council, Union Station, 2 Washington
Square, 2nd Floor, Worcester, MA
David Mohler, Deputy Secretary of Policy and Executive Director of Office of Transportation Planning MassDOT
1. Introductions
Sheri Warrington, Manager of MPO Activities, Office of Transportation Planning – MassDOT introduced
herself followed by the other members in the room. Jim Lovejoy, Chairman of Board of Selectman, Town
of Mt. Washington representing Mass Municipal Association and Berkshire MPO, Steve Silveira, MLS
Strategies, David Mohler, Deputy Secretary of Policy and Executive Director of Office of Transportation
Planning – MassDOT, Jeff Mullan, Foley Hoag LLP, Frank DePaola, MassDOT Highway Administrator, John
Pourbaix, Construction Industries of Massachusetts. David Mohler mentioned that due to other
responsibilities, absent were Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, MassDOT Richard Davey, Chair, and
Linda Dunleavy, Gubernatorial Appointment representing the planning agencies and Franklin Regional
Council of Governments.
2. Draft Table of Contents for Final Report
A draft table of contents for the Final Report on Project Prioritization and Selection Criteria was
provided to each member for discussion and comment. Sheri Warrington provided a description of the
draft table for the final report, which is intended to summarize the goals and objectives for formulating
the evaluation criteria in conjunction with holding public hearings throughout the state. The final
deliverable report will be delivered to the state legislature by December 31, 2014. The report will
document how the Council structures the meetings and some of the best practices and criteria that
were taken into consideration. David asked if there were any comments on the draft concept of the
report table. There were no comments on the draft table.
3. Council Schedule, Public Hearing Schedule and Public Outreach
David Mohler stated that there will be 6 public hearings, one in each Highway District, taking place
either before or after MPO Meetings. A proposed schedule of the council meetings and public hearings
was provided. David mentioned that the meetings should not take place until a prioritization scheme
has been developed. A council meeting will be set prior to the first public hearing, scheduled to take
place on April 29, 2014 in conjunction with the Berkshire MPO Meeting. It was agreed upon that the
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
11
meetings in Districts 4, 5 and 6 should be as late in the morning or early afternoon as possible and that
meetings in Districts 1, 2 and 3 will be held in the afternoon to best align with the various MPO Meeting
times and travel distances. Sheri Warrington mentioned that the schedule provided satisfies meetings
with all 6 Districts and that the only MPOs that would not be participating in the scheduled format
would be Martha’s Vineyard Commission, Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Council,
Franklin Regional Council of Governments and Northern Middlesex. During the scheduled “cluster” of
meetings in October 2014 a draft of the final report will be prepared.
A web site for the Council will contain, at minimum, the meeting schedule, an agenda prior to each
meeting, the notes and/or transcript of each meeting, and a copy of the handouts provided prior to and
after the meeting. A list of council members and directions will also be provided to the public hearing
locations. An email distribution list was created for interested parties in the Council, including MPO and
Regional Planning Associations, MassDOT employees and others. A public notice with all information on
the agenda needs to be posted at least 14 days in advance of any public hearing.
4. Project Selection and Evaluation of Best Practices
At the suggestion of Secretary Richard Davey during the January 28, 2014 PSAC meeting, Sheri
Warrington solicited various State Departments of Transportation for information regarding their
project selection and best practices. Sheri Warrington received responses from several state agencies
and specified four states that were in the process of establishing evaluation criteria and four states that
have established their prioritization system. Sheri Warrington made a presentation to highlight the
results of this solicitation. The four states described in the process of establishing evaluation criteria
were: New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT,) Michigan Department of Transportation
(MDOT,) Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT,) and Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT.) The four states described as having established evaluation criteria and prioritization of project
implementation were North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT,) Nevada Department of
Transportation (NDOT,) Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT,) and Delaware Department of
Transportation (DDOT.)
Sheri Warrington provided specifics relative to how each state agency is either approaching or have
established their criteria using data or non-data sets; meeting schedules; whether all modes of
transportation were considered; any software associated with the development process, and if rural and
urban projects were separated. Of particular note was the “Decision Lens” tool that is currently being
used by NHDOT as a source of prioritization to share with the public, and is also currently used by the
Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA.) A suggestion was made for the MBTA to provide a
presentation on this software at an upcoming Council meeting.
It was noted that the evaluation criteria development process should not entail collection of data, but
rather utilizing data that is readily available. Sheri Warrington described the state requirements for
Massachusetts and the Section 11 mandated factors. Specific information for each state’s prioritization
process can be found within the presentation document, posted on the massDOT’s PSA Council web
page.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
12
5. Existing Evaluation Systems used by MassDOT Highway:
Presentations on Bridge Index, Pavement Management and Highway Safety were given relative to
evaluation systems currently used within the MassDOT Highway Division. Alexander Bordow, State
Bridge Engineer – MassDOT, presented on the bridge prioritization system and the process by which
bridges are selected for improvements within the MPO programming process. The current prioritization
system has been in place since 2008 and uses the PONTIS software application to calculate current and
projected Health Index. The prioritization system factors in the aforementioned Health Index in addition
to Condition Loss and Highway Evaluation as its primary criteria, each ranked from 1-100. The three
factors are subsequently populated into a weighted “Rank Value” equation in order to determine a final
ranking.
Edmund Naras, State Pavement Management Engineer – MassDOT presented the project selection
process for Interstate and National Highway System roadways relative to pavement condition (cracking,)
ride quality and the processes for collecting the data associated therewith. A semi-automated
“Pathrunner” system is used to collect data, the results of which are analyzed using performance models
and included in an Incremental Benefit Cost (IBC) ratio for prioritization.
Neil Boudreau, State Traffic Engineer – MassDOT presented on the traffic and safety engineering project
selection process. Neil elaborated on the traffic and safety programs, highlighting the Highway State
Improvement Project program guidelines. Project selection criteria include property damage, injury and
fatalities. Neil Boudreau stated that low cost projects with notable safety issues receive prioritization.
For more detailed information regarding these presentations, please refer to the presentation
documents, posted on the MassDOT’s PSA Council web page.
6. Other Items
The next Advisory council Meeting was scheduled for early April. (Subsequent to the meeting, the next
meeting was scheduled for April 1, 2014.) The agenda for the next meeting was briefly discussed,
including approving or revising the proposed schedules, hearings, and mission statement.
Items on the April 1, 2014 Agenda:
Action Items
 Approve Minutes from first two Council Meetings
 Approve or Revise Proposed Schedule for Council Meetings & Public Hearings
 Approve or Revise Proposed Mission Statement for PSA Council
 Approve or Revise Proposed Agenda and Materials for First Public Hearing
Other Items
 Web site
 Agenda items for next PSA Council Meeting
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Additional attendees:
Sarah Bradbury, MassDOT District 3
Rich Rydant, CMRPC
Sujatha Mohanakrishnan, CMRPC
Jonathan Church, CMRPC
Bill Betts, MassDOT FAPO
Marie Rose, MassDOT, Highway Project Mgmt.
Ed Naras, MassDOT, Pavement Mgmt.
Nick Downing, MAPC
Mike Mauro, NMCOG
Neil Boudreau, MassDOT Traffic & Safety
George Snow, MRPC
Dave Blei, MassDOT District 2
13
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
14
Project Selection Advisory Council
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
9:00 a.m. -11:00 a.m.
Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Council
Union Station - 2 Washington Square - 2nd Floor
Worcester, MA
Introductions
Presentations and Discussion



Bay Area Plan by James Corless, Director, Transportation for America
weMove Massachusetts: Planning for Performance (WMM) by Steve Woelfel,
Director of Strategic Planning, MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
MBTA Project Prioritization by Robert Guptill, Manager of Systems
Integration, MBTA
Action Items




Approve Minutes from first two Council Meetings
Approve or Revise Proposed Schedule for Council Meetings & Public
Hearings
Approve or Revise Proposed Mission Statement for PSA Council
Approve or Revise Proposed Agenda and Materials for First Public Hearing
Other Items


Web site
Agenda items for next PSA Council Meeting
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. Accessibility
accommodations and language services will be provided free of charge, upon request, as available. Such services
include documents in alternate formats, translated documents, assistive listening devices, and interpreters (including
American Sign Language). For more information or to request reasonable accommodation and/or language services
please contact Sreelatha Allam at 857-368-8843 or Sreelatha.allam@state.ma.us .
If this information is needed in another language, please contact the MassDOT Title VI Specialist at 857-368-8580.
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
15
Caso esta informação seja necessária em outro idioma, favor contar o Especialista em Título VI do MassDOT pelo
telefone 857-368-8580.
Si necesita esta información en otro idioma, por favor contacte al especialista de MassDOT del Título VI al 857-3688580.
如果需要使用其它语言了解信息，请联系马萨诸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民权法案》第六章专员，电话857-3688580。
如果需要使用其它語言了解信息，請聯繫馬薩諸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民權法案》第六章專員，電話857-3688580。
Если Вам необходима данная информация на любом другом языке, пожалуйста, свяжитесь со cпециалистом
по Титулу VI Департамента Транспорта штата Массачусетс (MassDOT) по тел: 857-368-8580.
Si yon moun vle genyen enfòmasyon sa yo nan yon lòt lang, tanpri kontakte Espesyalis MassDOT Title VI la nan
nimewo 857-368-8580.
Nếu quý vị cần thông tin này bằng tiếng khác, vui lòng liên hệ Chuyên viên Luật VI của MassDOT theo số điện thoại
857-368-8580.
Si vous avez besoin d'obtenir une copie de la présente dans une autre langue, veuillez contacter le spécialiste du
Titre VI de MassDOT en composant le 857-368-8580.
Se ha bisogno di ricevere queste informazioni in un’altra lingua si prega di contattare lo Specialista MassDOT del
Titolo VI al numero 857-368-8580.
-
6
MassDot
857-368-8580
‫ يُرجى االتصال بأخصائي الفقرة السادسة على الهاتف‬،‫إن كنت بحاجة إلى هذه المعلومات بلغة أخرى‬
588-865-5858
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
16
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 1, 2014
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting
April 1, 2014 Meeting
9:00 AM – 11:00 AM, Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Council, Union Station, 2 Washington
Square, 2nd Floor, Worcester, MA
1. Introductions
Jeff Mullan, Foley Hoag, acting Chairman of the project advisory council, introduced himself followed by
other members in the room. Steve Silveira MLS Strategies, House Minority Leader appointee, John
Pourbaix, Construction Industries of Massachusetts, Senate Minority leader appointee, Steve Woelfel
MassDOT, Linda Dunlavy, Franklin Regional Council of Governments, Gubernatorial appointee, Sree
Allam MassDOT, Sheri Warrington, MassDOT. Jeff Mullan also announced that Secretary Davey will be
arriving shortly, and will have to leave at 11:00 AM. Sheri Warrington stated the meeting is being
recorded and the meeting will start with several presentations. The first presentation is by James Corliss
from Transportation for America.
2. Presentations and Discussion
James Corliss, Director, Transportation for America a non-profit based in Washington, presented on
work that he had done while at his prior post at the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation
Commission. James indicated that the work that was done in California has a lot of relevance to what
the council is doing here in Massachusetts, using data and using performance measures and trying to
have a more transparent decision making process. The goal is to get to a place where you are picking
better projects. There are 2 ways to go about accessing projects. The first is to do a targets assessment
which is a more broad based qualitative process and the second is a benefit cost analysis process which
is more quantitative. James stated that efficiency projects generally do better, as well as non-capital
intensive transit and highway projects. He also indicated that this was really the first time that a
transparent public conversation had taken place in the region. It was the first time that the commission
was able to use the analysis to spotlight all projects that have been on the project list including old
transportation earmarks. James noted that all of the projects that were included in the transportation
plan had to go back into list to be evaluated. Some of the low scoring projects had to be withdrawn or
re-scoped because they did not score very well. Linda Dunlavy asked how far along the projects were
when they were redone? James indicated that some of the projects were up to 90 percent along in the
design process. He noted that the more transparent the process is, the more we build public trust.
Steve Silveira asked what the formula was for the cost benefits analysis. James explained that It’s not a
perfect science, targets were used such as GHG reductions, and then run through a model. John
Pourbaix asked if deferred maintenance costs factored into the quantitative process. James wasn’t sure
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
17
but he indicated he would look into it. Jeff Mullan made an observation about the lack of uniformity of
the data, the cost of developing data, and the evaluation based on regional targets and the siloed nature
of federal funding. James explained that that the region developed software for cities and towns to
analyze data and make it more uniform. He also noted that low performing projects were either kicked
out of the plan or re-scoped, while higher scoring projects got more funding. He also noted that
California is somewhat different from Massachusetts in that federal funds account for less than 15% of
total transportation funds in the state, there are many more state and local funding sources available.
Secretary Richard Davey explained that Massachusetts is grappling with urban versus rural funding
issues, with a potential of Boston area projects taking precedent at rural projects expense, and he asked
how it was dealt with in California. James noted that there is a big urban rural divide in most states. In
California, more of the projects were skewed towards efficiency projects, which are generally job
creator projects. But he also noted that having a more transparent process helps. Linda Dunlavy noted
that it appears that there doesn’t appear to be cost of the project to VMT rating which is hard for
projects in rural areas to score well. A question was asked about how the region dealt with the freight
movement? James noted that there were several freight projects but only made up a small portion of
the total projects. Jeff Mullan asked if all criteria should be equally rated. James noted that the
qualitative targets were equally weighted, but the benefit costs were not. Jeff Mullan also asked if this
process will ever be a science or will it be more of an art. James stated that we will probably not have
perfect data, but we can’t afford to wait for it. A question was asked if the high speed rail project was
evaluated. James noted that it was not.
Steve Woelfel, Director of Strategic Planning, MassDOT - OTP presented on weMove Massachusetts.
Steve explained that WeMove Massachusetts, which started at the beginning of the Patrick
administration, has been about opening up transparency with customers. weMove Massachusetts is the
statewide strategic multimodal plan which was developed to meet the requirements of the Federal
Highway Administration, and lead to the formal legislation that created the latest transportation bill.
The initial stage began with youMove Massachusetts, which was a 3 year process of civic engagement
that led to 10 themes of what public what customers wanted in state transportation. We move started
two years ago as analytical tool that allows MassDOT to look at highway and transit assets of how they
are performing now and in the future. This past February, 6 public meetings for weMove Massachusetts
were held in conjunction with release of the state CIP. This tool allows MassDOT to prioritize
investments for the future and it was guided by customer wants and needs, safety and security. This
tool is meant to meet the standards for FHWA performance measures. It is more of a long term tool for
the next 30 years. Compares against other states, worked with divisions to come up with metrics for the
tool. two scenarios no additional revenue and what happened with new revenue, but can look at any
revenue investment. Jeff Mullan noted that if 2.0 is the state of good repair what is the goal in terms of
percentage of MassDOT roads to be at 2.0. Steve noted that we would like to be at 100% but not
feasible, but 88% is the current status. John Pourbaix asked what roads are being included. Steve
explained that they are all federal aid roads. John also noted that 88% does not seem to be good
enough. Linda Dunlavy asked if we have the information for local roads. Secretary Richard Davey noted
that some of the cities and towns do. When a survey went out regarding Chapter 90 funding only about
a third of cities responded to survey. John Pourbaix asked how much would it cost for MassDOT to
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
18
survey of all roads. Jeff Mullan noted that vehicles like what the state uses would need to be purchased
in order to do local roads as well. Steve noted that going forward the next phase will be working with
Cambridge Systematics to develop up to five or six indicators like greenhouse gases, public health, etc.,
that will tie back to the model runs of weMove to see how we split the funding. Jeff Mullan asked if we
have an inventory of state assets. Secretary Richard Davey noted that we have moved forward with an
effort to inventory MBTA and bridge assets and the road inventory is improving. Steve noted that
MassDOT needs to do a better job with bicycle and pedestrian spending. As we move forward we need
to more accurately capture what we are spending in these areas. As imperfect as this process is, many
different states are asking how Massachusetts is doing this work.
Robert Guptill, Manager of Systems Integration, MBTA presented on MBTA Capitol Project Prioritization.
Robert oversees the implementation of the decision support tool and the state of good repair database.
He explained that there are 3 major reasons for capital project prioritization. There is the legislative
requirement per MAP-21, the FTA awarded MBTA a $950,000 pilot program grant to develop transit
asset management program, and it’s the right thing to do. The criteria for capital project prioritization
are impacts on the environment, system preservation, financial considerations, operations impacts and
legal commitments. Jeff Mullan asked about the operations critical component. Specifically, do the
project managers determine if their projects and how do they know it is critical? Robert explained that
the project manager must explain why the project is critical in the database. Secretary Richard Davey
noted that ultimately a separate committee will evaluate the project to determine its rating. Jeff Mullan
noted that the process needs to be transparent and that it should be made clear that there is a human
element in compiling the rating. Robert noted that the five 5 processes that are part of the decision
process tool are identify criteria, determine weights, establish rating scales, score, then prioritize
projects. Other functionality includes, sensitivity and analysis and reporting. The MBTA Identified
specific subject matter experts for each criteria. They were the people that decided what were the
appropriate scale and scores and then did the ratings for every project for those specific criteria. Robert
briefly explained that the schedule for using the tool. The MBTA has used it for the first year scenario
15-19, they will use again for 16-20, and they also have an option to use for a third year. Other
departments in the MBTA are interested in using the tool as well. He also noted that although it’s a
good tool, it doesn’t really do much more than what the MBTA was able to do before. In fact, it could
be done using an excel spreadsheet. A question was asked if the tool was custom made for the MBTA.
Robert noted that it is an off the shelf product, and the MBTA paid a license for two years. In the first
year, the MBTA used it specifically for the CIP process. Other transit agencies use this tool throughout
the country. Jeff Mullan asked how these decisions as applied to the public get sorted out, so that the
process appears to be transparent. Secretary Richard Davey noted that there will always be healthy
tension between priorities. Linda Dunlavy explained that it has been her experience that if there is
education and transparency in the MPO decision making process, it does make a big difference. If
information is available then it’s easier to get a compromise on decision making. Secretary Richard
Davey noted that a lot of the projects on the list will involve what the issue of the day is, the state of
good repair, legal commitments as well as expansion projects. I question was asked if the operating cost
and maintenance cost factored in the equation? Robert noted that operating cost and operating
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
19
revenue are part of the analysis. Jeff Mullan noted that the committee needs to have a discussion about
obligations and legal commitments and policy decisions which are determining the universe of projects.
For more detailed information regarding these presentations, please refer to the presentation
documents, posted on the MassDOT’s PSA Council web page.
3. Action Items



Approve Minutes from first two Council Meetings – Secretary Richard Davey asked for a motion
to approve meetings notes from first two council meetings. Sheri Warrington also noted that
the website is about to go live and would like approval to post the meeting notes on the
website. The motion to approve meeting notes was seconded and approved.
Approve or Revise Proposed Schedule for Council Meetings & Public Hearings: Sheri Warrington
noted that during the last council meeting there was a desire to have more working sessions
before the first public hearing. She recommends shifting the first Berkshire public hearing from
April May 29th to May 20th, which would mean having two public hearings in May. The
Merrimack Valley meeting would be scheduled for May 14th and then May 20th in Berkshire, to
allow 2 council meetings in April week on the week of the 14th and the week of the 28th.
Secretary Richard Davey recommends a schedule to have one of next council meetings in
Springfield or further west and the other in meeting in Worcester. Sheri Warrington then
confirmed with the committee that the tentative schedule would be to meet after the MVPC
MPO on May 14th and have a hearing immediately following after the council meeting, then
have the same set up for the Berkshire MPO meeting on May 20. Sheri also noted that there is a
short time frame for scheduling the council meetings in April. She also asked if a decision should
be made on how long the meetings should be scheduled for.
Approve or Revise Proposed Mission Statement for PSA Council: Sheri Warrington explained
that she would like to post the mission statement online this week. Linda Dunlavy noted that
the mission statement doesn’t include any language stating that we are going to create any
criteria. She suggested that the change would include creating criteria that reflect MassDOTs
mission, and also being flexible to respond to regional priorities. Jeff Mullan explained that we
need to capture the statute in the mission statement particularly because of legislature
observing this process. Secretary Richard Davey explained that there should be an attempt to
incorporate objectivity, and efficiency of how we run the transit system and the highway
system. Also the goals should include land use, outcome based. Under objectives, we should
include data quality, call out gaps in data, and call for continued investment and needs for
improvement. Steve Silviera noted that we need to be careful as to who the audience is and not
getting caught up into planning/government speak. The council should make sure that when
document is complete that we have something that the public will read. Jeff Mullan indicated
that there should be a component listing for availability of funding. How to prioritize use of
available funding. Sheri Warrington funding availability is mentioned under the potential risk
factors section. She also noted that the Mission Statement should only be included on the
website. Jeff Mullan asked if we should divide up responsibility to reach out to important
stakeholders. Secretary Richard Davey noted that we will take that back to staff first.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents

20
Approve or Revise Proposed Agenda and Materials for First Public Hearing: Sheri Warrington
explained that we need to post the agenda two weeks in advance of the meeting. She noted
that we need to post the agenda in the first week of May. One Idea is to have a discussion on
preliminary criteria. Jeff Mullan recommended changing findings to observations. Linda
Dunlavy asked if it is ok at the first meeting to have observations then as the months go on have
findings at later meetings. At the next two meetings, have longer work sessions to prepare for
the public meetings. Secretary Richard Davey recommends that on the week of the14th, we
have a preliminary observation report from staff. The Council then can make final comments on
the 28th. Sheri, will staff develop multimodal initiative report, are we looking at all modes to
discuss at this time? Secretary Richard Davey indicating that yes we do want to discuss all
modes.
4. Other Items



Website status: Sheri Warrington explained that the website will be posted by the end of the
week depending on how quickly the Mission Statement can be finalized.
Webinar on Wednesday April 3rd Lessons Learned from State DOT Activities Addressing Data for
Decision Making and Performance Measures: Sheri Warrington has reserved conference room
in Boston if anyone is interested in attending.
Agenda Items for next PSA Council Meeting: Sheri Warrington asked If the council has any
specific agenda items for the next meeting to please forward to me. Linda Dunlavy asked how
long next meeting the next meeting should last. Secretary Richard Davey noted that we will
shoot for two hours for the next meeting.
Additional attendees:
Nathan Higgins, Cambridge Systematics
Sujatha Mohanakrishnan, CMRPC
Rich Rydant, CMRPC
Ann McGahan, CMRPC
Charlie Ticotsky, MAPC
Nancy Goodman, Environmental League of MA
Lizzi Weyant, Transportation for MA
Sarah Bradbury, MassDOT District 3
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
21
Project Selection Advisory Council
Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Worcester Regional Transit Authority
Conference Room
60 Foster Street • Worcester, MA
1. Introductions
2. Discussion of Preliminary Observations
3. Action Items
A. Mission Statement Approval
B. Public Hearing Agenda Approval
4. Other Items
A. Public Outreach
B. Materials for Public Hearing
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. Accessibility
accommodations and language services will be provided free of charge, upon request, as available. Such services
include documents in alternate formats, translated documents, assistive listening devices, and interpreters (including
American Sign Language). For more information or to request reasonable accommodation and/or language services
please contact Sreelatha Allam at 857-368-8843 or Sreelatha.allam@state.ma.us .
If this information is needed in another language, please contact the MassDOT Title VI Specialist at 857-368-8580.
Caso esta informação seja necessária em outro idioma, favor contar o Especialista em Título VI do MassDOT pelo
telefone 857-368-8580.
Si necesita esta información en otro idioma, por favor contacte al especialista de MassDOT del Título VI al 857-3688580.
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
22
如果需要使用其它语言了解信息，请联系马萨诸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民权法案》第六章专员，电话857-3688580。
如果需要使用其它語言了解信息，請聯繫馬薩諸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民權法案》第六章專員，電話857-3688580。
Если Вам необходима данная информация на любом другом языке, пожалуйста, свяжитесь со cпециалистом
по Титулу VI Департамента Транспорта штата Массачусетс (MassDOT) по тел: 857-368-8580.
Si yon moun vle genyen enfòmasyon sa yo nan yon lòt lang, tanpri kontakte Espesyalis MassDOT Title VI la nan
nimewo 857-368-8580.
Nếu quý vị cần thông tin này bằng tiếng khác, vui lòng liên hệ Chuyên viên Luật VI của MassDOT theo số điện thoại
857-368-8580.
Si vous avez besoin d'obtenir une copie de la présente dans une autre langue, veuillez contacter le spécialiste du
Titre VI de MassDOT en composant le 857-368-8580.
Se ha bisogno di ricevere queste informazioni in un’altra lingua si prega di contattare lo Specialista MassDOT del
Titolo VI al numero 857-368-8580.
-
6
MassDot
857-368-8580
‫ يُرجى االتصال بأخصائي الفقرة السادسة على الهاتف‬،‫إن كنت بحاجة إلى هذه المعلومات بلغة أخرى‬
588-865-5858
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
23
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 16, 2014
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting
April 16, 2014 Meeting
1:00 PM – 3:00 PM, Worcester Regional Transit Authority, Conference Room, 60 Foster Street,
Worcester, MA
Richard Davey, Chair, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT)
1. Introductions
Secretary Davey introduced himself followed by the rest of the council members present in the room.
David Mohler, Deputy Secretary of Policy and Executive Director of Office of Transportation PlanningMassDOT, Frank DePaola, MassDOT Highway Administrator, Linda Dunleavy, Gubernatorial
Appointment representing the planning agencies and Franklin Regional Council of Governments, Jim
Lovejoy, Chairman of Board of Selectman, Town of Mt. Washington representing Mass. Municipal
Association and Berkshire MPO.
2. Vote to allow for Remote Participation
The council members voted to allow for Remote Participation in meetings. Secretary Davey called for
the vote with a motion from Linda Dunleavy followed by a second from Frank DePaola. The vote passed
allowing councilman John Pourbaix, Construction Industries of Massachusetts, to participate in the
meeting.
3.
Discussion of Preliminary Observations
Secretary Davey opens up the discussion of preliminary observations to the council members and asks
for any additional observations, comments, or feedbacks. Frank DePaola references page 8 from the
Preliminary Observations packet stating that the council needs to link in specific statutory goals found in
legislation regarding the specific performance criteria for transit and highway areas. Examples from the
legislation include reduction in wait times, reductions in accidents and fatalities. Map-21 federal
highway/transit goals also need to be linked into the criteria to ensure projects are advancing these
specific goals that have been set forth. The language is nice however it needs to be specific to the
legislative language. Secretary Davey agrees this is a good point.
Sheri Warrington, Manager of MPO Activities, Office of Transportation Planning – MassDOT provided
printouts of the legislation along with a list of the specific goals from Section 4 for the council members.
There are specific safety-related metrics laid out in the legislation that differ from the general language
describing the overall safety goal area. Frank suggested that a subset goal area for transit safety be
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
24
considered. He hopes that this will aid in the creation of a weighting system that will eventually enable
measuring of projects against the criteria. He said the legislation also mentions the need for a regional
measure. The council will need to determine the definition of “region,” and whether or not it will be
based on highway districts, MPO regions or some other yet to be defined region.
Frank said highway districts would make the most sense because this the level where most of the work
we do is completed and everyone understands the boundaries. David Mohler agreed by stating that
highway districts are well-defined and intuitive, whereas a map of an urbanized area could include five
MPOs, making it somewhat less intuitive. Jim Lovejoy commented that despite these statements MPOs
are organized around communities making it easier to involve the public and receive input from it. Jim
asks how the highway districts would coordinate a process to engage the public in order to receive input
regarding these goal criteria. He said since we are considering the criteria that the MPOs make while
trying to determine criteria for the Project Selection Advisory Council he thought a discussion would be
valuable. Frank mentions that currently MassDOT is present at all MPO meetings allowing for
participation with the MPOs.
Secretary Davey said he believes that the highway districts would be a helpful framework however at
the same time this is about deciding on regional criteria while ensuring equity across the regions.
Therefore the districts can be used to frame the regions but we will need to dig deeper into the
communities when considering prioritization of projects. He said a mix of all of these goal areas is
critical to ensure that for example prioritization is not based purely on job creation, because most likely,
in that case, a highly populated area would score higher than a less populated area.
Jim mentioned that what the council needs to think about is how to create this criteria and weighting
system in a way that evaluates projects from a regional perspective while ensuring finances are spread
evenly through districts while allowing for transparency on a community-level.
David reiterates the Secretary’s statement by saying there two types of equity being discussed: equity
between/among the districts and then equity within the individual districts.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
25
Project Selection Advisory Council
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
12:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG)
Olver Transit Center
12 Olive St., Greenfield, MA
1. Introductions
2. Discussion of DRAFT Criteria
3. Public Hearings
o Schedule Update
o Public Outreach for 1st Hearing
o Materials for 1st Hearing
4. Other Items
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. Accessibility
accommodations and language services will be provided free of charge, upon request, as available. Such services
include documents in alternate formats, translated documents, assistive listening devices, and interpreters (including
American Sign Language). For more information or to request reasonable accommodation and/or language services
please contact Sreelatha Allam at 857-368-8843 or Sreelatha.allam@state.ma.us .
If this information is needed in another language, please contact the MassDOT Title VI Specialist at 857-368-8580.
Caso esta informação seja necessária em outro idioma, favor contar o Especialista em Título VI do MassDOT pelo
telefone 857-368-8580.
Si necesita esta información en otro idioma, por favor contacte al especialista de MassDOT del Título VI al 857-3688580.
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
26
如果需要使用其它语言了解信息，请联系马萨诸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民权法案》第六章专员，电话857-3688580。
如果需要使用其它語言了解信息，請聯繫馬薩諸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民權法案》第六章專員，電話857-3688580。
Если Вам необходима данная информация на любом другом языке, пожалуйста, свяжитесь со cпециалистом
по Титулу VI Департамента Транспорта штата Массачусетс (MassDOT) по тел: 857-368-8580.
Si yon moun vle genyen enfòmasyon sa yo nan yon lòt lang, tanpri kontakte Espesyalis MassDOT Title VI la nan
nimewo 857-368-8580.
Nếu quý vị cần thông tin này bằng tiếng khác, vui lòng liên hệ Chuyên viên Luật VI của MassDOT theo số điện thoại
857-368-8580.
Si vous avez besoin d'obtenir une copie de la présente dans une autre langue, veuillez contacter le spécialiste du
Titre VI de MassDOT en composant le 857-368-8580.
Se ha bisogno di ricevere queste informazioni in un’altra lingua si prega di contattare lo Specialista MassDOT del
Titolo VI al numero 857-368-8580.
-
6
MassDot
857-368-8580
‫ يُرجى االتصال بأخصائي الفقرة السادسة على الهاتف‬،‫إن كنت بحاجة إلى هذه المعلومات بلغة أخرى‬
588-865-5858
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 29th 2014
27
Draft Memorandum for the Record Project Selection Advisory Council
Meeting
April 29, 2014 Meeting
12:30pm – 4:30pm, Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) Oliver Transit Center, 12
Olive St., Greenfield, MA
Richard Davey, Chair, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT)
1. Introductions
Secretary Davey states introductions are not necessary at this point. Those members in
attendance include David Mohler, Deputy Secretary of Policy and Executive Director of Office of
Transportation Planning – MassDOT, Linda Dunleavy, Gubernatorial Appointment representing
the planning agencies, and Franklin Regional Council of Governments, Jeff Mullan, Foley Hoag
LLP, Steve Silveira, MLS Strategies, Frank DePaola, MassDOT Highway Administrator, John
Pourbaix, Construction Industries of Massachusetts, Jim Lovejoy, Chairman of Board of
Selectman, Town of Mt. Washington representing Mass. Municipal Association and Berkshire
MPO
2. Discussion of DRAFT Criteria
Secretary Davey, acting Chairman of the council, opened up discussion to the council
surrounding the draft criteria. The detail and requested changes the council made at the last
meeting were added to this draft, including suggestions for possible metrics and/or measures
for each goal area. The Secretary reminded the council the goal for this meeting is to present
the suggested criteria to the public for feedback at the first public hearing meeting in Pittsfield
on May 20th.
Sheri Warrington, Manager of MPO Activities Group, MassDOT – Office of Transportation
Planning, walked through the changes that were made to the document upon request by the
council members. This included more precise criteria definitions and possible metrics along
with available data specific to each individual criteria area. At the end of the document there
are discussion points from the last meeting that were addressed but not necessarily resolved
and also other potential criterion points that the council might want to add to the draft.
Safety and Security
Jeff Mullan states three specific questions regarding the draft document. He asked how legal
obligations are being considered and how they fit into the goal criteria. Second he wanted to
know if we are identifying statutory metrics at federal and/or state level as opposed to the nice
to-have metrics that are listed. Lastly he states the criteria appear too specific in his opinion,
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 29th 2014
28
using a percentage point stated in one of the safety criteria as an example. Frank DePaola
mentioned that the purpose of the criteria is to select projects that essential advance the
desired goals of the council. Jeff replied that a goal is not a requirement however and does not
read the same as legal obligations. Some of these goals are driven by policy such as GreenDOT
but some are driven by legal statutory requirements.
Jim Lovejoy stated a concern regarding the Safety criteria. In rural communities, some
accidents or issues sometimes go unreported, meaning there is a lack of data or insufficient
amount of data regarding these scenarios. Jim asked if this is available data would be sufficient
enough to drive accurate decision-making. The Secretary agreed and stated that in some urban
communities this is also an issue. He said this could be an incentive to get those officers in
those areas to report back data more effectively. He also made the point that regionalsensitivity is necessary to recognize as well, not just rural or urban sensitivity. The Secretary
mentioned how it had previously been discussed to potentially use Chapter 90 funds or
discretionary funds to improve data reporting. This is critical because the outcome of analyze is
only as good as the quality of the data going into it. The Secretary said it seems the legislation
is pushing the agency to be metric-driven. Frank added that if people understand that the data
is being used to evaluate things such as safety that that should be an incentive to encourage
them to report better data more often. David stated that right now we must work with the
data we have, even though it might not be the best. He also mentioned that the magnitude of
the problem area needs to be discussed, especially when discussing safety because here
numbers matter even more along with severity. With that being said regional equity should
always be considered but this is one area where the numbers and severity are critical. The
Secretary added that he believes there are ways to weight appropriately that take into account
both safety and usage.
Linda Dunleavy stated that we can influence how well the data is reported by showing people
how it is used and the tangible reports that follow. People are encouraged when they see they
aren’t reporting for nothing. She liked how Delaware DOT framed their criteria for a weighting
system; it wasn’t too specific, unlike ours which appear too detailed and some even postproject oriented. John Pourbaix asked if we only rely on police data and if so why we don’t use
data from insurance companies. Rachel Bain, Assistant Secretary of Transportation, MassDOT
Office of Performance Management and Innovation, commented that we could tap into the
accident data that the Merit Rating Board collects however they also collect data from the
police and tend to have the same issues with irregular reporting. John stated that insurance
companies would also have the incident data from individuals reporting property claims.
Jeff suggested a sub-category for safety that would allow weighting of the most dangerous
intersections. This tackles safety from both a general-level while still taking into consideration
the most dangerous areas. Frank added that this will essentially be a sorting tool when projects
have to be cut. When it comes down to choosing between two competing projects this will
enable a more detailed analysis of why one is the better choice. David stated that we assume
that the Department does not make things less safe; we try to improve the safety of areas
when they are identified. By having a very specific metric we can assign points to projects
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 29th 2014
29
which would then allow us to sort projects based on those points. Most likely Delaware’s vague
criteria definitions would say all of the projects are safety projects.
Secretary Davey said we need to be careful how much we prescribe within the criteria goal
area; therefore we should remove the specific goals because they are a little too forwardthinking. This would address Jim’s point of concern of the criteria putting less emphasis on the
rural areas. The council should aim to keep the language at high-level and use this as a guiding
framework for future decision-makers.
Two points were brought to the discussion by Jeff: first there had been no discussion as to
whether there would be an initial screen for the projects and secondly there has been no
mention of security within the Safety and Security criteria. David thought it would be best to
only discuss safety because security is such a small point of discussion when deciding funding
between projects. Frank mentioned how security is really integrated into Highway through ITS
contracts and that there would rarely be a project identified purely as a “security” project.
Secretary Davey said that it would be a good idea to ask Randy or Lorenzo to identify possible
criteria for security. He mentioned that a potential project that comes to mind when thinking
of security is the need to invest in the ALAR system. The Chief of IT would definitely say we
could do more here whether it is improving cameras, parameter fences, etc. The Secretary was
not ready to eliminate the security portion of the criteria just yet even though it does not
currently appear effectively addressed in those five points listed under Safety and Security
criteria. Steve Silveira suggested pulling security out and making it its own criteria area because
it is fundamentally different from safety. Jim also suggested possibly making a “special
circumstance” criterion for buildings or infrastructure that addresses certain security events or
situations.
Sheri mentioned how this was similar to the discussion around E.J. related projects and how a
project might not score well but we need to have a compelling process that considers that
special circumstance. The Secretary said how we tend to be more reactionary on security. He
was still hesitant to drop it from the criteria however and interested in finding a way to develop
a compelling case criteria area. Jim said that it was important to not get bogged down with the
specific details but rather consider certain circumstances that would make the final decisionmaking more accurate and transparent.
Linda said security would be a good area to discuss both primary and secondary evacuation
routes but make sure to include a preamble that states this is not a competition for points.
After Hurricane Irene hit, Franklin County re-evaluated the primary and secondary evacuation
routes after witnessing how well they operated during an extreme weather event. John
suggested that MassDOT take a closer look at security and report back to the council, since they
are inherently working with it closely on a regular basis. The Secretary agreed. Secretary Davey
and Sheri will speak with some people related to security and report back while also
determining if it would be best to make security it’s own criteria category or create a special
circumstance category. Secretary Davey believed a special circumstance category would be
more effective.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 29th 2014
30
Jeff suggested having the criteria language reference back to statutory language found in the
legislation from Chapter 46. For example, “MassDOT’s goal is as follows…” Sheri agreed.
Mobility and Accessibility
Linda said upon researching on her on time she found other states and regions to have split
Mobility and Accessibility into two different criteria areas; however she said the criteria areas
were Mobility and Livability. She wondered what made these two goal areas different from
one another. The Secretary said the difference really depends on how the two are defined.
After attending many conferences and meetings, Secretary Davey believes Massachusetts is
leading the way in terms of using health as a conduit to healthy transportation outcomes. The
goal area mobility traditionally has been defined as the efficient movement of goods and
people, reducing congestion, etc., while mode shift is defined as the accommodation of bicycles
and pedestrians, the reduction of GHG emissions, etc. Secretary Davey believes that everything
is accounted for within the Mobility and Accessibility criteria it just might be accounted for
differently.
John asked a question about the necessity of having a criterion that considers the number of
users per mode type, because right now this is not included in the current list. He asked if this
needs to be considered when discussing the distribution of funds between the different mode
types. Secretary Davey agreed that this need to be considered however he believes that some
of the goal areas do state it explicitly. He wants to be careful to not weight the current heavily
used mode too much because change is not encouraged that way. This is the idea that, “if we
build it they will come…” - if we build more transit infrastructure or invest more funds into the
current infrastructure users will be encouraged to shift to that mode type.
The Secretary believes it is less about the mode and more about how people want to efficiently
travel. John said this makes sense in urban areas but not so much in rural or suburban areas
because of the current infrastructure in place in those regions. It’s good to have the goals but
we need to question the idea of modal and geographic equity. The council cannot ignore the
fact that 80% of users drive cars; this needs consideration. The Secretary believes that the
80/20 split is mainly due to where the funding has traditional gone in the recent past. It
becomes a self-serving statistic if we continue to weight based on today’s 80/20 split between
vehicles and transit. Frank mentioned the restricted nature of the funding, and how we can’t
apply FHWA funds to fix a MBTA bridge. With this in mind, discretionary funding is very limited.
John said he noticed as he was driving down the MA Pike how dilapidated it had become,
making him realize how critical it is that we get our highways/interstates into a state of good
repair. The Secretary did not think the Pike is entirely dilapidated but with that in mind need
for funding and repair exists everywhere in the transportation sector. He believes the reason
people mainly drive vehicles in Massachusetts is because that’s where the policy has driven
investment over the past 50 years or so which has inevitability given heavy weight to driving.
Essentially what this council is attempting to do is to help create a pathway for future
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 29th 2014
31
policymakers to create more transportation choices for the public. The Secretary thinks other
mobility choices need to be considered but that does not mean highway funds will be rejected
or ignored. It is dangerous to choose or stick to a metric or percentage for the present just
because it was the conclusion chosen prior to us.
Following that, Linda stated that she doesn’t want more weight to be given automatically to
bike and pedestrian projects, leaving bridge and road projects under prioritized. The Secretary
disagreed saying what is most important is fixing the existing infrastructure; therefore in his
opinion the Preservation goal area could potentially be highly weighted. This discussion really
comes back to the issue of limited resources and funding. If and when more resources become
available we can have the freedom to look beyond preservation projects to expansion projects
and consider the options that exist. Presently there are serious choices to consider especially
with the looming question of a gas tax.
Jeff believes that similar to when the Macintosh computer originally came out without a
manual, these criteria could also benefit from a guidebook offering more detail on the
suggested metrics. It would be helpful for MassDOT to deliver a statement to the council
members articulating its objectives with respect to these criteria areas. There are essentially
two levels of projects, state and MPO/local. Hearing up-front from the Department on how
they prioritize these types of projects and what they base it on would be a great resource for
the council when they are traveling on to the MPOs. Jeff also asked Rachel Bain if we can really
measure the metrics we are asking for in relation to the criteria. Rachel said currently there is
a huge reliance on the statewide model for tons of data sources. Right now it appears that
many of these metrics would rely on post-build information gathered from projects which
would make determining the data difficult.
Secretary Davey said none of the current listed metrics are beyond what we can handle or
measure. What will need to happen is to tell the regions if you want a certain project to be
considered you will need to report back to us the data related to these criteria, and you will
need to report better than you do now - we will help you do this. All things considered job
creation is really the best outcome any project could hope to yield. Certain data we will need
to work through together in order to make these criteria useful and in the end this model will
not perfect.
Jeff reiterated the importance of having the missing manual; it could really help to inform the
council, the public/MPOs and the future decision makers who will implement it. Steve said
most people looking at the current list of criteria would not really understand the document.
Frank mentioned he thought we would only be showing the public the small paragraphs at the
beginning of each criteria and not showing the metrics. The metrics would be listed in the
manual where they would be better explained. Jeff disagreed by saying the metrics would be
listed for the public while the guidebook would be on its way but not available at the public
hearings. Steve agreed with Jeff saying that for valuable discussion to be had, the metrics
should be available to the public to read.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 29th 2014
32
David said the end purpose of this is so people can see why their project was selected or not
selected which would build transparency into the project selection process. It is a means to
sort and distinguish between projects in order to make a more informed decision in the end.
Frank added that this is not really an issue of lack of projects; the Department has a huge list of
projects that go beyond the TIP. These selection criteria will help to prioritize that huge list of
projects. The purpose is also to make the process more transparent, Jim added. It becomes a
public relations issue – we need to make this a viable process that will be a data-driven method
to achieve goals with the limited resources we have available. Jim said we do not want to make
this overly complicated for the public because that would only hinder discussion at the public
hearings. The Secretary agreed with David but added that it is mainly about transparency of
the selection process. There is no shortage of preservation projects; if we ever find ourselves at
a point where we are more resource-rich and can allow higher priority for expansion projects
then we will have these criteria to help guide us in the decision-making process, when/if that
point in time comes. This will hopefully alleviate the pressure felt when a project conceived 20
years ago arrives at the table and those behind it demand reasoning for why it was not chosen
– this selection process provides that transparency.
David said a manual would be useful for the public and while simplicity is important the metrics
do need to be published. Secretary Davey added that the general metrics and approaches the
council agreed upon will be published. It was his understanding that the document was meant
to be a public document distributed at the meetings to generate discussion. Jeff said they need
to create a better name for the “missing manual.” Rachel commented how during her planning
days there was never readily-available, good quality data. She doesn’t think there will be in the
future either unless rules and guidelines are established for data collection at the MPO and
local level. The Secretary said if a perfect method existed Massachusetts would have already
adopted it however there isn’t one therefore data gaps are inevitable. This becomes a matter
of working with what we do have available and making it better. In the Secretary’s opinion, the
point of the council is to create criteria that will make it harder for people to make bad
decisions in the future. And hopefully, one day when the state is resource-rich the criteria will
be there to guide expansion projects. He does not want to become bogged-down in details but
rather approach the criteria as guideposts for the future decision-makers.
Linda expressed concern for how specific the criteria appear and how rural areas will not score
well if they remain this way. This will undoubtedly raise red flags with the rural communities,
therefore the criteria areas should be simplified for the public meetings.
Economic Development
Secretary Davey moved onto the next criteria area, Economic Development, and began the
discussion by stating this area was also too specific, the metrics too technical; the detailed
language can go into the manual and should be removed from the public document.
Steve suggested that Private/Public Development should be mentioned in the Economic
Development goal area. He reasoned it might be very difficult to derive numbers and figures
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 29th 2014
33
for economic development for any given project however with PPDU it could potentially be
much easier to gather data pertaining to specific metrics. The Secretary agreed with Steve on
this point. Jeff stated how respect for local planning, zoning, board of selectman, etc. should be
mentioned in the economic development criteria. This would ensure consistency with local
planning efforts and perhaps present an opportunity to talk about the Gateway Cities which
have been very thematic for the Governor. This would show how we are working together as a
commonwealth to better the state. Jeff also said it might be wise to consider MassWorks at
this point in the discussion because they most likely have already developed metrics and
methods to measure economic development for projects. Linda agreed by saying they do have
criteria that would be helpful.
David said when discussing job creation, it’s really about “lasting” jobs, vertical rather than
horizontal creation. He is unsure how this would be measured for a project; however it is
important to realize what exactly is creating the jobs because it might not be transportation
related. There should be a burden not just on the government but also on the private company
as well to create those jobs. In the past it seems the burden falls heavily on the public entity.
Jim offered an example of a private project in the Berkshire County region that wanted public
money to fund a road. The MPO did not agree to the funding and said the project needed to
find other resources. It eventually did but locals developed a bad taste of the government’s
stance. Jim stated the council should be wary as they move forward with the economic
development criteria because essentially it will be picking “winners and losers.” Steve
commented that 10,000 jobs cannot just be ignored, there needs to be a way to take this into
account when weighting a project. Jeff agreed with David’s point that vertical jobs should be
the focus here when looking at an industry’s development. David said at the beginning of the
planning process assumptions are made based on what people are told but then the economy
tanks and suddenly those projected jobs disappear. There needs to be way to determine if
permanent job creation and development stemmed for a project or not. David believes
MassWorks is a good starting place to see what has been done to-date in the state.
Jim asked if the economic development criteria should be made into its own special case goal
area. He said politically it would be nice to say all projects drive economic development but it
does not seem to be the case for every project. Linda disagreed and said perhaps instead of
making it its own category it should just be given less weight compared to preservation or
mobility. John agreed with Linda and stated the council should seek current information from
MassWorks. Jim stated that the point of the criteria is to ensure the public that what happened
with Big Dig, won’t happen again. Steve said at no point during the Big Dig process was there a
comparison to the bridges across the state that needed funding as well. Jeff added that no one
originally imagined how much it would end up costing upon completion. David continued by
saying that really wasn’t the whole story. The public should have been told the truth which was
as the economic engine of New England, Boston, Massachusetts and we couldn’t have afforded
to not complete it.
Quality of Life
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 29th 2014
34
David moved the discussion to the Quality of Life criteria. Linda said that TAZ and level of
employment be removed from the list in order to simplify the criteria for the public. Jeff added
that we need to define Environmental Justice, Title VI, and Quality of Life because people will
not know otherwise and most likely be confused as to whether this means the quality of their
own personal lives or the lives of everyone in the state. Steve asked how these would be
measured amongst projects. The definition for Environmental Justice and Title VI already exist
but there really is no set definition for Quality of Life, therefore is it worthwhile to include it in
the criteria area. The suggestion was made to drop Quality of Life down into the Health and
Environment goal. Linda said she even considered the possibility of renaming it Social Equity or
Environmental Justice and Accessibility. Sheri reiterated Rachel’s point that the council needs
to ensure these are well defined and very specific.
Jeff commented that he thinks equity needs to have its own goal area because regional equity
is defined differently from general equity and fairness. He is unsure how this would be defined
or measured. David asked if Jeff suggested adding fairness and equity to the E.J. goal. E.J. has
as very narrow focus whereas equity and fairness tend to have broad definitions – this could
cause confusion for the public. Sheri also stated that it can be either a benefit or burden to be
an environmental justice community, meaning in the context of weighting for a project this
could either gain a project points or take them away. She offered the Somerville green line
extension project as an example of a burden to a community from an environmental
perspective. Linda added that the appropriate language describing E.J. as either a “benefit or
burden” needs to be included in the draft.
Jeff commented that regional equity should not be burden with other types of equity and
fairness because they are inherently different things. David agreed and stated that regional
equity needs to be separate.
Health and Environment
Secretary Davey concluded that conversation on equity and moved to discuss the Health and
Environment criteria. Linda spoke first mentioning MARPA would like to explicitly state
“climate change” and “GreenDOT” in the draft criteria. The Secretary added how this aligns
with Jeff’s previous comment regarding the need for MassDOT to deliver a statement
explaining exactly what it is they expect from projects in regards to current policies and tasks,
like GreenDOT for example.
Jeff added that the Health criteria should also include something about personal health and the
impact on the planet. Jeff thought one of the main purposes of these criteria were to get
people out of their cars and moving around in different ways. The council needs to state this
explicitly in the first sentence. Jim brought up a question regarding bike lanes in rural areas
where they don’t seem to make sense. The Secretary commented that currently there is a
system that takes Jim’s point into consideration. If it is not logical to include bike lanes or
sidewalks in a project the Secretary will confirm this and sign-off on it. There have been a
handful of projects where the Secretary has done this.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 29th 2014
35
Linda said that the same idea previously discussed regarding burden/benefit to a project in
terms of E.J. should be considered for the Health criteria as well. The Secretary said he would
also like to work-in Health Impact Assessments somewhere in this criteria area. Jeff stated that
the Health and Environment criteria would be another great place that the proposed manual
would be useful, in terms of listing data for things like storm water, etc. By having the
information and data on these types of issues, people will be inspired to think of projects in a
different light. The Secretary added to this by saying shining the light on projects allows for
more transparency, arming us with facts for reasoning that go into the decision-making process.
Linda said under the Health and Environment criteria we should add resiliency impact of
statewide assets under extreme weather conditions. Discussion lead the council to decide
System Preservation is a better choice for housing climate adaptation and resiliency.
Regional Equity
Jim asked why the staff decided to break the regions down the way they did; he was not
comfortable with these categories because they did not seem well-defined. Where would the
13 MPOs go? Would it make more sense to use MPO districts or Highway districts to outline
the regions? Jim thought it would be wise to use regions that people generally understand and
recognize. Sheri commented that these groupings were based on earlier WeMove Mass
research; they are not currently in-use anywhere else within the agency. Jeff mentioned he
would rather not create new regions but instead use already-defined regions with
corresponding data. This way new data for new regions does not need to be collected.
The Secretary stated that under the new Transportation Bond Bill a new MPO reform
group/council has been formed. They will be doing something similar to this council; therefore
with this in mind the Secretary believes this council’s objectives have better shot if “regional
equity” is defined around existing MPO regions. New “regions” should not be created. Jim
agrees that it is logical to define regions around MPO regions however he was concerned this
would create confusion for the Highway Districts when trying to coordinate with MPO groups
within their jurisdiction. David asked how regional equity is a criteria goal area and what it
really means for the project selection process. He wanted to know how it would be determined
if a project gets points for regional equity or not. He stated that this goal area be renamed by
dropping the “regional” and just naming it “equity.” Eventually the council needs to decide on
a definition, whether it uses lane miles or population as a means of measurement. In the end,
the definition will inevitably favor either rural or urban areas; this will have to be compensated
for elsewhere in the process.
Jim expressed concern for the fact that currently there is no system that for determining
regional equity in the state therefore the formula that assigns weight will need to give more
money to the western portion of Massachusetts. If those regions hope to stay economically
viable they simply need more funding. John added there needs to be a way to establish this
equity; he suggested reviewing how revenue has contributed to regions (taxes). The Secretary
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 29th 2014
36
suggested each region gets a minimum amount of funding then the remainder of the money is
distributed based upon the criteria goal areas. This would establish some sense of regional
equity within the state. Linda agreed with David’s previous comment and thought it best to
move regional equity out of the document, and into the manual. She said this would allow
protection for the projects in the rural areas by giving them the potential to score higher. The
Secretary said there has to be a way to account for the negative equity as well. Steve asked
how this would be measured. David commented that for highway spending when the per
capita is broken down by lane miles small communities receive a small chunk of money. This
does not come across as equal, however when it is derived this way it is equal. That’s why
highway districts are used because they divide the state into larger areas. The Secretary said
the council needs to be provided with how regional equity has been measured and thought of
in the past by the agency. This will help the council decide on how to define regional equity as
either criterion, metric, guideline or all three. Jim reiterated how critical it is to show state
transparency with state funds.
Jeff stated that not everything can be saved for the manual because it needs to be out for the
public to see at the hearings. He thought it would be helpful to have a 5-year roll-up of
distribution over the districts, not including transit, to show the public as well. He also
expressed concern for the seasonal variation in certain parts of the state, for example the
Berkshires and the Cape, and how this needs to be shown in the Equity criteria. The Secretary
said they have definitely been tactical when it comes to the seasonal question. There is no
secret formula right now that helps them address this issue. He stated that the question of
regional equity and where it goes is an outstanding question for the council. Jim expressed a
concern if the council does not show the public a firm, transparent way to deal with regional
equity, then they will not be happy with the council. Secretary Davey said it is important to at
least show the public that the council is grappling with how to determine regional equity. The
council can create an inventoried list of items that tried to measure regional equity in the past
and then get feedback from the public. John suggested that all sources of funding be shown to
the public as well along with where the funding goes; this would speak to Jim’s transparency
point by giving people both the input and output of funding. Jim added to this saying that the
council then needs to explain to the public that this is the process and the criteria that are used
to determine project selection.
The Secretary suggested that rather than having a presentation, display boards with the CIPs to
show the funding sources and allocations across the state. David said the problem with that it
by displaying all of the information to the public they will want to talk about all funding when in
reality the council is only in charge of capital funding, which will appear to be a very small part
of the board. Public attendees would then have the possibility to go on tangents. The
Secretary mentioned this was a good point. For the public hearings, there needs to be a marker
to put out for the meeting to encourage discussion. For the moment, Secretary Davey is
considering regional equity as both a principal and criteria; the council needs to outline a few
ways that funds attempted to be distributed regionally in the past for the public to see.
System Preservation
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 29th 2014
37
Jeff said the first three bullets need to be cleaned-up because they are slightly confusing. John
stated that the metrics appear bus-centric and somewhat redundant. The Secretary
commented on this saying buses are the only way to currently compare across the 16 regions.
Jeff suggested including Life Cycle Analysis in this section. The Secretary reminded the council
that at the end of the day it is the council’s objective to provide overall criteria guidelines that
say here are the ways to think about establishing performance metrics. It is not the council’s
job to establish the metrics themselves.
Jeff said by having LCA in this goal area, it would essentially allow them to invest money now to
save money down the road over the long-term. Steve said that is important to encourage
everyone to collect the relevant, necessary data which would enable decisions to be made
based on fact in the future. The Secretary said this would give folks the path to funding sources
they need and if they choose not to follow it that’s their choice but no one can complain. He
hopes the legacy of the council will be one that encourages asset and performance
management. Currently the formulas being used are not based on asset condition and
ultimately that is what should be talked about. This is an issue presently because the agency
does not really know the conditions of their assets (not including bridges).
Jim asked if asset inventorying is something that needs to be pushed with this council with
regards to the criteria. He said currently towns are having a hard time with asset inventory.
The Secretary said this could be a part of the preamble in the report itself by stating we need
better data. The agency will help sometimes and other times it will be more carrot-and-stick
approach for data collection.
John said that Preservation should be expanded to include rail and signals, not just buses. The
Secretary agreed and said that point is really getting to the state-of-good repair question.
Secretary Davey also liked the idea of including LCA into the Preservation criteria.
The discussion moved onto the topic of weighting projects. Linda explained that she looked to
Delaware as a great example for what has been done. She compared it to what her MPO region
has done as far as measuring. She thought it was interesting that her region is the only region
that uses cost effectiveness as a measurement for a project. Sheri asked if percentages should
be included on the draft criteria document for the first public hearing meeting. Secretary Davey
said in regards to the System Preservation question the public’s expectations need to be set in
order to generate useful, focused discussion. He recommended taking out the percentages
from each criteria area. He also suggested having each council member fill-out the spreadsheet
that Linda created, and then send it to Sheri. Sheri can then compile a complete list of
suggestions in order for the council to have a private discussion.
Jeff suggested since it really is a small piece of the funding pie, the council should give an
introduction to the criteria either in this document or in a separate document that explains the
state plan to people in terms of funding, legal commitments, etc. Jim stated the importance of
making sure it is transparent no matter what because in the past he has heard complaint from
people that it is not transparent enough. He understands that in the end it is about making
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of April 29th 2014
38
hard decisions, but people need to know this and see the process in which the decisions are
made. The Secretary stated that the council is not starting from scratch with this process, that
the public need to understand this so they are not mislead into thinking about funding for new
expansion projects but rather keep in mind that preservation projects are at the top of the
priority list. The council can do this by explaining what this process is and what it is not in
general terms for the public to understand. Secretary Davey said if you can show the public
transparency in the decision-making process they become willing to invest more in the needed
areas.
3. Public Hearings
The first public hearing meeting has been rescheduled for May 20 th in Pittsfield. The council
needs to be there at 5:30pm; the public meeting will be held from 5:30 to 7pm. This meeting is
happening right after the MPO meeting, allowing MPO members to attend if desired. The
Secretary does not want this meeting to turn into a CIP meeting with the MPOs. The following
documents need to be ready for the first public hearing meeting: the Preliminary Observations
and the Draft Criteria Summary. Following the public hearing on the 20 th the council will decide
if it’s appropriate to have a council meeting thereafter at 7pm.
Secretary Davey said it is not expected that all council members be present to attend all of the
public hearing meetings; he would be happy if at least 3 or 4 members were at each meeting.
After the 20th, the next MPO meeting is in Merrimack Valley on June 25th and the next public
hearing meeting is on June 23rd. Sheri asked if these meetings are scheduled too close to one
another and if the public hearing should once again piggyback the MPO meeting on the 25 th.
The Secretary said the next public hearing should be on June 25th. He also said to go ahead and
send the Haverhill MPO materials in advance of the meeting and tell them to be prepared for
discussion. Jim stated that the meeting would be more productive and generate better
discussion if there was no PowerPoint presentation presented. The Secretary agreed and said
they would see how the first public hearing goes in terms of time for public
discussion/comment. It was decided that council members should send a list of the meetings
that they will be able to tentatively attend to Sheri. Finally, it was also decided to hold one of
the Boston public meetings at the State House on July 17 th and broadcast it to the staff. Even if
only staff members attend, the council can say they attempted to interact with legislators
during the summer session.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
39
Project Selection Advisory Council
Public Hearing Agenda
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Berkshire Regional Planning Commission
1 Fenn Street, Suite 201
Pittsfield, MA
1. Introductions
2. Opening Remarks from the Chairman
3. Overview of the Council
4. Presentation of Preliminary Observations
5. Public Comment
6. Other Items
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. Accessibility
accommodations and language services will be provided free of charge, upon request, as available. Such services
include documents in alternate formats, translated documents, assistive listening devices, and interpreters (including
American Sign Language). For more information or to request reasonable accommodation and/or language services
please contact Sheri Warrington at 857-368-8837 or sheri.warrington@state.ma.us .
If this information is needed in another language, please contact the MassDOT Title VI Specialist at 857-368-8580.
Caso esta informação seja necessária em outro idioma, favor contar o Especialista em Título VI do MassDOT pelo
telefone 857-368-8580.
Si necesita esta información en otro idioma, por favor contacte al especialista de MassDOT del Título VI al 857-3688580.
如果需要使用其它语言了解信息，请联系马萨诸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民权法案》第六章专员，电话857-3688580。
如果需要使用其它語言了解信息，請聯繫馬薩諸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民權法案》第六章專員，電話857-3688580。
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
40
Если Вам необходима данная информация на любом другом языке, пожалуйста, свяжитесь со cпециалистом
по Титулу VI Департамента Транспорта штата Массачусетс (MassDOT) по тел: 857-368-8580.
Si yon moun vle genyen enfòmasyon sa yo nan yon lòt lang, tanpri kontakte Espesyalis MassDOT Title VI la nan
nimewo 857-368-8580.
Nếu quý vị cần thông tin này bằng tiếng khác, vui lòng liên hệ Chuyên viên Luật VI của MassDOT theo số điện thoại
857-368-8580.
Si vous avez besoin d'obtenir une copie de la présente dans une autre langue, veuillez contacter le spécialiste du
Titre VI de MassDOT en composant le 857-368-8580.
Se ha bisogno di ricevere queste informazioni in un’altra lingua si prega di contattare lo Specialista MassDOT del
Titolo VI al numero 857-368-8580.
-
6
MassDot
857-368-8580
‫ يُرجى االتصال بأخصائي الفقرة السادسة على الهاتف‬،‫إن كنت بحاجة إلى هذه المعلومات بلغة أخرى‬
588-865-5858
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of May 20th 2014
41
Draft Memorandum for the Record Project Selection Advisory Council
Public Hearing
May 20, 2014 Meeting
5:30pm – 7:00pm, Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, Suite 201, 1 Fenn Street, Pittsfield,
MA
David Mohler, Chair, Deputy Secretary for Policy and Executive Director Planning,
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT).
1. Introductions
David Mohler began with introductions of all present council members and members of the
public. Those members in attendance included Frank DePaola, MassDOT Highway
Administrator, John Pourbaix, Construction Industries of Massachusetts, Jim Lovejoy, Chairman
of Board of Selectman, Town of Mt. Washington representing Massachusetts. Those members
not in attendance include Richard Davey, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts
Department of Transportation (MassDOT), Linda Dunlavy, Gubernatorial Appointment
representing the planning agencies, and Franklin Regional Council of Governments, Jeff Mullan,
Foley Hoag LLP, Steve Silveira, MLS Strategies. Others in attendance included Clinton Bench,
Deputy Executive Director Office of Transportation Planning MassDOT, Sheri Warrington,
Manager of MPO activities, MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning, Matt Cairn, Executive
Director of the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, Sheila Irvin, Berkshire Regional
Planning Commission Chair, Clete Kus, Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, Peter Miles,
MassDOT, Mark Moore, MassDOT, Pete Fury, MassDOT, Jim Huebner, Member of the public.
2. Discussion of DRAFT Criteria
Sheri Warrington opened up discussion outlining the background of the formulation of the
council as a result of the Transportation Revenue Act 2013 and forth coming plans to deliver
recommendations to the legislature by calendar year end 2014. These recommendations
include uniform criteria for a prioritization formula to be applied across multi-model projects in
the state of Massachusetts. Additional comments included links with the Capital Improvement
Plan 2015, outlining the agenda of the meeting (including overview of current work to date,
opportunity for public comment and review of handouts provided at the meeting.
Safety
Mrs. Warrington defined safety as the ability of the transportation system to allow people and
goods to move freely, without harm in a secure environment. Tim Lovejoy highlighted that
small communities or regions may have trouble obtaining this data from the local police, which
is unfortunate as they will still have to use this criteria. He continued stating the need for
smaller communities and regions to make more of an effort to collect this type of data, to make
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of May 20th 2014
42
it useful for MassDOT decision making. Mr. Lovejoy mentions a Berkshire example where the
criteria doesn’t freeze out projects missing by a small margin, but broader categories group a
project together with other suggested projects and then a decision can be made. Matt Cairns
mentioned corridors are missing noting lane departure crashes in particular rather than
intersections, suggesting situational context to be considered when designing the metrics.
Mobility/Access
Mrs. Warrington defined Mobility/Access as the ability of a project to provide efficient
movement of people and goods between all destinations and by all modes. David Mohler states
these criteria under the Map-21 legislation would attempt to reduce congestion by 10%
measured by a metric, in which Mrs. Warrington highlights the handout with the reference to
another part of the legislation (Section of Acts of 2013 Chapter 46) stressing the goal of
reducing congestion was also that of government. Mr. Mohler states the addition of freight
mobility under Map 21 Federal Highway goal to be more obvious in the opening section.
Mr. Cairns suggests the importance of context and need for sensitivity towards what is relevant
in different regions. He noted that Berkshire’s TIP would include projects not serving many
people but representing critical access points such as Washington State Road. Mr. Lovejoy and
Jim Huebner support this notion stating the criteria do not make sense from region to region.
Economic Development
Mrs. Warrington defined Economic Development criteria as the ability of a project to facilitate
or support business development and employment. Mr. Lovejoy shows confusion over how a
‘High Employment Dense Area’ can be further enhanced economically by proposed projects.
Frank DePaola suggested the previous criteria may overlap and cover the same issues of
employment and congestion as economic development. Mr. Mohler acknowledged the
potential overlap, proposing that a project which has a congested road within high employment
areas warrants more points than those with just a congested road. In addition he notes this
may not have been how they were meant to be interpreted but, that is how it is designed.
John Pourbaix highlights the need for a tourism element accounting for seasonal adjustment in
traffic along certain roads. Mr. Mohler continues stating a need for economic development
areas separate to high employment areas, helping to spread the economic growth in areas
where employment is scarcer, helping to capture areas such as Tanglewood. These areas do not
have high employment but, are tourism hotspots and therefore roads are likely to have higher
demand in certain seasons. Mr. Cairns highlights the lexicon ‘located within’ as Tanglewood
would not be considered under this criterion but, would face problems if commuter roads to
Tanglwood were inadequate. He continues outlining the importance of regional equity that
those regions with high employment density do not attract all the projects and funds and leave
less densely populated regions ‘lagging behind’, ultimately leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy in
this criterion. Sheila Irwin comments on the importance of connectivity as a way for regions
such as the Berkshires to connect with higher employment areas and benefit and establish
economic development more evenly.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of May 20th 2014
43
Social Equity and Fairness
Mrs. Warrington defines Social Equity and Fairness criteria as the assessment of a project as it
relates to existing communities and population centers and to the ability of the transportation
system to efficiently move people, goods and services without excessive delay or inconvenience
and in accordance with state and federal laws that define protected groups. Also states there is
a supporting handout which defines federal and state law in reference to Environmental Justice
and Title VI in more detail. Mr. Cairns highlighted the importance of an aging population and
the inability of this metric to capture this issue. In which Clinton Bench adds the option of
improved frequency as an additional comment for transport in Berkshire and similar
communities. Mr. Bench adds that this could fit within Mobility/Access across both geographic
and temporal aspects.
Healthy Transportation
Mrs. Warrington defined Healthy Transportation criteria as an assessment of the transportation
system’s impact on quality of life, the natural environment and healthy transportation choices
with the recognition that we seek to act as better stewards of our environment. and states the
proposed metrics used for measuring healthy transportation. Mr. Lovejoy comments on the
difficulty of understanding what a ‘public health distress area’ is? Mr. Bench states it is yet to be
defined by the council in Massachusetts, but under the Transportation reform legislation
healthy transportation has become a central issue on the agenda of Massachusetts’s
transportation entities. In which both Massachusetts transportation and other organizations
are trying to understand health impacts from transport, for example Somerville. Mr. Cairns
suggests the Berkshire community would highlight the absence of the natural environment,
from encouraging healthy transportation. Mr. DePaola promotes the inclusion of park lanes and
recreation areas into the criteria. Mr. Huebner suggests he would like this criterion to be
weighted towards Massachusetts Transportation, as this is where the majority of the
commuters can be encouraged to change their behavior.
System Preservation
Mrs. Warrington defines System Preservation criteria as the ability of projects to improve the
physical condition of existing transportation assets and to ensure resiliency during extreme
weather conditions. Mr. Lovejoy identifies with a lack of resources, system preservation needs
to obtain a high weight due to the lack of funding within Berkshires and similar communities.
Mr. Mohler directs a question towards the local highway authorities asking how much data is
available for local road conditions. Mr. Cairns responds by stating 1/3 of the roads have
comprehensive pavement management. Is there a metric which deals with communities’ ability
to pay for roads in relation to federal highway funds? Mr. Lovejoy suggests the idea of public
private partnerships, and criteria which factors public commitment. Later discussion alludes to
additional weighting in this area. However, Mr. Cairns suggests this works well in high value
high demand markets and suggest caution and the idea of a self-fulfilling system. Mr. Mohler
identifies this as a special circumstance. Mr. Pourbaix suggests a metric, whereby there is a
ratio of major routes which serve a region, compared to local roads.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of May 20th 2014
44
Weighting
David posed the question of how to weight these criteria. Mr. Lovejoy says preservation is
important around 40% weighting. Mr. Cairns says we may have a problem that the weighting
with shift projects towards a certain type. In the context of highway it can be looked at in terms
of system preservation but, transit needs to be system enhancement. Mr. Lovejoy enlightens
the council and public members on the Delaware criteria breakdown. Mr. DePaola suggests for
the first trial try 15% for the first five criteria and then 25% for preservation. Then ask the MPOs
to rank the criteria themselves and then run the projects again, to see if the projects come out
similar and if they do not then adjust the weightings appropriately. Mr. Huebner suggests that
the numbers used in the criteria are flexible, which prompts Mrs. Warrington to note the
possibility for having a compelling case situation. A compelling case scenario would be a
situation where two projects seem equal and certain other additional criteria are considered to
separate and decide on one project. Mrs. Warrington identifies experiences from other states
have more matured criteria projects, and therefore this process is will be an iterative process.
Regional Equity
Mrs. Warrington outlines the problem facing regional equity in terms of the current council
ideas and need for public input. Mr. Lovejoy said the Commonwealth is diverse resources
should be sent to areas where they are most needed. Mr. Mohler outlined the difficulty in
defining regional equity. Need to identify how people in general define regional equity. Mrs.
Warrington suggested the possibility of regional equity being an overview topic for the criteria
or as a criterion itself. Mrs. Irwin described the notion of connectivity between densely
populated needs and sparsely population needs. She continued stating that the needs of a
densely populated region in terms of transportation infrastructure will be different to that of a
sparsely populated area. Therefore, this could potentially affect how projects in these two
areas are affected by the criteria chosen. Mr. Cairns asks about the formula of Chapter 90
numerous members said it had been tweaked over several years but remained within the
Legislature so is hard to change. Mr. DePaola suggests looking at the distribution of highway
spending by district in per capita terms, in comparison to the chapter 90 distribution as a
percentage for the various regions.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
45
Project Selection Advisory Council
Public Hearing Agenda
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Boston Regional Planning Commission
10 Park Plaza, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 2/3
Boston, MA
1. Introductions
2. Opening Remarks from the Chairman
3. Overview of the Council
4. Discussion of Criteria
5. Public Comment
6. Other Items
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. Accessibility
accommodations and language services will be provided free of charge, upon request, as available. Such services
include documents in alternate formats, translated documents, assistive listening devices, and interpreters (including
American Sign Language). For more information or to request reasonable accommodation and/or language services
please contact Scott Hamwey at (857) 368-8857 or Scott.Hamwey@dot.state.ma.us.
If this information is needed in another language, please contact the MassDOT Title VI Specialist at 857-368-8580.
Caso esta informação seja necessária em outro idioma, favor contar o Especialista em Título VI do MassDOT pelo
telefone 857-368-8580.
Si necesita esta información en otro idioma, por favor contacte al especialista de MassDOT del Título VI al 857-3688580.
如果需要使用其它语言了解信息，请联系马萨诸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民权法案》第六章专员，电话857-3688580。
如果需要使用其它語言了解信息，請聯繫馬薩諸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民權法案》第六章專員，電話857-3688580。
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
46
Если Вам необходима данная информация на любом другом языке, пожалуйста, свяжитесь со cпециалистом
по Титулу VI Департамента Транспорта штата Массачусетс (MassDOT) по тел: 857-368-8580.
Si yon moun vle genyen enfòmasyon sa yo nan yon lòt lang, tanpri kontakte Espesyalis MassDOT Title VI la nan
nimewo 857-368-8580.
Nếu quý vị cần thông tin này bằng tiếng khác, vui lòng liên hệ Chuyên viên Luật VI của MassDOT theo số điện thoại
857-368-8580.
Si vous avez besoin d'obtenir une copie de la présente dans une autre langue, veuillez contacter le spécialiste du
Titre VI de MassDOT en composant le 857-368-8580.
Se ha bisogno di ricevere queste informazioni in un’altra lingua si prega di contattare lo Specialista MassDOT del
Titolo VI al numero 857-368-8580.
-
6
MassDot
857-368-8580
‫ يُرجى االتصال بأخصائي الفقرة السادسة على الهاتف‬،‫إن كنت بحاجة إلى هذه المعلومات بلغة أخرى‬
588-865-5858
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
47
Draft Memorandum for the Record Project Selection Advisory Council Public Hearing
July 29, 2014 Meeting
nd
11:00 am – 1:30 pm, Boston Regional Planning Commission, 10 Park Plaza, 2 Floor, Conference Room 2/3 Boston,
MA
Richard Davey, Chair, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT)
1.
Introductions
Secretary Richard Davey began by thanking everyone for attending the public hearing and also thanked those who
already submitted emails and letters. He then noted that the Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council will hold an
official meeting immediately following the public hearing, and the public is invited to stay for the meeting.
Secretary Davey stated the Council is mandated by statute to have their work done and submitted to the MassDOT
Board of Directors and the Legislature by December 31, 2014. Given this tight schedule, he again expressed
appreciation to the public for participating today.
Public Meeting
2.
Discussion of PowerPoint Public Presentation
Scott Hamwey, MassDOT’s Manager of Long-Range Planning, explained that the Council was formed last year
through the Legislature under Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013, and is charged with recommending uniform project
selection criteria as well as a project prioritization formula for the Secretary of Transportation to deliver to the
Massachusetts Legislature before the end of the year. He noted that this is the second of the six required public
hearings, with one being held in each of the MassDOT Highway Districts. He then introduced all the Council
members present in the public hearing. In addition to Secretary Davey, these were former MassDOT Secretary Jeff
Mullan, Foley Hoag LLP; Frank DePaola, MassDOT Highway Administrator; David Mohler, Deputy Secretary of
Policy and Executive Director of Office of Transportation Planning for MassDOT; Jim Lovejoy, Chairman of the
Board of Selectman for the Town of Mount Washington and representing Massachusetts Municipal Association;
and John Pourbaix, Executive Director of the Construction Industries of Massachusetts. Those members not able to
participate in this hearing were Steve Silveira, ML Strategies and Linda Dunleavy, Franklin Regional Council of
Governments.
Mr. Hamwey stated the purpose of the public hearing is to get the public’s input on the full range of issues that the
Council is looking at, both higher level goals and criteria categories already proposed as well as more specific
objectives and metrics going forward. He said the issue of regional equity was one the Council had struggled with
and would welcome public input on. He emphasized that the hearing was not intended to be a forum for project
specific advocacy. Mr. Hamwey explained that the Council’s work thus far focused on identifying these six criteria,
which reflect the core values, and policies of MassDOT, are informed by various state and federal laws and
regulations, and those comments received thus far from the public.
Mr. Hamwey went on to clarify a few terms that have sometimes been used interchangeably during the course of
the Council’s work and have at time contributed to confusion. He defined the criteria as being broad statements of
goals and purpose. For example, the safety criterion establishes the goal of a safe and secure transportation
system. Objectives are the strategies identified to help us achieve that goal. In the case of Safety, an example of an
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
48
objective might be improving bicycle safety. Finally are the metrics or measures, which are the specific way in
which a project is evaluated for its effectiveness in satisfying these goals and objectives. The example given was a
project’s ability to reduce the likelihood of crashes involving bicycles on a roadway where those types of crashes
are above average.
Mr. Hamwey then went through the remaining five major criteria, providing some additional examples of potential
objectives and metrics for each:





Mobility and Access - possible objectives may be to reduce vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and person
hours of travel.
Economic Development - standard metrics often assess whether a project is located within a pre-defined
zone, such as economically distressed or targeted growth areas.
Social Equity and Environmental Justice - the relative burdens and benefits of projects in relation to EJ
communities will be considered.
Healthy Transportation - Massachusetts is ahead of most of its peers in considering this goal. The
criterion focuses on environmental sustainability, access to safe and comfortable healthy transportation
options, mode shift and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals.
System Preservation - a primary focus of MassDOT over the past decade; potential objectives may be to
reduce the average age of our bus fleet, or to plan for resiliency in the face of climate change.
Mr. Hamwey then went over the various sources of public feedback received since the May 20 meeting, with
particular focus on the dialogue from the Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) event on the topic held the
week prior at Northeastern University. He then opened the hearing for public comments, encouraging anyone
uncomfortable offering oral testimony to submit their comments in writing.
3. Public Comments
1) John Businger (current VP of National Corridors Initiative and member of the Regional Transportation
Advisory Council and former transportation committee member in the state legislature) asked whether
the notice requirement has been followed. Mr. Businger noted that it is déjà vu all over again
mentioning that Dan Grabauskas tried to do the same thing back in 2003, in which the process then was
to develop a matrix and two meetings were held in that process in both cases with over 100 people
participating. However, the process then did not go anywhere because Doug Foy and Dan Grabauskas
were not in coordination with each other regarding the process and that as a result, the matrix was
never developed. Mr. Businger noted although there are good people at the table today they are
restricted by the structure imposed by the legislature, which results in the mission statement not being
supported by the composition of the PSA Council. He highlighted that, for example, regional equity is
1
part of the mission, but there is only one member from western MA in Franklin County , and there is no
one from an environmental advocacy group when environmental justice is one of the criteria. On a
broader basis, he said that transportation planning is inductive, not deductive. He expressed concern
that if an administration wants to do something, they will fit the projects to the criteria. Mr. Businger
cited examples from the 1990s of earmarks for certain projects that did not go through any selection
criteria process. He continued highlighting the need to be aware that sometimes bold visions don’t fit
within well-meaning but restrictive criteria. Mr. Businger stated a person on the Council had told him
that clear eyed decision making is needed, and cited weighting factors, but he questioned who and how
1
In addition to the Council member from Franklin County (FRCOG’s Linda Dunleavy), western Massachusetts is also represented on the Council
by Jim Lovejoy, selectman from the Town of Mount Washington.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
49
the weighting of the criteria will occur. He concluded stressing that transportation projects should be
selected on basis of inductive not deductive reasoning.
2) Lizzi Weyant, Advocacy Director at T4MA, alluded that several members and member groups will speak
today. Ms. Weyant described the mission of their organization, noting their group was behind the
legislation that created the PSA Council. She mentioned the T4MA Measuring Up: More Bang for the
Buck in Transportation Project Selection event last week, highlighting how relevant it was to the work of
the Council. She stressed that there is an opportunity now in this process to advance the goals of their
member organizations. Ms. Weyant highlighted the need for long term goals for 5, 10 and 15 years,
including reducing GHG from transportation sources, maximizing public health benefits, and achieving
regional and social equity. She stopped there, explaining that other T4MA members will be providing
additional comments.
3) Julia Prange Wallerce, Executive Director, MassCommute, cited their mission as a coalition of
Transportation Management Associations (TMAs). Ms. Wallerce noted that transportation is a means to
an end for their member TMAs, and presented her concerns about criteria for decisions. Their
members are commuters impacted by congestion and looking for improved quantity and quality of
transportation options. Ms. Wallerce stressed the need to use criteria that will enhance the entire
Commonwealth and support access to jobs, the economy, equity, and public health. She argued that
weighting must reflect the goals. Ms. Wallerce supported the mode shift goal of tripling the share of
travel by walking, biking, and transit but noted that some areas are tough to achieve mode shifts and
asked that criteria support making mode shifts easier. Ms. Wallerce commented on mobility and access
and suggested VMT reduction should be a metric. She also suggested adding a metric for whether a
project fills in gaps in the system, particularly for environmental justice populations currently
underserved.
4) Rafael Mares, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) Staff Attorney, noted that the work of the Council is
extremely important and emphasized that the process should reflect the priorities of the
Commonwealth, which include the GHG reduction goal and the GreenDOT, Healthy Transportation, and
the mode shift objectives. He added that CLF has done a lot of research on this and there are no
perfect solutions – but he sees good examples locally and cites the Boston MPO/CTPS as having
established a good process and criteria. In particular, Mr. Mares highlighted the TIP criteria as being a
good example, but that it had some gaps which need to be filled in but it will be good starting point. He
emphasized the need to figure how to weigh different modes fairly – it is an apples to oranges
challenge of trying to compare and rate across different modes. Mr. Mares suggested using one set of
rules for geographic equity then assigning a percentage of urban and rural instead of using a separate
rating process for each mode. He also suggested using a single scale for all modes and community types
but then applying weights to ensure the different modes and areas receive an equitable share
consistent with the policy goals and criteria. For important goals, Mr. Mares suggested using qualitative
data if quantitative data is not available.
5) Nancy Goodman, Vice President for Policy with the Environmental League of Massachusetts, started by
thanking PSA Council members, saying that she looked forward to a final set of criteria at the end of the
process. Ms. Goodman recognized resources are limited even with Transportation Act of 2013, and
mentioned the need to provide the public with a range of transportation choices. She highlighted the
need to prioritize projects and the need to address GHG targets, emphasizing they should potentially be
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
50
stand-alone criteria to recognize its importance. Ms. Goodman further highlighted the need to promote
compact development and smart growth served by transit, and cited South Coast Rail as a good
example of a planning process that supports those goals. She concluded, stating that this example of
South Coast Rail can urge the Council to integrate transportation plans and policies into the project
selection criteria.
6) Steve Miller, senior staff person at Harvard School of Public Health, Member of the Healthy
Transportation Compact Advisory Committee, and founding board member of Livable Streets Alliance,
brought three perspectives to his comments. Mr. Miller’s first point framed the topic of project
selection, regional equity, and some quick thoughts on specific metrics. Regarding framing, he
suggested the need to step back and realize the type of communities and quality of life we are
targeting, which in turn impacts the types of metrics to consider. Mr. Miller commented that it was
good news that the Commonwealth has great goals that embody the vision of quality of life. He
highlighted the goals of SomerVision in the City of Somerville as a good model, through seeking a place
that is an exceptional place to live, work, play and raise a family. He suggested the same themes are
seen nationally and in state policy: people want more bike-ability, walk-ability, transit, and the ability to
be together, not separate from each other. Mr. Miller continued stating we need criteria that measure
to what extent a project moves us toward or not toward these goals.
Mr. Miller then concentrated more on the metrics, highlighting noise as something to consider, as well
as healthy transportation needing to be more specific about encouraging activity and walking, as this is
universally recognized as being beneficial to public health. He emphasized that transit encouraged
walking and biking, noting that kids and seniors are the most vulnerable segment of population in the
transportation system as well as pedestrians and bicyclists. Mr. Miller then considered how facilitating
desired land use should be included as measure. He stressed the need to be more explicit about
prioritizing transportation projects that support smart growth and the economic development goals of
the Commonwealth. He also noted such criteria may need to be qualitative as well as quantitative, with
economic development focused on long-term jobs rather than only considering short term construction
phase jobs. Mr. Miller stated that transportation should be structured to support affordable housing
and that the Equity criterion needs to address areas lacking transportation resources as well as areas
overburdened by transportation resources.
Mr. Miller then went on to discuss regional equity and emphasized that resource allocation be
geographically based on urban, suburban, residential exurban and rural, whereby a formula for dividing
total resources among these groups by population and other factors such as travel distance and time, or
other measures that emerge from the public process should be produced. He urged the Council to
acknowledge that mobility in a rural area is different than in an urban area.
Finally, Mr. Miller noted that all projects that are not yet in a signed contract for construction should be
subject to project review, with some recognition of how long a project has been waiting. Mr. Miller said
there should not be a free pass but recognition and some points for having waited. He also noted that
the criteria should cover not just new investments, but should also evaluate operations and
maintenance in the existing system because that is such a large portion of current spending.
7) Rebekah Gewirtz. – Executive Director, Mass Public Health Association and Somerville Alderman, stated
that her organization has prioritized transportation as a key element of public health. Ms. Gewirtz
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
51
highlighted the need to promote public health and stated that problems in environmental justice
communities are preventable. She emphasized that increased walking and biking opportunities have
resulted in positive health outcomes in reducing diabetes, hypertension, and other health problems.
She also noted that public health issues cost significant public dollars and through encouraging healthy
transportation options of walking, biking, and transit, there will be reductions in very expensive public
health treatments. Ms. Gewirtz ended her comments by offering to help the members with additional
input on public health aspects of transportation and thanked the PSA Council.
8) Nick Downing, Government Affairs Office of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), began his
comments mentioning support for the mode shift goal and GHG goals, but asked how such criteria will
be applied. Mr. Downing asked whether these and other criteria developed by the Council will be
applied to just state funded project or to all projects including those at the MPO level without state
funding. Mr. Downing finished with the sentiment that criteria should be data driven, quantitative,
transparent and understandable by those looking at it from the outside.
9) Sarah Hamilton, Medical Academic and Scientific Community Organization (MASCO), explained that she
represents a non-profit organization representing institutions in the Longwood Medical Area where
there are approximately 46,000 employees, 19,000 students, 3.5 million annual visitors and 2.5 million
patients. Ms. Hamilton mentioned MASCO is also the TMA for the area and its goals include reducing
single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to address issues of traffic congestion. She said MASCO has found that
transit access is the most important strategy for “moving the needle” on mode shift and reducing GHG.
She stated that transportation should be focused not just on creating new jobs, but also on preserving
jobs and the potential for growth that can be lost where transportation is inadequate. Ms. Hamilton
suggested the following for improving criteria—a rating on level of congestion and how a project
reduces congestion, and a factor to count the square footage of existing and planned development
surrounding a project. She highlighted that MASCO is about jobs and the economy and that job
generation potential should be considered in the metrics, such as potential loss of existing or potential
jobs if a necessary transportation improvement is not implemented. Finally, Ms. Hamilton mentioned
the TIGER grant program, Ladders of Opportunity, and suggested considering some of the criteria from
that program in the process.
10) Wig Zamore mentioned the need to provide increased transportation capacity for those areas that are
the drivers of the economy, and agreed with Ms. Hamilton that transportation needs to focus on areas
where potential for growth can be established. He stated that leveraging investments to connect the
job centers to the other areas of the state, such as the Gateway Cities that need jobs, is important. He
then noted that the average municipal income gap between cities and towns in the Commonwealth is
growing, which is leaving some areas left out of the improving economy.
For mode shift, Mr. Zamore suggested that to prevent an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as we
shift modes away from single occupancy vehicles, we need to recognize that we cannot have 200 mile
bike rides. He argued that we should not let safety drive decisions that will undermine our health and
environmental goals. Mr. Zamore stressed that mode shift is desirable, and walking and biking are
beneficial but, for example, you should not put pedestrians and bicycles into roadways and
intersections where emissions create unhealthy air quality, which then undermines the ability to
actually achieve healthy transportation. Mr. Zamore then added to the above comments stating
accidental deaths along roadways are down, yet adverse health impacts from emissions and noise are
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
52
increasing. He said studies have showed that mortality is higher where intersection density is higher
and walkability is higher. He thus argued that there is a need for solid data on health and environmental
benefits. He concluded with an example of transit vehicle selection, whereby diesel may have BTU
efficiency, but black carbon contributes to environmental/climate change and lung cancer. He thus
stressed the need for electric power sources in transit.
11) Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director of CTPS at the Boston MPO, noted that the Boston Region has a
well-developed system for project selection, and the extent that the Council will emulate the Boston
MPO criteria, and that it is in his view a good thing. Mr. Quackenbush offered to help the PSA Council
on its work, including how to best tie-in the regional and state criteria.
12) Lisa Webber, Brighton resident, expressed the desire for the Council to use common sense and consider
real life. As an example, she explained that in winter walking is a problem as sidewalks and paths are
not always cleared in a timely manner. She also explained that often time, with the given transit
network, individuals will typically not consider a 2-hour T ride over a 15 minute car ride. Ms. Webber
stressed not to take all or nothing approach and suggested on making each mode as safe and reliable as
possible.
Secretary Davey then added the process the Council is charged with is more political science than art, and asked
that the advocates comment in the public process and review the draft criteria as they are being developed.
Secretary Davey then noted that the PSA Council is not required to implement, only to publish, its recommended
criteria by the end of the year.
Council meeting
Mr. Hamwey opened up the council meeting stating the challenge facing the Council in that the legislative deadline
for recommendations is five months away. He continued specifying a goal of providing sufficient feedback for staff
th
to take an initial cut at a project prioritization framework in advance of the September 16 meeting. He then
outlined the agenda for the meeting which included the review of the criteria; the universe of projects; regional
equity; and the approach to metrics and next steps.
Proposed Criteria Categories
Mr. Hamwey reviewed the various criteria including definitions set by the council previously.
Universe of Projects
Mr. Hamwey questioned whether the review process should be of only projects fully funded with state dollars or if
we should being reviewing all state and MPOs funded projects. Secretary Davey accepted the staff
recommendation of a design prioritization tool to evaluate all projects.
Jim Lovejoy stated that it is important how we structure the criteria, and he suggested we do an umbrella of
criteria that all MPOs can use, but still leave regional criteria in place to be applied for MPO project prioritization.
He does not want to create a process that overrides what the MPOs are doing.
Jeff Mullan responded that the statute refers to the comprehensive state transportation plan, which has left him
concerned about how to implement the recommendation and how to do this without “big footing” the regional
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of July 29th 2014
53
leadership. He suggested carrying out a poll of all the MPOs or making sure they are all consulted. Secretary Davey
noted that we are already looking at MPOs and the criteria they use.
Regional Prioritization
Jeff Mullan mentioned that he wants to see data from how regional prioritization is being done today and added
that this issue needs more research and data. Secretary Davey asked if we can do a chart of existing investment
levels by MassDOT district and other sub-regions. He then cited The Way Forward table showing District 1 had the
most dollars and District 3 the least (per capita). Secretary Davey added that we need to show where we are on
equity before we set a new direction.
Approach to Metrics
Mr. Hamwey asked whether qualitative measures can be considered, as well as new metrics that require new data.
First, Mr. Hamwey concentrated on quantitative vs. qualitative data whereby he used the City of Newton as an
example, as it was one of the highest rated projects for the Boston MPO. Mr. Hamwey highlighted Newton has
been identified as a place where we want to encourage compact development. It has transit, but it is more autooriented corridor and does not have population density and does not really have transit access at all locations.
Second, Mr. Hamwey talked about the availability of data and that we want to minimize new data collection and
start with the data we already have. Mr. Hamwey then used an example from the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority
(PVTA). PVTA has identified a couple of corridors in the City of Springfield for bus rapid transit service where
traditional metrics used to evaluate roadway projects (such as intersection LOS) may not adequately capture the
benefits/impacts of bus rapid transit. Mr. Hamwey recommended the council and staff identify the type of data
that we want to aspire to and at least set up some goals down the road. Secretary Davey responded stating that
we have to come up with criteria by the deadline, but that should not prevent us from aspiring to better metrics
that are more responsive to our values, and committing to gathering the data necessary to get there. Mr. Lovejoy
noted that we need a structure that makes qualitative criteria transparent, as this is more publicly acceptable.
Finally, Mr. Hamwey ended with the staff recommendation of an initial attempt at developing one universal set of
metrics that primarily rely on existing data, but also identifies--in consultation with the MassDOT Office of
Performance Management and Innovation (OPMI)--desired metrics that will require new data which MassDOT can
commit to adopting in the future. He also recommended allowing for the inclusion of qualitative metrics in cases
where quantitative ones do not fully align with our goals.
Applicability of Metrics – Challenge and Potential Solutions
Secretary Davey highlighted the need to perhaps separate out State of Good Repair projects from expansion
projects, in a bid to move beyond just existing Highway project criteria. Frank DePaola stated that Highway/Bridge
project priorities are very data driven by condition, etc, and therefore he asked that since the system is in better
shape now should we prioritize access/interchange improvements to Gateway Cities such as Brockton, Lawrence,
etc. Mr. DePaola suggested that we mix in some expansion projects so it is not just repaving the existing system.
After one final invitation for public comment, the meeting was adjourned.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
54
Project Selection Advisory Council
Public Hearing and Public Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
11:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
60 Congress Street
Springfield, MA
Public Hearing 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
1. Opening Remarks from the Chairman
2. Overview of the PSA Council
3. Presentation of Criteria and Proposed Objectives & Metrics
4. Public Comment
PSA Council Meeting 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m1.
1. Proposed Objectives/Metrics
2. Summary of Scoring Guidance
3. Illustrative Project Scoring Results and Observations
4. PSA Council Schedule Discussion
5. Asset Categories and Project Cost Discussion
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. Accessibility
accommodations and language services will be provided free of charge, upon request, as available. Such services
include documents in alternate formats, translated documents, assistive listening devices, and interpreters (including
American Sign Language). For more information or to request reasonable accommodation and/or language services
please contact Scott Hamwey at (857) 368-8857 or Scott.Hamwey@dot.state.ma.us.
If this information is needed in another language, please contact the MassDOT Title VI Specialist at 857-368-8580.
1
The PSA Council meeting may start earlier than 1:00pm if the Public Hearing finishes ahead of schedule.
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
55
Caso esta informação seja necessária em outro idioma, favor contar o Especialista em Título VI do MassDOT pelo
telefone 857-368-8580.
Si necesita esta información en otro idioma, por favor contacte al especialista de MassDOT del Título VI al 857-3688580.
如果需要使用其它语言了解信息，请联系马萨诸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民权法案》第六章专员，电话857-3688580。
如果需要使用其它語言了解信息，請聯繫馬薩諸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民權法案》第六章專員，電話857-3688580。
Если Вам необходима данная информация на любом другом языке, пожалуйста, свяжитесь со cпециалистом
по Титулу VI Департамента Транспорта штата Массачусетс (MassDOT) по тел: 857-368-8580.
Si yon moun vle genyen enfòmasyon sa yo nan yon lòt lang, tanpri kontakte Espesyalis MassDOT Title VI la nan
nimewo 857-368-8580.
Nếu quý vị cần thông tin này bằng tiếng khác, vui lòng liên hệ Chuyên viên Luật VI của MassDOT theo số điện thoại
857-368-8580.
Si vous avez besoin d'obtenir une copie de la présente dans une autre langue, veuillez contacter le spécialiste du
Titre VI de MassDOT en composant le 857-368-8580.
Se ha bisogno di ricevere queste informazioni in un’altra lingua si prega di contattare lo Specialista MassDOT del
Titolo VI al numero 857-368-8580.
-
6
MassDot
857-368-8580
‫ يُرجى االتصال بأخصائي الفقرة السادسة على الهاتف‬،‫إن كنت بحاجة إلى هذه المعلومات بلغة أخرى‬
588-865-5858
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
56
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Public Hearing and Meeting
September 16, 2014 Meeting
11:30 am – 12:15 pm, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, 60 Congress Street, Springfield, MA
David Mohler, Acting Chair, Deputy Secretary for Policy and Executive Director, Office of Transportation Planning,
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), on behalf of Richard Davey, Secretary and Chief
Executive Officer, MassDOT.
1.
Introductions
Deputy Secretary David Mohler began by thanking everyone for attending the public hearing. He noted that he is a
member of the Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council and is also chairing the meeting today because Secretary
Richard Davey is away on a trade mission. He then noted that the Council will hold an official meeting immediately
following the public hearing, and the public is invited to stay for that meeting where there will be additional
opportunity to provide comment and ask questions.
Public Meeting
2.
Discussion of PowerPoint Public Presentation
Jennifer Slesinger, MassDOT, provided an overview of the meeting agenda and encouraged attendees to provide
input either at the public hearing or at the Council meeting immediately following it. Contact information was
provided for those who want to provide input following the meetings. She explained that the Council was formed
last year through the Legislature under Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013, and is charged with recommending uniform
project selection criteria as well as a project prioritization formula for the Secretary of Transportation to deliver to
the Massachusetts Legislature before the end of the year. She noted that this is the third of the six required public
hearings, with one being held in each of the MassDOT Highway Districts. She then introduced all the Council
members present in the public hearing. In addition to Deputy Secretary Mohler, these were Frank DePaola,
MassDOT Highway Administrator; Steve Silveira, ML Strategies; Linda Dunlavy, Franklin Regional Council of
Governments; and Jim Lovejoy, Chairman of the Board of Selectman for the Town of Mount Washington and
representing Massachusetts Municipal Association. Those members not able to participate in this hearing were
MassDOT Secretary Richard Davey; former MassDOT Secretary Jeff Mullan, Foley Hoag LLP; and John Pourbaix,
Executive Director of the Construction Industries of Massachusetts.
Ms. Slesinger stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to get the public’s input on the full range of issues
that the Council is examining in the development of a prioritization formula. She specifically welcomed feedback
on the higher level criteria categories already proposed, the more specific objectives and metrics that are being
presented for the first time at this meeting, and the approach the Council is considering to address areas not
currently covered in the criteria, including project cost, project readiness, and regional equity. She said at the
previous meeting in July, the Council had asked staff to develop a draft prioritization formula and run an illustrative
set of projects through the formula to test the outcomes. She highlighted that the prioritization formula
developed must based on feedback from meetings with internal and external stakeholders, the core values and
policies of MassDOT, pertinent state and federal laws and regulations, as well as comments received from the
public.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
57
Ms. Slesinger went on to clarify a few terms that have sometimes been used interchangeably during the course of
the Council’s work. She defined criteria as being broad statements of goals and purpose. For example, the Health
and Environment goal asks whether the project contributes to the health and well-being of our people and
environment. Objectives are the strategies identified to help us achieve that goal. In the case of Health and the
Environment, an example of an objective might be to reduce the incidence of chronic disease related to
externalities of the transportation network. Finally, are the metrics or measures, which are the specific way in
which a project is evaluated for its effectiveness in satisfying these goals and objectives. The example given was a
project’s ability to increase physical activity in areas with high levels of obesity.
Ms. Slesinger then went through the six major criteria categories that were presented and approved by the Council
at earlier meetings:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Safety
Mobility and Access
Economic Development
Social Equity and Environmental Justice
System Preservation
Health and the Environment
She noted that the only change to the criteria had been with Health and the Environment, which had previously
just been called “Healthy Transportation.” By calling out the environment, MassDOT could elevate the importance
of greenhouse gas reduction, which is a significant goal of the DOT with the Global Warming Solutions Act.
Next, Ms. Slesinger stated that she would be presenting the proposed objectives to the public as well as the
Council for the first time. She explained that the goal in the development of the objectives was to reduce
redundancy and keep them as simple as possible to promote transparency and ease of use. She went over the
objectives (below), and explained how while they originally developed them so that each one would be tied to a
single criterion, this approach ignored the fact that most objectives helped satisfy multiple criteria. For example,
ensuring maintenance of existing infrastructure also could improve safety, mobility, and economic development.
SAFETY
•
•
EQUITY
Reduce frequency and severity of collisions
for all modes
Improve evacuation routes
MOBILITY/ACCESS
•
•
•
Support mode shift
Improve reliability
Improve efficiency
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
•
•
Support sustainable development
Ensure efficient movement freight
•
Target underserved communities
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
•
•
Reduce GHG
Reduce incidents of chronic disease
SYSTEM PRESERVATION
•
•
Ensure maintenance of existing
infrastructure
Ensure resiliency
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
3.
58
Public Comments
Dick Grannells, member of the Joint Transportation Committee (JTC) of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
(PVPC), stated concerns with attempting to apply urban based project selection criteria in rural areas. For example,
many rural roads in remote lower density areas of the state don’t need sidewalks, so he questioned requiring
sidewalks, bike accommodation, and the mode shift goals in rural areas. He went on to note that the special
characteristics of rural areas need to be considered in the project selection criteria. He went on to say that criteria
and design standards appropriate for urban/suburban roadways are often not relevant in rural context. He
suggested three categories of geographic consideration shaped by demographic data:
•
•
•
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Gary Roux, Principal Planner/Traffic Manager at PVPC, started by thanking the PSA council members for reaching
out them in the development of the proposed prioritization formula. Mr. Roux stated that the PVPC has decided
to wait for the draft report before adopting its own MPO criteria.
Mike Percatti, City of Westfield, stated that the cost of addressing all identified transportation needs would exceed
available funding. He mentioned there is a need for a prioritization process because of the funding shortfall. Mr.
Percatti went on to say that the method used should be based on how revenues are collected and that there needs
to be a more direct method of linking transportation revenues and projects.
Rana Al-Jammal, PVPC staff member, asked whether the project criteria would be applied to all project types,
regardless of scale. Ms. Slesinger responded that the direction from the Council thus far was to apply the criteria to
both MPO and state projects. She clarified that Chapter 90 formula fund projects would be excluded.
Marvin Ward, Town of Windsor, asked how the project selection criteria would be applied so as to not disfavor
rural projects. It was explained that this topic would be addressed during the meeting portion of the agenda.
Mr. Mohler stated that public comments will also be taken during the Council meeting, which will be held
immediately following the Public Hearing.
Council meeting
Scott Hamwey, MassDOT, opened up the Council meeting with the list of items completed since the prior meeting
th
on July 29 in Boston. Mr. Hamwey mentioned that discussion of the regional equity criteria will be deferred to
th
the next meeting on September 24 in Haverhill. He went on to say that the current draft of the selection criteria
is still largely subjective, and that MassDOT is working to make it more quantitative, which in turn will make it
more transparent.
Mr. Hamwey gave examples of each metric and explained the use of a scoring system which ranges from -3 to +3
points. He showed a color flow chart graphic and pointed out the relationship between the criterion, objectives,
and metrics. He went on to explain the project weighting system and why certain categories were given more
weight. Mr. Hamwey then showed a statewide map with the name and location of illustrative projects that were
identified for testing the potential new scoring system. He pointed out that some bicycle projects score high and
others low based on the improvement over baseline conditions in terms of mode shift and connectivity. He also
used the illustrative projects list and draft scoring process to test whether urban projects always score high. The
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
59
results indicated they do not, such as with Route 2 in Erving vs. East Street Pittsfield. Also, the results showed that
in general, interchange projects are not rated highly by the draft scoring system, and non-revenue transit projects
may have a ceiling on high scores because they do not directly attract new ridership.
Mr. Mohler confirmed that the Council members received copies of handouts, which were also provided to the
meeting attendees. The handouts consisted of a list of illustrative projects with summary descriptions, and a copy
of the draft scoring matrix. Mr. Mohler asked what the scoring range is, and Mr. Hamwey responded that the
system scoring adds up to a maximum of 100 points. Mr. Mohler asked if Council members have any questions.
Jim Lovejoy asked how the needs of rural communities are being addressed with the draft scoring system. He cited
the example of a rural road that is in terrible shape, but located in an area of the Commonwealth with low
population density and low traffic volume. He asked how fixing such a road is prioritized in the system.
Linda Dunlavy expressed concern that the proposal goes too far on weighting the mode shift criteria. System
preservation is rated too low. She noted that maintenance of bridges and roads needs to be a higher/the highest
priority, and that the weighting needs to prioritize roads and bridges.
Steve Silveira started by recognizing the strong work completed by the staff to date. He noted that the legislative
mission is to recommend a system for project selection that is fair, transparent, and well understood. He doesn’t
think you can compare a Boston urban project to a rural roadway project. Therefore, we need to step back to the
“30,000 foot level” and re-examine the method of comparing and scoring projects. He suggests we need to ask the
MPOs what their priorities are and tie the state project selection criteria into them. Mr. Silveira suggested a
system that only rates and compares within a mode/type in a given MPO.
Highway Administrator Frank DePaola stated that urban/rural project comparisons are difficult. He doesn’t see
Causeway Street as a viable mode shift project because it would not take people out of cars, it would take
them off transit or from walking to biking. He suggested that the Erving roadway reconstruction project is a
better option that should score higher.
Marvin Ward noted that bicycles are not allowed on some state routes located in rural areas, including the Route
2, Erving illustrative project, and that requiring their accommodation to score well may not make sense on those
types of roads. MassDOT clarified that bicycles are allowed in the Erving section of Route 2 and are generally
allowed unless there is signage prohibiting their use on a facility. The reason why certain roadways have few if any
bicyclists is mostly a rider comfort issue.
Mr. Lovejoy stated that the individual regions/MPOs need to have input to the selection criteria.
Mr. Silveira asked if the Boston MPO must use the MassDOT criteria. Mr. Mohler responded that in theory the
state can deny matching funds for an MPO project that doesn’t score well.
Mr. DePaola noted that not all state money is the “same flavor.” In reality, bridge projects get compared to other
bridge projects because of designated bridge funding. The same is true for other funding programs such as
Interstate Highway maintenance.
Mr. Mohler acknowledged that developing criteria that balance these competing interests by the end of this
calendar year may be tough but it is the legislative charge. However, as the Secretary of Transportation likes to say
“less talk - more do” is needed. If mode shift is not the priority of the Council, the Council needs to inform staff.
Mr. Mohler stated that there is no formula that can do it all and that staff will follow this direction by testing
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
60
increasing system preservation weighting on the illustrative project set. He understands that several Council
members see benefit in comparing projects within categories not across.
Mr. Lovejoy noted that it sounds like there needs to be a way to prioritize rural projects. Perhaps the system
should compare, for example, rural projects only to other rural projects.
Tim Brennan, Executive Director of PVPC, stated that they identify and evaluate projects in “stereo”, meaning that
they consider both their own regional criteria as well as criteria established by the state in the pre-Project Review
Committee process. The state criteria provide a framework, which they then adapt to their regional situation and
needs, i.e. they “make it place specific.”
Ms. Dunlavy expressed concern with the project weighting system, and asked how the evacuation metric weight
was determined. She thought it deserved a much higher weight than two.
Mr. Hamwey justified the low ranking with the explanation that the metrics were generally meant to be applicable
for all projects, but only a small number of projects would be eligible to score points under this metric. Moreover,
many freight routes would also be evacuation routes, so that projects scoring well under freight or evacuation
would tend to score well under both. He asked the Council members if they generally agree that the objectives are
right, and Mr. Mohler asked if any objectives are missing.
Dick Grannells, JTC of the PVPC, offered praise for the project selection process used by PVPC, and asked why not
take the work already done by the MPOs. He thinks the MPO model is a good starting point. Mr. Mohler noted
that MassDOT did look at all 13 MPOs and other states for guidance.
Mr. Silveira suggested that the top crash location list should be a major source of project priorities. Mr. Hamwey
stated that MassDOT didn’t include it in the list, but it is available. Mr. Mohler responded that MassDOT cannot
use just crash/safety numbers for determining highway project priorities. He added that for projects to move
forward primarily on the basis of safety, the safety issue must be clearly defined and the project must address it.
Linda Dunlavy asked if air/rail projects will be subjected to this project prioritization process and Mr. Mohler said
air would not, but rail would. Mr. Mohler and Mr. DePaola cited the example of the Knowledge Corridor rail
project with a $117M total price. They stated there is $70M federal funding, but also $47M of non-federal and
state money for bridges, roads associated with the project. The allocation of this non-federal aid to the Knowledge
Corridor instead of highway projects is the type of choice that the evaluation system will be designed to make
more transparent. Mr. Mohler also mentioned the $800M for purchase of new Red and Orange Line cars as
another example of funding which would otherwise be available for other projects and thus should be compared
with other types of projects.
th
Mr. Hamwey referenced the Council schedule and that September 24 Haverhill is the next Council meeting,
th
followed by an October 20 meeting in Barnstable. The Draft Final Report to the Legislature is due for internal
st
th
review on October 31 , followed by the final scheduled public meeting November 12 in Worcester Union Station.
The Final Report is currently due to the Legislature by December 31, 2014.
Mr. Silveira stated that he would prefer not being held to an arbitrary date if more time is needed to prepare the
Final Report. Mr. Lovejoy also asked about the schedule.
Mr. Mohler stated that the Council and staff should stay the course at least through the next meeting in Haverhill.
He also asked whether and how to consider costs in the selection criteria. Mr. Silveira said yes – it is very important
to consider the cost/benefit analysis of such investments.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
61
Mr. DePaola noted that MassDOT has projects in the TIP that go up in cost during the time between being
approved for the list and the time they are ready for construction, as was the case with a recent project that
doubled in cost to $28M. He suggested that projects should be significant through the design before putting on
the TIP to reduce the cost risk.
Ms. Dunlavy cited similar examples where project costs increase significantly because of inadequate project
definition up front. Mr. Lovejoy suggests that “bang for the buck” should be a major consideration in project
selection criteria, because the ability of a project to leverage other money and investment should boost its score.
Mr. DePaola asked if we should have separate scoring for urban, suburban, and rural projects. Ms. Dunlavy
suggested keeping criteria for comparing across disciplines and programs the same, but create different score
ranges for urban, suburban, and rural. Mr. Mohler expressed concern that bucketing by category or region could
make the prioritization process too complicated, reducing the level of transparency and ease of understanding by
the public. Mr. Lovejoy noted that people want to know how the criteria impacts them, so having a double
process of both scoring and using a baseline minimum of funding by geographic region may make sense.
Mr. Hamwey noted that the staff’s findings on that current state of regional equity, which could inform this
discussion, would be presented at the next meeting in Haverhill on September 24th.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
62
Project Selection Advisory Council
Public Hearing Agenda
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
2:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Haverhill City Hall
4 Summer Street
Haverhill, MA
1. Introductions
2. Opening Remarks from the Chairman
3. Overview of the Council
4. Regional Equity Analysis
5. Proposed Project Prioritization System
6. Public Comment
7. Other Items
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. Accessibility
accommodations and language services will be provided free of charge, upon request, as available. Such services
include documents in alternate formats, translated documents, assistive listening devices, and interpreters (including
American Sign Language). For more information or to request reasonable accommodation and/or language services
please contact Sheri Warrington at 857-368-8837 or sheri.warrington@state.ma.us .
If this information is needed in another language, please contact the MassDOT Title VI Specialist at 857-368-8580.
Caso esta informação seja necessária em outro idioma, favor contar o Especialista em Título VI do MassDOT pelo
telefone 857-368-8580.
Si necesita esta información en otro idioma, por favor contacte al especialista de MassDOT del Título VI al 857-3688580.
如果需要使用其它语言了解信息，请联系马萨诸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民权法案》第六章专员，电话857-3688580。
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
63
如果需要使用其它語言了解信息，請聯繫馬薩諸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民權法案》第六章專員，電話857-3688580。
Если Вам необходима данная информация на любом другом языке, пожалуйста, свяжитесь со cпециалистом
по Титулу VI Департамента Транспорта штата Массачусетс (MassDOT) по тел: 857-368-8580.
Si yon moun vle genyen enfòmasyon sa yo nan yon lòt lang, tanpri kontakte Espesyalis MassDOT Title VI la nan
nimewo 857-368-8580.
Nếu quý vị cần thông tin này bằng tiếng khác, vui lòng liên hệ Chuyên viên Luật VI của MassDOT theo số điện thoại
857-368-8580.
Si vous avez besoin d'obtenir une copie de la présente dans une autre langue, veuillez contacter le spécialiste du
Titre VI de MassDOT en composant le 857-368-8580.
Se ha bisogno di ricevere queste informazioni in un’altra lingua si prega di contattare lo Specialista MassDOT del
Titolo VI al numero 857-368-8580.
-
6
MassDot
857-368-8580
‫ يُرجى االتصال بأخصائي الفقرة السادسة على الهاتف‬،‫إن كنت بحاجة إلى هذه المعلومات بلغة أخرى‬
588-865-5858
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
64
Draft Memorandum for the Record Project Selection Advisory Council Public Hearing
September 24, 2014 Meeting
2:30 pm – 4:30 pm, Haverhill City Hall
Richard Davey, Chair, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT)
1.
Introductions
Secretary Richard Davey began the meeting by thanking the members of the Project Selection Advisory (PSA)
Council for the work completed to date and noted that significant progress has been made over the past several
meetings. He further noted to the members of the public in attendance that comments are welcome on both the
materials being presented today, as well as other thoughts or suggestions that the public may have regarding how
our limited transportation funding resources are allocated across the Commonwealth.
Public Meeting
2.
Discussion
Scott Hamwey, MassDOT, provided an overview of the meeting agenda and encouraged attendees to provide
input immediately following the Council meeting, although public comments would be taken at the front-end of
the meeting for those who needed to leave early.
Elena Mihaly, staff attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) stated that she is presenting the comments
of Rafael Mares of CLF who could not attend. She commended the PSA Council for the great work and progress on
the project selection criteria thus far. Ms. Mihaly noted that they are particularly impressed with the draft scoring
matrix, which is thoughtful and does a good job of incorporating the input on metrics from the Council and the
public. CLF sees the matrix as simple and easy to apply, and believes it strikes a good balance with the relevant
state policies regarding reduction in greenhouse gases, Healthy Transportation, and GreenDOT. CLF would like to
see the Council move ahead with implementation of the process. Secretary Davey requested that CLF provide their
comments in the form of a written letter to further document their input.
Theresa Park, Planning Director, City of Lawrence agreed that each of the six objectives relates to the needs in the
City of Lawrence, and that the Council should continue to work through the metropolitan planning organizations
(MPO) on the specifics of how the scoring and weighting is structured. She further noted the objectives with
particular relevance to the City, such as Mobility/Access, which is important because of the high percentage of
environmental justice populations in the City who need access to jobs. The City is very supportive of the Merrimack
Valley Regional Transit Authority but recognizes that more needs to be done to provide improved mobility and
access to the population. For the objectives of Economic Development and Safety she further noted that the City
has a wide range of needs. A recent road safety audit in the City showed the study location having a crash rate
that is double the typical rate, indicating the need for improvements there. Ms. Park also noted there are many
vacant large former mill buildings in the City, and that the project selection criteria should address the needs of
Lawrence and other Gateway Cities in the Commonwealth.
Mr. Hamwey then returned to the regular meeting agenda. He explained that the Council was formed last year
through the Legislature under Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013, and is charged with recommending uniform project
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
65
selection criteria as well as a project prioritization tool for the Secretary of Transportation to deliver to the
Massachusetts Legislature before the end of the year. He further noted that this is the fourth of the six required
public hearings, with one being held in each of the six MassDOT Highway Districts. He then introduced each of the
five Council members present in the public hearing. In addition to Secretary Davey he introduced David Mohler,
MassDOT Deputy Secretary for Policy; Jeffrey Mullan, former Transportation Secretary; Frank DePaola, MassDOT
Highway Administrator; Steve Silveira, ML Strategies; and John Pourbaix, Executive Director of the Construction
Industries of Massachusetts. He recapped the mission of the PSA Council and noted that the Council has reached
out to sister agencies, MPOs, and federal agencies for their input on project selection criteria. He mentioned that
Jim Lovejoy was not in attendance and is recovering from surgery. Also absent from the meeting was Linda
Dunlavy.
Mr. Hamwey then went through the six categories of objectives and criteria, and went on to say that the current
draft of the selection criteria is still largely subjective, and that MassDOT is working to make it more quantitative,
which in turn will make it more transparent.
Mr. Hamwey provided the audience with handouts containing the illustrative project list and the updated scoring
matrix. He went on to explain the project scoring and weighting system and why certain categories such as access
and mobility are given the highest weight. He pointed out that at the prior meeting Council members asked for
additional projects representing true rural conditions, and went on to describe each of the new illustrative projects
that were added to the analysis. Two of them are rural projects in the western portion of the state.
•
•
Tyringham Road project in the towns of Tyringham and Lee
Housatonic Street project in the town of Dalton
The other two projects added are in the Merrimack Valley.
•
•
Route 114 Improvement project
I-93 Bus-on-Shoulder project
He went on to summarize the feedback received at the Springfield meeting regarding the initial scoring results.
There were Boston projects at the top and bottom of the illustrative scoring, and there were bicycle projects also
at the top and bottom of the illustrative scoring, which was initially encouraging. However, the point was made at
the Springfield meeting by some Council members that mode shift may be weighted too heavily in the formula. For
example, in the case of the Causeway Street cycle track it was pointed out that the actual mode shift from
automobiles is unlikely to be significant. Shifts from walking or transit to bicycle should not be weighted the same
as shifting trips from automobiles to walking, bike, or transit. Based on the feedback from the Springfield hearing
MassDOT went back to re-score the illustrative projects using less weight for the mode shift criteria. Projects that
scored well for greenhouse gas reduction also scored well for mode shift. He stated that MassDOT went back and
changed the weighting system to reflect the input received. He showed the new updated scores for the expanded
list of projects, which identified whether the score went up or down since the initial score, and why. Some of the
projects that scored high in the initial analysis continue to score well, while some of the others do not. For
example, he mentioned that the Route 2 project in Erving, which is in a rural area of the state, continued to score
well. The Fenway bicycle project in Boston did not score as well with the revised scoring system as it had with the
original scoring system. He showed the new scores for the updated list and noted that Mr. Lovejoy recommended
using a 10 point scale rather than the 100 point scale because the 100 point scale implies a level of scoring
precision that is not possible to achieve. A 10 point scale is more appropriate to the quantitative aspect of the
scoring because it would allow for discussion of projects at the margins.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
3.
66
Council Comments
Mr. Mohler asked if the benefits of the Bus-on-Shoulder project have been identified. He asked if we know how
many people would benefit from this project compared to others such as the Tyringham Road project, which
scored a 37 while the I-93 Bus-on-Shoulder project scored a 36. Mr. Hamwey stated that the primary reason is
that mode shift was de-emphasized in the current scoring system based on the input from the Council members at
the Springfield meeting. When mode-shift is more heavily weighted the I-93 Bus-on-Shoulder project scores
higher, but now that system preservation has been given additional weight it results in Tyringham Road scoring
higher.
Dennis DiZoglio, Executive Director of the Merrimack Valley MPO, stated that the Bus-on-Shoulder project will
benefit many users in the region according to analysis performed by the MPO and others. The project benefits
should be more fully articulated before any final scoring of that project.
Mr. DePaola stated that the project benefits will need to be examined in greater detail to distinguish those which
are qualitative versus quantitative. He asked how the I-93 Bus-on-Shoulder project scored on the environmental
criteria. Mr. Hamwey explained that the project scored high on environmental criteria and not as high on others
such as safety.
Mr. Mohler stated that he considers the BRT project in Springfield more realistic for achieving mode shift than a
typical bike trail project. He asked how relative benefits will be accounted for. Mr. Hamwey stated that project
cost and trip volume are not yet a factor in the project weighting process, but there is an efficiency metric that gets
at the question of benefits and costs. For example, on Blue Hill Avenue in Boston, the efficiency of dedicating
travel lanes to bus is much greater than it would be for a project dedicating lanes to buses where ridership
potential is much lower. Jennifer Slesinger, MassDOT, went on to add that the scoring accounts for degrees of low,
moderate, and high levels of impact, which can get to the question of users impacted to a certain extent.
Secretary Davey stated that the current draft is missing an investment analysis. Mr. Mullan agreed that this new
material is responsive to what was requested, but asked how cost gets factored in? The statute requires the
Council to consider project cost. Mr. Mullan affirmed his agreement with Mr. Lovejoy’s comment that a 10 point
scale is better than a 100 point scale. He believes that with the 100 point scale provides a false sense of precision.
He went on to suggest consideration of a two tier process for scoring. Tier 1 would be for basic screening and
scoring, and for those projects that pass the screening, a Tier 2 for investment analysis would support the next
level of project selection.
Mr. Mohler suggested that Tier 1 could be utilized to identify projects early in the process that are unlikely to be
advanced and could be used to inform the regions and local governments which projects are not meeting
minimum criteria and therefore unlikely to receive state funding.
Steve Silveira concurred and suggested using Tier 1 as a notification to locals that the project needs to recast or
find local/private funds. He stated that he is nervous about any process that ranks Causeway Street at the top of
the list. Mr. Silveira noted that he thinks the 10 point scale would be a problem because most projects would end
up at a six, for example, leaving the project selection process highly subjective.
Secretary Davey shares Mr. Silveira’s concern with the relatively high score of the Causeway Street project. He
stated that staff needs to look at the costs and benefits of each project and consider the life cycle costs. System
preservation is necessary and this will be a useful process in a few more years after the backlog of deferred
maintenance, repair, and replacement projects are addressed. He further noted that the tiered screening process
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
67
could be useful for giving locals early notification about the status of their projects. For those that do not pass the
initial screening it will alert the locals that they need to consider other sources of funding.
Mr. DePaola stated that he would be more comfortable with scoring that is grouped by program funding sources.
He suggested using a percentage for interstate maintenance and subsets for community projects and other
categories. Large, Interstate preservation projects will likely receive a large percentage of the funding under the
scoring system, so for equity, it may be necessary to slice the funding into categories with each receiving a
minimum amount of funding, then use scoring to rank the projects within each funding program.
Mr. Mohler made it clear that traffic on I-93 is terrible and the system must allow for addressing it. He stated that
he prefers scoring everything first, then looking at the geographic equity and adjust the funding levels and
projects, as needed.
Mr. Silveira suggested going further and using a three tier system. Tier 1 would be an initial statewide screen,
followed by Tier 2, which looks at mandated funding pots. Tier 3 would then consider geographic equity. He
recognizes that some level of subjectivity will be part of the process, particularly for geographic equity.
Secretary Davey said he likes the idea of a tiered approach. Much of the funding is already formula driven and so it
is the funding layers that have some discretion that we need to be focusing on.
John Pourbaix stated that the transportation system is currently suffering from a focus on mega projects and now
there is not enough money. He believes that the criteria will be helpful for breaking out where money must be
spent based on formulas and legislative mandates, and which have discretion. He wants to see a benefit-cost
analysis as part of the process that identifies the life-cycle cost implications of project choices.
Mr. Mullan also suggested a tiered approach to evaluating projects. He asked questions regarding how to load the
various “buckets” of funding—whether it should be based on population, VMT, or some other criteria.
Mr. Silveira noted that when looking at cost, there also needs to be consideration of the cost of doing nothing, i.e.
deferred maintenance and repairs. Secretary Davey noted that the Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) is targeted
at addressing the issue of deferred maintenance and repairs on bridges.
Mr. Hamwey thanked the Council members for their input and thoughts and noted that these issues raised will be
addressed in the ongoing development of the project selection criteria.
4.
Regional Equity
Ms. Slesinger stated that in response to the request of Council members, MassDOT reviewed current
transportation program funding levels to determine if they are geographically equitable to inform how to
distribute funding going forward. She provided an overview of the regional equity analysis. She stated that in
developing the criteria, they mostly looked at STIP and CIP.
Secretary Davey stated that all regions have transportation needs that exceed available funding levels and
requested that the statement be added to the next report. He went on to add that no town or region is getting
more money than they need. There are worthy projects across the state and the report needs to reflect this. He
said they are not trying to correct inequities between cities and towns caused by a particular city or town currently
receiving more than is needed.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
68
Ms. Slesinger presented a slide showing the current breakdown of Chapter 90 funding. She stated that the formula
is based 60% on lane miles, 20% population, and 20% employment. She also explained how the Chapter 90
breakdown compared with the breakdown of STIP and CIP funding. She pointed out that in general, the analysis
shows there is geographic equity, though there are some outliers in the draft analysis. For example, the Pioneer
Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) and Merrimac Valley MPOs rate at or near the top in each category while Old
Colony MPO generally ranks at or near the bottom of the MPO rankings across the funding categories and
measures. She presented slides summarizing the analysis of funding levels per capita and per lane mile and noted
that other than Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket there are no clear outliers, and those are explained in Martha’s
Vineyard by two bridge projects that tend to skew the results because of the relatively low population there.
Mr. Pourbaix asked if the patterns within the 4-5 year analysis period are similar to patterns if looking back over a
longer period, such as 10 years past.
Mr. Silveira asked if there is a statewide inventory of transportation infrastructure condition organized by MPO
where staff could look for a correlation between existing conditions assessments and funding levels. Mr. DePaola
stated that the condition data is available for the highway/bridge facilities for each highway district. He said that
looking back, there has not been much non-highway spending but going forward more funding is going to transit.
Mr. Silveira further suggested that this data be used to determine a percentage of money spent by MPO or District
compared to the identified need.
Mr. Mohler observed that the CIP analysis shows a large amount of funding going to the Boston MPO and this
reflects the major transit projects in the region and major investments such as the new Orange and Red Line cars.
He asked for clarification on what modes of transportation are included in the CIP analysis. Ms. Slesinger clarified
that the CIP includes transit and highway, as well as a small relative dollar value of aeronautics projects. The STIP
analysis for this presentation only includes highway.
5.
Urban and Suburban/Rural
Ms. Slesinger described the additional cuts at the funding data, this time looking at how the funding is currently
allocated in urban areas of the state compared to suburban/rural areas. The analysis used population density of
greater than 5,000 persons per square mile as the definition of urban. If a city or town contains one or more
census blocks with density that meets the urban definition, the entire city or town was counted as urban and all
the projects contained within it were counted as urban. A total of 119 municipalities in the state were categorized
as urban using this definition. Cities and towns without any areas meeting the urban density definition were
counted as suburban/rural. Ms. Slesinger noted that with more time, a more robust geospatial analysis can be
conducted that more accurately reflects the dollar value of urban versus rural projects.
Mr. Silveira asked about the suburban/rural category and suggested that suburban is very different from rural and
so should have its own category. Mr. Mohler agreed it might make sense to break the numbers out by urban,
suburban, and rural. Scott Hamwey further clarified that the reason the analysis focused on urban is because it is
within both the suburban and urban areas where so many of the selection objectives can be achieved, such as
those related to mode shift or sustainable development.
Mr. Mullan asked if there is a takeaway from the analysis that shows Pioneer Valley MPO doing so well and the Old
Colony MPO not doing so well. Mr. Mohler responded that some MPOs which are very small don’t compete well
for funding with the larger MPOs. For example, Northern Middlesex MPO and the Old Colony MPO only have 6-9
municipalities each.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
69
Ms. Slesinger wrapped up the regional equity discussion by noting that the analysis thus far does not appear to
have identified any major inequities in the geographic distribution of funding.
6.
Public Comments
Mr. DiZoglio began by thanking the Council for bringing its meeting to the Merrimac Valley. He stated that many
of the MVMPO concerns are on the table and it was informative to hear the issues being discussed by the Council.
The MPO has used its own scoring system for the past 10 years and stated that the Council is on the right track
with the approach it is taking. Secretary Davey asked if it is fair to say that in this process we should not let perfect
be the enemy of the good. Mr. DiZoglio agreed and went on to say that the Safety objective should include
security and evacuation routes. The Preservation objective needs to address climate change because of its
potential impact and its relationship to the resiliency of the system. For the Health related objective, they would
like to understand whether and how public health distress areas will be defined and identified in this process. For
Economic Development, they would like to see this coordinated with other state agencies responsible for
economic development planning, and to consider references to the state priority development areas. For the
Social Equity objective, the benefits component of the project needs to be included. For Mobility and Access, the
MPO uses travel time savings, congestion relief, and connectivity. He suggested adding Cost Effectiveness into the
process.
Nick Downing, Metropolitan Area Planning Council, stated that they will provide written comments as well. He
thanked the Secretary and Council, and went on to state that the end of year deadline is important and asked
when the best point in the process would be to provide extensive written comments. Secretary Davey responded
that now is the best time because it makes it more likely to be worked into the Council’s report.
Geordie Vining, Town of Newburyport, praised the Council’s approach to date, and also echoed Mr. DiZoglio’s
concerns and suggestions. He noted that from his own experience in developing ranking systems, he knows it is a
difficult process. He agreed that no single scoring number can be reliable, and suggested that the Council be very
upfront on this issue by including a statement to this effect in the report. He also concurred that he favors the 10
point scale. The 100 point scale cannot yield realistic results and would be misleading. He mentioned that he will
be providing these comments in written form to the Council.
Mr. Silveira noted that the Council needs to decide whether to continue with the schedule or submit the report
when it is ready and sufficient analysis has been completed. If the other members believe the legislative schedule
is the driver, he will stop raising the question and focus on the report.
Mr. Pourbaix stated that in the past, the Transportation Finance Commission (TFC) had a similar concern and dealt
with it by issuing an interim report, then continued to work with the new administration.
Secretary Davey expressed that he shares some of these concerns and sees the value of having the new
administration taking office in early 2015 having ownership of the report, and not just having it sit on the shelf. He
stated that he is particularly interested in the Cost-Benefit process being defined in the report, whether it is
interim or final.
Mr. Mullan stated that the TFC report was very helpful to him when coming into office; it was a blueprint for the
Chapter 25 Acts that followed it. He noted that he likes the idea of an interim report to generate further and more
detailed input and comments. He suggested keeping the illustrative projects in the report. He agreed that an
interim report makes the most sense because it moves the process forward while providing an opportunity for the
next administration to have ownership of the recommendations.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
70
Mr. DePaola also likes the idea of an interim report. He stated that if you look at “Project Info,” there are $3 billion
in good projects across the state that meet the federal and state criteria, but there is a lack of funding to
implement them. He said the analysis is showing equity is generally acceptable so the focus will be on a process
for screening and prioritizing projects.
Mr. Silveira stated that the TFC issued three interim reports, which were essentially a collection of meeting
minutes. He noted that it is very time consuming to complete even an interim report with all the drafting, review,
editing, and process that goes into it.
Secretary Davey stated that an interim report of this Council would be more than a collection of meeting minutes
because there are a number of documents already prepared and underway that would likely be included. He will
reach out to the transportation committee chairs of the Legislature to ensure it is acceptable with them to take the
approach of an interim report.
7.
Next meeting
Mr. Hamwey noted that MassDOT will be addressing the comments and requests of the Council members and
preparing materials for the next meeting, which is scheduled for October 20 in Barnstable.
The meeting was adjourned by Secretary Davey.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
71
Project Selection Advisory Council
Public Hearing Agenda
Monday October 20, 2014
2:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Cape Cod Commission
3225 Main Street
Barnstable, MA, 02630
1.
Opening Remarks from the Chairman
2.
Overview of the Council
3.
Revised Council Schedule
4.
Proposed Project Prioritization System
5.
Outstanding Issues
6.
Public Comment
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. Accessibility
accommodations and language services will be provided free of charge, upon request, as available. Such services
include documents in alternate formats, translated documents, assistive listening devices, and interpreters (including
American Sign Language). For more information or to request reasonable accommodation and/or language services
please contact Sheri Warrington at 857-368-8857 or Scott.Hamwey@state.ma.us .
If this information is needed in another language, please contact the MassDOT Title VI Specialist at 857-368-8580.
Caso esta informação seja necessária em outro idioma, favor contar o Especialista em Título VI do MassDOT pelo
telefone 857-368-8580.
Si necesita esta información en otro idioma, por favor contacte al especialista de MassDOT del Título VI al 857-3688580.
如果需要使用其它语言了解信息，请联系马萨诸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民权法案》第六章专员，电话857-3688580。
如果需要使用其它語言了解信息，請聯繫馬薩諸塞州交通部（MassDOT）《民權法案》第六章專員，電話857-3688580。
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
72
Если Вам необходима данная информация на любом другом языке, пожалуйста, свяжитесь со cпециалистом
по Титулу VI Департамента Транспорта штата Массачусетс (MassDOT) по тел: 857-368-8580.
Si yon moun vle genyen enfòmasyon sa yo nan yon lòt lang, tanpri kontakte Espesyalis MassDOT Title VI la nan
nimewo 857-368-8580.
Nếu quý vị cần thông tin này bằng tiếng khác, vui lòng liên hệ Chuyên viên Luật VI của MassDOT theo số điện thoại
857-368-8580.
Si vous avez besoin d'obtenir une copie de la présente dans une autre langue, veuillez contacter le spécialiste du
Titre VI de MassDOT en composant le 857-368-8580.
Se ha bisogno di ricevere queste informazioni in un’altra lingua si prega di contattare lo Specialista MassDOT del
Titolo VI al numero 857-368-8580.
្របសិនេប�េលាក-អ�ក្រត�វការបកែ្របព័ត៌មានេនះ សូមទាក់ទកអ�កឯកេទសេល�ជំពូកទី6 របស់MassDot តាមរយៈេលខទូរស័ព� 857-368-8580
‫ ُﻳﺭﺟﻰ ﺍﻻﺗﺻﺎﻝ ﺑﺄﺧﺻﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺳﺎﺩﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻬﺎﺗﻑ‬،‫ﺇﻥ ﻛﻧﺕ ﺑﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻣﻌﻠﻭﻣﺎﺕ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺃﺧﺭﻯ‬
857-368-8580
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
73
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of October 20, 2014
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Public Hearing and Meeting
2:30 pm – 4:30 pm, Cape Cod Commission, 3224 Main Street, Barnstable.
Richard Davey, Chair, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT)
1. Welcome and Introductions
Scott Hamwey, MassDOT, welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave a brief overview of the Public
Selection Advisory (PSA) Council. He noted that this is public hearing number five of six to occur, each in
one of the MassDOT Highway Districts. The sixth meeting will be held on November 12 in Worcester.
2. Discussion of PowerPoint Public Presentation
Mr. Hamwey reviewed the meeting agenda, which included a brief PSA Council overview, the revised
schedule, the interim report, outstanding issues, and an opportunity for public comment. He described
the goal of the PSA Council is to develop a prioritization method for selecting future projects.
Secretary Richard Davey added that the resulting criteria will determine how administrations prioritize
projects, but will not supersede the current Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) selection
process.
Mr. Hamwey introduced each of the attending council members. In addition to Secretary Davey, he
introduced former MassDOT Secretary Jeffrey Mullan, Foley Hoag LLP; Frank DePaola, MassDOT
Highway Administrator; David Mohler, MassDOT’s Executive Director of Planning; and John Pourbaix,
Executive Director of the Construction Industries of Massachusetts. Those members not able to
participate in this hearing were Steve Silveira, ML Strategies; Jim Lovejoy, Chairman of the Board of
Selectman for the Town of Mount Washington; and Linda Dunlavy, Franklin Regional Council of
Governments. Mr. Hamwey noted that this would be the last meeting with Secretary Davey chairing the
Council, as he will be stepping down as Secretary on October 31. At that point, Administrator DePaola
will be taking his place as Secretary of Transportation and Chair of the Council.
Mr. Hamwey then listed the six proposed criteria objectives and their twelve objectives. He then
described the review of 15 illustrative projects to test the initial set of objectives. He pointed out that
although the Causeway Reconstruction project still rated the highest, it remained on top of the list
primarily because of the staff assessment that it should score highly on the system preservation criteria,
which is heavily weighted in the “new” weighting scale established at the Haverhill meeting. The “old”
scores on the slide are from the first attempt to weight the objectives and metrics, which weighted
mode shift much higher. The Boston MPO also scored the Causeway project well under their system
preservation scoring criteria. Mr. Hamwey noted that the weights are still subject to change and that no
new work has been done since the meeting in Haverhill to rescore projects or test new weights.
Mr. Hamwey continued on to the topic of regional equity. The current state of regional equity was
assessed in order to determine if and how accommodations should to be made in a new prioritization
process to ensure regional equity going forward. He described how regional equity was determined by
analyzing major project funding sources over geographic and demographic measures such as Regional
Planning Agency/MPO, Highway District, urban vs. rural, per capita and per lane mile. The major funding
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
74
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of October 20, 2014
sources considered were the Highway State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the Capital
Investment Program (CIP). Chapter 90 Apportionment Funding (Chapter 90) for municipalities was used
as a point of comparison.
Mr. Hamwey showed a chart displaying the allocation of the three major funding sources among MPOs.
He described how a similar trend exists between funding sources, but that some discrepancies exist due
to different funding sources pertaining to different project types. He then showed a chart comparing
Highway STIP funding per capita by district. Districts 1 and 2 ranked as the top two on the per capita
funding measure. He then displayed another chart comparing Highway STIP funding per lane mile by
district, which showed District 6 above all others for funding.
Secretary Davey pointed out that numbers could be misleading if there is a combination of debt service
spending and actual spending. Other council members agreed and suggested focusing on actual
spending as opposed to debt service spending. Mr. Hamwey stated that further analysis would be
conducted on the type of spending and be presented at the next council meeting. Secretary Davey
suggested specifically looking out for large Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) repayments.
Mr. Hamwey then showed a chart comparing Highway STIP and CIP funding per capita expenditures by
urban and suburban/rural regions. He described how the STIP funding is fairly equitable, but CIP funding
allocation generally favors urban regions because it includes transit.
Mr. Hamwey then displayed a chart for percent of fair/poor quality pavement by MassDOT highway
district which showed a relatively equitable distribution. He then displayed a chart comparing percent of
Highway STIP funding with percent of fair/poor pavement quality by district. He pointed out the general
sense of equity, but slightly higher fund allocations in District 2 and slightly lower in District 5. He noted
that the reason for MPOs like Old Colony ranking low on funding may be a result of that MPO having a
high percentage of its bridges already in a good state of repair and a relatively low number of bridges
overall.
Secretary Davey noted that existing transportation funding patterns across the Commonwealth are
already showing generally good regional equity, and suggested that the funding allocation model should
refine the current process, but need not reinvent it.
Mr. Mullan commented that tourism and seasonal population may affect per capita analyses for
locations such as District 5. Mr. Hamwey responded, stating that discrepancies were noted as they arose
and generally helped to explain a perceived inequity. However, he noted that it does appear that District
5, which already is on the lower end of the spectrum for Highway STIP spending per capita, would be
even more inequitable if the peak population were used in the analysis. Mr. Mullan stated that he would
like to see tourism data if available. Mr. Hamwey stated it would be considered more closely in future
analysis.
Jennifer Slesinger, MassDOT, detailed the outstanding issues and considerations. These included
schedule, cost, number of people impacted, funding categories, regional priorities, tiers of scoring,
timing of scoring, coordination with other efforts, point scale, project definitions, other system
coordination, and who will be scoring the projects. She then went on to describe the revised schedule,
highlighting that the six-month extension has been requested and that an interim report was promised
in lieu of a final report for the December 31, 2014 deadline. Ms. Slesinger stated that the interim report
would likely include memos explaining the portions of the prioritization formula already developed, a
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
75
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of October 20, 2014
memo on regional equity, a memo explaining outstanding issues, and a roadmap for the next six
months.
Secretary Davey stated that he has spoken with the Chairmen of the Transportation Committee and that
we can proceed with the six month extension with the interim report as described.
Mr. Hamwey asked the PSA Council members if they are in agreement to accept the objectives that have
been presented at the last several meetings. All of the council members present agreed.
Secretary Davey followed up, stating that the final report should be a living document, continually
updated with new data and analysis.
Mr. Mullan suggested incorporating a roadmap forward and, if possible, to make the decision formula
simpler so to be easily communicated.
Secretary Davey noted that Public Private Partnerships (P3) may play a role on the issue of who is
scoring projects.
Ms. Slesinger went on to describe the interrelated criteria for project scoring. She stated that the project
cost criteria is required by legislation and that a full cost benefit analysis can be timely and costly to
determine. She suggested the possible solutions of modifying the formula to include cost benefit for
various metrics such as cost per points scored and a cost/benefit metric for various objectives such as
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction per dollar, mode shift per dollar, and reliability increase per dollar. She
then asked the opinion of the council on conducting an investment analysis or cost benefit analysis.
Mr. Pourbaix stated that the cost of no action should be included.
Mr. DePaola stated that projects of a similar type should be compared to each other. For example,
bridge projects are very expensive, so bridges should be compared against bridges, and there should be
a minimum investment to maintain bridge condition.
Mr. Mullan stated that the proposed GreenDOT regulation should be considered and items such as GHG
reduction and mode shift should be included.
Mr. Mohler stated that people served or average daily travel (ADT) vs. cost is the easiest way and to not
dig too deep into specific categories. He recognized that this could skew lower use projects such as bike
paths, but this should be taken care of by comparing bike paths to bike paths.
Mr. Pourbaix suggested determining what types of funds are available/restricted, developing funding
buckets for each project type and have one unrestricted bucket to make sure no money is being turned
away. Criteria for each funding bucket may change depending on specific federal regulations.
Ms. Slesinger asked the Council’s opinion of a first tier overall scoring then a second tier scoring by
funding buckets.
Mr. Mohler commented that he is not yet sure, and that more input may be needed.
Mr. DePaola stated that MAP-21 targets identify a maximum proportion of structurally deficient bridges.
Mr. Mohler stated that this standard needs to be met for federal funding, which the STIP is currently
doing.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
76
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of October 20, 2014
Secretary Davey suggested that decision criteria could show why some metrics are not good for certain
project types and that separate metrics based on project type would produce a better decision
outcome.
Secretary Davey suggested including a metric of size verses cost and performing a more rigorous scoring
for large scale projects. He stated that thresholds for project cost could determine the thoroughness of
their scoring. He stated that the state does not want to throw away money on projects that might be
built such as the South Coast Rail project and that projects need to be secured before receiving large
amounts of funds. He added that projects to be considered must undergo a full review prior to scoring.
Ms. Slesinger noted that Washington State has a tier-based approach based on project value that she
could look into further.
Secretary Davey noted that the Silver Line is a good example of the usefulness of a scoring system
because it is a cost effective people mover, but it not seen as a “sexy” project type.
Mr. Mullan stated that the scoring process needs to go on record. He asked if the unallocated funds go
to the districts. He suggested there be a low cut-off point for cost to meeting scoring eligibility, in other
words, the scoring method should not consider low-value projects.
Mr. DePaola stated that not all projects have impacts only in one region. He gave the example of I-93,
reducing congestion across Districts and MPOs. He suggested that projects like these be compared
against similarly sized corridor projects.
Mr. Mullan stated that District 1 has relatively high funding on a per capita basis but analyzing people
served may not disfavor District 1 based on ADT/ridership.
Mr. Mohler stated that locations such as the town of Mount Washington will not serve a lot of people
but still need to be considered.
Mr. DePaola stated that people served, factoring in tourism, is a good general metric.
Secretary Davey stated that in addition to people served a broader definition of people impacted should
be included for factors such as noise and pollution. He stated that Chapter 90 helps with this issue.
Other Council members present agreed.
Mr. Hamwey asked the council if people impacted should be put into the scoring system. All Council
members present agreed.
Mr. Mullan and Secretary Davey relayed how Chapter 90 was established as a temporary program, but
has stayed in existence due to its usefulness to act as a fail-safe in times of scarce resources.
Ms. Slesinger stated that in the interest of time, they would close the discussion on outstanding issues.
The Council agreed to move onward.
Mr. Hamwey stated that the next and final public hearing will be held on November 12 at Union Station
in Worcester from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm. He proposed the Council meet once per month after this
hearing, alternating between Boston and Worcester.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
77
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of October 20, 2014
Secretary Davey stated that the outcome of the meeting on November 12th should have all issues
resolved for the writing of the interim report due on December 31st.
Mr. DePaola stated that the draft report will identify any holes and provide a good path moving forward.
Mr. Hamwey stated that the draft report will be ready by the December meeting.
3. Public Comments
Glenn Cannon, Cape Cod Commission, stated that he supports the formula based approach and the
deadline extension. He suggested focusing on peak hour planning, especially for seasonal areas. He
stated that the Outer Cape has its first TIP funded project. He suggested keeping other funding sources
in mind such as the Rural Roads program. He encouraged the Council to look into safety and megaproject review. He stated that performance measures should be established as part of this process to
revisit past projects for evaluation.
Patty Daley, Deputy Director for the Cape Cod Commission, stated that seasonal regions do not produce
accurate funding per capita, and that analyses should take tourism into account. Mr. Pourbaix added
that this may affect both Cape Cod and Western Massachusetts.
Mr. Mullan stated that performance measure should have a built in audit function with features such as
a 5-year project look-back.
Mr. DePaola stated that all the MassDOT highway districts have individual priority lists, enumerating
their top 20-25 projects. Other sources, such as crash data, also produce project lists. All districts have a
backlog of projects.
Paul Mission, Transportation Program Manager for the Southeastern Regional Planning and
Development District (SRPEDD), stated that rural communities will score low and do not want to rely on
Chapter 90 funds which are variable from year to year. They do not need fully upgraded sidewalks on
rural roads. Funding sources like pavement management programs and federal-aid eligible roads avoid
political pressure.
Tim Kochan, MassDOT Transportation Planner and Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator for District 5, stated
that cost per ADT will not work because one size does not fit all. He suggested a breakdown by type
before scoring. For example, the Taunton interchange first scored an 18 then a 36 after a revisit. The
same mode needs to be compared to the same mode, for example, highway vs. highway. Shared use
paths are good, but not generally favorable in terms of dollars per person. Mr. DePaola echoed Mr.
Kochan’s comments, stating paths need to be compared with paths, transit vs. transit, etc.
Pamela Haznar, Project Development Engineer for MassDOT District 5, stated that the Project Review
Committee compares different project types depending on project measures and metrics. She stated
that a balanced program is important, and the cost of preservation needs to be compared against the
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
78
Project Selection Advisory Council Meeting Notes of October 20, 2014
cost of new projects. Mr. Mullan agreed, stating that focus needs to be on balance and eliminating bias
toward expansion vs. preservation. Preservation needs should be incorporated into the first tier of
analysis.
Sue Rohrbach, Senator Dan Wolf’s District Director, stated that seasonality should be incorporated to
account for the need of local projects. There should be balanced pots of funding for project types, and
an additional pot for discretionary funding.
Mr. Mission, stated that specified funding allocations, such as 10% of TIP funding going towards smaller
projects such as bike paths and drainage, helps maintain equity. There should be dedicated funding for
each project type. In Southeast MA, one third of their spending goes towards community paths,
alternative modes of transportation, and system preservation, respectively.
Ms. Daley stated NO2 pollution has been a problem in certain areas in Cape Cod and larger
environmental factors should be considered in funding allocation.
Mr. Mohler asked for any additional public comment. After there was none, he thanked all for attending
and closed the meeting.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
79
Project Selection Advisory Council
Public Hearing Agenda
Wednesday November 12, 2014
6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Worcester, MA
1. Opening Remarks from the Chairman
2. Overview of the Council
3. Updated Proposed Project Prioritization System
4. Draft Report and Next Steps
5. Public Comment
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency. Accessibility
accommodations and language services will be provided free of charge, upon request, as available. Such services
include documents in alternate formats, translated documents, assistive listening devices, and interpreters (including
American Sign Language). For more information or to request reasonable accommodation and/or language services
please contact Sheri Warrington at 857-368-8857 or Scott.Hamwey@state.ma.us .
If this information is needed in another language, please contact the MassDOT Title VI Specialist at 857-368-8580.
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TDD: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
80
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Project Selection Advisory Council Public Hearing and Meeting
6:30 pm – 8:00 pm, Union Station (Union Hall), Worcester,
Frank DePaola, Chair, Acting Secretary of Transportation, Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT)
Welcome and Introductions
Jennifer Slesinger, MassDOT, welcomed everyone to the meeting and let attendees know public
comment would be taken at the end. She noted that this is the sixth and final PSA Council hearing, which
completes the commitment of holding one in each of the six MassDOT Highway Districts.
Frank DePaola introduced himself as the acting Secretary of Transportation, taking the role of former
Secretary Richard Davey, who is no longer a member of the PSA Council. He described how the selection
process has gathered information from Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and reached out to
other states to identify best practices for determining project funding schedule and budget. In the short
term, with lower gas tax revenue as a result of the recent ballot initiative eliminating the indexing of the
gas tax to inflation, there is a greater need for active projects to be prioritized to determine which need
to be cut from the budget.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Slesinger provided an overview of the meeting agenda and gave a brief description of the PSA
Council and the background of work accomplished to date. She went over the revised schedule,
highlighting that the final report deadline was extended from December 31, 2014 to June 30, 2015.
Ms. Slesinger welcomed the members of the council. In addition to Acting Secretary DePaola, she
introduced Steve Silveira, ML Strategies, former MassDOT Secretary Jeffrey Mullan, Foley Hoag LLP;
Linda Dunlavy, Franklin Regional Council of Governments; David Mohler, MassDOT Executive Director of
Planning; John Pourbaix, Executive Director of the Construction Industries of Massachusetts; and Jim
Lovejoy, Chairman of the Board of Selectman for the Town of Mount Washington.
Ms. Slesinger listed the six broad criteria categories and the twelve objectives. She stated that the
council had agreed on the criteria and objectives, but would finalize the metrics and weights once the
incoming administration has an opportunity to inform the process. She then described how 15
illustrative projects were used to test the scoring criteria.
Ms. Slesinger next discussed the topic of regional equity and the goal of including equity measures into
the new prioritization formula. The major funding sources analyzed were the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), the Capital Investment Program (CIP), and Chapter 90 Apportionment
Funding (Chapter 90). She displayed a graph comparing each of these sources by MPO, resulting in a
generally consistent distribution.
Ms. Slesinger addressed a question raised at the previous meeting, stating that no GANS payments were
included in the analysis, and that only one interest payment was included, amounting to less than 0.1%
of the total.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
81
Ms. Slesinger described how different analyses of the data, such as per capita and per lane mile, show
different “winners” and “losers” based on regional equity. In their analysis inequity was
generallycreated by the top 2.5% of projects by cost, thus it would be important to track regional equity
over time to determine regional equity trends.
Ms. Slesinger went on to describe the outstanding considerations that have been raised during outreach
efforts. These included incorporating project cost, number of people impacted, i.e. potentially benefiting
from a project, funding categories, regional priorities, tiers of scoring, coordination with other systems,
aspirational data, point scale, what counts as a project, and who will be performing the scoring.
Ms. Slesinger presented the newly developed four tiered prioritization process flow chart (seen in slide 9
of the presentation), stating that feedback is welcome.
•
•
•
•
In Tier 1, projects are evaluated based on the determined criteria and given an initial score.
Projects that do not pass a threshold are rejected. The result of this tier is a preliminary ranked
list of projects.
In Tier 2, projects are evaluated based on a cost benefit analysis. Projects with good scores are
passed on to a final ranked list. Low scores are returned to the preliminary ranked list to be
reevaluated against higher scoring projects from Tier 1.
In Tier 3, the final ranked list is compared against available funding by category. Top scoring
projects eligible for available funding availability are advanced, while projects for which eligible
funding is not available are held back.
In Tier 4, the filtered list is checked for balance (for considerations such as regional equity or
allocation of resources across asset categories). If inequity exists, it is either justified or projects
in the final program may be replaced in order to eliminate the inequity.
Ms. Slesinger pointed out that questions remain from this process such as the definition of “all
projects,” regional equity, and the timeframe for each tier. She then turned discussion over to the
Council.
Council Discussion
Acting Secretary DePaola stated that he liked the flowchart and agreed with the overall process. He
asked what happened when projects are brought back from Tier 4.
Ms. Slesinger answered that they would be compared against top rated projects from Tier 3. That would
be an opportunity to justify the current program or bring projects forward from Tier 3, if the current
plan could not be justified.
Ms. Dunlavy asked if/how projects ever got out of the yellow “limbo” phase?
Ms. Slesinger stated that the evaluation process would occur multiple times, perhaps annually, and that
projects stuck in this phase may need to eventually be revised or rejected.
Mr. Silveira asked what point in a project’s life does this process take place and if the process will
include existing projects.
Ms. Slesinger said that the first two steps would likely take place upon the projects inception and the
second two would be considered with the STIP/CIP funding allocation process.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
82
Mr. Lovejoy asked how the rating scheme worked with a multiyear project. Will projects be reevaluated
each year?
Ms. Slesinger stated that this could happen and is still an outstanding consideration.
Ms. Slesinger continued with the presentation, highlighting mega-projects as a possible need for
separate consideration. Currently, very few states have a robust process for screening and ranking
mega-projects. Wisconsin DOT makes recommendation to a legislative commission after the
environmental state to encumber funds for larger projects.
Ms. Dunlavy asked if these mega-projects are all state funded.
Ms. Slesinger replied that they all are, at least in part.
Ms. Slesinger continued, stating that a risk feasibility study would be beneficial prior to funding megaprojects to provide a comparable analysis and weed out untenable projects.
Mr. Pourbaix asked if the federal government requires a financial forecast for mega-projects. Ms.
Slesinger noted that the Federal Transit Authority does require a financial capacity analysis for major
investments through its New Starts grants program. There was some discussion among council
members, finding that the federal government does require continuous monitoring that shows these
mega-projects are financially attainable, but does not necessitate a prioritization process that the megaproject selected is the best one.
Mr. Silveira asked if there is a current definition of “mega-project.”
Mr. Mohler stated that MassDOT uses a loose definition of “significant dollar value” that could vary by
region.
Ms. Slesinger added that as part of the Projects of National and Regional Significance program, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sets a floor for such projects in Massachusetts at $293 million,
but the PSA process might want to consider a regional definition.
Mr. Mullan agreed with the regional definition. He asked if a separate process was being proposed for
mega-projects.
Ms. Slesinger replied that a separate process is still under consideration.
Mr. Mullan stated that part of the mega-project definition is public perception and involvement,
perhaps more so than a dollar value.
Mr. Mohler stated that safety is incorporated under current processes, and that high cost projects need
to be explained in terms of regional equity.
Mr. Mullan stated that he is in support of a separate mega-project process.
Ms. Slesinger stated that a mega-projects process would be considered in greater depth as the staff
continues to develop recommendations in advance of the June 30, 2015 deadline..
Ms. Slesinger continued on to bridge projects, which have their own robust prioritization process. The
two methods will need to communicate well with each other and likely incorporate concepts from each
other. The final products should yield similar project ranking scores.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
83
Mr. Lovejoy emphasized that having bridges out of service due to their poor condition is a large
transportation issue in Berkshire County. Safety is priority, and bridges contain a large safety aspect.
Ms. Slesinger continued, stating that the overall project selection process needs to be flexible enough to
accommodate preservation projects. She presented the four tiers of the preservation project selection
process, currently in development from the Asset Management Advisory Council (AMAC).
Mr. Mohler asked where the AMAC is in the process of defining project selection, and if cost benefit has
been considered.
Mr. Pourbaix stated that he is on that council and that these proposals are at early stages and cost
benefit has been considered. The council, headed by Patty Leavenworth, has only met once.
Mr. Mohler stated that both processes need to work together, so one does not define the other.
Acting Secretary DePaola described an asset management strategy for ADA ramps that has been
successful in identifying unacceptable locations. They are allocated $5 million every year for a
systematic approach to remedy the problem.
Mr. Lovejoy asked how emergency maintenance funding was handled to ensure nothing is excluded.
Acting Secretary DePaola stated that there is separate funding for emergencies of about $90 million
annually.
Ms. Slesinger continued with the presentation, highlighting outstanding issues. New issues include MPO
project treatment, testing this method to ensure that the Council achieves the desired result, number of
iterations of review, incorporating project readiness, and determining appropriate balance. She added
multiyear projects as an issue raised in this meeting that would be addressed.
Ms. Slesinger then described the interim report outline. It will incorporate a cover letter, a review of the
current practices, a regional equity assessment, an explanation of prioritization, a discussion of
outstanding issues, and a roadmap for further analysis. She reminded attendees that further meetings
would be held monthly, alternating between Worcester and Boston.
Scott Hamwey, MassDOT, noted that the next meeting would be in Boston on December 17 and would
be the last opportunity to make comments before the interim report.
Public Comment
Ms. Slesinger then opened the meeting to public comment.
Mary Ellen Blunt, Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission (CMRPC), stated it would be
beneficial to define which projects would be passing through the process. She liked the overall process
framework. She asked if STIP numbers were removed from the CIP in the analysis.
Ms. Slesinger stated STIP projects were not removed from the CIP project lists, but that there was no
double counting because the regional equity analysis compared spending across regions within a single
funding program.
Ms. Blunt continued, asking how the state process will affect the MPO selection process. She asked if
the state will develop a process that will work with MPOs, especially in regards to mega-projects.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
84
Ms. Slesinger stated that early stages of the state process would occur prior to the MPO process, but
that open communication would exist throughout the whole process.
Ms. Blunt stated that it would be good to have MPOs involved in early evaluation.
Mr. Silveira stated that her point was valid, and requested that she put it in writing and submit it to the
council.
Sujatha Mohanakrishnan, CMRPC, commented to make sure a complete data analysis was included in
the study and emphasized in project scoring.
Steve O’Neil, Worcester Regional Transit Authority Administrator, asked if all project types are
encompassed by this process including regional transit authority (RTA) assets.
Acting Secretary DePaola stated that all projects would be included.
Mr. O’Neil reminded the council to be aware of grant opportunities such as the toll credits that the RTAs
have been able to pursue with good results in the past.
Rich Rydant, CMRPC, asked how MAP-21 performance based planning initiatives will be incorporated
into the project selection criteria.
Ms. Slesinger stated that MAP-21 has been kept in mind when developing the criteria, and that the
process will remain flexible to be able to respond to the new performance targets once they are
released.
Andrea Freeman, Massachusetts Public Health Association, noted that the process should include modeshift goals.
Arthur Frost, MassDOT District 3 asked if the evaluation would occur at inception and if projects would
be evaluated multiple times over the years.
Mr. Mohler referenced Acting Secretary DePaola’s comments regarding the gas tax index ballot initiative
and the reality that some projects will need to be cut from the program. There will be situations where
projects may be subject to re-evaluation should the funding or policy framework change.
Jonathan Church, CMRPC, reminded the council to keep the EPA’s Title VI - Environmental Justice in
mind during this process.
Mr. Silveira reminded the public that suggestions are encouraged in addition to asking questions.
Jo Hart expressed concern with this process, stating that the meeting is just obfuscation will not produce
results. She also stated that the meeting notice in the newspaper should have identified it as a state
project.
Ms. Blunt suggested that performance management leverage state funds and that the state work with
MPOs to acquire funds based on MPO need. Projects spanning MPO boundaries may not be prioritized
by individual MPOs and that state needs to take notice of these.
Karin Valentine Goins, Walk Bike Worcester, urged the council to consider promoting projects that
foster physical activity in locations with high levels of obesity.
Project Selection Advisory Council
Interim Report Supplemental Documents
Steve Tyler, MPO Advisory Committee, suggested scoring based on a 1 through 5 scoring scale: 5 is
highly exceeds, 4 is exceeds, 3 is meets, 2 is best practical alternative, and 1 is failure.
Ms. Slesinger replied that this format makes sense and would be considered. She then thanked all for
attending and closed the meeting.
85