Healthy Transportation Compact Advisory Council Meeting Notes – July 18, 2014
Healthy Transportation Compact Meeting
July 18, 2014 Meeting
11:00am – 12:00am, Conference, Boston Common Room, 4142 (DOT)
Suzanne Condon, Chair, Associate Commissioner at the Department of Public Health.
1. Introductions
Suzanne Condon began with introductions of all present compact members and members of
various agencies. Those members in attendance included Paul Nelson, MassDOT Planning,
Jennifer Slesinger, MassDOT Planning, Wendy Landman, Walk Boston, Yahaira Graxirena
Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission, Ben Wood, Massachusetts Department
of Public Health, Margaret Round, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Richard O’Brien,
American Council of Engineering Companies of Massachusetts, Kurt Gaertner, Office of Energy
and Environmental Affairs, Dean Rizzo, Quincy Chamber of Commerce, Paul Regan,
Massachusetts Bus and Transit Authority Advisory Board, Eileen Gunn, Office of Transportation
Planning, Clinton Bench, Deputy Executive Director, Office of Transportation Planning, Rebekah
Gewirtz, Massachusetts Public Health Association, Larry Field, Executive Office of Housing and
Economic Development, and Vivien Li, The Boston Harbor Association.
2. Recap of last meeting
Ms. Condon began by recalling the presentations from the last meeting which highlighted the
activities the various organizations present had been involved with. Ms. Slesinger continued
describing the content from the previous meeting in more detail, including the links between
the Project Selection Advisory Council (PSA Council) and the Healthy Transportation Compact
(HTC). Ms. Slesinger highlighted the next PSA Council Public Meeting on July 29th and
encouraged the attendance of those present. Ms. Slesinger then discussed the weMove
Massachusetts (WMM) process, stating it was in phase 2 looking to incorporate Greenhouse
Gas (GHG), Mode Shift and other sustainability and health metrics. Ms. Slesinger highlighted
that Cambridge Systematics had finished their initial analysis of GHG emissions. She will be
sending their memo around shortly and encouraged feedback from on the analysis. Ms.
Slesinger also mentioned the role of Health Impact Assessments (HIA) and ways we can
incorporate that within the HTC and Planning. This led onto the introduction of Paul Nelson’s
presentation by Ms. Condon.
3. MassDOT Project Development Process - Paul Nelson Presentation
Mr. Nelson started with describing the basis for the inclusion of his presentation in the context
of the HTC. Mr. Nelson felt there was room for clarification in terms of how health fits into the
project development process. Mr. Nelson used the McGrath Highway project to highlight the
use of HIA as a major tool in measuring health impacts. The initial slide was taken from the
Center for Disease Control (CDC) website and described the benefits of carrying out HIA’s and
1
Healthy Transportation Compact Advisory Council Meeting Notes – July 18, 2014
how they are calculated. The next slide described a simplistic example of the MassDOT planning
process, with the black font describing the stage and the green font, the product of the stage.
Mr. Nelson then described each step; the first stage being a planning study which develops
recommendations; those recommendations are brought into an environmental study, which
includes permitting, design, and potential mitigation usually ending with the 25% design plans,
which then goes to full design. The final design and funding process usually occurred at the
same time, working in parallel with the relevant Metropolitan Planning Organization to secure
funding for the project.
Ben Wood then asked a question why funding comes so far down the process? Mr. Nelson
replied stating the project is usually developed to a point where you know how much it is going
to cost, then you identity a potential funding source. Paul Regan commented that this is a
simplistic approach, but the MPO process looks at the universe of projects, including those
projects which get funding well before they complete full design.
Wendy Landman agreed this method is theory, then referred to the MassDOT project selection
process stating the biggest projects the advocacy community has been paying attention to over
the last few years, came in during different stages of the process, due to the condition of
infrastructure, causing projects to leap into the middle. One of the big projects that she is
paying attention to is the I-90 Interchange, which appeared out of nowhere and goes
instantaneously through the process. She stated that it’s important to think about when health
can be incorporated into the process. Concerns have been raised in the task force because of
the speed of these projects. It moves too fast for the incorporation of these concerns (health
etc.), shortcutting the process. Ms. Condon then suggested some of these concerns are raised
during the environmental process. Ms. Landman then stated the planning study was missing,
and there were just highway design alternatives rather than all the planning which underpins a
big project. Mr. Regan agreed but added that this process represents 95% of projects going
through the process.. But if you are talking about institutionalized review most of projects
which are going to affect large populations go through a process which resembles the one
outlined. Clinton Bench then commented that McGrath did go through a robust planning
process. Mr. Bench returned the conversation to the original question of funding, explaining
that the list of potential projects in the 13 MPOs which are in the mix for funding is usually 4 to
5 times as long as those that actually get funded.
Mr. Nelson continued with the presentation describing the processes of project development,
planning an environmental study and final design. Mr. Nelson stated as you go through the
process your level of detail increases and your degree of freedom decreases. Mr. Nelson used
an example of permitting two alternative routes to see which one would be likely to work best,
and then once you have the final design your alignments are there and all you have to do is
meet design codes and permits. Mr. Nelson suggested this allowed for opportunities to
incorporate health into all three parts of this process, but it is important to acknowledge that
an increase in detail or decreases in degrees of freedom are reflected in each of the studies.
The next slide described an overview of a planning study. Mr. Nelson stated there are 6
elements; goals and objectives, review evaluation criteria and public participation plan, existing
2
Healthy Transportation Compact Advisory Council Meeting Notes – July 18, 2014
conditions, alternatives based on public needs, which are analyzed by considering the
alternatives against the evaluation criteria. Mr. Nelson highlighted that MassDOT was already
looking at health, through incorporating healthy transportation modes, improving safety, public
transportation and avoiding or minimizing air and noise impacts. Mr. Nelson highlighted
resources including the Healthy Transportation Directive because the Secretary has mandated
its use throughout the planning process. MassDOT also uses data GIS layers for analysis. Mr.
Nelson also stated the use of travel demand models, in which Richard O’Brien asked what a
travel model is. Mr. Bench described the model by stating existing conditions are represented
but there are mechanisms and algorithms where you add a project or change service, in which
the model will subsequently make an estimate of how people will change behavior. Mr. Bench
continued stating Boston has a sophisticated model which does a good job representing auto
transport, but less so pedestrians and bicycles.
Margaret Round stated an example of the McGrath travel demand model which considered the
Green Line Washington Street and Union Square stations, which allowed you to think about the
mode shift which would occur. Ms. Round continued describing that the HIA in the McGrath
study, which included driving assumptions, walking patterns and whether this change would
meet the physical activity recommendations of the government. Ms. Condon suggested the
value of public data that DPH has on asthma etc. in potential study area sites to indicate sites
where special attention or mitigation may need to occur.
Ms. Landman asked how land use comes into this process, other than for the model. Ms.
Landman reiterated that there are projects which jump into environmental without
incorporating this process. How does the department decide which projects have the extensive
bigger picture approach to long term mode choices, versus more straight forward projects
where they have a choice between one road choice or another. Mr. Nelson stated land use is
considered in the planning process, with help from regional planning agency or city or town to
see what transportation plans aid land use plans. Ms. Landman suggested as part of this council
that MassDOT makes an effort to be more engaged and involved in that process and have more
of an influence.
Kurt Gaertner stated the common collective agreement – The Common Vision for Growth -thatthe agencies signed reflects the understanding of where and how growth occurs, and land
use matters for all organizations, but there needs to be better cooperation between the various
organizations. Dean Rizzo mentioned that for land use, Mass GIS data layers are updated when
regional planning by various organizations identify local, regional, and state development
preservation priorities. Mr. Nelson continued with the presentation describing the
environmental study process, including the purpose and need, describing alternatives and
evaluating the environmental impacts and mitigation. This ultimately ended in a preferred
alternative and final report. Mr. Nelson stated that the major difference between this phase
and the planning study phase is not avoiding or minimizing, but mitigating the impacts. To do
this you need a higher level of detail. MassDOT uses design guides, the ASSHTO ‘Green Book”
and the NACTO Street Design Guide, so that the project alignment meets proper engineering
design requirements. Mr. Nelson introduced the final three slides which contain certain
questions about where health could be included into the planning process.
3
Healthy Transportation Compact Advisory Council Meeting Notes – July 18, 2014
Mr. Nelson asked what kind of data resources are available that help in answering or informing
planning studies on health. Ms. Condon suggests using Census tract data available from DPH.
John Levy then posed a question of how in the planning stage you evaluate the air and noise
impact in the absence of dispersion model. Mr. Nelson replied, stating that during the planning
study this phase would be mostly qualitative. Ms. Round stated that to investigate the health
impacts you need to investigate the dispersal of air quality concentrations. Ms. Condon stated
we cannot have air dispersal evaluations for all projects so you need to use certain metrics to
‘red flag’ certain projects earlier rather than later. Mr. Levy suggested a growing set of research
which allows rapid HIAs, in between dispersal models and travel demand models.
Vivien Li suggested avoiding the word mitigation unless it was the last resort. Ms. Landman
suggested thinking about the big picture of the impact of all MassDOT projects. She uses an
example of reducing congestion in one project, but expanding a highway in another. In the long
term this will subsequently increase GHG concentrations and move away from transit. Ms.
Landman suggested using a prioritization process to evaluate which projects will have the
greatest impacts.
Mr. Nelson asked the question of when we get to an environmental analysis which guidelines
can we use to mitigate? What resources do we need? Ms. Slesinger suggested getting feedback
via email, which was supported by Ms. Condon who stated this would be critical as it directs
what the council will discuss in future meetings. Ms. Condon mentioned the HTC meeting on
July 30th, where two agenda items will be the greater involvement in weMove Massachusetts
and the Project Selection Advisory Council.
Vivien Li, raised the idea of creating documentation on the HTC to help the continuation of the
HTC into the next administration. Ms. Landman questioned how this work in getting translated
within the agency, Ms. Slesinger says they are working with other organizations such as the
MBTA, stating the importance of their involvement. Ms. Landman noted the importance of the
Chief Engineer, in terms of the translation at the project and design level. Mr. Bench suggested
if the conversation steered towards building infrastructure then it might be more appropriate
for the Highway Division to be involved at that point. Ms. Condon then supported the notion
for documentation of the HTC. The meeting was adjoined.
4