Draft Memorandum for the Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization
Unified Planning Work Program Committee Meeting
9 AM to 10 AM, State Transportation Building, Conference Rooms 2 and 3, 10 Park Plaza, Boston
Bryan Pounds, Chair, representing the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Committee agreed to the following:
• Approve the January 7, 2016 UPWP Committee meeting minutes.
• Styling future meeting minutes in a more summarized format
• Meeting on February 18th
Materials for this meeting included:
• An agenda
• Draft minutes from the January 7, 2016 UPWP Committee meeting
• FFY 2016 First Quarter Status Reports
Bryan Pounds, Chair, UPWP Committee (Massachusetts Department of Transportation) called the meeting to order at approximately 9 AM. UPWP Committee members and MPO staff introduced themselves. (For attendance list, see page 5.)
Steve Olanoff mentioned that the meeting minutes from January 7, 2016 did not list him as saying anything, although he had made comments. (His comments may have inadvertently been attributed to another member.) He indicated that the minutes did not need to be revised.
It was also decided that the minutes will take more of a summary format rather than being in the style of a word for word transcript of what was said at the meeting.
A motion to approve the January 7, 2016 UPWP Committee meeting minutes was made by Tom O’Rourke, Town of Norwood (TRIC), and seconded by Tom Bent, City of Somerville (Inner Core). The motion carried.
Karl presented a description of the Project Schedule and Staff Assignment report. This report is largely prospective. The report is organized by project number, for projects that are either underway or soon to be started, and presents a 12 month snapshot of projects since the end of last quarter. The report shows project number/name, budget, progress towards completion, anticipated schedule, and staff time anticipated to be allocated to each project.
The report also shows the funding source, approved start date and budget, and percent complete (actual and target). Certain projects on the report are shown to be lagging behind their expected completion date. In some instances, this is because some staff had to be reassigned to help with the completion of another project. There are many possible reasons for a project schedule to change: contract extensions, external reasons (waiting on data, waiting on a decision, etc.), changes in staff (resignations and hiring).
Projects in the report are grouped by Central Transportation Planning Staff group (i.e. Traffic Analysis and Design group, etc.).
It was noted that transit projects, in particular, seem to be lagging behind in schedule more than projects in other groups. Karl described that several of these projects are done through contracts with the MBTA and MassDOT. Delays in schedule are largely due to the volatility of this type of contract work: changing priorities, delayed contracts, changed contract scopes, etc. Work done for the MPO and which is programmed in the UPWP tends to be undertaken and completed in a more orderly fashion.
One project that was discussed in more detail was the Lower Mystic River Working Group, since the report did not have much information about the budget and reflects many staff assigned to work on it. Karl explained that this project is expected to start up very soon and to take a lot of staff time. A work scope for this project will be brought before the MPO at an upcoming meeting. This project relates to the Wynn Casino development Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Certificate, which found that there should be a working group formed to consider transportation impacts related not only to the casino, but also to other developments in the area (i.e. Sullivan Square, McGrath Highway area, etc.).
Bryan clarified that an “=” sign in the October column signifies that this project would be continued into the next UPWP cycle unless the committee decides not to continue to fund that project. Along the same lines, projects that have a target end date of September have a chance of spilling over into the next UPWP cycle. Karl explained that it is always possible that projects spill over into the following federal fiscal year (FFY).
Bryan noted the Livable Community Workshop Program and the suggestion by the committee of potentially not continuing to fund this program in the next FFY. Mark Abbott said that MPO Staff wants to fold this program into the Community Technical Assistance Program. There could be an incremental increase to the budget of the Community Technical Assistance Program to reflect this additional scope. This proposal will be discussed in more detail at the February 18th committee meeting when the draft Universe of Projects is discussed.
Ali Kleyman provided an overview of the project proposals that have been submitted to date. Ideas have come from a combination of MAPC sub-regional outreach meetings, the general public, MPO staff, the UPWP Committee, and the FFY 2016 Universe of Projects. Some of the main themes under which ideas have been proposed include:
· New technologies in transportation;
· Suburban transit toolbox;
· Project ideas from the GHG Reduction Strategies Study;
· Parking – including new technologies in parking;
· Projects building on ongoing work, data collection, and tools – including, for example, measuring on-street parking utilization in relation to a current project prioritizing roadway segments for bus lanes;
· Expansion/enhancement of the regional travel demand model;
· Before and after studies looking at the effects of some of the projects that have been implemented; and,
· Low cost improvements.
The Draft Universe of Projects is still being compiled and will be shared in more detail at the February 18th meeting.
There was a question about the MAGIC subregion’s school mobility study that was proposed last year and which ended up being rejected for funding in the UPWP. A related project will be proposed for inclusion in the FFY 2017 Universe.
The next meeting on February 18th will focus on the presentation of the entire Universe of Projects without any paring down. At that meeting the Committee will focus on paring down the list, so that specific work tasks, scopes, and budgets for each project can be more fully developed throughout February and into mid-March). By April, the committee will be able to review more developed abstracts for each project along with a proposed budget. These are what turn into the complete draft UPWP. Bryan confirmed that this timeline makes sense given that funding information from MassDOT is not available until February, at the earliest.
There were none.
The next meeting will be on February 18th, following the MPO meeting (starting at around 12:30 or 1 PM).
A motion to adjourn was made by Tegin Teich Bennett (Cambridge) and seconded by Thomas Bent, Somerville (Inner Core). The motion carried.
|
Members |
Representatives
and
Alternates |
|
At-Large Cities (Town of Arlington) |
Laura Wiener |
|
At-Large Cities (City of Newton) |
David Koses |
|
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) |
Tom Bent |
|
Massachusetts Department of Transportation |
Bryan Pounds |
|
Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of Norwood) |
Tom O’Rourke |
|
Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of Norwood/NVCC) |
Steve Olanoff |
|
Regional Transportation Advisory Council |
Tegin Teich Bennett |
|
MPO
Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff |
|
Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director |
|
Robin Mannion, Deputy Executive Director |
|
Elizabeth Moore, Director of Policy and Planning |
|
Scott Peterson, Director of Technical Services |
|
Lourenço Dantas, Certification Activities Group Manager |
|
Ali Kleyman, UPWP Manager |
|
Mark Abbott, Manager, Traffic Analysis and Design Group |