Appendix A: About the MPO
Appendix B: MPO Regulatory Framework
Appendix C: Public Engagement and Public Comment
Appendix D: Universe of Projects and Project Evaluations
Appendix E: Determination of Air Quality Conformity and Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix F: Financial Report
Appendix G: Systems Performance Report
Appendix H: Transportation Equity Performance Report
Appendix I: Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Policy
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) planning area covers 97 municipalities from Boston north to Ipswich, south to Marshfield, and west to Interstate 495. Figure A-1 shows the map of the Boston Region MPO’s member municipalities.
Figure A-1
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Municipalities
Source: Boston Region MPO.
The MPO’s board has 22 voting members. Several state agencies, regional organizations, and the City of Boston are permanent voting members, while 12 municipalities are elected as voting members for three-year terms. Eight municipal members represent each of the eight subregions of the Boston region, and there are four at-large municipal seats. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) participate on the MPO board as advisory (nonvoting) members. Figure A-2 shows MPO membership and the organization of the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS), which serves as staff to the MPO.
Figure A-2
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Member Structure
Source: Boston Region MPO.
As part of its continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative (3C) planning process, the MPO regularly produces several planning and programming documents that describe MPO priorities and investments. These are collectively referred to as certification documents and are required for the MPO’s process to be certified as meeting federal requirements and, subsequently, to receive federal transportation funds. The three documents that comprise the certification documents are the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). In addition to producing these documents, the MPO must also establish and conduct an inclusive public participation process; comply with all federal Title VI, environmental justice, and nondiscrimination requirements; and maintain transportation models and data resources to support air quality conformity determination and long- and short-range planning work and initiatives. The following is a summary of each of the certification documents.
MassDOT was established under Chapter 25of the Acts of 2009, An Act Modernizing the Transportation Systems of the Commonwealth. MassDOT has four divisions: Highway, Rail and Transit, Aeronautics, and the Registry of Motor Vehicles. The MassDOT Board of Directors, composed of 11 members appointed by the governor, oversees all four divisions and MassDOT operations and works closely with the MBTA Board of Directors. The MassDOT Board of Directors was expanded to 11 members by the Legislature in 2015, a group of transportation leaders assembled to review structural problems with the MBTA and deliver recommendations for improvements. MassDOT has three seats on the MPO board, including seats for the Highway Division.
The MassDOT Highway Division has jurisdiction over the roadways, bridges, and tunnels that were overseen by the former Massachusetts Highway Department and Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. The Highway Division also has jurisdiction over many bridges and parkways that previously were under the authority of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The Highway Division is responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of the Commonwealth’s state highways and bridges. It is also responsible for overseeing traffic safety and engineering activities for the state highway system. These activities include operating the Highway Operations Control Center to ensure safe road and travel conditions.
The MBTA, created in 1964, is a body politic and corporate, and a political subdivision of the Commonwealth. Under the provisions of Chapter 161A of the Massachusetts General Laws, it has the statutory responsibility within its district of operating the public transportation system in the Boston region, preparing the engineering and architectural designs for transit development projects, and constructing and operating transit development projects. The MBTA district comprises 176 communities, including all 97 cities and towns of the Boston Region MPO area.
The MBTA Advisory Board was created by the Massachusetts Legislature in 1964 through the same legislation that created the MBTA. The Advisory Board consists of representatives of the 176 cities and towns that compose the MBTA’s service area. Cities are represented by either the city manager or mayor, and towns are represented by the chairperson of the board of selectmen. Specific responsibilities of the Advisory Board include reviewing and commenting on the MBTA’s long-range plan, the Program for Mass Transportation; proposed fare increases; the annual MBTA Capital Investment Program; the MBTA’s documentation of net operating investment per passenger; and the MBTA’s operating budget. The MBTA Advisory Board advocates for the transit needs of its member communities and the riding public.
Massport has the statutory responsibility under Chapter 465 of the Acts of 1956, as amended, for planning, constructing, owning, and operating such transportation and related facilities as may be necessary for developing and improving commerce in Boston and the surrounding metropolitan area. Massport owns and operates Boston Logan International Airport, the Port of Boston’s Conley Terminal, Flynn Cruiseport Boston, Hanscom Field, Worcester Regional Airport, and various maritime and waterfront properties, including parks in the Boston neighborhoods of East Boston, South Boston, and Charlestown.
MAPC is the regional planning agency for the Boston region. It is composed of the chief executive officer (or a designee) of each of the cities and towns in the MAPC’s planning region, 21 gubernatorial appointees, and 12 ex-officio members. It has statutory responsibility for comprehensive regional planning in its region under Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws. It is the Boston Metropolitan Clearinghouse under Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and Title VI of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. Also, its region has been designated an economic development district under Title IV of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended. MAPC’s responsibilities for comprehensive planning encompass the areas of technical assistance to communities, transportation planning, and development of zoning, land use, demographic, and environmental studies. MAPC activities that are funded with federal metropolitan transportation planning dollars are documented in the Boston Region MPO’s UPWP.
The City of Boston, six elected cities (currently Beverly, Everett, Framingham, Newton, Somerville, and Burlington), and six elected towns (currently Acton, Arlington, Brookline, Hull, Medway, and Norwood,) represent the 97 municipalities in the Boston Region MPO area. The City of Boston is a permanent MPO member and has two seats. There is one elected municipal seat for each of the eight MAPC subregions and four seats for at-large elected municipalities (two cities and two towns). The elected at-large municipalities serve staggered three-year terms, as do the eight municipalities representing the MAPC subregions.
The Regional Transportation Advisory Council, the MPO’s citizen advisory group, provides the opportunity for transportation-related organizations, non-MPO member agencies, and municipal representatives to become actively involved in the decision-making processes of the MPO as it develops plans and prioritizes the implementation of transportation projects in the region. The Advisory Council reviews, comments on, and makes recommendations regarding certification documents. It also serves as a forum for providing information on transportation topics in the region, identifying issues, advocating for ways to address the region’s transportation needs, and generating interest among members of the general public in the work of the MPO.
This appendix contains detailed background on the regulatory documents, legislation, and guidance that shape the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) transportation planning process.
The Boston Region MPO is charged with executing its planning activities in line with federal and state regulatory guidance. Maintaining compliance with these regulations allows the MPO to directly support the work of these critical partners and ensures its continued role in helping the region move closer to achieving federal, state, and regional transportation goals. This appendix describes all of the regulations, policies, and guidance taken into consideration by the MPO during development of the certification documents and other core work the MPO will undertake during federal fiscal year (FFY) 2024.
The MPO’s planning processes are guided by provisions in federal transportation authorization bills, which are codified in federal statutes and supported by guidance from federal agencies. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), signed into law on November 15, 2021, replaced the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act as the nation’s five-year surface transportation bill, and covers FFYs 2022–26. This section describes new provisions established in the BIL as well as items established under previous bills, such as the FAST Act.
The purpose of the national transportation goals, outlined in Title 23, section 150, of the United States Code (23 USC § 150), is to increase the accountability and transparency of the Federal-Aid Highway Program and to improve decision-making through performance-based planning and programming. The national transportation goals include the following:
The Boston Region MPO has incorporated these national goals, where practicable, into its vision, goals, and objectives, which provide a framework for the MPO’s planning processes. More information about the MPO’s vision, goals, and objectives is included in Chapter 3.
The MPO gives specific consideration to the federal planning factors, described in Title 23, section 134, of the US Code (23 USC § 134), when developing all documents that program federal transportation funds. In accordance with the legislation, studies and strategies undertaken by the MPO shall
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), in consultation with states, MPOs, and other stakeholders, established performance measures relevant to the national goals established in the FAST Act. These performance topic areas include roadway safety, transit system safety, National Highway System (NHS) bridge and pavement condition, transit asset condition, NHS reliability for both passenger and freight travel, traffic congestion, and on-road mobile source emissions. The FAST Act and related federal rulemakings require states, MPOs, and public transportation operators to follow performance-based planning and programming practices—such as setting targets—to ensure that transportation investments support progress toward these goals. See Appendix G for more information about how the MPO has and will continue to conduct performance-based planning and programming.
On December 30, 2021, the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration jointly issued updated planning emphasis areas for use in MPOs’ transportation planning process, following the enactment of the BIL. Those planning emphasis areas include the following:
The Clean Air Act, most recently amended in 1990, forms the basis of the United States’ air pollution control policy. The act identifies air quality standards, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designates geographic areas as attainment (in compliance) or nonattainment (not in compliance) areas with respect to these standards. If air quality in a nonattainment area improves such that it meets EPA standards, the EPA may redesignate that area as being a maintenance area for a 20-year period to ensure that the standard is maintained in that area.
The conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act “require that those areas that have poor air quality, or had it in the past, should examine the long-term air quality impacts of their transportation system and ensure its compatibility with the area’s clean air goals.” Agencies responsible for Clean Air Act requirements for nonattainment and maintenance areas must conduct air quality conformity determinations, which are demonstrations that transportation plans, programs, and projects addressing that area are consistent with a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining air quality standards.
Air quality conformity determinations must be performed for capital improvement projects that receive federal funding and for those that are considered regionally significant, regardless of the funding source. These determinations must show that projects in the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) will not cause or contribute to any new air quality violations; will not increase the frequency or severity of any existing air quality violations in any area; and will not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards in any area. The policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating air quality conformity in the Boston region were established in Title 40, parts 51 and 53, of the Code of Federal Regulations (40. C.F.R. 51, 40 C.F.R. 53).
On April 1, 1996, the EPA classified the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville as in attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Subsequently, the Commonwealth established a CO maintenance plan through the Massachusetts SIP process to ensure that emission levels did not increase. While the maintenance plan was in effect, past TIPs and LRTPs included an air quality conformity analysis for these communities. As of April 1, 2016, the 20-year maintenance period for this maintenance area expired and transportation conformity is no longer required for carbon monoxide in these communities. This ruling is documented in a letter from the EPA dated May 12, 2016.
On April 22, 2002, the EPA classified the City of Waltham as being in attainment for CO emissions with an EPA-approved limited-maintenance plan. In areas that have approved limited-maintenance plans, federal actions requiring conformity determinations under the EPA’s transportation conformity rule are considered to satisfy the conformity test. The MPO is not required to perform a modeling analysis for a conformity determination for carbon monoxide, but it has been required to provide a status report on the timely implementation of projects and programs that will reduce emissions from transportation sources—so-called transportation control measures—which are included in the Massachusetts SIP. In April 2022, the EPA issued a letter explaining that the carbon monoxide limited maintenance area in Waltham has expired. Therefore, the MPO is no longer required to demonstrate transportation conformity for this area, but the rest of the maintenance plan requirements, however, continue to apply, in accordance with the SIP.
On February 16, 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a decision in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, which struck down portions of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) SIP Requirements Rule concerning the ozone NAAQS. Those portions of the SIP Requirements Rule included transportation conformity requirements associated with the EPA’s revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Massachusetts was designated as an attainment area in accord with the 2008 ozone NAAQS but as a nonattainment or maintenance area as relates to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As a result of this court ruling, MPOs in Massachusetts must once again demonstrate conformity for ozone when developing LRTPs and TIPs.
MPOs must also perform conformity determinations if transportation control measures (TCM) are in effect in the region. TCMs are strategies that reduce transportation-related air pollution and fuel use by reducing vehicle-miles traveled and improving roadway operations. The Massachusetts SIP identifies TCMs in the Boston region. SIP-identified TCMs are federally enforceable and projects that address the identified air quality issues must be given first priority when federal transportation dollars are spent. Examples of TCMs that were programmed in previous TIPs include rapid-transit and commuter-rail extension programs (such as the Green Line Extension in Cambridge, Medford, and Somerville, and the Fairmount Line improvements in Boston), parking-freeze programs in Boston and Cambridge, statewide rideshare programs, park-and-ride facilities, residential parking-sticker programs, and the operation of high-occupancy-vehicle lanes.
In addition to reporting on the pollutants identified in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the MPOs in Massachusetts are also required to perform air quality analyses for carbon dioxide as part of the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) (see below).
The Boston Region MPO complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Executive Order 12898—Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations (EJ EO), and other federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities it conducts. Per federal and state law, the MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin (including limited-English proficiency), religion, creed, gender, ancestry, ethnicity, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, veteran’s status, or background. The MPO strives to provide meaningful opportunities for participation of all persons in the region, including those protected by Title VI, the ADA, the EJ EO, and other nondiscrimination mandates.
The MPO also assesses the likely benefits and adverse effects of transportation projects on equity populations (populations covered by federal regulations, as identified in the MPO’s Transportation Equity program) when deciding which projects to fund. This is done through the MPO’s project selection criteria. MPO staff also evaluate the projects that are selected for funding, in the aggregate, to determine their overall impacts and whether they improve transportation outcomes for equity populations. The major federal requirements pertaining to nondiscrimination are discussed below.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that no person be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, under any program or activity provided by an agency receiving federal financial assistance. Executive Order 13166—Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, dated August 11, 2000, extends Title VI protections to people who, as a result of their nationality, have limited English proficiency. Specifically, it calls for improved access to federally assisted programs and activities, and it requires MPOs to develop and implement a system through which people with limited English proficiency can meaningfully participate in the transportation planning process. This requirement includes the development of a Language Assistance Plan that documents the organization’s process for providing meaningful language access to people with limited English proficiency who access their services and programs.
Executive Order 12898, dated February 11, 1994, requires each federal agency to advance environmental justice by identifying and addressing any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.
On April 15, 1997, the USDOT issued its Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Among other provisions, this order requires programming and planning activities to
The 1997 Final Order was updated in 2012 with USDOT Order 5610.2(a), which provided clarification while maintaining the original framework and procedures.
Title III of the ADA “prohibits states, MPOs, and other public entities from discriminating on the basis of disability in the entities’ services, programs, or activities,” and requires all transportation projects, plans, and programs to be accessible to people with disabilities. Therefore, MPOs must consider the mobility needs of people with disabilities when programming federal funding for studies and capital projects. MPO-sponsored meetings must also be held in accessible venues and be conducted in a manner that provides for accessibility. Also, MPO materials must be made available in accessible formats.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. In addition, the Rehabilitation Act of 1975, and Title 23, section 324, of the US Code (23 USC § 324) prohibit discrimination based on sex.
Much of the MPO’s work focuses on encouraging mode shift and diminishing GHG emissions through improving transit service, enhancing bicycle and pedestrian networks, and studying emerging transportation technologies. All of this work helps the Boston region contribute to statewide progress toward the priorities discussed in this section.
Beyond Mobility, the Massachusetts 2050 Transportation Plan, is a planning process that will result in a blueprint for guiding transportation decision-making and investments in Massachusetts in a way that advances MassDOT’s goals and maximizes the equity and resiliency of the transportation system. MPO staff continue to coordinate with MassDOT staff so that Destination 2050 aligns with Beyond Mobility.
The Commission on the Future of Transportation in the Commonwealth—established by Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s Executive Order 579—published Choices for Stewardship in 2019. This report makes 18 recommendations across the following five thematic categories to adapt the transportation system in the Commonwealth to emerging needs:
Beyond Mobility will build upon the Commission report’s recommendations. The Boston Region MPO supports these statewide goals by conducting planning work and making investment decisions that complement MassDOT’s efforts and reflect the evolving needs of the transportation system in the region.
The Massachusetts 2023 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) identifies the state’s key safety needs and guides investment decisions to achieve significant reductions in highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The SHSP establishes statewide safety goals and objectives and key safety emphasis areas, and it draws on the strengths of all highway safety partners in the Commonwealth to align and leverage resources to address the state’s safety challenges collectively. The Boston Region MPO considers SHSP goals, emphasis areas, and strategies when developing its plans, programs, and activities.
The Massachusetts Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) is a risk-based asset management plan for the bridges and pavement that are in the NHS inventory. The plan describes the condition of these assets, identifies assets that are particularly vulnerable following declared emergencies such as extreme weather, and discusses MassDOT’s financial plan and risk management strategy for these assets. The Boston Region MPO considers MassDOT TAMP goals, targets, and strategies when developing its plans, programs, and activities.
In 2017, MassDOT finalized the Massachusetts Freight Plan, which defines the short- and long-term vision for the Commonwealth’s freight transportation system. In 2018, MassDOT released the related Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Rail Plan, which outlines short- and long-term investment strategies for Massachusetts’ freight and passenger rail systems (excluding the commuter rail system). In 2019, MassDOT released the Massachusetts Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Massachusetts Pedestrian Transportation Plan, both of which define roadmaps, initiatives, and action plans to improve bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the Commonwealth. These plans were updated in 2021 to reflect new investments in bicycle and pedestrian projects made by MassDOT since their release. The MPO considers the findings and strategies of MassDOT’s modal plans when conducting its planning, including through its Freight Planning Support and Bicycle/Pedestrian Support Activities programs.
The GWSA makes Massachusetts a leader in setting aggressive and enforceable GHG reduction targets and implementing policies and initiatives to achieve these targets. In keeping with this law, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), in consultation with other state agencies and the public, developed the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. This implementation plan, released on December 29, 2010 (and updated in 2015), establishes the following targets for overall statewide GHG emission reductions:
In 2018, EEA published its GWSA 10-year Progress Report and the GHG Inventory estimated that 2018 GHG emissions were 22 percent below the 1990 baseline level.
MassDOT fulfills its responsibilities, defined in the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020, through a policy directive that sets three principal objectives:
In January 2015, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection amended Title 310, section 7.00, of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (310 CMR 60.05), Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, which was subsequently amended in August 2017. This regulation places a range of obligations on MassDOT and MPOs to support achievement of the Commonwealth’s climate change goals through the programming of transportation funds. For example, MPOs must use GHG impact as a selection criterion when they review projects to be programmed in their TIPs, and they must evaluate and report the GHG emissions impacts of transportation projects in LRTPs and TIPs.
The Commonwealth’s 10 MPOs (and three non-metropolitan planning regions) are integrally involved in supporting the GHG reductions mandated under the GWSA. The MPOs seek to realize these objectives by prioritizing projects in the LRTP and TIP that will help reduce emissions from the transportation sector. The Boston Region MPO uses its TIP project evaluation criteria to score projects based on their GHG emissions impacts, multimodal Complete Streets accommodations, and ability to support smart growth development. Tracking and evaluating GHG emissions by project will enable the MPOs to anticipate GHG impacts of planned and programmed projects. See Appendix E for more details related to how the MPO conducts GHG monitoring and evaluation.
On September 9, 2013, MassDOT passed the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive to formalize its commitment to implementing and maintaining transportation networks that allow for various mode choices. This directive will ensure that all MassDOT projects are designed and implemented in ways that provide all customers with access to safe and comfortable walking, bicycling, and transit options.
In November 2015, MassDOT released the Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide. This guide represents the next step in MassDOT’s continuing commitment to Complete Streets, sustainable transportation, and the creation of more safe and convenient transportation options for Massachusetts residents. This guide may be used by project planners and designers as a resource for considering, evaluating, and designing separated bike lanes as part of a Complete Streets approach.
In Destination 2050, the Boston Region MPO has continued to use investment programs—particularly its Complete Streets and Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections programs—that support the implementation of Complete Streets projects. In the Unified Planning Work Program, the MPO budgets to support these projects, such as the MPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Support Activities program, corridor studies undertaken by MPO staff to make conceptual recommendations for Complete Streets treatments, and various discrete studies aimed at improving pedestrian and bicycle accommodations.
MassDOT developed the Congestion in the Commonwealth 2019 report to identify specific causes of and impacts from traffic congestion on the NHS. The report also made recommendations for reducing congestion, including addressing local and regional bottlenecks, redesigning bus networks within the systems operated by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the other regional transit authorities, increasing MBTA capacity, and investigating congestion pricing mechanisms such as managed lanes. These recommendations guide multiple new efforts within MassDOT and the MBTA and are actively considered by the Boston Region MPO when making planning and investment decisions.
The Program for Mass Transportation (PMT) is the MBTA’s long-range capital planning document. It defines a 25-year vision for public transportation in eastern Massachusetts. The MBTA’s enabling legislation requires it to update the PMT every five years and to implement the policies and priorities outlined in it through the annual Capital Investment Program (CIP). MassDOT’s Office of Transportation Planning will lead the process for updating the 2024 PMT.
MassDOT and the MBTA released the most recent PMT, Focus40, in 2019. Focus40 aims to position the MBTA to meet the transit needs of the Greater Boston region through 2040. Complemented by the MBTA’s Strategic Plan and other internal and external policy and planning initiatives, Focus40 serves as a comprehensive plan guiding all capital planning initiatives at the MBTA. These initiatives include the Rail Vision plan, which will inform the vision for the future of the MBTA’s commuter rail system; the Bus Network Redesign (formerly the Better Bus Project), the plan to re-envision and improve the MBTA’s bus network; and other plans. The Boston Region MPO continues to monitor the status of Focus40 and related MBTA modal plans to inform its decision-making about transit capital investments, which are incorporated in the TIP and LRTP.
MetroCommon 2050, which was developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and adopted in 2021, is Greater Boston’s regional land use and policy plan. MetroCommon 2050 builds off of MAPC’s previous plan, MetroFuture (adopted in 2008), and includes an updated set of strategies for achieving sustainable growth and equitable prosperity in the region. The MPO considers MetroCommon 2050’s goals, objectives, and strategies in its planning and activities. MetroCommon 2050 also serves as the foundation for land use projections in Destination 2050.
The purpose of the Congestion Management Process (CMP) is to monitor and analyze the mobility of people using transportation facilities and services, develop strategies for managing congestion based on the results of traffic monitoring, and move those strategies into the implementation stage by providing decision-makers in the region with information and recommendations for improving the transportation system’s performance. The CMP monitors roadways, transit, and park-and-ride facilities in the Boston region for safety, congestion, and mobility, and identifies problem locations.
Every four years, the Boston Region MPO completes a Coordinated Public Transit–Human Services Transportation Plan (CPT–HST), in coordination with the development of the LRTP. The CPT–HST supports improved coordination of transportation for seniors and people with disabilities in the Boston region. This plan also guides transportation providers in the Boston region who are developing proposals to request funding from the Federal Transit Administration’s Section 5310 Program. To be eligible for funding, a proposal must meet a need identified in the CPT–HST. The CPT–HST contains information about
The MPO adopted its current CPT–HST in 2023.
The MBTA and the region’s RTAs—the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA) and the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA)—are responsible for producing transit asset management plans that describe their asset inventories and the condition of these assets, strategies, and priorities for improving the state of good repair of these assets. The Boston Region MPO considers goals and priorities established in these plans when developing its plans, programs, and activities.
The MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA are required to create and annually update Public Transit Agency Safety Plans that describe their approaches for implementing Safety Management Systems on their transit systems. The Boston Region MPO considers goals, targets, and priorities established in these plans when developing its plans, programs, and activities.
The COVID-19 pandemic has radically shifted the way many people in the Boston region interact with the regional transportation system. The pandemic’s effect on everyday life has had short-term impacts on the system and how people travel, and it may have lasting effects. State and regional partners have advanced immediate changes in the transportation network in response to the situation brought about by the pandemic. Some of the changes may become permanent, such as the expansion of bicycle, bus, sidewalk, and plaza networks, and a reduced emphasis on traditional work trips. As the region recovers from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the long-term effects become apparent, state and regional partners’ guidance and priorities are likely to be adjusted.
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) staff conducted engagement activities throughout the development of Destination 2050. Engagement began in fall 2019 with the kick-off of the Needs Assessment and continued through the 30-day public comment period for the draft LRTP in June and July 2023.
This appendix summarizes the engagement activities and public input received during the different phases of LRTP development: Needs Assessment; vision, goals, and objectives revision; and project and program selection. It concludes with the comments received during the formal 30-day public comment period for the draft LRTP.
The MPO engaged a variety of stakeholders in the development of Destination 2050, including:
MPO staff used a variety of communication and engagement methods and channels to involve the public and solicit feedback:
Table C-1 provides a summary of the meetings, events, and content used in the Destination 2050 public engagement process. Staff also considered feedback and comments from engagement activities for other MPO programs and projects between 2019 and 2023 as input for the development of Destination 2050. Staff sought to include diverse and regionally representative perspectives by emphasizing engagement and relationship-building with historically underrepresented communities, and this input is reflected throughout Destination 2050. Through virtual and in-person engagement, MPO staff received more than 2,000 comments, ideas, and survey responses while developing Destination 2050.
Table C-1
Summary of Communication and Engagement Activities Used in the Development of Destination 2050
Type of Engagement |
Date |
Description |
MPO meetings |
2019–23 |
Presented periodic updates about the development of Destination 2050 in the MPO’s largest public forum |
Regional Transportation Advisory Council meetings |
2021–23 |
Held conversations, workshops, and activities to gather input on transportation needs, priorities, vision, goals, objectives, programs, and projects; provided periodic updates on Destination 2050 development |
MAPC subregional group meetings |
2020–22 |
Gathered input on transportation needs and priorities, and vision, goals, and objectives |
Focus groups |
2021 |
Big Ideas scenario planning, including discussing and gathering feedback on driving forces, uncertainties, and proposed strategies |
Interviews |
2021–22 |
Interviewed stakeholders to gather input on needs, vision, goals, objectives, programs, and projects; and provided updates |
Transit Working Group Coffee Chats |
2021–22 |
Discussed and gathered feedback on transit-related topics |
Stakeholder group meetings |
2019–23 |
Gathered input on needs, vision, goals, objectives, programs, and projects from community and advocacy groups |
Partner events |
2019–23 |
Co-hosted meetings and events with other planning organizations to gather input on needs, vision, goals, objectives, programs, and projects |
Open houses |
2019–23 |
Shared information about MPO programs and gathered input on needs, vision, goals, objectives, programs, and projects |
Email content |
2019–23 |
Advertised opportunities for engagement |
Social media content |
2019–23 |
Advertised opportunities for engagement; engaged transportation advocates, community groups, and members of the public |
Surveys |
2019–23 |
Published surveys seeking input on transportation needs, vision, goals, objectives, and programs and projects, including surveys on the following topics:
|
CPT-HST = Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. FFY = federal fiscal year. MPO = metropolitan planning organization. TIP = Transportation Improvement Program. UPWP = Unified Planning Work Program.
Staff engaged stakeholders in exploratory scenario planning to inform the MPO’s consideration of future conditions in Destination 2050 through a series of focus groups in 2021, during which 53 participants from over 40 organizations in the Boston region identified driving forces they believe will shape transportation in the region, and strategies to respond to future conditions. Participants represented a wide range of stakeholder types and areas of expertise, including organizations that work with underrepresented communities.
The “big ideas” that stakeholders identified through these focus groups included the driving forces of climate change; new technologies and data; demographic, economic, and land use trends; consumer preferences, and policymaking. Strategies to address these forces included adaptation and emissions reduction; partnership and relationship building; flexibility; research and coordination with other areas of planning and policymaking; communications and engagement; and the equitable expansion of transportation options throughout the region.
More detailed information about this exploratory scenario planning engagement process and participants’ responses is available in the Big Ideas StoryMap.
The development of the Needs Assessment was informed by extensive engagement with stakeholders throughout the region. During the four-year development process for Destination 2050, MPO staff collected feedback about transportation needs from municipalities, transportation providers, advocates and community organizations, and members of the general public through a variety of engagement activities including focus groups, subregional meetings, public forums, and surveys.
Staff conducted broad and continuous engagement to collect feedback for the Needs Assessment, tracking needs expressed by stakeholders during targeted LRTP engagement efforts as well as from conversations, activities, and events in other venues or contexts. Staff prioritized the inclusion of a diverse range of perspectives throughout the region, including disadvantaged and historically underrepresented communities, and used demographic data to target, shape, and analyze the effectiveness of strategies to support equitable engagement efforts.
To collect feedback about transportation needs for Destination 2050, staff held a series of scenario planning focus groups, which included sessions with interpretation and translated materials for communities with limited English proficiency; worked with municipal, agency, and advocacy partners to distribute surveys in seven languages; and held workshops and informational events at Advisory Council meetings and other public meetings. Throughout these engagement processes, staff built and deepened stakeholder relationships, helping to make MPO engagement more equitable and effective while laying the groundwork for ongoing efforts to hear and respond to the region’s transportation needs and priorities.
Input for the Needs Assessment was gathered from the following engagement activities:
To inform the update of the MPO’s planning framework for Destination 2050, staff engaged the public about visions, goals, and objectives for the region’s transportation future. During the fall of 2022 and winter of 2023, staff met with MAPC subregional groups and held workshops with the Advisory Council and MPO board members to hear stakeholders’ thoughts on how well the Destination 2040 planning framework aligned with their vision and goals and what updates and changes staff should pursue for the draft Destination 2050 vision, goals, and objectives. Feedback from these meetings and workshops informed significant updates to the Destination 2050 planning framework, including the integration of equity-oriented objectives across all goal areas, the addition of an engagement objective to the Transportation Equity goal, and the restructuring of several goal areas to reflect safety, mobility, and resilience priorities.
Staff primarily collected input for the Destination 2050 vision, goals, and objectives via a public survey that asked respondents to rank their transportation priorities, identify words and phrases that describe their ideal transportation system, and describe aspects of the Boston region’s transportation system that need to be improved. Staff publicized the survey across all general MPO communication channels and conducted extensive targeted outreach, adjusting outreach strategies based on live demographic and geographic response data to better engage underrepresented audiences.
Staff received about 800 survey responses. The responses highlighted several overarching themes related to visions and priorities for the region’s transportation system:
Figure C-1 represents 743 responses to a survey question asking participants to suggest three words to describe their ideal transportation system. The size and shading of each word correlate to the frequency with which the word was used. Words that are larger and bolder in color were more commonly expressed. Words or phrases that were similar in meaning were aggregated.
Figure C-1
Words to Describe an Ideal Transportation System
Note: This survey recorded responses from 743 people.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
Figure C-2 shows 729 responses to a survey question asking participants to identify the most pressing transportation issues in the Boston region. Similar responses were aggregated, and responses were categorized by mode and displayed in order of frequency.
Figure C-2
Transportation Challenges in the Boston Region
Note: This survey recorded responses from 729 people.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
Other engagement activities during which staff discussed and gathered feedback on Destination 2050 vision, goals, and objectives included the following:
To inform the update of proposed LRTP investment programs and projects for Destination 2050, staff engaged stakeholders and members of the public on questions of their priorities for transportation system investments. During the spring of 2023, staff solicited comments and led discussions about investment priorities at MPO board and Advisory Council meetings, conducted interactive investment prioritization activities, and collected public input through an investment survey. Staff also received several comments and letters from project proponents and members of the public advocating for specific projects to be included in the Destination 2050 universe of projects.
The Destination 2050 investment survey asked respondents to allocate 100 tokens to different types of transportation system improvements. The survey helped the MPO to understand how well respondents felt the proposed investment programs aligned with public priorities for different types of transportation system investments and how they aligned with the MPO’s vision and goals. Staff advertised the survey on the MPO website, social media, and in MPO email communications. Staff also shared the survey during meetings and engagement events, as well as directly with stakeholders and partners, receiving about 300 total responses. Figure C-3 illustrates the average allocation to each type of investment listed in the survey.
Figure C-3
Average Funding Allocation Responses from Investment Programs Survey
Note: This survey recorded responses from 299 people.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
Over 150 people responded to an optional write-in question about additional investment priorities, and other people gave additional comments during other engagement activities such as Advisory Council and stakeholder meetings. These comments highlighted several themes, including respondents’ strong prioritization of investments to support transit system modernization, reliability, and safety; support for investments in transportation system connectivity within and beyond the Boston region; support for investments in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and connections; and the necessity of making transportation investments that are equitable and proactively respond to climate forces. Stakeholders also submitted written and verbal comments about investment programs to staff during the MPO’s consideration of Destination 2050 investment programs, including several comments in support of the inclusion of a new bikeshare support program in Destination 2050.
During discussions about investment program sizing and project selection, the MPO received comment letters and heard comments from proponents and members of the public supporting the following projects:
Concurrently with the development of Destination 2050, MPO staff developed an updated Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan with the participation of public, private, and nonprofit transportation representatives, human services providers, and members of the public. Staff collected input about unmet transportation needs as well as strategies and priorities for addressing those needs from organizations and stakeholders that work with and represent seniors and people with disabilities. Engagement activities included a human services transportation coordination workshop, discussions with Regional Coordinating Councils, and feedback from a public survey. Input from these activities was included throughout Destination 2050, including the Needs Assessment, planning framework, and investment programs.
Staff emphasized the inclusion of input from environmental organizations, advocates, institutions, and agencies in the development of Destination 2050 and consulted with these stakeholders on the resilience of the transportation system and equitable adaptation to climate forces affecting the region’s future. Engagement activities included the following:
Feedback gathered from this engagement was central to the development of the Needs Assessment and Destination 2050 vision, goals, and objectives.
Building and strengthening relationships with advocacy and community organizations throughout the region was at the core of the engagement undertaken to support the development of Destination 2050, and it will be critical to the success and effectiveness of future engagement efforts. Throughout the development of Destination 2050, staff met regularly with several transportation advocacy organizations and continued to expand these touchpoints to ongoing MPO work. Engagement activities for Destination 2050 sought not just to collect public input, but also to build awareness about the MPO, capacity for public participation in transportation planning, and trust among the region’s communities, particularly those who are underrepresented in the planning process.
A central element of the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is a list of regionally significant transportation projects selected by the MPO. In order to create that list, the MPO first created a universe of projects list that included all potential projects that could be considered for inclusion in Destination 2050. Those projects came from the following sources:
The Destination 2050 universe of projects is presented in four tables:
Table D-1
Destination 2040 Project Status
Municipality |
Proponent/Source |
Project |
MassDOT ID |
Design Status |
Funding Status |
Funding Agency |
Cost Estimate |
MAPC Subregion |
MassDOT Highway District |
Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ashland |
Ashland |
Reconstruction of Pond Street |
604123 |
Under construction |
Funded FFY 2020 |
MPO |
$19,667,628 |
MWRC |
3 |
N/A |
Boston |
MassDOT |
Roadway, Ceiling, Arch, and Wall Reconstruction and Other Control Systems in Sumner Tunnel |
606476 |
Advertised for construction (6/26/2021) |
Funded FFYs 2021–23 |
MPO, MassDOT |
$136,190,450 |
ICC |
6 |
N/A |
Boston |
Massport |
Roadway Reconstruction–Cypher Street, E Street, and Fargo Street |
608807 |
PS&E Received (as of 09/28/2022) |
Funded with non-federal dollars |
Massport |
$20,287,865 |
ICC |
6 |
This project likely does not meet MPO criteria for including this project in Destination 2050. |
Boston |
Boston |
Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue |
606226 |
25% Package Received – Resubmission (as of 10/05/2020) |
Funded FFYs 2026–27 in FFYs 2023–27 TIP |
MPO |
$176,570,936 |
ICC |
6 |
Listed in Table 2. Baseline readiness scenario for FFYs 2024-28 TIP moves first year to FFY 2028. |
Boston |
MassDOT |
Allston Multimodal Project |
606475 |
PRC Approved (03/30/2018) |
Funded in FFYs 2030–34 time band in Destination 2040 |
MassDOT |
$675,500,000 |
ICC |
6 |
Listed in Table 3. Likely to require elevated NEPA review. |
Cambridge, Somerville, Medford |
MBTA |
Green Line Extension to College Avenue with Union Square Spur |
1570 |
In service |
Funded FFYs 2016–21 |
MPO, MassDOT, MBTA |
$190,000,000 |
ICC |
6 |
N/A |
Everett |
Everett |
Reconstruction of Ferry Street |
607652 |
Under construction |
Funded FFY 2021 |
MPO |
$33,252,903 |
ICC |
4 |
N/A |
Framingham |
Framingham |
Intersection Improvements at Route 126 and Route 135/MBTA and CSX Railroad |
606109 |
PRC Approved (05/13/2010) |
Funded in FFYs 2030–34 and 2035–39 time bands in Destination 2040 |
MPO |
$115,000,000 |
MWRC |
3 |
Listed in Table 3. |
Hopkinton, Westborough |
MassDOT |
Reconstruction of Interstate 495 and Interstate 90 Interchange |
607977 |
Advertised for Construction (10/30/2021) |
Funded in FFYs 2023–27 in FFYs 2023–27 TIP |
MassDOT |
$300,942,836 |
MWRC |
3 |
Listed in Table 2. |
Lexington |
Lexington |
Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue (Lexington) |
TBD |
Pre-PRC Approval |
Funded in FFYs 2030–34 time band in Destination 2040 |
MPO |
TBD |
MAGIC |
4 |
Listed in Table 4. |
Lynn |
Lynn |
Reconstruction of Western Avenue |
609246 |
PRC Approved (12/06/2018) |
Funded in 2027 in FFYs 2023–27 TIP |
MPO |
$40,980,000 |
ICC |
4 |
This project likely does not meet MPO criteria for including this project in Destination 2050. |
Natick |
MassDOT |
Bridge Replacement, Route 27 (North Main Street) over Route 9 (Worcester Street), and Interchange Improvements |
605313 |
25% Package Received – Resubmission (05/16/2022) |
Funded in FFY 2024 in FFYS 2023–27 TIP |
MassDOT |
$75,677,350 |
MWRC |
3 |
Listed in Table 2. Funded with CRRSAA Funds. |
Newton, Needham |
Newton, Needham |
Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street, and Charles River Bridge |
606635 |
Under construction |
Funded FFYs 2019–20 |
MPO |
$26,205,992 |
ICC |
6 |
N/A |
Quincy |
MassDOT |
New connection from Burgin Parkway over the MBTA |
606518 |
Construction complete |
Funded with non-federal dollars |
MassDOT |
$9,156,557 |
ICC |
6 |
N/A |
Somerville |
Somerville |
McGrath Boulevard Construction |
607981 |
PRC Approved (05/19/2014) |
Funded in 2027 in FFYs 2023–27 TIP |
MPO |
$88,250,000 |
ICC |
4 |
Listed in Table 2. |
Walpole |
Walpole |
Reconstruction on Route 1A (Main Street) |
602261 |
Under construction |
Funded in FFY 2020 |
MPO |
$19,790,904 |
TRIC |
5 |
N/A |
Watertown |
Watertown |
Rehabilitation of Mount Auburn Street (Route 16) |
607777 |
75% Package Received (as of 10/18/2022) |
Funded in 2027 in FFYs 2023–27 TIP |
MPO |
$27,899,345 |
ICC |
6 |
This project likely does not meet MPO criteria for including this project in Destination 2050. |
Woburn |
Woburn |
Bridge Replacement, New Boston Street over MBTA |
604996 |
Under construction |
Funded in FFY 2021 |
MPO |
$23,549,743 |
NSPC |
4 |
N/A |
Note: Destination 2040 references two other projects that are funded in other MPOs' LRTPs: the Southborough and Westborough—Interstate 495 and Route 9 project in Southborough and Westborough and the South Coast Rail project.
CRRSAA = Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act. FFY = federal fiscal year. ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MAPC = Metropolitan Area Planning Council. MassDOT = Massachusetts Department of Transportation. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MPO = metropolitan planning organization. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. N/A = not applicable. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. PRC = Project Review Committee. PS&E = Plans, Specifications, and Estimates. TBD = to be determined. TIP = Transportation Improvement Program. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Source: Boston Region MPO staff.
Table D-2
LRTP-Relevant Roadway Projects in FFYs 2023–27 TIP
Municipality |
Proponent/ |
Project |
Roadway (Federal) Functional Classification* |
MassDOT ID |
Design Status |
MPO Investment Program |
Current Program Year (in FFYs 2023–27 TIP) |
Cost Estimate |
MAPC Subregion |
MassDOT Highway District |
LRTP Status |
Notes |
Boston |
Boston |
Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue |
Principal Arterial – Other |
606226 |
25% Package Received – Resubmission 1 (as of 10/05/2020) |
Major Infrastructure |
2025–27 |
$176,570,937 |
ICC |
6 |
In Destination 2040 (in FFYs 2020–24 and 2025–29 time bands) |
Proposed for funding in FFYs 2027–30 per TIP Readiness Days. |
Hopkinton, Westborough |
MassDOT |
Reconstruction of Interstate 495 and Interstate 90 Interchange |
Interstate |
607977 |
Advertised for construction (10/30/2021) |
N/A |
2023–27 |
$300,942,837 |
MWRC |
3 |
In Destination 2040 (in FFYs 2020–24 time band) |
Funded by MassDOT. Funded FFYs 2023–27 in FFYs 2023–27 TIP. |
Natick |
MassDOT |
Bridge Replacement, Route 27 (North Main Street) over Route 9 |
Principal Arterial – Other |
605313 |
25% Package Received – Resubmission 1 (as of 05/16/2022) |
Major Infrastructure |
2024 |
$75,677,350 |
MWRC |
3 |
In Destination 2040 (in FFYs 2025–29 time band) |
Funded with CRRSAA funds. Proposed Auxiliary lanes may affect roadway capacity. |
Norwood |
Norwood |
Intersection Improvements at Route 1 and University Avenue/Everett Street |
Principal Arterial – Other |
605857 |
25% Package Received – Resubmission 1 (as of 01/05/2021) |
Intersection Improvements |
2025–26 |
$26,573,400 |
TRIC |
5 |
N/A |
Project changes capacity through the addition of travel lanes. |
Somerville |
Somerville |
McGrath Boulevard Construction |
Principal Arterial – Expressway |
607981 |
PRC Approved (05/19/2014) |
Major Infrastructure |
2027 |
$88,250,000 |
ICC |
4 |
In Destination 2040 (in FFYs 2025–29 and 2030–34 time bands) |
Proposed for funding in FFYs 2027–30 per TIP Readiness Days. |
Wrentham |
Wrentham |
Construction of Interstate 495/Route 1A Ramps |
Interstate |
603739 |
75% Package Comments to design engineer (as of 08/02/2022) |
Major Infrastructure |
2024 |
$20,117,638 |
SWAP |
5 |
N/A |
Proposed for funding in FFY 2024 per TIP Readiness Days. |
* The federal functional classification listed above reflects the highest classification associated with roadways included in the project.
CRRSAA = Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act. FFY = federal fiscal year. ICC = Inner Core Committee. LRTP = Long-Range Transportation Plan. MAPC = Metropolitan Area Planning Council. MassDOT = Massachusetts Department of Transportation. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MPO = metropolitan planning organization. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. N/A = not applicable. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. PRC = Project Review Committee. SWAP = Southwest Advisory Planning Committee. TIP = Transportation Improvement Program. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Source: Boston Region MPO Staff.
Table D-3
LRTP-Relevant MassDOT PRC-Approved Roadway Projects
Municipality |
Proponent/Source |
Project |
Roadway (Federal) Functional Classification* |
MassDOT ID |
Design Status |
Potential MPO Investment Program |
Proposed Program Year |
Cost Estimate |
MAPC Subregion |
MassDOT Highway District |
LRTP Status |
Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bellingham |
Bellingham |
Roadway Rehabilitation of Route 126 (Hartford Road), from 800 North of Interstate 495 NB off ramp to the Medway town line, including B-06-017 |
Principal Arterial/Other |
612963 |
PRC Approved (9/15/2022) |
Complete Streets |
2027 |
$10,950,000 |
SWAP |
3 |
N/A |
Project impacts on roadway capacity to be determined. |
Beverly |
Beverly |
Interchange Reconstruction at Route 128/Exit 19 at Brimbal Avenue (Phase II) |
Principal Arterial – Expressway |
607727 |
PRC Approved (2014) |
Major Infrastructure |
TBD |
$23,000,000 |
NSTF |
4 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Active Highway Projects) |
Project would expand the interchange and add ramps. |
Boston |
MassDOT |
Allston Multimodal Project |
Interstate |
606475 |
PRC Approved (03/30/2018) |
N/A |
TBD |
$675,500,000 |
ICC |
6 |
Funded in FFYs 2030–34 time band in Destination 2040 (MassDOT-funded) |
NEPA Review: Environmental Impact Statement. Advertising date depends on availability of funding and completion of permitting. Earliest construction likely FFYs 2026–33. |
Boston |
Boston |
Bridge Preservation, Cambridge Street over MBTA |
Principal Arterial – Other |
612989 |
PRC Approved (12/21/2022) |
Complete Streets |
2026 |
$15,400,000 |
ICC |
6 |
N/A |
Project may add roadway capacity. |
Canton, Dedham, Norwood |
MassDOT |
Interchange Improvements at Interstate 95 / Interstate 93 / University Avenue / Interstate 95 Widening |
Interstate |
87790 |
25% submitted (7/25/2014) |
Major Infrastructure |
TBD |
$202,205,994 |
TRIC |
6 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Active Highway Projects) |
Project may add roadway capacity. |
Concord |
Concord |
Reconstruction and Widening on Route 2, from Sandy Pond Road to Bridge over MBTA/B&M Railroad |
Principal Arterial Other |
608015 |
PRC approved (2014) |
Major Infrastructure |
TBD |
$8,000,000 |
MAGIC |
4 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Active Highway Projects) |
N/A |
Concord |
Concord |
Improvements and Upgrades to Concord Rotary (Routes 2/2A/119) |
Principal Arterial Other |
602091 |
PRC Approved (02/25/1997) |
Major Infrastructure |
TBD |
$103,931,250 |
MAGIC |
4 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Active Highway Projects) |
N/A |
Framingham |
Framingham |
Intersection Improvements at Route 126/Route 135/MBTA and CSX Railroad |
Principal Arterial/Other |
606109 |
PRC Approved 05/13/2010 |
Major Infrastructure |
TBD |
$115,000,000 |
MWRC |
3 |
Funded in FFYs 2030–34 and 2035–39 time bands in Destination 2040 (MPO-funded) |
Project impacts on roadway capacity to be determined. |
Malden Revere, |
MassDOT |
Improvements at Route 1 |
Principal Arterial – Expressway |
610543 |
PRC approved (2019) |
Major Infrastructure |
2027 |
$7,210,000 |
ICC |
4 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Active Highway Projects) |
N/A |
Malden, Revere, Saugus |
MassDOT |
Reconstruction and Widening on Route 1, from Route 60 to Route 99 |
Principal Arterial – Expressway |
605012 |
PRC Approved (09/10/2007) |
Major Infrastructure |
TBD |
$172,500,000 |
ICC |
4 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Active Highway Projects) |
N/A |
Randolph |
Randolph |
Interstate 93/Route 24 Interchange |
Interstate |
610540 |
PRC Approved (08/15/2019) |
Major Infrastructure |
TBD |
$14,420,700 |
TRIC |
6 |
N/A |
Project may include capacity adding elements. However, per District 6, This specific project has not seen any advancement since initiation. Some elements of the scope have been implemented through interim improvements. Project may be deactivated. |
Revere, Saugus |
Revere, Saugus |
Roadway Widening on Route 1 North (Phase 2) |
Principal Arterial – Expressway |
611999 |
PRC approved (2021) |
Major Infrastructure |
TBD |
$2,397,600 |
ICC |
4 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Active Highway Projects) |
N/A |
Salem |
MassDOT |
Reconstruction of Bridge Street, from Flint Street to Washington Street |
Principal Arterial Other |
5399 |
25% submitted (8/20/2004) |
Complete Streets |
TBD |
$24,810,211 |
NSTF |
4 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Active Highway Projects) |
Project would widen Bridge Street from two to four lanes. |
Woburn, Reading, Stoneham, Wakefield |
MassDOT |
Interchange Improvements to Interstate 93/Interstate 95 |
Interstate |
605605 |
PRC-Approved 05/14/2009 |
Major Infrastructure |
TBD |
$276,708,768 |
NSPC |
4 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Active Highway Projects) |
Project may add roadway capacity. |
* The federal functional classification listed above reflects the highest classification associated with roadways included in the project.
FFY = federal fiscal year. ICC = Inner Core Committee. LRTP = Long-Range Transportation Plan. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MAPC = Metropolitan Area Planning Council. MassDOT = Massachusetts Department of Transportation. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MPO = metropolitan planning organization. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. N/A = not applicable. NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. PRC = Project Review Committee. SWAP = Southwest Advisory Planning Committee. TBD = to be determined.
Table D-4
LRTP-Relevant Conceptual Roadway Projects
Municipality |
Proponent/Source |
Project |
Roadway Classification |
Potential MPO Investment Program |
Design Status |
Program Year |
Cost Estimate |
MAPC Subregion |
MassDOT Highway District |
LRTP Status |
Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boston |
TBD |
Charlestown Haul Road |
Minor arterial, but proximate to the Tobin Bridge |
TBD |
Pre-PRC Approval |
N/A |
TBD |
ICC |
6 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Conceptual Highway Projects) |
Project would construct an off-road truck route on the alignment of a freight spur that leads to Massport's Moran Terminal on the Mystic River near the Tobin Bridge. |
Braintree |
MassDOT |
I-93/Route 3 Interchange (Braintree Split) |
Interstate |
Major Infrastructure |
Pre-PRC Approval |
N/A |
$53,289,000 |
SSC |
6 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Conceptual Highway Projects) |
Proposed improvements include the addition of a travel lane, a pair of auxiliary lanes, and associated acceleration lanes. A new entrance ramp is proposed along with restricting the use of an existing ramp. |
Braintree, Weymouth, Norwell |
MassDOT |
Route 3 South Widening (Braintree to Weymouth) |
Principal Arterial – Expressway |
Major Infrastructure |
Pre-PRC Approval |
N/A |
$800,000,000 |
SSC |
6 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Conceptual Highway Projects) |
District 6 notes that this project has not advanced. |
Lexington |
Lexington |
Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue (Bedford/Hartwell Complete Streets Project) |
Principal Arterial – Other |
Major Infrastructure |
Pre-PRC Approval |
N/A |
TBD |
MAGIC |
4 |
In Destination 2040 (in FFYs 2030–34 time band) |
Specific nature of capacity impacts to be determined. |
Lynnfield, Reading |
TBD |
I-95 Capacity Improvements |
Interstate |
Major Infrastructure |
Pre-PRC Approval |
N/A |
$198,443,000 |
NSPC |
4 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Conceptual Highway Projects) |
Specific nature of capacity impacts to be determined. |
Newton |
Newton |
New Route 128 Ramp to Riverside Station |
Interstate |
Major Infrastructure |
Pre-PRC Approval |
N/A |
$10,000,055 |
ICC |
6 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Conceptual Highway Projects) |
Project status to be determined. |
Wilmington |
Wilmington |
I-93/Route 125/Ballardvale Street |
Interstate |
Major Infrastructure |
Pre-PRC Approval |
N/A |
TBD |
NSPC |
4 |
In Destination 2040 Project Universe (Conceptual Highway Projects) |
Specific nature of capacity impacts to be determined. |
Note: The federal functional classification listed above reflects the highest classification associated with roadways included in the project.
FFY = federal fiscal year. ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MAPC = Metropolitan Area Planning Council. MassDOT = Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Massport = Massachusetts Port Authority. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. PRC = Project Review Committee. SSC = South Shore Committee. SWAP = Southwest Advisory Planning Committee. Transportation Improvement Program.
The Boston Region MPO chose a list of projects to include in the LRTP (Table D-5). Each project was evaluated using quantitative and qualitative measurements of how it furthers the regional planning goals adopted by the MPO. (See Chapter 3.)
The evaluation criteria and the metrics that inform the evaluation are described below. The projects being evaluated come to MPO staff at different levels of preparation. A few projects may be defined at a 25 percent design level, generally the most design undertaken prior to a commitment to project funding in the TIP. Usually, however, there are only conceptual designs or project descriptions by proponents. The evaluation criteria have been specified in such a way that they can be applied to all candidate projects regardless of available project detail.
With a planning horizon to 2050, even well-defined projects can undergo significant changes, redesign, or rethinking before construction eventually begins. For these reasons, the evaluated projects are compared using a limited number of broad quantitative and qualitative measurements. These measurements examine the level of detail on what is known about existing conditions in the proposed project area. The effectiveness with which a project will address future deficiencies must be estimated by applying professional judgement to these preliminary project concepts. Cost estimates, in most instances developed by other agencies than the MPO, are similarly preliminary.
The MPO has defined six goal areas:
The measurements used in this analysis are intended to reflect how effectively a project would further these MPO goals were it to be completed. Given the distant time horizon, preliminary designs, and complexity of the transportation activity being evaluated, these measurements were not as detailed as Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) evaluations.
The scarcity of applicable data and very preliminary nature of project plans make any projection of benefits or disbenefits insufficiently reliable in the goal areas of Equity or Clean Air and Healthy Communities. As a result, evaluation procedures and scores have not been developed for those two goal areas as part of the LRTP. However, all projects will be rescored for all six goal areas if they are included in the TIP.
The scoring methodology for the four goal areas scored here (safety, mobility and reliability, access and connectivity, and resiliency) builds upon project scoring procedures that were used in the preceding LRTP, Destination 2040. The evaluation and scoring procedures have been modified to reflect Destination 2050 goals.
Below are descriptions of specific evaluation procedures for the four goal areas.
The elements that go into the development of the safety scores are shown in Table D-5. Additional data, not used directly in scoring but that inform and corroborate the safety scores, are also shown.
The safety scores are developed by considering the number and severity of crashes in the project areas, the number of vehicles that pass through, the expected project cost, and the nature of the roadway improvements proposed. Characterizing the nature of the proposed improvements is the scoring aspect that is most dependent on professional judgement.
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) maintains a database of statewide crashes that is updated annually. Crash data from 2016 is now available and crashes that occurred during the 2014–16 period were used in developing safety scores. Crashes range widely in severity and are measured using the concept of equivalent property damage only (EPDO).
The EPDO formula used for the evaluations has recently been revised. This method of assessing crash severity is a weighting system aligned with calculated crash costs based on a 2017 Federal Highway Administration report, Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analyses. The EPDO formula used in this evaluation counts all crashes that occurred in a project area over the three-year period and adds the number of crashes involving bodily injury multiplied by 20.
Crash risk is calculated by comparing the EPDO value with the number of vehicles that enter the project area during an average weekday. Project area traffic volumes are estimated using recent traffic studies by the Central Transportation Planning Staff, project development proponents, MassDOT’s online traffic count database, or the MPO’s travel demand model.
Dividing the EPDO value by vehicles per year is a measurement of risk. This fraction is usually multiplied by 100,000,000 to give EPDO per hundred million vehicles. The evaluated projects are then divided into two equal-sized groups, high risk (score=one) and low risk (score=two), based solely on this risk calculation.
The second scoring index is project cost divided by the project area EPDO. This quotient resembles a cost-benefit ratio, but its meaning is more limited. A large EPDO value implies some degree of obsolete or deficient roadway design in the project area. Any reconstruction activity is required to meet current design and safety standards, so it is assumed that the project will improve safety.
There is no expectation that bringing the project area up to current design standards will eliminate all crashes, but EPDO serves as a proxy for potential safety improvement. A low cost per EPDO implies that the proposed investment that will bring the entire project area up to current standards will improve safety and will help to reduce a comparatively large number of crashes. The evaluated projects are divided into two equal-sized groups: low cost per EPDO (score=one) and high cost per EPDO (score=two).
The third scoring measurement is achieved by characterizing the expected impact of the project. For instance, demolishing a cloverleaf interchange that was designed during the 1950s and replacing it with a new interchange with larger turning radii and longer acceleration lanes, conforming with modern standards, would be expected to have a significant safety impact. Reconstructing an arterial roadway within its existing right-of-way would be assumed to have a smaller impact. Some investments, such as adding a highway on-ramp where one currently does not exist, may improve mobility but do not necessarily improve safety in the project area even if adhering to modern design standards.
Each of the evaluated projects were placed in one of three groups based on the types of physical improvements proposed:
Placing projects in these groups requires professional judgement and often knowledge of the project area and its planning history. As mentioned above, descriptions of projects planned for future decades can be conceptual and MPO staff must predict the types of improvements likely to appear in community plans as the project gets closer to implementation. Defining a project area, necessary for calculating the EPDO, also requires this type of judgement.
As described above, projects are scored according to three criteria: risk, cost-benefit, and project impact. Combined scores of two or three result in a project being rated in the high category. A combined score of only one results in a medium rating, and a combined score of zero results in a low rating.
Some Massachusetts locations are eligible for project funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Eligibility of projects for HSIP funding is determined by MassDOT. However, almost all HSIP locations were located in project areas that scored high under the three scoring criteria (risk, cost-benefit, and project impact). HSIP locations were identified for total crashes, bicycle-involved crashes, and pedestrian-involved crashes.
Projects can be awarded points for mobility and reliability if they
Four tests were developed for Destination 2040 that are applicable for the Mobility and Reliability goal in Destination 2050:
This section describes the formulation and use of these four tests. For each of these tests a project may be awarded one, two, or three points for a maximum of 12 points. The scores for mobility and reliability are summarized in Table D-5 along with the data and assessments that informed the scores. Projects with a total mobility and reliability score of nine through 12 are designated in the high category, projects with score totals of seven or eight are medium, and projects with lower totals are low.
Estimating project benefits for vehicular traffic using the region’s roadway system depends on data entirely derived from the MPO’s travel demand model. The model is developed and calibrated with data on directly observed traffic at a large sample of regional locations. Only the model can provide a regionwide snapshot of all important roadways at critical time periods. The travel demand model can also generate a regionwide traffic snapshot for a future year, in this case 2050.
The most useful metric for evaluating regional capacity management issues is the volume-over-capacity ratio (V/C) on roadways during the morning and evening peak travel periods. Each modelled roadway segment has an estimated capacity in vehicles per hour based on current traffic engineering standards. The model estimates volumes for the morning, evening, midday, and night periods, and the V/C is calculated by dividing these volumes by the capacity. In the MPO’s travel demand model, the morning peak period is defined as 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and the evening peak period is 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
The analysis begins by identifying for each directional link whether the V/C is higher in the morning or evening. For reference, two-way roads are considered to be two links. Almost invariably, if one direction has its highest V/C in the morning, the reciprocal direction will have its highest V/C in the evening.
The base year and future year V/C were estimated and depicted graphically on a regionwide basis. Together, the morning and evening periods indicated both commuting patterns and bottlenecks in a single graphic. Locations with regionally significant congestion problems were easily identified by inspection. Congestion at these locations was characterized as severe, moderate, or inconsequential by balancing the V/C value with the length of the congested segments.
Projects that include roadways in the severe category were awarded three points, projects with moderately congested roadways were awarded two points, and all other projects received one point. The evaluated projects are anticipated to reduce congestion within their project areas.
Project benefits for buses were estimated by calculating the number of local and regional buses that travel through a project area with scheduled service on a typical weekday. These numbers were developed from published schedules. Projects with bus routes are assumed to either improve traffic flow or improve the streetscape, allowing better pedestrian access to local buses.
Projects were ranked by the combined total of local and regional buses that traverse the project areas, including Logan Express buses. Break points were designated to divide projects into groups with high, medium, or low benefits for bus users, for which three, two, or one point would be awarded. Ridership was known for the local buses but not for the regional buses. Local bus ridership was one of the factors used to designate break points.
Investments sufficiently large to be classified as major investments for MPO planning purposes tend to have extended project areas and involve some level of improvement or refurbishment benefiting both motorized and nonmotorized modes. Often the name of the project reflects primarily the roadway improvements and unless more detailed descriptions have been prepared by proponents, the nature of ancillary improvements to nonmotorized modes can only be surmised.
MPO staff evaluated each project using available project descriptions and supplemented these sources using sketch planning analyses. In this approach, staff considered project area geography and current infrastructure configuration and condition to anticipate what types of improvements for nonmotorized modes would likely be incorporated into future plans as they develop. Points were awarded on these bases:
The total nonmotorized points awarded are shown in Table D-5 along with the other scores for pedestrian and bicycle improvements that factor into the total score. Projects with three, four, or five points in the subcategories receive three points overall, and projects with one or two points in the subcategories receive two points overall. Projects with zero nonmotorized points still receive one point in this category.
Ongoing expenditures in routine maintenance, refurbishment, and total reconstruction are necessary to preserve the safety and efficiency of transportation systems. When scoring projects in this category, the basic assumption is that any proposed project will result in new roadway elements built to applicable modern standards. The number of points awarded depends on the type and severity of roadway deficiencies in the project area, as indicated in Table D-5.
Determining a score in the pavement condition category first requires the calculation of the weighted deficiency index using MassDOT’s pavement condition database; the latest data are from 2022. The condition of pavement on state numbered routes is measured regularly with measurements expressed using the International Roughness Index (IRI). MPO staff calculated an average IRI for the lane miles in each project area, shown in Table D-5 as weighted IRI.
Average project area IRI values ranged from 45 (best project area pavement) to 282 (worst). The average IRI of each project was adjusted downwards by 45 and then multiplied by the number of lane miles in the project area. This gave staff an estimate of the total amount of project area pavement deficiency, shown in Table D-5 as the project area pavement deficiency index.
The cost-effectiveness analysis assumes that at the completion of a project, the pavement deficiency (calculated above) will be eliminated. Dividing the total project cost by the total project area pavement deficiency index gives an estimate of cost effectiveness, shown in Table D-5 as the cost per index point.
When the costs per index point are sorted from lowest (most cost effective) to highest (least cost effective) breakpoints can be defined and the projects divided into three groups with the most cost-effective projects getting three points. This cost-effectiveness estimate is an oversimplification because structures unrelated to pavement, such as bridges and culverts, may also need to be replaced.
The MassDOT Bridge Section maintains a database of detailed information from periodic inspections of all bridges in Massachusetts. Structurally deficient bridges must be inspected frequently and if a bridge is in danger of failure, it is closed.
If there are one or more structurally deficient bridges in a project area, the project score can be increased one level, for example, from one point to two or from two points to three. This is an extremely simplistic adjustment and only reflects that a substantial portion of the project costs are expected to be used for bridge replacement or refurbishment.
The access and connectivity goal is to provide transportation options and improve access to key destinations to support economic vitality and quality of life. The relationship of transportation to land use and its importance for economic activity have long been acknowledged, and the evaluation methods described in this section relate primarily to the location of the proposed improvements.
The access and connectivity scores shown in Table D-5 specify types of locations and improvements for which one or two points might be awarded depending on the project location and type of improvement. Point totals of five to seven result in an overall high score, totals of two to four points result in a medium score, and totals of zero or one result in a low score.
While any major transportation improvement can be expected to contribute to economic vitality, the ratings in this goal area reflect the degree to which the improvements support the land use objectives embraced by the MPO. The seven possible scores fall into three groups: projects that serve concentrated development, facilitate new development, or provide access to targeted development areas.
A project could receive one or two points for serving an area of concentrated development, depending on whether the project was entirely or only partially located within an area with this designation.
A project could be awarded a point if progress on a nearby development is contingent upon the implementation of the transportation improvement.
A project could be awarded as many as four points for improving access to designated targeted development areas for specific modes with one point awarded to each mode with improved access. The four modes are motor vehicles, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian.
Projects are also evaluated on how they increase the resiliency of the region’s infrastructure to sea level rise and associated environmental challenges. It is assumed that any future roadway reconstruction in flood-hazard areas will be done in accordance with resiliency standards in effect at the time of construction. To evaluate a proposed project, it is necessary to know how much of the project area will be vulnerable to flooding.
The pavement condition database that is used to develop the scores for reversing roadway deterioration also indicates whether sections of roadway are within the 100-year flood zone. Based upon project descriptions, MPO staff calculated the lane miles within the flood zones that the project would replace.
These calculations are summarized in Table D-5. Multiplying the percent of project roadway vulnerable to flooding by the total project lane miles (noted in the reversing roadway deterioration section of the table) results in number of lane miles vulnerable to flooding.
Any project with no elements within a flood plain was given a low resiliency score. For the projects shown here in Table D-5, any project with as many as 0.5 miles lane miles in a flood plain was given a medium resiliency score, and projects with more than 0.5 miles in a flood plain received a high resiliency score.
Table D-5 lists the eight projects that are included in Destination 2050. The first four projects were evaluated for Destination 2040 and the earlier evaluation results have been adapted to reflect the Destination 2050 MPO planning goals, as described above. The last four projects were not evaluated for Destination 2040. However, Table D-5 presents some available data and evaluation results to provide some basis of comparison between the eight projects.
Two of the projects, I-495/Route 1A Ramps in Wrentham and Route 1 and University Avenue/Everett Street in Norwood, were evaluated for inclusion in the MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Projects considered for inclusion in the TIP are at a significantly more advanced level of design, typically 25 percent, than LRTP projects. Using more robust data sets, TIP scores are developed that reflect how projects advance MPO planning goals.
The Wrentham and Norwood projects were part of a universe of projects that were evaluated for a previous TIP. Four of the TIP criteria considered at that time roughly correspond to the LRTP goals used for Destination 2050. These TIP areas were:
The scores of the projects in the TIP universe were averaged, and the Wrentham and Norwood projects were compared with the TIP universe averages. Their scores in relation to the other TIP projects in that universe suggested an appropriate score for a corresponding LRTP goal.
Destination 2050 project evaluations are summarized in Table D-6, including the two projects with scores synthesized from TIP evaluations. No data has been developed for the last two projects in Table D-5, but the projects are listed with cost and traffic estimates.
Table D-5
Destination 2050 Project Evaluations
SAFETY | MOBILITY AND RELIABILITY | ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY | RESILIENCY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Project Name | Estimated Project Cost (Current Dollars) | Annual Average Daily Traffic | Total Rank | Safety | EPDO | EPDO per 100,000,000 vehicles (Risk) | Cost per EPDO (Cost/Benefit) | Risk Group | Cost/Benefit Group | Project Impact Group | Top 200 Crash Location (Total EPDO) | HSIP Cluster (Total EPDO) | HSIP Bicycle Cluster (Bike-involved EPDO) | HSIP Pedestrian Cluster (Ped-involved EPDO) | Mobility and Reliability | Locations with Severe Traffic Congestion | MPO-identified Express Highway Bottleneck Location | Important Bus Corridors | Regional and Local Bus Trips (Daily) | Total Regional Bus Trips (Daily) | Total Local Bus Trips (Daily) | Number of Regional Bus Routes Served | Number of Local Bus Routes Served | Scope of Improvements for Pedestrians and Bicycles | Nonmotorized Total | Pedestrian Improvements | Bicycle Improvements | Improves Transit Access | Reversing Roadway Deterioration | Cost per Index Point (000s) | Structurally Deficient Bridges | Weighted IRI | Total Project Roadway-miles | Total Project Lane-miles | Project Area Pavement Deficiency Index | Access and Connectivity | Total points | Mostly Serves Existing Area of Concentrated Development | Partly Serves Existing Area of Concentrated Development | Facilitates New Development | Provides Vehicle Acess to Target Development Area | Provides Transit Acess to Target Development Area | Provides Bicycle Acess to Target Development Area | Provides Pedestrian Acess to Target Development Area | Resiliency | Percent of project roadway vulnerable to flooding | Lanes-miles vulnerable to flooding |
Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue (Lexington) | $45,000,000 | 40,200 | 18 | high | 2335 | 5867 | $19,272 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | high | 1 | 2 | 48 | 48 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | $29 | 185 | 4.5 | 11.1 | 1554 | medium | 2 | 1 | 1 | medium | 2.5 | 0.3 | ||||||||||||
McGrath Boulevard (Somerville) | $98,840,000 | 38,000 | 62 | low | 536 | 1425 | $184,403 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | high | 1 | 3 | 329 | 329 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | $99 | 2 | 218 | 1.3 | 5.8 | 1003 | high | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | low | ||||||
Replacement of Allston I-90 Elevated Viaduct (Boston) | $675,500,000 | 174,000 | 106 | low | 1246 | 723 | $542,135 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | high | 1 | 3 | 542 | 112 | 430 | 3 | 10 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | $209 | 1 | 142 | 8.4 | 33.4 | 3240 | high | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | low | ||||||
Improvements at Route 126/135/MBTA (Framingham) | $115,000,000 | 35,400 | 77 | high | 533 | 1521 | $215,760 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | low | 1 | 2 | 40 | 40 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | $1133 | 248 | .2 | .5 | 102 | high | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | low | |||||||||
I-495/Route 1A Ramps | $20,117,638 | 19,600 | low | Note A | low | 1 | Note A | 1 | Note A | 1 | Note A | 2 | Note A | low | Note A | low | Note A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Improvements at Route 1 and University Avenue/Everett Street | $28,699,272 | 58,350 | low | low | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | medium | low | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I-495 and I-90 Interchange | $300,942,836 | 230,000 | Note B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue: City Square to Sullivan Square | $197,759,449 | 54,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note A: LRTP scores have been derived from existing TIP scores. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note B: Project evaluation data is not currently available. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only. HSIP = Highway Safety Improvement Program. IRI = International Roughness Index. LRTP = Long-Range Transportation Plan. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization. TIP = Transportation Improvement Program | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Source: Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. |
Note A: LRTP scores have been derived from existing TIP scores.
Note B: Project evaluation data is not currently available.
EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only. HSIP = Highway Safety Improvement Program. IRI = International Roughness Index. LRTP = Long-Range Transportation Plan. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization. TIP = Transportation Improvement Program.
Source: Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Table D-6
Destination 2050 Project Evaluation Summary
Location | Project Name | Project Cost | Annual Average Daily Traffic | Safety | Mobility and Reliability | Access and Connectivity | Resiliency | Total Rating | 4 low ratings | 3 low ratings | 2 low ratings | 2 high ratings |
Lexington | Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue | $45,000,000 | 40,200 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 10 | X | |||
Somerville | McGrath Boulevard Project | $98,840,000 | 38,000 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 8 | X | X | ||
Boston | Replacement of Allston I-90 Elevated Viaduct | $675,500,000 | 174,000 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 8 | X | X | ||
Framingham | Intersection Improvements at Route 126/135/MBTA and CSX Railroad | $115,000,000 | 35,400 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 8 | X | X | ||
Norwood | Intersectioin Improvements at Route 1 and University Avenue/Everett Street | $28,699,272 | 58,350 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | X | |||
Wrentham | I-495/Route 1A Ramps | $20,117,638 | 19,600 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | X | |||
Source: Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. |
Source: Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
This chapter documents the latest Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) air quality conformity determination for the 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS in the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area. It covers the applicable conformity requirements according to the latest regulations, regional designation status, legal considerations, and federal guidance.
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require MPOs within nonattainment and maintenance areas to perform air quality conformity determinations prior to the approval of LRTPs and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP), and at such other times as required by regulation. CAAA Section 176(c) (Title 42, United States Code [USC], Section 7506 [c]) requires that federally funded or approved highway and transit activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding and approvals are given to highway and transit activities that
The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) transportation conformity rules establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether metropolitan transportation plans, TIPs, and federally supported highway and transit projects conform to the SIP (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Parts 51.390 and 93).
A nonattainment area is one that the EPA has designated as not meeting certain air quality standards. A maintenance area is a nonattainment area that now meets the standards and has been redesignated as maintaining the standard. A conformity determination is a demonstration that plans, programs, and projects are consistent with the SIP for attaining the air quality standards. The CAAA requirement to perform a conformity determination ensures that federal approval and funding go to transportation activities that are consistent with air quality goals.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was previously classified as a nonattainment area for ozone and was divided into two nonattainment areas. The Eastern Massachusetts ozone nonattainment area included Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, and Worcester counties. The Western Massachusetts ozone nonattainment area included Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties. With these classifications, the 1990 CAAA required the Commonwealth to reduce its emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), the two major precursors to ozone formation, to achieve attainment of the ozone standard.
The 1970 Clean Air Act defined a one-hour NAAQS for ground-level ozone. The 1990 CAAA further classified degrees of nonattainment of the one-hour standard based on the severity of the monitored levels of the pollutant. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was classified as being in serious nonattainment of the one-hour ozone standard and was required to achieve attainment by 1999. The attainment date was later extended, first to 2003 and a second time to 2007.
In 1997, the EPA proposed a new eight-hour ozone standard that replaced the one-hour standard, effective June 15, 2005. Scientific research had shown that ozone could affect human health at lower levels and over longer exposure times than one hour. The new standard was challenged in court, and after a lengthy legal battle the courts upheld it. The new standard was finalized in June 2004. The new eight-hour standard is 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours, and this level is not to be exceeded more than once per year. With this new standard, nonattainment areas were again further classified based on the severity of the eight-hour values. Massachusetts was classified as being in moderate nonattainment for the eight-hour standard and again was separated into two nonattainment areas—Eastern Massachusetts and Western Massachusetts.
In March 2008, the EPA published revisions to the eight-hour ozone NAAQS, establishing a level of 0.075 ppm (Volume 73, Federal Register [FR], page 16438; March 27, 2008). In 2009, EPA announced it would reconsider this standard because it fell outside of the range recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. However, EPA did not take final action on the reconsideration, keeping the standard as 0.075 ppm.
After reviewing data from Massachusetts monitoring stations, EPA sent a letter on December 16, 2011, proposing that only Dukes County be designated as nonattainment for the new proposed 0.075 ppm ozone standard. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts concurred with these findings.
On May 21, 2012, the final rule (77 FR 30088) was published in the Federal Register. This rule defined the 2008 NAAQS as 0.075 ppm, the standard that was promulgated in March 2008. A second rule (77 FR 30160) published on May 21, 2012, revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS effective one year after the July 20, 2012, effective date of the 2008 NAAQS.
Also, on May 21, 2012, the Federal Register published the air quality designation areas for the 2008 NAAQS. Dukes County was the only area in Massachusetts designated as a nonattainment area. All other Massachusetts counties were designated as attainment/unclassified for the 2008 standard.
On March 6, 2015, EPA published the final rulemaking, “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements; Final Rule” (80 FR 12264), effective April 6, 2015. This rulemaking confirmed the removal of transportation conformity to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the replacement with the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which actually set a stricter level of allowable ozone concentration than the 1997 standards and classified Massachusetts (except for Dukes County) as attainment/unclassifiable.
However, on February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. District v. EPA (“South Coast II,” 882 F.3d 1138) held that transportation conformity determinations must be made in areas that were designated either as nonattainment or maintenance areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS when the 1997 ozone NAAQS was revoked.
On November 29, 2018, EPA issued Transportation Conformity Guidance for the South Coast II Court Decision (EPA-420-B-18-050, November 2018), which addressed how transportation conformity determinations could be made in these areas. According to the guidance, both Eastern and Western Massachusetts, along with several other areas across the country, were defined as orphan nonattainment areas—areas that were designated as nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time of its revocation (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) and as attainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in EPA’s original designation rule for this NAAQS (77 FR 30160, May 21, 2012). As of February 16, 2019, conformity determinations are required in these areas.
After February 16, 2019, as a result of the court ruling and the subsequent federal guidance, transportation conformity for the 1997 NAAQS—intended as an anti-backsliding measure—now applies to both Massachusetts orphan areas. Therefore, a conformity determination was made for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in all of the Massachusetts MPOs’ federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2020–40 LRTPs. This conformity determination was finalized in July 2019, following all of the MPOs’ endorsements of their LRTPs, and approved by the Massachusetts Divisions of FHWA and FTA on October 15, 2019. This conformity determination continues to be valid for the Boston Region MPO’s FFYs 2024–28 TIP, and Massachusetts’ 2024–28 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as each is developed from the conforming 2020–40 LRTPs.
The transportation conformity regulation in 40 CFR § 93.109 sets forth the criteria and procedures for determining conformity. The conformity criteria for TIPs and LRTPs include a demonstration of fiscal constraint (§ 93.108), a basis on the latest planning assumptions (§ 93.110), use of the latest emissions model (§ 93.111), consultation (§ 93.112), provision for the timely implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) (§ 93.113[b] and [c]), and consistency with an emissions budget and/or interim emissions tests (§ 93.118 and/or § 93.119).
For the 1997 ozone NAAQS areas, transportation conformity for TIPs and LRTPs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated without a regional emissions analysis, per 40 CFR § 93.109(c). This provision states that the regional emissions analysis requirement applies one year after the effective date of EPA’s nonattainment designation for a NAAQS and until the effective date of revocation of such NAAQS for an area. The 1997 ozone NAAQS revocation was effective on April 6, 2015, and the court for South Coast II upheld the revocation. As no regional emission analysis is required for this conformity determination, there is no requirement to use the latest emissions model, budget, or interim emissions tests.
Therefore, transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Boston Region MPO’s 2050 LRTP can be demonstrated by showing that the remaining requirements in 40 CFR § 93.109 have been met. The following requirements regarding the use of the latest planning assumptions, consultation, timely implementation of TCMs, and fiscal constraint are defined in Section 2.4 of that guidance and are addressed in the following sections.
The requirement to use the latest planning assumptions in 40 CFR § 93.110 generally applies to regional emissions analyses. In the areas subject to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the use of latest planning assumptions requirement applies to assumptions about TCMs in an approved SIP. (See the section titled Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures below).
The consultation requirements in 40 CFR § 93.112 for interagency consultation and public consultation were addressed. Interagency consultation was conducted with FHWA, FTA, EPA Region 1, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the other Massachusetts MPOs on March 6, 2019, to discuss the latest conformity-related court rulings and resulting federal guidance. Regular and recurring interagency consultations have been held on (at least) an annual schedule, with the most recent conformity consultation held on March 13, 2023. Ongoing consultation is conducted in accordance with the following items:
Public consultation was conducted consistent with planning rule requirements in 23 CFR § 450. Title 23 CFR § 450.324 and 310 CMR 60.03(6)(h) requires that the development of the TIP, LRTP, and related certification documents provide an adequate opportunity for public review and comment. Section 450.316(b) also establishes the outline for MPOs’ public engagement programs.
The Boston Region MPO's current Public Engagement Plan was endorsed by the MPO board in October 2021 and amended in September 2022. The Public Engagement Plan ensures that the public will have access to the TIP and LRTP and all supporting documentation, provides for public notification of the availability of the TIP and LRTP and the public's right to review the document and comment thereon, and provides a 21-day public review and comment period prior to the adoption of the TIP and LRTP and related certification documents. The plan is available at https://www.bostonmpo.org/public-engagement.
The public comment period for this conformity determination will commence on or about June 16, 2023. During the 21-day public comment period, any comments received will be incorporated into this LRTP. This process will allow sufficient opportunity for public comment and for the MPO board to review the draft document. The public comment period will close on or about July 15, 2023, and the Boston Region MPO is expected to endorse this air quality conformity determination on July 15, 2023. These procedures comply with the associated federal requirements.
Transportation control measures were required in the SIP in revisions submitted to EPA in 1979 and 1982. All of these TCMs have been accomplished through construction projects or through implementation of ongoing programs. All of the projects have been included in the Boston Region MPO's TIPs (present and past) as recommended projects or projects requiring further study. Information on the Green Line Extension to Somerville and Medford, which was completed between this and last year’s TIP, is as follows:
The Green Line Extension is a 4.7-mile light rail line, which extended the current Green Line service from a relocated Lechmere Station in East Cambridge to a terminus at College Avenue in Medford, with a spur to Union Square in Somerville. This project had a cost estimate of $2.289 billion. Funding came from a combined $1.99 billion in federal and state funds and pledged contributions totaling approximately $296 million from the Cities of Cambridge and Somerville ($75 million), the Boston Region MPO ($157.1 million), and MassDOT ($64.3 million through Special Obligation Bonds). Cambridge and Somerville were refunded their full $75 million in November 2021.
In early 2017, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) initiated a procurement process for a design-build entity to design and construct the project. In November 2017, approval was received to execute a design-build contract with Green Line Extension contractors. The notice to proceed under the contract was issued in December 2017. The FTA obligated an initial portion ($100 million) of the Capital Investment Grant funds for the project in December 2017, under the 2015 Full Funding Grant Agreement. Additional funds followed. The contract with Green Line Extension contractors was in the amount of $999.7 million.
The primary goals of the project were to improve corridor mobility, boost transit ridership, improve regional air quality, ensure equitable distribution of transit services, and support opportunities for sustainable development in Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford. In addition to the light rail service on two new branches extending from Lechmere Station to Union Square Station and College Avenue Station, the project included the construction of a vehicle maintenance facility and a multiuse path.
By filing an Expanded Environmental Notification Form, procuring multiple design consultants, and publishing both Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports, MassDOT met the first four interim milestones associated with the Green Line Extension project. Since those filings, MassDOT committed substantial resources to the Green Line Extension project, a top transportation priority of the Commonwealth and the largest expansion of the MBTA rapid transit system in decades. The project then transitioned from the planning and environmental review phases to the design, engineering, and construction phases, and the tasks associated with programming federal funding began.
The timeline for overall project completion, however, was substantially delayed. In the 2011 SIP Status Report, MassDOT reported that the Green Line Extension project would not meet the legal deadline for completion by December 31, 2014. The delay triggered the requirement to provide interim emissions reduction offset projects and measures for the period of the delay (beginning January 1, 2015). Working with the Central Transportation Planning Staff, MassDOT and the MBTA calculated the value for reductions of non-methane hydrocarbons, CO, and NOx that would be equal to or greater than the reductions projected to result from the operation of the Green Line Extension during the period of the delay, as specified in the SIP regulation.
In June 2012, MassDOT released a list of potential mitigation ideas received from the public that could be used as offset measures. In the summer and fall of 2012, MassDOT elicited public comments on these potential measures. Then the MBTA created an internal working group to determine a final portfolio of interim mitigation measures to implement by December 31, 2014, the legal deadline for the implementation of the Green Line Extension.
This work resulted in a recommendation to implement the following three interim mitigation measures, which collectively would meet the emissions reduction target for the project:
The Petition to Delay was submitted to the DEP on July 22, 2014, and expanded further on the analysis and determination of the interim offset measures. In a letter dated July 16, 2015, the DEP conditionally approved MassDOT's request to delay the Green Line Extension project and the implementation of the above interim mitigation measures. Both the 2014 Petition to Delay and the July 2015 Conditional Approval are available on MassDOT's website.
The Green Line Extension to Union Square opened for service on March 21, 2022, and the extension to Medford opened on December 12, 2022.
Funding Source: The Commonwealth, FTA via the Full Funding Grant Agreement, and the Boston Region MPO
Transportation conformity requirements in 40 CFR § 93.108 state that TIPs and LRTPs must be fiscally constrained so as to be consistent with the United States Department of Transportation’s metropolitan planning regulations (23 CFR part 450). The Boston Region MPO’s 2050 LRTP is consistent with the required fiscal constraints, as demonstrated in this document.
The requirement to perform a conformity determination for CO for the city of Waltham has expired. On April 22, 2002, the EPA classified Waltham as being in attainment for CO emissions. Subsequently, an EPA-approved CO limited maintenance plan was set up through the Massachusetts SIP to ensure that emission levels did not increase. While the maintenance plan was in effect, past TIPs and LRTPs included an air quality conformity determination against a “budget test” (using “hot spot” analyses as needed at the project level) for Waltham. As of April 22, 2022, however, the 20-year maintenance period for this CO area expired and transportation conformity is no longer required for this pollutant in this municipality. This ruling is documented in a letter from EPA dated April 26, 2022.
In summary and based on the entire process described above, the Boston Region MPO has prepared this conformity determination for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in accordance with EPA’s and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ latest conformity regulations and guidance. This conformity determination process demonstrates that the 2050 LRTP meets the Clean Air Act and Transportation Conformity Rule requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and has been prepared following all the guidelines and requirements of these rules during this period.
Therefore, the implementation of the Boston Region MPO’s 2050 LRTP is consistent with the air quality goals of, and in conformity with, the Massachusetts SIP.
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change in the state of Massachusetts. Climate change will have significant impacts on the Boston region if emissions trends continue as projected. The Boston Region MPO recognizes its role in reducing emissions and is taking steps to decrease the region’s carbon footprint and simultaneously adapt the transportation system to minimize damage from climate change. To accomplish this, the MPO prioritizes projects and strategies that protect and enhance the environment, promote emissions reduction, and improve the quality of life in the region.
The Commonwealth has enacted regulations to reduce GHGs from all sectors, including transportation. This section outlines the legislation and regulation pertinent to the MPO’s responsibility to contribute to emissions reduction. It also documents the GHG emissions that would be produced from the implementation of projects in this LRTP and other MPOs’ LRTPs in the Commonwealth.
The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) was enacted in August 2008. The act requires a 25 percent reduction of GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 and an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. This policy directive was developed in accordance with the GWSA. Its three goals are as follows:
Subsequently, the DEP established a regulation called the Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (310 CMR 60.05). The purpose of this regulation is to assist the Commonwealth in achieving its adopted GHG emissions reduction goals by the following means:
The 2021 Act Creating a Next-Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate Policy amended GWSA emissions limits to 33 percent below the 1990 baseline by 2025 and 50 percent by 2030. Additionally, the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2025 and 2030 specified emissions reduction targets for the transportation sector of 18 percent from the 1990 baseline by 2025 and 34 percent by 2030. While these targets are not legislatively required, they provide goals to strive for that are specific to the transportation sector.
In June 2022, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) confirmed that the GWSA’s 2020 emissions reduction goal of 20 percent from the 1990 baseline had been met and surpassed with a 31.4 percent reduction.
The Boston Region MPO is involved in helping to achieve MassDOT’s emissions reduction goals. The MPO is most directly involved in helping to achieve GHG emissions reductions through prioritizing and programming an appropriate balance of roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. The MPO also supports smart growth development patterns through the creation of a balanced and accessible multimodal transportation system. The Boston Region MPO’s Clean Air and Healthy Communities goal supports MassDOT’s emissions targets and guides the selection of projects for both the LRTP and TIP to further the MPO’s vision for a sustainable, healthy, livable, and economically vibrant region. This goal area represents the MPO’s commitment to climate change mitigation, while adaptation strategies are explored through the Resilience goal. The MPO’s objective is to reduce regional emissions from all transportation modes as outlined in the GWSA and, as a result, have a positive impact on reducing the drivers of climate change and achieving a cleaner, healthier transportation system.
The MPO is contributing to statewide implementation of MassDOT’s policy directive in a number of ways:
MassDOT coordinates with MPOs and regional planning agencies in the Commonwealth to implement GHG tracking and evaluate the development of each MPO’s LRTP and TIP. MassDOT and the MPOs have attained the following milestones:
MassDOT’s statewide estimates of CO2 emissions resulting from the collective list of all recommended projects in Massachusetts LRTPs are presented below. The latest planning assumptions, including updated socio-economic projections for the Commonwealth, were incorporated during the calculation of those estimates.
Table E-1
Massachusetts Statewide Carbon Dioxide Emission Estimates
Year |
CO2 Action Emissions |
CO2 Baseline Emissions |
Difference (Action minus Baseline) |
2019 |
|
|
|
2050 |
|
|
|
Note: The emissions estimates are based on tons of carbon dioxide per summer day.
CO2 = carbon dioxide.
Sources: Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Central Transportation Planning Staff’s Travel Demand Model.
As shown in Table E-1, all projects programmed in the LRTPs in the 2019 Action scenario provide a statewide reduction of more than ## tons of CO2 per day compared to the baseline case. The 2050 Action scenario estimates a reduction of ## tons of CO2 emissions compared to the baseline case. These results demonstrate that the transportation sector is expected to make positive progress toward meeting longer-term GHG reduction targets as required by the GWSA.
This analysis only estimates emissions of projects that are included in the statewide travel demand model (larger, regionally significant projects). The emissions impacts of many other types of projects that cannot be accounted for in the model (such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities, shuttle services, and intersection improvements) are evaluated in the regional TIPs with either qualitative assessments of likely CO2 change or actual quantitative estimates for each project.
To monitor and evaluate the GHG impacts of TIP projects, MassDOT and the MPOs have developed approaches for identifying the anticipated GHG emission impacts of different project types. All projects funded through the TIP have been sorted into two main categories for analysis: projects with quantified impacts and projects with assumed impacts. Projects with quantified impacts include those programmed in the LRTP that would add capacity to the transportation system as well as projects programmed in the TIP that underwent a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality spreadsheet analysis. Projects with assumed impacts can be qualitatively classified as prompting a decrease in emissions, an increase in emissions, or no impact on emissions. A detailed description of project evaluations included in the Boston Region MPO’s FFYs 2024–28 TIP is cited in Appendix B of the TIP (https://www.bostonmpo.org/tip).
Working closely with MassDOT, the Boston Region MPO will continue to report on its actions to comply with the GWSA and help meet emissions reduction targets to reduce the drivers of climate change and achieve a cleaner, healthier transportation system in the region.
[COMING SOON]
This appendix discusses the Boston Region MPO’s (MPO) performance-based planning and programming (PBPP) process. It also describes the MPO’s current set of performance measures and targets, as well as baseline values that reflect the current state-of-the-region’s transportation system. Finally, it explains how Destination 2050 will help the Boston Region MPO make progress toward its performance goals.
Performance-based planning and programming (PBPP) is a process that uses data to help achieve desired transportation outcomes. It improves project and program delivery, informs investment decisions, and provides greater transparency and accountability to the public around transportation project performance.
Performance-based planning and programming activities include
The MPO’s PBPP process is shaped by both federal transportation performance management requirements and the MPO’s goals and objectives, which are updated every four years as part of the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) directed states, MPOs, and public transit providers to carry out a performance and outcome-based surface transportation program, and these requirements are continued under current federal regulations under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act as well as the most recent federal surface transportation reauthorization law, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) of 2021. MAP-21 identified seven national goals for the nation’s highway system:
Table G-1 shows the relationship between national goal areas and the MPO’s goal areas. The MPO’s goals and related objectives are described in more detail in Chapter 1.
Table G-1
National and Boston Region MPO Goal Area
National Goal Area |
Boston Region MPO Goal Area |
Safety |
Safety |
Infrastructure Condition |
Mobility and Reliability, Resiliency |
System Reliability |
Mobility and Reliability |
Congestion Reduction |
Mobility and Reliability |
Freight Movement/Economic Vitality |
Mobility and Reliability, Access and Connectivity |
Environmental Sustainability |
Clean Air and Healthy Communities, Resiliency |
Reduced Project Delivery Delays |
Not applicable |
Not applicable |
Transportation Equity |
MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
The PBPP mandate is also designed to help the nation’s public transit systems provide high-quality service to all users, including people with disabilities, seniors, and individuals who depend on public transportation.
The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) has established measures in performance areas that support the national goals. Table G-2 lists federally required performance measures for public transit systems and Table G-3 lists those for roadway safety. These performance measures and relevant performance targets are discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
Table G-2
Federally Required Public Transit Performance Measures
National Goal Area |
Transit Performance Area or Asset Category |
Performance Measures |
Relevant MPO Goal Area |
Safety |
Fatalities |
Total number of reportable fatalities and rate per total vehicle revenue-miles by mode |
Safety |
Safety |
Injuries |
Total number of reportable injuries and rate per total vehicle revenue-miles by mode |
Safety |
Safety |
Safety Events |
Total number of reportable events and rate per total vehicle revenue-miles by mode |
Safety |
Safety |
System Reliability |
Mean distance between major mechanical failures by mode |
Safety |
Infrastructure Condition |
Equipment |
Percent of vehicles that have met or exceeded their ULB |
Mobility and Reliability |
Infrastructure Condition |
Rolling Stock |
Percent of revenue vehicles within a particular asset class that have met or exceeded their ULB |
Mobility and Reliability |
Infrastructure Condition |
Infrastructure |
Percent of track segments with performance restrictions |
Mobility and Reliability |
Infrastructure Condition |
Facilities |
Percent of facilities within an asset class rated below 3.0 on the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Economic Requirements Model scale |
Mobility and Reliability |
MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization. ULB = Useful Life Benchmark.
Sources: National Public Transportation Safety Plan (July 2018), the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan Rule (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 673), and the Transit Asset Management Rule (49 CFR Part 625).
Table G-3
Federally Required Roadway Performance Measures
National Goal Area |
Highway Performance Area |
Performance Measures |
Relevant MPO Goal Area |
Safety |
Injuries and Fatalities |
|
Safety |
Infrastructure Condition |
Pavement Condition |
|
Mobility and Reliability |
Infrastructure Condition |
Bridge Condition |
|
Mobility and Reliability |
System Reliability |
Performance of the NHS |
|
Mobility and Reliability |
System Reliability, Freight Movement, and Economic Vitality |
Freight Movement on the Interstate System |
Truck Travel Time Reliability Index (for truck travel on interstate highways) |
Mobility and Reliability |
Congestion Reduction |
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality |
|
Access and Connectivity, Mobility and Reliability, Clean Air and Healthy Communities |
Environmental Sustainability |
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality |
Total emissions reduction for applicable pollutants and precursors for CMAQ-funded projects in designated nonattainment and maintenance areasa |
Clean Air and Healthy Communities |
a As of the FHWA 2021 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program performance requirements applicability determination, the Boston Region MPO area contains an area designated as in maintenance for carbon monoxide, so the MPO is currently required to comply with this performance measure requirement. This designation expired in April 2022; however, the MPO must fulfill these performance requirements at least until FHWA issues an updated applicability determination related to CMAQ performance requirements.
CMAQ = Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement. FHWA = Federal Highway Administration. MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization. NHS = National Highway System.
Sources: Highway Safety Improvement Program Rule (23 CFR 924), National Performance Management Measures Rule (23 CFR 490).
Federal performance measure rulemakings identify key activities that agencies receiving federal transportation dollars must complete in order to integrate these federally required performance measures into their planning processes:
The MPO’s PBPP process must respond to the federal performance management requirements established under MAP-21 and the BIL, but it can also address other areas that pertain to its 3C responsibilities or to the MPO’s goals and objectives. For example, MAP-21 and the BIL do not specify transportation equity (TE) performance measures for states and MPOs to monitor. However, the MPO has established a TE goal to
Facilitate an inclusive and transparent transportation planning process and make investments that eliminate transportation-related disparities borne by people in disadvantaged communities.
TE populations include people who identify as minority, low-income population, people with limited English proficiency, older adults, youth, and people with disabilities. These populations include those protected by federal laws and regulations and that have been disproportionately and adversely impacted by the region’s transportation system.
The MPO’s TE goal and its associated objectives are rooted in several federal regulations and presidential executive orders, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898 (addressing environmental justice [EJ]), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other USDOT orders. To comply with these regulations, the MPO addresses the concerns of populations that these regulations protect, referred to here as TE populations, throughout the MPO planning process. Currently, the MPO evaluates projects proposed for funding in the TIP to determine whether and how they will benefit TE populations. In addition, after projects are selected, the MPO assesses the impacts of the projects, in the aggregate, in the LRTP and TIP, on TE populations to identify any disproportionately high and adverse effects. MPO staff are developing additional ways to monitor a wider range of impacts in order to assess project impacts relative to existing transportation inequities in the Boston region, which the MPO can use to adjust project investments as needed to address inequities that persist.
Moving forward, the MPO will examine whether and how to incorporate other performance measures and practices into its PBPP process. The creation of additional performance measures may allow MPO programs to more efficiently allocate money toward improving its long-range goals and objectives.
The PBPP process involves three key phases: (1) planning, (2) investing, and (3) monitoring and evaluating.
In the planning phase, agencies set goals and objectives for the transportation system, identify performance measures, and set performance targets that will guide their decision-making. They identify and acquire data and conduct analyses necessary to support these processes. They also create the frameworks they will use in key planning documents.
The Commonwealth creates performance-based plans for Massachusetts, such as the SHSP, TAMP, and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) TAM Plan, along with modal plans—such as its Freight Plan, Bicycle Transportation Plan, and Pedestrian Transportation Plan—which include PBPP elements. Similarly, transit agencies, including the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA), create TAM plans and PTASP that describe the data and processes these agencies will use to address transit state of good repair and safety needs. The Commonwealth is responsible for setting performance targets for the federally required roadway performance measures in Table G-3, while transit agencies must set targets for the measures in Table G-2. MassDOT’s annual Tracker report (massdottracker.com) describes the agency’s performance measure targets, including measures pertaining to the MBTA and the Commonwealth’s regional transit authorities.
MPO activities in the planning phase include setting goals for the transportation system through its LRTP and establishing targets for federally required performance measures. To establish these targets, the MPO may elect to support performance targets set by the Commonwealth or public transit providers (depending on the measure), or it may set separate targets for the MPO area. MPOs typically have 180 days after a state establishes a set of performance targets to choose to support those state targets or to adopt separate targets for the MPO region. For transit safety and asset management targets, MPOs work with local transit providers to develop targets that are appropriate for the region. These agencies update their performance targets based on defined cycles, which vary for different measures:
In the investing phase, agencies use the PBPP framework established in the planning phase to create strategies for investing in transportation improvements. The MPO develops investment programs and selects projects to fund with its Regional Target funds and documents those decisions in the LRTP and TIP. The LRTP identifies major infrastructure projects that may be funded in the region over the next 20 years or more, as well as establishes investment programs through which smaller-scale projects will be funded in the TIP. As the MPO’s capital program, the TIP documents funding provided for all surface transportation in the region for a given five-year timeframe. Similarly, MassDOT, the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA follow their processes to size programs and select projects for inclusion in the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The federally funded investments in the CIP are also documented in the STIP.
In the last step, agencies evaluate their progress by reviewing and reporting on the performance of their transportation investments. Activities include tracking trends, collecting data to understand the impacts of project investments, and comparing targets to actual performance. At the statewide level, MassDOT reports performance to USDOT, including information about its federally required performance targets from the TIP. MassDOT’s Tracker website (massdottracker.com) also includes detailed information about the agency’s targets and progress. Transit agencies report progress on TAM measures to the NTD each year. The MPO reports on performance in the LRTP and through its Congestion Management Process, as well as through other tools, such as its PBPP webpage (https://www.bostonmpo.org/performance) and the MPO’s Performance Dashboard. The MPO also assesses the need for new data, analysis tools, or methods to support its PBPP process, and may designate resources to address these needs in its Unified Planning Work Program.
Figure G-1 summarizes the three phases of this process, with a focus on MPO activities taking place in each phase.
Figure G-1
Phases in the MPO’s Performance-Based Planning and Programming Process
LRTP = Long-Range Transportation Plan. MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization. TIP = Transportation Improvement Program. UPWP = Unified Planning Work Program.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
States, public transit operators, and MPOs must coordinate with one another and share information and data to ensure consistency across PBPP processes. In Massachusetts, coordination responsibilities are outlined in the 2019 Performance-Based Planning and Programming Agreement between MassDOT, Massachusetts MPOs, municipalities, the MBTA, and regional transit authorities operating in Massachusetts.
Staff from Massachusetts MPOs, MassDOT, and other stakeholders coordinate on PBPP implementation through the Transportation Program Managers Group’s subcommittee on performance measures. For performance measures that states and MPOs track at the Boston UZA level, coordination responsibilities are documented in the 2018 Boston Urbanized Area Memorandum of Understanding. G-2
The LRTP plays several key roles in the MPO’s PBPP process, many of which fall into the planning phase.
Once the LRTP is completed and in effect, the MPO refers to it on an ongoing basis to support its PBPP process. The LRTP’s investment strategies also inform the short-term capital investment decisions the MPO makes each year in the TIP, which describes the links between short-term capital investment priorities and the MPO’s performance goals, measures, and performance targets. The system performance report in the LRTP provides a snapshot in time that the MPO can use to benchmark its progress in improving both the transportation system and transportation performance outcomes.
As of July 2018, FHWA and FTA published final rules for all performance measure rulemakings associated with the performance management mandate first included in MAP-21 and continued as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This section is the MPO’s second report on system performance since those federal rules were finalized. It provides information about plans, measures, baselines, and targets that are relevant to each MPO goal area, and it concludes with a description of how Destination 2050’s investment strategies—including its investment programs and projects—support progress in achieving MPO goals and federally required performance areas.
Achieve zero transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries and improve safety for all users of the transportation system.
The MPO has committed to investing in projects and programs that reduce the number and severity of crashes for all modes, and to reducing serious injuries and fatalities occurring on the transportation system. Similarly, the Massachusetts SHSP includes a long-term goal to move “toward zero deaths” by eliminating fatalities and serious injuries on the Commonwealth’s roadways and has set interim goals for 2024 to reduce fatalities and serious injuries for a five-year average by two percent. G-3 The MPO works closely with the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA to make safety-oriented investments and implement related initiatives as identified in their PTASPs.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the MPO track traffic crashes, fatalities, and injuries involving motor vehicles using information from the Massachusetts Crash Data System and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis and Reporting System. These data inform the targets that the Commonwealth and the MPO must set each calendar year (CY) for five federally required roadway safety performance measures:
Table G-4 lists the Commonwealth’s 2017–21 rolling average values for the fatality and serious injury performance measures; these make up Massachusetts’ current roadway safety baselines for these measures. This table also lists the Commonwealth’s current (CY 2023) targets for the federally required roadway safety performance measures. The MPO elected to support the Commonwealth’s CY 2023 roadway safety performance targets in February 2023. In doing so, the MPO agrees to plan and program projects that contribute to achieving these targets.
Table G-4
Massachusetts Highway Safety Performance Baselines and CY 2023 Targets
Highway Safety Performance Measure |
Baseline: |
2023 Safety Measure Target (Expected 2019–23 Rolling Average) |
Number of fatalities |
359.20 |
355.00 |
Rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled |
0.59 |
0.59 |
Number of serious injuries |
2,624.80 |
2,569.00 |
Rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled |
4.29 |
4.25 |
Number of nonmotorized fatalities and nonmotorized serious injuries |
467.60 |
437.00 |
Note: All values have been rounded to the hundredth place.
CY = calendar year.
Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System, Massachusetts Crash Data System, and Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
These measures pertain to fatalities and serious injuries from motor vehicle crashes and apply to all public roads, and are expressed as five-year rolling annual averages. The Commonwealth set its current set of roadway safety performance targets to reflect a 2019–23 rolling annual average, as required by FHWA. When setting these targets, the Commonwealth considered the following:
Figure G-2 shows historic and projected values for the number of fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes, while Figure G-3 shows the fatality rate per 100 million VMT. The Commonwealth considered this information when setting targets for lowering the number of fatalities. Meanwhile, VMT has been gradually increasing for both the Boston region and Massachusetts as a whole, which also has contributed to historic and projected decreases in the fatality rate.
Figure G-2
Fatalities from Motor Vehicle Crashes
Note: Values reflect five-year rolling annual averages and have been rounded to the nearest integer.
MA = Massachusetts.
Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis and Reporting System, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, and the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Figure G-3
Fatality Rate per 100 Million Vehicle-Miles Traveled
Note: Values reflect five-year rolling annual averages and have been rounded to the hundredth decimal place.
MA = Massachusetts. VMT = vehicle-miles traveled.
Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis and Reporting System, Massachusetts Department of Transportation., and the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Figure G-4 shows historic and projected values for the number of serious injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes, and Figure G-5 shows the serious injury rate per 100 million VMT. G-4
Figure G-4
Serious Injuries from Motor Vehicle Crashes
Note: Values reflect five-year rolling annual averages and have been rounded to the nearest integer.
Sources: Massachusetts Crash Data System, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, and the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Figure G-5
Serious Injury Rate per 100 Million Vehicle-Miles Traveled
Note: Values reflect five-year rolling annual averages and have been rounded to the hundredth decimal place.
VMT = vehicle-miles traveled.
Sources: Massachusetts Crash Data System, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, and the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Figure G-6 shows historic and projected values for the number of fatalities and serious injuries experienced by people traveling by nonmotorized transportation for the Boston region and Massachusetts as a whole. This category reflects bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries, as well as those experienced by others traveling by nonmotorized modes (such as skateboarders and people using wheeled mobility devices).
Figure G-6
Nonmotorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
Notes: Values reflect five-year rolling annual averages and have been rounded to the nearest integer.
Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis and Reporting System, Massachusetts Crash Data System, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, and the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
The National Public Transportation Safety Plan details performance measures for which transit agencies subject to the PTASP rule must set targets. The PTASP rule requires public transit providers, MPOs, and states to coordinate in developing targets for federally established transit asset performance measures. Once transit agencies develop their safety plans and performance targets, they must share them with state Department of Transportations and MPOs, which set targets for their states and regions, respectively. General information on these topics is available in the Destination 2050 Needs Assessment. Required performance measures include the following include the following:
The MBTA sets targets for four modes: heavy rail (Red, Orange, and Blue Lines), light rail (Green Line and the Mattapan High Speed Line), bus, and The RIDE paratransit system. Table G-5 shows averages for the transit safety measures for MBTA heavy rail, light rail, bus, and The RIDE from CYs 2019 to 2021.
Table G-5
Past Safety Performance Data for MBTA Transit Services
(CYs 2019–21 Averages)
MBTA Mode |
Average Fatalities |
Average Fatality Rate1 |
Average Injuries |
Average Injury Rate1 |
Average Safety Events |
Average Safety Event |
Average System Reliability Value2 |
Heavy Rail |
0.33 |
0.01 |
184.00 |
8.16 |
25.00 |
1.09 |
43,713.00 |
Light Rail |
0.00 |
0.00 |
81.00 |
14.64 |
28.00 |
5.04 |
7,515.00 |
Bus |
1.00 |
0.05 |
292.00 |
12.48 |
100.00 |
4.29 |
29,099.00 |
The RIDE |
0.00 |
0.00 |
27.00 |
2.31 |
21.00 |
1.77 |
61,231.00 |
Notes: This table reflects data available at the time the MBTA developed its targets.
1 Fatality, injury, and safety event rates are expressed per one million VRM. Rate values have been rounded to the nearest hundredth.
2 The system reliability measure is expressed as mean VRM traveled per major mechanical failure.
CY = calendar year. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. VRM = vehicle revenue-miles.
Source: MBTA and the Boston Region MPO staff.
The MBTA’s safety performance targets for CY 2023 are shown in Table G-6. When setting targets, the MBTA varied its approach by measure:
Table G-6
MBTA CY 2023 Safety Performance Targets
MBTA Mode |
Fatalities Target |
Fatality Rate Target1 |
Injuries Target |
Injury Rate Target1 |
Safety Events Target |
Safety Event Target1 |
System Reliability Target2 |
Heavy Rail |
0.0 |
0.0 |
180.0 |
7.99 |
24.0 |
1.07 |
44,500 |
Light Rail |
0.0 |
0.0 |
79.0 |
14.35 |
27.0 |
4.94 |
7,650 |
Bus |
0.0 |
0.0 |
286 |
12.23 |
98.0 |
4.21 |
29,500 |
The RIDE3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
27.0 |
2.27 |
20.0 |
1.74 |
62,500 |
1 Fatality, injury, and safety event rates are expressed per one million VRM. Rate values have been rounded to the nearest tenth.
2 The system reliability measure is expressed as mean VRM traveled per major mechanical failure.
3 The injuries target for The RIDE remains the same as past averages due to rounding.
CY = calendar year. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. VRM = vehicle revenue-miles.
Source: MBTA and the Boston Region MPO staff.
CATA monitors safety performance and sets targets for its fixed-route bus service and its demand response service. Table G-7 provides SFY 2018–22 averages for the fatality, injury, safety event, and system reliability measures for CATA’s fixed-route bus and demand response systems. G-7
Table G-7
Past Safety Performance Data for CATA Transit Services
(SFY 2018–22 Averages)
CATA Mode |
Average Fatalities |
Average Fatality Rate1 |
Average Injuries |
Average Injury Rate1 |
Average Safety Events |
Average Safety Event Rate1 |
Average System Reliability Value2 |
Fixed- Route Bus |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
2.4 |
0.2 |
73,603 |
Demand Response |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
133,848 |
Note: Values have been rounded to the nearest tenth.
1 Fatality, injury, and safety event rates are expressed per one hundred thousand VRM.
2 The system reliability measure is expressed as mean VRM traveled per major mechanical failure.
CATA = Cape Ann Transportation Authority. CY = calendar year. VRM = vehicle revenue-miles.
Sources: CATA, the National Transit Database, and the Boston Region MPO staff.
Table G-8 provides a summary of CATA’s SFY 2023 performance targets, which cover the period from July 2022 to June 2023. Targets are expressed per one hundred thousand VRM. In general, CATA used past data and averages as the basis for determining its transit safety performance targets for SFY 2023. When CATA set targets, it reviewed data for years when injuries or safety events did take place.
Table G-8
CATA SFY 2023 Safety Performance Targets
CATA Mode |
Fatalities Target |
Fatality Rate Target1 |
Injuries Target |
Injury Rate Target1 |
Safety Events Target |
Safety Event Target1 |
System Reliability Target2 |
Fixed- Route Bus |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
0.5 |
2.5 |
1.5 |
70,000.0 |
Demand Response |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
0.5 |
1.5 |
1.0 |
135,000.0 |
Note: Values have been rounded to the nearest tenth.
1 Fatality, injury, and safety event rates are expressed per one hundred thousand VRM.
2 The system reliability measure is expressed as mean VRM traveled per major mechanical failure.
CATA = Cape Ann Transportation Authority. SFY = state fiscal year. VRM = vehicle revenue-miles.
Source: CATA and the Boston Region MPO staff.
MWRTA monitors performance and sets targets for fixed-route bus service and demand response services. Table G-9 shows SFY 2018–22 averages for the transit safety measures for MWRTA’s transit services. G-8 MWRTA’s rate values are expressed in 100,000 VRM.
Table G-9
Past Safety Performance Data for
MWRTA Transit Services (SFYs 2018–22 Averages)
MWRTA Mode |
Average Fatalities |
Average Fatality Rate1 |
Average Injuries |
Average Injury Rate1 |
Average Safety Events |
Average Safety Event Rate1 |
Average System Reliability Value2 |
Fixed- Route Bus |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
0.05 |
1.4 |
0.13 |
128,551 |
Demand Response |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
0.07 |
1.6 |
0.20 |
67,468 |
Note: Values have been rounded to the nearest tenth.
1 Fatality, injury, and safety event rates are expressed per one hundred thousand VRM.
2 The system reliability measure is expressed as mean VRM traveled per major mechanical failure.
MWRTA = MetroWest Regional Transit Authority. VRM = vehicle revenue-miles.
Sources: MWRTA, the National Transit Database, and the Boston Region MPO staff.
Table G-10 provides a summary of MWRTA’s SFY 2022 performance targets, which include fatality, injury, and safety event rates expressed per one hundred thousand VRM. MWRTA set its transit safety performance targets by reviewing historic safety data for its fleet and by planning to operate as safely as possible and by proactively addressing hazards as they are identified.
Table G-10
MWRTA SFY 2023 Safety Performance Targets
MWRTA Mode |
Fatalities Target |
Fatality Rate Target1 |
Injuries Target |
Injury Rate Target1 |
Safety Events Target |
Safety Event Target1 |
System Reliability Target2 |
Fixed- Route Bus |
0.00 |
0.00 |
12.00 |
1.0 |
15.0 |
1.25 |
75,000 |
Demand Response |
0.00 |
0.00 |
8.00 |
1.0 |
10.0 |
1.25 |
75,000 |
Note: Values have been rounded to the nearest tenth
1 Fatality, injury, and safety event rates are expressed per one hundred thousand VRM.
2 The system reliability measure is expressed as mean VRM traveled per major mechanical failure.
MWRTA = MetroWest Regional Transit Authority. VRM = vehicle revenue-miles.
Source: MWRTA and the Boston Region MPO.
The MPO’s goal for this area is to
Support easy and reliable movement of people and freight.
Mobility policies for the region explore the ease with which people and goods can move throughout the region by car, on foot, on public transit, by bicycle, and through freight. Reliability encompasses bridges, pavement, sidewalks, and transit system assets, and addresses maintenance and state-of-good-repair needs to meet the transportation needs of the region.
To meet federal performance monitoring requirements, states and MPOs must track and set performance targets for the condition of bridges on the NHS. FHWA’s bridge condition performance measures include the following:
NHS ratings classify bridge condition as good, fair, or poor based on the condition of three bridge components: the deck, the superstructure, and the substructure. G-9 The lowest rating of the three components determines the overall bridge condition. G-10 The performance measures express the share of NHS bridges in a certain condition by deck area, divided by the total deck area of NHS bridges in the applicable geographic area (state or MPO).
Table G-11 shows performance baseline condition of bridges on the NHS in Massachusetts and the Boston region. The Boston region has a larger share of NHS bridge deck area considered to be in good condition, and a slightly smaller share of NHS bridge deck area considered to be in poor condition, compared to Massachusetts overall.
Table G-11
Massachusetts and Boston Region NHS Bridge Condition Baselines
Geographic Area |
Total NHS Bridges |
Total NHS Bridge Deck Area |
Percent of NHS Bridges in Good Condition |
Percent of NHS Bridges in Poor Condition |
Massachusettsa |
2,246 |
28,689,888 |
16.9% |
11.3% |
Boston regionb |
844 |
13,916,199 |
15.7% |
12.9% |
a Massachusetts baseline data are based on a Massachusetts Department of Transportation analysis conducted in 2022.
b Boston region comparison data are based on a Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization analysis conducted in 2022.
NHS = National Highway System.
Sources: Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
States set performance targets for NHS bridge performance measures at two-year and four-year intervals. The Boston Region MPO elected to support MassDOT’s four-year targets for these measures in February 2023. Table G-12 shows MassDOT’s NHS bridge performance targets. The two-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2023, and the four-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2025. These targets reflect anticipated conditions based on historic trends and planned bridge investments.
Table G-12
MassDOT’s NHS Bridge Condition Targets
Federally Required Bridge Condition Performance Measure |
2022 Measure Value (Baseline) |
Two-Year Target |
Four-Year Target |
Percent of NHS Bridges [by deck area] that are in good condition |
16% |
16% |
16% |
Percent of NHS Bridges [by deck area] that are in poor condition |
12% |
12% |
12% |
a The two-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2023, and the four-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2025.
CY = calendar year. NHS = National Highway System.
Source: Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
States and MPOs monitor and set targets for the condition of pavement on NHS roadways, a network that includes the Interstate Highway System and other roadways of importance to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility. Applicable federal performance measures include the following:
The performance measures classify interstate pavements as in good, fair, or poor condition based on their International Roughness Index (IRI) value and one or more pavement distress metrics (cracking and/or rutting and faulting) depending on the pavement type (asphalt, jointed concrete, or continuous concrete). The FHWA sets thresholds for each metric that determine whether the value is good, fair, or poor, along with thresholds that determine whether the pavement segment as a whole is in good, fair, or poor condition. G-11 Non-interstate NHS pavements are subject to the same thresholds for IRI values.
MassDOT uses information from its Pavement Management program to track the condition of Massachusetts’ NHS network. G-12 MassDOT’s targets are shown along with baseline data in Table G-13. The two-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2023, and the four-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2025.
Table G-13
Massachusetts NHS Pavement Condition Baselines and MassDOT NHS Pavement Condition Performance Targets
Federally Required Pavement Condition Performance Measure |
2021 Measure Value (Baseline) |
Two-Year Target |
Four-Year Target |
Percent of Interstate Highway System pavement in good condition |
71.8% |
70.0% |
70.0% |
Percent of Interstate Highway System pavement in poor condition |
0.0% |
2.0% |
2.0% |
Percent of non-interstate NHS pavement in good condition |
33.9% |
30.0% |
30.0% |
Percent of non-interstate NHS pavement in poor condition |
2.9% |
5.0% |
5.0% |
a The two-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2023, and the four-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2025. MassDOT has developed both two-year and four-year targets for internal consistency.
CY = calendar year. MassDOT = Massachusetts Department of Transportation. NHS = National Highway System.
Source: MassDOT.
MPOs are required to set four-year interstate pavement condition and non-interstate NHS pavement condition performance targets by either supporting state targets or setting separate targets for the region. The MPO elected to support MassDOT’s four-year targets for these NHS pavement condition measures in February 2023. The MPO will work with MassDOT to meet these targets through its Regional Target investments. While it is the MPO’s policy to not use its Regional Target funds for projects that only resurface pavement, it does fund roadway reconstruction projects that include pavement resurfacing, in addition to other design elements.
The Boston region has three transit agencies that receive FTA funds: the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA. These agencies are responsible for meeting planning and performance-monitoring requirements under FTA’s TAM rule, which focuses on achieving and maintaining a state of good repair (SGR) for the nation’s transit systems. Transit agencies develop these performance targets based on their most recent asset inventories and condition assessments, along with their capital investment and procurement expectations, which are informed by their TAM plans. MBTA, MWRTA, and CATA share their asset inventory and condition data and their performance targets with the Boston Region MPO so that the MPO can monitor and set TAM targets for the Boston region. For the most recent targets, the MPO adopted the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA state fiscal year (SFY) 2023 TAM performance targets.
FTA’s TAM performance measure for the SGR for rolling stock and equipment vehicles (service support, maintenance, and other nonrevenue vehicles) is the percentage of vehicles that meet or exceed their useful life benchmark (ULB). ULB uses vehicle age as a proxy for SGR (which may not necessarily reflect condition or performance), with the goal being to bring this value as close to zero as possible. FTA defines ULB as “the expected lifecycle of a capital asset for a particular transit provider’s operating environment, or the acceptable period of use in service for a particular transit provider’s operating environment.” For example, FTA’s default ULB value for a bus is 14 years. When setting targets, each agency has discretion to use FTA-identified default ULBs for vehicles or to adjust ULBs with approval from FTA. The MBTA uses FTA default ULBs for its rolling stock targets and MBTA-defined ULBs, which are based on agency-specific usage and experience, for its equipment targets. CATA and MWRTA use ULBs from other sources. G-13
Table G-14 shows SFY 2022 baselines and the MPO’s SFY 2023 targets for rolling stock, which refers to vehicles that carry passengers.
Table G-14
SFY 2022 Baseline Measures and SFY 2023 Targets
for Transit Rolling Stock
|
|
SFY 2022 Baseline |
SFY 2023 Targets |
|
Agency |
Asset Type |
Number of Vehicles |
Percent of Vehicles Meeting or Exceeding ULB |
Percent of Vehicles Meeting or Exceeding ULB |
MBTA |
Buses |
952 |
32% |
32% |
MBTA |
Light Rail Vehicles |
227 |
0% |
0% |
MBTA |
Heavy Rail Vehicles |
472 |
53% |
39% |
MBTA |
Commuter Rail Locomotives |
81 |
23% |
23% |
MBTA |
Commuter Rail Coaches |
393 |
8% |
7% |
MBTA |
Ferry Boats |
4 |
0% |
0% |
MBTA |
THE RIDE Paratransit Vehiclesa |
704 |
0% |
0% |
CATA |
Buses |
16 |
25% |
30% |
CATA |
Cutaway Vehiclesb |
16 |
63% |
5% |
MWRTA |
Cutaway Vehiclesb |
108 |
8% |
25% |
MWRTA |
Automobiles |
2 |
0% |
0% |
a The MBTA’s THE RIDE paratransit vehicles data and targets reflect automobiles, vans, and minivans.
b The National Transit Database defines a cutaway vehicle as a vehicle in which a bus body is mounted on a van or light-duty truck chassis, which may be reinforced or extended. CATA uses nine of these vehicles to provide fixed-route services, and 14 of these vehicles to provide demand-response service.
CATA = Cape Ann Transportation Authority. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MWRTA = MetroWest Regional Transit Authority. SFY = state fiscal year. ULB = Useful Life Benchmark.
Sources: CATA, MBTA, MWRTA, and the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Table G-15 shows SFY 2022 baselines and the MPO’s SFY 2023 targets for transit equipment vehicles. MPO staff has aggregated targets for nonrevenue vehicle subtypes for each of the three transit agencies. Similar to transit rolling stock, transit agencies can make improvements on these measures by expanding their fleets or replacing vehicles within those fleets.
Table G-15
SFY 2022 Measures and SFY 2023 Targets for Transit Equipment Vehicles
|
SFY 2022 Baseline |
SFY 2023 Targets |
|
Agency |
Number of Vehicles |
Percent of Vehicles Meeting or Exceeding ULB |
Percent of Vehicles Meeting or Exceeding ULB |
MBTAa |
1,417 |
22% |
25% |
CATA |
3 |
100% |
100% |
MWRTA |
11 |
36% |
50% |
a MBTA equipment includes both commuter rail and transit system nonrevenue service vehicles.
CATA = Cape Ann Transportation Authority. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MWRTA = MetroWest Regional Transit Authority. SFY = state fiscal year. ULB = Useful Life Benchmark.
Sources: CATA, MBTA, MWRTA, and the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
FTA assesses the condition for passenger stations, parking facilities, and administrative and maintenance facilities using the FTA Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM) scale, which generates a composite score based on assessments of facility components. Facilities with scores below three are considered to be in marginal or poor condition (though this score is not a measure of facility safety or performance). The goal is to bring the share of facilities that meet this criterion to zero. Infrastructure projects focused on individual systems may improve performance gradually, while more extensive facility improvement projects may have a more dramatic effect on a facility’s TERM scale score.
Table G-16 shows SFY 2022 measures and the MPO’s SFY 2023 targets for MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA facilities.
Table G-16
SFY 2022 Measures and SFY 2023 Targets for Transit Facilities
|
|
SFY 2022 Baseline |
SFY 2023 Targets |
|
Agency |
Facility Type |
Number of Facilities |
Percent of Facilities in Marginal or Poor Condition |
Percent of Facilities in Marginal or Poor Condition |
MBTA |
Passengera |
382 |
6% |
7% |
MBTA |
Administrative and Maintenance |
427 |
68% |
35% |
CATA |
Administrative and Maintenance |
1 |
0% |
0% |
MWRTA |
Administrative and Maintenance |
1 |
0% |
0% |
Note: Facilities are classified as being in marginal or poor condition based on FTA’s Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM) scale. Facilities assigned a rating of less than three are considered to be in marginal or poor condition.
a Passenger facilities include stations and parking facilities.
CATA = Cape Ann Transportation Authority. FTA = Federal Transit Administration. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MWRTA = MetroWest Regional Transit Authority. SFY = state fiscal year.
Sources: CATA, MBTA, MWRTA, and the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Table G-17 describes SFY 2022 baselines and SFY 2023 targets for the condition of rail fixed guideways. The MBTA is the only transit agency in the Boston region with this type of asset. The performance measure that applies to these assets is the percentage of track that is subject to performance, or speed, restrictions.
Table G-17
SFY 2022 Measures and SFY 2023 Targets for MBTA Transit Fixed Guideway Infrastructure
|
|
SFY 2022 Baseline |
SFY 2023 Targets |
|
Agency |
Track Type |
Directional Route Miles |
Percent of Miles with Speed Restrictions |
Percent of Miles with Speed Restrictions |
MBTA |
Transit Fixed Guidewaya |
127 |
5% |
2% |
MBTA |
Commuter Rail Fixed Guideway |
641 |
3% |
4% |
Note: The term “directional route miles” represents the miles managed and maintained by the MBTA with respect to each direction of travel (for example, northbound and southbound), and excludes nonrevenue tracks such as yards, turnarounds, and storage tracks. The baseline and target percentages represent the annual average number of miles meeting this criterion over the 12-month reporting period.
a The MBTA’s Transit Fixed Guideway information reflects light rail and heavy rail fixed guideway networks.
MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. SFY = state fiscal year.
Sources: MBTA and the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
FHWA requires states and MPOs to monitor and set targets for two performance measures that pertain to all travelers on NHS roadways:
These measures capture (1) whether travel times on an NHS segment are consistent (reliability); and (2) the extent to which NHS users’ travel may be affected by those conditions (percent of person miles). Several component metrics make up this measure:
Reliability is calculated by identifying the person-miles of travel for each NHS segment and then dividing the total person-miles on the relevant NHS network that are reliable by the total person-miles on the relevant NHS network. To support this analysis, FHWA provides travel-time and traffic-volume data as part of the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS), in which travel time data are reported by traffic messaging channel (TMC) segments.
States are required to set two-year and four-year targets for these measures. G-15 Table G-18 shows MassDOT’s CY 2021 baselines and two-year and four-year targets for reliability measures. The MPO is required to establish only four-year targets by either supporting state targets or setting its own targets for the Boston region. In January 2023, the MPO board voted to support the state’s four-year targets.
Table G-18
Travel Time Reliability Performance Baselines and Performance Targets
Network |
Measure |
2021 Measure |
Two-Year Target |
Four-Year Target |
Massachusetts—Interstate Highway System |
Percent of person-miles on the Interstate Highway System that are reliable |
84.2% |
74.0% |
76.0% |
Massachusetts—Non-interstate NHS System |
Percent of person-miles on the non-interstate NHS that are reliable |
87.9% |
85.0% |
87.0% |
Boston region—Interstate Highway System |
Percent of person-miles on the Interstate Highway System that are reliable |
71.4% |
n/a |
See Massachusetts target |
Boston region—Non-Interstate NHS System |
Percent of person-miles on the non-Interstate NHS that are reliable |
81.7% |
n/a |
See Massachusetts target |
a The two-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2023, and the four-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2025.
CY = calendar year. n/a = not applicable. NHS = National Highway System.
Sources: National Performance Management Research Data Set, Cambridge Systematics, MassDOT, and the Boston Region MPO.
FHWA requires states and MPOs to track truck travel reliability on the Interstate System to better understand the performance of the nation’s freight system. The applicable measure in this case is the Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index. Like the LOTTR, this measure compares longer (95th percentile) truck travel times to average (50th percentile) truck travel times. The greater the difference between these two travel times on an interstate segment, the less reliable truck travel on that segment is. For each interstate segment, TTTR Index values are calculated for different days and time periods and the segment length is weighted by the maximum applicable TTTR Index value. G-16 The weighted segment lengths for all interstate segments are then summed and divided by the length of the full interstate network for the applicable geographic area. The greater this aggregate value is, the more unreliable the network is with respect to truck travel. Table G-19 displays these values.
Table G-19
Truck Travel Time Reliability Baselines and Performance Targets
Network |
Measure |
2021 Measure |
Two-Year Target |
Four-Year Target |
Massachusetts—Interstate Highway System |
Truck Travel Time Reliability Index |
1.61 |
1.80 |
1.75 |
Boston Region—Interstate Highway System |
Truck Travel Time Reliability Index |
2.03 |
n/a |
See Massachusetts target |
a The two-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2023, and the four-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2025.
CY = calendar year.
Sources: National Performance Management Research Data Set, Cambridge Systematics, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, and the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
The MPO’s approach to addressing freight needs is guided in large part by the Massachusetts Freight Plan, which sets a vision and goals for the freight system in the Commonwealth. MassDOT’s performance goals for the freight system include the following: G-17
MassDOT and the MPO also examine mobility using the peak hour excessive delay (PHED) per capita measure, which is monitored to meet CMAQ requirements. It helps FHWA, states, and MPOs better understand the impacts of CMAQ-funded investments, which are intended to improve air quality and relieve congestion. CMAQ traffic-congestion-related performance measures apply to UZAs that contain geographic areas designated as not attaining US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for air pollutants and precursors from mobile sources (also known as nonattainment areas). G-18 The measures also apply to geographic areas that have a history of being in nonattainment and are thus required to maintain air quality monitoring and standard conformity processes (also known as maintenance areas).
Annual hours of peak hour excessive delay (PHED) per capita estimates the excessive delay on the NHS during peak periods. States and MPOs calculate this measure using several metrics:
The PHED per capita measure is calculated at the Boston UZA level by multiplying the hours of excessive delay during peak periods by the number of travelers during peak periods, and then dividing that total by the UZA population.
When proposing targets, MassDOT and New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) reviewed NPMRDS travel time data, speed data, annual average daily traffic information for NHS roadways, and population data from the American Community Survey (ACS) and the 2020 Decennial Census. Changes in travel patterns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and related public and private sector responses caused fluctuations in annual hours of PHED. When creating projections for this measure, MassDOT and NHDOT created an initial trend line based on a five percent growth rate, which reflects half of the rate of increase in PHED per capita between 2018 and 2019. This five percent growth rate accounts for the fact that traffic has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels. However, MassDOT and NHDOT acknowledge the large degree of uncertainty surrounding future demand for travel, including on the NHS. Travel activity for 2021, the most recent full year of data, is still heavily influenced by the pandemic and public and private sector responses, and the future growth rate of PHED per capita may be larger than anticipated. Figure G-7 shows the past annual PHED per capita values and projected growth rates included in Figure G-5, along with the target values.
Figure G-7
Estimates and Projected Growth Rates for Annual Hours of PHED
Per Capita in the Boston MA-NH-RI UZA
HPMS = Highway Performance Monitoring System. MA = Massachusetts. NH = New Hampshire. PHED = peak hour excessive delay. RI = Rhode Island. UZA = urbanized area.
Sources: HPMS data for Massachusetts and New Hampshire, US American Community Survey, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, the Center for Advanced Transportation Technology Laboratory (CATT Lab) at the University of Maryland, INRIX, and Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization staff.
Table G-20
Boston UZA Baseline and Performance Targets for Annual Hours of
Peak Hour Excessive Delay Per Capita
Geographic Area |
2021 Measure Value (Baseline) |
Two-Year Target |
Four-Year Target |
Boston Urbanized Area |
18.0 |
24.0 |
22.0 |
a The two-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2023, and the four-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2025.
CY =calendar year. MA = Massachusetts. NH = New Hampshire. PHED = peak hours of excessive delay. UZA = urbanized area.
Sources: National Performance Management Research Data Set, US Census Bureau, Federal Highway Administration, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, and Cambridge Systematics.
The MPO aims to support clean air and healthy communities in the Boston region by investing in projects that reduce GHG and other transportation-related pollutants. The MPO’s goal for this area is to
Provide transportation free of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants and that supports good health.
The MPO agrees that GHG emissions contribute to climate change. If climate change trends continue as projected, the Boston region will experience significant sea-level rise, storm-induced flooding, and warmer temperatures, which would adversely affect the region’s infrastructure, economy, human health, and natural resources. Massachusetts is taking action to reduce the GHGs produced in the state, including those generated by the transportation sector. To that end, Massachusetts passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires reductions of GHGs by at least 80 percent by 2050, relative to 1990 baseline conditions. The Commonwealth met its previous compliance requirement, reducing GHGs by 25 percent by 2020, relative to 1990 baseline conditions.
Transportation projects may also help reduce air quality pollutants and precursors—including carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO)—by improving traffic flow and increasing travel by public transit, bicycle, and walking. The MPO tracks the air quality benefits of transportation projects to identify projects that may be eligible for CMAQ funds. The MPO’s CMAQ Performance Plan includes targets for the amount of emissions the MPO expects will be reduced by CMAQ-funded projects in the region. As part of the plan, the MPO must note how it expects its CMAQ-funded projects to support improvements in these performance measures, which reinforces the connection between planning, investments, and expected performance outcomes. (The MPO must also track VOCs and NOx to meet EPA requirements. More detailed information about the MPO’s air quality status and related requirements is available in Appendix E.)
The federally required CMAQ emissions reduction measure, shown in Table G-21, is the total emissions reduction for applicable pollutants and precursors for CMAQ-funded projects in designated nonattainment and maintenance areas. FHWA requires states and MPOs subject to CMAQ performance management requirements to establish a baseline by identifying emissions reductions associated with any CMAQ-funded projects programmed in air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas. They must also set two-year and four-year targets for the emissions reductions expected from CMAQ-funded projects programmed in nonattainment or maintenance areas.
The Boston region included an area (Waltham, Massachusetts) designated as being in maintenance for air pollutant standards in 2021. This designation expired in April 2022; however, the MPO must fulfill air quality performance requirements at least until the FWHA issues an applicability determination related to CMAQ performance requirements (expected in October 2023). Agencies in each UZA that are responsible for these measures set two-year and four-year targets.
Table G-21
Boston Region MPO CMAQ Emissions Reduction Baseline and Performance Targets
Performance Measure |
FFYs 2018–21 Measure Value (Baseline) |
Two-Year Target |
Four-Year Target |
Daily kilograms of CO emissions reduction from CMAQ projects in Boston region nonattainment or maintenance areas |
0 |
0.354 |
0.354 |
CMAQ = Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality. CO = carbon monoxide. FFY = federal fiscal year. MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
The MPO is working to improve access and connectivity in the region in order to provide transportation options to key destinations, supporting economic vitality and a high quality of life for its residents. The MPO’s goal for this area is to
Provide transportation options and improve access to key destinations to support economic vitality and high quality of life.
The primary way the MPO assesses how it is improving access and connectivity is by measuring access to transit, biking, walking, and other non-single-occupancy-vehicle transportation options, which expand their travel choices and opportunities. The percentage of non-SOV travel performance is a key indicator of access to options that move people to their desired destinations.
States and MPOs that meet applicability criteria for CMAQ performance requirements must also monitor and set targets for the share of non-SOV travel in applicable UZAs. The percentage of non-SOV travel performance measure describes the extent to which people are using alternatives to SOVs and, thus, helping to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution from mobile sources.
Collectively, MassDOT, NHDOT, the Boston Region MPO, and the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments used ACS data from the US Census Bureau to estimate the percentage of workers aged 16 and older who commuted to work using an option other than driving alone. G-21, G-22 Examples of non-SOV commuting options include, but are not limited to carpooling, taking transit, bicycling, or walking. These ACS five-year period estimates are rolling annual averages. As Figure G-8 shows, the share of non-SOV travel in the Boston UZA has been increasing steadily over time.
Figure G-8
Historic Values and Performance Targets for the Percent of Non-SOV Travel in the Boston UZA
Note: The two-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2023, and the four-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2025.
ACS = US American Community Survey. CY = calendar year. SOV = single-occupant vehicle. UZA = urbanized area.
Sources: US Census Bureau, ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table DP03, “Selected Economic Characteristics”); the Massachusetts Department of Transportation; and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation.
Table G-22 lists the recent baseline and performance targets for the Boston UZA for the percentage of non-SOV travel. It also includes a baseline value for non-SOV travel that is specific to the Boston region, which is a larger percentage than for the Boston UZA.
Table G-22
Boston UZA Baseline and Performance Targets for Percent of Non-SOV Travel
Geographic Area |
2016–20 Measure Value (Baseline) |
Two-Year Target |
Four-Year Target |
Boston UZA |
36.9% |
38.8% |
39.8% |
a The two-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2023, and the four-year target reflects conditions as of the end of CY 2025.
CY = calendar year. SOV = single-occupancy vehicle. UZA = urbanized area.
Sources: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, the US Census Bureau, ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table DP03, “Selected Economic Characteristics”), and the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization.
The MPO aims to ensure that all residents fairly share in the benefits and burdens of its transportation planning investments, have meaningful opportunities to participate in the transportation planning process, and have a voice in the selection of transportation investments in their communities. To this end, the MPO integrates the transportation needs and interests of TE populations into its planning process and strives to address disparities in how the transportation network impacts TE populations through the selection of transportation projects that mitigate adverse impacts and provide benefits.
FHWA and FTA do not require states, MPOs, or transit agencies to monitor performance measures related to TE. However, as part of compliance with federal nondiscrimination and EJ mandates, MPOs must monitor how their investments are distributed relative to TE populations and whether the projects, in the aggregate, disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. This helps ensure that these populations share in the benefits from MPO investments and are not unduly burdened by any potential adverse effects. In the LRTP, this is documented in the disparate impact and disproportionate burden (DIDB) analysis (see Appendix H). The DI/DB analysis determines whether projects in the Recommended Plan may result in potential future disparate impacts or disproportionate burdens on minority and low-income populations, respectively. G-23, G-24 The MPO has developed a DI/DB Policy (see Appendix H) that allows the MPO to make that assessment.
Destination 2050 lists both major infrastructure projects that are required to be included in the MPO’s LRTP and describes the MPO investment programs that will be in place over the life of the plan. As this LRTP is implemented and projects are funded through the TIP, the MPO will describe in the TIP how it anticipates these projects will support progress toward the MPO’s performance targets, both for federally required performance measures and other measures, as applicable. In advance of more detailed discussions in TIP documents, this section describes how the MPO’s recommended set of projects and programs can support improvements with respect to federally required performance measures.
Chapter 4 discusses the process the MPO followed to set aside funding for investment programs and to select major infrastructure projects to include the Recommended Plan. The MPO recommends allocating discretionary funding to eight projects that improve facilities that are important to regional travel and/or cost $50 million dollars or more. The eight projects are shown below in Table G-23.
Table G-23
Boston Region MPO Projects funded in the Long-Range Transportation Plan
Project |
Amount (Estimate) |
Boston: Allston Multimodala |
$675,500,000 |
Hopkinton: I-495 and I-90 Interchangea |
$300,942,836 |
Boston: Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue from City Square to Sullivan Square
|
$196,100,000 |
Framingham: Intersection Improvements at Route 126 and Route 135/MBTA and CSX Railroadb
|
$145,500,000 |
Lexington: Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenueb
|
$57,000,000 |
Norwood: Intersection Improvements at Route 1 and University Avenue/Everett Street
|
$28,699,272 |
Somerville: McGrath Boulevard
|
$98,800,000 |
Wrentham: I-495/Route 1A Ramps
|
$20,117,638 |
aNote: This project is primarily funded by MassDOT and is not a Regional Target project.
bNote: This project is proposed for programming outside of the FFY 2024-2028 TIP, taking place after 2028.
The five MPO investment programs described in Chapter 4 may also help the MPO make progress toward federally required performance targets. Table G-24 describes how TIP projects funded through these various programs may address relevant measures.
Table G-24
Recommended Destination 2050 Investment Programs and Potential Performance Impacts
Investment Program |
Potential Impacts Related to Federally Required Performance Measures |
---|---|
Intersection Improvements |
Roadway Safety: reduce fatalities and injuries by updating roadway geometry, shortening crossing distances, and enhancing signals, lighting, signage, and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. NHS Pavement Condition: projects on the NHS may improve pavement condition. NHS Travel Reliability and Congestion: Signal and geometry improvements at intersections on the NHS may support reliable travel and reduce congestion. Non-SOV Travel: Improved bicycle or pedestrian accommodations at intersections may encourage shifts to nonmotorized travel. Intersection improvements may also support the mobility of transit vehicles, which may make transit a more attractive travel option. Air Quality: Reduced congestion resulting from roadway and geometric improvements at intersections may help reduce emissions. |
Complete Streets |
Roadway Safety: projects that improve roadway geometry, upgrade signals and crossways, and/or add or enhance sidewalks and bicycle pedestrian facilities may help reduce fatalities and serious injuries. NHS Bridge and Pavement Condition: projects located on NHS roadways or bridges can improve these pavements or structures. NHS Travel Reliability and Congestion: projects that improve signals and geometry on NHS roadways may support reliable travel and reduce congestion. Non-SOV Travel: Bicycle, pedestrian, or transit improvements (such as dedicated bus lanes) may support shifts to non-SOV travel, especially if they support network connectivity and access to activity centers. Air Quality: Reduced congestion resulting from roadway and geometric improvements may help reduce emissions. Bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements may encourage people to shift to non-SOV modes, which can help reduce emissions. |
Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections |
Roadway Safety: New or improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities may help reduce fatalities and serious injuries, particularly for nonmotorized users. Non-SOV Travel: New or improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities may encourage shifts to non-SOV travel, especially if they support network connectivity and access to activity centers. Air Quality: Bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements may encourage nonmotorized travel, which can help reduce emissions. |
Community Connections |
Non-SOV Travel: Shuttle, parking improvement, and bicycle and pedestrian improvement-related projects funded through this program may encourage shifts to non-SOV travel, especially if these projects support access to activity centers. Air Quality: Projects funded through this program may encourage shifts to non-SOV modes, which can help reduce emissions. |
Transit Transformation |
TAM: Transit fleet and facility upgrades may improve asset performance. Transit Safety: Improvements to transit facilities and vehicles may make conditions safer for transit customers, employees, and the public. Non-SOV Travel: Modernizing transit facilities and vehicles may improve service and comfort, which may encourage people to shift to non-SOV travel. Air Quality: Modernizing transit assets may help reduce emissions by encouraging non-SOV travel or by changing the amount or type of energy these assets use. |
Bikeshare Support |
Non-SOV Travel: New or improved Bluebikes stations may encourage shifts to non-SOV travel. |
Major Infrastructure |
NHS Bridge and Pavement Condition: projects located on NHS roadways or bridges can improve these pavements or structures. NHS Travel Reliability and Congestion: Signal and geometry improvements on the NHS may support reliable travel and reduce congestion. |
MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization. NHS = National Highway System. SOV = single-occupancy vehicle. TAM = Transit Asset Management.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
Performance improvements supported by investment programs will be complemented by MassDOT and transit agency investments included in MassDOT’s CIP (see Chapter 3). The following list provides examples of how these programs relate to federally required performance areas.
There are three key phases in the MPO’s PBPP process—planning, investing, and monitoring and evaluating. Destination 2050 relates to all three of these phases in this framework. First, it documents the MPO’s goals, objectives, measures, and current performance targets, which are all key components of the planning phase. Second, it creates a framework for the MPO to use to invest in the Boston region’s transportation system over the next 20 years—a framework designed to focus spending to further the MPO’s goals. Finally, it contains an assessment of transportation system performance, which the MPO can use when conducting future monitoring and evaluation of progress.
In the coming years, the MPO will expand its PBPP practice by engaging in new activities in each of the three phases and building on the foundation set by Destination 2050. Future planning activities include the following:
The MPO will update this system performance report in each LRTP to include information about progress the MPO has made toward its performance targets and updated targets, as appropriate. The MPO will also report on performance in other federally required plans and reports, including its CMAQ performance plan This information will be provided on the MPO’s PBPP web page (http://ctps.org/performance).
The Commonwealth and the region’s transit agencies also have reporting and evaluation responsibilities. MassDOT and the Commonwealth’s Executive Office of Public Safety and Security report roadway safety target information annually to FHWA and NHTSA. MassDOT reports other statewide performance targets and related information to FHWA on a biennial basis via FHWA’s Performance Management form. The MBTA, MWRTA, and CATA must report their TAM targets to the NTD, and in future years, these agencies will need to create and regularly submit PTASPs, which discuss their targets for transit safety performance measures. These reports include information about the progress that has been made with respect to performance measures and targets as compared to previous reports.
Going forward, the MPO will need to put the results of these reports and evaluations to use in its future planning and investment activities. As part of this work, the MPO will improve methods for understanding the impacts of MPO investments on various performance areas, including federally required performance areas and others identified by the MPO. Over time, the MPO expects that its actions in the PBPP, investment, and monitoring and evaluation phases will help ensure that the MPO’s investments are meeting its vision and goals for the region’s transportation system.
G-1 The National Highway System consists of interstates and other principal arterial roads that are important to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility. Sources: US Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration.
G-2 TE populations are identified using census data and are defined as follows:
• People who identify as a minority include those who identify as Hispanic or Latino/a/x and/or a race other than White.
• A person is considered to have a low income if their annual family income is less than or equal to 200 percent of the poverty level for their family size.
• People with limited English proficiency are those who report speaking English less than “very well” on the American Community Survey.
• The older adult population refers to people ages 75 years and older.
• The youth population refers to people ages 17 years and younger.
G-3 Urbanized Areas (UZAs) are defined by the US Census Bureau to represent the urban cores of metropolitan areas. The Boston UZA includes the 97 municipalities in the Boston Region MPO and includes portions of neighboring MPOs in eastern Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
G-4 PTASP FFY 2023 Massachusetts Highway Safety Plan available at
https://www.mass.gov/doc/ffy-2023-massachusetts-highway-safety-plan/download, pg. 27.
G-5 MassDOT defines serious injuries as incapacitating injuries, which it identifies through incident reporting by police and vehicle operators using the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Crash Operator Report.
G-6 MBTA, MBTA Transit Safety Plan, pg. 37.
G-7 MBTA, MBTA Transit Safety Plan, pg. 40.
G-8 Specific data sources include the March 6, 2023, Monthly Modal Time Series file (available at https://data.transportation.gov/Public-Transit/Monthly-Modal-Time-Series/5ti2-5uiv), the March 6, 2023, Major Safety Events file (available at https://data.transportation.gov/Public-Transit/Major-Safety-Events/9ivb-8ae9), the 2017-21 Annual Database Vehicle Maintenance files (available at www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/ntd-data), and the January 2023 Monthly Module Adjusted Data Release file (available at www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/monthly-module-adjusted-data-release).
G-9 Specific data sources include the March 6, 2023, Monthly Modal Time Series file (available at https://data.transportation.gov/Public-Transit/Monthly-Modal-Time-Series/5ti2-5uiv , the March 67, 20232, Major Safety Events file (available at https://data.transportation.gov/Public-Transit/Major-Safety-Events/9ivb-8ae9), the 2017-21 Annual Database Vehicle Maintenance files (available at www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/ntd-data), and the January 2023 Monthly Module Adjusted Data Release file (available at www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/monthly-module-adjusted-data-release).
G-10 National Bridge Inventory data are used to rate these components on a scale of zero (worst) to nine (best). The FHWA has classified these bridge ratings into good (seven, eight, or nine on the scale), fair (five or six), or poor (four or less).
G-11 Culverts are assigned an overall condition rating.
G-12 FHWA’s IRI thresholds for good, fair, and poor condition differ from those currently used by the MPO. For federally required NHS pavement condition performance measures, IRI values considered good are those less than 95; those considered fair are between 95 and 170; and those considered poor are greater than 170.
G-13 MassDOT continues to measure pavement quality and set statewide short-term and long-term targets in the MassDOT Tracker using the Pavement Serviceability Index (PSI), which is a different index than IRI.
G-14 CATA used useful life criteria as defined in FTA Circular 5010.1E (Award Management Requirements) for ULB values. MWRTA used useful life criteria as defined in MassDOT’s Fully Accessible Vehicle Guide and in FTA Circular 5010.1E for ULB values.
G-15 States and MPOs must calculate LOTTR values for four time periods: weekdays from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM, weekdays from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM, weekdays from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM, and weekend days from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM.
G-16 FHWA, “Frequently Asked Questions: Target Setting,” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/faq.cfm#targ, accessed May 18, 2023.
G-17 States and MPOs must calculate TTTR Index values for five time periods: weekdays from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM, weekdays from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM, weekdays from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM, weekend days from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM, and all days from 8:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
G-18 Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Massachusetts Freight Plan 2017. Available at mass.gov/service-details/freight-plan. pgs. 1 to 5.
G-19 A precursor is a chemical compound that reacts with other chemical compounds in the presence of solar radiation to form pollutants.
G-20 FHWA requires state DOTs and MPOs to use 60 percent of the posted speed limit for the segment or 20 miles per hour, whichever is greater.
G-21 FHWA requires states and MPOs to use the period from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM to represent the morning peak period, but allows these agencies to choose either 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM or 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM to represent the evening peak period. MassDOT and New Hampshire DOT selected the period from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM to represent the evening peak period for the Boston UZA.
G-22 2017–21 US American Community Survey, “Commuting Characteristics by Sex,” American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates. Table S0801.
G-23 FHWA allows states and MPOs to measure non-SOV travel using US Census American Community Survey estimates of the percentage of workers who commute to work using modes other than driving alone (such as taking a carpool, vanpool, or public transit; bicycling; walking; or telecommuting); travel surveys that reveal mode choices; or sample of continuous counts of travelers using different modes.
G-24 A disparate impact is a facially neutral policy or practice that results in impacts that disproportionately affect members of a group based on their race, color, or national origin, where the recipient’s policy or practice lacks a substantial legitimate justification and where there exists one or more alternatives that would serve the same legitimate objectives but with a less disproportionate effect on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
G-25 A disproportionate burden refers to a neutral policy or practice that disproportionately affects low-income populations more than non-low-income populations. A finding of a disproportionate burden requires the recipient to evaluate alternatives and mitigate burdens where practicable.
This appendix contains the federally required Title VI and environmental justice (EJ) analyses completed for Destination 2050’s Recommended Plan. H-1The role of these analyses is to assess how the projects programmed in this Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) may affect the minority and low-income populations in the Boston region. H-2 Included are maps of projects funded by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the Recommended Plan overlaid on maps of the low-income and minority share of the population in the Boston region census tracts, and disparate impact and disproportionate burden (DI/DB) analyses that determine whether minority and low-income populations may be disproportionately affected by the projects in the Recommended Plan.
These analyses demonstrate the Boston Region MPO’s compliance with Title VI and EJ analytical requirements as they pertain to the LRTP. They also provide information to assist the MPO in future decision-making that prioritizes minimizing, avoiding, or mitigating any potential future disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens that have been identified. Finally, the information provided helps the MPO meet its own transportation equity goal to eliminate transportation-related disparities borne by people in disadvantaged communities, including minority and low-income populations.
Two federal mandates directed the analyses in this appendix: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the EJ Executive Order, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations. As a recipient of federal funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the MPO complies with their Title VI and EJ requirements.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin under any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. H-3 This prohibition includes unintentional discrimination, which is referred to as disparate impact discrimination. FTA and FHWA require MPOs to conduct several Title VI analyses that apply to the Recommended Plan. These requirements are described in FTA’s Title VI Circular (C) 4702.1B and FHWA’s Environmental Justice Reference Guide, which provides guidance for its nondiscrimination program that covers Title VI and the EJ Executive Order.
The EJ Executive Order makes achieving EJ part of the mission of the executive branch of the federal government, directing federal agencies to incorporate EJ principles into their activities. Thus, federal agencies are required to identify and address any potential disproportionately high and adverse environmental and human health effects of their activities on minority populations and low-income populations. These requirements are described in FTA’s EJ Circular (C) 4703.1 and FHWA’s Environmental Justice Reference Guide.
The remainder of this chapter discusses the results of two analyses required by FTA and FHWA guidance:
Figure H-1a shows the projects in the Recommended Plan that are MPO-funded overlaid on a map displaying the percent minority population in each Boston region census tract. Figure H-1b shows the same projects overlaid on a map displaying the percent low-income population in each of these tracts. (Although the analysis is required only for the minority population, it is also completed for the low-income population to fully incorporate EJ principles.)
Figure H-1a
Recommended Plan and Census Tracts by Share of Minority Population
Figure H-1b
Recommended Plan Projects and Census Tracts by Share of Low-Income Population
The DI/DB analysis identifies disparate impacts that may result from projects in the Recommended Plan on minority populations, as well as disproportionate burdens on low-income populations. H-4 Disparate impacts refer to potential future adverse effects that would disproportionately affect minority populations. Disproportionate burdens refer to potential future adverse effects that would disproportionately affect low-income populations. Adverse effects may be either a delay or denial of benefits or an imposition of burdens. The DI/DB analysis assessed a suite of 16 metrics for disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens. The MPO’s DI/DB Policy describes how the MPO determines whether impacts are disparate or disproportionate. (See Appendix I.)
Federal regulations provide MPOs direction on how to conduct a DI/DB analysis. Projects must be analyzed as a group and not individually. In addition, potential impacts must be analyzed for the entire minority or low-income population in the region. This regional analysis does not assess potential impacts to individual communities or municipalities. This analysis only includes those projects in the Recommended Plan that receive MPO Regional Target funds.
The following projects were included in the analysis:
Assuming that the geographic distribution of the minority and low-income populations would remain unchanged in the forecast year of 2050, staff used data from the American Community Survey to identify estimates for these populations in each census tract in the Boston region. H-5 For each tract, MPO staff identified the percent of the population who identify as minority and the percent who have low incomes. These tract-level totals were then aggregated to geographic areas known as transportation analysis zones (TAZs) for use in the MPO’s travel demand model.
To determine the range of likely impacts, MPO staff derived margins of error for each metric analyzed for disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens. These were determined based on the range of uncertainty in the demographic data within each TAZ. Using these margins of error ensures that any findings of disparate impacts or disproportionate burdens account for the uncertainty of demographic distribution in the Boston region.
Identifying potential future disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens involves comparing the projected impacts on minority populations to those on nonminority populations, and those on low-income populations to those on non-low-income populations. First, two scenarios are tested using a regional travel demand model that analyzes these metrics to identify the projected impacts of the transportation network on each of the four populations. In one, the Recommended Plan scenario, the transportation network in 2050 includes the modeled projects. In another, the Existing and Committed (E+C) scenario, the transportation network in 2050 does not include those projects. H-6
For each scenario, the model produces results for the following 16 metrics and the results are sorted by TAZ:
Then, the TAZs are aggregated to the region and the weighted regionwide average for each metric is calculated for the minority, nonminority, low-income, and non-low-income populations. This average is calculated for both the E+C and Recommended Plan scenarios. For example, for the minority population, the projected CO emissions per square mile, weighted by the entire minority population in the region, is calculated for both scenarios. The CO emissions per square mile for the E+C scenario are then subtracted from the CO emissions per square mile for the Recommended Plan scenario. This determines the change in CO emissions per square mile that is projected to occur in 2050 as a result of implementing the projects funded in the Recommended Plan.
After completing this process for all populations, MPO staff applies the LRTP DI/DB Policy to each metric to determine whether there may be a potential disparate impact for the minority population or a disproportionate burden for the low-income population. The DI/DB Policy compares the projected impact on the minority and low-income populations to that on the nonminority and non-low-income populations, respectively, to determine whether there may be a potential future disparate impact for the minority population or disproportionate burden on the low-income population.
The MPO’s LRTP DI/DB Policy states how the MPO identifies and addresses potential future disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens that may result from the modeled projects. The policy enables the MPO to meet federal requirements in a clear and consistent manner, and it makes the MPO’s approach to identifying and addressing potential future disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens transparent to the public. Because of the similarities between FTA’s and FHWA’s EJ requirements, the MPO’s policy was developed to meet both.
The full DI/DB Policy can be found in Appendix I. In sum, it states that there would be a potential future disparate impact or disproportionate burden if
This section describes the results of the DI/DB analysis. Tables H-1 through H-8 report the results for each evaluation metric. The tables show whether the analysis indicates a potential disparate impact or disproportionate burden. If the expected range of values for the E+C scenario for both the protected and non-protected populations overlaps with the expected range of values for the Recommended Plan scenario, then there is no disparate impact or disproportionate burden. Otherwise, there is. An overlap indicates that any difference between the Recommended Plan and E+C scenarios is likely due to uncertainty, not the MPO projects that are being analyzed.
The MPO’s destination access metrics are based on the number of opportunities of various types (jobs, healthcare, education, parks, and essential places) in each TAZ that are reachable within a given travel time by highway and transit. Opportunities are calculated for minority, nonminority, low-income, and non-low-income populations, based on their respective shares within each TAZ. Travel times to jobs were updated to reflect average commute times for the Boston region as documented in the American Community Survey, or by an analysis of average travel times in the travel demand model.
Opportunities are defined in different ways for each metric. The access to jobs and healthcare metrics are defined based on the number of jobs and healthcare facilities people can access. H-8 The higher education metric is weighted by enrollment at each college or university. H-9 The parks metric is defined as access to points where parks intersect roadways. H-10 An essential place is defined as a cluster of essential destinations that contains five or more destinations from at least two categories. H-11
Table H-1 shows the DI/DB analysis results for access to jobs, Table H-2 shows the results for access to healthcare facilities, Table H-3 shows the results for access to parks and open space, Table H-4 shows the results for access to essential places, and Table H-5 shows the results for access to higher education. The results of the DI/DB analysis of the MPO’s Regional Target projects show that there will likely be a disproportionate burden for access to jobs by transit, a disparate impact and disproportionate burden for access to healthcare by transit, and a disproportionate burden for access to parks and open space by highway.
In the case of access to jobs by transit, the disproportionate burden finding is because the projected increase in job access for low-income populations is not statistically significant, while there is a statistically significant increase for non-low-income populations. This definitionally results in a DI/DB finding regardless of the size of the projected changes, because the non-low-income population is expected to access more jobs while the low-income population is expected to have no change in access to the number of jobs. In this case, the projected increase in job access for low-income populations is larger than the projected increase for non-low-income populations. Despite this, the projected value for low-income populations in the Recommended Plan scenario is within that population’s range of values for the E+C scenario (though on the extreme upper end of this range).
There was a DI and DB finding for access to healthcare facilities by transit. Both minority and nonminority populations are expected to see a small increase in the number of healthcare facilities accessible within 25 minutes by transit. However, nonminority populations will see a slightly larger increase in accessibility than minority populations. This results in a DI finding. Conversely, low-income populations are not projected to see an increase in the accessibility of healthcare by transit, while non-low-income populations are expected to see an increase. This results in a DB finding.
There is also a DB finding for access to parks and open space by highway. Low-income populations are not expected to see an increase in the accessibility of parks and open space, while non-low-income populations are expected to see an increase. This results in a DB finding.
Table H-1a
Access to Jobs by Highway
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
1,316,881 ± 372 |
1,316,092 |
Yes, decrease |
-788.6 |
No |
Nonminority |
1,097,075 ± 199 |
1,096,029 |
Yes, decrease |
-1,045.9 ± 1.4 |
|
Low-income |
1,289,046 ± 677 |
1,288,279 |
Yes, decrease |
-767.1 |
No |
Non-low-income |
1,144,231 ± 175 |
1,143,227 |
Yes, decrease |
-1,004.5 ± 1.2 |
Note: Numbers indicate the regionwide average number of jobs accessible within a 45-minute trip by highway for each population.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-1b
Access to Jobs by Transit
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
310,269 ± 206 |
310,573 |
Yes, increase |
304 |
No |
Nonminority |
192,191 ± 113 |
192,371 |
Yes, increase |
181.2 ± 1.1 |
|
Low-income |
326,812 ± 355 |
327,166 |
No |
— |
Yes, no impact for EJ, non-EJ benefit |
Non-low-income |
209,501 ± 93 |
209,691 |
Yes, increase |
190.6 ± 0.8 |
Notes: Numbers indicate the regionwide average number of jobs accessible within a 45-minute trip by transit for each population.
Expected differences were not calculated where there is not likely to be a significant impact.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-2a
Access to Healthcare Facilities by Highway
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
48.00 ± 0.03 |
48.09 |
Yes, increase |
0.010 |
No |
Nonminority |
37.25 ± 0.01 |
37.32 |
Yes, increase |
0.0739 ± 0.0002 |
|
Low-income |
49.72 ± 0.04 |
49.86 |
Yes, increase |
0.14 |
No |
Non-low-income |
38.77 ± 0.01 |
38.84 |
Yes, increase |
0.0672 ± 0.0002 |
Note: Numbers indicate the regionwide average number of healthcare facilities accessible within a 25-minute trip by highway for each population.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-2b
Access to Healthcare Facilities by Transit
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
5.812 ± 0.001 |
5.820 |
Yes, increase |
0.0082 |
Yes, non-EJ benefit greater than EJ benefit |
Nonminority |
3.404 ± 0.003 |
3.413 |
Yes, increase |
0.00950 ± 0.00004 |
|
Low-income |
6.480 ± 0.009 |
6.487 |
No |
— |
Yes, no impact for EJ, non-EJ benefit |
Non-low-income |
3.672 ± 0.002 |
3.682 |
Yes, increase |
0.00943 ± 0.00003 |
Notes: Numbers indicate the regionwide average number of healthcare facilities accessible within a 25-minute trip by transit for each population.
Expected differences were not calculated where there is not likely to be a significant impact.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-3a
Access to Parks and Open Space by Highway
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
7,182.09 ± 1.11 |
7,184.16 |
Yes, increase |
2.079 |
No |
Nonminority |
6,795.19 ± 0.58 |
6,795.19 |
No |
— |
|
Low-income |
6,905.15 ± 3.42 |
6,906.38 |
No |
— |
Yes, no impact for EJ, non-EJ benefit |
Non-low-income |
6,936.25 ± 0.44 |
6,936.85 |
Yes, increase |
0.600 ± 0.006 |
Notes: Numbers indicate the regionwide average number of park and open space access points accessible within a 45-minute trip by highway for each population.
Expected differences were not calculated where there is not likely to be a significant impact.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-3b
Access to Parks and Open Space by Transit
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
559.47 ± 0.34 |
559.68 |
No |
— |
No |
Nonminority |
368.86 ± 0.19 |
368.79 |
No |
— |
|
Low-income |
591.31 ± 0.60 |
591.72 |
No |
— |
No |
Non-low-income |
395.49 ± 0.15 |
395.43 |
No |
— |
Notes: Numbers indicate the regionwide average number of park and open space access points accessible within a 45-minute trip by transit for each population.
Expected differences were not calculated where there is not likely to be a significant impact.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-4a
Access to Essential Places by Highway
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
0.999862 ± 0.000002 |
0.999863 |
No |
— |
No |
Nonminority |
0.998985 ± 0.000003 |
0.998985 |
No |
— |
|
Low-income |
0.999630 ± 0.000016 |
0.999630 |
No |
— |
No |
Non-low-income |
0.999204 ± 0.000004 |
0.999204 |
No |
— |
Notes: Numbers indicate the proportion of each population in the region who can access an essential place within a 25-minute trip by highway.
Expected differences were not calculated where there is not likely to be a significant impact.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-4b
Access to Essential Places by Transit
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
0.68127 ± 0.00029 |
0.68127 |
No |
— |
No |
Nonminority |
0.41619 ± 0.00017 |
0.41619 |
No |
— |
|
Low-income |
0.68598 ± 0.00051 |
0.68598 |
No |
— |
No |
Non-low-income |
0.46331 ± 0.00015 |
0.46330 |
No |
— |
Notes: Numbers indicate the proportion of each population in the region who can access an essential place within a 25-minute trip by transit.
Expected differences were not calculated where there is not likely to be a significant impact.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-5a
Access to Higher Education by Highway
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
77,806 ± 43 |
78,310 |
Yes, increase |
505 |
No |
Nonminority |
58,455 ± 23 |
58,731 |
Yes, increase |
276 ± 1 |
|
Low-income |
79,789 ± 75 |
80,367 |
Yes, increase |
598 |
No |
Non-low-income |
61,477 ± 19 |
61,771 |
Yes, increase |
293 ± 1 |
Note: Numbers indicate the regionwide average higher education enrollment within a 25-minute trip by highway for each population.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-5b
Access to Higher Education by Transit
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
9,066 ± 10 |
9,087 |
Yes, increase |
22 |
No |
Nonminority |
6,608 ± 5 |
6,622 |
Yes, increase |
15 ± 1 |
|
Low-income |
11,243 ± 21 |
11,272 |
Yes, increase |
27 |
No |
Non-low-income |
6,500 ± 5 |
6,515 |
Yes, increase |
15 ± 1 |
Note: Numbers indicate the regionwide average higher education enrollment within a 25-minute trip by transit for each population.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
The travel time metrics are used to evaluate the average travel time for all trip purposes in the Boston region. Average travel times are then calculated for minority, nonminority, low-income, and non-low-income populations, based on their respective shares within each TAZ.
Table H-6 shows the results for highway and transit trip times. The results for the DI/DB analysis for the MPO-funded Regional Target projects for both travel time metrics show a disparate impact finding for travel time by highway and transit, but not a disproportionate burden. Travel times by highway and transit are projected to slightly increase for minority populations and slightly decrease for non-minority populations leading to a disparate impact.
Table H-6a
Average Travel Time by Highway
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
19.302 ± 0.002 |
19.307 |
Yes, increase |
0.005 |
Yes, EJ burden and non-EJ benefit |
Nonminority |
20.379 ± 0.002 |
20.377 |
Yes, decrease |
-0.00214 ± 0.00004 |
|
Low-income |
19.168 ± 0.004 |
19.167 |
No |
— |
No |
Non-low-income |
20.217 ± 0.001 |
20.218 |
No |
— |
Notes: Numbers indicate the average travel time in minutes for all trips by highway for each population.
Expected differences were not calculated where there is not likely to be a significant impact.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-6b
Average Travel Time by Transit
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
51.926 ± 0.017 |
51.945 |
Yes, increase |
0.020 |
Yes, EJ burden and non-EJ benefit |
Nonminority |
54.232 ± 0.009 |
54.210 |
Yes, decrease |
-0.0217 ± 0.0002 |
|
Low-income |
51.966 ± 0.028 |
51.943 |
No |
— |
No |
Non-low-income |
53.801 ± 0.007 |
53.798 |
No |
— |
Notes: Numbers indicate the average travel time in minutes for all trips by transit for each population.
Expected differences were not calculated where there is not likely to be a significant impact.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
The four environmental metrics are congested vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) per square mile and emissions of three pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). While the other metrics evaluate the impacts affecting users of the roadway or transit system, these metrics assess the environmental impacts on residents. All are calculated based on highway trips, not transit trips. The CO, NOx, and VOC metrics assess the emissions per square mile within each TAZ. The congested VMT metric assesses the volume-to-capacity ratio on the roads within or adjacent to each TAZ; those with a ratio of 0.75 or greater are considered congested.
Table H-7 shows the DI/DB analysis results for congested VMT per square mile and Tables H-8 to H-10 shows the results for pollutant emissions. The results of the environmental metrics for the MPO Regional Target projects show no DI/DB findings for any of the four metrics. The MPO Regional Target projects would likely result in an increase for congested VMT per square mile for non-minority and non-low-income populations, and no impact for any other populations or metrics. As a result, there are no findings of disproportionate impacts or disproportionate burdens for the environmental metrics.
Table H-7
Congested Vehicle-Miles Traveled Per Square Mile
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
62,009 ± 109 |
62,068 |
No |
— |
No |
Nonminority |
52,791 ± 58 |
52,917 |
Yes, increase |
— |
|
Low-income |
65,708 ± 218 |
65,709 |
No |
— |
No |
Non-low-income |
53,576 ± 56 |
53,658 |
Yes, increase |
— |
Note: Where there is not likely to be a significant impact, expected differences were not calculated.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-8
Carbon Monoxide Emissions
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
178.0 ± 0.2 |
178.0 |
No |
— |
No |
Nonminority |
140.5 ± 0.1 |
140.5 |
No |
— |
|
Low-income |
188.7 ± 0.4 |
188.7 |
No |
— |
No |
Non-low-income |
144.6 ± 0.1 |
144.6 |
No |
— |
Note: Where there is not likely to be a significant impact, expected differences were not calculated.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Emissions are calculated for private vehicles only.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-9
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
5.109 ± 0.007 |
5.109 |
No |
— |
No |
Nonminority |
4.157 ± 0.003 |
4.158 |
No |
— |
|
Low-income |
5.418 ± 0.013 |
5.417 |
No |
— |
No |
Non-low-income |
4.252 ± 0.004 |
4.253 |
No |
— |
Notes: Emissions are calculated for private vehicles only.
Where there is not likely to be a significant impact, expected differences were not calculated.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Table H-10
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions
Population |
E+C Scenario: Range of Values |
RP Scenario: Expected Value |
Significant Impact? |
Expected Difference (Range for Non-EJ Population) |
DI or DB? |
Minority |
4.521 ± 0.005 |
4.522 |
No |
— |
No |
Nonminority |
3.512 ± 0.003 |
3.513 |
No |
— |
|
Low-income |
4.798 ± 0.009 |
4.799 |
No |
— |
No |
Non-low-income |
3.625 ± 0.003 |
3.626 |
No |
— |
Notes: Emissions are calculated for private vehicles only.
Where there is not likely to be a significant impact, expected differences were not calculated.
DB = disproportionate burden. DI = disparate impact. EJ = environmental justice. E+C = Existing and Committed. RP = Recommended Plan.
Source: Central Transportation Planning Staff.
The MPO’s DI/DB analyses found that the MPO’s Regional Target projects that are listed in the Recommended Plan, in the aggregate, would likely result in a disproportionate burden for job access by transit, a disparate impact and disproportionate burden for healthcare access by transit, a disproportionate burden for park and open space access by transit, and disproportionate burdens for average travel time by highway and transit. Per the MPO’s DI/DB Policy, the MPO will identify and implement opportunities for addressing the disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens.
H-1 The Recommended Plan consists of regionally significant projects and projects under National Environmental Policy Act review for the first two five-year bands of the LRTP. Regionally significant projects are those that change the capacity of the transportation system by adding or removing lane-miles of roadway or miles of railway. This analysis only pertains to those projects in the Recommended Plan that receive MPO Regional Target funds.
H-2 A minority person is one who identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; Black or African American; some other race other than White; and/or Hispanic or Latino/a/x. A low-income person is one whose annual family income is less than or equal to 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
H-3 These protections were subsequently clarified to include people with limited English proficiency through Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, which was signed on August 11, 2000.
H-4 A disparate impact is a facially neutral policy or practice that results in impacts that disproportionately affect members of a group based on their race, color, or national origin, where the recipient’s policy or practice lacks a substantial legitimate justification and where there exists one or more alternatives that would serve the same legitimate objectives but with a less disproportionate effect on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
H-5 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017–21 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B01003; generated by CTPS using data.census.gov; <https://data.census.gov/cedsci/> (April 2023).
H-6 The modeling region includes all of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and southeastern New Hampshire, in addition to the Boston Region MPO area. This geography allows travel demand modeling analyses to account for trips that originate in or end outside of the Boston Region MPO area. Model results are only reported for the MPO region’s 1,901 TAZs.
H-7 Highway trips consist of automobile and truck trips taken on any road in the Boston Region MPO area. Highway trips do not include bus trips.
H-8 Jobs destination data are from the following sources:
Healthcare destination data are from the following sources:
H-9 Higher education destination data are from the following sources:
H-10 Parks are defined as any park larger than one-half acre. Park destination data are from the following source:
H-11 The concept of essential places was developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to reflect places that were considered essential during the pandemic and to reflect the basic needs that the public require access to on a regular basis. Nine types of essential destinations were chosen and fall within three categories: healthcare, civic, and food destinations.
The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Title VI Circular 4702.1B, issued October 2012 under the authority of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, directs metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to analyze the impacts of the distribution of state and federal funds in the aggregate and to identify any disparate impacts on the basis of race, color, or national origin (i.e., impacts to minority populations). FTA’s Environmental Justice (EJ) Circular 4703.1, issued August 2015, further directs MPOs to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects (referred to as disproportionate burdens) of its activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Environmental Justice Reference Guide, issued in April 2015, contains the same requirements for MPOs related to identifying disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens.
As a recipient of federal funding from FTA and FHWA, the Boston Region MPO complies with both agencies’ Title VI and EJ requirements. The MPO’s Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden (DI/DB) Policy allows the MPO to identify potential regionwide future disparate impacts on minority populations and disproportionate burdens on both minority populations and low-income populations in the MPO region (collectively referred to as protected populations) that may result from the set of investment decisions in its Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens are defined by FTA and FHWA as follows:
While neither FTA nor FHWA require MPOs to have a DI/DB policy, the policy allows the MPO to make those determinations in a transparent and consistent manner that clearly conveys the findings to the public.
This policy applies to the analysis of the projected impacts of the set of major infrastructure projects (MI) that would be funded in the LRTP over the next 20 years, and that would change the capacity of the transportation network. These projects are analyzed for impacts as one group; individual projects are not analyzed for disparate impacts or disproportionate burdens under this policy. The MPO defines MI projects as
The MPO reserves funds for these projects in the LRTP’s MI Program and also sets aside funding in several other investment programs as described in the LRTP. The actual projects funded through these other programs are identified in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The equity analysis that is completed for the projects funded in the TIP addresses the impacts of these projects.
Per FTA and FHWA requirements, the analysis to identify disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens (DI/DB analysis) compares the projected impacts on the entire protected population in the MPO region to the projected impacts on the entire non-protected population in the MPO region. Analyzing and comparing impacts on these populations at the neighborhood and municipal scale is not part of this policy, as impacts of the program of projects are only identified at the regional population level. Thus, the projected impacts on the minority population in the MPO region are compared to those on the nonminority population, and the projected impacts on the low-income population in the MPO region are compared to those on the non-low-income population. The definitions of these populations are as follows:
MPO staff worked with the MPO board, a stakeholder working group, and members of the public over three years to develop the DI/DB Policy. MPO staff convened four meetings of the stakeholder working group to help guide the direction of the policy and provide input throughout the process. The stakeholders represented a variety of interests, including advocacy groups, human service transportation agencies, municipal planners, and MPO board members. Stakeholders provided valuable feedback at critical decision-making points, helped staff prioritize metrics that are analyzed for disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens, and provided suggestions for the direction of the policy, many of which were ultimately included. The work to develop the policy was divided into two phases; two memos were written to summarize that work, which can be found here. At the conclusion of phase one, the MPO approved the use of an interim draft DI/DB Policy for use in the 2019 LRTP, Destination 2040. This final policy replaces the draft policy.
The MPO staff use a travel demand model to analyze the projected impacts of the LRTP program of projects over the 20-year horizon on the regionwide minority, nonminority, low-income, and non-low-income populations. Staff analyze two scenarios projecting to the horizon year of the LRTP to assess these impacts: the no-build scenario (in which the program of projects is not implemented) and the build scenario (in which the program of projects is implemented). The results are assessed as weighted regionwide averages.
To identify potential future disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens, the MPO staff analyzes several metrics for both scenarios and compares the results. Using feedback from stakeholders and the public, the MPO selected metrics related to accessibility to opportunities, mobility, and the environment for Destination 2040. MPO staff identified each metric’s baseline uncertainty for minority, low-income, nonminority, and non-low-income populations. The baseline uncertainty accounts for the inherent uncertainty in the travel demand forecasting process and helps to ensure that outcomes are not incorrectly labeled as potential disparate impacts or disproportionate burdens that are likely due to model uncertainty. The baseline uncertainty is distinct for each population because each populations’ size, geographic distribution, and projected travel behavior differ. Due to the evolving nature of the analytical process, the specific metrics used to identify disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens may be updated between LRTPs, as will the accompanying baseline uncertainties.
The process to identify disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens aligns with federal guidance that requires the analysis to determine that
To make this determination, every impact must pass a series of three thresholds, in the order listed below. If it does not pass any one of them, the analysis stops and there would be no disparate impact or disproportionate burden.
This threshold determines whether the model’s predicted impact to each population group is likely to occur or whether it is likely due to the model’s uncertainty. The impact to at least one population group in a pair must exceed the baseline uncertainty threshold to move on to the next threshold. For example, for the minority and nonminority population pair, at least one of these population groups must exceed the threshold.
This threshold determines whether the impact would be practically significant. (An impact that is practically significant is one that would have a demonstratable effect on people’s quality of life. For example, an increase in carbon monoxide emissions that affects health outcomes.) To pass the practical impact threshold, the impact must exceed the threshold for at least one population group in a pair.
The disproportionality threshold determines whether the impact would disproportionately and adversely affect the protected population compared to the non-protected population. Disproportionality is calculated as a ratio comparing the absolute value of the percent change for the protected population to the absolute value of the percent change for the non-low-income population. If the ratio falls outside of the disproportionality threshold there would be a disparate impact or disproportionate burden.
Adverse impacts can either be the denial of benefits or the imposition of burdens. For some impacts (such as average travel time) an increase from the no-build to build scenarios will indicate a burden and a decrease will indicate a benefit, while for other impacts the reverse will be true (such as access to jobs).
If the DI/DB analysis for a given program of projects results in a finding of a potential future disparate impact for at least one metric, the MPO staff will determine whether there is a substantial, legitimate justification for implementing the program of projects as proposed, as required by federal regulations, and present the conclusion to the MPO board. Staff will also determine whether there are one or more alternatives to the program of projects that meet the same goals of the original projects but that have fewer disparate impacts. If there are, staff will present the alternatives to the MPO board. Any proposed alternative(s) will be subject to the same DI/DB Policy and analysis.
Similarly, if the DI/DB analysis indicates that there is a potential future disproportionate burden for at least one metric, the MPO staff will recommend to the MPO board steps to take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these impacts, where practicable.
For both potential disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens, alternatives may include a mixture of strategies to mitigate, minimize, or otherwise avoid these impacts. Because the LRTP is a long-term planning document and the projected impacts are likely to occur 20 years into the future, these strategies will likely involve programming future TIP projects to mitigate the disparate impact(s) and/or disproportionate burden(s). The MPO may also use this policy during the development of future LRTPs, when conducting scenario planning or making decisions about project programming, to avoid disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens prior to project selection.
Members of the public have had opportunities to provide input throughout the development of this policy. This DI/DB Policy, as well as the metrics that are analyzed for disparate impacts and disproportionate burdens, reflects public input from outreach conducted between 2018 and 2020. During the development of future LRTPs, members of the public will also have the chance to review and comment on the results of the application of the DI/DB Policy to any scenario planning or other project selection process. The MPO board will also provide a meaningful opportunity for public comment on any proposed alternatives recommended by the MPO staff.
2 Minority status is derived from the 2010 Decennial Census. Poverty status is derived from the 2010-14 American Community Survey.