Appendix C—Project Evaluation

 

C.1      Introduction

The MPO applied its goals and objectives as criteria to qualitatively evaluate the major infrastructure and capacity-adding highway projects that are in the Universe of Projects and Programs list (which had been sufficiently well defined to allow for analysis). Assessing how well projects would address the MPO’s goals and objectives helped the MPO identify priority projects for its major infrastructure program. Table C.1 shows the evaluated major infrastructure projects and Table C.2 provides a summary of the evaluated projects. A memorandum documenting the evaluation process also is included.

 

Technical Memorandum

 

DATE:     April 15, 2015

TO:         Boston Region MPO

FROM:    Sean Pfalzer and William Kuttner

RE:          Long-Range Transportation Plan Evaluation Criteria            

 

1          Overall Scoring System

For the 2040 LRTP, 38 projects classed as “major infrastructure” were evaluated by MPO staff. Based on these evaluations, MPO staff recommended inclusion of 13 of these projects in the LRTP, four of which were already programmed in the current TIP. Each of these 38 projects was given a numerical score, and this score to a large extent determined which projects were recommended for inclusion in the LRTP.

 

Each project was given a “high,” “medium,” or “low” rating in each of six rating categories. Expressing these ratings as numerical values of three, two, or one point respectively, the scores were summed resulting in a single numerical score for each project. While the scores could range from 18 points (six “high” scores) down to only 6 points, the 38 Major infrastructure projects ranged between 14 and 7 points.

 

Of the 13 projects recommended for inclusion in the LRTP, all had 11 or more points. Five projects had scores of at least 11 but were not recommended for inclusion because their costs were beyond the funding capabilities of the MPO regardless of their high scores.

 

1.1      Six Rating Categories

The rating categories were established based on the MPO’s adopted goals and focused on the primary goals addressed by Major Infrastructure projects:

 

 

The value of a project for each of these six areas was in turn characterized by a number of different factors. The evaluation criteria were grouped into the appropriate rating areas. MPO staff also identified or developed appropriate quantitative data and indices to help inform the scoring. As far as practicable, these criteria and indices had to be applied to all projects so that comparisons could be made between fundamentally dissimilar projects. More information on the evaluation criteria is presented below.

 

1.2      Role of Judgment in Determining a Score

Even with a reasonably complete set of planning-level evaluation data, the use of judgment is unavoidable in deciding which of the three scores to give projects for each of the six rating categories. There is, however, a structure within which judgment is applied. This process can be seen as a balancing of three factors:

 

 

Of these three factors, the needs are perhaps best understood because they are derived from existing conditions. The configurations of proposed improvements are at this point conceptual and the extent and intensity of anticipated improvements can only be surmised.

 

Costs are not mentioned explicitly in these three factors. As a general rule, however, more costly projects will often have a larger impact. For instance, the safety and capacity of an obsolete intersection can be improved by rebuilding it to modern standards. In some instances constructing some kind of grade separation might be warranted. The costs will inevitably be greater but the benefits should also be greater. MPO staff accounted for cost to inform the safety rating for projects in order to compare projects across purpose and scale.

 

2          DEVELOPING SCORES IN EACH CATEGORY

One of the difficulties of scoring projects is choosing a scoring convention that will allow a valid comparison of dissimilar projects. Furthermore, fair and usable scoring conventions need to be developed separately for each of the six rating categories.

 

In developing a score it is important to consider the amount of improvement a project might be expected to achieve. This kind of project impact has been represented in this analysis by characterizing candidate projects by a very general “project concept.” The six project concepts used here are:

 

 

The amount of improvement to safety and capacity in and near the project area will to some degree depend on the project concept.

 

The balance of this memo considers the rating categories individually. The indices, factors, and judgments that could result in a high, medium, or low score being assigned to a particular project are described and discussed for each of the six rating categories.

 

2.1      Safety

MPO staff maintains extensive databases of regional crash history, and these were used to assess the safety improvement needs for interchanges, express highways, and regional arterials. Crash history is measured using the “equivalent property damage only” index, abbreviated as EPDO. Crashes resulting in a fatality are given ten points, crashes resulting in injury five points, and property-damage-only crashes are given only one point. Given the relative infrequency of accidents, using the most recent three years of EPDO data in the candidate project areas gives a reasonable idea of the safety needs at that location.

 

Using the project-area EPDO values, staff developed indices that relate the crash history to project costs and projected users. Regional safety “hot spots” are identified by EPDO and may be addressed by candidate projects. EPDO related to specific modes and vehicle classes are also calculated and reviewed. These EPDO-based metrics include:

 

 

 

 

Choosing a score in the safety category requires comparing the severity of the safety problem with the improvement impact of the candidate project. As a general rule, the lower score of the two factors was the final score:

 

Low:         Either the need or the project benefit is low. Other factor may be higher

 

Medium: Either the need or the project benefit is medium. Other factor may be higher

 

High:        Both the safety need and project benefit is high

 

In assessing the project impact the project concept offers some general guidance:

 

 

An example of an improvement with a high safety benefit would be one that eliminates peak-period use of breakdown lanes on express highways or eliminates dangerous weaving movements at major interchanges.

 

2.2      System Preservation

MPO staff was able to use the state Road Inventory File and other sources to develop quantitative data for most candidate projects. The measured criteria include:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The system preservation score was a judgment based on reviewing all the measured factors. An index that collapsed all the above factors into a single number was not used.

 

2.3      Capacity Management/Mobility: Autos

As part of the LRTP Needs Assessment, MPO staff analyzed several congestion measurements for both current and future conditions based on travel time, travel speed, and volume/capacity ratios to identify the worst bottleneck locations in the region. These MPO-identified bottleneck locations from the Needs Assessment were used to assess mobility-related needs of both express highways and regional arterials. Staff then assessed the impact of the project on managing capacity and improving mobility. The category scoring generally followed this pattern:

 

Low:         Project is not at an MPO-identified bottleneck location

            MPO-identified bottleneck would receive limited or no benefit

 

Medium: MPO-identified bottleneck will be addressed to a medium degree

            Non-bottleneck location is substantially improved

 

High:        MPO-identified bottleneck location is substantially improved

            New connection will improve mobility to a high degree

 

As in the safety category, levels of need and project benefit will vary across candidate projects, and judgment must be used to arrive at a score. A few examples can help illustrate this process.

 

Three projects that rated low, the I-290/I-495 interchange in Hudson, the Routes 126/135 junction in Framingham, and Middlesex Turnpike in Bedford were not MPO-identified bottleneck locations simply because other locations were significantly worse. Highland Avenue in Newton and Montvale Avenue in Woburn were also not MPO-designated bottlenecks. However, in these instances the improvements were considered great enough that the projects were given the score of “medium.” Complete reconstructions of old interchanges can also earn the medium ranking in the same way.

 

The heavily used I-93/I-95 interchange in Woburn is near the top of the list of regional bottlenecks. The improvements to the interchange and nearby roadways proposed as part of project reconstruction will result in a major improvement to regional traffic flow. At the other extreme is rebuilding the Boston Street overpass over the Lowell commuter rail line near the Wilmington-Woburn city line creates a completely new access corridor to an industrial area thereby earning a “high” rating.

 

2.4      Capacity Management/Mobility: Buses

To determine the bus mobility rating for congestion management,   MPO staff considered the level of bus service (MBTA and other local bus services) within the project area based on the number of routes and number of scheduled weekday bus trips. Then, using the auto mobility rating as the baseline, MPO staff assessed whether the bus service within area derived the same level of improvement as automobiles. The general scoring pattern for this category was:

 

Low:         No bus service within the project area or bus service will not be improved

                  Limited bus service and small to medium improvement for bus service

Some bus service within the project area but little bus service improvement

 

Medium:  Some bus service within the project area; and moderate service improvement

Significant bus service within the project area and smaller service improvement

 

High:        Significant project area bus service and significant service improvement

 

Judgment was required where projects seemed to fall between scoring levels. An example is the proposed Boardman Street grade separation. This is a severe arterial bottleneck causing delay to a large number of buses on some of the MBTA’s longest bus routes. However, because speeding traffic on this part of Route 1A would only shorten the bus travel times by a small percentage, a “medium” score for bus mobility has been assigned to the project.

 

The Route 3 widening would be a major improvement in a corridor that is considered to only have moderate congestion, as compared with its connecting highway, the Southeast Expressway. Few MBTA buses would benefit from the Route 3 widening, so the bus mobility score is “low.” Closer to downtown Boston, the Southampton Street interchange improvements would make a moderate impact at a location with severe congestion. Because more bus services would benefit, both auto and bus mobility improvements are rated “medium.”

 

2.5      Capacity Management/Mobility: Pedestrians and Bicycles

For the two non-motorized modes, the mobility issues relate primarily to the completeness and ease-of-use of the system of paths, sidewalks, and roads available for non-motorized travel. In evaluating candidate projects, MPO staff evaluates to what degree, if any, a project:

 

 

 

 

The project scores for this category reflect these benefit judgments:

 

Low:         Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are not applicable to the project

                  Bike/pedestrian facilities will be expanded to a low degree

 

Medium:  Bike/pedestrian facilities will be expanded to a moderate degree

                  Project meets healthy transportation policy directive standards

 

High:        Bike/pedestrian facilities will be expanded to a high degree

                  Project exceeds healthy transportation policy directive standards

 

2.6      Economic Vitality

While any major transportation improvement can be expected to contribute to economic vitality, the ratings in this category reflect to what degree the improvements support the land use objectives embraced by the MPO. A candidate project can support these objectives if it:

 

 

 

 

The project scores for this category reflect these benefit judgments:

 

Low:         Project does not provide access to a targeted development area or area of concentrated development.

                 

Medium:  Project provides access to a targeted development area or area of concentrated development to a moderate degree or facilitates economic development

                 

High:        Project provides access to a targeted development area or area of concentrated development to at least a moderate degree, and it facilitates new development.

 

 

SP/WK/wk

 

 

Evaluated Major Infrastructure Projects for the LRTP
Abbreviated Project Name Project Cost AADT Safety Cost per EPDO EPDO per 100,000,000 vehicles EPDO Top 200 Crash Location (Total EPDO) HSIP Cluster (Total EPDO) Truck Polygon (Truck-involved EPDO) HSIP Bicycle Cluster (Bike-involved EPDO) HSIP Pedestrian Cluster (Ped-involved EPDO) System Preservation Improves substandard pavement Improves substandard bridge  Improves sidewalk infrastructure Improves bicycle facilities  Improves emergency response/Improves response to extreme conditions Capacity Management/Mobility (Autos) MPO-identified express highway bottleneck location MPO-identified arterial bottleneck location Capacity Management/Mobility (Buses) Number of Bus Routes Served Total Bus Trips Served Daily Capacity Management/Mobility (Peds/Bikes) Expands bicycle network Bay State Greenway Priority 100 High Priority Gap (Network Evaluation Study) Expands sidewalk network Improves transit access Economic Vitality Provides vehicle access to target development area  Provides transit access to target development area  Provides bicycle access to target development area  Provides pedestrian access to target development area  Mostly serves existing area of concentrated development Partly serves existing area of concentrated development Facilitates new development
Allston Viaduct Realignment (Boston) $460,000,000 174,000 medium $1,133,005 236 406   3       high   7     X medium     medium 9 421 high X     X X high X X X X X   X
Route 18 Widening (Weymouth) $58,822,115 29,600 high $43,252 4641 1360 6 10 4     high 8 1 8   X medium   moderate low 1 127 medium 8         high X   X X   X X
Highland Ave (Newton) $14,297,606 35,000 high $24,233 1703 590   3 1     high 9 1 6   X medium     low 2 86 medium 6       X high X   X X X   X
Route 4/225 (Lexington) $23,221,000 40,200 high $44,400 1314 523   2       medium 8       X medium   moderate medium 3 104 high 8     8 X medium           X X
Rutherford Ave (Boston) $109,967,000 48,200 medium $561,056 411 196   1 1     high 9 3 6   X low     low 8 897 high 6       X high X X X X X   X
McGrath (Somerville) $56,563,000 38,000 medium $425,286 354 133   2   1 1 high 3 2 1.5     low     low 7 558 high 1.5       X high X X X X X   X
Extend I-93 HOV Lane (Somerville to Woburn) $550,000,000 202,000 low $239,234 1150 2299   17 7     high   6     X high severe   high 8 492 low           medium X         X X
I-93/I-95 (Woburn) $294,000,000 373,000 high $207,774 383 1415   7 5     medium   1     X high severe   medium 3 92 low           medium X         X X
Route 27/9 (Natick) $25,793,370 80,000 high $55,709 585 463 1 2       high 1 1 1   X medium     medium 4   medium 1       X low         X    
New Boston St (Woburn) $9,706,549 14,000 low $9,706,549 7 1           low           high     low 0   high 0.5     0.5 X high X   X X X    
Route 1 Widening (Malden, Revere, Saugus) $236,078,161 115,000 medium $666,887 311 354   5 2     low   1     X high severe   high 6 250 low           medium X       X   X
Braintree Split $53,288,794 282,000 high $32,612.48 585 1634   4 1     medium   3     X high severe   medium 5 283 low           low           X  
Montvale Ave (Woburn) $4,225,256 31,000 high $15,534 886 272 1 1       high 1   0.5   X medium     low 1 38 medium 0.5       X low           X  
Southampton Interchange (Boston) $143,750,000 225,000 medium $123,709 522 1162   1       medium   1     X medium severe   medium 8 705 medium           medium         X    
I-93/I-95 (Canton) $186,700,000 240,000 medium $470,277 167 397   4 2     medium   2     X medium     low 0   medium X     X X high X         X X
Route 128 Add-a-Lane (Needham, Wellesley) $150,000,000 188,000 medium $208,333 387 720   4 1     high   4       high severe   low 1 50 low           low           X  
Concord Rotary $104,000,000 48,000 medium $594,286 368 175   2 1     high 6 1     X high   severe low 0   low           low           X  
Dedham St Ramp (Canton, Norwood, Westwood) $50,961,567 5,000 low $1,456,045 707 35           low   1     X high     low 0   medium 1     1 X high X         X X
Route 3 Widening $800,000,000 159,000 high $365,297 1391 2190   15 3     high   9       medium moderate   low 5 361 low           low           X  
I-90/I-495 (Hopkinton) $220,000,000 209,000 medium $660,661 161 333   3 4     high   4       medium     low 0   low           medium X         X  
Middlesex, Phase III (Bedford, Burlington) $26,935,171 14,300 medium $402,017 473 67           high 3 1       low     low 3 8 medium 3     3 X medium X         X X
Route 126/135 (Framingham) $115,000,000 35,400 medium $542,453 605 212 1 1   1 1 low 0.5   0.5   X low     medium 7   medium 0.5   X   X high X X X X X   X
I-95 Add-a-Lane (Woburn) $32,900,000 164,000 medium $109,667 185 300   2 1     medium   2     X medium severe   low 2 75 low           medium X         X  
Cypher St Extension (Boston) $9,700,000 1,000 low N/A N/A N/A           low 1       X medium     low     low           medium         X   X
Mahoney Circle (Revere) $60,000,000 56,000 low $588,235 184 102   2 1     low 1       X medium   moderate high 10 451 low           medium X X       X  
Route 9/I-495 (Southborough) $25,000,000 135,000 low $342,466 55 73   1       high   2       medium     low 0   low           medium X         X  
Route 128, Phase II (Danvers, Peabody) $23,776,000 102,000 medium $65,319 360 364   3 1     high 7 2     X medium     low 3 57 low           low           X  
Boardman St (Boston) $13,686,000 59,500 low N/A N/A N/A           low 0.5       X high   severe medium 5 205 low         X medium X         X  
Walnut Street Interchange (Saugus) $19,500,000 136,000 medium $103,723 140 188   1       low     0.5   X medium     low 1 51 medium 1     0.5 X low           X  
Bridge St (Salem) $16,613,152 17,800 medium $117,824 800 141   1       medium 1   0.5     low     low 5 133 low         X medium X     X X    
Route 1/16 (Chelsea, Revere) N/A 40,200 low N/A 193 77 1 2 1     high 5.25 1     X low   moderate low 2 75 low           medium X X     X    
I-95 Capacity Improvements (Lynnfield, Reading) $198,443,000 157,000 low $187,742 680 1057   6 1     low         X high severe   low 0   low           medium X         X X
I-290/495 (Hudson, Marlborough) $100,000,000 162,500 medium $334,448 186 299   2 1     high 2 1       low     low 0   low           low              
Route 1A/16 (Revere) N/A 36,700 low N/A 39 14 1 3 1     medium 1.5       X low   severe low 9 416 low           medium X       X    
Brimbal Ave, Phase II (Beverly) $23,000,000 73,500 low $383,333 82 60   1       medium   1     X low     low 1   low           medium X         X X
I-90/Interchange 17 (Newton) $4,000,000 141,000 medium $8,677 330 461   4 1   1 low   3 0.5   X medium severe   low 12 528 low           low           X  
128 Capacity Improvements (Peabody) $24,634,000 110,000 low $98,536 230 250   2       low   1     X high severe   low 1 36 low           low           X  
Riverside Ramp (Newton) N/A 23,500 low N/A 4 1   2       low           low moderate   low 1 20 low         X medium X         X X
Washington Street Bridge (Woburn) $12,200,000 38,800 low $98,387 323 124   1       low     0.1   X low     low 0   medium 0.1       X low           X  

 

 

Summary of Evaluated Major Infrastructure Projects for the LRTP
Abbreviated Project Name Project Cost AADT Safety Need Total Rank Cost per EPDO Cost per EPDO rank EPDO per 100,000,000 vehicles EPDO per 100,000,000 vehicles rank Cost per EPDO per 100,000,000 vehicles Cost per EPDO per 100,000,000 vehicles rank EPDO EPDO rank Top 200 Crash Location (Total EPDO) HSIP Cluster (Total EPDO) Truck Polygon (Truck-involved EPDO) HSIP Bicycle Cluster (Bike-involved EPDO) HSIP Pedestrian Cluster (Ped-involved EPDO) System Preservation Improves substandard pavement Pavement Condition Improves substandard bridge  Improves substandard bridge  Improves sidewalk infrastructure Improves bicycle facilities  Improves emergency response/Improves response to extreme conditions Capacity Management/Mobility (Autos) MPO-identified express highway bottleneck location MPO-identified arterial bottleneck location Capacity Management/Mobility (Buses) Number of Bus Routes Served Total Bus Trips Served Daily Capacity Management/Mobility (Peds/Bikes) Expands bicycle network Bay State Greenway Priority 100 High Priority Gap (Network Evaluation Study) Expands sidewalk network Improves transit access Economic Vitality Provides vehicle access to target development area  Provides transit access to target development area  Provides bicycle access to target development area  Provides pedestrian access to target development area  Mostly serves existing area of concentrated development Partly serves existing area of concentrated development Facilitates new development
Allston Viaduct Realignment (Boston) $460,000,000 174,000 medium M 103 $1,133,005 32 236 24 $1,971 34 406 13   3       high     7 SD, 6 FO     X medium     medium 9 421 high X     X X high X X X X X   X
Route 18 Widening (Weymouth) $58,822,115 29,600 high H 17 $43,252 6 4641 1 $13 5 1360 5 6 10 4     high 8 Fair 1 FO 8   X medium   moderate low 1 127 medium 8         high X   X X   X X
Highland Ave (Newton) $14,297,606 35,000 high H 17 $24,233 4 1703 2 $8 2 590 9   3 1     high 9 Fair 1 FO 6   X medium     low 2 86 medium 6       X high X   X X X   X
Route 4/225 (Lexington) $15,687,000 40,200 high H 20 $29,994 3 1314 4 $12 3 523 10   2       medium 8 Fair         X medium   moderate medium 3 104 high 8     8 X medium           X X
Rutherford Ave (Boston) $109,967,000 48,200 medium M 83 $561,056 27 411 15 $270 18 196 23   1 1     high 9 Fair 3 FO 6   X low     low 8 897 high 6       X high X X X X X   X
McGrath (Somerville) $65,000,000 38,000 medium M 88 $488,722 25 354 20 $186 16 133 27   2   1 1 high 3 Fair 2 SD 1.5     low     low 7 558 high 1.5       X high X X X X X   X
Extend I-93 HOV Lane (Somerville to Woburn) $550,000,000 202,000 low H 50 $239,234 18 1150 5 $483 26 2299 1   17 7     high     6 2 SD, 4 FO     X high severe   high 8 492 low           medium X         X X
I-93/I-95 (Woburn) $294,000,000 373,000 high H 66 $207,774 16 383 17 $775 30 1415 3   7 5     medium     1       X high severe   medium 3 92 low           medium X         X X
Route 27/9 (Natick) $25,793,370 80,000 high H 38 $55,709 7 585 12 $45 8 463 11 1 2       high 1 Fair 1 SD 1   X medium     medium 4   medium 1       X low         X    
New Boston St (Woburn) $9,706,549 14,000 low L 138 $9,706,549 34 7 36 $1,359 32 1 36           low               high     low 0   high 0.5     0.5 X high X   X X X    
Route 1 Widening (Malden, Revere, Saugus) $236,078,161 115,000 medium M 99 $666,887 31 311 23 $767 29 354 16   5 2     low     1 FO     X high severe   high 6 250 low           medium X       X   X
Braintree Split $53,288,794 282,000 high H 32 $32,612.48 5 585 11 $92 12 1634 4   4 1     medium     3 FO     X high severe   medium 5 283 low           low           X  
Montvale Ave (Woburn) $4,225,256 31,000 high H 29 $15,534 2 886 6 $5 1 272 20 1 1       high 1 Fair     0.5   X medium     low 1 38 medium 0.5       X low           X  
Southampton Interchange (Boston) $143,750,000 225,000 medium H 53 $123,709 14 522 13 $278 20 1162 6   1       medium     1 FO     X medium severe   medium 8 705 medium           medium         X    
I-93/I-95 (Canton) $190,000,000 240,000 medium M 99 $478,589 24 167 30 $1,149 31 397 14   4 2     medium     2 SD, FO     X medium     low 0   medium X     X X high X         X X
Route 128 Add-a-Lane (Needham, Wellesley) $150,000,000 188,000 medium M 65 $208,333 17 387 16 $392 24 720 8   4 1     high     4 1 SD, 3 FO       high severe   low 1 50 low           low           X  
Concord Rotary $98,900,000 48,000 medium M 90 $565,143 28 368 18 $271 19 175 25   2 1     high 6 Fair 1 FO     X high   severe low 0   low           low           X  
Dedham St Ramp (Canton, Norwood, Westwood) $50,961,567 5,000 low L 86 $1,456,045 33 707 8 $73 11 35 34           low     1 FO     X high     low 0   medium 1     1 X high X         X X
Route 3 Widening $800,000,000 159,000 high H 54 $365,297 21 1391 3 $581 28 2190 2   15 3     high     9 3 SD, 6 FO       medium moderate   low 5 361 low           low           X  
I-90/I-495 (Hopkinton) $220,000,000 209,000 medium M 111 $660,661 30 161 31 $1,381 33 333 17   3 4     high     4 FO       medium     low 0   low           medium X         X  
Middlesex, Phase III (Bedford, Burlington) $26,935,171 14,300 medium M 78 $402,017 23 473 14 $57 9 67 32           high 3 Fair 1 FO       low     low 3 8 medium 3     3 X medium X         X X
Route 126/135 (Framingham) $115,000,000 35,400 medium M 75 $542,453 26 605 10 $192 17 212 22 1 1   1 1 low 0.5 Fair     0.5   X low     medium 7   medium 0.5   X   X high X X X X X   X
I-95 Add-a-Lane (Woburn) $32,900,000 164,000 medium M 73 $109,667 12 185 28 $180 15 300 18   2 1     medium     2 SD, FO     X medium severe   low 2 75 low           medium X         X  
                                                                                             
Mahoney Circle (Revere) $60,000,000 56,000 low L 110 $588,235 29 184 29 $329 23 102 29   2 1     low 1 Fair         X medium   moderate high 10 451 low           medium X X       X  
Route 9/I-495 (Southborough) $25,000,000 135,000 low L 110 $342,466 20 55 34 $462 25 73 31   1       high     2 FO       medium     low 0   low           medium X         X  
Route 128, Phase II (Danvers, Peabody) $23,776,000 102,000 medium H 52 $65,319 8 360 19 $67 10 364 15   3 1     high 7 Fair 2 SD, FO     X medium     low 3 57 low           low           X  
Boardman St (Boston) $13,686,000 59,500 low L 144 $13,686,000 35 2 38 $8,143 35 1 36           low 0.5 Fair         X high   severe medium 5 205 low         X medium X         X  
Walnut Street Interchange (Saugus) $19,500,000 136,000 medium M 80 $103,723 10 140 32 $141 14 188 24   1       low         0.5   X medium     low 1 51 medium 1     0.5 X low           X  
Bridge St (Salem) $16,613,152 17,800 medium H 52 $117,824 13 800 7 $21 6 141 26   1       medium 1 Fair     0.5     low     low 5 133 low         X medium X     X X    
Route 1/16 (Chelsea, Revere) N/A 40,200 low L 128 N/A 36 193 26 N/A 36 77 30 1 2 1     high 5.25 Fair 1 FO     X low   moderate low 2 75 low           medium X X     X    
I-95 Capacity Improvements (Lynnfield, Reading) $198,443,000 157,000 low H 53 $187,742 15 680 9 $295 22 1057 7   6 1     low             X high severe   low 0   low           medium X         X X
I-290/495 (Hudson, Marlborough) $100,000,000 162,500 medium M 92 $334,448 19 186 27 $543 27 299 19   2 1     high 2 Fair 1 FO       low     low 0   low           low              
Route 1A/16 (Revere) N/A 36,700 low L 142 N/A 36 39 35 N/A 36 14 35 1 3 1     medium 1.5 Fair         X low   severe low 9 416 low           medium X       X    
Brimbal Ave, Phase II (Beverly) $23,000,000 73,500 low L 109 $383,333 22 82 33 $282 21 60 33   1       medium     1 FO     X low     low 1   low           medium X         X X
I-90/Interchange 17 (Newton) $4,000,000 141,000 medium H 38 $8,677 1 330 21 $12 4 461 12   4 1   1 low     3 FO 0.5   X medium severe   low 12 528 low           low           X  
128 Capacity Improvements (Peabody) $24,634,000 110,000 low M 68 $98,536 9 230 25 $108 13 250 21   2       low     1 FO     X high severe   low 1 36 low           low           X  
Riverside Ramp (Newton) N/A 23,500 low L 145 N/A 36 4 37 N/A 36 1 36   2       low               low moderate   low 1 20 low         X medium X         X X
Washington Street Bridge (Woburn) $13,557,856 38,800 low M 68 $109,338 11 323 22 $42 7 124 28   1       low         0.1   X low     low 0   medium 0.1       X low           X