Memorandum for the Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting
March 21, 2013 Meeting
10:00 AM – 1:30 PM, State Transportation Building, Conference Rooms 2&3, 10 Park Plaza, Boston
David Mohler, Chair, representing Richard Davey, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization agreed to the following:
• Approve
three work programs:
o Household Survey-Based Travel Profiles and
Trends
o MBTA Bus Service Data Collection VIII
o MBTA Rider Oversight Committee Support
• Advance
project proposals to the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division for consideration
for funding through the federal Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New
Freedom Programs
Kristina Johnson, City of Quincy, requested that the MPO amend the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) so that the Intersection and Signal Improvements at Hancock Street and East/West Squantum Streets project may be advertised this year. The project is currently programmed in the FFY 2014 element of the TIP and is ahead of schedule. The City requests that it be re-programmed in the FFY 2013 element. The project would implement recommendations from a MPO study that was in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and would improve pedestrian circulation issues in the project area.
Wig Zamore, Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership and Mystic View Task Force, expressed support for the work programs for the MBTA Rider Oversight Committee Support and the Household Survey-Based Travel Profiles and Trends, both of which were on the MPO’s agenda for approval at this meeting.
Valerie Parker Callahan, of Greater Lynn Senior Services (GLSS) and affiliated with the Aging and Disability Resource Consortium of the Greater North Shore, thanked the MPO for their past support of GLSS’s Mobility Links project, a travel counseling and community education project that includes Kiosks for Living Well that assist consumers with trip planning. She reported that there has been national interest in this project and asked the MPO to continue its support through the New Freedom Program. She also urged the MPO to support GLSS’s proposed strategic planning project.
Mark Whitmore, of the North Shore Career Center (NSCC) and affiliated with the Aging and Disability Resource Consortium of the Greater North Shore, thanked the MPO for their past support for NSCC’s employment transportation and mobility management programs. These programs provide transportation to jobs for individuals with disabilities and those with low-incomes in five communities: Lynn, Salem, Danvers, Peabody, and Beverly. They have provided over 10,000 rides and served about 115 customers, who would not otherwise be able to secure employment. He asked for the MPO’s continued support of these programs.
Sharon Wason, Town of Foxborough, spoke regarding the town’s application for a J ARC grant to fund a feasibility study for a bus or shuttle service from Patriot Place to the Mansfield commuter rail station. She distributed a handout summarizing the project.
There was none.
Callida Cenizal, of MassDOT and Chair of the UPWP Committee, announced that the committee would meet in the afternoon to discuss the staff recommendation for new projects for the FFY 2014 UPWP. The committee will also meet next week if they do not come to a conclusion on a committee recommendation today to bring to the MPO. The MPO will be presented with the committee recommendation on April 4.
Lourenço Dantas, Massachusetts Port Authority, reported that the Congestion Management Committee met this morning and discussed the proposal for the implementation of an Intersection Improvement Program in the TIP. The proposal was approved by the committee. This topic will be discussed at an upcoming MPO meeting.
S. Olanoff reported that the Advisory Council met on March 13 and heard a presentation from Stephen Woelfel, MassDOT, on the agency’s proposed transportation finance plan, The Way Forward. The Advisory Council also received updates on the TIP and UPWP from the MPO staff. It also adopted changes to its bylaws as recommended by the MPO.
There was none.
Members were presented with three work programs. K. Quackenbush provided an overview of each one and addressed questions from members.
In 2010 and 2011 the MPO and MassDOT jointly paid for and administered a statewide travel survey that gathered travel and socioeconomic data from 15,000 households in the Commonwealth. Participants kept a travel diary and recorded all their trips over a 24 hour period. The last time that such was survey was administered in the Boston Region was in the early 1990s.
The primary purpose of such surveys is to gather data for building travel models and work is now underway to use the data for just that purpose. Staff had thought that it would also be useful and interesting to use the data to create a profile of travel behavior in the region. Therefore, under this work program, and while the model building is proceeding, staff will use the survey data to prepare narratives, maps, and graphics that describe the travel behavior of people in the region and, where possible, to compare it to the old survey.
This project is included in the UPWP and will be paid for with MPO funds.
A motion to approve the work program for the Household Survey-Based Travel Profiles and Trends was made by the MBTA Advisory Board (Paul Regan), and seconded by the North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn) (Ed Tarallo). The motion carried.
The work program for the MBTA Bus Service Data Collection VIII is a continuation of work that staff has been doing for the MBTA for a number of years. CTPS began this work in the late 1990s when the MBTA called upon it to conduct a comprehensive data collection on the MBTA bus system. The data gathered was used in the MBTA’s service planning process and to establish a baseline of data on bus ridership.
Since that time, CTPS has continued to be engaged in the ongoing monitoring of buses, and to a much lesser extent, light rail lines and rapid transit stations. As in previous work programs, this one would employ field checkers to collect data on bus ridership and travel times. Activities that would take place include ridechecks, pointchecks, and timechecks.
A ridecheck involves a person counting people as they board or exit a bus and recording the time at milestone points along the route. The MBTA is employing automatic passenger counting (APC) technology on its vehicles, but this technology is not yet available on all buses, so there is still a need for some manual ridechecking. A pointcheck involves a person stationed along a bus route at the peak load point recording an estimate of the number of people on a bus and the time it passes. A timecheck involves a people standing at milestone areas along a route and recording the time the bus passes.
The work program also includes a task for the analysis and review of the data collected. Staff would report any problems regarding schedule adherence and crowding to the MBTA. The data gathered through this work provides information necessary for making decisions about modifying the bus system.
This project will be funded by the MBTA.
During a discussion about the work program, D. Mohler raised a question about whether GPS technology installed on buses could make the timechecks superfluous. K. Quackenbush noted that the MBTA’s Service Planning Department requested that the timechecks be included in the scope. He offered to look further into the matter.
S. Olanoff asked how the APC system works and why the automated fare collection (AFC) could not replace it. K. Quackenbush explained that in the APC system, a light beam across the door of a bus registers when a person boards or alights from the bus. The AFC system only records entries to the system, not exits, so it cannot be used to determine bus loads. And because not all passengers interact with the AFC equipment, the system does not capture all boardings. S. Olanoff suggested that a comparison of the APC and AFC data could be made to determine the amount of fare evasion that occurs.
Dennis Crowley, South West Advisory Planning Committee (Town of Medway), raised questions about how the MBTA is using the data collected from the past work programs and the amount of MPO resources used for this work. K. Quackenbush noted that the MPO staff interacts regularly with the MBTA’s service planning staff, who use the data to make decisions about schedule changes on an ongoing basis. About 80% of the hours set out in the work program are for temporary workers or part-time specialists who are employed at CTPS solely to perform work such as this.
David Koses, At-Large City of Newton, noted that the City of Newton uses this data, which is the best available. He suggested that staff use the new work program as an opportunity to update certain bus stop names in its database. K. Quackenbush noted that the work does involve updating stop names. If data users have any questions about interpreting the data, they are invited to contact Jonathan Belcher, MPO staff.
The work program for MBTA Rider Oversight Committee Support describes the body of work that CTPS would continue to perform in support of the MBTA’s Rider Oversight Committee (ROC). The ROC was formed in 2003. Its areas of interest include the issues of fare increases, service reliability, communications, and resumption of late night transit service. The ROC meets monthly and has two standing committees as well as ad hoc committees, all of which are supported by MBTA personnel. CTPS staff attends the meetings as a technical resource and provides modest amounts of analytic work for ROC. This work program represents a four-year contract that would be funded by the MBTA.
During a discussion of this work program, Paul Regan, MBTA Advisory Board, asked whether the contract covers the cost of additional research that staff might be asked to provide. K. Quackenbush replied yes.
S. Olanoff asked if the ROC membership has been rising. K. Quackenbush noted that there are fewer advocates on the ROC.
A motion to approve the work program for MBTA Rider Oversight Committee Support was made by the MBTA Advisory Board (P. Regan), and seconded by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) (E. Bourassa). The motion carried.
Members were provided with a memorandum and materials providing information about the applications for Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom funds and staff’s recommendation for funding those proposals. A. Wilson provided an overview of the requests, the evaluation of the proposals, and the staff recommendation.
MassDOT’s solicitation for FFY 2014 proposals ended on March 1. There were five applications for JARC funds and eight applications for New Freedom funds in the Boston Region MPO area. All but one would service low-income and minority tracts, as determined by MassDOT.
Below is a list of applicants and their proposals for JARC funding. All except the North Shore Career Center’s proposal met their goals in the recent program evaluation. The total amount requested is less than the amount of JARC funds available to the Boston Urbanized Area (UZA).
|
Project |
Request |
|
|
128 Business Council |
Alewife
A3-Route 128 Corridor Reverse Commute Program (a shuttle service from Alewife Station to
workplaces in Lexington and Waltham) |
$128,740
(match by corporate sponsors) |
|
Town of Acton |
Mobility
Manager (to hire a
part-time mobility manager to coordinate transportation services) |
$16,000
(match by CrossTown Connect) |
|
Town of Foxborough |
Planning
study (to
determine need and feasibility of transportation services for transporting
people with low-incomes to jobs in Foxborough) |
$30,720
(match by Foxborough Planning Board) |
|
MetroWest Regional Transit Authority
(MWRTA) |
Wellesley
Route 9 Reverse Commute (to provide fixed-route bus service between
Woodland Station on the Green Line and places of employment along Route 9 and
in Wellesley) |
$600,000
(match by State Contract Assistance) |
|
North Shore Career Center (NSCC) |
Mobility
Management and Employment Express (to provide transportation for people with low income to places of
employment in Salem, Peabody, and Danvers) |
$468,790
(match by Greater Lynn Senior Services
and NSCC) |
|
Total
Amount Requested |
|
$1.24
million |
Below is a list of applicants and their proposals for New Freedom funding. The total amount requested exceeds the amount of New Freedom funds available to the Boston UZA.
|
Applicant |
Project |
Request |
|
Town of Acton |
CrossTown
Connect Dispatch (to consolidate and expand dispatch services
for accessible vans in Acton, Boxborough, Concord, Littleton, Maynard, Stow,
and Westford) |
$135,000 (match by CrossTown Connect) |
|
Greater Lynn Senior Services (GLSS) |
Reaching
Beyond Borders: The GLSS Mobility Links Project (for the
continued operation of a Travel Counseling Call Center) |
$551,101 (match by grants and corporate sponsors) |
|
GLSS |
Community
Planning, Phase 2 (to coordinate efforts of agencies across the
region) |
$533,861 (match by grants and corporate sponsors) |
|
MWRTA |
Peer-to-Peer
Training Program (a training program to help MWRTA paratransit
users switch to fixed-route service) |
$100,000 (match by toll credits) |
|
Mystic Valley Elder Services |
Connect-a-Ride
Alliance (to continue development of the Trip Metro North Program) |
$80,000 (match by corporate funds) |
|
NSCC |
Mobility
Management and Employment Express (to provide transportation for people
with low income to places of employment in Salem, Peabody, and Danvers) |
$252,425 (match by GLSS and
NSCC) |
|
SCM |
Travel
Training, Counseling, and Advocacy (for software and infrastructure upgrades
to support a mobility management program) |
$175,200 (match by Tufts Health Plan Foundation) |
|
SCM |
Planning (for the
development of a financial and operating plan to integrate mobility
management with SCM’s current transportation operations) |
$144,000 (match by Tufts Health Plan Foundation) |
|
Total Amount
Requested |
|
$1.97 million |
Three staff members used criteria discussed with the MPO at a February MPO meeting. They independently scored each proposal. The key components of the evaluation included consideration of an applicant’s experience with project management and whether it had previously provided service to the target population or whether the proposal had come from a study or was to conduct a study. Consideration was also given to whether the project identified a transportation gap or barrier identified in the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan, how well the applicant described the need that would be addressed, and whether the project would achieve community, state, or regional benefits. After scoring each project, staff assigned composite scores, which were an average of the three individual scores.
Staff recommended that the MPO support proposals that scored 75% of the available points or higher. (Staff had been directed after the previous solicitation for these programs to identify the best proposals from the full set of applicants.) The next step is for the Boston Region MPO (and the other MPOs in the Boston UZA) to forward recommended proposals to the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division, which will ultimately choose projects to receive funding.
Members asked questions and made comments:
How compatible are the
projects that applied for JARC and New Freedom funds? (P. Regan)
The two funding sources serve distinct populations. JARC serves people with low-incomes and New Freedom serves people with disabilities. (A. Wilson)
In the new federal
transportation legislation, MAP-21, the activities funded by the JARC and New
Freedom Programs would be funded through formula programs. Does MassDOT have a
position on how these activities would be handled in the future? (Joe Cosgrove,
MBTA)
The MassDOT Rail and Transit Division will conduct these activities going forward. Representatives from MPOs and social service agencies will help with this work. (A. Wilson)
Can staff review the
scoring criteria used in the evaluations? (J. Cosgrove)
[A. Wilson provided an example of how the staff evaluators scored a project and developed composite scores.] The evaluators used mostly qualitative measures but also quantitative measures. (A. Wilson)
Why not fund the JARC
projects up to the available level of funding? (Dennis Giombetti, MetroWest
Regional Collaborative - Town of Framingham)
The MPO does have the option to fund lower scoring projects, which are not included in the staff recommendation. (A. Wilson)
What happens to the
unused funds? (L. Dantas)
Funds not awarded to Boston MPO recommended projects may be applied to projects recommended by other MPO’s in the Boston UZA. (A. Wilson) Last year, the MPO directed staff to not recommend inappropriate projects just because funding might be available because it could be detrimental to the program. (D. Mohler)
Does the MPO have the
ability to enhance the projects that are recommended? (L. Dantas)
The four other MPOs in the Boston UZA may be submitting projects that exceed the amount available. This is a competitive process. It is not the MPO’s role to enhance the projects. (D. Mohler)
Do the four other
MPO’s in the Boston UZA use the same scoring process? Could a low scoring
project from the Boston Region MPO be a better project than one from another
MPO that uses a different scoring process?
(John Romano, MassDOT Highway Division)
MPO’s can use whatever scoring process they would like. The Boston Region MPO’s scoring process is based on MassDOT Rail and Transit Division’s matrix that is used to evaluate projects receiving Section 5311 funding and uses criteria that are a blend of MassDOT’s and the MPO’s. (A. Wilson) MassDOT’s Rail and Transit Division must be the arbiter of all the projects recommended by the MPOs. (D. Mohler) The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has the ultimate authority for selecting projects. (A. Wilson)
Are the dollar amounts requested for the two projects proposed by SCM cumulative? (J. Romano)
The projects are for the same program, each project serves a different population. (A. Wilson)
Will MassDOT Rail and Transit Division review all projects or only those that are recommended by the MPOs? (Tom O’Rourke, Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of Norwood/NVCC)
It will review only those recommended by the MPOs. (D. Mohler) The Boston MPO staff does not have access to the proposals submitted by other MPOs. (A. Wilson)
Are any of the
proposals for New Freedom also eligible for JARC? There is money available in
JARC. Could any New Freedom proposals be shifted to JARC? (Dennis Crowley,
South West Advisory Planning Committee - Town of Medway)
No. One program serves people with disabilities while another serves people with low-incomes. (K. Quackenbush)
Does the cost per trip
refer to a round trip or one-way trip? If a one-way trip, they should be called
“boardings.” (David Koses, At-Large City of Newton)
The cost refers to a one-way trip. (A. Wilson)
How is the cost per
trip calculated? (D. Koses and D. Mohler)
The cost refers to a one-way trip. The cost was calculated by dividing the project operating budget by the number of projected trips. Staff used figures that the applicants provided to the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division to make the calculation. The total operating cost figures deducts fares. (A. Wilson)
Can the MPO submit all
of the New Freedom proposals? In this case, low scoring projects from this
region may be better than higher scoring projects from other regions. (P.
Regan)
If the MPO submits proposals that exceed the amount of money available, it would be leading applicants that will not be funded to believe that they have a chance. It is the responsibility of the MPO to make the decision about prioritizing projects. (D. Mohler)
Why doesn’t the
MassDOT Rail and Transit Division develop a list of proposals and then ask the
MPOs to prioritize them? (L. Dantas)
MassDOT is not allowed to suballocate JARC money to the MPOs. (D. Mohler)
The proposals include
requests for funding for state fiscal years (SFYs) 2014, 2015, and 2016. If the
MPO funded only SFY 2014 requests for New Freedom, all the projects could
advance with one year of funding. (Ed
Tarallo, North Suburban Planning Council - City of Woburn)
If an applicant has requested multi-year funding, all of the funds would come out of the SFY 2014 funds. (A. Wilson) This proposal would leave applicants who need multi-year funding with only one year’s worth of funds. (D. Mohler)
Does staff have
information regarding the performance of projects that were funded in the past?
(E. Bourassa)
That information is provided in a table that staff distributed. Staff evaluated projects considering proponents’ projected goals. Operating projects were evaluated based on ridership. Mobility management projects were evaluated based on customers served or development of call centers. (Pam Wolfe, MPO staff, and A. Wilson)
The 128 Business
Council has only requested one-year of funding. Considering that the JARC
program is sunsetting, is there an opportunity to fund them for SFYs 2015 and
2016 as well? (D. Koses)
The 128 Business Council has said that their program, if successful, could be funded by their transportation management association (TMA) or corporate funds in the future. (A. Wilson) The Council is only seeking start-up funds. (D. Mohler)
Is the information on
the table referring to program performance for projects that were funded last
year? What is the explanation for projects that received a “no” in the
performance evaluation? How did that information play into the scoring this
year? Did staff request clarification from proponents regarding information in
the proposals? (Tom Bent, Inner Core Committee – City of Somerville)
The information refers to projects funded between SFYs 2008 and 2010. Projects that received a “no” may have had fewer than projected riders. For this year’s evaluation, staff considered how well the proposal was written, how much information was included in the proposal, and whether the applicant defined the unmet transportation need that their project would address. Staff had only one week to review and evaluate the applications, so they did not provide feedback to applicants. (A. Wilson) Staff provided an overview of the evaluation criteria to the MPO at a previous meeting, and staff conducted the evaluations in a step-by-step fashion. (K. Quackenbush) [The project evaluation criteria was displayed in a PowerPoint presentation at this meeting.]
Can MassDOT Rail and
Transit Division make the decision regarding how many years of funding the
projects receive? (Tom Kadzis, City of Boston)
No, MassDOT will make a decision based on what is recommended by the MPOs. (D. Mohler)
Can staff provide information regarding how well each project scored in each category? (D. Koses)
Staff can provide a narrative on each project. (K. Quackenbush)
What is the timeline
for making a decision on these proposals? (Minuteman Advisory Group on
Interlocal Coordination, Town of Bedford, R. Reed)
The MPO must submit its priorities to MassDOT Rail and Transit Division by the morning of March 22, tomorrow. (A. Wilson)
Following the question and answer period, L. Dantas advocated for accepting staff’s recommendation.
J. Cosgrove noted that the MPO needs to decide how to distribute the available New Freedom funds. He noted that, as proposed in the staff recommendation, one organization would be receiving a large share of the available funds for two projects.
D. Giombetti expressed concern that each MPO in the Boston UZA is using different criteria to evaluate projects. He expressed that all the MPOs should use the same criteria so that they can be evaluated fairly by the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division.
Members then heard a comment from an applicant.
Reed Cochran, SCM, noted that MassDOT Rail and Transit Division did not provide applicants with information about the scoring process or evaluation criteria, and that the application was not written to allow for applicants to provide the needed information.
Members then discussed each application that was not included in the staff recommendation. Staff provided information regarding staff’s evaluation of the applications and issues staff found that lead to low scores. Applicants also had the opportunity to advocate for their projects.
A. Wilson reported that the MWRTA’s Wellesley Route 9 Reverse Commute project received 60% of available points. The evaluators believed that the proposal met, but did not exceed any of the evaluation criteria. K. Quackenbush added that the proposal did not make the case for serving low-income people who need transportation for job related-needs, and it is that aspect of JARC, rather than the reverse commute aspect, that the MPO seems historically to have been most concerned about. Further, the proposal did not make clear how the proposed shuttle service would relate to existing shuttles that service job nodes in the area.
Members asked questions and made comments:
How does the proposed
service differ from existing services? (S. Olanoff)
The MWRTA currently provides its Route 1 bus service on (highway) Route 9, but that service does not go to Wellesley. The new proposal would serve Wellesley and the Route 135 corridor as well as job centers along the corridor. The MWRTA received letters of support for the project from two Chambers of Commerce, the City of Newton, and a major employer, Newton Wellesley Hospital. Reverse-commute service is needed in this area. Of the MWRTA’s riders, 69% come from households with incomes less than $30,000 per year. The MWRTA requests that its proposal be re-evaluated to make it eligible to advance. (Lynn Ahlgren, MWRTA)
Did the MWRTA provide
schedules for reverse-commute services? It is important to know whether the
shuttle schedule would coincide with Green Line service to enable people
traveling from the city to the suburbs to get to work (rather than being
preferential for people traveling from Wellesley into the city)? (D. Mohler)
The MWRTA did not submit a schedule with the proposal. CTPS has developed schedules for the proposed service, however. This is a reverse-commute project that would bring people from the Boston area into Wellesley. This project has support from the businesses in Wellesley. The MWRTA is focused on building coordination with the MBTA services. (L. Ahlgren)
What would be the routing of the service and to how many jobs would it provide access? (D. Koses)
The route would travel to downtown Wellesley, where there are dozens of businesses (including retail), then on Route 135 to a transfer point connecting to other MWRTA services. (L. Ahlgren)
How many people work
in low-income jobs in downtown Wellesley? (D. Mohler)
Several hundred people work in downtown Wellesley. The area is difficult to access for low-income people seeking to work in service jobs because it is not near the commuter rail station and there is a shortage of parking. The proposed service would enable reverse-commute and could also be used by seniors mid-day. (Frank DeMasi, Advisory Council – Wellesley Designee)
What assessment does Wellesley pay to the MBTA and MWRTA? Why would the match for the service not be provided using the assessment rather than State Contract Assistance? (D. Mohler)
Wellesley pays $500,000 to the MBTA. It has just recently joined the MWRTA. (F. DeMasi) The FTA allows RTA’s to match new programs with funds being provided by the state for existing services. The MWRTA would use the JARC grant to do a pilot in the first year. If successful, the assessments would be used to make the project sustainable. (L. Ahlgren)
If the service would
cost $200,000 a year, why not use the $500,000 yearly Wellesley assessment to
pay for it? (D. Mohler)
The assessment is currently going to the MBTA service area. The MWRTA is not taking those funds yet. If the MWRTA receives the JARC grant, it is expected that in the future the Wellesley assessment would be used to make the service sustainable. In 18 months the assessment could be transferred to the MWRTA (rather than go to the MBTA). Wellesley sees a great need for fixed-route transit service. (L. Ahlgren)
If the MWRTA is not
awarded the JARC grant, will the Wellesley assessment continue to go to the
MBTA? (D. Mohler)
That is correct. (L. Ahlgren)
If the grant is
awarded, will the assessment then go to the MWRTA because it is providing
fixed-route service to Wellesley? (D. Mohler)
The assessment would continue to go to the MBTA until the MWRTA begins paying for the service to Wellesley (after the JARC grant runs out in three years). (L. Ahlgren)
Where will the MWRTA
get the funds to operate the service between the time that the JARC grant ends
and before the assessments begin to flow to the MWRTA? (D. Mohler)
RTAs are retro-actively funded agencies. They take out revenue anticipation notes to fund all of their operations. (L. Ahlgren)
Could the MWRTA take out $200,000 in revenue anticipation notes to start the service and then accept the $500,000 assessment from Wellesley to continue the service? (D. Mohler)
The impact on paratransit service would have to be considered. Currently, paratransit service in Wellesley is operated by THE RIDE. (L. Ahlgren)
If the service is started using JARC funds, does that trigger the requirement for the MWRTA to provide ADA paratransit service? (D. Mohler)
The MBTA currently provides THE RIDE to Wellesley, but if the MWRTA’s service begins to operate, it would be MWRTA’s responsibility to provide paratransit. (J. Cosgrove) The MWRTA would offer paratransit service at such time as it began receiving the assessment from Wellesley. (L. Ahlgren)
What is the cost per
trip for the service? (S. Olanoff)
The average cost per trip on the MWRTA’s buses is $9 a ride on fixed-route services and $30 for demand response services. The MWRTA believes that people who are currently using THE RIDE will choose to use the MWRTA’s fixed-route service. The MWRTA is working with Councils on Aging and Chambers of Commerce in their service area to provide training programs to transition paratransit riders to fixed-route service. (L. Ahlgren) The proposed route is along the Lower Wellesley Corridor and would run from the Green Line station to Natick Center. There are community and senior centers along the route as well as medical services. The proposed service would provide an option, particularly for elders, to access these destinations without using cars. (F. DeMasi)
This could result in
the MBTA losing its revenue stream from Wellesley’s assessment, while at the
same time Wellesley will be receiving both MBTA commuter rail service and MWRTA
services. Do other communities have this same option or will this be opening
Pandora’s Box? (D. Crowley)
Other communities do have that opportunity. The MBTA will not lose any revenue if Wellesley’s assessment shifts to the MWRTA, however, cities in the urban core will have to pay higher assessments to the MBTA to make up for the amount Wellesley will no longer be paying to the MBTA. (D. Mohler) The MBTA would see a savings of about $500,000 because it would no longer have to operate THE RIDE in Wellesley, while other communities serviced by the MBTA would be reassessed to make up for the $500,000 that the MBTA would not be receiving from Wellesley. (L. Ahlgren)
Does the MWRTA operate
paratransit service to the entire communities in which it operates or only
within the legally-required distance from its routes? If the MWRTA operates a
fixed-route service in Wellesley, will there be paratransit customers currently
served by THE RIDE (which provides service to the entire town) who will not be
eligible for MWRTA-provided paratransit service? (D. Mohler)
The MWRTA provides paratransit service based on routes, however, it would provide paratransit service to the entire community of Wellesley. Customers currently served by THE RIDE in Wellesley would be covered by a grandfathered clause, as was the case when the MWRTA began providing paratransit service in Natick and Framingham. The MWRTA provides paratransit service to those communities from 5 AM to 1 AM. (L. Ahlgren)
Would paratransit customers in Wellesley have to make a transfer to leave the MWRTA service area and enter the MBTA service area? (D. Koses)
MWRTA paratransit customers do have to make a transfer. The MWRTA is planning on developing a mini-hub at Riverside Station to allow for better transfers with THE RIDE. (L. Ahlgren)
Will this cost the MBTA? (S. Olanoff)
Under state law, the MBTA receives a fixed amount of assessment dollars. When a community opts out, the inner urban core cities pick up the difference. (P. Regan) The advantage of towns opting out of the MBTA service is that it allows new RTAs to develop and to provide suburban transportation to people with low-incomes. (D. Giombetti)
How many customers
does the MWRTA serve in a year? (D. Mohler)
It serves about 500,000 customers. (L. Ahlgren)
What would be the
implication if the legislature decides to switch the RTAs from reverse-funding
to forward-funding? (S. Olanoff)
If the legislature gives the RTA’s forward-funding, RTAs would have $100 million a year available to add needed service. In a couple of years, MWRTA would have enough money to start this service without the JARC grant. (D. Mohler) It is unlikely that the RTA’s will get $100 million a year. (L. Ahlgren) If the project is started now with the JARC grant, it can be a pilot project that does not impact MBTA funds, and it would allow the MWRTA to build ridership on the route. (F. DeMasi)
The project does
precisely what reverse-commute project is supposed to do – transport people
from the city to the suburbs. There are a number of institutions – hospitals,
nursing homes, etc. – along the route that would provide jobs. (D. Giombetti)
How much low-income
housing is in Wellesley? (D. Mohler)
Wellesley has reached about 80% of its goal for low-income housing. Every new development needs to address low-income housing to receive its permits. (F. DeMasi)
North Shore Career
Center’s Mobility Management and Employment Express
A. Wilson noted that the NSCC’s proposal received a low score due to the high cost per trip and because it only serves about 100 people.
Mark Whitmore, NSCC, then provided more information about the project. Since 2011, the program has served 115 people and has served as an employment retention program for people with low-incomes. The program serves people in Lynn, Salem, Beverly, Danvers, and Peabody. There are about 30,000 residents in that area who live below the poverty line. The NSCC provides job placement services for those individuals.
He noted that transportation is the biggest barrier for people with low-incomes who need to find and retain employment. The NSCC seeks to provide transportation to the employment rich areas along Route 1 and 114 in Danvers and Peabody. There are many health care and service sector jobs along those corridors, but they are not served by transit.
M. Whitmore stated that the NSCC’s program has averaged 1,000 trips per month with an average 10% increase in trips each month. That demand is projected to increase. A priority of the NSCC is to place multiple clients with the same employer so that they can be transported to work together, which should reduce the cost of the program. Another priority is to determine how to make the program sustainable after JARC funds are no longer available. NSCC is working with employers and the private-sector on this issue.
Members asked questions:
Is the service
providing door-to-door service from home to work? (E. Bourassa)
Yes, within the communities of Lynn, Salem, Beverly, Danvers, and Peabody. The program also offers pick-ups at commuter rail stations so that people from other communities on Cape Ann and the North Shore can use the service. (M. Whitmore)
Does the service mainly use buses? (E. Bourassa)
The NSCC contracts with GLSS, which has a large fleet including mini-vans and sedans. (M. Whitmore)
Staff noted that the NSCC program did not meet its goals last year. Which goals were not met? (E. Bourassa)
The goal for number of trips served was not met. (A. Wilson)
The NSCC did not meet this goal due to a contracting-related issue that halted
the program. The NSCC subsequently had to rebuild its ridership. (M. Whitmore)
What would happen if the NSCC received the JARC funds but not the New Freedom funds? (D. Mohler)
The program serves two distinct populations – JARC serves people with low-incomes and New Freedom serves people with disabilities. If not all the funding were available, NSCC would find a way to make it work with a lower service level. It would target its mobility management services to customers with disabilities in order to help them find alternative transportation solutions. (M. Whitmore)
Town of Acton’s
Mobility Manager Project
A. Wilson noted that the Town of Acton’s proposal to hire a Mobility Manager did not demonstrate that an unmet need was being met.
Doug Halley, Town of Acton, noted that the Town of Acton submitted three applications last year. Of those, the Road Runner service was funded, but the Dial-a-Ride service (currently funded by the town) and Mobility Manager were not. Given the construction at South Acton commuter rail station, the town is expecting that more people will be seeking to access jobs in the area. A Mobility Manager is required to assess the transportation needs resulting from that demand.
Members asked questions:
Can you talk more
specifically about the need for a Mobility Manager and the coordination of
other services in the area? (E. Bourassa)
The Town of Acton is creating a TMA, called CrossTown Connect, which involves seven communities and six businesses. It will be built off the platform of Council on Aging vans. The town recognizes the need to serve the full community, not just seniors. There are four services currently operating in the area: the Dial-a-Ride service, the Minuteman service, the Council of Aging, and the Road Runner. (D. Halley)
Would the $16,000 in
the budget fund a part-time position operating out of Acton Town Hall? (J.
Cosgrove)
Yes. (D. Halley)
Does it serve a minority and low-income tract? (J. Cosgrove)
Yes, the Route 2A area in Acton is considered a minority tract in the census. (D. Halley)
A motion to recommend that the MWRTA’s Wellesley Route 9 Reverse Commute project be forwarded to the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division for consideration for JARC funding was made by the MetroWest Regional Collaborative (Town of Framingham) (D. Giombetti), and seconded by the Advisory Council (S. Olanoff). The motion carried. The MBTA Advisory Board abstained.
A motion to recommend that the Town of Acton’s proposal to hire a Mobility Manager be forwarded to the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division for consideration for JARC funding was made by the Advisory Council (S. Olanoff), and seconded by the Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (Town of Bedford) (R. Reed). The motion carried.
During a discussion of this motion, E. Bourassa discussed the challenging work suburban towns are undertaking to implement suburban transit. He advocated for supporting the Town of Acton’s project.
A motion to recommend that the North Shore Career Center’s Mobility Management and Employment Express proposal be forwarded to the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division for consideration for JARC funding was made by the North Shore Task Force (City of Beverly) (Tina Cassidy), and seconded by the North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn) (E. Tarallo). The motion carried. The Advisory Council was opposed.
Staff was then directed to submit the JARC proposals to the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division in the order of their presentation in the staff recommendation (related to evaluation score), as follows:
|
Applicant |
Project |
|
128 Business Council |
Alewife
A3-Route 128 Corridor Reverse Commute Program |
|
Town of Foxborough |
Planning
study |
|
MWRTA |
Wellesley
Route 9 Reverse Commute |
|
NSCC |
Mobility
Management and Employment Express |
|
Town of Acton |
Mobility
Manager |
A motion to forward all proposals requesting New Freedom funds to MassDOT Rail and Transit Division for consideration for one year’s worth of funding (SFY 2014) was made by the North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn) (E. Tarallo), and seconded by the North Shore Task Force (City of Beverly) (Tina Cassidy).
During a discussion of this motion, members asked questions about the SCM proposals for Travel Training, Counseling, and Advocacy and Planning. A. Wilson noted that the SCM proposals scored low because they were not clear in regard to the request, both proposals appeared identical, and the applicant did not include an itemized budget.
Members asked further questions of the applicant.
Can you speak to how
SCM’s service could help provide an alternative to THE RIDE, which is
experiencing a decline in ridership, possibly based on price? (P. Regan)
SCM’s services provide a safety net for THE RIDE, providing 10,000 trips per month. The cost of a trip is less than $30. There is a movement in the paratransit industry toward being able to connect people to a variety of transportation options. SCM has a steering committee, which includes the MBTA, to provide travel training and coordination across all constituencies affected by MBTA fare hikes and service reductions for THE RIDE. SCM is seeking assistance to turn its operations to a broader platform with a mobility management framework. The planning aspect of SCM’s request will focus on creating a business plan and hiring a senior level person to operationalize the plan. The capital aspect of the request would support the creation of a call center to coordinate services. (Reed Cochran, SCM)
Why did SCM submit two
proposals instead of one? (D. Mohler)
The reason for the two proposals was to distinguish between the planning and capital requests. (R. Cochran)
If only one proposal
could be funded, which would be your priority? (D. Mohler)
The priority would be the request for Travel Training, Counseling, and Advocacy. SCM has other places to look for funding for the Planning proposal. The partnership of the MPO would help SCM leverage the grant. (R. Cochran)
E. Tarallo then modified his motion.
A motion to forward all proposals requesting New Freedom funds to MassDOT Rail and Transit Division for consideration for one year worth of funding (SFY 2014), based on the priority in the staff recommendation, was made by the North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn) (E. Tarallo), and seconded by the Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) (T. Bent). The motion carried.
During a discussion of the motion, E. Bourassa raised concerns about how this action would affect the Town of Acton’s services. D. Halley noted that communities are currently employing people that they do not want to lay off as they move from a town to a regional set-up. It would be helpful to get three years of funding to allow time for the transition.
Staff was directed to submit the New Freedom proposals to the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division in the order presented in the staff recommendation, by evaluation score, as follows:
|
Applicant |
Project |
|
GLSS |
Community
Planning, Phase 2 |
|
Mystic Valley Elder Services |
Connect-a-Ride
Alliance |
|
GLSS |
Reaching
Beyond Borders: The GLSS Mobility Links Project |
|
Town of Acton |
CrossTown
Connect Dispatch |
|
MWRTA |
Peer-to-Peer Training
Program |
|
SCM |
Travel
Training, Counseling, and Advocacy |
|
SCM |
Planning |
|
NSCC |
Mobility
Management and Employment Express |
Members were presented with tables showing the regional targets for the FFY 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The total target for this four year period is $296.78 million. The tables provide a breakdown by year and one table provides the breakdown that highlights three funding programs: Congestion Management Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, and Transportation Alternatives Program and provides a composite funding amount for the other main funding programs (National Highway Performance Program, and Surface Transportation Program).
E. Tarallo asked staff to prepare tables for the next meeting that show projects by funding category.
This item was not addressed.
This item was not addressed.
There were none.
A motion to adjourn was made by MassDOT (D. Mohler) and seconded by the MetroWest Regional Collaborative (Town of Framingham) (D. Giombetti). The motion carried.
|
Members |
Representatives
and
Alternates |
|
At-Large City (City of Newton) |
David Koses |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Arlington) |
Laura Wiener |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Lexington) |
Richard Canale |
|
City of Boston (Boston Redevelopment
Authority) |
Lara Mérida |
|
City of Boston (Boston Transportation
Department) |
Tom Kadzis |
|
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) |
Tom Bent |
|
Massachusetts Department of Transportation |
David Mohler David Anderson |
|
MassDOT Highway Division |
John Romano |
|
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
(MBTA) |
Joe Cosgrove |
|
Massachusetts Port Authority |
Lourenço Dantas |
|
MBTA Advisory Board |
Paul Regan |
|
Metropolitan Area Planning Council |
Eric Bourassa |
|
MetroWest Regional Collaborative (Town of
Framingham) |
Dennis Giombetti |
|
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal
Coordination (Town of Bedford) |
Richard Reed |
|
North Shore Task Force (City of Beverly) |
Tina Cassidy |
|
Ed Tarallo |
|
|
Regional Transportation Advisory Council |
Steve Olanoff |
|
South Shore Coalition (Town of Braintree) |
Melissa Santucci Rozzi |
|
South West Advisory Planning Committee
(Town of Medway) |
Dennis Crowley |
|
Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of
Norwood/NVCC) |
Tom O’Rourke |
|
Other
Attendees |
Affiliation |
|
Lynn Ahlgren |
MetroWest Regional Transit Authority |
|
Sarah Bradbury |
MassDOT District 3 |
|
Valerie Parker Callahan |
Greater Lynn Senior Services |
|
Callida Cenizal |
MassDOT Office of Transportation
Planning |
|
Reed Cochran |
SCM |
|
Frank DeMasi |
Regional Transportation Advisory Council / MAPC-Wellesley |
|
Doug Halley |
Town of Acton |
|
Eric Halvorsen |
MAPC |
|
Kristina Johnson |
City of Quincy |
|
Emily Kearns |
Greater Lynn Senior Services |
|
Rafael Mares |
Conservation Law Foundation |
|
Joe Onorato |
MassDOT Highway Division |
|
Vida Poole |
Mystic Valley Elder Services |
|
Pat Sullivan |
128 Business Council |
|
Jenny Vanasse |
Mystic Valley Elder Services |
|
Sharon Wason |
Town of Foxborough |
|
Mark Whitmore |
North Shore Career Centers |
|
Wig Zamore |
Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership / Mystic View Task Force |
|
MPO
Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff |
|
Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director |
|
David Fargen |
|
Maureen Kelly |
|
Elizabeth Moore |
|
Efi Pagitsas |
|
Scott Peterson |
|
Sean Pfalzer |
|
Michelle Scott |
|
Alicia Wilson |
|
Pam Wolfe |