Memorandum for the Record

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting

April 4, 2013 Meeting

10:00 AM – 1:15 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)

Decisions

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization agreed to the following:

• Send a letter to the legislature in support of the Patrick Administration’s plan, The Way Forward, and urge the legislature to take a more comprehensive approach to transportation financing

• Approve the minutes of the meetings of February 21, March 7, and March 21

Meeting Agenda

1. Public Comments

Mayor Scott Galvin of Woburn, State Senator Kenneth Donnelly, State Representative James Dwyer, State Representative Jay Kaufman, and Woburn Ward Alderman Darlene Mercer-Bruen expressed their thanks to the MPO staff for including the Woburn – Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue project on the staff recommendation of the draft federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). They spoke of the importance of the project for improving public safety and enhancing economic development and job creation in the area. They discussed traffic problems in the area related to traffic congestion caused by traffic backing up from Interstates 93 and 95 at peak travel times and drivers who cut through residential areas to avoid the Montvale Avenue intersection. It was also noted that Montvale Avenue provides direct access to Winchester Hospital for ambulances.

Leonard Simon, Board of Directors of the Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, asked for the MPO’s continued support for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project so that construction of Phase 2A of the project can begin in the spring of 2014.

Wig Zamore, Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership and Mystic View Task Force, spoke in support of the Green Line Extension to Route 16 and noted that extending the Green Line to a terminus at Route 16 the line would support MassDOT’s mode shift goal (which aims to increase the number of people who walk, bicycle, and use transit, while reducing car usage) by providing access to walking and bicycling trails in the area.

Kristina Johnson, Director of Transportation Planning for the City of Quincy, requested that the MPO amend the TIP to program the Quincy – Intersection and Signal Improvements at Hancock Street and East/West Squantum Streets in an earlier time element of the TIP so that the project may be advertised in FFY 2013, rather than FFY 2014. She noted that the city has almost resolved the right-of-way issues associated with the project.

Candace Havens, Director of Planning and Development for the City of Newton, and David Turgey, Commissioner of the Newton Department of Public Works, expressed support for the Newton and Needham – Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and Charles River Bridge project. They discussed the importance of the project, which addresses a vital commercial corridor with potential for increased economic development. They also discussed the current conditions on the corridor resulting from a traffic bottleneck at the bridge, poor bicycle and pedestrian accessibility, and misaligned intersections. The project is currently at the 25% design stage.

Barbara Pike, Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, expressed appreciation for the MPO’s support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project, and a desire to see construction of Phase 2A of the project begin in the spring of 2014. She noted that the trail is an important link through the towns of Acton, Carlisle, and Westwood, which passes by businesses, recreation facilities, conservation land, and Acton’s Village Green.

Stephen Fogg, Town of Weston, spoke in support of the Weston – Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 30 and Wellesley Street project. He noted that the project would address a regional roadway and that the improvements would be beneficial to Weston as well as the surrounding communities. He also reported that a road safety audit was conducted at the location last year and that the project would be eligible for funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program. The project is at the 75% design stage, the preliminary right-of-way acquisitions are complete, and easements are expected to be secured this summer. The town expects to submit 100% design plans to MassDOT in May and believes the project could be advertised in August of this year.

Kenneth Krause, Medford resident, thanked the MPO for its continued support of the Green Line Extension to Route 16 project. He noted that economic development, which has been projected to occur as a result of the project, is already occurring along the proposed Green Line corridor. Also, due to demand for transportation along that corridor, Tufts University has started a shuttle service along Boston Avenue, which mirrors the future Green Line route. He also remarked on the completion of a bicycle path near the proposed terminus. He noted that the project has support from the City of Somerville, Town of Arlington, and Tufts University.

Roland Bartl, Director of Planning for the Town of Acton, stated that he was pleased that the Assabet River Rail Trail project was included in the staff recommendation for the TIP. He remarked upon a number of synergies occurring in the area including upgrades to the Fitchburg commuter rail station, the conversion of a mill building in Maynard to residential units, and efforts to provide better access to the Assabet River Wildlife Refuge. The design public hearing for the project is expected to occur in June.

R. Bartl also provided an update on the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project. The 75% designs for Phase 2A were submitted to MassDOT Highway Division in October. The project cost has increased from about $8.8 million to $11 million, in part through MassDOT’s review of the project. Phase 2B is under design with the Town of Concord finalizing its 25% design plans. In response to a member’s question about the overall project cost, R. Bartl discussed the other proposed sections of trail that extend to Stow and Hudson. .

Tom Kelleher, President of the Assabet River Rail Trail Volunteers, remarked upon the enthusiastic support of five towns for the Assabet River Rail Trail project. He noted that the Maynard portion of the trail will have a significant residential component with the conversion of an office complex to housing. He also expressed support for the Woburn – Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue project.

Rafael Mares, Conservation Law Foundation, commended staff for adding a column to the TIP summary of evaluated projects to indicate projects’ greenhouse gas impacts.

2. Committee Chairs’ Reports

There were none.

3. Regional Transportation Advisory Council Report—Steve Olanoff, Chair, Regional Transportation Advisory Council

The Advisory Council will meet next on April 10. The agenda includes reports from the MPO staff on the TIP and Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).

4. Executive Director’s Report—Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director, Central Transportation Planning Staff

There was none.

5. Chair’s Report—David Mohler, MassDOT

D. Mohler distributed two documents that provide an analysis of the Senate and House Ways and Means Transportation Finance Framework proposal. The legislative committee’s plan would raise $500 million, some of which would be dedicated to transportation. This plan contains sufficient funding to close the transportation operating gap and eliminate the MBTA’s structural deficit for five years. It would take MassDOT employee salaries off of the capital program and put them on to the operating budget. It would also forward fund the regional transit authorities (RTAs) in FFY 2014 and then provide $80 million in funding to them each year. The plan would be financed by taxes and MassDOT revenue, which would have to be raised by increasing tolls, transit fares, and Registry of Motor Vehicle fees.

The legislature’s plan would not finance the $13 billion capital plan, The Way Forward, which was proposed by the Patrick Administration. The Administration’s plan would provide $100 million a year to RTAs and enough funding to cover numerous projects.

Members discussed the legislature’s plan and asked questions.

Dennis Crowley, South West Advisory Planning Committee (Town of Medway), asked what the legislature’s plan would mean for Chapter 90. D. Mohler reported that the legislature is addressing Chapter 90 in a separate $300 million bond bill. It is unclear from the Administration’s point of view, however, whether that level of funding could be provided given the amount of new revenue that legislature’s plan would generate.

Paul Regan, MBTA Advisory Board, referenced an analysis of the legislature’s plan that found that the plan would not close the MBTA’s finance gap nor would it meet the minimum amount of revenue needed (as defined by the Transportation Finance Commission). He cautioned that with inadequate funding, the MBTA would be forced to raise fares while providing less service, and that the transit system would continue to deteriorate. D. Mohler added that capital projects included in The Way Forward, such as the replacement of Orange, Red, and Green Line subway vehicles, would not be funded in the legislature’s plan. Without a more significant infusion of funding, the MBTA’s capital program would be limited to projects that could be funded with federal aid dollars matched by state dollars.

Tom Bent, Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville), expressed his disappointment with the legislature’s plan and asked how it would affect the Green Line Extension project. D. Mohler replied that the project is a legal requirement of the Commonwealth. The legislature’s plan falls short of infusing enough revenue into the system that the Commonwealth could expect to receive federal New Starts funding. In the absence of New Starts funding, the Commonwealth would have to fund the entire $1.3 billion cost of the project. The new revenue stream from the legislature’s plan would not provide the additional funds required for the project. As a result, there would likely be impacts to other projects or delays in the implementation of the Green Line Extension project.

Jim Gillooly, City of Boston, noted that the legislature’s plan would increase the gas tax by only three cents. He inquired as to whether an analysis has been done to determine what the gas tax would need to be to raise the amount of revenue needed to implement the Administration’s plan. S. Olanoff also noted that the proposed three cent gas tax hike does not get close to raising the needed revenue. D. Mohler noted that since the gas tax was not a consideration in The Way Forward, the Administration did not conduct that analysis. He did note, however, that for every penny increase in the gas tax approximately $30 million are generated.

D. Koses suggested that the MPO members prepare a letter to the legislature expressing their concerns.

A motion for the MPO to draft a letter to the legislature in support of the Patrick Administration’s plan, The Way Forward, and to urge the legislature to take a more comprehensive approach to transportation financing was made by P. Regan, and seconded by Lourenço Dantas, Massachusetts Port Authority.

During a discussion of this motion, Richard Canale, At-Large Town of Lexington, expressed support for the action and encouraged the MPO members to also take this message back to their own communities and organizations.

S. Olanoff suggested that the MPO state in its letter that if the legislature is going to raise the gas tax, it should be raised high enough to generate sufficient revenue.

D. Crowley suggested that the letter address the need for revenue rather than focus on the means of raising the revenue. He noted that the Administration proposed raising revenue by means of increasing the income tax.

After D. Crowley raised a question about the financing of the Green Line Extension project, P. Regan discussed the underlying issue that is putting the project at risk of not being eligible for federal New Starts funding. He explained that the MBTA must be able to demonstrate to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) that it can operate and maintain this extension of the system. D. Mohler added that FTA will not authorize this project to continue in the New Starts process if the Commonwealth does not take significant steps to solve the MBTA’s maintenance backlog.

D. Mohler also noted that other projects are in jeopardy of not going forward if the Administration’s plan does not advance; they include the South Station Expansion and South Coast Rail, as well as many highway, bridge, and bicycle trail projects. He noted that many of the gains of the Accelerated Bridge Program will be lost over the next ten years. The actual need to keep the system from further degrading is $1 billion, he said.

Marc Draisen, Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), said that the MPO’s letter should express the dollar figures required to meet transportation needs, but not address the methods that would be used to raise the funds. He also noted that MAPC has reviewed the figures in the legislature’s plan and found that it would generate about $300 million a year in new revenue for transportation, rather than $500 million, because certain state budget line items currently intended for transportation would be taken away from transportation. MassDOT would have to generate about $200 million of the new revenue by finding savings in current operations or by increasing fees, fares, and tolls. There are few ways to generate savings in the MassDOT operating budget given that the agency has already taken steps to reduce costs and is already under-staffed, he said. Further, MassDOT would have to significantly increase fees, fares, and tolls to generate the required revenue.

M. Draisen noted that while there is a public perception that MBTA ridership has increased, ridership on the commuter rail has actually declined (probably due to the fare increases) and the increase in ridership elsewhere on the system is lower than it would otherwise have been. He stated that this is not a good time to dramatically increase fares on the MBTA and the RTAs’ services.

In light of the limited amount of funding that the legislature’s plan would generate, MAPC is considering that there will have to be a complete review of projects programmed in the TIPs and Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) in the Commonwealth, and that priority will have to be given to those projects with solid safety considerations. M. Draisen also noted that despite the gains of the Accelerated Bridge Program, there are still a large number of structurally deficient bridges in the Commonwealth and that number will rise. There will also need to be a review of the bridge project list.

Lastly, M. Draisen noted that while the legislature is likely to authorize a bond bill that would provide $300 million a year for Chapter 90 (a $100 million a year increase), the Governor will have to consider that line item among the other capital needs of the Commonwealth; given the fiscal environment he may not find it prudent to approve the increase the Chapter 90 funding in light of other capital needs. M. Draisen noted that while the legislature has addressed short-term needs of the transportation system, it has not yet addressed a long-term solution.

P. Regan pointed out that if the legislature’s plan passes, it will be incumbent upon the MBTA to solve its long-term financing problem. As the MBTA currently has unsustainable needs, this could mean that the MBTA would have to be redesigned to conform to the amount of money available. A result could be to eliminate bus routes, close garages, or reduce hours of operation. He spoke of the urgency of addressing the transportation finance issue now, particularly given that the legislature will be unlikely to take up the issue again in the next few years.

J. Gillooly also expressed support for having the MPO send a letter to the legislature provided that the MPO does not recommend sources of funding.

Members then voted on the motion for the MPO to draft a letter to the legislature in support of the Patrick Administration’s plan, The Way Forward, and to urge the legislature to take a more comprehensive approach to transportation financing. The motion carried unanimously.

Members engaged in further discussion of the topic after this vote.

D. Crowley spoke of the importance of the Administration’s plan to increase Chapter 90 funding, particularly as a way to gain buy-in for the plan from municipalities across the Commonwealth.

In response to a question from R. Canale, M. Draisen spoke of the unlikelihood of the legislature revisiting a tax hike before 2015.

Members then discussed the challenges that will face the MPO and how to get the attention of the legislature to create a long-term solution to the transportation finance problem.

As an example of the funding challenges that could face the MPO, D. Mohler noted that the Administration’s plan would have funded $250 million worth of improvements to the interchange of Interstate 95 and 93 in Canton, however, without approval of that plan those improvements would have to wait until the project could receive funding by the MPO. (The project is programmed in the FFYs 2021-25 timeband of the Long Range Transportation Plan.) He cited other projects that the plan would have addressed but that the MPO will now be faced with re-prioritizing and delaying.

Ed Tarallo, North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn), spoke about the Woburn delegation’s awareness of the transportation finance issue. The fact that the MPO is only able to advance four new projects in the four years of this year’s TIP is evidence of the lack of revenue, he said. He noted that each year that the MPO prepares the TIP a message is being sent to municipalities about the lack of revenue available for transportation projects.

T. Bent noted that sometimes that message does not get through. He recommended that, in addition to sending a message to the legislature, MPO members should reach out to their own delegations to get their attention on this issue.

Members then heard a comment from a member of the public. R. Bartl stated that the TIP funding message does not always get through to communities. He explained that communities often perceive that they are in competition with one another to obtain TIP funding, rather than perceiving that there is a shortage of funding. He suggested that the MPO send out clear messages to communities that are denied TIP funding to explain the reason.

James Errickson, At-Large City of Everett, suggested that the MPO copy all municipalities in the region on its letter to the legislature.

Dennis Giombetti, MetroWest Regional Collaborative (Town of Framingham), remarked that while transportation advocates and municipalities understand the need for increased revenue, the legislature may be hearing mixed messages about this issue because it is clouded with other issues. He expressed the need for the MPO to reach out to the audience that is missing the MPO’s message.

D. Mohler emphasized that there needs to be an awareness among the public and the legislature that under the plan proposed by the legislature there will be needed projects that will not be constructed due to lack of funds. M. Draisen added that while the legislature’s plan is getting some initial approval from municipal groups (due to the Chapter 90 increase) and RTAs (due to forward funding and $80 million in yearly revenue), those groups may be in a worse position than they currently perceive themselves to be in. He emphasized the need to raise a greater amount of revenue.

Pam Wolfe, Manager of Certification Activities, MPO Staff, was asked to draft the letter for review by the chair, vice chair, and P. Regan.

6. MPO Meeting Minutes—Maureen Kelly, MPO Staff

A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of February 21 was made by the Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) (T. Bent), and seconded by Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of Norwood/NVCC) (Tom O’Rourke). The motion carried.

A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 7 was made by North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn) (E. Tarallo), and seconded by the Advisory Council (S. Olanoff). The motion carried.

A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 21 was made by Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of Norwood/NVCC) (Tom O’Rourke), and seconded by the Advisory Council (S. Olanoff). The motion carried.

7. Transportation Improvement Program Amendment Four Update—Sean Pfalzer, MPO Staff

S. Pfalzer provided an update on Draft Amendment Four of the FFY 2013-16 TIP, which is currently under public review.

Two letters of comment have been received to date. The Essex National Heritage Commission has requested that the MPO program a $275,000 discretionary grant for the Essex Coastal Scenic Byway Wayfinding Signage System. Kenneth Krause, a Medford resident, wrote in support of programming funding for the purchase of ten new locomotives for MBTA commuter rail service. He requested that the new locomotives be assigned to the Lowell and Fitchburg commuter rail lines to help mitigate for delays in the Green Line Extension project.

In response to members’ questions, S. Pfalzer noted that the Essex discretionary grant would not affect MPO target funds, and that the wayfinding project has a state match.

D. Mohler announced that the awards for the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom Program funds will not be announced as expected this week. While federal dollars are available through these federal programs, MassDOT is reviewing the proposed projects in light of the requirement for a state match. More information about these awards will be available by the time the MPO votes on Amendment Four.

8. Draft FFYs 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program—Sean Pfalzer, MPO Staff

Members were presented with a memorandum and project tables detailing the staff recommendation for the Draft FFYs 2014-17 TIP. S. Pfalzer gave a PowerPoint presentation that provided an update on the development of the draft TIP and presented the staff recommendation of projects.

The development of this TIP began in November 2012 when staff began compiling a Universe of Projects for consideration. From November through January 2013, staff attended MAPC’s subregional meetings and conducted TIP-Building Workshops. In February, staff evaluated projects for which there was a functional design report (FDR) – about 50 projects. In March, the MPO received its targets indicating the amount of funding available for programming. In April, staff prepared a First-Tier List of Projects, projects that evaluated well and were likely to be able to be made ready within the timeframe of this TIP.

The MPO has $296 million available for programming over the next four years. In preparing the draft TIP, staff first addressed the programming of project cost increases and current and ongoing commitments. Then staff worked with the remaining target funds to allocate those funds to new projects.

Projects with cost increases include the following:

• Needham and Wellesley – Route 128 Add-a-Lane

• Lynn – Reconstruction of Route 129

• Danvers – Reconstruction of Liberty Street

• Quincy – Intersection and Signal Improvements at Hancock Street and East/West Squantum Streets

• Boston – South Bay Harbor Trail

Projects with schedule changes include:

• Arlington – Bikeway Connection at Intersection of Route 3 and Route 60 (moved from FFY 2013 to FFY 2014)

• Weymouth and Abington – Reconstruction and Widening on Route 18 (moved from FFY 2013 to FFYs 2014, 2015 and 2016)

There is also concern about the schedule for the Somerville – Reconstruction of Beacon Street project, but staff has not recommended changing the year of programming for the project at this time.

Two projects were moved to an earlier TIP element and are now programmed in the FFY 2015 element. These changes help to meet the programming requirements for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program:

• Brookline – Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 9 and Village Square (Gateway East)

• Marlborough – Reconstruction of Route 85 (Maple Street)

Ongoing commitments include:

• The Clean Air and Mobility Program

• Needham and Wellesley – Route 128 Add-a-Lane (Contract V)

• Green Line Extension

After programming these projects, there was approximately $23 million remaining for new projects. Staff created a First-Tier List that contains 12 projects that evaluated well and can be made ready in the timeframe of the TIP. The four projects that staff recommended from the First-Tier List are:

• Boston – Improvements at Audubon Circle

• Woburn – Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue

• Southborough – Reconstruction of Main Street (Route 30)

• Acton and Maynard – Assabet River Rail Trail

The Boston – Improvements at Audubon Circle project implements the City’s Complete Streets policy. It will improve multi-modal access, eliminate right hand slip lanes, shorten the pedestrian crossing distance, add bicycle lanes, and add landscaping.

The Woburn – Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue project would address safety and congestion issues at the intersection. It would widen the roadway to four lanes, improve access to Interstate 93 and 93, improve the operation of MBTA bus route 354, coordinate signals, and widen the sidewalks. The project addresses about 2200 feet of roadway.

The Southborough – Reconstruction of Main Street (Route 30) project would improve a mile of this corridor. It addresses congestion and safety by adding new signals and turn lanes. It would also improve the operation of MetroWest Regional Transit Authority’s Route 7 bus. The roadway would be widened slightly for bicycle and pedestrian accommodation

The Acton and Maynard – Assabet River Rail Trail project would construct 3.5 miles of the trail from the Stow and Maynard line to the South Acton commuter rail station. The project would improve access to transit and a wildlife refuge for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Staff also programmed $400,000 in the FFY 2015 element for the Intersection Improvement Program.

In developing the staff recommendation, staff prioritized lower cost projects (most under $5 million), those that help to achieve the objectives of implementing the LRTP, and with a consideration of geographic equity. The staff recommendation helps maintain the MPO’s commitment for investment across multiple modes. It maintains a high level of investment in arterial and intersection projects, and it increases the percentage of money that would be flexed from highway to transit as compared to the previous TIP.

Members then discussed the staff recommendation (as shown on Table 7).

Christine Stickney, South Shore Coalition (Town of Braintree), raised a question about the funding for the Weymouth and Abington – Reconstruction and Widening on Route 18 project. S. Pfalzer explained that the cash flows shown on Table 7 reflect the MPO target dollars programmed for the project, but the project also has a $14.7 million earmark.

David Anderson, MassDOT, recommended that the Route 18 project be moved from the FFY 2014 element to the FFY 2015 element given the amount of preparation required in terms of acquiring 261 temporary easements and a wetlands variance.

S. Olanoff asked for more information about the cost increases for several projects. D. Anderson explained that many of the cost increases are a result of MassDOT’s new policy on utility relocation. MassDOT now has the responsibility of acquiring temporary easements on behalf of utility companies, and the agency will reimburse utility companies for 50% of the cost of utility relocation provided that they adhere to schedule. As a result, more funds must be programmed for roadway projects that require utility relocation. He also noted that it is not uncommon for estimated project costs to change between the 25% and 75% design stage.

S. Olanoff asked why the cost of the Arlington – Bikeway Connection project has increased. Laura Wiener, At-Large Town of Arlington, explained that the project was originally funded through the Clean Air and Mobility Program. The cost increased due to the incorporation of recommendations from the MassDOT Highway Division – including repaving work and adding a bicycle and pedestrian signal – which were not in the original project design.

S. Olanoff asked if the average cost of an intersection project is $5 million; he noted that the cost seems high. J. Gillooly noted that in the case of the Boston – Audubon Circle project the cost reflects the relocation of curbing, the need to address multi-modal issues, and the complexities of building over a Green Line tunnel. K. Johnson reported that costs on intersection projects can be significantly impacted by utility work. D. Anderson added that over time the investment that MassDOT will make through its new utility policy will pay off when bids for projects come in lower.

C. Stickney expressed support for MassDOT’s utility policy. She asked about how this new policy would affect projects whose cost estimates were derived before the policy was implemented, and whether there are a large number of projects that will increase in cost due to this policy. D. Anderson indicated that MassDOT is encouraging the utility companies as best they can in these cases.

T. O’Rourke remarked on several projects with sizable cost overruns and asked whether there are any limits on cost increases. D. Mohler replied that there is no cap on such increases, but that the MPO could choose not to fund such projects. D. Anderson noted that MassDOT has reduced the scope of some projects in order to stay within the limits of TIP funding.

D. Crowley noted that some of the projects on the staff recommendation were programmed prior to the implementation of MassDOT’s utility policy. He asked whether the additional cost of utility relocation should be added in for those projects. D. Anderson and D. Mohler replied that costs should be updated for those projects.

Joe Cosgrove, MBTA, noted that the cost estimate for the Green Line Extension, Phase 2 (from College Avenue to Route 16) project is a concept level estimate and could change closer to implementation. The amount programmed in this TIP represents only one year of a multi-year project. D. Mohler pointed out that an MPO commitment to this project in FFY 2017 will lead to the need to continue flexing a significant amount of highway dollars to transit in future TIPs. The figure shown on Table 7 for the Green Line Extension, Phase 2 project reflects the cost to the Commonwealth without New Starts funding.

D. Koses inquired about how much is being spent on preparation for the Green Line Extension, Phase 2 project leading up to the project’s proposed start date in FFY 2016. D. Mohler noted that the costs are negligible.

Eric Halvorsen, MAPC, inquired as to why $2.8 million of highway target funds remain unprogrammed in the FFY 2017 element in the staff recommendation. S. Pfalzer noted that the funds are unassigned because there were no First Tier projects that could be funded with that amount.

D. Mohler pointed out that funding more lower cost projects rather than few high cost projects could mean that it would be difficult for high cost projects to be programmed on the TIP with target dollars, unless targets increase in the future. S. Pfalzer noted that in the later years of this TIP, most of the programmed projects are over $10 million. He also noted that in the TIP there needs to be a balance of existing commitments of the LRTP and smaller scale investments. Projects programmed in the LRTP must be programmed in the TIP in the same timeband that they are programmed in the LRTP.

D. Koses disagreed with the decision to only program those LRTP projects that are programmed in the first timeband of the LRTP. He noted that the Newton and Needham – Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street, and Charles River Bridge project, which is programmed in the FFYs 2021-25 timeband of the LRTP, scored very highly in the project evaluation process and could be made ready for construction much sooner than FFYs 2021-25. D. Mohler noted that staff considered how projects were prioritized in the LRTP when making the TIP recommendation. The Woburn – Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue project, which was recommended, is programmed in an earlier timeband of the LRTP, for example.

At the next MPO meeting, MassDOT will provide information on project cost increases due to utility costs, the reasons for significant project cost increases, and statewide line items that will be programmed in the TIP. The MBTA will provide the transit element of the TIP, including programming for RTAs.

The MPO staff was directed to research the impact of moving the Weymouth and Abington – Reconstruction and Widening on Route 18 project to a later TIP element, and to see if the $2.8 million of unprogrammed highway funds in the FFY 2017 could be used to fund any Second Tier projects.

9. Draft Unified Planning Work Program—Callida Cenizal, UPWP Committee Chair, MassDOT; Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director, Central Transportation Planning Staff; and Michelle Scott, MPO Staff

Members were presented with a memorandum, budget information, and spreadsheets detailing proposed projects for inclusion in the Draft FFY 2014 UPWP. K. Quackenbush introduced the presentation on the development of the draft UPWP by explaining how the budget for the UPWP was developed. The budget details the estimated 3C (FHWA PL and FTA Section 5303) and non-3C revenue for projects in the UPWP; level funding was assumed in the development of the budget. The MPO staff worked to estimate project costs and determine what fraction of FFY 2013 projects will extend into FFY 2014. After subtracting the cost of ongoing and continuing 3C-funded studies, there is approximately $470,000 available for new 3C-funded studies in FFY 2014.

M. Scott then gave a PowerPoint presentation detailing the new projects that are recommended by the UPWP Committee and MPO staff for the FFY 2014 UPWP.

The UPWP documents the ongoing planning activities conducted by the MPO staff (such as the LRTP and TIP), discrete projects (with limited timeframes), continuing projects that have been carried over from the previous UPWP, studies carried out at request of other agencies (not 3C-funded projects), and other regionally significant transportation planning projects.

M. Scott focused her presentation on the discrete, 3C-funded projects that would be carried out by the MPO or MAPC staff.

The development the Universe of Projects for the Draft FFY 2014 UPWP began in November 2012 when staff conducted public outreach, which included meeting with the MAPC subregional groups and the Advisory Council, holding Be Informed, Be Involved sessions, and consulting with other transportation agencies. This outreach continued through January 2013.

The UPWP Committee met in February to review the Universe of Projects. Then the staff recommendation and budget were developed in February and March. Subsequently, the UPWP Committee unanimously voted to recommend the staff recommendation to the MPO.

The MPO staff and UPWP Committee considered a number of factors when selecting projects, including the following: adherence to the MPO’s vision and policies; response to state and federal guidance; UPWP Committee members’ priorities; balancing the mix of modes; addressing location-specific issues; and enhancing the technical capacity and knowledge base of the MPO staff.

The staff recommendation contains nine new projects:

• Traffic Signal Retiming Program: A program of studies to support the retiming of traffic signals in the region as a cost-effective way to address safety and congestion problems at intersections.

• Priority Corridors for LRTP Needs Assessment: Recommending conceptual improvements on select corridors identified in the Needs Assessment of the LRTP.

• Addressing Safety, Mobility, and Access on Subregional Priority Arterial Roadways: Identifying priority arterial bottleneck locations, with an emphasis on issues identified by subregional groups, and recommending conceptual improvements.

• TIP Project Impacts Before-After Evaluation: Comparing data collected before and after the construction of TIP projects to determine project effectiveness.

• Pedestrian Signal Phasing Study: Research on existing practices and guidelines regarding types of pedestrian signal operation to inform municipalities of effective signal operation under various circumstances.

• Environmental Justice Analysis Methodology Review: Analyzing the methodology used by the MPO staff to conduct environmental justice analyses.

• Transportation Investments for Economic Development: A quantitative analysis to determine which transportation investments may yield the greatest economic development benefits.

• Development of a Methodology to Evaluate Potential Limited-Stop Service on Transit Routes (including Key Route Corridors): Evaluation of criteria and costs for establishing limited-stop bus service based on existing and future ridership demand, operating strategies, and equipment needs.

• Identification of Areas with Mode Shift Opportunities: Identification of areas in the region that have the most potential for shifting travelers away from single-occupant vehicle trips to transit, walking, and bicycling.

The draft UPWP also documents the projects that would be conducted by MAPC, which receives a separate portion of 3C funding. E. Halvorsen provided an overview of the MAPC’s portion of the UPWP. (A separate budget and project list was provided for this portion of the document.) MAPC’s ongoing activities include MPO support work, subregional support activities, UPWP development, and MetroFuture implementation.

The following discrete projects are included in the MAPC portion of the UPWP:

• Identifying Mode Shift Opportunity Areas

• Continuation of Transit-Oriented Development Opportunities and Impediments Planning

• Lane Use Baselines for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Development

• Projected Development and Trip Generation within Routes 99, 28, and 16 in Everett, Boston, Somerville, and Cambridge

• Continuation of Subregional Priority Development and Priority Preservation Studies

• Continuation of Sullivan Square Land Use Visioning

• TDM Best Practices and Municipal Bylaws

• Rose Kennedy Greenway Bicycle Improvement Study

Following the MPO’s review of the staff recommendation, the MPO is scheduled to vote to release the draft UPWP for public review on May 2.

At the conclusion of the presentation, L. Dantas inquired as to whether any overarching themes surfaced in the discussions by the UPWP Committee. M. Scott replied that there was a focus on balancing location-specific issues with a technical capacity-building effort. K. Quackenbush added that one theme involved working on projects that do not yield capital improvement recommendations, but that add to the MPO’s knowledge base through the conduct of applied research.

10.Members Items