Memorandum for the Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting
July 11, 2013 Meeting
10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, 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:
• endorse
the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2014 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP),
incorporating the changes discussed at this meeting
There were none.
There was none.
There were none.
The Advisory Council met on July 10. Thomas McGlynn, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Port Authority, gave a presentation about the future of the Boston seaport and Logan Airport.
The Advisory Council has prepared a comment letter to the MPO regarding the proposed Amendment Two of the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the Revised Draft FFYs 2014-17 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The Advisory Council previously sent a comment letter to the MPO regarding the Draft TIP and the Draft FFY 2014 UPWP. The preparation of this comment letter involved significant input from Advisory Council members. The Advisory Council is interested in receiving a response to its comments from MassDOT.
Consistent with our practice the MPO staff will be hosting a public workshop on July 16 in Norwood to discuss the proposed Amendment Two of the LRPT and the Revised Draft FFYs 2014-17 TIP. A flyer has been distributed.
K. Quackenbush introduced the discussion of the Draft FFY 2014 UPWP by noting that the UPWP is one of the three certification documents that the MPO is required to produce. It is the annual work program for the MPO staff and it contains descriptions of the planning activities for discrete studies and on-going activities. The UPWP is developed on an annual cycle.
The development of the Draft FFY 2014 UPWP began last fall when project ideas were generated internally and through public involvement. At their last meeting, the MPO’s UPWP Committee recommended that the MPO release the document for public review. Today, the MPO will be asked to vote to endorse the document.
In closing, K. Quackenbush thanked the following participants for their contributions to the development of the document: the UPWP Committee; Callida Cenizal, MassDOT; Michelle Scott, MPO Staff; and members of the public who provided input.
M. Scott then provided an update on the UPWP, which was also detailed in a memorandum that was distributed. An updated version of the UPWP was posted to the MPO website on July 3 to support MPO action at this meeting.
The UPWP Committee met on June 20 to review public comments that were received during a 30-day public review period. At that time, the Committee voted to recommend that the MPO endorse the document.
Since that time, the MPO staff has prepared an updated document showing a summary of public comments received and proposed responses from the MPO to those comments. This document is included in Appendix B of the UPWP. Since the Committee reviewed the comments on June 20, the MPO has received two new public comments from the South West Advisory Planning Committee and the 495/MetroWest Partnership. Both entities expressed support for particular projects in the UPWP and made suggestions for study locations.
Staff has also prepared a schedule and staff assignment tables for CTPS projects. These are included in Chapter 8 of the UPWP. The UPWP Committee reviewed these tables at their June 20 meeting.
In addition, clarifying updates were made to several project descriptions. These include updates to the descriptions for the Congestion Management Process and for the Priority Corridors for LRTP Needs Assessment project. Others changes include the addition of a map showing MAPC subregions, updates to reflect a FFY 2013 UPWP budget adjustment approved by the UPWP Committee in April, and the addition of a reference to the Ferry Compact planning initiative, as well as technical, grammatical, formatting, and clarifying corrections.
Staff may make additional changes to the UPWP prior to posting the final version of the document on the MPO website, but these changes will not change the project intent or financial content of the document.
Following the presentation, Tom Kadzis, City of Boston, asked for more details about the changes to the description for the Congestion Management Process project. M. Scott explained that the original project description stated that some of the funds in this program would be used to purchase electronic travel-time data, however when the operating budget was finalized, the funds for the purchase were moved under a different line item. The Congestion Management Process project will use this data in analysis efforts.
A motion to endorse the FFY 2014 UPWP, incorporating the changes discussed at this meeting, was made by the MetroWest Regional Collaborative (Town of Framingham) (Dennis Giombetti), and seconded by the Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) (Tom Bent). The motion carried.
A. Bardow gave a presentation about the system MassDOT Highway uses to prioritize bridges for repair and reconstruction.
He began by explaining that, until recently, there were no objective statewide criteria that could be used to prioritize bridges. In 2005-07 a ranking system was developed, but it was limited to prioritizing structurally deficient bridges and did not identify bridges that should be prioritized for preservation. As of January 2008, MassDOT has been using AASHTO’s PONTIS system to identify which bridges are deteriorating fastest. This system calculates a health index for bridges, predicts the change in the health index for each bridge (compared to the bridge in a new condition), and allows for a ranking of both structurally deficient and non-structurally deficient bridges.
The health index is a composite measure of the condition of all the core elements of a bridge. Each element of a bridge can be ranked for condition by an inspector on a scale of one to five. PONTIS can help predict how the elements will deteriorate over time (a 15 year period) and what the health index of the bridge would be at that future time.
MassDOT’s Prioritization System Framework consists of three main criteria:
· condition loss (the current condition of the bridge compared to the bridge in perfect condition)
· health index change
· highway evaluation factor (the functionality of the bridge)
Numerical values (one to 100) are assigned for each criterion.
For bridges over waterways, consideration is given to whether bridges are “scour critical.” For those bridges that could be damaged due to scouring, the health index ranking is magnified.
The highway evaluation factor takes into consideration average daily traffic, detour value, roadway functional class, load carrying restrictions of the bridge, and geometric deficiencies of the bridge deck.
The overall ranking for each bridge is derived from the condition loss value (30%), health index value (40%), and highway evaluation factor (30%).
MassDOT uses these bridge rankings when preparing the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The statewide bridge list is sorted according to MassDOT Highway District and then bridges within each district are prioritized, with an emphasis on structurally deficient bridges.
Bridges are prioritized based on MassDOT’s Bridge Program goals and available funding. The goals of the Bridge Program are to reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges, improve the overall condition of bridges to a satisfactory condition, and improve the overall health index rating for bridges to above 90%.
The MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning provides spending targets for the Bridge Program. MassDOT reports estimated federal participating costs for bridges to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) each year. The cost estimates in “Item 96” of the report are derived based on bridge square footage, anticipated new geometry for bridge replacements, and comparable bids for currently advertised bridge projects.
For prioritizing bridges for funding, the focus is on structurally deficient bridges. However, since the Item 96 figure of all bridges to be funded must be within the spending targets, lower priority bridges may be selected if their costs fit within the targets.
Following the presentation members asked questions.
Could you explain the
term “scour critical”? (S. Olanoff)
There is a potential for bridges over water to have their foundations damaged by water, and this damage can cause a bridge to collapse. FHWA mandates that states identify and prioritize “scour critical bridges” – bridges that could potentially be adversely affected by scouring – and develop plans of action for monitoring them and addressing them. (A. Bardow)
Have all federal aid
eligible bridges, including those previously owned by the Department of
Conservation and Recreation (DCR), been evaluated using the PONTIS system? (Eric
Bourassa, MAPC)
Yes. MassDOT now has a complete bridge database and is inspecting all bridges owned by MassDOT and municipalities, and those previously owned other state agencies. (A. Bardow)
Does the PONTIS system
take into account environmental factors, such as improvements to wildlife
passages and restoration of riverbanks? Are those factors included in project
cost estimates? (S. Olanoff)
The PONTIS evaluation only considers the bridge condition and deterioration. The environmental factors are considered when scoping for the project begins, and the project cost estimate gets further refined as the project design progresses to the 25% and 75% design stages. (A. Bardow and David Anderson, MassDOT)
Would you describe NBI
and non-NBI bridges? (D. Anderson)
Bridges in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) are those that fall under the federal definition of a bridge, which is a span of 20 feet or longer. These structures are eligible for federal aid. Bridges less than 20 feet in length are not eligible for federal aid. (A. Bardow)
Does a consideration
of geographic equity dictate how funds are distributed for bridge projects
among the Districts? (Dennis Giombetti, MetroWest Regional Collaborative, Town of Framingham)
The cost of bridge projects can vary greatly with more needy bridges being more costly. MassDOT tries to distribute projects equitably across the Districts and then considers project costs and District priorities. (A. Bardow) There is a balancing act in terms of funding on-system and off-system bridges, providing geographic equity, and recognizing that funding large needy bridges may skew the distribution of funds. Historically MassDOT has advertised more on-system bridges; now there is less money available in that funding pool and more available for off-system bridges. (D. Anderson)
Are all the bridges in
Massachusetts on the Districts’ bridge lists? Where can a copy of the
District’s priorities be accessed? (Dennis Crowley,
South West Advisory Planning Committee, Town of Medway)
MassDOT’s prioritization process focuses on federal aid eligible bridges (those 20 feet and longer). The Districts’ lists include MassDOT-owned and municipally-owned bridges. The Districts’ priority lists are not available online, but in the past these lists have been made available for MPOs. (A. Bardow) MassDOT can provide the NBI inventory report for bridges in the Boston Region MPO area indicating if they are structurally deficient and providing the overall condition score. (D. Mohler)
Is the NBI inventory
report distributed to municipal Departments of Public Works (DPWs)? (D.
Crowley)
It is not distributed to DPWs, but it is sent to the Bridge Engineer of each MassDOT District office. Municipalities could request that information from the District Office. (A. Bardow)
Is every NBI bridge in
the Commonwealth (whether state-owned or municipally-owned) inspected at least
every two years and possibly more frequently depending on its condition? (D.
Anderson)
That is correct. About 20 years ago, MassDOT began inspecting municipally-owned bridges to maintain consistency of inspections and to meet federal requirements. According to federal regulations, every federal aid eligible bridge must be inspected once every two years at a minimum. MassDOT inspects structurally deficient bridges more frequently to ensure safety; the frequency depends on condition of the bridge. (A. Bardow)
Questions were then taken from members of the public.
Is the non-auto use of
bridges considered among the evaluation factors? Should that be considered
given MassDOT’s mode shift goal (which encourages
walking and biking and transit)? (Rafael Mares, Conservation Law Foundation)
MassDOT follows the federal regulations, which are geared toward the vehicle-uses of bridges. The focus is on condition and deterioration. When scoping projects, however, the non-auto uses of the bridges are taken into consideration. (A. Bardow)
Is climate adaptation
considered? (R. Mares)
Yes, it is considered in the scour determination. MassDOT continuously screens for scour criticality of bridges. Changes in stream flows and water levels are factored in. (A. Bardow)
In the past the
national bridge rating data was highly inaccurate. Is the federal bridge data
for Massachusetts more consistently accurate now? (Wig Zamore, Mystic View Task
Force and Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership)
That is correct. We have a better assurance that the evaluation and rating of bridges is more consistent. (A. Bardow)
W. Zamore suggested that MassDOT provide a table showing the federal bridge ratings as well as MassDOT’s rating.
K. Quackenbush introduced a presentation on the results of the Early Morning Transit Service study. He remarked that this is an example of a modest investment on the MPO’s part which has yielded recommendations for making concrete improvements to the transportation system. The decision to fund the study and the recommendations flowing from it are consistent with at least five of the MPO’s policies. The recommendations, if implemented, will improve transit service for little or no additional cost, and will benefit a particular segment of the riding public.
J. Belcher then gave a presentation on the study and its results. First he gave an overview of the MBTA’s early morning bus routes.
The MBTA operates a small network of eight “early bird” bus routes, which provide service between 4:30 AM and 5:00 AM. Four of those routes started in the 1960s and four were initiated in 1999 primarily to provide access to jobs at Logan Airport.
This study compared the demand for early morning bus service (between 5:00 AM and 5:30 AM) with the coverage of the existing “early bird” service and made recommendations for possible modifications to the existing service to better meet that demand. There would be no additional cost or minimal cost to implement the study recommendations.
J. Belcher showed and discussed several maps. The first was a map highlighting the “early bird” routes, which are MBTA bus routes #191, 192, 193, 194, 171, 117, 15, and 28. Another depicted early morning taxicab ridership in Boston; this origin and destination data was provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This data shows an emphasis on Logan Airport and Downtown Boston as destinations. Another map depicted early morning transit usage.
As part of this study, staff contacted transportation management associations (TMAs) to inquire whether they had received requests indicating demand for early morning transit service to other destinations. The TMAs did not report that there was as strong interest among their members for service before 5:00 AM.
The recommendations from this study include the following:
· Relieve crowding on Route 117; this recommendation has been implemented by the MBTA, which is running another early morning bus on that route
· Consider adding an early morning trip from Everett and Malden
· Consider extending Route 117 to Lynn
· Consider rerouting Route 193 through Cambridge
· Publish a combined schedule of all early bird buses with a network map
Following the presentation, members asked questions and made comments:
Could the recommended
changes be made while maintaining straight time? (P. Regan)
The study did not address that question. The MBTA’s Service
Planning Department could determine that. The recommendations were developed
with consideration that the changes could be implemented with the existing
labor pool. (J. Belcher)
Did you get the impression in talking with the TMAs that more ridership could be generated with their active cooperation? (P. Regan)
Most TMAs that responded did not express that interest. (J. Belcher)
What is the next step
in the process? (D. Crowley)
J. Belcher works closely with the MBTA’s Service Planning Department. The MBTA staff will evaluate this study and consider the recommendations when conducting their service planning work. (K. Quackenbush) These ideas, from the MPO staff and other entities, always get a good hearing by the MBTA. (P. Regan)
Staff should report
back to the MPO on the recommendations that were implemented. (D. Crowley)
Based on the data gathered for this study, the MBTA has already implemented the recommendation to relieve crowding on the Route 117 bus. (J. Belcher)
The data on ridership
for the Route 117 bus shows all riders getting off at Haymarket Station and one
rider traveling from Haymarket Station to Logan Airport. Does it make sense to
keep running the Haymarket to Logan portion of the route? (D. Mohler)
That bus comes out of the Lynn garage, so much of its deadheading return trip would go on the route to Logan anyhow. (J. Belcher)
Is it known what
percentage of riders on the early buses are MBTA employees? (Tom Kadzis, City
of Boston)
This study did not document which riders were MBTA employees. (J. Belcher)
Where are the riders that
get off at Haymarket Station going after? (D. Mohler)
Some get on buses to the Back Bay. A number walk to destinations in downtown Boston. (J. Belcher)
Commenting was then open to members of the public.
W. Zamore suggested mapping census data on carpooling and density of carless households. He also noted that many of the taxi trips to Logan Airport could be people taking flights and he suggested that those trips be sorted out from the trips taken to access jobs.
The MPO’s self-certification statement was distributed to members for their signature. This document signifies that the MPO’s practices comply with all applicable federal regulations. The document will be included in the endorsed TIP and UPWP.
J. Romano announced that MassDOT will be holding a public meeting this evening at English High School in Jamaica Plain regarding the 75% design plans for the Casey Overpass project.
A motion to adjourn was made by the MBTA Advisory Board (P. Regan) and seconded by the Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) (T. Bent). 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) |
Hank Manz |
|
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) |
Ron Morgan |
|
MBTA Advisory Board |
Paul Regan |
|
Metropolitan Area Planning Council |
Eric Bourassa |
|
Dennis Giombetti |
|
|
North Shore Task Force (City of Beverly) |
Denise DesChamps |
|
Regional Transportation Advisory Council |
Steve Olanoff |
|
South West Advisory Planning Committee
(Town of Medway) |
Dennis Crowley |
|
Three Rivers Interlocal
Council (Town of Norwood/NVCC) |
Tom O’Rourke |
|
Other
Attendees |
Affiliation |
|
Diane Madden |
MassDOT Highway
Division |
|
Rafael Mares |
Conservation Law Foundation |
|
Daniel Morrissey |
MassDOT Planning |
|
Joe Onorato |
MassDOT District 4 |
|
Wig Zamore |
Mystic View Task Force / Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership |
|
MPO
Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff |
|
Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director |
|
Kathy Jacob |
|
Anne McGahan |
|
Elizabeth Moore |
|
Scott Peterson |
|
Sean Pfalzer |
|
Michelle Scott |
|
Pam Wolfe |