Regional Transportation Advisory Council Meeting
April 10, 2013 Meeting
3:00 PM, State Transportation Building, Conference
Room 4, 10 Park Plaza, Boston
Steve Olanoff, Chair (Westwood) called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. Members and guests attending the meeting introduced themselves. (For attendance list, see page 7)
The MPO discussed the report from its UPWP Committee on the
list of proposed new projects for the FFY 2014 Unified Planning Work Program
and had a presentation on the Staff Recommendation for the FFYs 2014-17 Transportation
Improvement Plan. These are the main topics for this meeting. The Massachusetts
House and Senate leadership are now putting together transportation funding
legislation that is approximately $500 million less than the funding level
requested by Governor Patrick. The MPO supported the Governors Plan, called The
Way Forward, and wrote a letter to the House and Senate leadership
respectfully, but strongly requesting that the Legislature, in light of the
huge current needs for investment in the transportation infrastructure, provide
more funding. Secretary Davey has expressed support of the Governors $1
billion plan at numerous events. S. Olanoff recommended that all members
contact their legislators to support the plan offered by the administration for
funding transportation for the upcoming fiscal year.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes to the
January 9, 2013, meeting as revised. The minutes of the January 9, 2013 meeting
were approved.
A motion was made and
seconded to approve the minutes to the March 13, 2013, meeting as revised. The
minutes of the March 13, 2013 meeting were approved.
Michelle Scott identified the general types of federal fiscal year (FFY) 2014 Unified Planning Work Program projects and program planning activities and reviewed the process for developing the UPWP project universe, estimating funding, and selecting and recommending new projects.
The different types of planning activities include ongoing
MPO planning, continuing discrete planning activities, or new, discrete
planning activities, all to be supported with federal 3C funds. Non-3C funded planning
projects requested by transportation agencies, and
other major transportation planning work happening in the region are also
included in the UPWP. This presentation focuses on the new discrete planning
activities that are 3C-funded.
In November 2012, FFY 2014 UPWP development commenced as MPO
staff began UPWP outreach. The FFY 2014 Universe of New Projects summarizes new
planning projects for consideration for funding in the federal fiscal year
beginning October, 2013. Planning project ideas come from public outreach
activities, transportation agencies, other planning
documents, past UPWP comments and requests, and CTPS ideas.
The MPO UPWP Committee reviewed the Universe of Projects,
along with a proposed FFY 2014 budget in February and March to develop a
recommendation. The draft proposals and budget have been reviewed by the MPO at
its April 4 meeting and are scheduled to be voted on for public review on May 2.
Estimated 3C funds for new projects take into account monies
from FHWA PL and FTA Section 5303 sources. After covering funds for ongoing and
continuing planning activities, the remaining funds for new projects are
determined. The current estimate of money available for new projects in the
upcoming federal fiscal year is approximately $470,000.
Recommended new projects have been selected based on a number of factors: UPWP Committee member priorities; MPO visions and policies; Federal, state and regional guidance; support for a balanced mix of transportation modes; location-specific issues; and ways to enhance the MPOs technical capacity and knowledge base.
Nine new planning projects were recommended by the UPWP Committee:
Traffic Signal Retiming Program
Priority Corridors for LRTP Needs Assessment
Addressing Safety, Mobility, and Access on
Subregional Priority Roadways
TIP Project Impacts Before-After Evaluation
Pedestrian Signal Phasing Study
Environmental Justice Analysis Methodology Review
Transportation Investments for Economic Development
Development of Methodology to Evaluate Potential Limited-Stop Service on Transit Routes (including Key Route Corridors)
Identification of Areas with Mode Shift Opportunities
The UPWP also includes projects to be conducted by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council.
On May 2, 2013, the MPO is scheduled to vote on a draft UPWP for public review.
The Transportation Investments for Economic Development study should involve the Massachusetts Department of Economic Development. (J. McQueen) M. Scott will relay this suggestion to the project manager.
The Identification of Areas with Mode Shift Opportunities project should take into account public health considerations. (J. McQueen) M. Scott will relay this suggestion to the project manager.
Project descriptions should indicate how the results of the studies will be implemented and used. (R. McGaw) M. Scott and Pam Wolfe replied that the MPO is very interested in having the results implemented. Likelihood of implementation is a factor in site selection for some studies. Even in studies that develop knowledge, information is shared and can be useful not only to the MPO, but to other agencies, organizations and individuals.
Another criterion for project selection should be population and employment density. (J. McQueen) S. Olanoff indicated that this is already done in the TIP, but may be difficult for UPWP projects because they are conceptual ideas.
Where are the locations of the pedestrian signalization projects? (J. McQueen) M. Scott said that these details have not yet been identified. Study sites are typically developed as the project manager begins to refine the project in a work scope.
Would the Development of Methodology to Evaluate Potential Limited-Stop Service on Transit Routes project be a way to implement the Urban Ring? (M. Wellons) P. Wolfe stated that this project is not about implementing the Urban Ring.
Are comments considered prior to the May 2 MPO meeting? (D. Montgomery) S. Olanoff stated that all current comments can be directed to M. Scott. The Advisory Council will compose a letter during the public comment period for submission to the MPO. Advisory Council members are encouraged to take part in the composition of the comment letter.
Draft Amendment Four of the FFYs 2013-16 Transportation
Improvement Program is out for public review and the MPO is scheduled to take
action on this on April 18. The changes involve the purchase of ten locomotives
for the commuter rail system. The second item is for additional funding for the
reconstruction of Trapelo Road in Belmont. With this funding, this project
would be re-advertised for construction bids.
The Staff Recommendation for the TIP includes capital
projects and programs that are programmed for funding through the MPO over the next four years. The Staff Recommendation is
for the regional highway target funding available for discretionary spending by
the MPO.
The process of compiling the Universe of Projects started in November 2012, when staff began meeting with MAPC subregions and also held TIP-Building workshops and Be Informed, Be Involved information sessions. Through these activities, staff provided information on how municipalities and members of the public can participate in the TIP process and asked municipalities to submit their priority projects for consideration for programming.
Project evaluations were conducted in February, in which 52 projects of the Universe were evaluated. In March, the MPO received information on the funds available for MPO highway discretionary programming for the federal fiscal years 2014-17. These funds are referred to as target funds. Staff prepared the First-Tier List of Projects in March considering the project evaluations and project readiness.
Staff considers several factors when preparing the Staff
Recommendation. First, staff recognizes the MPO policy of maintaining previous
programming commitments. Their costs and schedules are updated. Next, in light
of available funding after listing the previously-programmed projects, staff
looks at projects from the First-Tier List of Projects. Other considerations include
geographic equity, Long-Range Transportation Plan implementation, and cost.
Funds for the four-year planning cycle totaled $297 million
in this TIP. There
were seven projects with cost increases totaling $21.5 million. The
Reconstruction of Route 18 in Weymouth, costing $40 million and spanning three
years, is moved due to changes in the project schedule.
A discussion of the impact of cost and schedule changes and
how these might be improved upon resulted from observations made by Jeff
Rosenblum. S. Pfalzer and P. Wolfe explained that the changes are the
natural result from the increased information available as a projects design
advances.
S. Pfalzer led a discussion of the considerations that go into project scheduling and cost changes. He indicated that the MPO has the authority to accept or not accept projects that experience significant changes. He noted that the TIP is dynamic, but the document reflects a snapshot in time. It will change as projects change.
R. McGaw suggested that there might be considerable cost savings if police detail requirements were eliminated from construction contracts.
The Staff Recommendation includes four First Tier projects
that scored well based on the evaluation criteria:
Reconstruction of Audubon Circle in Boston
Reconstruction of Montvale Ave. from I-93 to Central Street in Woburn
Reconstruction of Main St., Route 30, in Southborough
Assabet River Rail Trail in Acton/Maynard
S. Pfalzer described the details of the four projects.
Commitments made by the MPO for implementing the Long-Range
Transportation Plan include the Green Line Extension Project and the I-95/Route
128 Add-a-Lane project. Although this does not fully address the projects
recommended in this time band of the Long-Range Transportation Plan, it does
mark a beginning in funding these improvements.
Historically, TIP programming by project type allocates over
85 percent of available funding to both Arterial and Intersection or Major
Highway projects. The remaining funding categories include spending for Transit
Projects (flexed from highway funding sources), Bike and Pedestrian, and Clean
Air and Mobility projects. In 2014-17, $74.1 million will be spent annually.
S. Olanoff commended S. Pfalzer for the presentation of the TIP projects in one spreadsheet. The MPO website has all the materials used for the considerations presented at the meeting. People can track any changes that occur in the TIP throughout the planning process by referencing the MPO website.
S. Pfalzer indicated that the recommended projects for the
TIP will be made available for the MPO meeting on April 18 and are scheduled to
be voted on for distribution for public comment on May 2. S. Olanoff suggested
that members keep current on the projects by reviewing the documents that are
posted prior to the MPO meetings.
S. Olanoff asked for members to volunteer to help in drafting
the Advisory Councils TIP and UPWP comment letters.
There was none.
There were none.
A motion to adjourn was made and seconded at 4:40 PM. The
motion carried.
Attendance
|
Representative
|
|
EOHHS HST Office |
Theodora Fisher |
|
Joint Legislative
Transportation Committee |
Steven Smalley |
|
MassRIDES |
Leon Papadopoulos |
|
Belmont |
Robert McGaw |
|
Cambridge |
Jeff Rosenblum |
|
Lexington* |
Richard Canale |
|
Needham |
David Montgomery |
|
Westwood |
Steve Olanoff |
|
AACT |
Mary Ann Murray |
|
American Council of
Engineering Companies |
Tom Daley |
|
Massachusetts Bus Association |
Chris Anzuoni |
|
MoveMassachusetts |
Jon Seward |
|
National Corridors Initiative |
John Businger |
|
Riverside Neighborhood
Association |
Marilyn Wellons |
|
WalkBoston |
John McQueen |
|
|
|
CTPS Staff |
Representative |
|
Pam Wolfe |
MPO Staff |
|
David Fargen |
MPO Staff |
|
Sean Pfalzer |
MPO Staff |
|
Michelle Scott |
MPO Staff |
|
(* Non-voting
members) |
|