Draft Memorandum for the Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization
Unified Planning Work Program Committee Meeting
January 23, 2014 Meeting

9:20 AM to 10:00 AM, State Transportation Building, Conference Rooms 2&3, 10 Park Plaza, Boston

Sreelatha Allam, Chair, representing the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)

Decisions

The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Committee agreed to the following:

• Approve the minutes of the meeting of November 7, 2013

Materials

Materials for this meeting included:

• a copy of the meeting agenda
• draft minutes for the November 7, 2013 UPWP Committee meeting
• the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2014 UPWP First Quarter Spending Report
• the FFY 2014 UPWP Second Quarter CTPS Schedule and Staff Assignment table
• a revised schedule detailing UPWP and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development activities occurring from November 2013 through June 2014

Meeting Agenda

Introductions

Sree Allam, Chair, Unified Planning Work Program Committee (Massachusetts Department of Transportation) called the meeting to order at approximately 9:20 AM. UPWP Committee members, MPO staff, and other attendees introduced themselves. (For attendance list, see page 6.) Michelle Scott (MPO staff) reviewed the meeting materials.

Action Item: Approval of Meeting Minutes from November 7, 2013 UPWP Committee Meeting

A motion to accept the meeting minutes was made by Tom O’Rourke (Town of Norwood) and seconded by Eric Bourassa, Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). The motion carried. Laura Wiener, At-Large Towns (Town of Arlington) abstained.

3. FFY 2014 First Quarter Spending Report

Karl Quackenbush (MPO Executive Director) described the content of the report, which provides a snapshot of spending for all MPO projects between October 1, 2013 and December 27, 2013. The report is structured to allow for cross-referencing with the UPWP document. There is also a section on the last page of this report that summarizes budgets for MPO-funded and non MPO-funded projects for the federal fiscal year. Approximately two-thirds of the UPWP budget is made up of MPO funding. Non-MPO-funded work includes work conducted for MassDOT, the MBTA, or in some cases, Massport, MAPC or municipalities.

K. Quackenbush drew the group’s attention to the fact that 21 percent of MPO funds have been expended by the end of the first quarter. He explained that this figure is less than 25 percent because non-MPO funded projects arose unexpectedly or expanded beyond the level of work expected in the UPWP. This required staff resources to be temporarily reassigned. He explained that this reallocation of staff resources is not a problem at this point in time as it is early in the fiscal year. He said that he anticipated that next quarter, spending levels will be closer to what they should be at the halfway point of FFY 2014. This is because the intensity of some of the non-MPO-funded work will have ebbed by that point, and because MPO staff will be hiring additional personnel for the MPO’s Traffic Analysis and Design and Transit Service Planning groups to ensure that work on MPO-funded projects moves forward. 

Mike Gowing (Regional Transportation Advisory Council) thanked K. Quackenbush for his introduction.

Steve Olanoff (Town of Norwood) asked about the status of the “Regional HOV Systems Planning Study, Phase II” (project ID 13256) project. K. Quackenbush explained that this project was expected to be wrapped up by the end of FFY 2013, but it was not completed and thus carried into FFY 2014. MPO staff has been coordinating with MassDOT highway design personnel throughout the project because it deals with design issues related to HOV lanes. These MassDOT personnel had to delay reviews of the final memorandum due to other high priority project work, so MPO staff is waiting for this review before bringing the project to the MPO.

S. Olanoff said this project looks like it will finish under budget, and asked whether that funding will be available for the next UPWP. K. Quackenbush explained that the funding that was spent to finish the project was not anticipated to be spent in FFY 2014, but there is always a bit of project rollover from one year to the next, which creates a rolling transition of a few thousand dollars. Unspent planning funding, however, does not carry from one federal fiscal year to the next. Spending on this project will be offset by money that isn’t spent on another project because it won’t be complete by the end of FFY 2014.

S. Allam asked whether spending on “Addressing Safety Mobility and Access on Subregional Priority Roadways” (project ID 13259) will be less in future quarters. Eighty-two percent of FFY 2014 UPWP budget has been spent as of the end of the first quarter. K. Quackenbush noted that this was the FFY 2013 “Addressing Safety Mobility and Access on Subregional Priority Roadways,” which was designed to be a two-year project and is scheduled to be complete in April.

S. Allam also asked whether spending levels for the “Mitigation for SIP Green Line Extension Delay” project (project ID 11377) will be less in future quarters. For this project, 79 percent of its FFY 2014 UPWP budget has been spent and 95 percent of the project’s total budget has been spent. K. Quackenbush explained that the contract for this project is being extended by six months, though he was not sure whether there would be additional funding associated with the extension.

Tom Bent, Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) asked why the contract was being extended. K. Quackenbush explained that this extension would allow MPO staff to provide low-level, on-call support to MassDOT staff. T. Bent asked several other project-related questions pertaining to the Green Line Extension. K. Quackenbush noted that some of the work that CTPS will be supporting is for the Full Funding Agreement process for the Green Line Extension New Starts Application. A State Implementation Plan (SIP) update is scheduled for the January 23, 2014 MPO meeting, and the group decided to pursue their questions further at that time.

E. Bourassa noted that it is not necessarily a problem that only 21 percent of MPO funding has been spent at this point in the year.

4. FFY 2014 Second Quarter Schedule and Staff Assignment Table

K. Quackenbush described the structure of the report, which shows the anticipated timelines for projects and how staff time will be spent across the projects. The report looks forward 12 months from when it is generated. Like the spending report, it provides information on project budgets and amounts spent. Other information in the report includes work scope approval dates (or for projects that do not have scopes approved by the MPO, the date of the start of the federal fiscal year), and project funding sources. Projects noted with double-plus marks (++) are those with approved work scopes that are new to this report; there are six of these projects. Single plus marks (+) denote upcoming projects. Recently completed projects are listed in the top right-hand corner of the report. There are eight projects in this group.

David Koses, At-Large Cities (City of Newton) asked how scheduling and scopes are addressed for projects that have specific study locations. He asked about the Washington Street project, which will be addressed by the “Safety, Mobility, and Access on Subregional Priority Corridors – FFY 2014” project (project ID 13265). K. Quackenbush said the scope was approved in September 2013, but in December 2013, MPO staff presented proposed locations for study for approval by the MPO. E. Bourassa said that the MPO first approves CTPS to do this type of work, and then staff seeks approval to study specific locations. K. Quackenbush explained that further work on this project will continue in February and that the project manager will be following up with the municipalities for which there are approved study locations. He added that two other studies, “Priority Corridors III” (project 13262), and “Safety and Operations Analysis at Selected Intersections – FFY 2014” (project 13261) followed similar steps. All three studies had expenditures in the first quarter for location selection, and all will continue in February.

5.  Update on FFY 2015 UPWP Development Activities

M. Scott (MPO staff) directed attendees’ attention to the updated schedule of TIP and UPWP development activities occurring between November 2013 and June 2014. This updated schedule, which was discussed and distributed at the January 9, 2014 MPO meeting, has been revised from the version first made available in November 2013. According to this updated schedule, the UPWP Committee will meet on February 20 to discuss the FFY 2015 UPWP Universe of Proposed New Projects. The Committee will convene again on April 3 to discuss the staff recommendation regarding the FFY 2015 UPWP budget and proposed new projects. A tentative meeting of April 10 is scheduled to support Committee discussion that may continue beyond April 3. The UPWP Committee’s recommendation on the FFY 2015 UPWP budget and proposed new projects is scheduled to be presented to the MPO on April 17. M. Scott noted that this schedule will allow as much time for UPWP Committee and MPO deliberation on the schedule and new projects as last year, and it will also allow more time for MPO staff, MAPC subregions, and others to submit input.

6. Member Items

There were none.

7. Next Meeting

The next meeting will be held on February 20, 2014. The meeting will focus on the FFY 2015 UPWP Universe of Proposed New Projects.

8. Adjourn

A motion to adjourn was made by T. Bent and seconded by E. Bourassa. The motion carried.

Attendance