Memorandum for the Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting
July 30, 2015 Meeting
10:05 AM – 11:45 AM, State Transportation Building, Conference Rooms 2&3, 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA
David Mohler, Chair, representing Stephanie Pollack, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
Decisions
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) agreed to the following:
• approve Amendment Four to the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2015-18 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
• release draft Amendment Five to the FFYs 2015-18 TIP for a 30-day public review period
• release draft Amendment One to the FFY 2015 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for a 30-day public review period
• approve the FFY 2016 UPWP
• approve the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040, with the changes discussed at today’s meeting
• approve the FFYs 2016-20 TIP, as amended today
• approve the minutes of the meetings of May 21, June 4, June 11, and July 9
Michelle Ciccolo, Selectman for the Town of Lexington, provided an update on the Reconstruction on Massachusetts Avenue (Lexington) project. She reported that a public hearing on the project has been held and that the town has received comments from MassDOT on the 25% design plans. The project is now moving toward the 75% design stage. There are no right-of-way issues. The project is on an accelerated design schedule.
Josh Ostroff, Selectman for the Town of Natick and member of the Cochituate Rail Trail Advisory Committee, thanked the MPO for programming funds for the Cochituate Rail Trail (Framingham, Natick) project in the FFY 2018 element of the TIP. He reported that the 25% design plans for the project are nearing completion and that the town has funding for the final design plans. Also, the town has received preliminary approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to begin negotiations with CSX.
There was none.
Sreelatha Allam, Chair of the UPWP Committee, reported that the committee met on July 23 to discuss an adjustment to the CTPS budget in the FFY 2015 UPWP along with an amendment to the document (addressed by the MPO today under agenda item #8). The committee also met on July 30 to discuss their recommendation to the MPO regarding the FFY 2016 UPWP and to discuss responses to public comments on the draft document.
There was none.
K. Quackenbush reported that the MPO is scheduled to meet next on August 20. Also, he informed members that the MPO’s self-certification form will be circulated for members’ signatures. The form states that the MPO complies with federal statutes.
At the meeting of June 11, the MPO released the draft Amendment Four to the FFYs 2015-18 TIP for a 30-day public review period. No comments were received during the public review period.
The highway element of the amendment includes a cost increase to the Reconstruction on Canal Street (Salem) project, changes to the funding sources for storm water retrofit projects, and schedule changes to projects. The transit element includes the programming of funds for MBTA bus procurement, the Columbia Junction Program, passenger ferry grant awards, and the programming of an earmark for electric bus deployment. It also includes adjustments to programs of the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA) and the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA).
A motion to approve Amendment Four to the FFYs 2015-18 TIP was made by the City of Boston (Jim Gillooly), and seconded by the Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) (Tom Bent). The motion carried.
S. Pfalzer introduced draft Amendment Five to the FFYs 2015-18 TIP.
This amendment reflects a change in cost and in funding source for the Ramp Construction on Canton Street and Dedham Street (Canton, Norwood, Westwood) project. This project includes the construction of a ramp off Interstate 95, the reconstruction and widening of one bridge, the widening of two other bridges, and the signalization of several intersections. Initially, the project cost estimate was $38 million and it was to be funded with non-federal aid. The project cost estimate has since increased to $53 million and it will be funded with federal aid. The cost increase is mainly due to the cost of utility relocation.
The amendment also reflects a cost increase to the Improvements to Commonwealth Avenue (Boston) project. The cost of this project is anticipated to increase by $1.6 million to $1.7 million when the 100% designs are submitted. The total cost estimate is now $18.5 million. The project will be funded from MPO target funds and earmarks. The additional cost will funded with Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) funds.
Staff has proposed that the MPO release the amendment for a 30-day public review period starting on August 3 and concluding on September 1. The MPO would vote on the amendment on September 3.
D. Mohler explained that federal funding has become available for the Ramp Construction on Canton Street and Dedham Street project because the Interstate 91 Viaduct (Springfield) project came in under budget. MassDOT is making an adjustment to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to reflect the actual cost of the project in Springfield, and is recommending that the available funds be applied to the project in Canton. If, as anticipated, the Commonwealth receives $50 million in federal redistribution funds, some of those funds can be applied to fully fund the Canton project.
Dennis Crowley, South West Advisory Planning Committee (Town of Medway), asked that staff show the original project budgets when presenting amendments in the future.
Paul Regan, MBTA Advisory Board, inquired about the schedule for redistribution of federal funds. D. Mohler stated that MassDOT expects to learn from the federal agencies in late August or early September about the amount of funding that the Commonwealth will be receiving. Ken Miller, FHWA, added that those federal funds will need to be obligated by the end of September.
David Anderson, MassDOT, informed members that MassDOT has not yet received cost estimates from utility companies for utility relocation for the Improvements to Commonwealth Avenue project. Until those estimates arrive, MassDOT is using in-house estimates. Therefore, the cost estimate for the project may have to be adjusted. MassDOT reimburses utilities for 50% of the relocation costs.
A motion to release draft Amendment Five to the FFYs 2015-18 TIP for a 30-day public review period was made by the MassDOT Highway Division (John Romano), and seconded by the City of Boston (J. Gillooly). The motion carried.
M. Scott introduced draft Amendment One to the FFY 2015 UPWP. This amendment reflects decisions made by the UPWP Committee concerning projects that were to be conducted by CTPS and MAPC through the UPWP.
Regarding the CTPS work, the committee has recommended that the MPO remove the Safety Analysis of Intersections near MAGIC Schools project from the FFY 2015 UPWP. Its current budget, which was reduced to $12,250 through a committee-approved FFY 2015 budget adjustment, would be transferred to the Fairmount Line Station Access Analysis project. This decision came as a result of the committee’s discussions following a decision by the MPO last March to not approve a work program for the MAGIC Schools project. The committee will consider a revised project concept when developing the FFY 2017 UPWP.
Additionally, MAPC, with the concurrence of the UPWP Committee, has proposed removing the Land Use Baseline for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) task from its Corridor/Subarea Planning Studies in the FFY 2015 UPWP and transferring its $11,180 budget to another task, Opportunities for and Impediments to Creating Transit-Oriented-Development. This action was recommended because the Land Use Baseline for Bus Rapid Transit task was to study a priority BRT corridor identified by the Greater Boston BRT Study Group; however, the group has not identified the corridor that would be studied.
The UPWP Committee voted this morning to propose that the MPO release this amendment for a 30-day public review period. The review period would coincide with the review period of draft Amendment Five to the FFYs 2015-18 TIP.
A motion to release draft Amendment One to the FFY 2015 UPWP for a 30-day public review period was made by the Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) (T. Bent), and seconded by the MassDOT Highway Division (J. Romano). The motion carried.
M. Scott gave an overview of public comments received during the public review period for the draft FFY 2016 UPWP and provided an update on changes made to the document since it was released for public review.
During the public review period, the MPO held two public meetings – in Everett and Boston – to invite feedback. Verbal comments were generally supportive. Attendees were particularly interested in the following studies: First-Mile and Last-Mile Transit Connections; Identifying Opportunities to Alleviate Bus Delay; and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Metric Development.
A summary matrix of public comments was provided to members. The public comments expressed the following:
• suggestions for enhancing bicycle connections and creating a new busway for MBTA route #32
• suggestion for a study of the operational feasibility of combining MBTA’s CT2 and CT3 bus routes and potential bus service changes on those routes serving the Longwood Medical Area
• suggestions for a new shared use trail in the Somerville and Medford area
• request that the MPO consider noise pollution in its studies
• request that the MPO document the results of past MPO projects to ensure UPWP studies are having a meaningful impact
• request for increased collaboration between the MBTA commuter rail and Boston area cultural institutions (this request will be forwarded to the MBTA)
• suggestion for studies regarding feasible transportation alternatives in the vicinity of the Interstate 93 and 95 interchange in Woburn (i.e. the municipalities of Woburn, Reading, Stoneham, and Wakefield)
•
support for funding for the following projects: Research Topics Generated by MPO Staff;
First-Mile and Last-Mile Transit Connections; Identifying Opportunities to
Alleviate Bus Delay; Pedestrian Level-of-Service Metric Development; and FFY 2016 Addressing Safety, Mobility, and Access on Subregional
Priority Roadways
• suggestion to explore opportunities to adjust pricing for parking with lots with high utilization rates to better distribute vehicles to adjacent parking facilities with available capacity
• request that the MPO include black carbon from diesel in climate pollutant inventories and use disaggregated transportation analysis zone (TAZ) data to investigate disparities in neighborhood transportation facilities and exposures
• appreciation for the well-made graphics in the UPWP and the use of a wide range of focus areas in the project selection process
• several requests pertaining to the MPO’s Bicycle/ Pedestrian Support Activities task: ensure that the activities help communities consider creating bicycle projects that can be advanced to MassDOT’s Project Development Process; emphasize the priority of projects on the Bay State Greenway; consider a sub-task to support the identification of critical sidewalk gaps in the region and help communities access Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funds; and consider the need to assess the degree of bicycle and pedestrian law enforcement and education when studying locations or issues (these items have been incorporated into the project description)
•
the corridor under study in the FFY 2015 Addressing Safety, Mobility, and
Access on Subregional Priority Roadways study
does not have a significant safety need based on crash data, but there are
needs for a Complete Streets approach, improved access to Nantasket
Beach, and other bicycle and pedestrian accomodations
• suggestions for improving capacity on the Green Line’s central tunnel (these ideas will be conveyed to MassDOT and the MBTA)
K. Quackenbush remarked on the suggestion that the MPO staff document the results of past studies. He noted that staff intends to document study results in a more systematic way.
D. Mohler asked staff to discuss any changes to the UPWP document since it was released for public review. M. Scott pointed members to a handout that noted the changes, which include the following:
• updates to the FFY 2015 project status tables
• the transfer of $23,000 from the budget of the LRTP to the Household-Survey-Based Travel Profile and Trends: Selected Policy Topics project
• update to the project description for the Bicycle/ Pedestrian Support Activities project
• the removal of the McGrath Boulevard Area Traffic Analysis: Modeling Support project because it will be completed prior to FFY 2016
• the description of the MBTA Youth Pass Program Evaluation and Title VI Fare Equity Analysis projects have been combined into one project
• the addition of tables showing project schedules and staff assignments
• the addition of a glossary of acronyms
A motion to approve the FFY 2016 UPWP was made by the At-Large Town of Arlington (Laura Wiener), and seconded by the At-Large Town of Lexington (Richard Canale). The motion carried.
A. McGahan gave an overview of public comments received during the public review period for the draft LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040. She also discussed the results of mini-surveys that the MPO released during the public review period for this document. And lastly, she gave an overview of the updates made to the LRTP since it was released for public review.
A summary matrix of public comments was provided to members. A. McGahan gave an overview of the themes in the comments.
Comments were received that expressed support for the following projects, programs, and policies (multiple comments are noted below):
• Green Line Extension, Phase 2 (Somerville, Medford) (150 comments)
• Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street, and Charles River Bridge (Newton, Needham) (75 comments)
• Bridge Replacement, Route 27 over Route 9 and Interchange Improvements (Natick) (2 comments)
• Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (9 comments, with some asking to revise Phase 2D’s conceptual status in the Universe of Projects)
• McGrath Boulevard (Somerville) (9 comments)
• Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue (Boston)
• Intersections Improvements at Routes 126 and 135 (Framingham)
• Routes 4 and 225 and Hartwell Avenue (Lexington)
• Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue (Woburn)
• the MPO’s policy for taking an operations and management (O&M) approach to selecting projects (6 comments)
• the Community Transportation Program (including a request for more funding for this program)
Other comments requested that the MPO add the following projects to the LRTP:
• Reconstruction of Interstates 90 and 495 (Hopkinton, Southborough, Westborough) (2 comments)
• Reconstruction and Widening on Route 1 (Malden, Revere, Saugus) (2 comments)
• Reconstruction on Interstates 290 and 495 (Marlborough)
•
Interchange
Improvements at Interstates 95 and 93 (Canton)
•
Interchange
Improvements at Interstates 95 and 93 (Woburn)
•
North-South
Rail Link (Boston)
•
Improvements
and Upgrades to the Concord Rotary (Concord)
•
Routes 85
and 62 Rotary Improvements (Hudson)
•
Grand
Junction Multi-Use Path
Other topics raised by commenters included the following:
• the MPO should support the development of the MBTA’s circumferential transit system
• there is a need to increase parking at MBTA stations
• the MBTA should explore adjusting parking prices at stations
• the capacity of the Green Line’s central tunnel should be expanded
• more transit is needed in the North Suburban area
• consider increasing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit in the Alewife/Fresh Pond Parkway area of Cambridge
• more transit projects should be programmed, including the Red-Blue Line Connector, subway extensions, and major commuter rail improvements
• additional bicycle parking is needed at MBTA stations
• bicycle racks should be on all MBTA buses
• continue funding multi-use paths (7 comments)
• divert Route 9 traffic to Interstate 90, add a lane on Interstate 90, and design a “road diet” for Route 9
• the MPO should conduct an air quality conformity analysis for ozone, include black carbon in climate inventories, and plan for potential evacuation needs due to climate change
• concern about the slow progress in meeting the goals of the Global Warming Solutions Act
• concern that by emphasizing that Boston is the core of the region it demotes every other region’s significance
Other comments addressed the MPO’s planning process and requested that the MPO take the following actions:
• conduct more scenario planning
• collaborate more closely with MassDOT and contiguous MPOs
• analyze transportation equity using disaggregated TAZ-level data
• establish regional cooperative intergovernmental forums
Staff will develop responses to all of the comments and present them to the MPO for review and approval in August.
A. McGahan presented the results of the mini-surveys in a PowerPoint presentation. Staff posted seven surveys over a two-month period in May and June, during the public review period, to elicit views regarding transportation needs, investment priorities, expansion of the transportation system, funding public transportation, and expanding the bicycle network. There were 1,100 responses to the surveys.
There survey questions and responses are summarized below:
What personal need of yours is not being met by the regional transportation system?
The largest number of responses indicated that the transit system was not meeting the needs of respondents. Issues raised include the need for expanded service, greater frequency and reliability, circumferential travel options, improved transit connections, and off-peak service. Bicycle and pedestrian transportation was the next greatest area of need identified. Issues raised included the need for an expanded bicycle and pedestrian network, safer facilities, and more maintenance and law enforcement. Mobility issues raised include the need for better access to Boston and rail service, transportation equity, and Complete Streets. Roadway needs focused on the needs to alleviate congestion and capacity issues, make major infrastructure improvements, and improve maintenance and safety.
Which of the following investment programs include projects that would best address this need?
The choices, in order from highest response to lowest, were as follows: Major Infrastructure (two-thirds requested transit infrastructure and one-third highway), Flex to Transit, Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections, Community Transportation and Parking, Complete Streets, or Intersections Improvements.
During the next 25
years, would you focus funding on a few large-scale projects or multiple
small-scale projects?
The majority of responses indicated that the small-scale approach would be more desirable. This coincides with the MPO’s O&M approach to selecting projects.
Rate the physical
condition of the following facilities or services: roads, sidewalks, bicycle
lanes/paths, traffic lights, public transit, and access to public transit.
Most respondents indicated that the condition of the infrastructure in the region is a 2 or 3 on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).
Rate how well the
regional transportation facilities or services meet your travel needs.
Most respondents rated the facilities from 2 to 4 on a scale of 1 to 5.
How do you think the
MPO should allocate its funds among the following six investment programs to
best meet the region’s needs?
The responses indicated the percentage of funds that respondents would allocate across the following investment programs: Major Infrastructure, Flex to Transit, Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections, Community Transportation and Parking, Complete Streets, and Intersections Improvements.
How well would
expanding the off-road bike-path network improve your ability to travel around
the region?
About 70% of respondents indicated that it would improve their ability to travel.
What types of transit
improvements likely would increase your use of public transportation?
More frequent transit service received the highest response, followed by a community shuttle to/from a transit station, better access to transit stops/stations by walking or biking, and more motor-vehicle parking at transit stations.
In addition to keeping
the existing system well maintained, how important is it to expand the public
transportation system?
The majority of respondents indicated that it is very important to expand the system.
If
the MPO spends a portion of its highway funding for transit improvements or
expansion, what projects do you think it should fund?
The majority of respondents indicated that improving quality of service would be most important. This was followed by expansion of the subway system, access to transit, and bus services.
Paul Regan, MBTA Advisory Board, asked how staff encouraged participation in the survey. A. McGahan replied that the survey was distributed through the MPOinfo email contact list and that it was announced in news flashes on the MPO’s website.
Ken Miller, FHWA, suggested that the MPO could consider releasing a survey that would yield statistically valid results.
A. McGahan discussed updates made to the LRTP since the document was released for public review. Most of the changes are in response to comments from the FHWA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). As such, staff will add the following information to the LRTP:
• more detail on scenario planning
• more information on safety planning and how it relates to the Strategic Highway Safety Plan
• more information on the MPO’s environmental mitigation work
• more detailed financial information on the operations and maintenance funding for the MBTA, MWRTA, and CATA
• tables of LRTP projects will be added to the Finance chapter
• a description of transit operations and maintenance programs
In response to a comment from the Conservation Law Foundation, a separate air quality report will be included that will provide information on ozone conformity. This information will be provided by MassDOT. (The US Environmental Protection Agency does not require the MPO to conduct an ozone conformity analysis.) A greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis will be included in the report.
In addition, descriptive information will be added to Appendix B. A new Appendix E will be added to provide information on the land use assumptions used in the MPO’s travel demand model.
Nicolas Garcia, FTA, remarked on the importance of including all regionally significant projects in the LRTP with a full accounting of the operations and maintenance needs of the transit system. He encouraged the MBTA, MWRTA, and CATA to work with the MPO to ensure that the LRTP includes transit operations and maintenance costs, and costs for bus procurement, facility upgrades, and other needs.
A motion to approve the LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040, with the changes discussed today, was made by the City of Boston (J. Gillooly), and seconded by the Advisory Council (M. Gowing). The motion carried.
D. Mohler noted that the Ramp Construction on Canton Street and Dedham Street project, which is proposed to be added to the FFY 2015-18 TIP as part of Amendment Five, is a regionally significant project and must be added to the LRTP if Amendment Five passes. A. McGahan stated that staff would re-run the air quality conformity analysis in the travel model to include this project in the appropriate years of programming. The conformity analysis would be for carbon monoxide. The project would also be included in the report for ozone and in the GHG analysis.
S. Pfalzer gave an overview of public comments received during the public review period for the draft FFYs 2016-20 TIP and discussed updates made to the TIP document since it was released for public review.
Approximately 300 comments were received. A summary matrix of comments was distributed to members. The public comments expressed the following:
• a request for funding the installation of bike racks on MBTA buses
• support for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2B (Acton, Concord), Phase 2C (Concord), and Phase 2D (Sudbury) project; supporters of Phase 2B asked that the project be programmed in the FFY 2017 element of the TIP
• opposition to the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project over concern that it does not comply with local bylaws and storm water regulations
• support for the Cochituate Rail Trail (Framingham, Natick) project
• support for the Community Path Extension as part of the Green Line Extension (Somerville, Medford) project
• support for the Green Line Extension project, both Phase 1 (Lechmere Station to College Avenue and Union Square) and Phase 2 (College Avenue to Route 16)
• a request that the MPO address the health impacts of transportation, including air and noise pollution, and include black carbon in climate pollutant inventories and air quality conformity analyses
• support for the Gateway East (Brookline) project
• support for MassDOT’s GreenDOT policy goals to reduce GHG emissions, promote healthy transportation modes, and support smart growth development
• request that staff include the methodology for estimating the carbon dioxide impact of projects in the TIP
• support for the Intersection Improvements at Middle Street, Libbey Industrial Drive, and Tara Drive (Weymouth) project
• request for future funding for two projects (not currently on the TIP): Intersection Improvements at Routes 111 and 27 (Kelley’s Corner, Acton) and Intersection Improvements at Route 20 and Landham Road (Sudbury)
• support for MBTA infrastructure improvements
• support for the Medford Clippership Linear Park and Bikeway (Medford) project
• support for a number of projects in the MetroWest area that are in the MPO’s Universe of Projects, four of which are identified on the 495/MetroWest Partnership’s list of Top Ten Transportation Nightmares
• support for the Multi-use Path Construction on New Fenway (Boston) project
• request that the MPO use performance metrics that are based around the experiences of people rather than machines; for example, use “people-hours” rather than “vehicle-hours”
• request that the MPO consider the economic benefit of projects and evaluate projects using a scoring system based on a percentage of possible points
• concern about the project evaluation criteria used for new bicycle and pedestrian facilities; those facilities should not be eligible for points under the Maintenance, Modernization, and Efficiency categories in the evaluation criteria because they are new construction
• concern that the project evaluation criteria favors dense urban communities and a request that the MPO consider regional equity when scoring projects
• suggestion that the MPO undertake a sensitivity analysis of its project evaluation criteria and scoring system and that it continue to improve its data and analytical methods to rate projects based on quantitative measures
• opposition to the Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby Street (Hingham) project citing concerns about construction activities on that street that have been causing disruption for several years
• support for the Reconstruction of Boylston Street (Boston) project
• support for the Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street, and Charles River Bridge (Newton, Needham) project; one requested the construction of overhead pedestrian ramps between Book Fair and TJ Maxx
• support for the Reconstruction of Massachusetts Avenue (Lexington) project
• support for the Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard (Boston) project; and a request to update the project description to reflect that BRT is no longer part of the project design
• support for the Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue (Woburn) project
• support for the Reconstruction of Route 27/North Main Street (Natick) project
• support for the Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue (Boston) project
•
request for funding for the Interchange Improvements at Interstates 95 and 93 (Canton) project;
and concern that if the interchange does not provide an acceptable
level-of-service, businesses in the area will move to other locations
• support for the Reconstruction on Route 1A (Walpole) project
• support for funding the design of the Red-Blue Line Connector project
• support for the Rehabilitation of the North Washington Street Bridge (Boston) project
• support for the Resurfacing and Intersection Improvements on Route 16 (Milford) project
• request to program funding for the Reconstruction and Widening on Route 1 (Malden, Revere, Saugus) project as this section of highway is dangerously outmoded and a bottleneck that impacts commuters and economic development; the project proponents and supporters are suggesting a phased approach to construction
•
request for future TIP funding for the Routes 85 and 62 Rotary Improvements
(Hudson) project
• support for the Safe Routes to School projects that are programmed in the TIP
• support for the Signal and Intersection Improvements on Route 135 (Hopkinton) project
• support for the Traffic Signal Improvements at 10 Locations (Boston) project
• support for the Traffic Signal Improvements on Blue Hill Avenue (Boston) project
• request that the MPO use disaggregated TAZ-level data to investigate the disparities in transportation neighborhood facilities and transportation exposures
• support for the Water Taxi Feasibility Study (Medford)
MPO staff received additional comments this morning in support of the Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street, and Charles River Bridge (Newton, Needham) project. A comment was also received from State Representative Garrett Bradley in support of the Intersection Improvements at Derby Street, Whiting Street (Route 53), and Gardner Street (Hingham) and the Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby Street (Hingham) projects.
K. Miller raised the issue of residents’ opposition to the Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby Street (Hingham) project and asked if the MPO has explored the nature of that opposition.
Roger Fernandes, Engineer for the Town of Hingham, spoke to that question noting that he believes that some residents are concerned about the potential economic development that may occur along the corridor. He reported that funding for the project was approved by town meeting and that the town has held multiple public meetings to inform residents about the project. He stated that the town will continue to work with residents to address their concerns.
K. Miller encouraged consideration of the residents’ concerns. He noted that there have been recent cases involving projects in various communities where residents have appealed to MassDOT and FHWA because they felt that their municipal leaders were not being responsive to their concerns.
S. Pfalzer gave an overview of the updates made to the TIP since it was released for public review. He noted that the cost estimate for the Traffic Signal Improvements at 10 Locations (Boston) project has increased from $3 million to $4.6 million. To address the approximately $1.6 million cost increase, staff is proposing to reduce the programmed amount for the Route 128 Improvement Program (Add-a-Lane) (Needham, Wellesley) and apply those funds to the Boston project.
A motion to approve the adjustments to the programmed amounts for the Traffic Signal Improvements at 10 Locations (Boston) and the Route 128 Improvement Program (Add-a-Lane) (Needham, Wellesley) projects, as described above, in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP was made by the City of Boston (J. Gillooly), and seconded by the MassDOT Highway Division (John Romano). The motion carried.
A motion to approve the FFYs 2016-20 TIP, as amended today, was made by the Inner Core Committee (Tom Bent), and seconded by the Advisory Council (M. Gowing). The motion carried.
A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 21 was made by the At-Large Town of Lexington (R. Canale), and seconded by the City of Boston (J. Gillooly). The motion carried. The MassDOT Highway Division (J. Romano) abstained.
A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 4 was made by the At-Large Town of Lexington (R. Canale), and seconded by the City of Boston (J. Gillooly). The motion carried.
A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 11 was made by the At-Large Town of Lexington (R. Canale), and seconded by the City of Boston (J. Gillooly). The motion carried.
A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of July 9 was made by the At-Large Town of Lexington (R. Canale), and seconded by the Advisory Council (M. Gowing). The motion carried. The MassDOT Highway Division (J. Romano) abstained.
S. Allam provided an update on the projects in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The full July 2015 SIP report is available on MassDOT’s website.
She reported that MassDOT’s petition to delay the Green Line Extension project has been approved by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). DEP also approved MassDOT’s proposed interim offset measures for delays on the project. Also, as reflected in MassDOT’s FY 2016 Capital Investment Plan, state funds will be used in addition to federal funds to advance the design and construction activities of the Green Line Extension. Public meetings regarding the progress on the designs of new Green Line stations were held in May in June in Medford and Somerville.
Currently, MassDOT is working on the draft FY 2015 annual SIP report. MassDOT expects to submit the draft report to DEP in August.
There were none.
A motion to adjourn was made by the MBTA Advisory Board (P. Regan), and seconded by the Advisory Council (M. Gowing). The motion carried.
|
Members |
Representatives
and
Alternates |
|
At-Large City (City of Everett) |
Jay Monty |
|
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 Transportation
Department) |
Jim Gillooly Tom Kadzis |
|
Federal Highway Administration |
Ken Miller |
|
Federal Transit Administration |
Nicolas Garcia |
|
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) |
Tom Bent |
|
Massachusetts Department of Transportation |
David Mohler David Anderson |
|
MassDOT Highway Division |
John Romano |
|
MBTA |
Janice Ramsay |
|
MBTA Advisory Board |
Paul Regan |
|
Metropolitan Area Planning Council |
Marc Draisen Christopher Kuschel |
|
MetroWest Regional Collaborative (Town of
Framingham) |
Dennis Giombetti |
|
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (Town of Bedford) |
Roy Sorenson |
|
North Shore Task Force (City of Beverly) |
Denise Deschamps |
|
North Suburban Planning Council (City of Woburn) |
Jay Corey |
|
Regional Transportation Advisory Council |
Mike Gowing |
|
South West Advisory Planning Committee (Town of Medway) |
Dennis Crowley |
|
Three Rivers Interlocal
Council (Town of Norwood/Neponset Valley Chamber of Commerce) |
Tom O’Rourke |
|
Other
Attendees |
Affiliation |
|
Sreelatha Allam |
MassDOT Office of
Transportation Planning |
|
Michelle Ciccolo |
Board of Selectmen, Town of Lexington |
|
Jamie Errickson |
Town of Natick |
|
Roger Fernandes |
Town of Hingham |
|
Mike Furly |
MassDOT |
|
William Friel |
Town of Canton |
|
Kristina Johnson |
Howard Stein Hudson Associates |
|
Rafael Mares |
Conservation Law Foundation |
|
Joseph Manning |
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers – Local 103 |
|
Owen MacDonald |
Town of Weymouth |
|
Jefry Mercedes |
MassDOT |
|
Steve Olanoff |
Three Rivers Interlocal Council |
|
Josh Ostroff |
Board of Selectmen, Town of Natick / Transportation for Massachusetts |
|
Ellen Spring Robert Sullivan |
Office of State Representative Denise Garlick Counsel for State Representative Garrett Bradley |
|
MPO
Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff |
|
Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director |
|
|
|
Mark Abbott |
|
Matt Archer David Fargen |
|
Maureen Kelly |
|
Anne McGahan |
|
Sean Pfalzer Michelle Scott |
|
|