·Approve
the release of the draft of the Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs) 2025–29
TransportationImprovementProgram(TIP)forits30-daypublicreviewperiod
·Approve
adding one permanent voting seaton
the MPOboard, shared bythe region’sregionaltransitauthorities(RTAs),onarotationalbasis,eachserving two-year terms
MeetingAgenda
1.Introductions
Seeattendanceonpage16.
2.Chair’sReport
Therewasnone.
3.ExecutiveDirector’sReport—TeginTeich,ExecutiveDirector, Central Transportation Planning Staff
T. Teich provided
some updates on discretionary grant application activities, including theMunicipalVulnerabilityPreparednessActionPlan(MVP),theMobility,Access,and Transportation
Insecurity (MATI) grant, and the Prioritization Process Pilot Program (PPPP).
Jen Rowe, City of
Boston, expressed enthusiasm for the grants and asked for clarification on the
partnerships for MVP and MATI. T. Teich and Rebecca Morgan, MPOstaff,explainedthepartnerswouldberelevantmunicipalitiesandcommunities that would be contributing.
4.Public Comments
BradRawson,InnerCoreCommittee(CityofSomerville),praisedtheMPOStaff,state agency partners, and municipal
project proponents for their work on this TIP cycle.
B.Rawsonsharedenthusiasmforthetechnicalpresentationsthathadbeengiventhe
weekprior,astheyclarifiedaspectsoftheprojectsandencouragedmoreofthesame
from other board members during the time between TIP cycles.
Aleida Leza
described the experience with the public process in the Belmont Community Path
project and called on the MPO to provide more oversight. A. Leza requested
better access to information from and about the MPO. The second issue concernedthespeedandfrequencyofcommuterrailtrains.A.Lezaexpressedfeeling unsafe due to personal proximity to the commuter rail
and expressed frustration that a bridge selection requirement was waived for
the project. John Bechard, MassDOT, responded with assurance that his team was
reviewing the Belmont Community Path and clarified the waiving of the
requirement, stating it was to advance a public hearing and engage the
community.
5.CommitteeChairs’Reports
DerekKrevat, MassDOT,
reportedon the last UnifiedPlanningWork Program (UPWP) Committeemeeting.D.Krevatreportedonthediscretestudiesthatwereproposedand approved.D.KrevatalsomentionedtheUPWPAmendment Two,whichthecommittee recommended approving and
waiving the public review period.
J.RowereportedworkingtoscheduleaTIPProcess,Engagement,andReadiness Committee meeting sometime in
May, to debrief.
TomBent,InnerCoreCommittee
(CityofSomerville),reportedtheMemorandumof Understanding Update Committee was
bringing action item 11, on the RTA representation on the board, for a vote.
Staff will be presenting on the committee’s
recommendation,withrepresentativesfromtheMetroWestRegionalTransitAuthority and the Cape Ann Transportation
Authority available for questions.
6.RegionalTransportationAdvisoryCouncilReport—LenardDiggins, Chair, Regional Transportation Advisory Council
L.DigginshadnoreportbutclarifiedthedateandtopicofthenextAdvisoryCouncil meeting, which is to be a public
meeting, and he extended an invitation to those present.
7.Action Item: Approval of March 21,
2024, MPO Meeting Minutes Sandy Johnston (MBTA) made an amendment to
the meeting minutes on page 10: ChrisHartfromtheMBTAworksintheSystem-WideAccessibilityOffice,notinCapital Planning.
Vote
A motion to
approve the minutes of the meeting of March 21, 2024, was made by the MBTA(S.Johnston)andsecondedbytheCityofBoston(J.Rowe).Themotioncarried.
8.MassDOT
Highway Projects for FFYs 2025–29 Transportation ImprovementProgram(TIP)Development—JohnBechard,MassDOT Staff
J. Bechard
presented information on key investments in the Boston region to be includedintheFFYs2025–29StatewideTIP.J.Bechardstatedthemaingoalsofthe projects were reliability and
modernization.
J.BecharddiscussedprojectsintheFFY2025annualelement.
Project#613099,work on Interstate 93 in the City of Boston,
is a bridge preservation and reliability project programmedforapproximately$20million.Project#612094,interstate-relatedworkon
portions of I-95 and I-93 in Canton, Dedham, and Westwood, is also part of the
reliability program and programmed for $29.9 million.
ForFFY2026,J.Bechardstatedthatproject#612496,bridgepreservationonInterstate 93 from
Route 28 to Temple Street in Somerville, is programmed for $188 million.
In FFYs 2027 and
2028, project #606728, the replacement of bridges on Storrow Drive over the
Bowker Ramps in the City of Boston, is programmed for $64 million and $43
million, respectively. Project #611987, the replacement of a bridge on Memorial
Drive overBrooklineStreetinCambridge,isprogrammedfor$25millioninFFY2027and$24
million in
FFY 2028. Project #612519, the bridge replacement on Blue Hill Avenue over the
railroad, is programmed for $22.5 million in FFY 2027 and $11 million in FFY
2028. Project#608397,thebridgereconstructiononWesternAvenueovertheBlynmanCanal in Gloucester, is programmed for
$62.7 million in FFY 2028. Project #608396, thebridge replacement on Route 1A over the Saugus Rier in Lynn and
Revere, is programmed for $43.5 million in FFY 2028 and $41 million in FFY
2029. Project #613124, the deck and superstructure replacement of the bridge of
Beacon Street over I-90inBoston,isprogrammedfor$9.5millioninFFY2028and$31millioninFFY2029.
In FFY 2029,
project #612634, the bridge replacement on Route 28/McGrath Highway overSomervilleAvenueinSomerville,isprogrammedfor$30million,withtheremaining funds planned to be programmed
in FFY 2030. Project #613130, the bridgereplacement
on Morrisey Boulevard over Dorchester Bay, is programmed for $30 million.
Project #612615, the reconstruction of Route 138 from Royall Street to Dollar
Lane in Canton and Milton, is programmed for $20 million.
Jim Fitzgerald,
City of Boston, stated that having this information earlier in TIP development
would have been preferable. J. Bechard stated that the information had beenavailableinthegeneralTIPlistandthattheonlynewinformationspanned FFYs 2029 and 2030.
E. Lapointe
stated that the FFYs 2025–29 TIP programs funds towards 70 projects, totaling
approximately $730 million. E. Lapointe highlighted multiple new projects: 10
projects that fell under the Community Connections program, eight projects in
the TransitTransformationprogram,andanothereightdesignprojectsforFFYs2025and
2026.Therearesixconstructionprojectsforbothroadwayandtrailwork,twoofwhich
had previously been part of the MassDOT Statewide Highway Program for the
fiscal year 2024–28 TIP but had now shifted to the Regional Target Program for
funding.
E. Lapointe
stated that of the $730 million provided in funding, approximately $4.8 millionwasunprogrammed,andE.Lapointeclarifiedtherewassomefundingputaside for Community
Connections and Transit Transformation projects.
E.Lapointestatedthatthelargestinvestmentprogram,CompleteStreets,received 46 percent of funding. The second largest is Major Infrastructure,
which received about
23.6percentoffunding.ThethirdlargestistheTransitTransformation
program,which received 11 percent of
funding. E. Lapoint noted that the Transit Transformation programhaditsfirstformalapplicationsintheFFYs2025–29TIP.Followingthisisthe Bicycle Network and Pedestrian
Connections program, which received 10 percent of funding, followed by the
Intersection Improvements program, which received 6.5 percent. Finally, the
Bikeshare Support program and the Community Connections program work in tandem
and received 1.2 and 1.6 percent respectively.
E.Lapointethenwentontodiscusshowthesecurrentapportionmentscomparetowhat
was set up by the Long -Range Transportation Program (LRTP), Destination
2050.
E. Lapointe
highlighted that the targets were very similar to the last TIP cycle, for FFYs
2024–28. The Complete Streets program, the Bikeshare Support program, and the
Community Connections program funding are substantively similar to the LRTP
target. Variation is found in the Major Infrastructure program, where the LRTP
percentage target is higher than in the FFYs 2025-29 TIP cycle, but E. Lapointe
clarified that this is partially due to a change to a more stringent definition
for what may be classified as a major infrastructure project. There is a
similar variation found in the Intersection Improvements program, but E.
Lapointe clarified that this is because many of the proposedprojectsevolvetobecomemorelikeaCompleteStreets programproject,thus the
funding shifts to that program. Conversely, the Bicycle Network and Pedestrian
Network program and Transit Transformation program are above the LRTP
percentage target, which was caused by surplus funding during the first few
years of recent TIP cycles.
E.LapointewentontodiscussthebreakdownofalltheprogramsintheTIP,including
the MassDOT Highway Program, the MBTA’s Transit Program, and the Regional
Transit Authorities’ programs, across five years, which amounted to $6.25
billion. E. Lapointe stated all this information is present in the draft
document and subject to comment and feedback.
E. Lapointe
discussed next steps and potential changes to the draft TIP document. Firstly,
E. Lapointe explained that progress in various projects would be ongoing while
the TIP was waiting to be endorsed, which would change some of the information
and numbers in the document. Similarly, MassDOT and the MBTA are still working
on their capital plans, which may change some items as well. E. Lapointe also
acknowledged thatsincethisisadraft,someitemswillhavetobecorrectedoramendedperfeedback
as part of the process. A full list of the changes will be presented at the
next MPO meeting, on June 6, 2024, and a revised document will be posted in
advance.
Finally, E.
Lapointe discussed the public engagement portion of the draft TIP. The publicreviewperiodforthe FFYs2025–29TIPwillrunfromApril22,2024,toMay22, 2024.E.Lapointeexplained thatthisperiodwillexceedthe21-dayrequiredminimum. MPO staff may also take the opportunity to seek out in-person
engagement about the draft TIP, in addition to letters and online comment
portals.
E.Lapointestatedthattherequestedactionforthismeetingisfortheboardtovoteto release the FFYs 2025-29 TIP draft for
a 30-day public review, with comments beginning on April 22, 2024, and ending
May 22, 2024.
Discussion
J. Rowe
appreciated that the changes between the current draft and the final draft will
be available but expressed interest in seeing more about the changes in
projects from theFFYs2024–28TIPcycleforthenextmeeting.E.Lapointeexplainedthiswasmade availableaspartofthescenariodevelopmentprocessfortheRegionalTargetprojects. However, E. Lapointe
stated that a list of changes between other programs in the TIP mightbedifficultto compileby the nextmeeting,
on May2, 2024. J.Bechard answered that it would be
investigated but made it clear that trying to track the changes of 90 projects,
which are constantly developing, while possible, might not be feasible.
DerekShooster(MassDOT)offeredtoexportthefiscalyear2024–28dataandthefiscal
year 2025–2029dataas a spreadsheet, which will allow for a
crosstabanalysis thatwill
show the differences. D. Shooster agreed to send it to the relevant parties. D.
Krevat also offered to pass on some information to J. Rowe, including readiness
reports that summarize changes, with some additional detail.
Yan Lip, City of
Malden, stated the mayor of Malden, Gary Christenson, submitted a letter about
the Route 60 project that is part of the TIP, describing a pilot program that
hadbeendoneonabusandbikelanealongthat stretchofRoute60andaskingforitto
be included in the design.
Vote
A motion to
release the draft of the FFYs 2025-29 TIP for a 30-day public review was madebytheAdvisoryCouncil(L.Diggins)andsecondedbytheInnerCoreCommittee, City of
Somerville (T. Bent). The motion carried.
10.Action Item: Federal Fiscal Years
2024 Unified Planning Work Program(UPWP)AmendmentTwo—SrilekhaMurthy,MPOStaff
Srilekha
Murthy, presented Amendment Two to the FFY 2024 Unified Planning Work Program.
S. Murthy described how the specifics of the adjustments could be found in thememo,redlinedocument,andclean documentpostedtothemeetingcalendar.The adjustments were primarily made due to
evolving needs, staff capacity, and staff attrition. This is similar to
previous adjustments made on program budgets and adjustments will have a net
zero impact on the overall budget of the UPWP.
S. Murthy stated
that on April 11, 2024, the UPWP Committee voted to waive the 21- daypublicreviewperiodandapprovedtheamendment.S.Murthythenaskedtheboard
to also vote to waive the 21-day public review period and approve the amendment
as presented. S. Murthy clarified the reason for this request was for staff to
have adequate timetocommenceandcompleteanyplannedworkbeforetheendofthefiscalyearwith the adjusted budgets. S. Murthy then
welcomed any comments orquestions
and turned the floor back over to the chair.
Vote
Amotiontowaivethe21-daypublicreviewperiodandapprove AmendmentTwoofthe FFY 2024 UPWP as presented was made by
the Inner Core Committee, City of Somerville (T. Bent) and seconded by the At
Large Town, Town of Brookline (Erin Chute). The motion carried.
11.ActionItem:RegionalTransitAuthority(RTA)Representationon the MPO Board—David Hong, MPO Staff
D. Hong stated
that in 2022 the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) recommended, as part of their Federal Certification
Review, that the Boston Region MPO work with MWRTA and CATA to ensuretheywererepresentedontheMPOboardinawaythatwassatisfactorytoall
parties. The FHWA and FTA had issued a similar recommendation in 2014, without
describing a
precise format for representation. In 2019, the MPO board established a transit
committee, to give the RTAs a voting seat on the board, representing the
interests of the transit committee. Ultimately, this committee was deemed not
satisfactory by the RTAs. The 2022 Federal Certification Review noted this
outcome, and in November of 2023 the MPO board delegated revisions of the MOU,
including RTArepresentation,toanMOUupdatecommittee.Thecommitteehasreviewedfederal regulations on the composition of
MPO boards, met with the two RTAs to discuss what would be satisfactory to
them, and discussed a number of items: the motivation for joining the MPO
board, technical expertise, populations served, and staff capacity to partake
in board and committee activities. In March of this year, the committee decided
to bring the following recommendations to the board.
D. Hong then went
on to present these recommendations to add one permanent voting seat on the MPO
board shared by the region’s RTAs (MWRTA and CATA) on a rotational basis, each
serving two-year terms, with the ability to serve as one another’s alternate.
This would become effective with the signing of the updated MOU, which is
targetedforthe2024AnnualMeetinginNovember.D.Hongaskedtheboardtodiscuss
the recommendation, ask questions, and vote upon the recommendation.
Discussion
E. Bourassa then
introduced Jim Nee, representing MWRTA, and Felicia Webb, representing CATA,
asking if they had prepared statements. J. Nee thanked D. Hong and the CTPS
staff for their work, not only for this presentation, but for the last decade
of efforts. J. Nee noted he had been in his position for two years and very
engaged in this effort for that time. J. Nee brought up two questions that
seemed to come up often. The first question was: Will the RTAs be engaged in
this process, especially on non- RTA topics? The second question was: Why
should the RTAs have a seat on the board? J. Nee’s answer to the first question
was a resounding yes, for both MWRTA andCATA.JNeeelaboratedthatallthetopicsthattheMPOdealswith,whichmightnot
necessarily be considered RTA topics, are still relevant to the RTAs. J. Nee
listed some of these topics, and especially noted freight, since a freight line
runs close to the MWRTA offices. J. Nee stated that both RTAs will be heavily
engaged in the MPO processes. In answer to the second question, J. Nee stated
that the purpose of theMPO was to
run a public engagement process, designed to represent the entire region.
J.Neenotedthateachoftheregionsinthearea isslightlydifferent,andthatMWRTA and CATA are different by largely
serving riders covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which
means the primary focus is transit equity, including on- demand transit access
Because of this the RTAs would bring a unique focus to the board.
Then F. Webb
spoke, thanking J. Nee and noting that J. Nee had covered the main talkingpoints.F.WebbalsoextendedthankstotheMPOboardand
staff fortheirefforts to come to a resolution.
E. Bourassa then
opened the floor to comments and questions. Melisa Tintocalis (North Suburban
Planning Council, Town of Burlington) asked for clarification on the RTA that
served Burlington, Massachusetts, asking if it was the Lowell Regional Transit
Authority (LRTA).E.BourassaconfirmedthatitwasandstatedthattheLRTAservedontheMPO board of the Northern Middlesex
Council of Governments (NMCOG). E. Bourassa explained that all RTAs in the
state are on the MPO boards of their regions, with MWRTA and CATA being the
only RTAs wholly within the Boston region that were not represented on the MPO
board. E. Bourassa then called on Ken Miller (Federal Highway Administration)
for confirmation on this statement. K. Miller affirmed E. Bourassa was correct,
that all other 14 RTAs in the state of Massachusetts were represented on their
respective MPO boards. K. Miller then went on to state support for the
recommendation, and he mentioned thatitis a federal requirement thatoperators of public transportation be
directly represented on MPO boards. K. Miller extended his appreciation for the
work done to fulfill this requirement and reach a resolution.
Erin Chute (Town
of Brookline) then posed a question about the MOU Update Committee, asking if
there will be additional recommendations, specifically about additional seats.
E. Bourassa shared that there will be upcoming recommendations about updating
the MOU, but he was unsure about additional seats. T. Bent clarified that there
would be upcoming items, but that this recommendation was the most importantitemtogetapproved.T.Bentsharedthereweremanyitemsandissuesthe MOU Update Committee was working on,
with the goal of finalizing the report in October 2024. T. Bent also
acknowledged that staff might be spread thin working on boththisprojectandtheTIP,andfinallystatedthatatthistimethecommitteewasnot looking to add any
other seats to the board, besides the one that was presented.
T. Teich
encouraged viewing of a memo that was released at the time of the last MPO
AnnualMeeting,inNovember2023,thatclearlylaidoutthegoalsandframeworkofthe
MOU Update Committee. T. Teich also stressed that this does not prevent the MOU
Update Committee or the board from discussing items, such as an additional seat
on the board, outside of that framework.
L. Diggins
observed that this recommendation, if voted to proceed by the board, is
outlined in the presentation document as going into effect with the signing of
the updatedMOU,whichis
intendedtobecompletedbythetimeoftheAnnualMeetingin October 2024. L. Diggins advocated for separating the establishment
of the seat from the signing ofthe
MOUdocument.L. Digginsnoted
this wouldtakethe pressure offof
staff to
complete the MOU by the time frame described, and allow the board to move
forward with establishing thenew
seat bytheAnnual Meeting,without
having to waitfor the MOU document
to be completed, regardless of whether it is within the projected timeframe or
not. T. Bent answered that the intention was to approve the addition of the
seat itself. T. Teich echoed this but noted a technical aspect was that the final
MOU document would needto be
approved in order to make the additional seat legitimate. T. Teich suggested
that perhaps an amendment could be added to the original MOU memo to allow the
vote on the additional seat to pass without requiring the vote on the entire
updated MOU to pass first. E. Bourassa decided the plan of action would be to
voteonthematteras presentedinthismeeting;butiftheupdatedMOUreachedapoint
where it was clear it would not be ready by the October meeting, the board
would take some kind of action to enable beginning the term of the additional
seat. L. Diggins agreed with this decision.
J.Rowecommentedthatpartofthediscussion abouttheMOUwasadecisiontorevisit the MPO membership
on the same cycle as the federal review. During the vote call, S. Johnston
expressed excitement about working with the RTAs and seeing this issue come to
conclusion. After the conclusion of the vote, T. Bent also voiced his appreciation
for the work done on the issue and for its conclusion.
Vote
A motiontoadd
one permanent voting seaton the MPOboard, shared bythe region’s RTAs,onarotationalbasis,eachservingtwo-yeartermswasmadebytheMetroWest
Regional Collaborative, City of Framingham (Eric Johnson) and seconded by the
Advisory Council (L. Diggins). The motion carried.
12.Sustainability
and Decarbonization in the Freight and Logistics SectorintheNorthSuffolkArea—ShravanthiGopalanNarayanan
and Erin Maguire, MPO Staff
Erin Maguire,
MPO Staff, introduced the study by outlining the background and study area.ThestudywasoriginallyproposedbytheCityofChelsea,butearlyoninthestudy
it became clear the challenges experienced by Chelsea were also relevant to
nearby municipalities. As a result the study was expanded to include Revere,
Winthrop, East Boston, and the area of Everett that lies south of Route 16. E.
Maguire identified the major roadways, freight corridors, railway, and sea
ports of the area. Approximately 158,000 people reside in this area. The study
identifies the term “freight” to mean “the
transportationofbulkgoodsbytruck,air,sea,ortrain,aswellasthefacilitiesthatthese
vehiclesoperateoutof.”TheLoganInternationalAirportisalsoincludedwithinthearea of this study, as
well as several Critical Urban Freight Corridors (CUFUs) and Designated Port
Areas (DPAs). A wide variety of products and services move through the area.
Approximately 18,000 freight trips are generated daily in this area, to serve
local and regional markets. Different types of vehicles, ranging from heavy to
light, are used during different stages of delivery, ranging from longer to
shorter distances, respectively. As of 2019, 2.5 percent of all freight trips
in Massachusetts were made by rail.
Inthisstudy,MPOstaffengagedwithseveralstakeholderstodiscusschallengesthey faced in the area and strategies for decarbonization. These
stakeholders included municipalities, community-based organizations, and
industry actors. All stakeholders expressed concern about climate change, air
quality, and coastal flooding.
Municipalities
and community-based organizations shared concerns about extreme temperatures,roadwaysafety,andairandnoisepollution.Municipalitiesandindustry actorssharedconcernsabouttheimpactofdecarbonizationstrategiesmighthaveon
the workforce, but expressed interest in “green” jobs. Industry actors alone
noted the challenge and cost of electrifying fleets.
Three main
challenges emerged from the study: roadway conditions, noise and air pollution,
and coastal flooding. Roadway condition, congestion, and safety was a seriousconcern.Routes1,1A,and16experiencefrequentcongestionofbothlocaland freight traffic, which also causes
noise and air pollution, and road deterioration. The congestion means that
freight and delivery trucks will frequently divert onto local roads andintoneighborhoodsinordertoavoidthecongestedareas.Thiscanalsocauseroad deterioration, as well as cause
safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists.
Additionally,limitedpublictransportationintheareameansresidentsmustdrive,ortake
long and complicated public transit trips.
The second
concern was air quality, noise pollution, and extreme temperatures. The study
area is densely populated, and also suffers from the urban heat island effect.
The area is also exposed to industrial activity, as well as the busyroadways, which can lead to public health
issues. Advocates have requested limiting the expansion of industrial activity
in the area. The final concern was focused on climate change and its impact on
community resources. Many of the freight and logistics hubs in the area are at
risk of coastal flooding, but local businesses want to remain in the area due
to its proximity to important features, such as the airports and seaports. Many
of the municipalities have receivedMunicipalVulnerabilityPreparednessProgramPlanningGrants,andaretaking
S. Narayanan
began by introducing four decarbonization strategies, based on literature
review and stakeholder engagement. The strategies were electrification of
vehicles and alternative fuels, air quality reporting, mode shift efforts, and
coordination. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a goal set for net-zero
emissions by 2050, and the most commonly suggested strategy was the
electrification of vehicles. However, there were a lot of drawbacks noted,
including high up-front cost, a lack of technology andcapacity,andanunrealistictimeframe.Itwasalsonotedthatelectrificationmaynot
address noise pollution, congestion, or roadway decay. Alternatively, there is
potential for alternative fuels, including biofuel and hydrogen fuel cells.
The next strategy
was air quality reporting. Stakeholders expressed interest in data reporting to
identify point sources for particulate matter, and to understand the origins
anddestinationsoftrucktraffic.Thisdatacouldbeusedtostrategizeinvestmentsand create
regulations such as anti-idling enforcement and low- or no-emissions zones.
Another
strategy is mode shift, such as local freight deliveries being made by cargo e-
bikes instead of trucks, and prioritizing intermodal freight connections.
Currently, thereis little
infrastructure for intermodal freight connections, but the ability to transfer
freight fromtrucktorailwouldreducetrucksonroadways.Finally,thereisaneedforincreased coordination and collaboration
between local, regional, state, and national levels.
Additionally,transportationandlandusearecloselyconnectedandsignificantlyimpact oneanother.Transportationandlandusemismatchcanoccurwhenzoningandfreight
patterns are not integrated in the planning decision-making process.
For next steps,
this study suggests three follow-up studies: regional freight patterns and
emissions, potential locations for electric-charging infrastructure, and the
possibility of cargo e-bike deliveries. The electric-charging infrastructure is
an effort that is already being made by the MAPC coordinating with the Electric
Vehicle Infrastructure Coordinating Council. Additionally, a discrete study on
using cargo e-bikes for local deliverieswasproposedbytheUPWPintheApril11,2024,UPWPCommitteemeeting. Another takeaway is that it is
essential that grants and funding be provided to stakeholders to support
decarbonization projects. Various funding programs exist at both state and
federal level that can be taken advantage of.
Another next step
is coordinating regional efforts, for example by building an inter-
disciplinarycoalitionofstakeholders,aregional-levelmultimodalfreightsystem,and finally by continuing to encourage
public engagement and education. S. Narayanan
closedbythankingMPOstafffortheirworkonthisstudy,andthestakeholdersfortheir
contributions. S. Narayanan then opened the floor to comments and questions.
Discussion
J. Rowe appreciated the focus on not
just electrifying fleets but also moving towards smaller, safer vehicles and
rail and maritime solutions. J. Rowe also expressed the City of Boston’s
assessment that staff is uniquely well positioned to both assist and lead
efforts toward the shared goal of decarbonizing the freight sector in a way
that also furthers MPO goals around safety, air quality, reliability, and mode
shift. Finally, J. Rowe shared information about Boston Delivers, the City’s
e-cargo bike delivery pilot for businesses in Allston and the surrounding areas.
Jay Monty mentioned how the City of Everett was in the middle of the study and
discussed some friction between the desire forredevelopmentandtheneedtopreservejobsandfreightaccess,alongwithconcern
for the environment and air quality. S. Johnston expressed particular
appreciation for the discussion of mode shift and added that one concern that
should be taken into consideration is the shift of freight jobs from the inner
core to further outside the city, which impacts workers and, most importantly,
their commute. This change should be considered as part of the larger
conversation about land and road use. L. Diggins mentioned that he would be
asking E. Maguire and S. Narayanan to present this study at an upcoming
Advisory Council Meeting.
D. Krevat
presented on the Massachusetts Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan
(SLRTP). D. Krevat started with some background, first noting that MassDOT isrequiredbyfederallawtodevelopthislong-rangeplanonaregularbasis.Thestatehas only had one previous long-range
plan, called WeMoveMassachusetts, which was last updated in 2014. The
current plan name, Beyond Mobility, reflects the plan’s aim to think
beyond traditional transportation and to center people and transportation
together. The plan was initially out for public comment until May 5, but the
period was extended until May 31, due to the amount of information in the
document.
Beyond Mobility
is also part of a larger plan called MassDOT@15, which is an overarching
plan to commemorate MassDOT’s 15th anniversary by focusing on three Policy and
Strategy Efforts. The first of these is the Beyond Mobility plan,
discussed here. This plan is to develop a blueprint for the decision-making
process and investments in transportation in Massachusetts in a way that
advances the State’s transportation goals and maximizes the equity and
resiliency of the transportation system. The second policy is a Strategic
Business Plan, which will align MassDOT’s organizational resources to fulfill
operational goals and meet commitments. The third aspect will be a
Transportation Funding Task Force, which will advance and strategize the
funding of the next generation of transportation projects and policies. Beyond
Mobility is a plan at thestatelevel,butpartnership with regional
andmunicipal partners willbealargepartofimplementation.Thisplanwillalsoservetorestructurethe
Capital
InvestmentPlanpriorities,aswellasmanyotherongoingprocesses,asthisstatewide plan becomes the new foundation.
For the past 18
months, the Beyond Mobility project team has done extensive public and
internal outreach, data analyses, and analyses of prior plans. The plan is
focused on the needs of the people of Massachusetts, so surveys and focus
groups–including multi-lingual focus groups–were very important. The project
team also worked closely withotherMassDOTandMBTAstaffinordertomakesurethisplanworkedwithother strategic plans in effect. There
were over 5,000 discrete pieces of feedback, and the overwhelming response from
the public was the desire toget
around without theneed for a car.
Another large portion of the feedback was about bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure, such as bicycle lanes, bicycle connections to transit, better
sidewalks, and better wayfinding–especially for people who do not speak English
as a first language. More frequent bus and commuter rail service also came up
often in public response. Those further out from the inner core also expressed
a desire for more electric-vehicle-charging stations.
The project team
also did internal analyses and came up with six priority areas: Safety,
Reliability, Clean Transportation, Destination Connectivity, Resiliency, and
Travel Experience. Across all of these areas the two overarching themes of
Social & GeographicEquity,andFinancial&StaffingResources.Eachoneoftheseprioritieshas a Vision Statement, a Set of Values Statement, Problems and
Key Facts Statements, and Action Items. The final plan has over 100 action
items across all six of these areas.
An example D.
Krevat provided for the Safety section is that 142 of the 200 pedestrian crashclusterlocationsareinEnvironmentalJusticecommunities.Theactionitemwasa
strategy to prioritize current projects and introduce new projects that will
address safety concerns in communities most disproportionately burdened by
unsafe conditions. An example for the Reliability section was that commutes can
take up to eight times longer than free-flowing traffic conditions during vital
travel times. Two action items included improved coordination across agencies,
and a study on congestion and roadway pricing. An example from Clean
Transportation is that transportation is the highest contributor to
Massachusetts’ carbon emissions. Action items proposed include supporting the
electrification of transit buses, and locating communities with a high
concentration of households with low vehicle access and high demand for transit
in order to prioritize projects in those areas. Another example in Destination
Connectivityis that Environmental
Justice communities have fewer existing and planned bike facilities per capita
than all other communities. The proposed action item is to create a new program
that will intentionally prioritize a list of non-vehicular modernization projects.
An example for Resiliency was the exposure of much transportation
infrastructure
to natural hazards. An action item could be inter-agency collaboration, andgrantsthroughtheMunicipalVulnerabilityPreparedness(MVP)program.Lastly,for an example on
Travel Experience, the program received a lot of feedback on the need for
improved wayfinding signage. The example action item was updating wayfinding
signage and translating the information into appropriate languages.
14.Members’Items
Therewerenone.
15.Adjourn
A motion to
adjourn was made by the Advisory Council (L. Diggins) and seconded by theSouthWestAdvisoryPlanningCommittee,TownofWrentham(RachelBenson).The motion carried.
You are
invited to participate in our transportation planning process, free from
discrimination. The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is committed
to nondiscrimination in all activities and complies with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Actof1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,
color,or national origin(includinglimitedEnglishproficiency).Relatedfederalandstatenondiscrimination laws prohibit
discrimination on the basis of age, sex, disability, and additional protected characteristics.
Torequestaccommodationsatmeetings(suchasassistivelisteningdevices,materials in accessible formats and
languages other than English, and interpreters in American Sign Language and
other languages) or if you need this information in another language, please
contact:
Forpeoplewithhearingorspeakingdifficulties,connectthroughthestateMassRelay service, www.mass.gov/massrelay.
Please allow at least five business days for your request to be fulfilled.
