Table of Contents

Chapter One – The 3C Process

Chapter Two – The TIP Process

Chapter Three – Project Information        

         Project Tables Draft FFYs 2014 – 17

         Highway Element

         Transit Element

Chapter Four – Determination of Air Quality Conformity

Chapter Five – Financial Constraint

Chapter Six – Operations and Maintenance        

Appendices                                                                                                                                                     

      A   Universe of Projects

      B   Project Information Forms and Evaluations

       C   Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Evaluation

      D   FFY 2013 Highway Projects Status        

      E   FFY 2013 Transit Projects Status

      F   Public Comment on the Draft FFYs 2014-2017 TIP

Revision to the Draft Transportation Improvement Program and Air Quality Conformity Determination:  Federal Fiscal Years 2014–17

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Staff

Directed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is composed of the:

MassDOT Office of Planning and Programming                                City of Somerville  (Inner Core Committee)

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority                                 City of Woburn  (North Suburban Planning Council)

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Advisory Board       Town of Arlington  (At-Large Town)

MassDOT Highway Department                                                         Town of Bedford 

Massachusetts Port Authority                                                          (Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination)

Metropolitan Area Planning Council                                                Town of Braintree  (South Shore Coalition)

Regional Transportation Advisory Council                                       Town of Framingham  (MetroWest Regional Collaborative)

City of Boston                                                                                     Town of Lexington  (At-Large Town)

City of Beverly  (North Shore Task Force)                                        Town of Medway  (South West Advisory Planning Committee)

City of Everett  (At-Large City)                                                        Town of Norwood  (Three Rivers Interlocal Council)

City of Newton  (At-Large City)                                                        Federal Highway Administration (nonvoting)

Federal Transit Administration (nonvoting)

The MPO complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal and state non-discrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. The MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, English proficiency, income, religious creed, ancestry, disability, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or military service. Any person who believes herself/himself or any specific class of persons has been subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI, ADA, or other non-discrimination statute or regulation may, herself/himself or via a representative, file a written complaint with the MPO. A complaint must be filed no later than 180 calendar days after the date on which the person believes the discrimination occurred. A complaint form and additional information can be obtained by contacting the MPO (see below) or at www.bostonmpo.org.

For additional copies of this document or to request it in an accessible format, contact:

By mail               Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization

                             Certification Activities Group

                             10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150

                             Boston, MA 02116

By telephone     (617) 973-7107 (voice)

                             (617) 973-7089 (TTY)

By fax                  (617) 973-8855

By e-mail           spfalzer@ctps.org

Or download it at www.ctps.org

This document was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Its contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. DOT.

Chapter One: The 3C Process

Introduction to the 3C process

Decisions about how to spend transportation funds in a metropolitan area are guided by information and ideas from a broad group of people, including elected officials, municipal planners and engineers, transportation advocates, other advocates, and other interested persons. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are the bodies responsible for providing a forum for this process. Each metropolitan area in the United States with a population of 50,000 or more has an MPO, which decides how to spend federal transportation funds for capital projects and planning studies.

In order to be eligible for federal funds, metropolitan areas are required to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3C) transportation planning process that results in plans and programs consistent with the planning objectives of the metropolitan area.1 The 3C transportation planning process in the Boston region is the responsibility of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which has established the following objectives for the process:

• To identify transportation problems and develop possible solutions to them.
• To strike a balance between short-range and long-range considerations so that beneficial incremental actions undertaken now reflect an adequate understanding of probable future consequences and possible future options.
• To take into account, in the analysis of project issues, both regional and local considerations and both transportation and non-transportation objectives and impacts.
• To assist implementing agencies in putting policy and project decisions into effect in a timely fashion, with adequate consideration of environmental, land-use, social, fiscal, and economic impacts, and with adequate opportunity for participation by other agencies, local governments, and members of the public.
• To assist implementing agencies in assigning priorities to transportation activities in a manner consistent with the region’s needs and resources.
• To maintain compliance with the requirements of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Clean Air Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

The Boston Region Metropolitan
Planning Organization

The Boston Region MPO is a 22-member board consisting of state agencies, regional organizations, and municipalities; its jurisdiction extends from Boston to Ipswich on the north, Duxbury on the south, and approximately to Interstate 495 on the west. The 101 cities and towns that make up this area are shown on the map that follows the title page of this document.

As part of its 3C process, the Boston Region MPO annually produces the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). These documents, along with the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), are required in order for its process to be certified as meeting federal requirements; this certification is a prerequisite for the receipt of federal transportation funds.

This TIP was developed and approved by the MPO members listed below. The permanent MPO voting members are the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT); Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC); MBTA Advisory Board; Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA); Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport); City of Boston, and Regional Transportation Advisory Council. The elected MPO voting members and their respective seats are:

City of Beverly – North Shore Task Force
City of Everett – At-Large City
City of Newton – At-Large City
City of Somerville – Inner Core Committee
City of Woburn – North Suburban Planning Council
Town of Arlington – At-Large Town
Town of Bedford – Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination
Town of Braintree – South Shore Coalition
Town of Framingham – MetroWest Regional Collaborative
Town of Lexington – At-Large Town
Town of Medway – SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee
Town of Norwood – Three Rivers Interlocal Council

In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) participate in the MPO as advisory (nonvoting) members. The chart on the following page also shows the MPO membership and the organization of the MPO’s staff, the Central Transportation Planning Staff.

• The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) was established on November 1, 2009, under Chapter 25 (“An Act Modernizing the Transportation Systems of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts”) of the Acts of 2009, which was signed by Governor Deval Patrick in June 2009. Accordingly, MassDOT is a merger of the former Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works (EOT) and its divisions with the former Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the Massachusetts Highway Department, the Registry of Motor Vehicles, and the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission. The legislation also established MassDOT oversight of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Commonwealth’s regional transit authorities (RTAs). In addition, it authorized the transfer of ownership of the Tobin Bridge from the Massachusetts Port Authority to MassDOT and the assumption of responsibility by MassDOT for many of the bridges and parkways formerly operated by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).
• The MassDOT Highway Divisionhas jurisdiction over the roadways, bridges, and tunnels of the former Massachusetts Highway Department and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, and over the Tobin Bridge. The Division also has jurisdiction over the former DCR bridges and parkways, as mentioned above. The Highway Division is responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of the commonwealth’s state highways and bridges. The Division is responsible for overseeing traffic safety and engineering activities, including the Highway Operations Control Center, to ensure safe road and travel conditions.
• The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)has the statutory responsibility within its district, under the provisions of Chapter 161A of the Massachusetts General Laws (MGL), of preparing the engineering and architectural designs for transit development projects, constructing and operating transit development projects, and operating the public transportation system. The MBTA district comprises 175 communities, including all of the 101 cities and towns of the Boston Region MPO area. The MassDOT board of directors consists of a chairman and eight other directors, appointed by the governor.
• The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Advisory Board was created by the Legislature in 1964 through the same legislation that created the MBTA. The Advisory Board consists of representatives of the 175 cities and towns that compose the MBTA district. Cities are represented by either the city manager or mayor, and towns by the chairperson of the board of selectmen. Specific responsibilities of the Advisory Board include review of and comment on the Program for Mass Transportation (PMT), proposed fare increases, and the annual MBTA Capital Investment Program; review of the MBTA’s documentation of its net operating investment per passenger; and review of the MBTA’s operating budget.

• The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) has the statutory responsibility under Chapter 465 of the Acts of 1956, as amended, of planning, constructing, owning, and operating such transportation and related facilities as may be necessary for the development and improvement of commerce in Boston and the surrounding metropolitan area. Massport owns and operates the Boston Seaport, Logan International Airport, and Hanscom Field.
• The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) is the regional planning agency for the 101 cities and towns in the MAPC/MPO district. It is composed of the chief executive (or her/his designee) of each of the 101 cities and towns in the district, 21 gubernatorial appointees, and 12 ex officio members. It has statutory responsibility for comprehensive regional planning in the district under Chapter 40B of the MGL. It is the Boston Metropolitan Clearinghouse under Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and Title VI of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. Its district has also been designated an economic development district under Title IV of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended. MAPC’s responsibilities for comprehensive planning include technical assistance to communities, transportation planning, and the development of zoning, land use, demographic, and environmental studies.
• The City of Boston, six elected cities (currently Beverly, Braintree, Everett, Newton, Somerville, and Woburn), and six elected towns (currently Arlington, Bedford, Framingham, Lexington, Medway, and Norwood) represent the region’s 101 municipalities in the Boston Region MPO. The City of Boston is a permanent MPO member (with two seats); there is one elected municipal seat for each of the eight MAPC subregions; and there are four at-large elected municipalities (two cities and two towns). The elected at-large municipalities serve staggered three-year terms, as do the eight municipalities representing the MAPC subregions.
• The Regional Transportation Advisory Council, the MPO’s public advisory group, provides the opportunity for transportation-related organizations, agencies, and municipal representatives to become actively involved in the decision-making processes of the MPO in the planning and programming of transportation projects in the region. The Advisory Council reviews, comments on, and makes recommendations regarding certification documents. It also serves as a forum for providing information on transportation topics in the region, identifying issues, advocating for ways to address the region’s transportation needs, and generating interest among members of the general public in the work of the MPO.

Two members participate in the Boston Region MPO in an advisory (nonvoting) capacity, reviewing the Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) to ensure compliance with federal planning and programming requirements:

• The Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration oversee the highway and transit programs of the US Department of Transportation under pertinent legislation and the provisions of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21).

Two other entities assist MPO members in carrying out the responsibilities of the MPO’s 3C planning process through policy implementation, technical support, and public participation:

• The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) was created by the MPO to carry out general and 3C transportation-planning activities on behalf of the MPO and to provide agencies with analyses required for their decision making.
• The MAPC subregional groupsbring together representatives (usually appointed or elected officials or their staff) of the communities within a subregion of the MAPC district to address shared concerns regarding transportation and land use issues. MAPC has promoted and supported the formation of subregional groups in order to foster better communication and cooperation among communities. They have played an important role in the MPO’s participatory process, including the development of TIP and UPWP project priorities.

Certification Documents

The following section is a brief description of each of the three documents the MPO produces as part of its federally required 3C process:

• The Long-Range Transportation Plan and Air Quality Conformity Determination (LRTP)states the MPO’s transportation goals and policies, describes the public participation process for transportation planning, assesses the current state of the region’s transportation system, estimates future needs and resources, and lays out a program for preserving and expanding the system for the upcoming 20-year period. In the Boston Region MPO, the LRTP is produced every four years. The current LRTP, Paths to a Sustainable Region, commits future transportation investments that advance the MPO’s goals for the region to the end of 2035.
• The Transportation Improvement Program and Air Quality Conformity Determination (TIP)is a staged, multiyear, intermodal program of transportation improvements that is consistent with the Long-Range Transportation Plan. It describes and prioritizes transportation projects that are expected to be implemented during a four-year period. The types of transportation projects funded include major highway reconstruction and maintenance, arterial and intersection improvements, public transit expansion and maintenance, bicycle paths and facilities, and improvements for pedestrians. The TIP contains a financial plan that shows the revenue source or sources, current or proposed, for each project. One function of the TIP is to serve as a tool for monitoring progress in implementing the Long-Range Transportation Plan. The Boston Region MPO updates the TIP annually. An MPO-endorsed TIP is incorporated into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for its submission to FHWA, FTA, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval.
• The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)describes a fiscal year’s transportation-related planning activities and sets forth budgets for projects using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) planning funds. The UPWP identifies the funding used to carry out each component of the transportation planning process in the region, including production of the Long-Range Transportation Plan, the Transportation Improvement Program, and their Air Quality Conformity Determinations. The UPWP has a one-year scope and is produced annually.

Consistency with Federal Planning Regulations

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21)

This legislation requires all MPOs to carry out the 3C process. Activities the MPOs must perform to meet this requirement are:

• Production of the LRTP, the TIP, and the UPWP
• Establishment and oversight of the public participation process
• Maintenance of transportation models and data resources to support air quality conformity determinations as well as long-range and short-range planning work

The MAP-21 legislation establishes national goals for federal highway programs. These goals include:

1. Safety–To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads
2. Infrastructure condition–To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair
3. Congestion reduction–To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System
4. System reliability–To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system
5. Freight movement and economic vitality–To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development
6. Environmental sustainability–To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment
7. Reduced project delivery delays–To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies’ work practices

MAP-21 also establishes performance-based planning as an integral part of the metropolitan planning process. Under MAP-21, states will develop performance goals, guided by the national goals set out in MAP-21, and MPOs will work with state DOTs in developing MPO performance targets. The TIP will integrate the MPO’s performance measures and link transportation investment decisions to progress toward the achievement of performance goals.

Consistency with Other Federal Legislative Requirements

Nondiscrimination Mandates

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and other federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. The MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, English proficiency, income, religious creed, ancestry, disability, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or military service. The major federal requirements are discussed below.

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

This statute requires that no person be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, under any program or activity provided by an agency receiving federal financial assistance.

Executive Order 13166, dated August 11, 2000, extends Title VI protections to persons who, as a result of national origin, have limited English-language proficiency (LEP). Specifically, it calls for improved access to federally conducted and federally assisted programs and activities and requires MPOs to develop and implement a system by which LEP persons can meaningfully participate in the transportation-planning process.

Environmental Justice Executive Orders

Executive Order 12898, dated February 11, 1994, further expands upon Title VI, requiring each federal agency to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing any disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of its programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations.

On April 15, 1997, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued its Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Among other provisions, this order requires programming and planning activities to:

• Explicitly consider the effects of transportation decisions on minority and low-income populations
• Provide meaningful opportunities for public involvement by members of minority and low-income populations
• Gather (where relevant, appropriate, and practical) demographic information such as the race, color, national origin, and income level of the populations affected by transportation decisions
• Minimize or mitigate any adverse impact on minority or low-income populations

The Americans with Disabilities Act

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires all transportation projects, plans, and programs to be accessible to people with disabilities. At the MPO level, this means that public meetings must be held in accessible buildings and MPO materials must be made available in accessible formats.

The 1990 Clean Air Act

Air quality conformity determinations must be performed for capital improvement projects that receive federal funding and for those that are considered regionally significant, regardless of the funding source. These determinations must show that the MPO’s LRTP and TIP will not cause or contribute to any new air quality violations, will not increase the frequency or severity of any existing air quality violations in any area, and will not delay the timely attainment of the air quality standards in any area.

Transportation control measures (TCMs) identified in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the attainment of air quality standards are federally enforceable and must be given first priority when using federal funds. Such projects include parking freeze programs in Boston and Cambridge, statewide rideshare programs, rapid transit and commuter rail extension programs, park-and-ride facilities, residential parking sticker programs, and the operation of high-occupancy-vehicle lanes.

CONSISTENCY WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS

Global Warming Solutions Act

The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), which Governor Deval Patrick signed into law in August 2008, makes Massachusetts a leader in setting aggressive and enforceable greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets and implementing policies and initiatives to achieve these targets. In keeping with this law, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA), in consultation with other state agencies and the public, developed the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. This implementation plan, released on December 29, 2010, establishes the following targets for overall, statewide GHG emissions:

• By 2020: 25 percent reduction below statewide 1990 GHG emission levels
• By 2050: 80 percent reduction below statewide 1990 GHG emission levels

GreenDOT Policy

The transportation sector is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases, accounting for over a third of GHG emissions, and is therefore a key focus of the Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. MassDOT’s approach to supporting the implementation of the plan is set forth in its GreenDOT Policy Directive, a comprehensive sustainability initiative that sets three principal objectives:

• Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. MassDOT will achieve this by taking GHG emissions into account in all of its responsibilities, from strategic planning to project design and construction and system operations.
• Promote the healthy transportation modes of walking, bicycling, and public transit. MassDOT will achieve this by pursuing multimodal, “complete streets” design standards, providing choice in transportation services, and working with MPOs and other partners to prioritize and program a balance among projects that serve drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit riders.
• To support smart-growth development. MassDOT will achieve this by working with MPOs and other partners to make transportation investments that make possible denser, smart-growth development patterns, which support reduced GHG emissions.

The Commonwealth’s 13 MPOs are integrally involved in helping to achieve the GreenDOT objectives and supporting the GHG reductions mandated under the GWSA. The MPOs seek to achieve these objectives through the prioritization of projects in the LRTP and TIP. The Boston Region MPO’s TIP project evaluation criteria score projects based on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts, multimodal “complete streets” accommodations, and their ability to support smart-growth development. Tracking and evaluating GHG emissions by project will enable the MPOs to identify the anticipated GHG impacts of the planned and programmed projects and also to use GHG impacts as a criterion in prioritizing transportation investments.

Coordination with Other Planning Activities

Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)

The MPO considered the degree to which a proposed TIP project would advance the policies that guided the development of its LRTP. The MPO also reviewed TIP projects within the context of the recommended projects included in the LRTP.

Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)

The MPO aims to implement the recommendations of past studies and reports of the UPWP. This information was considered by the MPO in the development of the draft TIP.

Congestion Management Process (CMP)

The purpose of the CMP is to monitor transit, roadway, park-and-ride facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the MPO region and identify “problem” locations. Projects that help address problems identified in the most recent CMP monitoring were considered for inclusion in this TIP.

The MBTA’s Program for Mass Transportation (PMT)

In 2009, the MBTA adopted its current PMT, which is the MBTA’s long-range capital plan. The PMT was developed with extensive public involvement and was approved by the MBTA Advisory Board. The PMT includes projects that are currently under design for inclusion in the TIP.

youMove Massachusetts

youMove Massachusetts, a statewide initiative designed as a bottom-up approach to transportation planning, developed 10 core themes derived from a broad-based public participation process that articulated the expressed concerns, needs, and aspirations of Massachusetts residents related to their transportation network. These themes formed the basis for the You Move Massachusetts Interim Report (2009), and were considered in the development of this TIP.

weMove Massachusetts

weMove Massachusetts (WMM) is MassDOT’s statewide strategic multimodal plan. The initiative is a product of the transportation reform legislation of 2009 and the You Move Massachusetts civic engagement process. WMM will improve how MassDOT does business, responds to customers, and provides transportation services to the commonwealth. Using an analytical approach developed for the WMM process, MassDOT can now prioritize transportation investments for different planning scenarios based on national standards and available funds. The TIP builds on this data-based effort to prioritize transportation investments.

Healthy Transportation Compact

The Healthy Transportation Compact (HTC) is a key requirement of the Massachusetts landmark transportation reform legislation that took effect on November 1, 2009. It is an interagency initiative that will help ensure that the transportation decisions the Commonwealth makes balance the needs of all transportation users, expand mobility, improve public health, support a cleaner environment, and create stronger communities.

The agencies work together to achieve positive health outcomes through the coordination of land use, transportation, and public health policy. HTC membership is made up of the Secretary of Transportation or designee (co-chair), the Secretary of Health and Human Services or designee (co-chair), the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs or designee, the Administrator of Transportation for Highways or designee, the Administrator of Transportation for Mass Transit or designee, and the Commissioner of Public Health or designee.

The HTC also promotes improved coordination among the public sector, private sector, and advocacy groups, as well as among transportation, land-use, and public health stakeholders. As part of the framework for the HTC, MassDOT established a Healthy Transportation Advisory Group comprising advocates and leaders in the fields of land-use, transportation, and public health policy.

Accelerated Bridge Program

The $3 billion Patrick-Murray Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) represents a monumental investment in Massachusetts bridges. This program will greatly reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges in the state system, while creating thousands of construction jobs on bridge projects.

To complete this program, MassDOT and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) have relied on the use of innovative and accelerated project development and construction techniques. As a result, projects have been completed on time, on budget, and with minimum disruption to people and to commerce.

Since 2008, the number of former structurally deficient bridges has dropped, from 543 to 436, a decline of 19.7 percent. As of January 1, 2013, the ABP Program has completed 121 bridge projects, with another 48 bridge projects currently in construction and an additional 20 bridge projects scheduled to start construction within the next year. Over the course of the eight-year ABP program, it is expected that more than 200 bridges will be replaced or repaired.

MassDOT Mode Shift Goal

In the fall of 2012, MassDOT announced a statewide mode shift goal of tripling the share of travel in Massachusetts that uses the modes of bicycling, transit, and walking. The mode shift goal aims to foster improved quality of life by improving our environment and preserving the capacity on our highway network. In addition, positive public health outcomes will be achieved by providing more healthy transportation options.

Consistency with MPO Policies

In choosing projects for inclusion in the TIP, the Boston Region MPO considers the degree to which a project forwards the following MPO policies, which were adopted in April 2010, and are the basis for the TIP evaluation process:

System Preservation, Modernization, and Efficiency

Maximizing efficiency, reliability, mobility, and accessibility with our existing infrastructure and within current and ongoing fiscal constraints will require following a program of strategic, needs-based investments. To accomplish this, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

• Develop low-cost strategies; pursue alternative funding sources and mechanisms
• Use ITS, new technologies, transportation systems management, and management and operations; turn to technology before expansion
• Bring the transportation network – particularly the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems – into a state of good repair and maintain them at that level; set funding levels to make this possible
• Maintain bridges and roads
• Support the increase of Chapter 90 (the grant program to fund municipalities’ highway capital improvements) funding so that local road maintenance can remain funded by that program

Livability

To make livability a hallmark of communities in the MPO region and to achieve mobility, foster sustainable communities, and expand economic opportunities and prosperity, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

• Are consistent with MetroFuture land use planning; this means supporting transportation projects serving: already-developed locations of residential or commercial/industrial activity; locations with adequate sewer and water infrastructure; areas identified for economic development by state, regional, and local planning agencies; and areas with a relatively high density of development 2
• Support health-promoting transportation options, such as bicycle and pedestrian modes, and activities that reduce single-occupant-vehicle use and overall vehicle-miles traveled
• Expand, and close gaps in, the bicycle and pedestrian network; promote a “complete streets” philosophy
• Support transportation design and reasonably priced enhancements that protect community cohesiveness, identity, and quality of life

Mobility

To improve mobility for people and freight, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

• Strengthen existing connections and create new connections within and between modes
• Improve access to transit by all persons and the accessibility of transit for persons with disabilities
• Improve the frequency, span, and reliability of transit services
• Expand the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks while focusing bicycle investments (lanes and paths) on moving people between activity centers and linking with transit
• Integrate payment methods for fares and parking across modes
• Support transportation demand management, Transportation Management Associations, shuttles, and carpooling
• Address capacity constraints and bottlenecks in the existing roadway system using low-cost approaches (transportation system management strategies, management and operations strategies, ITS, and new technologies) before expansion

Environment

To protect the environment and minimize the impacts from transportation systems, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

• Improve transportation in areas of existing development, which will reduce pressure to develop greenfields and possibly support development that will clean up brownfields for productive use
• Promote energy conservation, fleet management and modernization, and high-occupancy travel options to reduce fuel consumption and emissions of pollutants
• Protect community character and cultural resources
• Protect natural resources by planning early to avoid or mitigate impacts on storm water or groundwater and on other resources
• Protect public health by reducing air pollutants, including fine particulates; avoid funding projects that increase exposure of at-risk populations to ultrafine particulates
• Lower the life cycle costs from construction to operation
• Increase the mode share for transit and nonmotorized modes
• Promote energy conservation and the use of alternative energy sources
• Promote a context-sensitive design philosophy, consistent with the MassDOT Highway Division design guidelines

Transportation Equity

To provide for the equitable sharing of the benefits and burdens of transportation investments among all residents of the region, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

• Continue outreach to low-income and minority residents and expand data collection and analysis that include the elderly, youth, and limited English proficiency (LEP) populations in order to identify these residents’ transportation needs
• Continue to monitor system performance
• Address identified transportation equity issues and needs related to service and to removing or minimizing burdens (air pollution, unsafe conditions, community impacts)
• Track implementing agencies’ actions responding to transportation needs identified in MPO outreach and analysis that are related to transportation equity; encourage action to address needs
• Strengthen avenues for involvement of low-income and minority persons in decision making
• Reduce trip times for residents of low-income and minority neighborhoods and increase transit service capacity
• Give priority to heavily used transit services over new, yet-to-be-proven services

Climate Change

To meet the targets for reducing GHG emissions, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

• Implement action to meet defined targets for reducing vehicle-miles traveled (VMT); tie transportation funding to VMT reduction
• Support stronger land use and smart growth strategies
• Increase transit, bicycle, and pedestrian options
• Invest in adaptations that protect critical infrastructure from the effects of climate change
• Encourage strategies that utilize transportation demand management
• Promote fleet management and modernization, idling reduction, and alternative fuel use
• Contribute to reduced energy use in the region; energy use will be part of the environmental impact analysis of all projects

Safety and Security

To provide for maximum transportation safety and to support security in the region, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

• Implement actions stemming from all-hazards planning
• Maintain the transportation system in a state of good repair
• Use state-of-the-practice safety elements; address roadway safety deficiencies (after safety audits) in order to reduce crashes; and address transit safety (this will include following federal mandates)
• Support incident management programs and ITS
• Protect critical transportation infrastructure from both natural hazards and human threats; address transit security vulnerabilities; upgrade key transportation infrastructure to a “hardened” design standard
• Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists; ensure that safety provisions are incorporated into shared-use corridors
• Reduce the severity of crashes, especially via measures that improve safety for all
• Promote safety through supporting the reduction of base speed limits (in municipalities) to 25 miles per hour and through education about and enforcement of rules of the road, for all modes that use the roadways
• Improve the transportation infrastructure to better support emergency response and evacuations

Chapter Two: The TIP Process

INTRODUCTION TO THE TIP Process

Among the most important decisions faced in planning for the future are those involving how to spend scarce funds to achieve the best transportation value. Transportation is part of the solution to many critical regional, state, national, and even global problems, such as traffic congestion, air pollution, traffic fatalities and injuries, climate change, and environmental justice. With not nearly enough transportation funding available to build all of the needed and worthy projects to address these problems, investments should be guided by policies that help identify the strongest solutions. The TIP seeks to prioritize these transportation investments through its annual development process.

Each year, the MPO conducts a TIP development process to decide how to spend federal transportation funds for capital projects. The Central Transportation Planning Staff to the Boston Region MPO manages the annual development process for the TIP. The MPO staff coordinates the evaluation of project requests, propose programming of current and new projects based on anticipated funding levels, support the MPO in the development a draft document, and facilitate public review of the draft document before the final MPO endorsement.

FINANCING THE PROGRAM

Federal Framework

The first step in the process of allocating federal transportation funds is for a multiyear transportation authorization act to establish a maximum level of federal transportation funding per federal fiscal year. The establishment of this level of funding is referred to as an authorization. The most recent authorization act is Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), signed into law on July 6, 2012.

Once the authorization level has been established, the United States Department of Transportation annually allocates funding among the states, based on various federal formulas. This allocation is referred to as an apportionment. The annual apportionment rarely represents the actual amount of federal funds that is committed to a state, due to federally imposed limitations on spending in a given fiscal year called obligation authority.

Obligation authority may be imposed in a multiyear authorization act, in the annual appropriations act, or in both. Obligation authority is typically less than a state’s apportionment. In Massachusetts, TIPs are developed based on the estimated obligation authority.

Two of the most important distinctions between apportionment and obligation authority are: (1) apportionment is allocated on a per-program basis, while obligation authority is generally allocated as a lump sum; and (2) unused apportionment carries forward into successive federal fiscal years (FFYs), but unused obligation authority does not. Unused apportionment that is carried forward is referred to as an unobligated balance. Although a state’s unobligated balance can be used to increase the federal aid programmed within a particular funding category in a given FFY, it cannot be used to increase the total amount of the state’s highway apportionment.

Federal Highway Program

Federal regulations require states to “provide MPOs with estimates of Federal and State funds which the MPOs shall utilize in developing financial plans” for TIPs. 3 The FFYs 2014–17 TIP was developed under the assumption that the Statewide Federal Highway Program would be $600 million annually over the next four years. In Massachusetts, federal highway program funding is allocated to several major funding categories. First, MassDOT allocates federal funding to Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) payments for the Central Artery/Tunnel project in FFY 2014 and the Accelerated Bridge Program in FFYs 2015–17. Over the four years of this TIP, approximately $122.8 million of the Highway Program is dedicated to GANs payments for the Central Artery/Tunnel project and $450 million in federal aid is dedicated to GANs payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program. MassDOT matches the remaining amount of federal funding at an 80 percent (federal) and 20 percent (state) split. Next, funding is allocated to the following funding categories prioritized by MassDOT:

• Statewide Infrastructure Items: Interstate highway maintenance, intelligent transportation systems, safe routes to schools, and other infrastructure needs
• Bridge Program: Replacement or rehabilitation of public bridges
• Other Statewide Items: Change orders for existing contracts

After these needs are satisfied, the remaining federal funding is allocated to the state’s MPOs for programming. This discretionary funding for MPOs is suballocated by formula to determine “regional target” amounts. These targets are developed in consultation with the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies. Each MPO can decide how the Regional Target funding is prioritized. Over the next four years, the Boston Region MPO’s total Regional Target Program is approximately $296.8 million, or on average $74.1 million annually. To decide how to spend its Regional Target, the Boston Region MPO engages its 101 cities and towns in an annual development process for this decision making.

Federal Transit Program

The Federal Transit Program is allocated within the Boston Urbanized Area (UZA) by formula to the transit operators. The formula considers passenger-miles, population density, and other factors associated with each transit provider. There are three regional transit authorities (RTAs) in the Boston MPO region: the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA). The MBTA, with its extensive transit program and infrastructure, is the recipient of the preponderance of federal transit funds in the region.

Funding Programs

Many federal-aid transportation programs support transportation activities in metropolitan areas, each having different requirements and program characteristics. Non-federal aid (state funds) for the Statewide Infrastructure Items, Bridge Program, and Central Artery/Tunnel project, is derived from various sources, including the Commonwealth’s Transportation Bond Bill. Under MAP-21, federal programs that fund projects in the FFYs 2014–17 TIP are listed in the following two tables.

Developing the TIP

Highway Discretionary (“Regional Target”) Funding Project Selection Process

Overview

The MPO’s project selection process for its highway discretionary (“regional target”) funding uses evaluation criteria to help identify and prioritize projects that advance the MPO’s goals. The criteria are based on the MPO’s visions and policies that were adopted for its Long-Range Transportation Plan, Paths to a Sustainable Region.

All projects are required to show consistency with the Long-Range Transportation Plan and other statewide and regional plans (for example, the Program for Mass Transportation and the Massachusetts Statewide Bicycle Transportation Plan).

The MPO staff evaluates each project that is considered for inclusion in the TIP based on the specific criteria that have been developed by the MPO. Other inputs include project readiness and municipal support. Additional background information on the TIP project evaluation process is provided in Appendix B of this document and on the MPO’s website, http://bostonmpo.org/Drupal/tip. The MPO reviews the effectiveness of this evaluation method and makes alterations to the process as appropriate.

Outreach and Data Collection (December 2012–February 2013)

The outreach process begins early in the fiscal year, when the MPO staff begins to brief local officials and members of the public on the year’s development process. In December, the MPO staff solicits a listing of priority projects to be considered for federal funding from each of the 101 cities and towns in the region. The MPO also seeks the input from interested parties and members of the general public. The staff then compiles the project funding requests and relevant information into a Universe of Projects list for the MPO. The Universe of Projects list consists of all identified projects being advanced for possible funding and includes projects in varied stages of development, from being in the conceptual stage to being fully designed and ready to be advertised for construction.

New projects must be initiated through the MassDOT Highway Division before they can be considered for programming in the TIP. Details of the project initiation process and relevant documents can be found on the Project Review Committee webpage,  http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/projectReview&sid=about. Municipal TIP Contacts and the MPO staff coordinate to update each project´s Project Funding Application Form through the MPO´s Interactive TIP Database,  http://www.bostonmpo.org/apps/tip9/tip_query.html. The form provides information on each project´s background, infrastructure condition and needs, development status, and ability to help the region attain the visions established by the MPO.

More information on the Project Funding Application Forms can be found in Appendix B of this document.

The MPO has begun to monitor the anticipated greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts of planned and programmed projects. This tracking will enable the MPO to consider the anticipated impacts when prioritizing transportation investments. More information on the GHG emission monitoring and evaluation can be found in Appendix C of this document.

Evaluation of Projects (February–March 2013)

The MPO uses TIP project evaluation criteria to develop a numeric score that gives an indication of how well each project helps the region attain the visions established by the MPO. This score can then be used to guide the MPO in selecting the projects that will be most successful. The MPO’s visions include: to maintain a state of good repair, focus investments on existing activity centers, improve mobility for people and freight, reduce the level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, minimize environmental burdens from transportation facilities on low-income and minority populations, and provide safe transportation for all modes. Projects with components and outcomes that help attain the goals of the MPO receive higher scores.

The project evaluation criteria consist of 35 questions across six policy categories. The TIP evaluation criteria graphic on page 2-7 provides an overview of the policy categories, their point values, and the criteria measures.

The MPO staff requires a Functional Design Report (FDR) to conduct a complete evaluation (see MassDOT’s Project Development and Design Guide for information about what is included in a Functional Design Report). If not enough information is available, a project cannot be fully evaluated across all categories.

The summary of evaluation results for projects being considered for the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2014–17 TIP is available in table A-1 of Appendix A. The table contains the total project rating for each project. For more details on the evaluation criteria used to score projects, see Appendix B.

Staff Recommendation (March–April 2013)

The MPO staff uses evaluations and project readiness information to prepare a First-Tier List of Projects. This is a list of the projects with the highest ratings that could be made ready for advertising within the TIP’s time horizon (the next four federal fiscal years). The staff relies on the MassDOT Highway Division to provide information about what year a project would be ready for advertising. In developing the staff recommendation for the draft TIP, the MPO staff strongly considers the First-Tier List of Projects. The MPO staff also factors in projects that are listed in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) in order to implement the LRTP, considers geographic equity to help ensure that the list of projects addresses needs throughout the region, and accounts for cost to comply with fiscal constraint.

Bridge Program Project Selection Process

The project selection criteria for the Bridge Program are based on a continuous, ongoing prioritization process of MassDOT. The underlying basis for this prioritization is the condition of the bridges based largely on information gathered through the Bridge Inspection Management System.

Statewide Infrastructure Items Project Selection Process

The project selection process for the Statewide Infrastructure Items involves coordination between the MassDOT divisions to review and prioritize projects that advance important statewide policy goals for improving mobility, protecting the environment, promoting economic growth, and improving public health and quality of life. Other prioritization factors include project readiness and consistency with MassDOT’s GreenDOT sustainability policy, the Bay State Greenway Priority 100, and the Safe Routes to School Program.

Transit Project Selection Process

The process of selecting transit projects for the TIP draws primarily from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Capital Investment Program (CIP). The CIP is a rolling five-year plan that outlines the transit system´s infrastructure needs and planned investments within that short-range time frame. The MBTA updates the CIP annually. Prioritization of projects for inclusion in the CIP is based on their impacts on the following, as defined in the MBTA’s enabling legislation: the effectiveness of the commonwealth’s transportation system; service quality; the environment, health, and safety; the state of good repair of MBTA infrastructure; and the MBTA’s operating costs and debt service.

Projects that receive the highest priority are those with the greatest benefit and the least cost, as prioritized by the following criteria:

• Health and the Environment: To qualify for points in this area, proposed projects must correct an existing deficiency for passengers and/or employees in health and/or the environment.
• State of Good Repair: This criterion measures the degree to which proposed projects improve the condition of the MBTA’s existing infrastructure.
• Cost/Benefit: Projects receive scores based on the numbers of passengers they benefit, their net operating costs, and the debt service necessary to support their capital costs.
• Operational Impact: This measures the extent to which proposed projects are deemed operationally critical, as well as projects’ ability to improve the effectiveness of the commonwealth’s transportation network in general.
• Legal Commitments: To qualify for points in this area, projects must contribute to fulfilling a legal obligation of the MBTA, such as the MBTA’s Key Station Plan.

The transit element of the TIP also includes the federal-aid programs of the other two transit authorities in the region, the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA) and MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA). CATA and MWRTA coordinate with the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division to develop their capital programs.

Approving the TIP

Approval of the Draft TIP for Public Review

The MPO considers the evaluation results, First-Tier List of Projects, and staff recommendation in prioritizing projects for Regional Target funding. They also consider public input, regional importance, and other factors in the development of the draft TIP. In addition to prioritizing the Regional Target funding, the MPO also reviews the Statewide Infrastructure Items and Bridge Programs, and the capital programs for the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA, before voting to release a draft TIP for public review. 

This year, the MPO voted in early May to release the draft federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2014–17 TIP for a 30-day public review and comment period. The MPO invites members of the public, regional and local officials, and other stakeholders from the Boston region to review the proposed program. Several TIP outreach sessions are held during the public comment period to solicit comments on the draft TIP. Summaries of comments received on the draft TIP are provided in Appendix F.

Approval of the Draft TIP

After the comment period ends, the MPO reviews all comments and makes changes to the document as appropriate. This year the MPO is scheduled to take action on the draft FFYs 2014–2017 TIP on June 27, 2013. Once the TIP is endorsed by the MPO, it is incorporated into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and sent to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration to enable federal approval by September 30, the end of the federal fiscal year.

Updating the TIP

The TIP is a dynamic program that is amended and adjusted throughout the year. Administrative modifications and amendments often must be introduced due to changes in project status, project cost, or available revenues.

Consistent with federal guidelines, if a project is valued at $5 million or less, the threshold for defining an amendment is a change of $500,000 or more. The threshold for projects valued at greater than $5 million is 10 percent or more of the project value. Changes below these thresholds may be considered administrative modifications. The MPO acts on administrative modifications, and, although no public review period is required, one may be provided at the MPO’s discretion.

Affected municipalities and constituencies are notified of pending amendments. Legal notices of amendments are placed in the region’s major newspaper, in its most widely read minority newspaper and Spanish-language newspaper, and on the MPO’s website. In addition, a notice of a pending amendment is distributed to the MPO’s email listserv, MPOinfo, and, along with the actual amendment, is posted on its website. These notices include information on a 30-day public comment period that precedes MPO action on the amendment. The Regional Transportation Advisory Council is notified and briefed during this period and provides its comments. Municipal representatives and members of the public may also submit written or oral testimony at MPO meetings at which amendments are discussed.

Because the print version of the TIP is prepared prior to the start of each federal fiscal year, it may not reflect all of the changes to the program and projects that occur during the course of the year. The MPO’s website is the best place to find current information about the TIP.

All actions on the draft TIP and the approved actions on the endorsed TIP are available on the TIP webpage on the MPO’s website, http://ctps.org/Drupal/tip. Comments or questions on the draft materials may be submitted directly through the website.

Chapter Three: Project Information

This chapter begins with tables listing, by year, the projects and programs funded in FFYs 2014–17.

Following the tables, information on projects and programs funded in the Highway and Transit Programs is presented. Projects funded under the Highway Program are listed by municipality, while programs funded under the Transit Program are listed by transit agency.

Highway Program - project information key

ID Number: Projects in MassDOT’s project-tracking system are given a number; those projects not in the

Project-tracking system have no number. Transit projects are identified by regional transit agency.

Municipality(ies): The municipality (or municipalities) in which a project is located.

Project Name: The location or name of the project.

Project Type: The category of the project (e.g., Major Highway, Arterial and Intersection, or Bicycle and Pedestrian).

Air Quality Status: The air quality status of the project in the MPO’s regional travel demand model.

CO2 Impact: The quantified or assumed annual tons of carbon dioxide reduced by the project.

See Appendix C for more details on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission monitoring and evaluation.

Evaluation Rating: The number of points scored by the project based on the evaluation criteria, if it has been evaluated.

MPO/CTPS Study: Past UPWP-funded studies or reports conducted within the project area.

LRTP Status: The time band that the project is listed in the Long-Range Transportation Plan, if applicable.

Project Length: The length of the project in miles.

Project Description: The description of the project, if available.

Year: The programming year(s) of the project.

Funding Program: The funding program(s) of the project. See Chapter 2 for more details on funding programs.

Total Funding Programmed: The total funding programmed for the project based on the year of expenditure.

Information regarding TIP projects changes periodically. For more information on all projects please visit the Interactive TIP Database at www.ctps.org.

Transit Program - Project information key

Transit Agency: Regional transit agency that is the proponent of the project.

Program/Project Name: The description of the program or project.

Air Quality Status: The air quality status of the project in the MPO’s regional travel demand model.

CO2 Impact: The quantified or assumed annual tons of carbon dioxide reduced by the project.

See Appendix C for more details on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission monitoring and evaluation.

Project Description: The description of the program or project, if available.

Year: The programming year(s) of the program or project.

Funding Program: The funding program(s) of the project. See Chapter 2 for more details on funding programs.

Total Funding Programmed: The total funding programmed for the program or project based on the year of expenditure.

Chapter Four: Determination of Air Quality Conformity

Introduction

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require metropolitan planning organizations within nonattainment  and maintenance areas to perform air quality conformity determinations prior to the approval of Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and at such other times as required by regulation. A nonattainment area is one that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated as not meeting certain air quality standards. A maintenance area is a nonattainment area that now meets the standards and has been redesignated as maintaining the standard. A conformity determination is a demonstration that a region’s plans, programs, and projects are consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the air quality standards. The CAAA requirement to perform a conformity determination ensures that federal approval and funding go to transportation activities that are consistent with air quality goals. This chapter presents information and analyses for the air quality conformity determination for the projects in the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2014–17 TIP, as required by federal regulations (40 CFR Part 93) and the Massachusetts Conformity Regulations (310 CMR 60.03). It also includes the regulatory framework, conformity requirements, planning assumptions, mobile-source emission budgets, and conformity consultation procedures related to the determination.

Legislative Background

The 1970 Clean Air Act defined a one-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. The 1990 CAAA further classified degrees of nonattainment of the one-hour standard based on the severity of the monitored levels of the pollutant. The entire commonwealth of Massachusetts was classified as being in serious nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, with a required attainment date of 1999. The attainment date was later extended, first to 2003 and then to 2007.

In 1997, the EPA proposed a new, eight-hour ozone standard that replaced the one-hour standard; the new standards became effective June 15, 2005. Scientific research had shown that ozone could affect human health at lower levels than previously thought, and over longer exposure times than one hour. The new standard was challenged in court, and after a lengthy legal battle, the courts upheld it. It was finalized in June 2004. The eight-hour standard is 0.08 parts per million, averaged over eight hours and not to be exceeded more than once per year. Nonattainment areas were again further classified based on the severity of the eight-hour values. Massachusetts as a whole was classified as being in moderate nonattainment for the eight-hour standard, but it was separated into two nonattainment areas – Eastern Massachusetts and Western Massachusetts. The Eastern Massachusetts Ozone Nonattainment Area includes all of Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Worcester counties. Because of this nonattainment classification, the CAAA required the Commonwealth to reduce its emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), the two major precursors of ozone formation, to achieve attainment of the eight- hour ozone standard by 2009.

In addition, on April 1, 1996, the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville were classified as being in attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. As part of the TIP, an air quality conformity analysis must still be completed for these communities, as they have a carbon monoxide maintenance plan approved as part of the SIP. The 2010 CO motor vehicle emission budget established for the Boston CO attainment area with a maintenance plan is 228.33 tons of CO per winter day.

As of April 22, 2002, the community of Waltham was redesignated as being in attainment for CO, with an EPA-approved limited-maintenance plan. In areas that have approved limited-maintenance plans, federal actions requiring conformity determinations under the transportation conformity rule are considered to satisfy the “budget test” (since budgets are not treated as being constraining in these areas for the length of the initial maintenance period). Any requirements for future “project-level” conformity determinations for projects located within this community will continue to use a “hot-spot” analysis to ensure that any new transportation projects in this CO attainment area do not cause or contribute to CO nonattainment.

In March 2008, EPA published revisions to the eight-hour ozone NAAQS that established a level of 0.075 ppm (March 27, 2008; 73 FR 16483). In 2009, the EPA announced it would reconsider this standard because it fell outside of the range recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. However, the EPA never took final action on the reconsideration so the standard would remain at 0.075 ppm.

After reviewing data from Massachusetts monitoring stations, the EPA sent a letter on December 16, 2011, proposing that only Dukes County would be designated as being in nonattainment for the new, proposed 0.075 ozone standard. Massachusetts concurred with these findings.

On Monday, May 21, 2012,  the final rule (77 FR 30088) was published in the Federal Register, defining the 2008 NAAQS at 0.075 ppm, the standard that was promulgated in March 2008. A second rule (77 FR 30160), published on May 21, 2012, revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which was to become effective one year after the 2008 NAAQS became effective (July 20, 2012).

Also on Monday, May 21, 2012, the air quality designations areas for the 2008 NAAQS were published in the Federal Register. In this Federal Register, the only area in Massachusetts that was designated as being in nonattainment was Dukes County. All other counties were classified as unclassifiable/attainment. 

Therefore, conformity for ozone in the Boston Region MPO area is required until July 20, 2013, for the 1997 ozone standard. Since this FFYs 2014–17 TIP will be reviewed and approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) after July 20, 2013, the Boston Region MPO does not have to perform a conformity determination for ozone for this program.

However, the Boston Region MPO is required to continue to perform conformity determinations for the Boston CO Maintenance Area until at least 2020 to comply with regulations requiring continued conformity for an additional 10 years after 2010. In addition, the MPO is required to implement the SIP’s Transportation Control Measures (for example, the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project mitigation commitments). The Boston Region MPO will also be required to continue to perform conformity determinations for the Waltham CO Limited-Maintenance Area.

Conformity Regulations

Designated MPOs are required to perform conformity determinations by nonattainment or maintenance area for their LRTPs and TIPs. Section 176 of the CAAA defines conformity to a State Implementation Plan to mean conformity to the plan’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. The Boston Region MPO must certify with regard to the activities outlined in the LRTP and TIP that:

• None will cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area.
• None will increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area.
• None will delay the timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.

The EPA issued final conformity regulations in the November 24, 1993, Federal Register, and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued conformity regulations that became effective December 30, 1994. They set forth requirements for determining conformity of LRTPs, TIPs, and individual projects. The federal conformity regulations were amended several times through August 2010. The components of the required conformity analysis are listed below and are explained in detail subsequently.

Conformity Criteria

• Horizon years
• Latest planning assumptions
• Latest emission model used
• Timely implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs)
• Conformity in accordance with consultation procedures and SIP revisions
• Public participation procedures
• Financially constrained document

Procedures for Determining Regional Transportation Emissions

The Conformity Test

The conformity test must be consistent with emission budgets set forth in the SIP. This conformity determination will show the consistency of the FFYs 2014–17 TIP with the CO emission budget for the Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville maintenance area.

Conformity Determination Criteria

This conformity determination has been prepared in accordance with 40 CFR Part 93, Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Flexibility and Streamlining: Final Rule. It shows that the TIP has been prepared following all the guidelines and requirements of the Rule.

Horizon Year Requirements

The horizon years for regional model analysis were established to comply with 40 CFR 93.106(a) of the Federal Conformity Regulations. The years for which emissions are calculated are shown below.

• 2016 – Milestone Year and Analysis Year: This year is used to show conformity with the CO budget in the Boston nonattainment area.
• 2025 – Analysis Year
• 2035 – Horizon Year: Last forecast year of the LRTP

Latest Planning Assumptions

Section 93.110 of the Federal Conformity Regulations outlines the requirements for the most recent planning assumptions that must be in place at the time of the conformity determination. Assumptions must be derived from current estimates and future projections of population, household, employment, travel, and congestion data developed by the MPO staff. Analysis for the TIP is based on US census data and information obtained from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), and other sources. The sources of data used for model calibration in this analysis are listed below:

• Population, households, and household size: Year 2009 data at a community level received from the US Census Bureau. Community to TAZ-level (transportation analysis zone) distribution based on Census 2000 allocation.
• Employment: The Central Transportation Planning Staff’s Eastern Massachusetts Site- Level Employment Database for 2009, finalized in 2010.
• Household income, resident workers, and vehicle ownership: The data from Summary File 3 data for Massachusetts from the 2000 US Census of Population and Housing were interpolated to produce year 2009 data.
• Household workers: The year 2009 data were arrived at by interpolating Census Transportation Planning Package Part 1 for Massachusetts from the 2000 US Census of Population and Housing
• Traffic volumes: MassDOT 2008–09 Traffic Volumes for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Traffic counts taken for external stations and screen lines were used.
• Population, household, and employment forecasts: The forecasts of population, households, and employment for the 101 cities and towns within the Boston Region MPO area were developed by MAPC using what is called the “MetroFuture” scenario. This scenario was developed by altering a number of assumptions from their previous Extended Growth scenario. The MetroFuture scenario seeks to channel regional growth and development by targeting the majority of growth to denser areas that already have available water, sewer, and transit infrastructure. In this scenario, it is assumed that a greater percentage of residents will be living within walking distance of transit and of major activity centers. The forecasts of population, households, and employment for the 63 cities and towns outside of the Boston Region MPO area that are in the MPO’s modeled area were developed by MassDOT and the neighboring regional planning agencies (RPAs).
• Project-level data: Obtained from the responsible implementing agency.

Transit Service Policy Assumptions

The transit service assumptions used in ridership modeling for the TIP were based on MBTA service in the spring of 2009. The model calibration was performed using the following data:

• Service Statistics, 8th edition, MBTA Blue Book, 2009
• MBTA Systemwide Passenger Survey (2008–09)

Emission Inventory Assumptions

For the FFYs 2014–17 TIP, conformity is determined in relation to the SIP mobile-source CO emission projections that have been set for the nine cities in the Boston area that are classified as being in attainment for CO. An emission attainment inventory for CO of 501.53 tons per winter day was established for all sources of CO emissions (mobile, industrial, and all other sources) for the redesignation year 1993. Of the 501.53 tons, 305.43 tons per winter day was allocated for mobile sources. In addition to the attainment year inventory, the EPA required that emission projections for every five years through 2010 be developed for all sources to ensure that the combination of all CO emissions would not exceed the 501.53 tons per winter day maximum allowance in the future. The mobile-source emission projection of 228.33 tons per winter day was set for 2010. Emissions from those nine towns in the Boston area may not exceed the amount in the last year of the maintenance plan (2010).

The Boston Region MPO estimated the results for the nine towns collectively using the Boston Region MPO’s regional travel demand model set, using the latest planning assumptions for the conformity analysis.

Latest Emission Model

Emission factors used for calculating emission changes were determined using the EPA’s latest emissions model – Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2010b. Emission factors for motor vehicles are specific to each model year, pollutant type, temperature, and travel speed. MOVES requires a wide range of input parameters, including inspection and maintenance program information and other data, such as fuel formulation and supply, speed distribution, vehicle fleet mix, and fleet age distribution.

The inputs used for the years 2016 through 2035 were received from the DEP, and include information on programs that were submitted to the EPA as the strategy for the Commonwealth to attain ambient air quality standards. EPA regulations require that emission factors using the MOVES model be used for all conformity determinations performed after March 2, 2013.

Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures

Transportation control measures (TCMs) were required in the SIP in revisions submitted to the EPA in 1979 and 1982 and in those submitted as part of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project. The TCMs included in the 1979 and 1982 submissions were accomplished through construction or through implementation of ongoing programs. The only exceptions are the bus immersion-heater program, the Newton Rider bus service, the private bus insurance discount concept, and the pedestrian malls in Lynn, Cambridge, and Needham. Other services have been substituted for these TCMs. These projects were all included in past Boston Region MPO LRTPs and TIPs.

TCMs were also submitted as SIP commitments as part of the Central Artery/Tunnel project mitigation. The status of these projects has been updated using the Administrative Consent Order (ACO) signed by the Executive Office of Transportation and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), in September 2000 and January 2005, and the SIP – Transit Commitments Status Report, which was submitted by MassDOT to DEP in May 2013. All of the projects are included in the conformity of the FFYs 2014–17 TIP as recommended or completed projects. They include:

• Southeast Expressway High-Occupancy-Vehicle (HOV) Lane
• HOV Lane on I-93 to Mystic Avenue
• 20,000 New Park-and-Ride Spaces
• Ipswich Commuter Rail Extension to Newburyport
• Old Colony Commuter Rail Extension
• Framingham Commuter Rail Extension to Worcester
• South Boston Piers Transitway

Reevaluation Process of SIP TCMs

MassDOT and DEP went through an extensive process of reevaluating transit TCMs that had been included in the original Central Artery SIP that had not been completed on schedule – the Green Line Arborway Restoration, the Red Line–Blue Line Connector, and the Green Line Extension to Ball Square/Tufts University. This process began in 2004 and was completed in 2008. The outcome included DEP’s agreeing to the following alternative commitments:

• Fairmount Line Improvements
• 1,000 New Parking Spaces in the Boston region
• Completion of a final design of the Red Line–Blue Line Connector from the Blue Line at Government Center to the Red Line at Charles Station
• Enhanced Green Line extended beyond Lechmere Station to Medford Hillside and Union Square

MassDOT announced through its State Implementation Plan – Transit Commitments 2011 Status Report, submitted to DEP on July 27, 2011, that they are proposing delays in or changes to these projects. In that submission, MassDOT included a Petition to Delay for the Fairmount Line Improvements project and the 1,000 New Parking Spaces. They also made a formal request to remove the Red Line–Blue Line project and informed DEP that the Green Line Extension to College Avenue would be delayed. MassDOT worked with the DEP to set up a process for addressing these changes and continues to keep the Boston Region MPO informed of this process through its monthly reports at the MPO’s regularly scheduled meetings. The Boston Region MPO will continue to include these projects in the LRTP and TIP until the process has been completed, assuming that any interim projects or programs will provide equal or better emissions benefits. When the process has been completed, the MPO will amend the LRTP and future TIPs and their conformity determinations to include any changes (including any interim projects or programs). The status of each of these projects, as reported in the status report, is provided below.

A Status Report of the Uncompleted Transit SIP Projects

A more detailed description of the status of these projects can be found on MassDOT’s website at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/PlanningProcess/StateImplementation Plan/SIPTransit CommitmentSubmissions.aspx.

Fairmount Line Improvements Project – SIP Required Completion by December 2011

Project Status

MassDOT and the MBTA anticipate that the Four Corners and Newmarket stations and their attendant bridges and infrastructure will be incrementally completed in 2013. The Talbot Avenue Station opened in November 2012, with work around the station to be completed in June 2013. A station at Blue Hill Avenue, which had provoked controversy among abutters, is now moving forward, and design is 60 percent complete. Currently, an independent peer review of the location, design, and environmental impacts is being coordinated at the request of elected officials. Once the peer review is completed, the MBTA will develop a schedule for completion; however, given the unexpected delays it is unlikely to be completed before 2015.

MassDOT and the MBTA prepared a Petition to Delay and an Interim Emission Offset Plan to be implemented for the duration of the delay of the Fairmount Line Improvements project. The proposed measures were developed with the input and assistance of Fairmount Line stakeholders, and MassDOT believes that the potential offset measures meet the standard of being within the transit ridership area required in the SIP. The measures include shuttle bus service from Andrew Square to Boston Medical Center and increased bus service on bus Route 31, which serves Dorchester and Mattapan. These measures are currently in place.

Funding Source: the Commonwealth

1,000 New Parking Spaces – SIP Required Completion by December 2011

Project Status

MassDOT, along with the MBTA, identified a set of parking projects to fulfill the necessary SIP commitments and requirements. These projects include:

• Wonderland/Blue Line (Revere) – 612 spaces
• Beverly Depot/Commuter Rail – 102 spaces
• Savin Hill/Red Line (Dorchester) – 20 spaces
• Woodland/Green Line (Newton) – 100 spaces
• Quincy Shipyard/Ferry – 168 spaces

All of the projects slated to fulfill the SIP commitment were complete with the opening of Wonderland garage on June 30, 2012. In addition, MassDOT and the MBTA provided interim offset measures for the six-month delay in the fulfillment of the 1,000-parking-space commitment. The offset increased Saturday bus service on MBTA Route 111, the highest-ridership route serving the communities to the northeast of Boston.

Funding Source: the Commonwealth

Red Line–Blue Line Connector – Final Design – SIP Required Completion by December 2011

Project Status

MassDOT and the MBTA have proposed to nullify the commitment to perform final design of the Red Line–Blue Line Connector due to the unaffordability of the eventual construction of the project. MassDOT has initiated a process to amend the SIP to permanently and completely remove the obligation to perform final design of the Red Line–Blue Line Connector. To this end, MassDOT will work with DEP and with the general public on the amendment process. MassDOT is not proposing to substitute any new projects in place of the Red Line–Blue Line Connector commitment, given the absence of any air quality benefits associated with the current Red Line–Blue Line commitment (final design only). Correspondence from MassDOT to DEP formally initiating the amendment process was submitted on July 27, 2011, and is posted on the MassDOT website.

On September 13, 2012, DEP held two public hearings (at 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM) to take public comment on MassDOT’s proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7.36, Transit System Improvements, including the elimination of the requirement to complete final design of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector. Between the two hearings there were 16 attendees, 10 of whom gave oral testimony. All those who spoke at the hearings spoke in favor of DEP not removing the commitment. DEP accepted written testimony until September 24, 2012.

Funding Source: MassDOT is proposing to nullify this commitment

Green Line Extension Project – SIP Requires Completion by December 2014

Project Status

State-level environmental review (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA) was completed in July 2010. Federal-level environmental review (National Environmental Policy Act, or  NEPA) documents were submitted to the Federal Transit Administration in September 2011, and a public hearing was held on October 20, 2011. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by the Federal Transit Administration on July 9, 2012.

MassDOT and the MBTA continue to work with the Federal Transit Administration to seek funding for the Green Line Extension project under the FTA New Starts capital funding program. The Green Line Extension project was selected in June 2012 by the FTA for approval to move into Preliminary Engineering. On January 9, 2013, the FTA published a Federal Register final rule establishing a new regulatory framework for the FTA’s evaluation and rating of major transit capital investments seeking funding under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21) program. Under the MAP-21 New Starts program rules, the Green Line Extension is considered by the FTA to have advanced into “Engineering.”

The MBTA and its Program Management/Construction Management (PM/CM) team completed Advanced Conceptual Engineering for the Green Line Extension project late in the summer of 2012. The team is advancing the project in accordance with a revised project delivery approach that will divide the project into multiple phases.

Phase 1 will rely on the traditional Design-Bid-Build approach to deliver the contract for the widening of the Harvard Street and Medford Street railroad bridges and the demolition of 21 Water Street. As noted above, the contract award occurred in December 2012 and the Notice to Proceed was issued on January 31, 2013.

Subsequent construction phases will use the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) approach, a project delivery method incorporating an integrated team approach to design and construction. The use of CM/GC on the Project was approved as a pilot project by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor on June 19, 2012. The MBTA Board of Directors also approved this project delivery approach at its July 11, 2012 meeting. After a series of meetings was held in September and October, of 2012, the state Office of Inspector General approved MBTA’s plan to move forward with the CM/GC approach on November 29, 2012. After the MBTA had received this final approval, the MBTA issued a request for Letters of Interest on December 7, 2012, to firms for CM/GC services. Responses from interested firms were received on January 4, 2013, and CM/GC Qualification Statements were due in mid-February 2013.

Phase 2/2A will extend service from the (new) Lechmere Station to the Washington Street and Union Square stations, relocate the bus facility at Lechmere Station, and relocate the Green Line vehicle storage facility to another location. Completion dates for this phase are based on assumptions related to two key actions: (1) completion of a New Starts FFY 2015 update and application in September 2013, and (2) that the FTA agree to issue a “Letter of No Prejudice” (permitting certain Phase 2/2A activities to proceed into construction prior to the granting of a Full Funding Grant Agreement) for the project. With these assumptions, this phase is anticipated to have completed construction in late 2016, with testing and startup in early 2017.

Phase 3 will construct the vehicle maintenance facility and storage yard. As the full yard and maintenance facility are not needed to support the initial passenger service to Washington Street and Union Square, this phase has been scheduled to be completed some six months ahead of the date for revenue service to College Avenue.

Phase 4 will provide service from Washington Street Station (completed as part of Phase 2, above) to College Avenue Station by the end of July 2019. The risk evaluation process referred to below indicates that this phase, representing the completion of the Green Line Extension project, has a 50 percent probability of being completed on or before July 2019. These projected dates are also based on the assumption that the FTA approves the project to advance certain utility work at the bridges ahead of the full funding agreement, under pre-award authority, and that most of the construction starts in 2015 after receipt of the Full Funding Grant Agreement.

New Green Line Vehicles: The procurement of the 24 new Green Line vehicles that are needed to support the operation of the Green Line Extension is ongoing. The MBTA advertised for the new vehicles in January 2011 and held a pre-bid meeting for prospective bidders in February 2011. Proposals were submitted to the MBTA by two potential builders of the new Green Line vehicles on June 13, 2011, and are now under review by the MBTA Technical Selection Committee. Approval by the MassDOT board of directors has been postponed as the review continues. To date, pricing in the proposals has been extended month to month by both proposers.

Potential Challenges

In the 2011 SIP Status Report, MassDOT reported that the Green Line Extension project would not meet the legal deadline of December 31, 2014. At that time, MassDOT projected a time frame for the introduction of passenger service on the Green Line Extension. The points within the time frame are associated with different probabilities, as shown below:

• 10 Percent Probability of Not Exceeding – Autumn 2018
• 90 Percent Probability of Not Exceeding – Summer 2020

However, the schedule for the overall project completion dates remains in effect.

MassDOT and the MBTA continue to seek measures to accelerate the project time line wherever possible. The phasing approach discussed above should provide for an accelerated delivery of some portions of the project. In addition, MassDOT and the MBTA have succeeded in receiving authorization from the state legislature, the state Office of the Inspector General, and MassDOT  board of directors to use the CM/GC delivery method described above, which is expected to aid in completion of the project by the dates above and in overcoming some of the delays related to the FONSI and the approval to enter into preliminary engineering.

An additional major critical-path step is the completion of the next phases in the New Starts process, including being able to complete the design and the finance plan to the extent necessary for completion of the September 2013 New Starts update to the FTA and completion of the package for initiation of the negotiations for a full funding grant agreement by February 2014.

Finally, although the goal of the phased project delivery approach is to complete components in an incremental manner, the time line for the overall project completion listed above represents a substantial delay from the current SIP deadline of December 31, 2014, triggering the need to provide interim emission reduction offset projects and measures for the period of the delay (beginning January 1, 2015). Working with the Central Transportation Planning Staff, MassDOT and the MBTA are currently initiating the process of calculating the reductions of nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC), CO, and NOx – reductions equal to or greater than the reductions projected for the Green Line Extension itself, as specified in the SIP regulation – that will be required for the period of the delay. MassDOT and the MBTA have also worked with the public to develop a portfolio of interim projects and/or measures that may meet the requirements, and are currently seeking input from the public on the portfolio.

In June 2012, MassDOT released a list of potential mitigation ideas received from the public that could be used as offset measures. MassDOT received public comments on the potential measures and is now moving forward with further refining – based on technical analyses and on the public comments received – potential portfolios of measures to present to DEP and the public for implementation in 2015.

Funding Source: the Commonwealth

A Status Report of the Uncompleted Non-Transit SIP Projects

Russia Wharf Ferry Terminal

Project Status

Construction of the Russia Wharf Ferry Terminal was the responsibility of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project. Actual ferry service to the wharf is not included in the SIP requirement, and the CA/T project was not responsible for providing that service. In May 2006, the CA/T Project requested a deferral of the construction of the facility from Massachusetts DEP and the Boston Conservation Commission (BCC) pending the availability of ferry service, and resolution of the status of the Old Northern Avenue Bridge, which is inadequate for providing the necessary clearance to vessels of a size or configuration suited to regularly scheduled passenger service. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority completed a marketing demand study in October 2009 to determine the potential demand for service in this area, the type of service that could be provided, and the inherent physical, operational, and financial constraints. In February 2010, this information was forwarded to MassDOT as part of the ongoing evaluation of this facility. This study was completed and sent to the DEP Waterways Program in February 2012.

MassDOT Secretary Richard Davey approved construction of the permitted ferry facility and a $460,000 ferry service startup subsidy in October 2012. The 2005 facility plans and specifications are being revised to meet the latest MassDOT Highway Division standards. The bid package is expected to be issued this summer (2013), with fabrication and installation to follow, in 2014. Currently, the only water transportation service available at this location is on-call water taxi. There is no regularly scheduled passenger water transportation service, and there are no plans or proposals to provide such a service. The City of Boston, however, is undertaking design and engineering work to address the Old Northern Avenue Bridge's vessel clearance issue, and is purchasing two ferry vessels for Inner Harbor use, which could include this ferry terminal as a destination.

Funding Source: the Commonwealth

Consultation Procedures

The conformity regulations require the MPO to make a conformity determination according to consultation procedures set out in state and federal regulations and to follow public involvement procedures established by the MPO under federal metropolitan transportation-planning regulations.

Both state and federal regulations require that the Boston Region MPO, MassDOT, DEP, EPA, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) consult on the following issues:

• Selection of regional emissions analysis models, including model development and assessment of project design factors for modeling
• Selection of inputs to the most recent EPA-approved emissions factor model
• Selection of CO hot-spot modeling procedures, as necessary
• Identification of regionally significant projects to be included in the regional emissions analysis
• Identification of projects that have changed in design and scope
• Identification of exempt projects
• Identification of exempt projects that should be treated as nonexempt because of adverse air quality impacts
• Identification of the latest planning assumptions and determination of consistency with SIP assumptions

These issues have all been addressed through consultation among the agencies listed above.

Public Participation Procedures

Title 23 CFR Sections 450.324 and 40 CFR 90.105(e) require that the development of the LRTP, TIP, and related certification documents provide an adequate opportunity for public review and comment.

Section 450.316(b) establishes the outline for MPO public participation programs. The Boston Region MPO’s public participation program was adopted in June 2007, revised in April 2010, and updated in May 2012. The development and adoption of this program conform to these requirements. The program guarantees public access to the LRTP and TIP and all supporting documentation, provides for public notification of the availability of the LRTP and TIP and the public’s right to review the draft documents and comment on them, and provides a public review and comment period prior to the adoption of the LRTP and TIP and related certification documents by the MPO.

On May 19, 2013, a public notice was placed in the Boston Globe informing the public of its right to comment on this draft document. On _________, the Boston Region MPO voted to approve the FFYs 2014–17 TIP and its Air Quality Conformity Determination. This allowed ample opportunity for public comment and MPO review of the draft document. These procedures comply with the associated federal requirements.

Financial Consistency

Title 23 CFR Section 450.324 and 40 CFR 93.108 require the LRTP and TIP  to “be financially constrained by year and include a financial plan that demonstrates which projects can be implemented using current revenue sources and which projects are to be implemented using proposed revenue sources.” This Boston Region MPO’s FFYs 2014–17 TIP is financially constrained to projections of federal and state resources that are reasonably expected to be available during the appropriate time frame. Projections of federal resources are based on the estimated apportionment of the federal authorizations contained in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), the two-year transportation reauthorization bill, as allocated to the region by the state or as allocated among the various Massachusetts MPOs according to federal formulas or MPO agreement. Projections of state resources are based on the allocations contained in the current state Transportation Bond Bill and on historic trends. Therefore, this TIP complies with federal requirements relating to financial planning.

Procedures for Determining Regional Transportation Emissions

The federal conformity regulations set forth specific requirements for determining transportation emissions. The requirements and the procedures used for the TIP are summarized below.

Demographics, Employment, and Transportation Demand

Specific sources of population, household, employment, and traffic information used in the FFYs 2014–17 TIP are listed above in the Latest Planning Assumptions section. Table 4-1, below, outlines recommendations for specific projects for the time period ending in 2035 (as included in the FFYs 2014-17 TIP and the Boston Region MPO’s current LRTP, the amended Paths to a Sustainable Region: Long-Range Transportation Plan of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization).

Only regionally significant projects are required to be included in the travel-demand modeling efforts. The federal conformity regulations define regionally significant as follows:>

A transportation project (other than an exempt project) that is on a facility that serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the MPO region; major activity centers in the region; major planned developments, such as new retail malls and sport complexes; and transportation terminals (as well as most terminals themselves) and would be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area’s transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed-guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel.

In addition, specific projects are exempt from regional modeling emissions analysis.

The categories of exempt projects include:

• Intersection channelization projects
• Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections
• Interchange reconfiguration projects
• Changes in vertical and horizontal alignment
• Truck size and weight inspection stations
• Bus terminals and transfer points

The Recommended Networks in this conformity determination are composed of projects proposed in the approved TIPs and LRTP, and projects in the MBTA capital budget. A list of the projects that meet these criteria and are included in the recommended transportation networks and this conformity determination is provided in Table 4-1(projects under construction or recently completed) and Table 4-2 (recommended LRTP and TIP projects). The list includes all regionally significant projects in the Boston Region MPO area.

Changes in Project Design and Construction Schedule Since the Last Conformity Determination Analysis

The Commonwealth requires that any changes in the mix of projects, project design, and construction schedule from the previous conformity determination for the region be identified. The last conformity determination was performed for the Boston Region MPO’s current LRTP amendment in June 2012. The mix of projects included in the conformity determination for this TIP is the same as the mix for the conformity determination for the LRTP amendment. However, the construction schedule has changed for two projects:

• Randolph to Wellesley: Route 128 Additional Lanes will not be completed before 2016 so it was removed from the 2016 air quality travel demand model run.
• Weymouth: Route 18 Capacity Improvements will not be completed before 2016 so it was removed from the 2016 air quality travel demand model run.

In addition, the EPA developed a new emissions model to calculate emission factors. The new model is called MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator). New conformity regulations require that MOVES emission factors be used in all conformity determinations after March 2, 2013. This conformity determination uses the MOVES emission factors that were developed in coordination with the Massachusetts DEP.

Finally, the MPO has a new air quality classification for ozone. As of May 2012, the MPO is classified as being in attainment for ozone standards. With the new classification, the requirement to do a conformity determination for ozone lapses after July 20, 2013. Since the endorsed TIP will be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) after that date, ozone no longer has to be included in the conformity determination.

This conformity determination shows that the FFYs 2014–17 TIP is in conformity with the carbon monoxide budget set for the maintenance area for Boston and eight surrounding municipalities. It also shows that the transportation control measures included in the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan are moving forward in a timely manner.

Model-Specific Information

40 CFR Part 93.111 outlines the requirements pertaining to the network-based transportation demand models. These requirements include the modeling methods and functional relationships that are to be used in accordance with accepted professional practice and are to be reasonable for purposes of estimating emissions. The Boston Region MPO used the methods described in the conformity regulations for the analysis in this TIP.

Highway Performance Monitoring System Adjustments

As stated in EPA guidance, all areas of carbon monoxide nonattainment must use the FHWA’s Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) to track daily vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) prior to attainment to ensure that the state is in line with commitments made in reaching attainment of the ambient air quality standards by the required attainment dates. MassDOT provided HPMS information to DEP. DEP used this information in setting the mobile-source budget for CO in all SIP revisions prior to 1997.

An HPMS adjustment factor was developed by comparing the 1990 CO emissions of the nine cities and towns (Boston and eight surrounding communities in the Boston maintenance area) resulting from the 1990 base-year model run to the 1990 HPMS-generated CO emissions data submitted as part of the SIP. The HPMS data were divided by the model data to determine the CO adjustment factor to be applied to all modeled CO emissions for future years. The CO HPMS adjustment factor is 0.71.

The Conformity Test

Consistency with the Emission Budgets Set Forth in the SIP

The Boston Region MPO conducted an air quality analysis for the Boston Region MPO’s FFYs 2014–17 TIP. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the air quality impacts on the SIP of the projects included in the TIP. The analysis evaluated the change in CO emissions due to implementation of the TIP. The modeling procedures and assumptions used in this air quality analysis follow the EPA’s conformity regulations. They are also consistent with the procedures used by the DEP to develop Massachusetts’s “1990 Base-Year Emission Inventory,” “1996 Reasonable Further Progress Plan,” “Post-1996 Reasonable Further Progress Plan,” and “1996 Rate of Progress Report.” All consultation procedures were followed to ensure that a complete analysis of the TIP was performed and was consistent with the SIP.

The primary test for showing conformity with the SIP is demonstrating that the air quality conformity of this TIP is consistent with the emission budget set forth in the SIP. The CO mobile-source attainment inventory for 1993 for the nine cities in the Boston area reclassified as being in attainment is 305.43 tons per winter day. The projection of mobile sources for the Boston maintenance area is 228.33 tons per winter day for 2010. Estimates of CO emissions for the nine cities in the Boston maintenance area for various years are shown in Table 4-3. The CO emissions are less than the CO emission budget.

Conclusion

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established air quality conformity requirements for transportation plans, programs, and projects. The EPA published a final rule in the November 24, 1993, Federal Register, with several amendments through January 2008, providing procedures to be followed by the US Department of Transportation in determining conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects with the SIP for meeting air quality standards. Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville are designated a “maintenance area” for the CO standard. Federal conformity regulations require that the impact of transportation plans, programs, and projects on maintenance areas be evaluated.

The Boston Region MPO conducted an air quality analysis for projects in this TIP. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the air quality impacts of the TIP projects on the SIP. The analysis evaluates the change in CO emissions due to the implementation of the FFYs 2014–17 TIP. The modeling procedures and assumptions used in this air quality analysis follow the EPA’s and the Commonwealth’s guidelines and are consistent with all present and past procedures used by the Massachusetts DEP to develop and amend the SIP.

Boston Region MPO has found the emission levels from the Boston area CO Maintenance Area, including emissions resulting from implementation of the TIP, to be in conformance with the SIP according to state and federal conformity criteria. Specifically, the CO emissions for the build scenarios of the MPO’s regional travel demand model set are less than the projections for analysis years 2016 through 2035 for the nine cities in the Boston CO Maintenance area.

In accordance with Section 176(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990, the Boston Region MPO has completed this review and hereby certifies that the FFYs 2014–17 TIP, and its latest conformity determination, conditionally conforms with 40 CFR Part 93 and 310 CMR 60.03 and is consistent with the air quality goals in the MassachusettsState Implementation Plan.

Chapter Five: Financial Constraint

The financial constraint of the TIP must satisfy two requirements:

• The transit and highway programs must be financially constrained to projections of available federal aid.
• The Central Artery/Tunnel project must be constrained to 50 percent of the federal aid available statewide.

As shown in the tables below, the federal fiscal years 2014–17 TIP complies with both of these requirements.

*   National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds are from Surface Transportation Program (STP) target amounts.

*   This amount includes Boston Region Accelerated Bridge Program projects that leverage federal aid.

Chapter Six: Operation and Maintenance

One requirement of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) is the assessment of the operation and maintenance of the transportation system in the Boston region. State and regional agencies develop estimates of transit and highway operating and maintenance costs through their budgeting process. The information on projects and funding sources presented in Chapter 3 represents operations and maintenance estimates from the implementing agencies: the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA), the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), and the MassDOT Highway Division. The tables on pages 6-2 and 6-3 present the operations and maintenance estimates for state fiscal years (SFYs) 2014 through 2017 for MassDOT projects. The tables on pages 6-4 through 6-6 present operations and maintenance estimates for SFYs 2013 through 2016 for the MBTA, CATA, and the MWRTA.

Appendix A: Universe of Projects For Highway Discretionary (“Regional Target”) Funding & Evaluation Results

This appendix lists information about transportation projects that cities and towns in the region identified as their priority projects to be considered for funding through the Boston Region MPO’s Highway Discretionary (“Regional Target”) Program. It also contains the evaluation results of those projects scored by MPO staff based on the evaluation criteria.

Through an outreach process that seeks input from local officials and interested parties, the MPO staff compiles project requests and relevant information into a Universe of Projects list for the MPO. The Universe of Projects list includes projects in varied stages of development, from projects in the conceptual stage to those that are fully designed and ready to be advertised for construction. The MPO staff also collects data on each project in the universe to support the evaluation of projects.   

The MPO’s project selection process uses evaluation criteria to make the process of selecting projects for programming in the TIP both more logical and more transparent. The criteria are based on the MPO’s visions and policies that were adopted for its Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Paths to a Sustainable Region. 

The MPO staff uses the project information and evaluations to prepare a First-Tier List of Projects that have high ratings in the evaluation process and could be made ready for advertising in the time frame of the TIP. The MPO staff then prepares a staff recommendation for the TIP taking into consideration the First-Tier list and factors such as the construction readiness of the project, the estimated project cost, community priority, geographic equity (to ensure that needs are addressed throughout the region), and consistency with the MPO’s LRTP.

The MPO discusses the First-Tier List of Projects, the staff recommendation, and other information before voting on a draft TIP to release for a 30-day public review and comment period.

Table A-1 contains a summary of the evaluated projects in this year’s TIP development process. Projects that are programmed in the draft FFYs 2014-17 TIP are in bold type.

A full list of the Universe of Projects (including those project that were evaluated and those projects that were not evaluated) is contained in Table A-2. Projects in bold type are programmed in the draft FFYs 2014–17 TIP.

Appendix B: Roadway Project Funding Application Forms & Evaluations

This appendix provides an explanation of the project funding application form for roadway projects that is used to understand requests for funding and to evaluate projects for possible programming. MPO staff and project proponents update these project funding application forms when new information becomes available. The forms are used to evaluate projects using criteria that reflect MPO visions and policies. Some information is provided specifically by the project proponent and other information is provided by MPO staff or by various state agencies.

Project funding application forms are available on the MPO website, http://www.ctps.org/. Proponents enter the project information on-line. Other information is input by MPO staff or automatically updated through links to other databases.

Roadway Project funding application Forms

Overview Tab

Project Background Information

1    ID Number  

The MassDOT Project Information System (PROJIS) number assigned to the project. If the project does not have a PROJIS number, an identification number will be assigned to the project by the MPO for internal tracking purposes.

2    Municipality(ies)

The municipality (or munipalities) in which the project is located.

3    Project Name

The name of the project. (Source: MassDOT)

4    Project Category

(determined by MPO staff):

• Arterial and Intersection – Arterial roadway and intersection projects
• Major Highway – Limited access roadway projects
• Bridge – Bridge projects
• Bicycle and Pedestrian – Projects dedicated solely to bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as walkways, paths, and trails
• Transit – Transit projects consisting of improvements to trains, buses, and ferries
• Enhancement – Streetscape improvements and enhancements to transportation facilities
• Regional Mobility – Transportation demand management (TDM) and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs or projects

5    MassDOT Highway District

The MassDOT Highway District in which the project is located.

6    MAPC Subregion

The MAPC subregion in which the project is located.

7    MAPC Community Type

The MAPC community type in which the project is located as defined by land use and housing patterns, recent growth trends, and projected development patterns.

8    Estimated Cost

The estimated total cost of the project. (Source: MassDOT)

9    Earmark Funds

The estimated total available federally earmarked funds for the project.

10   Description

A description of the project, including its primary purpose, major elements and geographic limits. (Source: MassDOT).

11   Evaluation Rating

The number of points scored by the project, if it has been evaluated.

12   Project Length (Miles)

Total length of project in miles.

13   Project Lane Miles

Total lane miles of project.

14   Additional Lane Miles by Project

Total additional lane miles to be constructed by project.

Project Background Information

P1  Community Priority

The priority rank of the project as determined by the community. (Source: Proponent)

Additional Status

15   Additional Status

Indicates if the project has additional conditions or approvals (Source: MPO database):

• ITS Conformity – Conforms with the Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems
• Approved CMAQ Components– Approved by the Statewide Congestion Management and Air Quality Conformity Committee

Readiness Tab

“Readiness” is a determination of the appropriate year of programming for a project. In order to make this determination, the MPO tracks project development milestones and coordinates with the MassDOT Highway Division to estimate when a project will be ready for advertising.

All non-transit projects programmed in the first year of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) must be advertised before the end of the federal fiscal year (September 30). That funding authorization is not transferred to the next federal fiscal year, therefore any “leftover” funds are effectively “lost” to the region. If a project in the first year of the TIP is determined as “not ready to be advertised before September 30,” it will be removed from the TIP and replaced with another project by amendment.

For projects in the first year of the TIP, it is important to communicate any perceived problems to the Boston Region MPO as soon as possible.

Project Background Information

16   Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Status

Programmed, Pre-TIP, or Conceptual (Source: MPO database):

• Programmed – projects with funds identified in the current MPO approved TIP.
• Pre-TIP – projects that have received Project Review Committee (PRC) approval from MassDOT Highway Division and have an “active” PROJIS number, but do not have funds identified in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
• Conceptual – projects that are ideas or concepts, or projects that have not received PRC approval from MassDOT Highway Division.

17   Functional Design Report (FDR) Status

Completed (Year) 

18   Design Status

Current design status of the project in the MassDOT Highway Division Environmental, Design and Right-of-Way Process. Dates are provided where available. (Source: MassDOT Project Info)

• PRC Approved
• 25% Submitted
• 25% Approved
• 75% Submitted
• 75% Approved
• 100% Submitted
• 100% Approved
• PS&E Submitted

19   Right-of-Way (ROW) Requirement

(Source: MassDOT Project Info):

Required – ROW action is required for completion of the project
Not Required – No ROW action required for completion of the project

20   Right-of-Way (ROW) Responsibility

(Source: MassDOT Project Info):

MassDOT Responsibility – Providing the required right-of-way is the responsibility of MassDOT.

Municipal Responsibility – Providing the required right-of-way is the responsibility of the municipality.
Municipal Approval – Municipal approval has been given to the right-of-way plan (with date of approval):

21   Right-of-Way (ROW) Certification

(Source: MassDOT Project Info):

Expected – Expected date of ROW plan and order of taking
Recorded – Date the ROW plan and order of taking were recorded at the Registry of Deeds
Expires – Expiration date of the rights of entry, easements, or order of taking

22   Required Permits

Permits required by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). (Source: MassDOT Project Info.) Possible required permits include:

• Environmental Impact Statement
• Construction Engineering Checklist
• Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
• Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Section 10 Permit
• MEPA Environmental Notification Form
• MEPA Environmental Impact Report
• Massachusetts Historical Commission Approval
• M.G.L. Ch. 131 Wetlands Order of Conditions
• Conservation Commission Order of Conditions

System Preservation, Modernization, and Efficiency Tab

System Preservation, Modernization, and Efficiency of our roadway is important to the vitality of our region. The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to measure the MPO’s efforts to emphasize the preservation, modernization and efficiency of the existing transportation system. The MPO has expressed these measures in the following policies:

• Adapt to fiscal constraints by developing needs-based, low-cost strategies for addressing mobility, access, and accessibility and by pursuing alternative funding sources and mechanisms
• Put a priority on programs, services, and projects that maximize efficiency through ITS, technology, TSM, and M&O; turn to technology before expansion
• Bring and keep the network (particularly bike and pedestrian facilities) into a state of good repair (SGR); set funding objectives for this
• For roadway investments, give priority to maintaining the regional network of bridges and roads

Project Background Information

23   Existing Pavement Condition

(Source: MassDOT Roadway Inventory File)

Pavement Roughness (IRI) – International Roughness Index (IRI) rating reflects the calibrated value in inches of roughness per mile. IRI ratings are classified as follows:

• Good – Ranges of 0 - 190
• Fair – Ranges of 191- 320
• Poor –Above 320 

24   Equipment Condition

Existing signal equipment condition. (Source: CMP, Massachusetts permitted signal information, municipal signal information, referencing submitted design).

25   CMP Congested Area

Identifies a project that is located within a Boston Region MPO Congestion Management Process (CMP) area.

Proponent Provided Information

P2  What are the infrastructure condition needs or issues of the project area?

 Please include additional pavement information from municipal pavement management programs. In addition, qualitative descriptions of existing problems or anticipated needs can be provided. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)

P3  How does this project address the infrastructure condition needs or issues in the project area?

Please include detail regarding the pavement management system employed by the community or agency, and of how this system will maximize the useful life of any pavement repaired or replaced by the project. (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

System Preservation, Modernization and Efficiency Evaluation Scoring (36 total points possible):

Improves substandard pavement (up to 6 points)

+6 IRI rating greater than 320: Poor and pavement improvements are included in the project

+4 IRI rating between 320 and 191: Fair and pavement improvements are included in the project

  0  IRI rating less than 190: Good or better

Improves substandard signal equipment condition (up to 6 points)

+6 Poor condition and all equipment will be replaced

+4 Mediocre condition, replacement of majority of equipment will occur

+2 Fair condition, partial replacement will occur

  0  All other values

Improves traffic signal operations (signal equipment upgrades, including for adaptive signal controls and coordination with adjacent signals (ITS) (up to 6 points)

+6 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+2 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

In a Congestion Management Process Identified Area (up to 6 points)

+6 CMP data indicates project area is in one of the most highly congested project areas monitored

+4 CMP data indicates project area is in one of the most congested project areas monitored

+2 CMP data indicates project area is in a congested project areas monitored

  0  CMP data indicates project area is in the top 80 to 51 % of the most congested project areas monitored

Improves intermodal accommodations/connections to transit (up to 6 points)

+6 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+2 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

>Implements ITS strategies other than traffic signal operations (improve traffic flow as identified by an ITS strategy for the municipality or state (e.g. variable message signs) (up to 6 points)

+6 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+2 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

0  Does not meet or address criteria

Livability and Economic Benefit Tab

The livability and economic benefit of our roadway is important to the vitality of our region. The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to measure the MPO’s efforts to emphasize and implement their livability policies. The MPO has expressed these measures in the following policies:

• Invest in projects and programs that are consistent with MetroFuture land use planning (serving already-developed areas; locations with adequate sewer and water, areas identified for economic development by state, regional, and local planning agencies; and density)
• Support health-promoting transportation options; expand and close gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian networks; promote a complete-streets philosophy
• Support urban and context-sensitive design to protect cultural, historic, and scenic resources, community cohesiveness, quality of life; fund enhancements at a reasonable cost
• Support state-of-the-practice parking policies
• Use economic impacts (local and regional) as a criteria for evaluating projects and programs; recognize that economic vitality plays a role in community livability

Project Background Information

Using the current available zoning coverage, the following calculations will be made by MAPC:

26   TDM Program Required for All New Developments

For all new development, a Transportation demand management (TDM) program is required that implements at least four of the following components:

• Ridesharing program
• Parking restrictions or pricing policies
• Alternative work hours
• Telecommuting options
• Subsidized transit use and other financial incentives
• Areawide strategies such as membership in Transportation Management Associations
• Subsidies for local transit service
• Multi-occupant vehicle access

In addition, this criteria can be met if the community is taking steps to significantly reduce single-occupant travel as part of the project or in the project area.

27   Degree of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

(Source: MassDOT Bicycle Facility Inventory and Roadway Inventory File and MPO bicycle GIS coverage)

• Sidewalks – Indicates if sidewalks are present on one side or on both sides of the roadway.

        On-Road Bicycle Facilities:

• Cycle Track – Bikeways separated from parallel motor vehicle roadway by a line of parked cars, landscaping, or another form of physical barrier that motor vehicles cannot cross.
• Striped Bicycle Lane – A portion of a roadway (greater than or equal to 4 feet) which has been designated by striping, and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.
• Marked Shared Lane – Travel lanes with specific bicycle markings, often referred to as sharrows.
• Signed Route – Roadway is designated and signed as a bicycle route.

        Off-Road Bicycle Facilities:

• Shared Use Path – Facilities with a stabilized firm surface and separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier. Bicyclists, pedestrians, joggers, and skaters may use these paths.
• Minimally Improved Path – Facilities with a rough surface and separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier. Generally limited to hiking and mountain biking uses.

28   MassDOT’s Bay State Greenway Priority 100

The project is listed on MassDOT’s Bay State Greenway (BSG) Priority 100. The BSG Priority 100 lists the next 100 miles of shared use paths and rail trails to be funded across the state.

29   Areas of Concentrated Development

Existing Areas of concentrated development area defined based on the combined 2010 population and 2011 employment, per acre, measured at the scale of 250 meter grid cells.  Proposed thresholds by community type:

• Inner Core: 16.6 persons per acre (50% of developed grid cells within this community type)
• Regional Urban Centers: 9.8 persons per acre (30% of developed grid cells)
• Maturing Suburbs: 6.8 persons per acre (20% of developed grid cells)
• Developing Suburbs: 3.5 persons per acre (20% of developed grid cells)

For purposes of the criteria, we would define “mostly serves” as: >50% of ¼ mile project area is in grid cells that meet the criteria for the community type and the project improves access to or within those areas of concentrated development.

For purposes of the criteria, we would define “partly serves” as >10% of ¼ mile project area is in grid cells that meet the criteria for the community type and the project improves access to or within those areas of concentrated development.

30   Targeted Development Areas

A targeted development area is located within ½ mile of the project area. Eligible targeted development areas include 43D, 43E, and 40R sites, Regionally Significant Priority Development Areas, Growth District Initiatives, and MBTA transit station areas.

• 43D Priority Development Site:  The Chapter 43D Program offers communities expedited permitting to promote targeted economic and housing development. Sites approved under the program are guaranteed local permitting decisions on priority development sites within 180 days.  (Source: Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development)
• 43E Priority Development Site: The Chapter 43E Program promotes the expedited permitting of commercial, industrial, residential and mixed-use projects on sites with dual designation as a Priority Development Site and Growth District. Sites approved under the program are guaranteed state permitting decisions on priority development sites within 180 days. (Source: Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development)
• 40R Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District: The program encourages communities to zone for compact residential and mixed-use development in “smart growth” locations by offering financial incentives and control over design. (Source: Department of Housing and Community Development) 
• Regionally Significant Priority Development Area: A site or district that has been identified by the local municipality as an eligible and desirable site for housing and/or economic development, and which has been identified as a “regionally significant” site by MAPC through a subregional screening process that considers development potential, accessibility, environmental impacts, equity, and other factors. 
• Growth District Initiative: The EOHED initiative focuses on expediting commercial and residential development at appropriate locations for significant new growth. (Source: Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development)
• Eligible MBTA Transit Station Area: Areas within ½ mile of existing or proposed subway, trolley, commuter rail, or ferry service, with the exception of “Undeveloped” station areas as defined by MAPC (www.mapc.org/TOD); or areas within ¼ mile of an MBTA “Key Bus Route.”

31   Municipality Provides Financial or Regulatory Support for Targeted Development

The proposed project will improve access to or within a commercial district served by a Main Street organization, local business association, Business Improvement District, or comparable, geographically targeted organization (i.e., not a city/town-wide chamber of commerce).

32   Local Efforts to improve Design and Access:

• Form-based codes
• Official design guidelines for new development/redevelopment
• Official local plan for pedestrian/bike/handicap access, the recommendations of which are reflected in the proposal

Proponent Provided Information

P4 How does the project improve access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation?

Describe what improvements are in the project for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation, and what level of improvement will be achieved over existing conditions. (Source: Proponent)

P5  How is the project consistent with local land use policies?

Explain how this project will support existing or proposed local land use policies. (Source: Proponent)

P6  How does the zoning of the area within ½ mile of this project support transit-oriented development and preserve any new roadway capacity?

Will the project have an impact on adjacent land uses? Please review the land use information if the project is expected to have an impact on land use. Is there a local project currently under development that would provide a better balance between housing and jobs in this corridor? If so, please provide details on the project status. (Source: Proponent)

P7  How is the project consistent with state, regional, and local economic development priorities?

Explain how this project will support economic development in the community or in the project area (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

Livability and Economic Benefit Evaluation Scoring (29 total points possible):

Design is consistent with complete streets policies (up to 4 points)

+1 Project is a “complete street”

+1 Project provides for transit service

+1 Project provides for bicycle facilities

+1 Project provides for pedestrian facilities

  0  Does not provide any complete streets components

Provides multimodal access to an activity center (up to 3 points)

+1 Project provides transit access (within a quarter mile) to an activity center

+1 Project provides bicycle access to an activity center

+1 Project provides pedestrian access to an activity center

  0  Does not provide multimodal access

Reduces auto dependency (up to 8 points)

+3 Project provides for a new transit service

+1 Project is identified in MassDOT’s Bay State Greenway Priority 100

+1 Project completes a known gap in the bicycle or pedestrian network

+1 Project provides for a new bicycle facility

+1 Project provides for a new pedestrian facility

+1 Project implements a transportation demand management strategy

  0  Does not provide for any of the above measures

Project serves a targeted development site (40R, 43D, 43E, Regionally Significant Priority Development Area, Growth District Initiative, or eligible MBTA transit station areas) (up to 6 points)

+2 Project provides new transit access to or within a site

+1 Project improves transit access to or within a site

+1 Project provides for bicycle access to or within a site

+1 Project provides for pedestrian access to or within a site

+1 Project provides for improved road access to or within a site

Provides for development consistent with the compact growth strategies of MetroFuture (up to 5 points)

+2 Project mostly serves an existing area of concentrated development+1 Project partly serves an existing area of concentrated development

+1 Project complements other local efforts to improve design and access

+2 Project complements other local financial or regulatory support to foster economic revitalization

  0  Does not provide for any of the above measures

Project improves Quality of Life (up to 3 points)

+1 Reduces cut through within the project area

+1 Implements traffic calming measures

+1 Improves the character of the project area

Mobility Tab

Increased travel choices and improved access for and across all modes—pedestrian, bicycle, public transportation, and vehicular—is a key mobility issue. Mobility is not merely about moving motor vehicles more quickly through an intersection or along a roadway segment, but includes increasing access and promoting use of all modes. The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to measure the MPO’s efforts to emphasize and implement their mobility policies. The MPO has expressed these measures in the following policies:

• Strengthen conditions between modes; close gaps in the existing network
• Improve access and accessibility to transit
• Expand transit bicycle, and pedestrian networks; focus bicycle investment (lanes and paths) on moving people between activity centers (and access to transit)
• Integrate payment methods for fares and parking across modes
• Support TDM, TMAs, shuttles, and carpooling
• Address low cost capacity constraints and bottlenecks in the existing system before expansion

Project Background Information

33   LOS

Peak- hour level of service. (Source: Boston Region MPO’s Congestion Management Process (CMP) data, calculations from Functional Design Reports, Environmental Impact Reports, and/or staff field work)

34   Transit Vehicles Use of Roadway

Identifies the fixed route transit vehicles using the roadway

35   Supports Regional Freight Infrastructure

• Supports infrastructure improvements on a designated or known truck route
• Supports infrastructure improvement to an existing or proposed industrial center or distribution center
• Supports infrastructure improvement to a major port or airport or intermodal transfer facility

36   Average Daily Truck Volumes

Number of trucks on the roadway per average weekday

37   Average A.M./P.M. Peak Period Speed

The average peak period, through vehicle travel speed along a corridor, for both directions of travel.

38   Average A.M./P.M. Peak Period Speed Index

The level of service (LOS) based on the average peak period, through vehicle travel speed index along a corridor, for both directions of travel. The speed index is the ratio of the average observed peak period travel speed to the posted speed limit. The LOS associated with the speed index is loosely based on the definition provided by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 for urban streets:

LOS A > 0.9

LOS B > 0.7

LOS C > 0.5

LOS D > 0.4

  LOS E > 0.33

  LOS F < 0.33

LOS A indicates traffic conditions at primarily free flow or speed limit values, and LOS F indicates the worst traffic conditions, characterized by extremely low speeds and likely congestion at critical signalized locations.

Proponent Provided Information

P8  What is the primary mobility need for this project and how does it address that need?

Describe the need for the project from a local and a regional perspective. What are the existing or anticipated mobility needs the project is designed to address? Please include information on how the project improves level of service and reduces congestion, provides multimodal elements (for example, access to transit stations or parking, access to bicycle or pedestrian connections), enhances freight mobility, and closes gaps in the existing transportation system. For roadway projects, it is MPO and MassDOT policy that auto congestion reductions not occur at the expense of pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit users. Please explain the mobility benefits of the project for all modes. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)

P9  What intelligent transportation systems (ITS) elements does this project include?

Examples of ITS elements include new signal systems or emergency vehicle override applications. (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

Mobility Evaluation Scoring (25 total points possible):

Existing peak hour level of service (LOS) (up to 3 points)

+3 Source data indicates project area has an LOS value of F at peak travel times

+2 Source data indicates project area has an LOS value of E at peak travel times

+1 Source data indicates project area has an LOS value of D at peak travel times

  0  All other values

Improves or completes an MPO or State identified freight movement issue (Identified in MPO or State published freight plan) (up to 3 points)

+3 Project implements a solution to an MPO or State identified freight movement issue

+2 Project supports significant improvements or removes barriers to an existing MPO or State identified freight movement issue

+1 Project supports improvements to an existing MPO or State identified freight movement issue

  0  All other results

Address proponent identified primary mobility need (Project design will address the primary mobility need identified by the proponent in the question P7 and evaluated by staff) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Address MPO-identified primary mobility need (Project design will address the primary mobility need identified by MPO staff) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Project reduces congestion (up to 6 points)

+6 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+2 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Improves transit reliability (up to 7 points)

+2 Implements queue jumping ability for transit

+2 Project prioritizes signals for transit vehicles (ITS)

+2 Project provides for a dedicated busway

+1 Project provides for a bus bump out

Environment and Climate Change Tab

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to measure the MPO’s efforts to emphasize and implement their environmental policies. The MPO has expressed these measures in the following:

• Avoid investments that increase pressure on developing greenfields; support investments that facilitate clean-up of brownfields
• Promote fleet management and modernization
• Support high-occupancy-vehicle travel options
• Protect natural and cultural resources and public health; plan early to avoid and mitigate impacts, such as stormwater and groundwater impacts; and air quality impacts, including introduction of additional fine particulates
• Promote energy conservation and use of alternative energy sources
• Avoid funding projects that increase exposure of at-risk populations to ultra-fine particulates
• Promote investments and give priority to projects and programs with lower life-cycle costs and emissions
• Invest so as to increase mode share of transit and non-motorized modes
• Work with environmental and cultural resource agencies to reach environmental objectives

Project Background Information

39   CO₂ Impact

The quantified or assumed annual tons of carbon dioxide estimated to be reduced by the project. (Source: MPO Database)

40   Cost per Ton of C02 Reduced

The annual tons of carbon dioxide estimated to be reduced by the project divided by the estimated total federal participating cost of the project. (Source: MPO Database)

41   Located in a Green Community

Project is in an Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) certified Green Community. (Source: EOEEA)

42   Located in an Area of Critical Environmental Concern

Areas designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs. (Source: MassGIS)

43   Located adjacent to (within 200 feet of) a waterway

Hydrographic (water related) features, including surface water (lakes, ponds, reservoirs), flats, rivers, streams, and others from MassGIS. Two hundred feet from the hydrographic feature is the distance protected by the Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act. (Source: MassGIS)

Proponent Provided Information

P10 How does the project relate to community character?

Is the project located in an existing community or neighborhood center or other pedestrian-oriented area? Explain the community context (cultural, historical, other) in which the project will occur and indicate the positive or negative effect this project will have on community character. (Source: Proponent)

P11 What are the environmental impacts of the project?

How will this project improve air quality, improve water quality, or reduce noise levels in the project area and in the region? Air quality improvements can come from reductions in the number or length of vehicle trips or from reductions in vehicle cold starts. Water quality improvements can result from reductions in runoff from impervious surfaces, water supply protection, and habitat protection. Noise barriers can reduce noise impacts. (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

Environment and Climate Change Evaluation Scoring (25 total points possible):

Air Quality (improves or degrades) (up to 5 points)

+5 Project significant improves air quality

+3 Project includes major elements improving air quality

+1 Project includes minor elements improving air quality

  0  Project has no significant air quality impacts

CO₂ reduction (up to 5 points)

+5 Project will provide for significant movement towards the goals of the

     Global Warming Solutions act

+3 Project will provide for movement towards the goals of the Global

     Warming Solutions Act

+1 Project will provide a minor air quality benefit

  0  Project will no additional benefit to air quality

Project is in an Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) certified “Green Community” (up to 4 points)

+4 Project is in a “Green Community”

  0  Project is not in a “Green Community”

Project reduces VMT/VHT (up to 7 points)

+3 Project provides for a new transit service

+1 Project provides for improved transit access

+1 Project provides for a new bicycle facility

+1 Project provides for a new pedestrian facility

+1 Project implements a transportation demand management strategy

  0  Does not provide for any of the above measures

Addresses identified environmental impacts (Project design will address the environmental impacts identified by the proponent in the question P9 and/or identified by MPO staff) (up to 4 points)

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Environmental Justice Tab

The MPO developed its Transportation Equity Program to provide a systematic method of considering environmental justice in all of its transportation planning work. There are twenty-eight environmental justice (EJ) areas identified by the MPO based on percentage of minority residents and percentages of households with low incomes.

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to measure the MPO’s efforts to emphasize and implement their environmental justice policies. The MPO has expressed these measures in the following policies:

• Continue outreach and analysis to identify equity needs; continue to monitor system performance
• Address identified equity needs related to service and removing or minimizing burdens (air pollution, unsafe conditions, community impacts)
• Track implementing agencies’ actions responding to transportation need identified in MPO outreach and analysis; encourage action to address needs
• Strengthen avenues for involvement of low-income and minority persons in decision making
• Reduce trip times for low-income and minority persons in decision making
• Give priority to heavily used transit services over new, yet-to-be proven services

Project Background Information

44   Located within ½ mile of an Environmental Justice Area

Twenty-eight areas were identified by the MPO based on percentage of minority residents and percentages of households with low incomes. The following thresholds were determined by the MPO for low-income and minority environmental justice areas (Source: 2010 U.S. Census):

• Low Income – The MPO median household income in 2010 was  $70,829. A low-income TAZ was defined as having a median household income at or below 60% of this level ($42,497).
• Minority – A minority TAZ was defined as having a percentage of minority population greater than 50% and a minimum minority population of 200 people.

45   Located within ½ mile of an Environmental Justice Population Zone

The MPO’s thresholds for low-income and minority population zones are less restrictive, and therefore include many more TAZs:

• Low Income – The MPO median household income in 2010 was $70,829. A low-income TAZ was defined as having a median household income at or below 60% of this level ($42,497). (Source: 2010 U.S. Census)
• Minority – A minority TAZ was defined as having a percentage of minority population greater than 27.8%. Title VI guidelines suggest that a minority community be defined as one with a minority population which is greater than the regional percentage of minority residents. (Source: 2010 U.S. Census)

46   If this project is located in an MPO-defined environmental justice area or environmental justice population zone, how would it improve access to an existing transit facility?

Explain how this project would provide needed or additional access to a transit facility. (Source: Proponent)

47   If this project is located in an MPO-defined environmental justice area or environmental justice population zone, how would it improve safety for users of the transportation facility?

Explain how this project would provide needed or additional safety improvements to the facility identified. (Source: Proponent)

48   If this project is located in an MPO-defined environmental justice area or environmental justice population zone, how would it improve air quality?

Explain how this project would provide needed or additional air quality improvements to the area. (Source: Proponent)

49   If this project is located in an MPO-defined environmental justice area or environmental justice population zone, does it address an MPO-identified EJ community need?

The MPO conducts outreach to the EJ communities and compiles a list of identified needs. Is this project addressing one of these needs? (Source: Proponent)

Proponent Provided Information

P12 Are any other Environmental Justice issues addressed by this project?

This answer should only be addressed by those projects in an Environmental Justice area or population zone that address an environmental justice need. Please be specific. (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

Environmental Justice Evaluation Scoring (10 total points possible):

Improves transit for an EJ population (up to 3 points)

+3 Project is located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and will provide new transit access

+1 Project is located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and will provide improved access

  0  Project provides no improvement in transit access or is not in an MPO environmental justice area or population zone

Design is consistent with complete streets policies in an EJ area (up to 4 points)

+1 Project is located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and is a “complete street”

+1 Project is located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and provides for transit service

+1 Project is located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and provides for bicycle facilities

+1 Project is located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and provides for pedestrian facilities

  0  Does not provide any complete streets components

Addresses an MPO-identified EJ transportation issue (up to 3 points)

+3 Project located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and the project will provide for substantial improvement to an MPO identified EJ transportation issue

+2 Project located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and the project will provide for improvement to an MPO-identified EJ   transportation issue

Project provides no additional benefit and/or is not in an MPO environmental justice area or population zone

 –10 Creates a burden in an EJ area

Safety and Security Tab

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to measure the MPO’s efforts to emphasize and implement their safety and security policies. The MPO has expressed these measures in the following policies:

• Implement actions stemming from all-hazards planning
• Maintain the transportation system in an SGR
• Use state-of-the-practice safety elements; address roadway safety deficiencies (after safety audits) and transit safety (including federal mandates)
• Support incident management programs and ITS
• Protect critical infrastructure; address transit security vulnerabilities; upgrade key transportation infrastructure to a “hardened” design standard
• Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclist; ensure that safety provisions are incorporated into shared-use corridors
• Give priority to safety projects that reduce the severity of crashes, especially those that improve safety for all
• Promote safety through supporting the reduction of base speed limit (municipalities) to 25 miles per hour and education and enforcement on rules of the road, all modes

Project Background Information

50   Top 200 Rank

Ranks of highest crash intersection clusters in the project area listed within MassDOT’s top 200 high crash intersection locations. The crash rankings are weighted by crash severity as indicated by Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) values. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division 2009 Top Crash Locations Report)

51   EPDO/Injury Value

An estimated value of property damage. Fatal crashes are weighted by 10, injury crashes are weighted by 5 and property damage only or nonreported is weighted by 1. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2008-2010)

52   Crash Rate/Crashes per Mile

Intersection projects list the crash rate as total crashes per million vehicle entering the intersection. Arterial projects list the crash rate as total crashes per mile. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2008-2010)

53   Bicycle Involved Crashes

Total bicycle involved crashes. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2008-2010)

54   Pedestrian Involved Crashes

Total pedestrian involved crashes. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2008-2010)

55   Truck Involved Crashes

Total truck involved crashes. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2008-2010)

Proponent Provided Information

P13 What is the primary safety need associated with this project and how does it address that need?

Describe the need for the project from a local and a regional perspective. What are the existing safety needs/improvements the project is designed to address? How will this design accomplish those needed improvements? Please be as specific as possible. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Highway Division Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

Safety and Security Evaluation Scoring (29 total points possible):

Improves emergency response (up to 2 points)

+1 Project improves an evacuation route, diversion route, or alternate diversion route

+1 Project improves an access route to or in proximity to an emergency support location

Design affects ability to respond to extreme conditions (up to 6 points)

+2 Project addresses flooding problem and/or sea level rise and enables facility to function in such a condition

+1 Project addresses facility that serves as a route out of a hurricane zone

+1 Project brings facility up to current seismic design standards

+1 Project improves access to an emergency support location

+1 Project addresses critical transportation infrastructure

EPDO/Injury Value Using the Commonwealth’s listing for Estimated Property Damage Only (EPCO) or Injury Value information (up to 3 points)

+3 If the value is in the top 20% of most assessed value

+2 If the value is in the top 49 to 21% of most assessed value

+1 If the value is in the top 50 to 1% of the most assessed value

  0  If there is no loss

Design addresses proponent identified primary safety need (Project design will address the primary safety need identified by the proponent in the question P4) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  1  Does not meet or address criteria

Design addresses MPO-identified primary safety need (Project design will address the primary MPO-identified safety need) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Improves freight related safety issue (Project design will be effective at improving freight related safety issues including truck crashes) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Improves bicycle safety (Project design will be effective at improving bicycle related safety issues including crashes) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Improves pedestrian safety (Project design will be effective at improving pedestrian related safety issues including crashes) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Improves safety or removes an at grade railroad crossing (up to 3 points)

+3 Project removes an at grade railroad crossing

+2 Project significantly improves safety at an at grade railroad crossing

+1 Project improves safety at an at grade railroad crossing

  0  Project does not include a railroad crossing

Other Tab

Cost per Unit

These two measures of cost per unit are derived by dividing project cost by quantified data in the MPO database. These measures can be used to compare similar types of projects.

56   $ per User

Cost divided by ADT (ADT for roadway projects or other user estimate)

57   $ per Lane Mile

Cost divided by proposed total lane miles

Appendix C: Greenhouse Gas Monitoring & Evaluation

MassDOT coordinated with MPOs and regional planning agencies (RPAs) on the implementation of greenhouse gas (GHG) tracking and evaluation in the development of the MPOs’ 2035 long-range transportation plans (LRTPs), which were adopted in September 2011. The list of GHGs is made up of multiple pollutants, including carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. CO₂ and methane are the most predominant GHGs. CO₂ comprises approximately 84 percent of all GHG emissions and enters the atmosphere primarily through the burning of fossil fuels. Methane comprises approximately 10 percent of GHGs and is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. GHG emissions from the transportation sector are primarily through the burning of fossil fuels; therefore, reductions of GHG were measured by calculating reductions in emissions of CO₂ associated with projects listed in the LRTP.

Working together, MassDOT and the MPOs have attained the following milestones:

• Modeling and long-range statewide projections for GHG emissions resulting from the transportation sector. Using the Boston MPO’s regional model and the statewide travel demand model for the remainder of the state, GHG emissions were projected for 2020 no-build and build conditions, and for 2035 no-build and build conditions.
• All of the MPOs included these GHG emission projections in their LRTPs, along with a discussion of climate change and a statement of MPO support for reducing GHG emissions as a regional goal.

In addition to monitoring the GHG impacts of capacity-adding projects in the LRTP, it is also important to monitor and evaluate the GHG impacts of all transportation projects that are programmed in the TIP. The TIP includes both the larger, capacity-adding projects from the LRTP and smaller projects, which are not included in the LRTP, that may have impacts on GHG emissions. The principal objective of this tracking is to enable the MPOs to evaluate the expected GHG impacts of different projects and to use this information as a criterion for prioritizing and programming projects in future TIPs.

In order to monitor and evaluate the GHG impacts of TIP projects, MassDOT and the MPOs have developed approaches for identifying the anticipated GHG emission impacts of different project types. All TIP projects have been sorted into two main categories for analysis: projects with quantified impacts and projects with assumed impacts. Projects with quantified impacts consist of capacity-adding projects from the LRTP and projects from the TIP that underwent a CMAQ spreadsheet analysis. Projects with assumed impacts include projects that would be expected to produce a minor decrease or increase in emissions and projects that would be assumed to have no CO₂ impact.