Technical Memorandum

DATE:   December 20, 2018

TO:         Boston Region MPO

FROM:   Sandy Johnston

RE:         Community Transportation Program Framework

This memorandum presents the proposed structure of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Community Transportation (CT) Program. Section 1 traces the program’s background from its origins in earlier MPO programs to its inclusion in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) in 2015 to background research that staff conducted to inform the development process for this new program. Section 2 discusses eligible types of grantees and projects, and Section 3 discusses program administration. This memorandum follows presentations made to the MPO on October 18, 2018, and December 6, 2018, and incorporates feedback from a survey sent to MPO members during the week of October 29, 2018.

1          Program background

The CT program that this memorandum defines originates in the MPO’s 2015 LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040, where it was known as the Community Transportation/Parking/Clean Air and Mobility Program. It is one of four operations and maintenance-focused MPO investment programs developed to strengthen the link between spending and improvements to transportation performance.

Over the last several years, staff and the MPO have sought to define the program to fulfill the LRTP’s mandate to make funding available to the region. In Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2018, the MPO funded, through the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), a study known as Community Transportation Program Development to complete the definition of this program and lay the groundwork for future funding rounds. This is the second memorandum produced as a result of that study; a technical memorandum titled Community Transportation Program Development Review summarizing background research, including a literature review and a survey of other MPOs with similar programs, was presented to the MPO at the October 18, 2018, meeting.

1.1      Previous MPO Programs

The CT Program presented in this document is an evolution of previous MPO programs and incorporates their lessons. The MPO maintained the Suburban Mobility Program from 2004 to 2009, and the Clean Air and Mobility Program from 2009 to 2011. More information on these programs can be found in the Community Transportation Program Development Review memorandum.

1.2      Inclusion in Charting Progress to 2040

In light of lessons from the previous programs, specifically problems with financial sustainability once MPO funding ceased, the MPO included a new Community Transportation/Parking/Clean Air and Mobility Program in the LRTP endorsed in 2015, Charting Progress to 2040. Charting Progress defined three project categories, as explained below.

Project Categories in Charting Progress to 2040

Charting Progress to 2040 defines three types of projects eligible for funding in the CT program:

• Community Transportation—Provides funding to launch locally developed transit services that support first-mile/last-mile connections to existing transit services and other destinations by purchasing shuttle buses and/or funding operating costs.
• Park-and-Ride Infrastructure—Targets funding to construct additional parking at transit stations that are at capacity, or at other viable locations.
• Clean Air and Mobility—Funds projects that improve mobility and air quality and promote mode shift. Examples include bike-share projects or shuttle-bus services.

Program Funding

Through Charting Progress to 2040, the MPO adopted an overall funding strategy known as Operations and Management (O&M), whereby a larger proportion of the MPO’s target funding would be spent on smaller O&M-type projects rather than major infrastructure. As part of the O&M strategy, Charting Progress to 2040 provided for the Community Transportation/Parking/Clean Air and Mobility Program to be funded at a level of 4 percent of overall available funds. Funding for the CT investment program is set to begin in FFY 2021. In the current FFYs 2019–23 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), $2 million is dedicated for FFY 2021 and $2 million is dedicated for FFY 2023. There is currently no funding for the CT program in FFY 2020 because of adjustments to the TIP during the FFY 2018 programming process. It is possible that funding for this program could be restored in future TIP cycles.

1.3      Literature Review and Survey

Staff conducted research on background topics as part of the Community Transportation Program Development study. Research included the following topics:

• A review of existing CT-type operations in the Boston region
• A literature review of best practices and lessons learned for such programs
• A survey of staff at other MPOs that host similar or parallel programs

Results of this research may be found in the Community Transportation Program Development Review memorandum, and were used extensively in the development of the program structure described in this memorandum.

1.4      Key Questions

Taking into consideration the MPO’s priorities and conducting extensive background research on previous MPO programs, existing CT-type operations around the Boston region, and similar programs at other MPOs, staff generated a set of key questions to frame the development of the Community Transportation Program:

• What value can the MPO program add?
• What gaps can the program fill?
• How can this program facilitate coordination?
• How can the MPO ensure its money is well spent on fiscally sustainable projects?

These key questions guided staff through the development of the draft program structure.

2          Proposed Eligible Project Proponents and Types

2.1      Proposed Eligible Project Proponents

Drawing on experience from around the region and the country, staff propose that the following types of entities be eligible for grants under the CT program:

• Municipalities
• Regional Transit Authorities (RTA)
• Transportation Management Associations (TMA)
• Other public agencies
• Public-private partnerships involving a public-sector partner and either
• Community organizations or social service agencies
• Local businesses or business groups
• Partnerships involving a public sector entity between any combination of these types of entities

Federal funding requirements mean that a public-sector partner must be involved with all grants. A possibility explicitly raised in Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) guidance is that CMAQ funds may be used to establish a new TMA. Although many parts of the Boston region are already covered by a TMA, others are not; MPO funds have helped to establish at least one TMA—CrossTown Connect, in the northwestern part of the MPO region.

2.2      Proposed Eligible Project Types

In developing the proposed types of projects to be eligible for funding under the CT Program, staff drew on several sources, keeping in mind the MPO’s emphasis on using this program to help solve first- and last-mile solutions. First, staff analyzed the requirements attached to CMAQ funding. These rules apply because the CT program is currently programmed in the TIP to be funded with CMAQ funds. However, the MPO could choose to fund the CT program with different funds in the future. Second, staff examined the research conducted on other MPOs’ experiences to learn the types of projects funded by parallel programs in other regions. Finally, staff reviewed comments received during LRTP Needs Assessment outreach activities conducted in Fall 2017 to identify needs in the Boston region.

Federal CMAQ guidance lays out certain requirements for the types of projects that are eligible for funding. 1 When used for capital investment, CMAQ funds “may be used to establish new or expanded transportation projects or programs that reduce emissions, including capital investments in transportation infrastructure, congestion relief efforts, vehicle acquisitions, diesel engine retrofits, or other capital projects.” Guidance around use of CMAQ funding for operating costs is somewhat complex but revolve around the idea of helping to “start up viable new transportation services that can demonstrate air quality benefits and eventually cover costs as much as possible.” Initially, CMAQ funds could be spent over three years of operational costs, with the federal share declining each year; newer guidance allows stretching three years of funding (with the absolute amount unchanged) over five years, should the awarding agency so choose. CMAQ can also fund projects that fall under the umbrella of travel demand management strategies. Notably, and in line with the MPO’s goals for the CT program, CMAQ funding may not be used for projects that add capacity on the transportation network for single-occupancy vehicles (SOV).

Research on other MPOs has been summarized in the Community Transportation Program Development Review memorandum. The surveyed MPOs reported funding some or all of the following types of projects:

• Transit priority infrastructure or systems
• Transit vehicle purchases
• Systems and technology upgrades
• Retrofitting and rehabilitation activities
• Access to transit (for example, safe routes to transit)
• Bicycles on transit
• Improvements to parking and park-and-ride facilities
• Educational programs
• Travel training/assistance
• Marketing initiatives
• Bicycle education and outreach programs
• Temporary or pilot infrastructure improvements
• Transit-related capital expenses

Potentially eligible project concepts generated from the MPO’s Needs Assessment outreach for Destination 2040 and from previous UPWP-funded studies and technical assistance projects are included in the Draft Universe of Community Transportation Projects, accompanying this memo. Drawing on these materials, and on the three project categories presented for the CT program in Charting Progress to 2040, staff propose that projects eligible for the CT program be divided into the following four project types.

Transit Operations and Improvements

This project type funds projects that close gaps in the transit network, including first- and last-mile solutions and needs not covered by existing fixed route transit or paratransit services. Eligible projects include, but are not conclusively limited to the following projects:

• Shuttle operations
• Partnerships with Transportation Network Companies (TNCs)—companies such as Uber and Lyft
• Transit enhancements

• Constructing physical transit priority measures such as dedicated lanes or queue jumps
• Installing or upgrading signals incorporating transit signal priority (TSP) technology
• Improving bus stops

• Coordinating service or small capital (for example, bus shelter) improvements with existing or future fixed-route service2
• Technology updates (such as to dispatching or vehicle tracking software)

Parking Management

Staff recommend expanding the park-and-ride infrastructure category defined in Charting Progress to 2040 to include the adoption of innovative parking management strategies such as leasing remote parking lots that are located near transit stations and underused during the week, for example, those belonging to churches or synagogues. In conjunction with a shuttle, such a strategy has been successful in Acton. Staff recommend that eligible projects under the Parking Management strategy include the following:

• Leasing or arranging for off-site parking spaces near transit stations to supplement existing parking, and shuttles to connect them if necessary
• Constructing additional parking for automobiles and bicycles

Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

Charting Progress to 2040 includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements under the Clean Air and Mobility section of what has become the CT program. In addition, several MPOs (as well as other transportation-related agencies) maintain programs known as Safe Routes to Transit, often using CMAQ funds. These programs fund minor infrastructure improvements near transit stations, with the goal of making walking or biking to transit safer, thereby facilitating first- and last-mile connections. Staff propose that the CT program fund the following types of projects, among others, in this vein:

• Bicycle and pedestrian improvements for transit access
• Improvements to non-automotive transportation infrastructure for travelers with mobility impairments
• Training and equipment for bringing bicycles on transit

This list is not intended to be permanent or comprehensive; the MPO can approve other types of projects as compelling examples are uncovered.

Education and Wayfinding

The Clean Air and Mobility category under the CT program in Charting Progress to 2040 also envisioned funding projects relating to education on transportation options and wayfinding (practical navigation in and around transportation facilities). These types of projects can help solve first- and last-mile problems and shift trips from SOV to other modes, thereby reducing air pollution by reaching potential riders and users who would not otherwise be aware of or able to fully make use of available options. Potentially eligible projects may include the following projects:

• Travel instruction

• Training on new technologies
• Signage and other wayfinding strategies
• Pilot or demonstration projects

There are numerous opportunities for small-scale projects of this type. For example, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s (MBTA) Office of Systemwide Accessibility employs travel trainers, but they are busy and can only work on the MBTA system.3 MPO-funded travel training projects could work with multiple RTAs, or even help solve rider confusion over the gaps between RTAs, which is a subject about which MPO staff have received frequent feedback.

2.3      Possible Project Considerations

Staff have identified several considerations that might prove challenging to the implementation of projects. As discussed elsewhere in this document, CMAQ funding has certain restrictions on the types of projects for which it can be used. Successful projects will also require a local financial match; the MPO has prioritized funding projects with local matches that show an ability to continue beyond the period of MPO funding. Given the relatively small amount of funding dedicated to the program, and the consequent small scale of the projects to be funded, staff from Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) have raised the question of whether small capital projects will be worth the complexity and expense of going through the full federal process and MassDOT’s right-of-way process. The fast-changing nature of dealing with TNCs means that the MPO will have to carefully monitor what partnering with such companies could look like, and adapt to an evolving environment.

3          Program administration

With the MPO’s guidance, staff have developed a proposed framework for administering the CT program, including evaluation of projects; the application process; and future reporting to the MPO. This evaluation process fits into the broader TIP cycle, with applications accepted in the winter and evaluated in early spring. As proposed to the MPO, the first funding round will work slightly differently from following rounds. A detailed explanation and timeline are provided below.

3.1      Project Evaluation Framework

When developing the proposed framework, staff drew on the experiences of other MPOs with similar programs and the criteria they use; analysis of local programs, such as MassDOT’s Community Transit Grant Program 4; and suggestions from the MPO and other staff with whom the program had been discussed to develop a basic framework and a list of potential criteria. Staff presented the basic structure for project evaluation to the MPO on October 18, 2018, consisting of the following stages:

Stage 1: Fatal Flaw Analysis

Stage 2a: General Criteria

Stage 2b: Type-Specific Criteria (Capital/Operating)

Staff then conducted a survey of MPO members asking them to rate and comment on various potential criteria. The survey and a table summarizing its results are attached as Appendices A and B, respectively, to this memorandum. Staff received nine responses to the survey from MPO members. Based on feedback from the survey and internal discussions, staff proposed a slightly modified and more comprehensive structure for project evaluation at the December 6, 2018, MPO meeting. That structure is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Community Transportation Program Project Evaluation Process

Project scores will be based on a detailed set of criteria presented to the MPO on December 6, 2018. Table 1 provides details on the criteria.

Table 1
Community Transportation Program Project Evaluation Criteria

The points assigned to each criterion in the scoring framework correspond to the priorities indicated by MPO members in the criteria evaluation survey. In some instances, the scoring points assigned to an individual criterion vary from the averages returned from the survey. Staff made some adjustments to bring the framework into alignment with the LRTP’s goals and objectives, and the goals of the Community Transportation Funding Program. One of these circumstances is the distribution of weighting between the general and the type-specific criteria. Survey respondents returned a median response that would distribute 40 percent of the overall scoring to the general criteria and 60 percent to the type-specific criteria. Because the general criteria reflect the goals and objectives of both the LRTP and the CT program more so than the type-specific criteria, staff proposes weighting them at least equally. Additionally, there are fewer individual type-specific than general criteria; should the weighting scheme between the two categories be weighted more heavily toward the type-specific criteria, each individual criterion within that category would count far more heavily toward the overall project score than any of the individual general criteria. As a result, the framework presented to the MPO on December 6, 2018, and reflected here, weights the general and type-specific criteria evenly.  

While developing the final form of the CT program application, staff will review program materials and the Universe of Potential Community Transportation Projects to further detail the functioning of the evaluation criteria. Some will be scored all or nothing based on the presence or absence of certain features or data in the application (for theoretical example, receiving 0 points if a criterion is not met and 5 if it is). Others will be scored on a sliding scale, able to receive anywhere between (again, in a theoretical example) 0 and 5 points based on the extent to which an application meets the requirement of a particular criterion. Reflecting that framework, project applicants will be expected to provide information to the MPO in two broad ways. The information required for some of the evaluation criteria can be provided through documentation in the application materials—applicants will document facts about or elements of their project as required, and MPO staff will apply the correct scoring. Other criteria will require the applicant to provide data or information to be analyzed for accuracy, thoroughness, and appropriateness by MPO staff. In some cases, both methods will apply. In other cases (such as the Equity Considerations criterion), staff will provide data or an interface for applicants to be able to document certain elements of their application (in this case, staff would provide data and/or mapping of the MPO’s designated Transportation Equity areas so that applicants will be able to determine whether their project serves one).

3.2      First Funding Round

Funding for the CT program is first programmed in the TIP in FFY 2021. Because past funding programs have had to revise their structure and/or criteria after the first funding round revealed practical difficulties, staff propose to use the first funding round as a pilot to assess whether the proposed program structure, project evaluation paradigm, and criteria agreed on by the MPO work as intended. 

For the first funding round, the MPO will award funds to projects selected from a Universe of Potential Community Transportation Projects. Staff generated the Universe (Appendix C) from the following sources:

• Comments gathered from previous outreach, especially Destination 2040 Needs Assessment outreach in Fall 2017. Staff outreach efforts included MAPC subregional groups, advocacy/interest groups, and other stakeholders
• Recommendations made in MPO-funded studies and technical assistance projects
• Discussions with partner agencies, particularly through a small inter-agency group known as the Community Transit/Mobility Working Group that includes staff from Central Transportation Planning Staff, Metropolitan Area Planning Council, MBTA, and MassDOT

Following MPO approval of the structure for the CT program, staff will evaluate the first round of projects, according to the following schedule:

• December 2018 through January 2019: Staff will contact project proponents for each project concept, identifying a project proponent where none has yet been identified, to confirm that they are interested in pursuing funding for the project within the MPO’s time frame. Staff will also review the evaluation criteria and the Universe of Potential Community Transportation Projects to identify the extent and types of data necessary to accurately score projects, and develop paths for applicants to submit that information.
• Spring 2019: Staff will apply the criteria contained in Section 3.1 to the projects whose sponsors have provided the requisite data and information. This will produce a draft Ranked List of Community Transportation Projects, which staff will present to the MPO along with any feedback about the criteria and process.
• Spring 2019: Staff will incorporate any MPO feedback on the draft Ranked List of Community Transportation Projects, and return to the MPO with a final list. The final list will be included in the FFYs 2020–24 TIP, programmed in FFY 2021 as per current plans.
• Late Spring/Summer 2019: If necessary, staff will prepare a memo summarizing lessons learned from the first funding round and how they can be applied to future funding rounds of the CT program. Staff will present proposed changes to the program structure to the MPO for approval.

Having gained the experience of one funding round, and being able to adjust as necessary, the MPO can proceed into a more robust process beginning Fall 2019.

3.3      Program Cycle—Second Round and Beyond 

After the first year, the process and calendar for generating and evaluating CT program projects will essentially follow that of the TIP. Drawing on the experience of the first funding round (evaluated FFY 2019/programmed FFY 2021), staff will create a detailed application for the program. Beginning Fall 2019, staff will conduct outreach for the CT program alongside the other primary MPO documents. Project proponents will fill out the application, thus creating a Universe of Potential Community Transportation Projects. Staff will evaluate and score projects in the Universe and then present to the MPO in draft form in the spring of 2020. Staff will then present the final list of Community Transportation projects to the MPO together with the FFYs 2021–25 TIP and program the projects for funding beginning in 2023. This cycle will repeat every year thereafter.

Conclusion and next steps

This memorandum has described the proposed overall structure of the MPO’s CT program, and explains how it will function. Should the MPO approve this structure, staff will move forward with evaluating the first round of projects. A draft Universe of Community Transportation Projects accompanies this memo; as noted above these are project concepts about which staff have received feedback through outreach or other means, and as such are not yet fully developed. With the MPO’s approval, staff will immediately begin contacting potential project proponents to confirm their interest and timeline and to develop more detailed project proposals. These proposals will then be evaluated as outlined above.  

Appendix A: project evaluation criteria survey

http://downloads.bostonmpo.org/data/calendar/pdfs/2018/MPO_1206_Community_Transportation_Project_Evaluation_Criteria_Survey.pdf

Appendix B: project evaluation criteria survey results

Appendix C: draft universe of Potential community transportation projects