Technical memorandum

DATE:   June 25, 2020

TO:         Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

FROM:   Kate White, Transportation Planner/Public Outreach Coordinator

RE:         Public Engagement for the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project Evaluation Criteria Revisions

This memorandum describes the outreach that the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) staff conducted with members of the public and advocacy groups regarding revisions to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) criteria in response to the endorsement of the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Destination 2040. It discusses the approaches staff used to engage people across the region and summarizes input and feedback by MPO goal area. The memorandum also provides next steps for further outreach after the first draft TIP criteria are completed.

1          Summary

To better understand transportation priorities of the Boston region and help shape proposals for TIP criteria changes, staff set out to conduct a combination of in-person and online public outreach. Over the course of the fall of 2019, MPO staff hosted seven focus groups with advocacy and civic engagement organizations and released an online survey. Both the online survey and focus groups included one main question that asked participants to choose their top priorities out of a list of 15. The list of 15 priorities consisted of current TIP criteria goals and other priorities identified in the Long-Range Transportation Plan, Destination 2040. Online survey respondents were asked to choose both their top five and their number one priority, and then add to or comment on if there should be additional priorities. Focus group participants were asked to choose three priorities, rank them, and provide additional notes and comments. Staff worked to specifically connect with groups that primarily serve equity populations for the focus groups as well as to broadcast the survey in their social networks and email lists. This outreach effort resulted in 93 participants in the focus groups and 462 online survey responses from across the Boston Region.

The goals of revising the TIP criteria are to

• better reflect updated goals, objectives, and investment programs in Destination 2040,
• keep pace with prevailing needs in the Boston region,
• maintain alignment with data and methodologies used by state and federal partners,
• better incorporate performance-based planning and programming into the TIP process,
• adopt best practice from peer MPOs, and
• incorporate feedback the MPO has received.

In the survey and the focus groups, the 15 priorities included were tied to MPO goal areas. Table 1 shows the results of the online survey and Figure 1 shows the results of the focus groups.

Table 1
Online Survey Results: Top Five Priorities for Transportation

Figure 1
Focus Groups Priorities

Respondents primarily selected larger thematic priorities, with “improving pedestrian safety” being the most selected in the online survey and the second most selected in the focus groups. “Promoting more equitable mobility” was the most selected during the focus groups and the second most selected in the online survey. “Maintaining the existing transit system” and “prioritizing buses with dedicated bus lanes” were among the most selected priorities in the focus groups, however, in the online survey, “maintaining the existing transit system” was the most selected top priority. More respondents in the online survey selected “reducing emissions and pollution,” but in the comments many respondents advocated for investment in transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure to support reducing emissions, enhancing climate resiliency and promoting equity. Many reiterated the Boston region’s congestion issues but advocated for expanding bicycle network connectivity, improving access to transit stations, enhancing connectivity to jobs and services, and improving safety for all modes as ways to combat congestion. Many respondents urged the MPO to prioritize investments in areas that have been historically and currently underserved and improve transit in low-income and minority communities. They also argued for weighing more heavily the negative impacts of projects that harm low-income and minority populations and adding more criteria to address air pollution.

This memo describes the results by MPO goal areas:

• Clean Air/Sustainable Communities
• Safety
• System Preservation and Modernization
• Capacity Management and Mobility
• Transportation Equity
• Economic Vitality

Clean Air/Sustainable Communities

Participants advocated for dramatically reducing emissions and pollution and recommended improving pedestrian and bicycle safety, increasing pedestrian and bike connectivity, and promoting equitable transportation mobility to achieve this goal. Respondents also argued for stronger assessments on air pollution and for addressing the disproportionate health effects on low-income and minority communities living near high emission roadways. They also argued for projects that reduce the number of personal vehicles on the road and for enhancing tree canopy coverage and green space. For additional Clean Air/Sustainable Communities priorities, participants advocated for smart growth, transit-oriented development, supporting active transportation, and prioritizing non-car modes.

Safety

Participants primarily focused on improving pedestrian and bike safety through expanding pedestrian and bike infrastructure, bringing sidewalks up to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standards, increasing connectivity to transit, and reducing auto speeds to prevent accidents. Participants shared their support for maintaining and expanding the transit system to increase mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicles and to increase bike and pedestrian safety. Many argued for separated bike facilities to make it easier and safer for anyone to bike and not just the experienced bicyclist. They advocated for shifting of spending to focus on Vision Zero projects, improving dangerous crossings, installing light-up crosswalks, and fixing poorly timed lights and poorly painted crosswalks. They also promoted safe and convenient walkable routes to access jobs, services, and schools. Many advocated for prioritizing areas that primarily serve equity populations, fixing broken sidewalks, and reducing conflicts between pedestrians crossing the street and turning vehicles.

System Preservations and Modernization

Participants were asked about maintaining and improving existing sidewalks, roads, and bridges. Many focused more on improving overall safety rather than on the maintenance and improvement of specific elements of the roadway. However, when asked about maintaining the existing transit system, many picked it as their top priority. Participants advocated for making the transit system reliable, functional, clean, safe, and dependable to increase ridership and reduce congestion. They advocated for transit expansion and prioritizing dedicated bus lanes. They supported investing in maintenance of the transit system and argued for equitable transportation mobility. Creating connections to jobs and services through transit options was also identified as important as was implementing more multimodal infrastructure.

Capacity Management and Mobility

Many participants advocated for creating new connections in the bike network and argued for enhanced connections to the transit system. Participants argued for more separated shared use paths to increase bike usage. They saw increased bike infrastructure as a tool to reduce emissions, reduce congestion, and promote public health by enhancing exercise and recreation options. Many respondents highlighted the idea of implementing more dedicated bus lanes as a way to increase reliability, enhance access to jobs and services, increase equity in the transit system, and reduce emissions. Participants argued that dedicated bus lanes have a high impact for less investment, and can be more flexible to meet community needs. Bus frequency and reliability can increase ridership and reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicles on the road. Bus lanes can also be combined with bike lanes, which increase mobility options for residents. To reduce congestion, participants argued for more parking at commuter rail stations, enhancing walking options to commuter rail stations, and increasing safety for walking and biking. They advocated for prioritizing person throughput rather than vehicle throughput. To reduce congestion and conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists, participants argued for implementing curb allocation policies for trucks and delivery vehicles.

Transportation Equity

Transportation equity was one of the most selected priorities in both the online survey and focus groups. To promote more equitable transportation mobility, participants argued for many of the other priorities with a focus on directing resources to those most overburdened by transportation emissions and underserved by a lack of adequate transportation options. They argued for enhancing transportation opportunities to jobs, food, education, services, and civic engagement opportunities. They advocated for safer connections to transit options and increased transit reliability. Expanding and fixing sidewalk infrastructure was also frequently mentioned. Many argued for prioritizing projects near affordable housing, supporting transit-oriented development, and incorporating more public health criteria.

Economic Vitality

To increase economic vitality, participants argued for more transportation access to jobs, services, and small businesses with increased transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure. Expanding the transit system was frequently mentioned as well as incorporating greater consideration for affordable housing and inclusionary zoning. Participants also advocated for supporting projects that serve multiple municipalities and maximize mobility for all using the most efficient means possible. They also argued for climate resiliency and safety to enhance access to jobs and services.

Outreach Follow-Up

Staff analyzed demographic information recorded in the online survey to better understand who was responding and to identify gaps in outreach. By mapping respondents by zip code, staff plan to do additional outreach to organizations and groups in zip codes that had low response rates as well as areas that have higher numbers of residents belonging to equity populations. The MPO defines equity populations as low-income populations, minority populations, youth, elderly, people with disabilities, and people with limited English proficiency.

After the first round of criteria outreach, staff plan to produce draft criteria to discuss at MPO meetings. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, staff planned to go back to the organizations and advocacy groups that staff worked with in the first round to share the new criteria and to hear feedback on the changes. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, staff plan to host virtual focus groups with these organizations and additional virtual engagement opportunities open to the public. Staff also plan to release another online public survey to gauge feedback on the new draft criteria.

2          Background

2.1      LRTP and MPO Board Endorsement

On August 15, 2019, the MPO board discussed revising the TIP project evaluation criteria to

• better reflect updated goals, objectives, and investment programs in Destination 2040,
• keep pace with prevailing needs in the Boston region,
• maintain alignment with data and methodologies used by state and federal partners,
• better incorporate performance-based planning and programming into the TIP process,
• adopt best practices from peer MPOs, and
• incorporate feedback the MPO received during LRTP public outreach.

Some of the feedback that the MPO had heard also included concerns that current TIP criteria favored certain investment programs, and respondents wanted to more heavily weight negative scores, add health metrics, and reduce the emphasis on auto-centric elements of transportation projects. Input also included a wish to reconsider using the equivalent property damage only (EPDO) index for safety and to use access to jobs and non-work necessities as an economic vitality measure. The MPO board agreed to move forward with a complete re-imagination of the TIP criteria, which consists of distinct criteria for each LRTP investment program, significant updates to existing criteria, and changes to scoring weights. The new TIP criteria will be implemented in the FFYs 2022–26 TIP development.

2.2      Outreach Methods

MPO staff developed an outreach plan for the first phase of the public outreach on TIP criteria. This plan included in-person focus groups and an online survey to gather feedback on priorities for MPO transportation project investments. The second round of public input will take place in the summer of 2020, when staff plan to conduct another online survey, host virtual outreach events, and return to stakeholder groups that were part of the first focus groups through virtual meetings to share the draft criteria and elicit feedback. Outreach will take place virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Governor Baker’s Stay at Home Order.

For the first-phase focus groups and online survey, participants were asked to select their top priorities from a list of 15 that were created based on highlights of the current TIP criteria and priorities endorsed in the LRTP. The online survey was released on October 12, 2019, and closed December 17, 2019. In accordance with the MPO’s Language Assistance Plan, the survey was translated into the six most frequently spoken languages in the Boston region. It consisted of three questions about transportation priorities. The remaining questions asked for demographic information. The survey questions are listed in Appendix A.

The survey was provided online via SurveyMonkey and distributed through a variety of channels, including the MPOInfo and Transportation Equity email lists, the Boston Region MPO Twitter account, the MAPC Matters newsletter, the social media channels of various transportation advocacy groups, and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s (MAPC) subregional listservs. Staff also emailed the survey directly to stakeholder groups that have interacted with the MPO on a variety of levels, and promoted the survey at outreach events and MAPC subregional meetings.

In the focus groups, staff introduced participants to the MPO and the six investment programs that determine what kinds of projects are funded by the MPO. Not all participants of the focus groups were familiar with the Boston Region MPO, therefore, staff provided all participants with background information and context. Using this framework, participants were asked to pick their top three priorities out of the same 15 provided in the online survey, and identify them in order, by placing Post-its labeled 1, 2, and 3 on a large printed table of the 15 priorities. Participants could provide additional comments about priorities by writing directly on the printed table. A picture of the table is included in Appendix B. Not all participants used all three ranks and some chose as a group to add more top priorities.

Staff planned eight focus groups and hosted seven, two with Spanish interpreters. Staff specifically reached out to organizations that serve and/or are comprised of primarily equity populations. Focus groups meetings were between 25 and 60 minutes long and took place between September 4, 2019, and December 11, 2019. Table 2 lists all the planned focus groups and the estimated number of participants. Staff hosted a focus group with NorthShore Community Development Corporation (CDC), which had to be rescheduled due to a conflict with NorthShore CDC’s space. The rescheduled date was December 11, 2020, and there were no attendees.

Table 2
TIP Criteria Focus Groups, Fall 2019

Additional surveys were distributed to the Regional Transportation Advisory Council (Advisory Council), TIP contacts, and MPO members for different purposes. The Advisory Council survey was created for members to rank all 15 priorities, the TIP contact survey was designed to elicit input on the project evaluation process, and the MPO board survey elicited feedback on priorities in the same way as the public survey. The Advisory Council feedback revealed similar results as the public online survey with “improving pedestrian safety” being the most selected priority, but respondents selected “creating new connections in the bike network” at the second highest rate. Equitable transportation mobility and reducing emissions and congestion were also highly rated. MPO staff discussed MPO board members feedback at MPO meetings.

3          What we heard and WHO we heard from

3.1      Online Survey

MPO Staff received 462 survey responses for the online public survey. Of the responses, 461 were in English and one in Simplified Chinese. All respondents were required to complete the first question, which asked respondents for their top five priorities for MPO transportation projects. The results of this question are shown in Table 3.

Table 3
Online Survey Results: Top Five Priorities for Transportation

For the second question, respondents were asked an open-ended question about their top priority. Table 4 shows the number of times people selected a listed priority as their top priority and the MPO goal area related to each priority.

Table 4
Online Survey Results: Top Priority for Transportation

Even though “maintaining the existing transit system” was not included in the most frequently selected top five priorities, it was the most frequently selected highest priority of the 418 respondents who answered the question. Many respondents commented that they not only want maintenance but also improvements and expansion of the transit system. Many respondents also included components of other priorities in their top priority open-ended answer. Details of these are included in Section 4.

Respondents were asked about additional priorities not included in the list provided. Staff categorized the responses, which were also tied to MPO goal areas. Section 4o f this memo describes in further detail the comments provided in the additional priorities for each goal area. The full table of staff-organized additional priorities can be found in Appendix C.

The most mentioned additional priority was expanding transit service and the transit system. Improving network connections and multimodal connectivity was the second most selected priority, but the number of respondents who selected this choice were about half those that selected the top additional priority.

Demographic information

Staff asked general demographic information to learn more about respondents. The results are in the following tables.

Sex

Table 5
Sex of Respondents

Two out of 462 respondents did not complete the question.

Race and Ethnicity

Table 6
Race and Ethnicity of Respondents

The race and ethnicity questions were answered by 453 respondents, and nine respondents skipped the question. The minority population in the Boston region is 28.2% of the total population. 

Age

Table 7
Ages of Respondents

The question on age was completed by 460 respondents. Apart from the age bracket of 18-24 years old, which only comprised 3.5 percent of respondents, there was little variance in the number of respondents in the age brackets. No respondents identified as under 18 years old.

Annual Household Income

The MPO considers a person low-income if they live in a family whose annual income is at or below 200 percent of the national poverty level, based on family size. A table depicting these thresholds and the percentages by income can be found in Appendix D. To approximate low-income status for respondents, MPO staff asked respondents for their household size and their annual household income.

The question on income was completed by 456 respondents. There were 362 respondents out of 462 for whom poverty status can be calculated. The number of respondents living at below 200 percent of their respective poverty thresholds is 13, which is 2.8 percent of the total respondents, or 3.6 percent of respondents for whom poverty status can be calculated.

Location of Home Residences

Figure 2
Location of Respondents’ Home Residence by Zip Code

Staff asked respondents to share the zip code of their home residence. Zip codes were provided by 434 respondents. Figure 2 shows a map of the Boston region zip code areas, municipalities, and the MAPC subregions. The highest number of responses came from zip code areas in Arlington, Somerville, Cambridge, Jamaica Plain, and Wellesley. Although staff received responses from every MAPC subregion, there were several zip code areas that were not represented in this survey. Staff will conduct more intentional outreach in the areas that had low or no response rates, as well as areas that are home to a higher proportion of equity populations, when conducting the second round of TIP criteria feedback in the summer of 2020. More information on the next steps of outreach is provided in Section 5.

Priorities by Mode

A primary mode of travel was reported by 462 respondents. Of these respondents, 6.9 percent also selected “Other” and explained that they used a combination of modes, so they could not pick just one. Some of these respondents also specified that they used an electric scooter or unicycle to travel. Staff analyzed the priorities by respondent mode to better understand if their mode choice might have correlated to their priorities. Table 8 describes the mode breakdowns for each of the five most selected priorities.

Table 8
Top Five Priorities by Mode

There was some variation among priorities and the respondents’ primary mode. More respondents who said their primary mode was driving selected “reducing congestion,” while those who said their primary mode was bicycle selected “improving bicycle safety.” The breakdown for mode for the top two priorities is very similar. When analyzing mode in comparison to priorities, staff recognize that mode is not the only indicator for a priority. Location, background, values, and wishes all shape respondents’ priorities. In addition, some respondents talked about how their primary mode was a car because they had no other options and could not rely on or access public transit.

3.2      Focus Groups

The five most selected priorities identified during the focus groups were as follows:

• Promoting more equitable transportation mobility
• Improving pedestrian safety
• Maintaining the existing transit system
• Prioritizing buses with dedicated bus lanes
• Promoting more economic development by increasing access to jobs and services.

Figure 3
Focus Groups Results: Priorities

Three of the top five priorities for the focus groups were the same as for the online survey—"promote more equitable transportation mobility,” “improve pedestrian safety,” and “promote economic development by increasing access to jobs and services.” “Maintaining the existing transit system” and “prioritizing buses with dedicated bus lanes” were included in the top five for the focus groups but not for the survey respondents, and “reducing congestion” and “reducing emissions and pollution” were included by the survey respondents but far less prioritized in the focus groups.

4          Feedback and how it relates to goal areas and criteria

The following sections describe in more detail the comments and feedback from the online survey and focus groups, organized by MPO goal area. Comments that did not pertain to MPO activities were not included, such as those about transit fares and state transportation funding.

Transportation projects that are candidates for TIP funding are judged based on criteria that are shaped by the MPO goal areas defined in the LRTP:

• Clean Air/Sustainable Communities
• Safety
• System Preservation and Modernization
• Capacity Management and Mobility
• Transportation Equity
• Economic Vitality

Survey and focus group priorities were organized into each relevant LRTP goal area.

4.1      Clean Air/Sustainable Communities

Background

The MPO’s Clean Air/Sustainable Communities goal seeks to create an environmentally friendly transportation system that achieves the following:

• Reduces greenhouse gases generated in the Boston region by all transportation modes
• Reduces other transportation-related pollutants
• Minimizes negative environmental impacts of the transportation system
• Supports land-use policies consistent with smart, health, and resilient growth

As part of in-person and online outreach, people frequently mentioned the need to reduce emissions and support sustainable transportation to help combat climate change and improve public and environmental health. More people focused on reducing emissions and pollutants, but some respondents also mentioned the following needs:

• Reducing the impact of highways
• Increasing urban canopy coverage
• Increasing green space in transportation projects
• Rewarding a project additional points if it targeted areas that had environmental issues such as reducing emissions for low-income populations living near highways

Many respondents discussed the gravity of the climate crisis and saw that other priorities such as improving pedestrian safety, improving bicycle safety, and maintaining as well as expanding transit service (both rail and bus) would support reducing emissions.

Online Survey

Two of the 15 priorities in the survey are related to the Clean Air and Sustainable Communities goal area:

• Reducing emissions and pollution
• Limiting the environmental impacts of projects, including impacts on water quality, natural resources, and open space

Reducing Emissions and Pollution

Of 462 respondents, 238 (52 percent) selected “reducing emissions and pollution” as one of their top five priorities, and 50 respondents selected it as their top priority. 

A sample of responses as to why this goal is important include the following

• “Doing so is vital for health, equity, and addressing climate change; but also I expect it will naturally lead to achieving other goals, like enhancing bike and pedestrian safety.”
• “To me, the most important objective is to reduce emissions and pollution from transportation. I find this to be important because climate change is our biggest threat, but the execution of this is crucial; improving the transit system and bicycle network are two actions that will go far toward achieving other major goals. A car-dominated culture is both unsafe for vulnerable users and unsustainable for the environment. Reducing the number of motor vehicles on the road by giving drivers good alternative options for traveling longer distances will improve congestion, safety, environment, climate… and provide alternative options in an equitable way.”

Many respondents felt that reducing emissions encompassed many other priorities. Additional ways they shared to achieve reductions of emissions and pollution included the following:

• Investing in transit to increase frequency, connectivity, and reliability
• Creating a safer and better bike and pedestrian network
• Maintaining pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure in a state of good repair
• Expanding the urban tree canopy
• Implementing dedicated bus lanes
• Electrifying rail and buses
• Improving bike, micromobility, and pedestrian infrastructure
• Reducing congestion and the number of vehicles idling and polluting
• Enhancing climate resiliency
• Investing in electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure such as charging stations and EV lanes
• Promoting equitable transportation mobility
• Expanding off-road shared-use paths
• Increasing the cost of driving and parking to encourage mode shift
• Protecting agriculture
• Supporting sustainable transportation as a tool to combat climate change and promote human health
• Addressing the disproportionate health effects on environmental justice communities living near roadways where there are high emission levels
• Reducing speed limits to increase the safety of people walking and biking

Overall, respondents would like the MPO to recognize the dire need for reducing transportation emissions and pollution in the face of climate change.

Limiting the Environmental Impacts of Projects

Of 462 respondents, 86 (19 percent) selected “limiting the environmental impacts of projects” as one of their top five priorities. Nine respondents selected it as their top priority. To fulfill this goal, respondents argued for the following:

• Reducing disruption of neighborhood life during transportation construction
• Reducing the number of autos and trucks on the road
• Incorporating more climate resiliency in transportation investments
• Preserving and enhancing tree canopy coverage and green space
• Valuing the co-benefits of improving bike safety and reducing emissions and pollution

Additional Priorities

The additional priorities suggested that were categorized in the Clean Air/Sustainable Communities MPO Goal area are shown in Table 9.

Table 9
Additional Priorities for Clean Air/Sustainable Communities

Many of the comments aligned with other goal areas showing the intersection of these priorities.

Focus Groups

Responses received during focus groups are summarized in Table 10.

Table 10
Focus Group Priorities for Clean Air/Sustainable Communities

As seen in the overall choices, these two priorities were not frequently selected, but priorities like transit investment and dedicated bus lanes would contribute to reducing emissions and pollution.

Additional comments heard during the focus groups included the following:

• preserving green space and reducing the amount of concrete
• reducing pollution from projects during and after construction

Summary of Changes to the Clean Air/Sustainable Communities TIP Scoring Criteria

The existing criteria for Clean Air/Sustainable Communities, which are applied to all project types, provide points for projects that achieve the following:

• Reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions
• Reduce other transportation-related emissions
• Address environmental impacts (water quality, cultural resources and open space, wetlands, wildlife preservation, and protected habitats)
• Are located in a certified Green Community

The new criteria will be shaped for each investment program.

Many respondents placed a high priority on reducing emissions and pollution. MPO staff are proposing to keep the first three existing criteria, which address reducing emissions and limiting the environmental impact of projects. Under reducing other transportation-related pollution, staff is proposing to add the air pollutant, particulate matter (PM_2.5).

4.2      Safety

Background

The Safety goal seeks to make transportation by all modes safe by the following means:

• Reducing the number and severity of crashes and safety incidents for all modes
• Reducing serious injuries and fatalities from transportation
• Making investments and supporting initiatives that help protect transportation customers, employers, and the public from safety and security threats

As part of in-person and online outreach, people frequently mentioned the need to increase safety for people walking and biking to not only reduce fatalities and injuries but also help people feel safer and willing to try more active and sustainable transportation and to encourage mode shift. Respondents mentioned that creating separated bike facilities and installing more shared-use paths could increase access to jobs, services, schools, and transit stations as well reduce emissions.

Online Survey

Three of the 15 priorities were tied to the Safety goal area:

• Improving auto safety
• Improving bicycle safety
• Improving pedestrian safety

Feedback on improving safety and mobility for trucks is described in the Capacity Management and Mobility goal area section.

Improving Auto Safety

Of 462 respondents, 34 (seven percent) selected “improving auto safety” as one of their top five priorities. Three respondents selected “improving auto safety” as their top priority.

A sample of responses to why this goal is important include the following:

• “Boston’s roads are notoriously difficult to navigate and are setup for accidents of all kinds.”
• “Auto safety is crucial–people will always be driving, and making the roads, intersections, and highways safer is paramount.”

Improving Bicycle Safety

Of 462 respondents, 227 (49 percent) selected, “improving bicycle safety” as one of their top five goal areas. Thirty-three respondents selected it as their highest priority.

A sample of responses to why this goal is important include the following:

• “Improving bicycle safety is critical because it offers a cheap, fast, scalable, and resilient transportation option.”
• “I currently ride a cargo bike with two children, when riding my bike, I am one less car on the road. If we had better connected bike lanes, more families would ride. For instance, my five year old daughter is determined to ride her bike, however, I'm stuck walking/running on the sidewalk with her, as her riding in the bike lane on a major street is much too risky.”
• “Bicycle safety is a top priority and many of the things we can do to make streets safe for bikes can make them safer for drivers and pedestrians too.”
• “It is too dangerous to bike on the roads, now. I use to do it but do it no longer… I would bike every day to work, and anywhere else I need to go around my home if it was safe enough to do so.”

Many respondents felt that improving bicycle safety would encourage mode shift and support both public and environmental health. Other additional ways they shared to achieve improving bicycle safety included the following:

• Maintaining sidewalks on state roads to increase pedestrian usage, decreasing congestion on roadways and lowering emissions
• Improving public health through more active transportation
• Maintaining the current transit system to increase mode shift and reduce the number of cars on the road
• Implementing more separated bike lane infrastructure including replacing parking with protected bike lanes
• Increasing bike connectivity and safety with connections to reliable and frequent public transit
• Redesigning streets to slow car traffic, deprioritize private vehicle dominance and support multimodal connections

Overall, respondents want safer bike facilities and prioritization of pedestrian, bike, and transit infrastructure altogether to decrease the reliance on privately owned vehicles as well as reduce congestion. They also advocated for more separated bike infrastructure and more network connectivity.

Improving Pedestrian Safety

Of 462 respondents, 261 (56 percent) selected “improving pedestrian safety” as one of their top five goal areas, and 42 respondents selected it as their highest priority.

A sample of  responses to why this goal is important include the following:

• “I want to reduce deaths and suffering. It's hard for me to choose if bike safety is more important than ped safety, and how climate mitigation and adaptation should be ranked. But please stop people from dying unnecessarily.”
• “Improving pedestrian safety is the most important to me. Pedestrians are the backbone of transportation in the City, and being a pedestrian is the only form of transportation that nearly all residents can use without need for additional personal expense. A system that works for pedestrians is a more equitable system. Further, the Boston region has many places where pedestrian activity is hindered or precluded by the transportation network. Removing these impediments empowers residents.”

Many respondents stated that improving pedestrian safety creates more equitable access and improves quality of life. Additional suggestions to achieve improved pedestrian safety included the following:

• Investing in safe pedestrian connections to the transit system and to other destinations, especially for those with disabilities
• Improving dangerous crossings, poorly timed lights, and poorly painted crosswalks
• Installing more commuter garages so that more people can take transit
• Creating a walkable and economically viable community through smart growth and reducing the need to drive long distances for work or shopping
• Promoting safe and convenient walkable routes
• Reducing vehicle speeds to enhance the quality of life
• Targeting high crash cluster areas for investment in walking, biking, and transit infrastructure
• Shifting spending to prioritize walking, bike, and public transit over facilities for motor vehicles
• Investing in Vision Zero focused projects
• Installing more bus shelters, crosswalks, and curb cuts at crosswalks
• Supporting pedestrian access for older adults, people with disabilities, and youth as well as addressing pedestrian safety in a way that focuses on equity and climate

Overall, respondents spoke frequently about the co-benefits of investing in infrastructure to improve safety for people who walk and bike, reduce emissions and congestion, support equitable mobility, combat climate change, and promote economic vitality.

Additional Priorities

The additional priorities suggested that were categorized into the Safety goal area are shown in Table 11.

Table 11
Additional Priorities for Safety

Focus Groups

Responses received during focus group meetings are shown in Table 12.

Table 12
Focus Group Priorities for Safety

Improving pedestrian safety was one of the second most selected priorities in the focus groups. Focus groups participants shared additional comments, which focused on the following priorities:

• Improving auto safety:

• Improving pedestrian infrastructure to encourage usage
• Installing light-up crosswalks to ensure visibility for drivers
• Increasing safety around intersections
• Incorporating smart signals
• Reducing the number of cars on the road
• Reducing speeds

• Improving bike safety:

• Training bus drivers to safely interact with people biking
• Prioritizing routes that serve equity populations with improved biking and pedestrian infrastructure (example of Route 1A in Revere/Lynn)
• Supporting projects that increase the feeling of bike safety, as well as bike training safety for all users
• Incorporating more obvious bike infrastructure, such as clearly marked lanes and bike boxes
• Incorporating skateboard and scooter infrastructure
• Using person throughput as a measure rather than vehicle throughput
• Incorporating raised bike lanes around major destinations

• Improving pedestrian safety:

• Increasing personal safety on transit and on pedestrian routes to transit (to reduce the risk of sexual harassment and violence) such as by installing more lighting or sensor lights
• Improving safety for when people cross in front of buses after getting off the bus
• Installing crosswalk cameras in dangerous, high traffic intersections, and crash areas
• Making pedestrian safety a priority, especially to serve people with mobility challenges
• Reducing conflicts between pedestrians crossing the street and turning vehicles that have green lights
• Fixing poor lighting at stations
• Implementing more accessible sidewalks
• Fixing broken sidewalks
• Widening sidewalks to make it easier for people to safely pass each other
• Adding bump outs at pedestrian crossings
• Implementing more pedestrian crossing signals

Summary of Comments for Changes to the Safety Criteria

The existing criteria for Safety provide points for projects that achieve the following:

• Examine crash severity value: Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index
• Examine crash rate for an intersection or corridor
• Improve a truck-related safety issue
• Improve bicycle safety
• Improve pedestrian safety
• Improve safety or remove an at-grade railroad crossing

Many respondents placed a high emphasis on protecting the most vulnerable road users and addressing the most serious crashes, and also recognized that many safety investments can have benefits across modes. To that end, MPO staff have proposed to retain the criteria for EPDO and crash rates, but focus these criteria more heavily on crashes that result in injuries or fatalities. MPO staff have also proposed to refine the methodology for scoring bicycle and pedestrian safety, including weighting these criteria more heavily for projects funded through the MPO's Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections investment program. Finally, MPO staff have proposed to focus the truck safety criterion more directly on truck-specific safety improvements and have proposed reimagining the existing railroad crossing safety criterion to be more inclusive of other safety investments for all modes, including improving traffic signals, installing traffic-calming features, and adjusting roadway geometry.

4.3      System Preservation and Modernization

Background

The System Preservation and Modernization goal seeks to maintain and modernize the transportation system and plan for its resiliency, which includes the following objectives:

• Maintaining the transportation system, including roadway, transit, and active transportation infrastructure, in a state-of-good repair
• Modernizing transportation infrastructure across all modes
• Prioritizing projects that support planned response capability to existing or future extreme conditions (sea level rise, flooding, and other natural and security-related man-made impacts).

As part of in-person and online outreach, people frequently mentioned the need to maintain the existing transit system in addition to expanding it and increasing its reliability and frequency. Respondents also advocated for maintaining and improving existing sidewalks, roads, and bridges, and enhancing climate resiliency.

Online Survey

As part of the online survey, four out of the 15 priorities related to the System Preservation and Modernization goal area:

• Enhancing climate resiliency and the ability to respond to emergencies
• Maintaining and improving existing roads and bridges
• Maintaining and improving existing sidewalks
• Maintaining the existing transit system

Enhancing Climate Resiliency

Of 462 respondents, 98 (21 percent) selected “enhancing climate resiliency and the ability to respond to emergencies” as one of their top five priorities. Nine respondents selected it as their top priority.

A sample of responses as to why this goal is important include the following:

• “Climate should be on the top of all of our action lists/to dos/minds. We need to reduce the number of cars traveling and increasing biking, walking, mass transit. That transition will be healthier for all of us (wasting less funds later) and increase jobs and services at the same time. If you change the perspective, folks will make the change with it.”
• “Climate considerations must be the first priority. Everything we do to make public transportation more attractive than SOVs is on the right track.”

Maintaining and Improving Existing Roads and Bridges

Of 462 respondents, 112 (24 percent) selected “maintaining and improving existing roads and bridges” as one of their top five goal areas, and 12 respondents selected it as their highest priority.

A sample of responses as to why this goal is important include the following:

• “Maintaining and improving existing roads and bridges should be our most important goal.  Aside from allowing public safety personnel to respond to emergencies, reliable infrastructure enables everyone to travel safely and directly.”
• “Road and bridge maintenance so there is room for bicyclists and car drivers to share the roads.”
• “Maintaining and improving existing roads and bridges, I choose this assuming ‘improving’ includes making them as bike/pedestrian safe as possible. Without safe roads & bridges, car drivers, cyclists & pedestrians all lose.”

Maintaining and Improving Existing Sidewalks

Of 462 respondents, 87 (19 percent) selected “maintaining and improving existing sidewalks” as one of their top five goal areas, and four respondents selected it as their highest priority.

A sample response to why this goal is important was as follows:

• “Improving sidewalks to achieve 100% accessibility is a basic obligation of government, and far more funding should be prioritized for this purpose.”

Maintaining the Existing Transit System

Of 462 respondents, 175 (38 percent) selected “maintaining the existing transit system” as one of their top five goal areas, and 62 respondents selected it as their highest priority.

A sample of responses as to why this goal is important include the following:

• “Public transportation is the most important: not only maintaining the existing transit system (bus and rail), but improving and expanding it. Dedicated bus lanes are key for improving the system, as well as more lines, especially in cities and towns. Public transportation goes hand in hand with walking, pedestrian safety and sidewalks, as those who take the bus and the metro usually walk to and from the bus stops and stations.”
• “Maintaining the existing transit system. This is critical to both economic development, social justice, and climate resiliency. However, "maintain" is insufficient. It must be dramatically improved and expanded and converted to all-electric. First and last mile also needs to addressed and autonomous vehicles provide a major opportunity to address that issue.”

Many respondents communicated that maintaining the existing transit system promotes more equitable mobility and could help combat climate change through the reduction of emissions and pollution. Other additional comments focused on the following priorities:

• Making the transit system reliable, functional, clean, safe, dependable, more affordable, and modern to increase ridership and reduce congestion
• Expanding rapid transit and bus service and increasing bus, subway, and commuter rail ridership
• Implementing more bike lanes
• Investing in maintenance of the transit system
• Implementing dedicated bus lanes
• Electrifying the rail system and expanding the regional rail network
• Addressing first-and-last-mile needs
• Preparing for autonomous vehicles
• Increasing options for more frequent public transportation at lower prices to increase ridership, decrease emissions, and support equitable mobility
• Expanding public transit in MetroWest and outside the Inner Core
• Increasing parking at commuter rail stations
• Creating new connections in the bicycle network with shared use paths that connect to transit stations
• Increasing the comfort of public transit
• Improving commuter rail stations to be ADA compliant and provide shelter from weather
• Promoting access to jobs and services through transit options

Some respondents described how maintaining and expanding the existing transit system supports the MPO goals of an equitable transportation system, limiting environmental impacts, reducing congestion, and promoting economic development. Many respondents emphasized the importance of expanding the transit system, which was the most shared additional priority.

Additional Comments

Additional priorities suggested in the System Preservation and Modernization MPO goal area are shown in Table 13.

Table 13
Additional Priorities for System Preservation and Modernization

Focus Groups

Responses received during outreach with focus groups are shown in Table 14.

Table 14
Focus Group Priorities for System Preservation and Modernization

Additional comments included the following:

• Constructing sidewalks out of solid concrete rather than brick or dirt, which could harm people with mobility challenges
• Considering width, surface condition, and sense of safety for sidewalk users, especially people who use a wheelchair
• Adding and maintaining heaters at highly used bus stops
• Maintaining bus stops, such as by fixing broken glass walls promptly
• Improving lighting at stations to increase the feeling of safety
• Enhancing the current transit system with new accessibility amenities
• Including paratransit in transit services
• Considering the needs of transit dependent populations in assessments
• Considering enhancing climate resiliency a part of equity criteria
• Considering expanding transit to new populations a priority
• Utilizing MPO funds for projects where they would have the highest impact (for example, funding smaller scale operations and management projects versus large scale projects)
• Prioritizing buses over cars
• Implementing safety measures, such as installing stop signs, to increase safety of passengers getting off buses or walking to transit stations
• Supporting measures that increase reliability of transit services
• Supporting first-and-last-mile connections to transit

Summary of Changes for System Preservation and Modernization TIP Scoring Criteria

The existing criteria for System Preservation and Modernization provide points for projects that achieve the following:

• Improve substandard roadway bridge(s)
• Improve substandard pavement
• Improve substandard traffic signal equipment
• Improve transit asset(s)
• Improve substandard sidewalks(s)
• Improve emergency response
• Improve ability to respond to extreme conditions

Staff will discuss draft changes to the System Preservation and Modernization TIP scoring criteria at the MPO meetings in July 2020.

4.4      Capacity Management and Mobility

Background

The Capacity Management and Mobility goal seeks to use existing facility capacity more efficiently and increase transportation options that achieve the following:

• Improve access to and accessibility of all modes, especially transit and active transportation
• Support implementation of roadway management and operations strategies to improve travel reliability, mitigate congestion, and support non-single-occupant vehicle travel options
• Emphasize capacity management through low-cost investments
• Prioritize projects that focus on lower-cost operations/management-type improvements such as intersection improvements, transit priority, and Complete Streets solutions
• Improve reliability of transit
• Increase percentage of population and employment within one-quarter mile of transit stations and stops
• Support community-based and private-initiative services and programs to meet first- and last-mile, reverse commute, and other non-traditional transit/transportation needs, including those of people 75 years old or older and people with disabilities
• Support strategies to better manage automobile and bicycle parking capacity and usage at transit stations
• Fund improvements to bicycle and pedestrian networks aimed at creating a connected network of bicycle and accessible sidewalk facilities (both regionally and in neighborhoods) by expanding existing facilities and closing gaps
• Increase percentage of population and places of employment with access to facilities on the bicycle network
• Eliminate bottlenecks on the freight network and improve freight reliability
• Enhance freight intermodal connections

The priorities in this goal area are more tangible actions rather than large-scale value-based priorities. Increasing connectivity in the bike network and prioritizing buses with dedicated bus lanes were mentioned frequently as strategies to accomplish other priorities, such as increasing equitable mobility, reducing emissions, and increasing economic access.

Online Survey

Four out of the 15 priorities were tied to the Capacity Management and Mobility goal area:

• Creating new connections in the bike network
• Improving safety and mobility for trucks
• Prioritizing buses with dedicated bus lanes
• Reducing congestion

Creating New Connections in the Bike Network

Of 462 respondents, 181 (40 percent) selected “creating new connections in the bicycle network” as one of their top five priorities, and 33 respondents selected it as their top priority.

A sample of responses as to why this goal is important include the following:

• “Expanding the bike network will attract more bikers and remove cars from the road. My wife and I rely on bike lanes and buses to get around. We don't own a car.”
• “Creating new connections in the bike network, because the redesigns often make the street safer for everyone and also decrease pollution by encouraging people to bike.”

Additional comments included the following:

• Increasing connections to encourage mode shift from cars to bikes to reduce emissions, pollution, and congestion
• Creating more physically separated and connected bike lanes
• Providing more opportunities for short- and long-distance bike trips
• Making bike lanes and connections more safe
• Supporting both bike and public transportation to enhance sustainable multimodal transportation opportunities and reduce congestion for essential vehicles and vehicles that provide transportation for people with disabilities
• Increasing connectivity in the bike network
• Using bike trails as ways to connect disconnected areas, such as from Somerville and Cambridge to Boston’s Seaport
• Incorporating infrastructure to support electric bikes and scooters
• Enhancing exercise and recreation options

Improving Safety and Mobility for Trucks

Eight out of 462 respondents (two percent) selected “improving safety and mobility for trucks” as one of their top five priorities. One respondent selected it as a top priority.

Prioritizing Buses with Dedicated Bus Lanes

Of 462 respondents, 178 (39 percent) selected “prioritizing buses with dedicated bus lanes” as one of their top five priorities, and 35 respondents selected it as their top priority.

A sample of responses to why this goal is important include the following:

• “Dedicated bus lanes/bus priority. Many areas of the Boston Metro are poorly served by rapid transit and bus service is the primary way to access jobs, housing, shopping, etc. Bus riders are spending excessive amounts of time stuck in traffic due to the lack of bus priority on many key corridors.”
• “Prioritizing buses. This is the very best use of resources in terms of efficiency at promoting a wide range of goals, from equity and fairness to improving air quality. Let's get rid of cars where we can, make it easy to travel by bus by increasing frequency, reliability, and speed, and then electrify the buses to cut pollution.”
• “Prioritizing buses with dedicated bus lanes is of critical importance because the evidence suggests that by increasing bus speeds, we not only improve the ridership experience (and help promote ridership) but it can save operational costs because you don't have to run as many buses to provide the same frequency/level of service. I'm a cyclist but my priority for the Boston region is for the transportation network to be less auto dependent. I think dedicated bus lanes provide the best return on investment toward this goal because as other cities (and our own city) have shown, dedicated lanes increase ridership and do so in ways that can be centered on equity as well.”

Additional comments focused on the following priorities:

• Combining bus and bike lanes in Complete Streets designs to encourage mode shift away from SOVs
• Supporting an expanded bus priority network
• Eliminating on-street parking and replacing it with shared bus and bike lanes
• Implementing transit signal priority (TSP) and pre-paid boarding
• Increasing mobility options to provide more choice for residents
• Installing more bus shelters to support ridership

Many respondents discussed the cost effectiveness and the co-benefits for prioritizing buses to reduce emissions, reduce congestion, and increase equity.

Reducing Congestion

Of 462 respondents, 198 (43 percent) selected “reducing congestion” as one of their top five priorities, and 50 respondents selected it as their top priority.

A sample of responses as to why this goal is important include the following:

• “Reducing congestion; make mass transit and biking/walking a feasible option.”
• “Reducing congestion will not only reduce emissions, it will also make bike and pedestrian travel safer. So that is my top priority.”

Additional comments focused on the following priorities:

• Increasing safety around backups at exits
• Reducing congestion by increasing pedestrian and bike safety to reduce accidents and encourage mode shift
• Increasing parking and accessibility at MBTA stations
• Increasing the capacity of transit services and reducing crowding
• Prioritizing critical connections to reduce congestion such as East/West and North/South connections and access to jobs and health services
• Increasing sidewalk infrastructure to support walking connections
• Not widening roads to address congestion
• Eliminating pinch points and weak links in the traffic network and implementing up to date traffic-signal technology
• Adding more turning lanes
• Prioritizing investments for public transportation, bus lanes, and multimodal connections

Additional Priorities

Additional priorities suggested in the Capacity Management and Mobility MPO goal area are shown in Table 15.

Table 15
Additional Priorities for Capacity Management and Mobility

Focus Groups

Responses received during outreach with focus groups are shown in Table 16.

Table 16
Focus Group Priorities for Capacity Management and Mobility

Comments from focus groups focused on the following priorities:

• Supporting bicycle infrastructure in high equity population areas
• Creating bike commuting options near job centers
• Supporting transportation of freight by ship to get more trucks off the road
• Implementing curb allocation for trucks and delivery vehicles
• Pairing bus lanes with transit signal priority to increase bus travel
• Prioritizing bus chokepoints for bus lane funding
• Supporting a network of bus lanes to increase connectivity across municipalities
• Measuring congestion for all modes and not just vehicle congestion

Summary of Changes to the Capacity Management and Mobility TIP Criteria

The existing criteria for Capacity Management and Mobility provide points for projects that achieve the following:

• Reduce transit vehicle delay
• Improve pedestrian network and ADA accessibility
• Improve bicycle network
• Improve intermodal accommodations/connections to transit
• Improve truck movements
• Reduce vehicle congestion

Staff will discuss proposed changes to this criterion with the MPO in July 2020.

4.5      Transportation Equity

Background

The Transportation Equity goal seeks to ensure that all people receive comparable benefits from, and are not disproportionately burdened by, MPO investments, regardless of race, color, national origin, age, income, ability, or sex by the following means:

• Prioritizing MPO investments that benefit equity populations
• Minimizing potential harmful environmental, health, and safety effects of MPO-funded projects for all equity populations
• Promoting investments that support transportation for all ages (age-friendly communities)
• Promoting investments that are accessible to all people regardless of ability

Equity populations include people who identify as minority, have limited English proficiency, are 75 years old or older or 17 years old or younger, or have a disability; or are members of low-income households.

People frequently mentioned the need to promote equitable transportation mobility both to help right historical wrongs and to target investments to those who likely need it most. They urged the MPO to make investments towards multimodal options and help support access to jobs and services.

Online Survey

One of the 15 priorities is related to the Transportation Equity goal area:

• Promoting more equitable transportation mobility

Promoting More Equitable Transportation Mobility

Of 462 respondents, 248 (54 percent) selected “promoting more equitable transportation mobility” as one of their top five priorities, and 50 respondents selected it as their top priority.

A sample of responses to why this goal is important include the following:

• “Promoting more equitable transportation mobility is the most important because Boston must right the historic wrongs of redlining and disinvestment in communities of color. To this end, improving mobility for our communities of color through transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects should be prioritized.”
• “Promoting more equitable transportation mobility -  I think it's time to upgrade and expand our transportation system into parts of the region that have historically been marginalized, specifically communities like Everett, Chelsea, Lynn, along the Fairmount Corridor. The fact that tolls are often cheaper than transit fares is inexplicable.”
• “Improving equity so that environmental justice populations see improvements in both the burdens that they bear from the existing infrastructure as well as enhanced options, and bearable costs of those options, for increased mobility.  Out of pocket, marginal costs for taking transit should never be more than those for driving.”

Additional comments focused on the following priorities:

• Creating more access to jobs and opportunities for low-income people
• Prioritizing person throughput rather than vehicle throughput
• Supporting equitable transit access and prioritizing bus lanes
• Improving bike and pedestrian safety
• Improving transit and bus mobility
• Shifting more people from cars to other modes
• Directing resources to those most overburdened by transportation emissions and underserved by a lack of adequate transportation options
• Enhancing transportation opportunities to jobs, food, education, and civic engagement for low-income, minority groups, and rural non-car households
• Providing transportation options and access for older adults and people with disabilities
• Prioritizing transit investments to areas that have less/worse access
• Supporting a transportation system that works throughout the day across locations and not just at peak commute times
• Increasing the reliability of transportation for transit-dependent households
• Improving facilities and safety of connections between transit, walking, bikes, and scooters
• Considering emissions from highways tend to impact low-income communities
• Considering transit time and public health in equity criteria

Additional Comments

Additional priorities suggested in the Transportation Equity MPO goal area are shown in Table 17.

Table 17
Additional Priorities for Transportation Equity

Focus Groups

“Promoting  more equitable transportation mobility” was the most selected priority in the focus group meetings. The percentage of responses received during outreach with focus groups are shown in Table 18.

Table 18
Focus Group Priorities for Transportation Equity

Comments focused on the following priorities:

• Linking to other transportation services that may be beyond first-and-last-mile services
• Considering mobility options in suburban and rural areas
• Considering holistic mobility options instead of just one mode
• Awarding points for improving access to affordable housing
• Prioritizing projects that serve equity populations
• Adapting mobility needs based on context such as increasing rail options in Lynn and Haverhill and increasing bus services for communities in Boston

Summary of Changes to the Transportation Equity TIP Criteria

The MPO currently assesses transportation equity by determining whether a project serves Title VI/non-discrimination populations. On December 19, 2019, the MPO board began to discuss proposed changes to the Transportation Equity criteria. They agreed that the goals for the new criteria are as follows:

• Meet federal guidance
• Help the MPO meet the Transportation Equity goals and objectives
• Award progressively more points to projects based on the share of the equity population that would benefit
• Assess impacts to Transportation Equity populations rather than proximity to the project

MPO staff are currently creating the new draft Equity criteria that will be shaped to each other goal area and involve an equity multiplier. These will be presented throughout the spring and summer MPO meetings.

4.6      Economic Vitality

Background

The Economic Vitality goal seeks to ensure the transportation network provides a strong foundation for economic vitality by the following means:

• Responding to mobility needs of the workforce population
• Minimizing the burden of housing/transportation costs for residents in the region
• Prioritizing transportation investments that serve residential, commercial, and logistics-targeted development sites and “Priority Places” identified in the MBTA’s Focus 40 plan
• Prioritizing transportation investments consistent with compact-growth strategies of the regional land use plan

Respondents frequently mentioned increasing access to jobs and services and also access to schools, transit stations, and affordable housing. Respondents repeatedly brought up the need to tie transportation investments to smart growth principles and transit-oriented development to be more equitable and have a large impact on reducing emissions. Respondents also asked to prioritize low-income and minority populations when assessing economic vitality.

Online Survey

One of the 15 priorities is tied to the Economic Vitality goal area:

• Promoting economic development by increasing access to jobs and services

Promoting Economic Development by Increasing Access to Jobs and Services

Of 462 respondents, 116 (25 percent) selected “promoting economic development by increasing access to jobs and services” as one of their top five priorities and 20 respondents selected it as their top priority.

A sample of responses as to why this goal is important include the following:

• “It was hard to limit to 5 and then to pick top priority. I would say ‘Promote Economic Development by increasing access to jobs and services’ but I say that because it encompasses a lot. It means reducing congestion, maintaining our current transit in a state of good repair and also expanding our transit services and the related infrastructure. Increasing access also means we increase access equitably. People who need services fall into all age ranges and mobility and income levels. Similarly, working people have different income and mobility levels. I also think when you make the conversation about Economic Development, the naysayers will think about the benefits and not just the costs.”
• “Promoting economic development by increasing access to jobs and services because it I believe its [sic] a comprehensive look at the transportation system to reduce congestion, improve existing transit, increase transit options with the underlying understanding that if we do that our region will improve housing choices, improve the journey to work, and improve quality of life while also becoming a destination for businesses to locate.”

Additional comments focused on the following priorites:

• Expanding bus service to create more access to jobs
• Approaching economic development as a social-justice issue and ensuring that low-income people are not subject to longer commutes and being impacted the most by pollution
• Including access to housing as a consideration for economic vitality
• Increasing safe access to jobs and services
• Expanding the transit system
• Providing dedicated priority bus lanes on Interstate 93, Interstate 95 and the Massachusetts Turnpike as well as circumferential mass transit facilities to serve workers who do not work in Boston

Additional Comments

Additional priorities suggested in the Economic Vitality MPO goal area are shown in Table 19.

Table 19
Additional Priorities for Economic Vitality

Focus Groups

Responses received during outreach with focus groups are shown in Table 20.

Table 20
Focus Group Priorities for Economic Vitality

Comments focused on the following priorities:

• Incorporating access to health services, social activities, grocery stores, and housing
• Considering the interconnectedness of economic development and equity

Summary of Changes to the Economic Vitality TIP Criteria

The existing criteria for Economic Vitality provide points for projects that achieve the following:

• Serve a targeted development site
• Provide for development consistent with the compact growth strategies of MetroFuture
• Provide multimodal access to an activity center
• Leverage other investments (non-TIP funding)

MPO staff are working closely with MAPC to develop more extensive economic vitality criteria that are also in accordance with MAPC’s next long-range plan, MetroCommon. Staff will discuss proposed changes to this criterion with the MPO in June 2020.

          Next Steps

Along with public outreach, staff have been working with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the MBTA, regional transit authorities, and others to draft criteria changes. In the spring and summer of 2020, staff will be presenting draft criteria for each MPO goal area to the MPO board. Staff will then share the new draft criteria and test project scores with the stakeholder groups and advocacy organizations involved in the first focus groups and elicit more public input. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings with the advocacy organizations will be conducted virtually. In addition, staff will host open virtual engagement opportunities to connect with new organizations and members of the public. Staff will also release another online survey to gather input on the new criteria changes. Staff will complete a final draft of the revised TIP criteria in September 2020, and the new criteria will be used in the next TIP cycle, FFY 2022–26, starting October 1, 2020.

Staff recognize that meeting people where they are during community meetings or events is the best way to connect with groups. Staff will be communicating calls for public input through the MPOInfo email list and the Boston Region MPO Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram social media channels.

Staff plan to expand outreach to people with limited-English proficiency as well as connect with the municipalities and areas where there were few responses. Staff will particularly focus on engaging equity populations that have historically been underserved by the regional transportation system as well as those residents who could have fewer opportunities to participate in the regional transportation planning process.

APPENDICES