MPO Meeting Minutes
Memorandum for the Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting
November 4, 2021, Meeting
10:00 AM–11:45 AM, Zoom Video Conferencing Platform
Stephen Woelfel, Chair, representing Jamey Tesler, Secretary of Transportation and Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) agreed to the following:
See attendance on page 8.
There was none.
T. Teich welcomed the newly elected MPO board member representing the Town of Burlington (North Suburban Planning Council) and the re-elected MPO board members representing the Town of Arlington (At-Large), City of Newton (At-Large), and the Town of Norwood/Neponset River Regional Chamber (Three Rivers Interlocal Council). T. Teich also welcomed the new representative from the Massachusetts Port Authority.
T. Teich announced that she had been elected to the board of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), the national member association for MPOs.
T. Teich provided updates on ongoing staff recruitment efforts, including the hiring of a new project accountant, Silva Ayvazyan, and the ongoing interviews for the Manager of Outreach and Communications and Public Outreach Coordinator positions. Recruitment is also underway for the positions of Transportation Planner/Analyst and Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Manager/Transportation Planner.
T. Teich highlighted recent public outreach activities, including
the Transit Working Group virtual coffee chats on October 26th where
the topic of discussion was human services transportation. Future Transit Working Group coffee chats will be held in
November and December. Finally, Open Houses were held
to kick off the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2023–27 TIP development process.
T. Teich reminded members about annual visits by the MPO staff to Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) subregional groups from October to December and stated that staff would attend the SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee meeting on November 9, 2021, the South Shore Coalition on November 18, 2021, and the North Suburban Planning Council on December 14, 2021.
There were none.
There were none.
L. Diggins introduced himself to new MPO board members as the MBTA’s Rider Oversight Committee representative on the Advisory Council and current chair of the Advisory Council. L. Diggins stated that the Advisory Council would meet on November 10, 2021, and hear from Frank Tramantozzi of the City of Quincy about the City’s goals as it assumes a new seat on the MBTA Board of Directors. L. Diggins stated that Anne McGahan (MPO staff) also would talk about the MPO’s next Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 23, 2021, was made by MAPC (E. Bourassa) and seconded by the At-Large Town (Town of Arlington) (Daniel Amstutz). Ken Miller (Federal Highway Administration) clarified his statements about the inflation rate for TIP project costs recorded at this meeting. With this change, the motion carried.
1. Draft Policy Recommendations
3. Fact Sheet
M. Genova reviewed the proposed policy changes presented by
the MPO’s TIP Project Cost Ad Hoc Committee and the public comments received on
the recommendations. The committee’s
first recommendation is to raise the threshold for project programming to
require that proponents have submitted 25 percent design plans to MassDOT and
received an updated cost estimate based on that submission. This change would
be accompanied by (1) a preliminary project evaluation step allowing proponents
to have their projects scored by MPO staff prior to advancing to 25 percent
design; (2) established year-over-year project development benchmarks; and (3)
additional supporting materials, such a how-to guide with project development
benchmarks, to help proponents understand the process and move through it
smoothly.
The committee’s
second recommendation is to increase TIP stakeholder communications, including establishing
bi-annual check-ins between MPO staff, project proponents, and MassDOT staff.
The committee's
third, and final, recommendation is to establish a clear and consistent policy
for rescoring projects when costs change beyond a specified threshold of $2.5
million for those projects that originally cost more than $10 million, or 25
percent of project costs for those projects that cost less than $10 million. If
proponents exceed this threshold, they would be required to attend an MPO
meeting to explain the causes of the cost increase to the MPO board. If the
cost change is the result of an updated project scope, proponents may request
that the project score be updated to reflect the new changes. The new costs and
score would then be analyzed for cost effectiveness relative to other TIP
projects using a four-quadrant matrix in which a project score is plotted
against cost per point and then divided into tiers by relative values on these
metrics.
MPO staff’s
proposal is to pilot this approach for the upcoming TIP cycle and then recommend
adjustments in advance of future funding rounds. M. Genova stated that these
policies aim to reduce the prevalence of large-scale cost increases that
disrupt the overall TIP program and place significant limitations on the MPO’s
ability to fund new projects; increase collaboration; and support the MPO’s
decision-making.
MPO staff
received three formal written comments on the policy proposals. Two comments
came from abutters to the proposed Belmont Community Path (#609204) and one
came from a member of the Belmont School Committee. Several additional informal
comments were made at the TIP Policy Open House on October 14, 2021, and
directly to MPO staff from municipal staff, MassDOT staff, and project
consultants.
In addition to
supportive comments, a few concerns were expressed. There was support for
creating clear project benchmarks, but some concern that setting a 25 percent
design submittal as the funding threshold could deter municipalities from
pursuing TIP funding. There was support for cost-effectiveness measures but
concern that those measures be clear and well communicated to all stakeholders.
Public comments also included requests that MPO board and committee meetings
continue to be accessible virtually as this has allowed for unprecedented
access to the committee's policy deliberations. Commenters also did not want
the MPO to limit consideration of projects that are expensive but of high
quality. There was a request to create transparency around the inputs for
project cost estimates, including contingencies.
Discussion
L. Diggins stated that the MPO should keep the Ad Hoc Committee intact long-term and open membership to additional MPO members. E. Bourassa agreed that the committee should not be disbanded and that the committee should have the ability to hold a December meeting to discuss details about evaluating projects for the FFY 2023–27 TIP.
D. Amstutz asked whether these recommendations were generally endorsed by every member of the committee. D. Amstutz agreed with L. Diggins that the Ad Hoc Committee should continue. M. Genova responded that the committee voted unanimously to formally recommend these policies to the MPO board.
Jay Monty (At-Large City) (City of Everett) expressed concern about the third policy proposal, stating that it creates a fallacy that an increasing cost automatically means a change in scope or that the project is not worthwhile. J. Monty stated that it would be better to focus this policy on a change of scope as that would be the true measure of a cost-benefit analysis.
Tom Bent (Inner Core Committee) (City of Somerville) expressed support for the recommendations.
K. Miller stated that (1) there is a distinction between a cost-benefit analysis and unit-cost comparison, and (2) applying some of these methods to projects as they are developing, and not only when costs increase, should be considered.
E. Bourassa agreed that some kind of unit-cost measure was needed but added that the recommendations are not set in stone and provide a more transparent and data-driven way to analyze projects.
A motion to approve the TIP Project Cost Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations as proposed and to keep the Ad Hoc Committee intact was made by MAPC (E. Bourassa) and seconded by the Advisory Council (L. Diggins). The motion carried.
M. Scott presented the results of the Informing the Big Ideas Behind the MPO’s Scenario Planning Process project, including a StoryMap summarizing the results of the project. M. Scott acknowledged former MPO staff member Kate White’s work on this project and thanked the focus group participants. M. Scott stated that the Big Ideas project was included in the FFY 2021 UPWP. Its purpose was to identify, through equitable and inclusive outreach, the ingredients for exploratory scenario planning for the next LRTP, Destination 2050. M. Scott explained that exploratory scenario planning envisions multiple possible futures to assess how to best prepare for uncertainties, while pursuing an overarching vision. The process enables staff to identify strategies that might work in multiple futures, address uncertainty, develop ways to adapt to change, and collaborate with regional partners.
There are four major steps in the exploratory scenario planning process. The first identifies forces that may shape the future. Next, planners create scenarios of what the future might look like based on those forces. Third, planners analyze how outcomes change as different strategies are applied in those scenario environments. Finally, the information learned through the scenario planning process is used to develop and implement plans.
The feedback collected during the Big Ideas project will apply through the entire scenario planning process, however it is critical for the first and third steps. Staff sought participation from stakeholders representing municipalities, agencies, community organizations, Chambers of Commerce, and advocacy groups to reflect diverse perspectives. Further, staff was looking for participants who work on important planning areas that intersect with mobility, such as public health, housing, economic development, and the environment.
M. Scott stated that 53 individuals from over 40 organizations participated in this process. The format of the focus groups was based on an approach outlined by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Sonoran Institute. Each focus group had between five and eight participants representing different parts of the region, organizations, or planning areas. Staff also held a focus group specifically for youth.
The first part of these discussions included brainstorming exercises to identify uncertainties about the future and discuss strategies. Participants mentioned hopes for the future, such as investment in transit systems and other infrastructure, improved transportation access and connectivity, climate change adaptation, and a focus on equity in transportation decision-making. Participants also brought up concerns about a future where the transit system falls into disrepair because of lack of investment, and where ridership has declined while personal vehicle use has increased. For the youth focus group, extreme weather and factors around climate change were a big topic of discussion. Focus group participants also expressed concern about extensive displacement of people in the region caused by a lack of affordable housing.
When discussing future uncertainties, M. Scott focused on a subset of themes that came up in the focus groups: the environment, technology, and the economy. For the environment, forces discussed included climate change and environmental policy. For technology, forces discussed included electric and autonomous vehicle policies, the role of communications and data, micromobility, and equitable access to technology. For the economy, forces included the future of remote work, e-commerce, energy pricing and use, automation, and the effects of income inequality. M. Scott stated that the second part of these workshops focused on ranking these certainties and uncertainties. Critical uncertainties included the future of transportation funding while critical certainties included climate change, migration, and the aging of the region’s population.
MPO staff also organized the strategies mentioned in the focus groups by theme. For the environment, strategies included supporting renewable energy, expanding the bus network, electrifying vehicles and infrastructure, reclaiming green space, and relocating communities in certain parts of the region as climate effects become more severe. For technology, strategies included focusing technology advancements related to automation and vehicle electrification on transit as opposed to single occupancy vehicles, improving transit to reduce personal electric vehicle use, and supporting use of micromobility and e-mobility as last-mile options. For the economy, strategies included increasing transit service to transit-dependent areas, considering all types of workers when developing transit plans, investing in ways to support equitable growth in the region, and Massachusetts’ competitive advantages in the national and global economy.
M. Scott outlined next steps for the scenario planning process. In the short term, these will include analyzing certainties and uncertainties, including those suggested by MPO members. MPO staff will host an MPO Member Focus Group to gather this feedback. Afterwards, MPO staff will propose scenarios for MPO consideration.
K. Miller commended staff on the use of focus groups as a data collection strategy and asked if there were participants invited that did not participate. K. Miller encouraged staff to broaden their reach and work with participants such as the freight community and first responders, who may have feedback about highway congestion and safety. M. Scott responded that there were some invitees who were not able to participate, but that, in some cases, staff were able to have one-on-one conversations with them.
S. Olanoff asked M. Scott to clarify why some items were marked “N/A” (Not Applicable) on the feedback table. M. Scott clarified that some topics of discussion among participants were not discussed in enough detail for staff to categorize them or to put notes about their importance or certainty in the table. S. Olanoff stated that staff should look for a different way to show this, as certain items do appear to be applicable. M. Scott stated that staff would work to address it.
L. Diggins invited M. Scott to present at a future Advisory Council meeting.
S. Woelfel stated that registration was open for MassDOT’s annual Moving Together conference, which would be held virtually December 7-9, 2021.
A motion to adjourn was made by MAPC (E. Bourassa) and seconded by the Advisory Council (L. Diggins). The motion carried.
|
Members |
Representatives
and
Alternates |
|
At-Large City (City of Everett) |
Jay Monty |
|
At-Large City (City of Newton) |
David Koses |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Arlington) |
Daniel Amstutz |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Brookline) |
Heather Hamilton |
|
City of Boston (Boston Planning &
Development Agency) |
Jim Fitzgerald |
|
City of Boston (Boston Transportation
Department) |
Bill Conroy |
|
Federal Highway Administration |
Ken Miller |
|
Federal Transit Administration |
|
|
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) |
Tom Bent |
|
Massachusetts Department of Transportation |
Stephen Woelfel John Bechard |
|
John Romano |
|
|
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
(MBTA) |
|
|
Massachusetts Port Authority |
Sarah Lee |
|
MBTA Advisory Board |
Amira Patterson |
|
Metropolitan Area Planning Council |
Eric Bourassa |
|
MetroWest Regional Collaborative (City of
Framingham) |
Thatcher Kezer III |
|
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal
Coordination (Town of Acton) |
Austin Cyganiewicz |
|
North Shore Task Force (City of Beverly) |
Darlene Wynne |
|
North Suburban Planning Council (Town of Burlington) |
Melisa Tintocalis |
|
Regional Transportation Advisory Council |
Lenard Diggins |
|
South Shore Coalition (Town of Rockland) |
Jennifer Constable |
|
South West Advisory Planning Committee
(Town of Medway) |
Peter Pelletier |
|
Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of
Norwood/Neponset Valley Chamber of Commerce) |
Tom O’Rourke Steve Olanoff |
|
Other
Attendees |
Affiliation |
|
Paul Cobuzzi |
|
|
Aleida Leza |
Belmont resident |
|
Derek Krevat |
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning |
|
Michelle Ho |
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning |
|
Sarah Bradbury |
MassDOT District 3 |
|
Ben Muller |
MassDOT District 6 |
|
Michael Garrity |
MassDOT |
|
Wesley Lickus |
MassDOT |
|
Gus Norrbom |
MassDOT |
|
Owen MacDonald |
Town of Weymouth |
|
Joy Glynn |
MetroWest Regional Transit Authority |
|
Adi Nochur |
MAPC |
|
Patrick McAlpine |
Town of Lynnfield |
|
J.R. Frey |
Town of Hingham |
|
Joe Blankenship |
City of Boston |
|
Joseph Stanford |
Volpe Center |
|
Cassandra Ostrander |
FHWA |
|
MPO
Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff |
|
Tegin Teich, Executive Director |
|
Gina Perille |
|
Annette Demchur |
|
Silva Ayvazyan |
|
Jonathan Church |
|
Róisín Foley |
|
Matt Genova |
|
Betsy Harvey |
|
Zihao Jin |
|
Sandy Johnston |
|
Heyne Kim |
|
Anne McGahan |
|
Marty Milkovits |
|
Rebecca Morgan |
|
Michelle Scott |
|
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) operates its programs, services, and activities in
compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws including Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the Civil Rights Restoration Act of
1987, and related statutes and regulations. Title VI prohibits discrimination
in federally assisted programs and requires that no person in the United
States of America shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin
(including limited English proficiency), be excluded from participation in,
denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity that receives federal assistance. Related federal
nondiscrimination laws administered by the Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Transit Administration, or both, prohibit discrimination on the basis
of age, sex, and disability. The Boston Region MPO considers these protected
populations in its Title VI Programs, consistent with federal interpretation
and administration. In addition, the Boston Region MPO provides meaningful
access to its programs, services, and activities to individuals with limited
English proficiency, in compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation
policy and guidance on federal Executive Order 13166. The Boston Region MPO also complies with the
Massachusetts Public Accommodation Law, M.G.L. c 272 sections 92a, 98, 98a,
which prohibits making any distinction, discrimination, or restriction in
admission to, or treatment in a place of public accommodation based on race,
color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, disability,
or ancestry. Likewise, the Boston Region MPO complies with the Governor’s
Executive Order 526, section 4, which requires that all programs, activities,
and services provided, performed, licensed, chartered, funded, regulated, or
contracted for by the state shall be conducted without unlawful
discrimination based on race, color, age, gender, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, gender identity or expression, religion, creed, ancestry,
national origin, disability, veteran’s status (including Vietnam-era
veterans), or background. A complaint form and additional information
can be obtained by contacting the MPO or at http://www.bostonmpo.org/mpo_non_discrimination. To request this
information in a different language or in an accessible format, please
contact Title VI Specialist By Telephone: For people with hearing or speaking difficulties,
connect through the state MassRelay service: ·
Relay Using
TTY or Hearing Carry-over:
800.439.2370 ·
Relay Using
Voice Carry-over: 866.887.6619 ·
Relay Using
Text to Speech: 866.645.9870 For more information, including numbers for Spanish
speakers, visit https://www.mass.gov/massrelay. |