MPO Meeting Minutes

Draft Memorandum for the Record

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting

June 6, 2024, Meeting

10:00 AM–12:00 PM, Zoom Video Conferencing Platform

Steve Woelfel, Chair, representing Monica Tibbits-Nutt, Secretary of Transportation and Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)

Decisions

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) agreed to the following:

• Approve the minutes of the meeting of April 11, 2024
• Endorse the Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 2025–29 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
• Approve the work scope exploration of infrastructure changes on vehicle-miles traveled
• Endorse FFYs 2024–28 TIP Amendment Seven
• Release FFYs 2024–28 TIP Amendment Nine for a 21-day public review period

Meeting Agenda

1.    Introductions

See attendance on page 13.

2.    Chair’s Report—Steve Woelfel, MassDOT

There was none.

3.    Executive Director’s Report—Tegin Teich, Executive Director, Central Transportation Planning Staff

T. Teich, Executive Director, gave staffing updates, including a new hire and information about ongoing recruitment efforts. T. Teich then shared grant activity updates. T. Teich noted that the MPO had received a lot of requests for letters of support, and that some guidelines had been put in place for submissions. The MPO was not able to answer all the requests, but T. Teich noted several applications for which letters were provided. T. Teich also stated that if MPO Staff wanted to apply for a grant, it should be with the full knowledge of the Board and be a project that aligns with the MPO.

T. Teich then shared an upcoming application for the Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP) through the Federal Highway Administration. A final decision on whether to apply has not been made, but the grant offers funding for everything from design to construction. T. Teich opened the floor for questions or comments.

Melisa Tintocalis, North Suburban Planning Council (Town of Burlington), asked if the ATIIP application was being drafted with another entity, or if the MPO was applying on its own and would distribute the funds after they were granted. T. Teich stated that the application was not a joint application. Rebecca Morgan, MPO Staff, stated that it would be the MPO applying for regional-level project funding, done with a variety of municipalities, and not redistributed to specific cities or towns. M. Tintocalis asked if individual municipalities could apply for this grant, or if this grant was only for MPOs and higher-level funding. R. Morgan stated that cities and towns are eligible to apply for the grant, if the project is a good fit. Eric Bourassa stated that the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) was also considering applying for a project with the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

T. Teich briefly went over the agenda, specifically the action items and the presentation. T. Teich also noted the date of the next meeting.

4.    Public Comments  

Bill Deignan, City of Cambridge Transportation Planning, stated that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s (MBTA) North Station Draw One Bridge Project, specifically a bicycle-pedestrian path, was showing a lack of progress and this was of concern to the community and City. B. Deignan stated that this path was very important and wanted to draw MPO attention to the path and its lack of progress.

Brad Rawson, City of Somerville, also stated that the North Station Draw One Bridge Project was a vital multimodal project. B. Rawson also stated that the TIP Before and After Study was important to the City of Somerville, and shared ways that future versions of this study could be improved, including measuring pedestrian, bus, and bicycle impact instead of just vehicle and merchant impact.

Tanya made a statement about the rail trails and the value they offered pedestrians and cyclists, and stated that the paths could be improved with paving for cyclists, while keeping the natural aspect of the trails.

Steve Winslow, City of Malden, stated that the city has tens of millions of dollars needed in roadway improvements, and that the City has applied for funding for the repair and upgrade of Route 60. S. Winslow noted that the traffic system was outdated, and the roads were also not safe for cyclists.

Brendan Kearney, Co-Executive Director of WalkMassachusetts, stated that the WalkMassachusetts organization was concerned about the issues with the North Station Draw One Bridge Project, specifically that the pedestrian path was not part of the most recent construction plan.

Marzie Galazka, Community Director, Town of Swampscott, gave an update on the Swampscott Rail Trail. M. Galazka briefly described the project, and the most recent work that has been done on the trail. M. Galazka also described some of the benefits of the trail and why it is important to the community.

Yem Lip, City Engineer, City of Malden, made a correction to the amount of funds Malden receives for funding, and discussed the support that upgrades to Route 60 has received from the public and community.

Sandy Johnston, MBTA, noted there was going to be an upcoming public meeting about the North Station Draw One Bridge Project. Josh Ostroff, MBTA, noted the support and concern about the North Station Draw One Bridge Project. J. Ostroff stated that there would be a comprehensive response to public comments. J. Ostroff stated that the National Environmental Policy Act review process requires a separate coast guard permit for the addition to the drawbridge. In addition, the pedestrian bridge structures would be physically separated and supported by their own discreet foundation system. J. Ostroff stated that the MBTA would not be the ones to own the structure, and a separate entity would build the structure. Constructing the bicycle and pedestrian structure will require additional space within the waterway which would not be feasible at this time.

5.    Committee Chairs’ Reports

Derek Krevat, MassDOT, stated that the FFY 2025 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) is out for public comment until June 8, 2024.

Jen Rowe, City of Boston, reported on the previous meeting of the TIP Process, Engagement, and Readiness Committee, including a committee retrospective, and some areas for improvement the committee had discussed. J. Rowe also stated the committee discussed additional ways to support the development of TIP projects.

Tom Bent, Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville), stated that the only update from the Memorandum of Understanding Update Committee was a change in date for the next meeting.

6.    Regional Transportation Advisory Council Report—Lenard Diggins, Chair, Regional Transportation Advisory Council

L. Diggins shared the next meeting date and meeting topics.

7.     Action Item: Approval of April 11, 2024, MPO Meeting Minutes

Documents posted to the MPO meeting calendar

1.    April 11, 2024, Meeting Minutes (pdf) (html)

S. Johnston, MBTA, made a small amendment on Page 8 to a statement made by the MBTA.

Vote

A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 11, 2024, was made by the MBTA (S. Johnston) and seconded by the City of Boston (J. Rowe). The motion carried. The following members abstained: Massachusetts Port Authority (Sarah Lee), At-Large Town (Town of Brookline) (Mike Sandman).

8.    Action Item: FFY 2025–29 TIP—Ethan Lapointe, MPO Staff

Documents posted to the MPO meeting calendar

1.    FFYs 2025–29 TIP Public Comments Compiled (pdf)

2.    FFYs 2025–29 TIP Public Comment Summary Table (pdf) (html)

3.    FFYs 2025–29 TIP (pdf) (html)

4.    FFYs 2025–29 TIP Appendices (pdf) (html)

5.    FFYs 2025–29 Draft TIP Change Tracker (pdf) (html)

E. Lapointe shared a presentation, engaged in a discussion, and asked the Board to vote on the proposed FFYs 2025–29 TIP, following the conclusion of its public review period.

 

E. Lapointe stated that during the 30-day public comment period, from April 22, 2024, to May 22, 2024, MPO staff received 33 discrete and specific responses from various stakeholders (in Appendix C). Staff attended and tabled at multiple public engagement events, engaging hundreds of residents in person on MPO projects and priorities. In addition, staff will be attending the Everett Transportation Fair on June 8, 2024.

 

E. Lapointe then shared specific comments. First was a letter from the 495/MetroWest Partnership, expressing support for projects in MetroWest communities. The letter also expressed concern about delays on several projects.

 

The MBTA Rider Oversight Committee sent a letter to share support for collaboration with and funding for projects with the MBTA, the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA) and the MetroWest Regional Transportation Authority. They expressed support for the projects funded through the Transit Transformation Program, and the Community Connections Program and Bicycle and Pedestrian Investments.

 

The Regional Transportation Advisory Council wrote a letter to express support for the efforts to improve information sharing, and for the project design pilot. The letter also requested that these projects be evaluated after completion for better assessment.

 

MPO staff also received multiple letters from the city of Malden, including the City Council, Mayor’s Office, state representatives, and senators, requesting new design funding for the Route 60 Reconstruction project. They originally requested design funding for the FFY 2025 design pilot project. They are now requesting a smaller amount for initial design needs on a more focused scale.

 

The Town of Milton’s Select Board wrote a letter expressing opposition to the scoring criteria that penalize projects if they are not in compliance with the MBTA Communities Act. E. Lapointe stated that these criteria are listed under the “Access and Connectivity” goal area, which also awards points for projects near MBTA Communities Districts. This complaint was not in reference to any specific project, as the Town of Milton does not have any regionally prioritized projects on the TIP and did not apply for funding through the FFYs 2025–29 TIP.

 

Staff received multiple comments, petitions, and letters expressing both support and opposition for funding the Weston Route 30 Reconstruction project. The letters in support noted connectivity and traffic safety. Those in opposition noted concerns about decline in property value and possible traffic congestion. A town meeting on May 6, 2024, approved the project with 58 percent in favor and 42 percent against.

 

The Town of Belmont wrote to update the members on the project status to address revisions to the 25 percent design. There were three letters and comments in opposition, noting noise and pedestrian traffic increase, which could precipitate an increase in crime or trespassing.

 

The Swampscott Rail Trail had three letters in opposition, citing concerns about vegetation and wetlands and right-of-way. MPO staff have been in discussions with other stakeholders and town staff, who noted a town vote with 56 percent in favor and 44 percent against.

 

E. Lapointe then shared changes to the document since April 18, 2024. A document highlighting the changes made is available. E. Lapointe stated that, in summary, the programming changes were presented at the May 16, 2024, TIP Process, Engagement, and Readiness committee meeting, with a detailed discussion. Most of the content changes since that meeting are corrections for consistency and programming changes.

 

There have been some increases in regionally prioritized projects. In Everett, the Beacham Street Reconstruction project cost has increased to $12.54 million from $10.9 million after submission of the 25 percent design. This reduces the Transit Transformation set-aside in FFY 2027 from $6.5 million to $5.5 million, which can be restored in the future.

 

Another funding increase is for the Cherry Street Grade Crossing in Ashland. Rescinding of a federal earmark due to lack of progress increases the MPO share of cost from $836 thousand to $1.3 million. E. Lapointe detailed how the MPO is working with the town to increase progress. The project cost may increase as it progresses.

 

CATA has requested that the FFY 2025 funding for the Microtransit Expansion project be removed. CATA did not have enough staff and felt it could not move forward with the project. However, CATA recently received a grant from MassDOT to run a limited pilot of this project over the weekends.

 

In addition, there have been increases in cost on projects that were shifted from state level to regional prioritization. The Medford-Wellington Underpass has increased from $5.5 million to $6.1 million, and the Arlington-Stratton School Safe Routes to School project has increased from $1.6 million to $2.1 million. Both increases follow design submissions and fall within the FFY 2025 constraint.

 

The MPO’s Regional Target Program is funding 69 projects for a total of $724.7 million dollars. This leaves 0.5 percent of funding unallocated that can be used for future project cost increases.

 

The MPO staff asked that the board vote to endorse the FFYs 2025–29 TIP.

 

Discussion

L. Diggins commented that there were considerable differences between the draft and the final document.

J. Rowe asked if there was a ballpark amount set for cost contingencies. E. Lapointe stated that usually it is around two percent, but for this cycle it was one or less than one percent. J. Rowe stated that MassDOT had been asked at the last TIP Process, Engagement, and Readiness meeting to state where money from projects that had moved off their schedule onto the MPO schedule was going. J. Rowe stated that there was discussion of learning where the money was moved to and whether MassDOT could take some of those projects back, and asked if that could be folded into the contingency fund. J. Bechard stated that the funding the MPO had decided to put toward the Arlington-Stratton School project had returned to other Safe Route to School projects. The Medford-Wellington underpass project funds that were freed up in MassDOT’s statewide program as a result of the MPO putting funding toward the project were shifted to various rail trail projects in the statewide program, some of which are in the Boston region. J. Bechard stated that no other formal changes had been made as a result of the funding changes, but many projects were struggling with being underfunded so the freed up statewide program funding would assist with this issue.

Vote

A motion to endorse the FFYs 2025–29 TIP was made by the MAPC (E. Bourassa) and seconded by the Regional Transportation Advisory Council (L. Diggins). The motion carried.

9.    Action Item: Work Scope for Exploration of Infrastructure Changes on Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT)—Steven Andrews, MPO Staff

Documents posted to the MPO meeting calendar

1.    Work Scope Exploration of Infrastructure Changes on VMT (pdf) (html)

This project is funded by MassDOT, expected to begin in FFY 2024, and continue until FFY 2025. S. Andrews stated that this study was to examine how drivers had reacted to the implementation of bus lanes; whether they kept their commute as it was, changed their route, changed the time of their travel, and other data points. This project is being assisted by the MBTA, using the data it collected for its vehicles and traffic patterns. This study looked to gain more detailed information than what was collected by the MBTA and analyze non-transit users and transit users and interpret that data in a meaningful way to inform the MPO.

Discussion

L. Diggins stated that what was most helpful about this study was the plan to publish this study. L. Diggins also requested that the memo for the study be available for all the Board.

J. Rowe discussed some difficulties that the City experienced with these kinds of studies. J. Rowe asked if the study would also be exploring transit traffic impacts other than bus lanes, such as signal priority. Specifically, J. Rowe was curious about which projects this study would be evaluating. S. Andrews stated that the bus lanes study had to depend on whether a study had been done on traffic patterns before the bus lane was implemented, to understand the aftermath of the implementation. Jay Jackson (MBTA) stated that one of the purposes of this study was to get a metric for bus lane miles that correlates with a reduction of VMTs, to try and quantify the demand that is currently visible in a more qualitative way. This information could then be modeled to show where bus lanes could be helpful or more harmful.

J. Rowe suggested considering land-use context to segment the analysis. J. Rowe also asked two questions, including if the intent of the analysis was to create a method for predictive modeling, and if this was a methodology for retrospective evaluation of projects. J. Jackson stated that this model could be used nationwide. J. Jackson also stated that there was preliminary data that could be shared with Board members to show how the study was progressing.

Julia Wallerce (MAPC) asked if there was any element of the study that evaluated congestion in relation to bus lanes. S. Andrews stated that the focus would be on VMT, since it was a quantifiable measure that was readily available. S. Andrews stated that he would consider incorporating that, but it would be contingent on the tools and systems being used. J. Jackson stated that other stakeholders might have an interest in this as well, and it could possibly be incorporated or be a separate study.

S. Woelfel stated that this seemed like a significant change to the program, and asked the Board if there should be a vote taken on the project as presented, or if the project should be adjusted with this change in mind first, before returning to the Board with a vote. E. Bourassa stated that the decision could be left up to the staff and did not necessarily need to be voted on by the Board. S. Woelfel asked S. Andrews if this was feasible, considering the budget and tools available. S. Andrews stated he would like more clarity on what exactly the change would be. R. Morgan stated that knowing whether the project could be adjusted this way would require a decent amount of restructuring and consideration and asked to bring the project back to the Board with a scope change, if possible, but that the current project as is be voted on now. S. Johnston stated that additional funding for an additional scope would need more discussion and could be done for FFY 2025, but not necessarily for FFY 2024.

Vote

A motion to approve the work scope for exploration of infrastructure changes on VMT was made by the MAPC (E. Bourassa) and seconded by the Regional Transportation Advisory Council (L. Diggins). The motion carried.

10. Action Item: FFYs 2024–28 TIP Amendment Seven—Ethan Lapointe, MPO Staff

Documents posted to the MPO meeting calendar

1.    FFYs 2024–28 TIP Amendment Seven (pdf) (html)

This amendment proposed changes to all years of the FFYs 2024–28 TIP Transit Program to reflect changes in the MBTA’s draft Capital Investment Program (CIP). These changes had already been incorporated into the Draft FFYs 2025–29 TIP and the MBTA CIP. These changes are made to federal funding programs. There was a 15-day public comment period from May 20, 2024, to June 3, 2024. Staff received one comment during that period, which inquired on the preventive maintenance in the impacted federal funding programs. MPO Staff pointed the commenter to other places in the TIP and CIP where preventive maintenance was provided and the state of good repair that many roads and bridges were in.

MPO staff requested that the board vote to endorse Amendment Seven, as presented

Vote

A motion to endorse Amendment Seven of the FFY 2024–28 TIP was made by the MAPC (E. Bourassa) and seconded by the Regional Transportation Advisory Council (L. Diggins). The motion carried.

11. Action Item: FFYs 2024–2028 TIP Amendment Nine—Ethan Lapointe, MPO Staff

Documents posted to the MPO meeting calendar

1.    FFYs 2024–28 TIP Amendment Nine (pdf) (html)

E. Lapointe stated this was a new amendment to the FFYs 2024–28 TIP. This amendment proposes cost increases for two FFY 2024 projects. These are the construction of Interstate 495/Route 1A ramps in Wrentham, a Regional Target project, and the Interstate 95 bridge preservation project through Burlington, Lynnfield, Wakefield, and Woburn, a Statewide Highway project. A portion of the Wrentham program will also be funded by the Statewide Highway program.

The Wrentham project cost increase comes from additional hazard material removal, and bedrock removal. The budget increase is from $18 million to $20.6 million, or a $2.6 million net increase. The Regional Target program will fund $400 thousand, and the Statewide Highway program will fund the remaining $2.2 million.

The Interstate 95 bridge project cost increase is due to more work needing to be done on the 10 bridges than was previously realized. The increase is for $8.4 million, from $4 million initial budget, to approximately $13 million.

MPO Staff requested that the board vote to release Amendment Nine for a 21-day public comment period, beginning June 10, 2024, and ending July 1, 2024.

Vote

A motion to release Amendment Nine for a 21-day public comment period was made by MAPC (E. Bourassa) and seconded by the Regional Transportation Advisory Council (L. Diggins). The motion carried.

12. TIP Before and After Evaluations Study—Sarah Philbrick, Manager of MPO Planning and Policy

Documents posted to the MPO meeting calendar

1.    TIP Before and After Study (pdf) (html)

S. Philbrick noted that this study began well before the pandemic and is a long-term effort with contributions from many different MPO staff members. TIP projects are scored on their potential benefits, but this study evaluates whether they achieved their intended goals. The measures and analyses were based largely on the Congestion Management Program. Results are based solely on these metrics and not others such as health, usability, or mode shift. Four projects were reviewed: the Lebanon Street Reconstruction in Melrose, the Hancock and East/West Squantum Streets in Quincy, the Broadway Reconstruction in East Somerville, and the Community Path Extension in Somerville. Construction was completed on all these projects in 2015–2016. Overall, results of the projects are mixed. All projects indicate some benefits, but do not always meet intended goals. This analysis highlights the limitations of the study metrics used and demonstrated the need for an updated methodology that’s inclusive of the full range of goals that these MPO projects attempt to achieve.

The issues before the Lebanon Street Reconstruction in Melrose began construction were damaged and cracked curbing and sidewalks, accessibility, lack of defined shoulder for bicycles, Lynde and Grove streets being too close together, excessive queues at Lebanon and Upham Street intersection, and lack of turn lanes. Improvements to this area were evaluated by safety, traffic flow, and urban design.

S. Philbrick stated that there was an effort to avoid taking land for this project. There was a decrease in the number of crashes in the area from 73 to 58, with a decrease in angle crashes from 21 to 12. Delays increased in one-half of the intersections studied. Signal-timing changes, plus an increase in demand, led to an increase in congestion, but roadway surfaces for bicycles and pedestrians were improved.

The Hancock and East/West Squantum Streets in Quincy struggled with issues such as long delays and congestion, a higher-than-average crash rate, lack of provisions for bicycles, no signal coordination, and long pedestrian crosswalks. The improvements were evaluated by the same metrics as above. Unfortunately, crashes increased by 20 percent, and remained largely unchanged around North Quincy High School. There are no data for traffic counts, so there are no data on whether this is an increase in crash rates. The MBTA added another entrance to the Red Line during construction, which rerouted traffic. The addition of new Starbucks and Target locations likely contributed to increased eastbound traffic. Vehicle drop-offs and pickup at nearby schools is still an issue.

For the Broadway Reconstruction in East Somerville the goals for the construction were to make the area less of a cut through for cars and more accommodating to pedestrians and cyclists. To do this, the aim was to reduce the capacity of travel lanes, change parking use and regulations, and to widen sidewalks and bicycle lanes. In addition, after construction, there was also a change in signage. The same metrics were used to evaluate this project. Overall crashes decreased from 55 to 31, and crashes with injuries decreased from 16 to seven. There was a decrease of 1,500 vehicles of through traffic on Broadway between 2007 and 2023 during peak morning hours. An analysis also showed there were no significant diversions.

The Community Path Extension in Somerville sought to expand the shared-use path from Alewife to Lechmere and complete a portion of the planned 104-mile Central Massachusetts Rail Trail. For this project, the metrics for evaluation were level of use of the community path and the urban design. In a 12-hour period on March 23, 2023, 1,300 users were counted, and the path has successfully connected areas of Somerville to the Green Line. The project was initially projected to have 1,700 users in 2003.

In conclusion, crash statistics were improved for some, but not all, locations. It can also be difficult to evaluate projects like these as there are many factors that can change. There is a need for more frequent, quick analyses of TIP-funded projects to make better, data-driven funding decisions. The MPO should identify performance metrics and data needs in advance of project construction and track progress after construction. There is a need to systematically review project outcomes by their scoring criteria to see if projects are working towards the region’s goals.

Discussion

L. Diggins asked how much the study cost. S. Philbrick stated that it was difficult to provide one figure due to the overall duration of the study and the changing sources of funding during that period. L. Diggins asked if it could be said that the study cost more or less than $100,000. T. Teich stated they could review the original estimate, but due to the length of time, it has almost certainly been increased since its originally budgeted amount.

L. Diggins then asked if funding for studies like this could be included in the overall funding for the project, so that it is clear where the money is coming from and is already set aside. S. Woelfel stated that that kind of provision was only allowed under one circumstance, but more research could be done. T. Teich stated that the original estimate was $60 thousand, but the final cost was higher.

Tom Bent (Inner Core Committee, City of Somerville) stated that project goals should be clear enough at the beginning to be able to evaluate the project by the end.

13. Members’ Items

John Romano (MassDOT) stated that the Sumner Tunnel will be closed July 5, 2024, to August 5, 2024, with some weekend closures before then. J. Romano asked if it would be possible to make a presentation about it at the next meeting

14. Adjourn

A motion to adjourn was made by the Regional Transportation Advisory Council (L. Diggins) and seconded by the City of Boston (J. Rowe). The motion carried.

 

Attendance

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)	John Alessi
At-Large Town (Town of Brookline)	Mike Sandman
City of Boston (Boston Planning & Development Agency)	Jim Fitzgerald
City of Boston (Boston Transportation Department)	Jen Rowe
Federal Highway Administration	John Bechard
Federal Transit Administration	Kristie Hostetter
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville)	Tom Bent Brad Rawson
Massachusetts Department of Transportation	Steve Woelfel
MassDOT Highway Division	John Romano
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)	Sandy Johnston
Massachusetts Port Authority	Sarah Lee
MBTA Advisory Board	Brian Kane
Metropolitan Area Planning Council	Eric Bourassa
MetroWest Regional Collaborative (City of Framingham)	Dennis Giombetti
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (Town of Acton)	Kristen Guichard
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 Hull)
South West Advisory Planning Committee (Town of Wrentham)	Rachel Benson
Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of Norwood)	Tom O’Rourke

 

 

Other Attendees	Affiliation
Bill Deignan	City of Cambridge
Carolyn Cole	Mass Cultural Council
Benjamin Muller	MassDOT
Cheryll-Ann Senior	MassDOT
Derek Shooster	MassDOT
Raissah Kouame	MassDOT
Sarah Bradbury	MassDOT
Alex Hallowell	MBTA
Jay Jackson	MBTA
Josh Ostroff	MBTA
Justin Antos	MBTA
Walker Harrison	MBTA
Wes Edwards	MBTA
Cam Sullivan	MetroWest Regional Transit Authority
Jim Nee	MetroWest Regional Transit Authority
Joy Glynn	MetroWest Regional Transit Authority
Emily Lucas	Replica
Sheila Page	Town of Lexington
S. Winslow	Town of Malden
Addie Mae Weiss	Town of Sherborn
Jeremy Marsette	Town of Sherborn
Sean Killeen	Town of Sherborn
Marcia Rasmussen	Town of Sudbury
Marzie Galazka	Town of Swampscott
Laurie Bent	Town of Weston
Brendan Kearney	WalkMassachusetts
Aleida Leza
Heidi Doyle
Meghan Todd
Paul Cobuzzi
Paula Doucette
Rebecca Mercuri
Stephen Winslow
Tanya
Tyler Terrasi
Yem Lip

 

MPO Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff
Tegin Teich, Executive Director
Steven Andrews
Abby Cutrumbes
Judy Day
Annette Demchur
Stella Jordan
Betsy Harvey
David Hong
Ethan Lapointe
Lauren Magee
Erin Maguire
Rose McCarron
Marty Milkovits
Rebecca Morgan
Srilekha Murthy
Gina Perille
Sarah Philbrick
Sean Rourke