Appendix A: Project Prioritization and Scoring
Appendix B: Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Evaluation
Appendix C: Public Engagement and Public Comments
Appendix D: Geographic Distribution of TIP Funding
Appendix E: Regulatory and Policy Framework
Appendix F: Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Membership
As described in Chapter 2, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development and project prioritization and funding process consists of numerous phases and is supported by several different funding sources. This appendix includes information about transportation projects that the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) considered for funding through the Highway Discretionary (Regional Target) Program in the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2026–30 TIP. To be considered for funding by the MPO, a project must fulfill certain basic criteria. Projects evaluated through the MPO’s Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections, Complete Streets, and Intersection Improvements investment programs must meet these criteria:
For projects evaluated through the MPO’s Transit Transformation Program, the following criteria apply:
For projects evaluated through the MPO’s Community Connections Program, the following criteria apply:
If a project meets the above criteria, it is presented to the MPO board in the Universe of Projects (Table A-1) to be considered for funding. This project list is presented to the MPO board in November and provides a snapshot of information available on projects at that stage in the TIP development. . Most projects that appear on the Universe list may not be evaluated each year if these projects are not actively being advanced by municipal or state planners or if they are not at the minimum required level of design for evaluation. Inversely, some evaluated projects do not appear in the TIP Universe, as a project’s application may serve as the first expression of interest in TIP funding. Community Connections projects are not typically included in the Universe because proponents of those projects apply for funding through a discrete application process, the submission deadline for which is after the presentation of the Universe to the MPO board.
Once a proponent provides sufficient design documentation for a project that is in the Universe and the municipality or state is actively prioritizing the project for funding, the project can be evaluated by MPO staff . The evaluation criteria used to score projects are based on the MPO’s goals and objectives. After the projects are evaluated, the scores are shared with project proponents, posted on the MPO’s website, and presented to the MPO board for review and discussion. The scores for projects evaluated during development of the FFYs 2026–30 TIP for programming in the MPO’s Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections, Complete Streets, and Intersection Improvements programs are summarized in Table A-3. Scores for projects that applied for funding through the MPO’s Community Connections Program during the FFYs 2026–30 TIP cycle are summarized in Table A-4.
Following the adoption of Destination 2050 in July 2023, the MPO revised the TIP evaluation criteria to better align with the MPO’s updated goals, objectives, and investment programs. These criteria were employed during the project selection process for the FFYs 2026–30 TIP. The final criteria were informed by robust public engagement conducted during the development of Destination 2050 and developed through an update process that engaged MPO members, staff, and external stakeholders. This update also created separate criteria for different project types within the Community Connections program given the diverse array of first-and-last mile projects that can be funded through the program. The project selection criteria for each investment program are shown in separate tables in this appendix as follows: Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections (Table A-5); Complete Streets (Table A-6); Intersection Improvements (Table A-7); and Transit Transformation (Table A-8).
Community Connections project selection criteria are shown in separate tables in this appendix as follows: Bicycle Lanes (A-9); Bicycle Racks (A-10); Bikeshare Support (A-11); Microtransit Pilots (A-12); and Wayfinding Signage (A-13) .
In addition to project scores, several other factors are taken into consideration by the MPO when selecting projects for funding. Table A-2 describes many of these elements, including the relationships between the MPO’s FFYs 2026–30 Regional Target projects and the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), studies and technical assistance conducted by MPO staff through the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), the federally required performance measures discussed in Chapter 4, and Massachusetts’ modal plans. These projects are listed by MPO investment program. More details about each of these projects are available in the funding tables and project descriptions included in Chapter 3. Performance-related information for the FFYs 2026–30 Regional Target projects is included in Chapter 4, and information about greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for these projects is available in Appendix B.
Table A-1
FFYs 2026–30 TIP Universe of Projects
| Key | ||||||||
| Evaluated for FFYs 2025-29 TIP | ||||||||
| New project in TIP universe for FFYs 2026-30 TIP | ||||||||
| In FFYs 2025-29 universe, not evaluated | ||||||||
| Municipality | Project Proponent | Project Name | Project Number | Design Status (as of 9/6/24) | Year Added to Universe | Cost Estimate | Highway District | Notes |
| Inner Core | ||||||||
| Complete Streets | ||||||||
| Boston | Boston | Reconstruction of Albany Street | S13016 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 6 | |
| Boston | MassDOT | Reconstruction on Gallivan Boulevard (Route 203), from Neponset Circle to East of Morton Street Intersection | S13015 | PRC approved (2012) | 2018 | Outdated (Formerly $11,500,000) | 6 | Resulted from FFY 2012 Addressing Priority Corridors MPO Study. Entirety of Gallivan. A portion of this corridor is included in project 610650 for Safety Improvements, and is funded in FFY 2027 of the Statewide Highway Program. |
| Boston | MassDOT | Improvements on Morton Street (Route 203), from West of Gallivan Boulevard to Shea Circle | 606897 (Former) | PRC approved (2012) | 2018 | Outdated (Formerly $11,500,000) | 6 | Resulted from FFY 2012 Addressing Priority Corridors MPO Study. Entirety of Morton from Gallivan to Arborway. Nearer term safety improvements proposed in 2027. |
| Boston | Boston | Roadway Improvements along Commonwealth Avenue (Route 30), from Alcorn Street to Warren/Kelton Streets (Phase 3 and Phase 4) | 608449 | 25% submitted (9/28/2017) | 2017 or earlier | $31,036,006 | 6 | Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. |
| Boston | MassDOT | Intersection and Signal Improvements at VFW Parkway and Spring Street | 613282 | PRC Approved (6/1/2023) | 2022 | $5,357,253 | 6 | Project had previously submitted a 25% design with revisions to account for some comments by City of Boston in 2022. Project was re-initiated in April 2023. |
| Brookline | Brookline | Boylston Street (High Street to Brington Road) Complete Streets Improvements | S13019 | Preliminary Design | 2022 | $3,500,000 | 6 | Pedestrian crossings, bike lanes, street trees. Design through Toole with some facilitation from MassDOT. Three options were pushed through and endorsed by the Select Board. Town met with District 6 to run through this. Should be in PRC soon. |
| Brookline | Brookline | Brookline- Pedestrian Bridge Replacement, B-27-017, Davis Path over MBTA | 613683 | PRC Approved (5/31/2024) | 2022 | $12,898,928 | 6 | Town considering discretionary grant funding. Potential for bundling with Boylston Street work above. |
| Chelsea | Chelsea | Chelsea- Intersection Improvements at Everett Avenue and 3rd Street | 613259 | PRC Approved (6/1/2023) | 2020 | $2,078,680 | 6 | |
| Chelsea | Chelsea | Hawthorne Street Redesign (Park Street to Bellingham Street) | S13020 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | N/A | 6 | Seeking funding for project design. |
| Chelsea | Chelsea | Reconstruction of Marginal Street | S13021 | Preliminary Design | 2019 | N/A | 6 | Potential PROTECT grant candidate based on discussion between MPO staff and City in 2024. Recent issues with sidewalks collapsing due to erosion. |
| Chelsea, Everett | Everett | Reconstruction of Vine and Third Street, from Chelsea Street to MBTA Station | 613585 | PRC Approved (10/12/2023) | 2023 | $5,654,870.15 | 4 | Silver Line connection for pedestrian and bike. Includes sidewalk extension and ADA ramp reconstruction. Pavement reconstruction as well. Potential candidate for FFY 2026–30 TIP. |
| Dedham | Dedham | Pedestrian Improvements on Elm Street | 613685 | PRC Approved (05/31/2024) | 2024 | $1,534,800 | 6 | |
| Lynn, Salem | MassDOT | Reconstruction of Route 107 (Route 129A to Boston Street) | 608927 | PRC approved (2017) | 2020 | $38,155,000 | 4 | Northern follow-up to Project 609246, which is currently programmed on the TIP for FFYs 2025–29. |
| Malden | Malden | Broadway Reconstruction: Everett to Melrose City Line | 613244 | PRC Approved (6/29/2023) | 2022 | $21,201,688 | 4 | |
| Malden | Malden | Commercial Street Reconstruction (Centre Street to Medford City Line) | S13023 | Preliminary Design | 2024 | $7,250,000 | 4 | Evaluated for design funding for FFYs 2025–29 TIP. Continuation of concept that Medford recently completed on Rivers Edge Drive. |
| Malden | Malden | Improvements on Route 60 (Phase 1) [Lynn Street to Broadway] | 613816 | PRC Approved (10/2/2024) | 2024 | $5,393,158 | 4 | Formerly part of S13024 |
| Malden | Malden | Improvements on Route 60 (Phase 2) [Broadway to Franklin Street] | 613817 | PRC Approved (10/2/2024) | 2024 | $5,373,715 | 4 | Formerly part of S13024 |
| Malden | Malden | Improvements on Route 60 (Phase 3) [Franklin to Pearl Street] | 613818 | PRC Approved (10/2/2024) | 2024 | $8,176,241 | 4 | Formerly part of S13024 |
| Melrose | Melrose | Reconstruction of Lebanon Street, from Lynde Street to Malden City Line | 612534 | PRC approved (2/10/2022) | 2020 | $3,742,432 | 4 | |
| Newton | Newton | Reconstruction of Washington Street, from Church Street to Chestnut Street | S13025 | Preliminary Design | 2020 | N/A | 6 | |
| Revere | Revere | Reconstruction of Ocean Avenue, Revere Street, and Revere Beach Boulevard | S13026 | Preliminary Design | 2020 | N/A | 4 | Project at conceptual stage with schematics, needs full design - investigating roundabout. Key East/West connection. |
| Winthrop | Winthrop | Reconstruction and Improvements on Route 145 (Pleasant and Main Street Project) | 609446 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $7,565,512 | 6 | |
| Winthrop | Winthrop | Reconstruction on Main Street, from Winthrop Street to the Boston City Line | 613712 | PRC Approved (05/31/2024) | 2024 | $11,902,600 | 6 | |
| Intersection Improvements | ||||||||
| Boston, Brookline | Boston, Brookline | Mountfort Street and Commonwealth Avenue Connection | 608956 | PRC approved (2017) | 2018 | $916,883 | 6 | Interim improvement completed in the area more recently, but longer term improvement still sought by Boston. |
| Chelsea | Chelsea | Intersection Improvements at Everett Avenue and 3rd Street | 613259 | PRC Approved (7/6/2023) | 2023 | $2,078,681 | 6 | Added via PRC notification email. 25% design expected within 2024, may apply for funding through FFYs 2026–30 TIP. |
| Lynn, Saugus | Lynn | Intersection Safety Improvements at Boston Street at Hesper and Hamilton Streets | S13046 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | $3,000,000 | 4 | Based on 3/3/2023 meeting with Lynn. |
| Quincy | MassDOT | Intersection Improvements at Route 3A (Southern Artery) and Broad Street | 608569 | PRC approved (2016) | 2020 | $2,900,000 | 6 | Priority for District 6. |
| Quincy | Quincy | Merrymount Parkway Phase II | S13028 | Preliminary Design | 2022 | N/A | 6 | Intersection improvement at Merrymount Parkway and Furnace Brook Parkway. Parks Department is leading the work. Will include bridge replacement. |
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | ||||||||
| Arlington | Arlington | Mystic River Path Connection to the Minuteman Bikeway | 613593 | PRC Approved (10/12/2023) | 2023 | $10,688,515 | 4 | Design includes a $1,000,000 congressional earmark |
| Belmont | Belmont | Belmont Community Path Phase 2 | S13029 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | TBD | 4 | Consultant from Toole Design reached out 3/16/2023 to discuss initiation and funding through MassDOT |
| Boston | Boston | Fenway Multi-Use Path Phase III | S13030 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 6 | Project at conceptual stage. Final phase of the path contingent on 24-hour accessibility in order to fund project with federal dollars via the TIP. |
| Brookline | Brookline | Beacon Street Bridle Pathway | S13031 | Preliminary Design | 2022 | N/A | 6 | Project in conceptual design through Toole, receipt of a MassTrails grant in 2020 for feasibility study. Limits would be Audubon Circle to Cleveland Circle, may require phased approach. |
| Everett, Somerville | DCR | Mystic River Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing | 612004 | 75% Package Received (2/6/2023) | 2021 | $38,218,334 | 4 | |
| Medford | Medford | MacDonald Park Pedestrian Bridge | S13032 | Preliminary Design | 2022 | $800,000 | 4 | In DCR park, City is requesting expansion of bridge to 10-12 feet in width to coordinate with shared use pathway. |
| Newton | Newton | Bridge Replacement on Christina Street | 613594 | PRC Approved (10/12/2023) | 2023 | $4,785,788 | 6 | May appear in FFYs 2026-30 TIP. |
| Major Infrastructure | ||||||||
| Boston, Chelsea | Boston | Bridge Rehabilitation and Fender Pier Replacement, Meridian Street Over Chelsea Creek (Andrew P. McArdle Bridge) | 612601 | PRC Approved (2/10/2022) | 2021 | $97,538,787 | 6 | |
| Cambridge | DCR | Intersection Improvements at Fresh Pond Parkway/Gerry's Landing Road, from Brattle Street to Memorial Drive | 609290 | PRC approved (2018) | 2019 | $7,000,000 | 6 | Short-term improvements being initiated. |
| Newton | MassDOT | Traffic Signal and Safety Improvements at Interchange 127 (Newton Corner) | 609288 | PRC approved (2018) | 2019 | $14,000,000 | 6 | |
| Lynn | Lynn | Lynnway Multimodal Corridor | S13090 | N/A | 2024 | $25,300,000 | 4 | MBTA Project Number P1332. Design and construction for center-running bus lanes, separated bike lanes, enhanced bus stops, and sidewalk improvements. |
| Medford | Medford | Roosevelt Circle Interchange Reconfiguration | S13033 | Preliminary Design | 2022 | TBD | 4 | As discussed on 11/4/2022 with the City of Medford, the City is looking to reconfigure the ramps and adjacent local roadways to improve traffic safety following the results of a RSA along this corridor. Includes improvements for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access. |
| Revere | Revere | Route 1A Improvement and Reconfiguration | S13034 | Preliminary Design | 2022 | $12,000,000 | 4 | Project is in conceptual design stage. The priority is to reconfigure the loop ramps at the General Edwards Bridge to facilitate redevelopment of the area, for which there are already parcel developments planned. The reconfiguration will entail construction of a new roundabout and improved pedestrian crossings to improve access to the riverfront and Point of Pines area along Revere. Per the City, this reconfiguration is intended to work with the Lynnway Multimodal Corridor improvements, but will also not impact construction for the General Edwards Bridge replacement. |
| Community Connections | ||||||||
| Belmont | Belmont | Belmont BlueBikes Expansion | S13035 | N/A | 2022 | $250,000 | 4 | Belmont is currently evaluating potential revenue streams to cover operational costs and match prior to submitting an application for this project. |
| Lynn | Lynn | Transit Signal Priority - Bus Upgrades for Lynn Route 107 | S13036 | N/A | 2022 | TBD | 4 | |
| Waltham | Waltham | Waltham BlueBikes/Bikeshare Expansion | S13037 | N/A | 2022 | TBD | 4 | |
| Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination | ||||||||
| Complete Streets | ||||||||
| Acton | Acton | Reconstruction of Route 2A/119 (Great Road), from Davis Road to Harris Street | 613872 | PRC-Approved (10/02/2024) | 2023 | $12,847,235 | 3 | Seeking pathway for design funding. Was S13038 before. |
| Acton-Maynard | Acton-Maynard | Route 62 Complete Streets Design (Knox Trail to Waltham Street) | S13039 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | TBD | 3 | Joint application for design funding may emerge, majority of pavement is in Maynard. |
| Bedford | Bedford | Roadway Reconstruction of Route 4/225 (The Great Road) | 612739 | PRC approved (5/12/2022) | 2022 | $10,899,448 | 4 | North Road to match line near Loomis Street. SRTS project completed in the area under 608000. |
| Bolton | Bolton | Reconstruction of Route 117 (Main Street) from 200 feet West of John Powers Lane to the Intersection of Mechanic Street | 613885 | PRC approved (10/2/2024) | 2024 | $7,490,000 | 3 | Met with town in November 2023 to discuss, culvert is primary concern. |
| Intersection Improvements | ||||||||
| Acton | Acton | Intersection Improvements at Hayward Road and Route 27 | S13041 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | $2,000,000 | 3 | Per discussion on 11/9/2023. Town has had significant design progress internally, still working to move forward with it. |
| Littleton | Littleton | Intersection Improvements at Route 119/Beaver Brook Road | 610702 | PRC approved (4/30/2020) | 2020 | $3,120,110 | 3 | MassDOT agreed to fund design after 25% design approved. As of October 2022, the project remains in preliminary design. |
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | ||||||||
| Bedford | Bedford | Minuteman Bikeway Extension, from Loomis Street to Concord Road (Route 62) | 607738 | 100% Package Received 01/18/2022 | 2022 | $11,218,186 | 4 | Local concerns about permitting. Previously programmed in FFYs 2023-27, dropped due to public opposition. Failed to achieve 2/3rds majority in town meeting on 11/14/2022. |
| Concord | Concord | Assabet River Multi-Use Trail and Bridge Construction | 612870 | PRC approved (8/29/2022) | 2020 | $8,280,000 | 4 | Project was originally a new Pedestrian Bridge with a $2-3.6M price range. Scope has increased to include improvements for a multi-use trail alongside the bridge. Cost has increased accordingly, and is now in preliminary design. Municipality applied for Reconnecting Communities Funding for work. Project location runs between the West Concord MBTA Station and the Concord Meadows Corporate Center with a hookup to the Southern Terminus of the Bruce Freeman. |
| Hudson | Hudson | Mass Central Rail Trail Extension | S13048 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | $9,000,000 | 3 | Sought funding for FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot. |
| Stow | Stow | Assabet River Rail Trail Construction | 613096 | Scope to DE (6/16/2023) | 2022 | $2,232,173 | 3 | Project Info # is being reserved for this project's construction. Recent earmark recipient for design under FFY22 House THUD bill (Rep. Lori Trahan). Design line item added to FFYs 2023-27 in AM2 and is retaining a project ID # S12749. |
| Major Infrastructure | ||||||||
| Acton | MassDOT | Intersection Improvements at Route 2 and Route 27 Ramps | 610553 | 25% design 05/22/2024 | 2020 | $6,689,946 | 3 | Project not programmed in LRTP (meets MPO roadway classification requirement). Priority for District 3 and Town of Acton. Project has had surveying and MSA design contracts opened for it. MassDOT appears to be tracking as a Traffic Safety improvement. |
| Lexington | Lexington | Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue | 613144 | PRC approved (12/20/2022) | 2019 | $30,557,000 | 4 | In 2022, the project received PRC approval for a design-only contract. The project may seek funding through the TIP. The project has expanded to be an interchange reconstruction, and the Hartwell Avenue component may emerge separately. The estimated construction cost for this project is likely to increase. Preliminary design funding for this project is programmed in FFY 2026. |
| Lexington | Lexington | Roadway Reconstruction on Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street | 613695 | PRC approved (5/31/2024) | 2024 | $32,255,718 | 4 | Subset of larger LRTP project above. |
| Community Connections | ||||||||
| Concord | Concord | Concord Workforce Shuttle | S13043 | N/A | 2022 | $369,911 | 4 | Application in FFYs 2024-28 TIP. |
| Lexington | Lexington | Lexington Bikeshare Pilot Program | S13044 | N/A | 2023 | N/A | 4 | Current constraint is distance from existing Bluebikes network and operating costs. |
| MetroWest Regional Collaborative | ||||||||
| Complete Streets | ||||||||
| Wellesley | Wellesley | Route 135 Reconstruction (Natick Town Line to Weston Road) | S13047 | To be initiated | 2022 | TBD | 6 | |
| Holliston | Holliston | Reconstruction of Concord Street (Route 126) | S13049 | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Added through subregional outreach. Project is municipal priority, as it's tied to necessary below-grade sewer work. 10/12/22: MaPIT is showing that a project was initiated back on 7/14/2020 for this stretch for resurfacing and related work, assuming $600K in total cost (likely lowball). |
| Intersection Improvements | ||||||||
| Ashland | Ashland | Intersection Improvements at Fountain and Union Street | S13050 | To be initiated | 2024 | TBD | 3 | First discussed on 5/28/24 during discussion with Evan White in Ashland DPW. |
| Framingham | MassDOT | Roundabout Construction at Salem End Road, Badger Road and Gates Street | 609280 | PRC approved (12/06/2018) | 2019 | $2,520,000 | 3 | |
| Weston | Weston | Intersection Improvements - Signalization of Route 20 at Highland Street | S13051 | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 6 | Added through subregional outreach. |
| Weston | Weston | Intersection Improvements at Route 20 and Highland Street | 613878 | PRC-Approved (10/2/2024) | 2024 | 3 | HSIP Location. Investigating geometry changes and potential alternatives to current signalization. | |
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | ||||||||
| Weston | MassDOT | Shared Use Path Construction on Route 30 | 612602 | PRC Approved (2/10/2022) | 2022 | $1,050,000 | 6 | Meant to connect into Project 608954. District 6 priority to ensure that the shared-use-path there ties in to the rest of the bicycle network and concludes at a logical terminus. |
| Major Infrastructure | ||||||||
| Framingham | Framingham | Intersection Improvements at Route 126/135/MBTA and CSX Railroad | 606109 | PRC approved (2010) | 2019 | $115,000,000 | 3 | Subject of an FFY 2023 RCN design grant submission. Included in Destination 2050 LRTP. Funded in FFY 2026 for Design. To be scored in FFYs 2026-30 TIP. |
| North Suburban Planning Council | ||||||||
| Complete Streets | ||||||||
| Lynnfield | Lynnfield | Reconstruction of Summer Street | 609381 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $21,521,921 | 4 | Bayside Engineering handling design, Norman Brown is PM on consultant side. Culvert and turtle crossings. Town may consider descoping and phasing the project due to cost, per 12/20/2022 conversation with PM. |
| Reading | Reading | Reading Downtown Improvement Project | S13053 | Preliminary Design | 2020 | $8,000,000 | 4 | Project at conceptual stage. |
| Stoneham | Stoneham | Reconstruction of South Main Street, from Town Center to South Street | S13054 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 4 | |
| Winchester | Winchester | Town Center Complete Streets Improvements | S13055 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 4 | |
| Intersection Improvements | ||||||||
| Burlington | Burlington | Route 3A / Cambridge Street and Winn Street Intersection Improvements | 613641 | PRC Approved (12/19/2023) | 2023 | $9,557,295 | 4 | Evaluated for Project Design funding in FFY 2025. |
| Stoneham | Stoneham | Intersection Improvements at Main Street (Route 28), Franklin Street, and Central Street | S13056 | Preliminary Design | 2020 | N/A | 4 | Project at conceptual stage. |
| Wilmington | Wilmington | Intersection Improvements at Main Street (Route 38) at Richmond Street (Route 129) | 613600 | PRC Approved (10/19/2023) | 2023 | $7,190,375 | 4 | NTP issued: 05/01/2024 |
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | ||||||||
| Stoneham, Wakefield | Stoneham, Wakefield | Mystic Highlands Greenway Project | S13057 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 4 | |
| Community Connections | ||||||||
| North Reading | North Reading | North Reading Human Services Transportation | S13058 | Preliminary Design | 2022 | $213,000 | 4 | Significant paratransit consideration. |
| North Shore Task Force | ||||||||
| Complete Streets | ||||||||
| Beverly, Manchester-by-the-Sea | MassDOT | Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 127 | 607707 | PRC approved (2013) | 2018 | $2,300,000 | 4 | Still in preliminary design. |
| Danvers | Danvers | Reconstruction on Collins Street, from Sylvan Street to Centre and Holten Streets | 602310 | 75% submitted (3/5/2010) | 2017 or earlier | $5,183,121 | 4 | Updated 75% design submission needed for project to move forward. Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. |
| Ipswich | Ipswich | Reconstruction of County Road, from South Main Street to East Street | 611975 | PRC approved (01/28/2021) | 2020 | $5,653,500 | 4 | Ipswich DPW noted that a bridge within the project limits has had a lane closed by MassDOT. Structure IDs are I01005, main concern is Ipswich - 2PN which is an 1861-built historic stone arch mill bridge. Currently functioning as a one-way. Town had approached as a traffic safety project with the bridge as a focal point. Pier degradation and cracking. Structure is under evaluation for a statewide bridge preservation contract. |
| Marblehead | Marblehead | Bridge Replacement, M-04-001, Village Street over Marblehead Rail Trail (Harold B. Breare Bridge) | 612947 | PRC approved (9/15/2022) | 2019 | $4,453,950 | 4 | |
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | Manchester-by-the-Sea | Pine Street - Central Street (Route 127) to Rockwood Heights Road | S13059 | Preliminary Design | 2017 or earlier | N/A | 4 | |
| Rockport | Rockport | Roadway Reconstruction of Route 127A (Thatcher Road) | 612737 | PRC Approved (1/23/2023) | 2023 | $12,058,173 | 4 | |
| Salem | MassDOT | Reconstruction of Bridge Street (Route 107), from Flint Street to Washington Street | 612990 | 25% Design (09/18/2024) | 2017 or earlier | $12,067,500 | 4 | Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is on a regionally significant roadway and would add roadway capacity. If it is programmed in the TIP, it will need to be programmed in Destination 2050. |
| Salem | Salem | Topsfield- Bridge Replacement, T-06-016, on Salem Road over the Ipswich River | 613592 | PRC Approved (10/12/2023) | 2023 | $5,593,494 | 4 | Bridge replacement project only |
| Salem | Salem | Broad Street and Dalton Parkway Corridor Design Project | S13129 | Preliminary Design | 2024 | $2,500,000 | 4 | Seeking design funding. |
| Wenham | Wenham | Safety Improvements on Route 1A | 609388 | 75% approved 02/08/2024 | 2019 | $5,328,763 | 4 | Working with Bayside Engineering as design consultant. MassDOT may fund this for construction in full, and Wenham is paying for design. Drainage for abutters is holding this up. |
| Wenham | Wenham | Roadway Reconstruction on Larch Row and Dodges Row | S13060 | Preliminary Design | 2019 | $800,000 | 4 | Project at conceptual stage. |
| Intersection Improvements | ||||||||
| Essex | Essex | Targeted Safety Improvements on Route 133 (John Wise Avenue) | 609315 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $2,135,440 | 4 | |
| Swampscott | Swampscott | Humphrey Street at Atlantic Avenue | S13062 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | $4,000,000 | 4 | Project conceptual, design candidate. Possible roundabout. |
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | ||||||||
| Peabody, Salem | Peabody, Salem | Riverwalk Project | S13063 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 4 | MVP grant issued for project design. Includes elements of the Harmony Grove Path and the Independence Greenway to the west. Gap remains between Mt Vernon Street and Endicott Street. |
| Marblehead | Marblehead | B2B Bikeway - Marblehead Rail Trail | S13064 | Preliminary Design | 2022 | $140,000 | 4 | Design earmark currently programmed, construction will follow. |
| Peabody, Salem | Peabody, Salem | Harmony Grove Multi-Use Path | 613258 | PRC Approved (6/1/2023) | 2022 | $1,021,556 | 4 | Design funding is a separate line item in the TIP. This project is the Border to Boston Trail section for Salem and Peabody. |
| Major Infrastructure | ||||||||
| Beverly | Beverly | Interchange Reconstruction at Route 128/Exit 19 at Brimbal Avenue (Phase II) | 607727 | PRC Approved (2014) | 2021 | $23,000,000 | 4 | Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. Is on a regionally-significant roadway, and would expand the interchange. If this project is programmed in the TIP and adds roadway capacity, this project will need to be included in Destination 2050. |
| South Shore Coalition | ||||||||
| Complete Streets | ||||||||
| Braintree | Braintree | Reconstruction of Allen Street (MA285) | 613727 | PRC Approved (05/31/2024) | 2024 | $3,150,000 | 6 | Funded with a 2023 earmark for $3,150,000 |
| Holbrook | Holbrook | Corridor Improvements on North and South Franklin Streets (Route 37), Franklin Terrace Royal Avenue | 613117 | PRC approved (12/20/2022) | 2023 | $16,049,369 | 5 | |
| Hull | Hull | Nantasket Avenue Redesign | S13089 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | $8,000,000 | 5 | Includes redevelopment of existing gravel squares in front of Nantasket Beach for additional facilities/recreational zones/open space. |
| Rockland | Rockland | Corridor Improvements on VFW Drive/Weymouth Street | 612605 | PRC approved (2/10/2022) | 2021 | $13,047,281 | 5 | PNF entered in Jan 2022 |
| Weymouth | MassDOT | Reconstruction on Route 3A, Including Pedestrian and Traffic Signal Improvements | 608231 | PRC approved (2016) | 2017 or earlier | $10,780,100 | 6 | Pre-25% package submitted in July 2021. Not recorded in PINFO. |
| Intersection Improvements | ||||||||
| Cohasset | Cohasset | Intersection Improvements at Route 3A and King Street | S13068 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 5 | Added through subregional outreach. |
| Hull | Hull | Intersection Improvements at George Washington Boulevard and Barnstable Road/ Logan Avenue | S13069 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 5 | Added through subregional outreach. |
| South West Advisory Planning Committee | ||||||||
| Complete Streets | ||||||||
| Bellingham | Bellingham | South Main Street (Route 126) - Elm Street to Douglas Drive Reconstruction | S13070 | Preliminary Design; PNF submitted (3/13/17) | 2017 or earlier | N/A | 3 | Project would dovetail ongoing project 608887, rehab on Route 126 from Douglas Drive to Route 140. |
| Hopkinton | Hopkinton | West Main Street Reconstruction and Shared Use Path | S13071 | Preliminary Design | 2022 | $15,000,000 | 3 | Priority is a shared use path under I-495 along West Main Street EB to link into existing trail networks and SUP in downtown area and commercial campuses west of I-495. Includes a large roundabout at Lumber Street/Parkwood Drive and West Main Street due to frequent crashes. Some of the initial vision for this project may be altered based on revisions to the scope of work for Project 606043- Hopkinton- Signal and Intersections Improvements on Route 135. |
| Medway | Medway | Improvements on Route 109 West of Highland Street (Highland Street to Bellingham Line) | S13072 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. Project #605657 recently completed near Highland Street. |
| Millis | Millis | Town Center Improvements | S13073 | Preliminary Design | 2020 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. |
| Sherborn | Sherborn | Improvements on Route 27 and Route 16, Sherborn Town Center Improvements (Village Way to Coolidge Street) | S13074 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | $9,500,000 | 3 | Funded through the FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot. |
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 | 608497 | PRC approved (2016) | 2020 | N/A | 5 | |
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Route 140 and Eagle Dam | S13075 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | N/A | MVP Project. Dam removal upstream of the bridge and culvert on Route 40. Seeking feedback from MassDOT. Strong Resilience Project candidate. | |
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Wrentham Center Improvements | S13076 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | N/A | 5 | Formerly under Intersection Improvements, the scope of this project is growing given a 300 unit development near to the proposed work area. |
| Intersection Improvements | ||||||||
| Medway | Medway | Traffic Signalization at Trotter Drive and Route 109 | S13077 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. |
| Sherborn | Sherborn | Intersection Improvements at Route 16 and Maple Street | S13078 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. |
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Intersection Improvements on Route 1A at North and Winter Street | 610676 | 25% Package Received (08/23/2024) | 2020 | $2,649,000 | 5 | RSA done in 2022 |
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Intersection Improvements at Randall Road and Route 1A | S13079 | Preliminary Design | 2020 | $2,649,000 | 5 | Project at conceptual stage. |
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Intersection Improvements at Route 1A Green St and High Street | S13080 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | TBD | 5 | |
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Intersection Improvements at Route 1 and Hawes Street | S13081 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | TBD | 5 | |
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Intersection Improvements at Route 1A and Route 121 | S13082 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | TBD | 5 | Closer to the I-495 1A Ramps project, south side of town. Recent RSA conducted. |
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | ||||||||
| Bellingham-Franklin | Bellingham-Franklin | Southern New England Trunkline Trail Construction | 608948 | 25% Package Received (5/12/2020) | 2021 | $1,714,186 | 3 | Project may be completed by DCR. |
| Hopkinton | Hopkinton | Campus Trail Connector, Shared Use Trail Construction | 611932 | PRC approved (9/24/2020) | 2020 | $1,750,700 | 3 | |
| Norfolk, Walpole, and Wrentham | Norfolk | Metacomet Greenway | S13083 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 5 | Project at conceptual stage. Feasibility analysis complete. Pilot development will start with Hill to Pine Street through old rail bed ROW. Includes bridge over Route 115 due to traffic concerns. Project evaluated and selected for FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot. |
| Sherborn | Sherborn | Upper Charles River Trail Extension to Framingham City Line | S13084 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. |
| Major Infrastructure | ||||||||
| Bellingham | MassDOT | Ramp Construction and Relocation, I-495 at Route 126 (Hartford Avenue) | 604862 | PRC approved (2006) | 2017 or earlier | $13,543,400 | 3 | High priority for District 3 |
| Three Rivers Interlocal Council | ||||||||
| Complete Streets | ||||||||
| Canton | Canton | Lower Randolph Reconstruction (Route 138, Turnpike Avenue to Colts Crossing) | S13085 | Preliminary Design | 2023 | TBD | 6 | Emerged in discussions following application of Randolph and York Street Signal Installation for FFYs 2024-28 STIP. Sidewalk installation, bike lanes, crosswalks, roadway rehabilitation, signal improvements at the Route 138 and, potentially, York Street intersection. Crosswalks near Ponkapoag Pond trailhead. |
| Canton | MassDOT | Canton- Roadway Reconstruction and Related Work on Route 138 | 612614 | PRC Approved (2/10/2022) | 2023 | $24,687,600 | 6 | This project reconstructs Route 138 from Randolph Street to the Stoughton Town Line. It includes sidewalks and bicycle accommodations. |
| Medfield | Medfield | Reconstruction of Route 109 (Millis town line to Hartford Street) | S13086 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Beta is design consultant. |
| Milton | MassDOT | Reconstruction on Granite Avenue, from Neponset River to Squantum Street | 608406 | 25% submitted (2/10/2017) | 2017 or earlier | $3,665,146 | 6 | Milton also in ICC subregion. |
| Milton | Milton | Adams Street Improvements, from Randolph Avenue to Eliot Street | 610820 | PRC approved (4/30/2020) | 2020 | $1,799,330 | 6 | Milton also in ICC subregion. Preliminary design. |
| Needham | Needham | Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, from Webster Street to Great Plains Avenue | 612536 | PRC approved (10/21/2021) | 2021 | $10,402,402 | 6 | Strong likelihood of FFYs 2026-30 TIP submission. |
| Dover, Needham | Dover, Needham | Centre Street Bridge Replacement | 612978 | PRC Approved (9/15/2022) | 2022 | $12,953,780 | 6 | Historic-eligible, needs replacement as it is 1850's era. Dover awarded an earmark to design. |
| Westwood | Westwood | Reconstruction of Canton Street (East Street Rotary and University Avenue) | 608158 | 25% Design Public Hearing (09/28/2023) | 2017 or earlier | $20,406,113 | 6 | Priority for municipality. MassDOT expresses concerns regarding project readiness due to scope fluctuations. PINFO includes bridge rehab work. Application submitted for FFYs 2024-28. |
| Intersection Improvements | ||||||||
| Canton | Canton | Signal Installation at Randolph Street and York Street | S13087 | Preliminary Design | 2022 | $500,000 | 6 | Application submitted for FFYs 2024-28 TIP. Municipality requested $50,000 against a total estimate of $500,000. Significant funding in local mitigation fund for match. |
| Foxborough | Foxborough | Intersection Signalization at Route 140/Walnut Street and Route 140/I-95 (SB Ramp) | 612740 | PRC Approved (5/12/2022) | 2021 | $11,902,600 | 5 | Added through subregional outreach. Town has advanced design outside of TIP process. District supports project. Budget has increased from original $5M estimate in 2021. |
| Medfield | Medfield | Intersection Improvements at Route 27 and West Street | 612807 | PRC Approved (5/12/2022) | 2021 | $3,987,500 | 3 | Added through subregional outreach. |
| Randolph | Randolph | Intersection Improvements at Route 28, Route 139, and North Street | 613704 | PRC Approved (05/31/2024) | 2024 | $6,183,000 | 6 | |
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | ||||||||
| Canton | Canton | Warner Trail Extension, from Sharon to Blue Hills Reservation | S13088 | Preliminary Design | 2021 | N/A | 6 | Added through subregional outreach. Feasibility study currently underway. |
| Major Infrastructure | ||||||||
| Canton, Westwood | MassDOT | Interchange Improvements at I-95 / I-93 / University Avenue / I-95 Widening | 87790 | 25% submitted (7/25/2014) | 2017 or earlier | $202,205,994 | 6 | Project not programmed in Destination 2040. It is on a regionally-significant roadway and adds roadway capacity. If programmed in the TIP, this project would also need to be included in Destination 2050. Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. |
Abbreviations: DCR = Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. FFY = federal fiscal year. MassDOT = Massachusetts Department of Transportation. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MPO = metropolitan planning organization. N/A = not applicable. NTP = notice to proceed. PNF = Project Need Form. PRC = MassDOT's Project Review Committee. RSA = Road Safety Audit. SB = southbound. TBD = to be determined.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Table A-2
FFYs 2026–30 Regional Target Projects and Their Relationships to Plans and Performance Measures
| ID | Project Name | MPO Investment Program | Project Description | MPO Muncipalities | Programming Year (FFY) | Planning Relationships | Relationoships to Performance Measures |
| 609211 | Peabody–Independence Greenway Extension | Bicycle and Pedestrian | Extend the Independence Greenway from the North Shore Mall to central Peabody. | Peabody | 2024 | This project will extend the MassDOT Off-Street High Comfort Bike Network, as identified in the 2019 Massachusetts Bicycle Plan. | This project is expected to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. It will create more than a mile of bike trail network and bring the Independence Greenway’s total length to eight miles. By extending the region’s bicycle network, this project is expected to increase non-SOV travel. It is also expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 610544 | Peabody–Multi-Use Path Construction of Independence Greenway at Interstate 95 and Route 1 | Bicycle and Pedestrian | Construct a new multi-use paved path along the abandoned railbed between two existing segments of the Independence Greenway in Peabody and create a connection to the existing Border to Boston trailhead at Lowell Street. | Peabody | 2025 | This project will extend the MassDOT Off-Street High Comfort Bike Network, as identified in the 2019 Massachusetts Bicycle Plan. | This project will create nearly two miles of multi-use trail, connect other segments of the Independence Greenway, and create a link to the Border to Boston trail. By connecting these sections of the regional bike network, this project is expected to increase non-SOV travel. Improved signalization near ramps to Route 1 may help facilitate motorized and nonmotorized traffic flow and reduce PHED on this NHS corridor. This project is also expected to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| S12114 | Canton–Royall Street Shuttle | Community Connections | Establish a shuttle service connecting Canton’s Royall Street employment cluster with the MBTA Route 128 commuter rail station and Ashmont, Mattapan Trolley, and Quincy Adams rapid transit stations. | Canton | 2023–24 | N/A | This project may increase non-SOV travel by providing a new transit option. It may reduce PHED and improve reliability on the NHS by providing an alternative to SOV travel on NHS routes in Canton. It is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| S12700 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA)–CATA On Demand Microtransit Service Expansion | Community Connections | Expand existing CATA On Demand microtransit service to Rockport and to an additional neighborhood in Gloucester, and to help customers reach a wider array of essential destinations. | Gloucester, Rockport | 2023–25 | N/A | This project may increase non-SOV travel by expanding CATA’s microtransit service to new areas and supporting its ability to serve customers beyond those commuting to transit or specific employment centers. It may reduce PHED and improve reliability on the NHS by providing an alternative to SOV travel on NHS routes in Gloucester and Rockport. This project is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| S12701 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA) –CatchConnect Microtransit Service Expansion | Community Connections | Expand MWRTA’s CatchConnect microtransit service to Hudson and Marlborough, which will support connections to MWRTA’s fixed-route network. | Hudson, Marlborough | 2023–25 | N/A | This project may increase non-SOV travel by expanding microtransit service to new areas. It may reduce PHED and improve reliability on the NHS by providing an alternative to SOV travel on NHS routes in Hudson and Marlborough. This project is expected to help reduce CO2 emissions. |
| S12703 | Montachusett Regional Transit Authority (MART) –MART Microtransit Service | Community Connections | Establish an on-demand microtransit service that will serve Bolton, Boxborough, Littleton, and Stow. | Bolton, Boxborough, Littleton, and Stow | 2023–25 | N/A | This project may increase non-SOV travel by providing a new transit option. It may reduce PHED and improve reliability on the NHS by providing an alternative to SOV travel on NHS routes in Boxborough, Bolton, Littleton, and Stow. It is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| S12694 | Newton–NewMo Microtransit Service Expansion | Community Connections | Expand an existing Newton-wide microtransit service (see project S12125) to include stops in six neighboring municipalities. | Newton [adding service to Boston, Needham, Waltham Watertown, Wellesley, and Weston] | 2023–25 | N/A | This project may increase non-SOV travel by expanding the reach of Newton’s existing microtransit service. It may reduce PHED and improve reliability on the NHS by providing an alternative to SOV travel on NHS routes in multiple MPO communities. This project is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 606453 | Boston–Improvements on Boylston Street | Complete Streets | Improve the roadway cross section, signals, and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in the project corridor. | Boston | 2025 | N/A | The project area overlaps a 2017–19 HSIP all-mode crash cluster location, a 2010–19 HSIP bicycle crash cluster location, and a 2010–19 HSIP pedestrian crash cluster location. The project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It will improve more than two lane miles of substandard NHS pavement, will address reliability needs on an unreliable NHS segment, and may also reduce PHED on that segment. It will improve substandard sidewalks and add bicycle lanes in the project corridor; these features are expected to increase non-SOV travel. The project is also expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 610932 | Brookline–Rehabilitation of Washington Street | Complete Streets | Replace signals, reconstruct sidewalks and pavement, and provide protected bicycle facilities and dedicated bus pull-out spaces in the Washington Street corridor between Washington Square and Brookline Village. | Brookline | 2027 | N/A | The project area overlaps two 2010–19 HSIP bicycle crash cluster locations and a 2010–19 HSIP pedestrian crash cluster location. The project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It will improve substandard sidewalks, implement bicycle lanes, upgrade signals to include TSP, and add bus shelters to the corridor; these features are expected to increase non-SOV travel. The project is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 611983 | Chelsea–Park and Pearl Street Reconstruction | Complete Streets | Improve safety and mobility on Park and Pearl Street by improving signals and roadway geometry, reconstructing sidewalks, and adding bicycle facilities. | Chelsea | 2027 | N/A | The project area overlaps a 2017–19 HSIP all-mode crash cluster location, a 2010–19 HSIP bicycle crash cluster location, and two 2010–19 HSIP pedestrian crash cluster locations. The project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. The project will reconstruct sidewalks, improve bicycle amenities, and implement TSP; these features are expected to increase non-SOV travel. The project is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 608007 | Cohasset, Scituate– Corridor Improvements and Related Work on Justice Cushing Highway (Route 3A) from Beechwood Street to Henry Turner Bailey Road | Complete Streets | Improve the corridor from the Beechwood Street intersection to the Cohasset/Scituate town line. Upgrade traffic signal equipment, make geometric modifications at intersections, and provide bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. | Cohasset, Scituate | 2024 | This project location was studied in “Route 3A Subregional Priority Roadway Study in Cohasset and Scituate” (CTPS, 2014). | The project area overlaps a 2017–19 HSIP all-mode crash cluster location and the project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It is expected to add sidewalks and bicycle lanes in the project corridor, which may encourage non-SOV travel. The project is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 609257 | Everett– Rehabilitation of Beacham Street, from Route 99 to Chelsea City Line | Complete Streets | Reconstruct Beacham Street to reduce vehicular collisions and improve bicycle and pedestrian travel. | Everett | 2025 | N/A | This project is expected to improve transportation safety, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It will improve substandard sidewalks and include a shared-use path—both features may encourage non-SOV travel and improve safety performance. The project is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 605168 | Hingham–Intersection Improvements at Route 3A/Summer Street Rotary | Complete Streets | Improve multimodal access between Hingham Center, residential areas, and Hingham Harbor and make safety improvements, including by establishing a small roundabout at the intersection of Route 3A and Summer Street. | Hingham | 2025 | This project location was studied in “Summer Street/George Washington Boulevard Subregional Priority Roadway Study in Hingham and Hull” (CTPS, 2016). | The project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It will improve more than a lane mile of substandard pavement on the NHS, and the geometric improvements included in the project are expected to help reduce delay and potentially PHED on the NHS. The project is expected to improve substandard sidewalks, add new sidewalks, and add bicycle accommodations, including a shared-use path. These features may support increases in non-SOV travel. The project is also expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 605743 | Ipswich–Resurfacing and Related Work on Central and South Main Streets | Complete Streets | Reconstruct the roadway between Mineral Street and Poplar Street to improve the roadway surface. Make minor geometric improvements at intersections, include pedestrian crossings, and improve sidewalks. | Ipswich | 2026 | N/A | The project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It will improve more than a lane mile of substandard pavement on the NHS. It will upgrade substandard sidewalks, and it is expected to add bicycle lanes; both features may encourage non-SOV travel. The project is also expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 609054 | Littleton–Reconstruction of Foster Street | Complete Streets | Add turning lanes, consolidate curb cuts, and improve bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular accommodations in the project corridor. | Littleton | 2024 | N/A | The project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It will include a shared-use path, which is expected to increase non-SOV travel. This project is also expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 609252 | Lynn–Rehabilitation of Essex Street | Complete Streets | Make key bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements and operational improvements, such as signal upgrades, in the project corridor. | Lynn | 2025 | N/A | The project area overlaps five 2017–19 all-mode HSIP crash cluster locations and three 2010–19 HSIP pedestrian crash cluster locations. The project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. Planned improvements to signals and roadway geometry in the corridor may help improve reliability on nearby unreliable NHS segments and may also reduce PHED on those segments. It is expected to reconstruct substandard sidewalks and add bicycle lanes; these features are expected to increase non-SOV travel. This project is also expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 609246 | Lynn– Reconstruction of Western Avenue | Complete Streets | Reconstruct Western Avenue between Centre Street and Eastern Avenue. Improve signal timing, intersection design, and bus stop locations. Implement bicycle and ADA-compliant pedestrian improvements. | Lynn | 2027-2028 | N/A | The project area overlaps five 2017–19 all-mode HSIP crash cluster locations, two 2010–19 HSIP pedestrian crash cluster locations and one 2010–19 HSIP bicycle crash cluster location. The project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians, and it will improve nearly 4 lane miles of substandard pavement on the NHS. The signal improvements included in the project are expected reduce delay and may help reduce PHED and improve reliability on the NHS. It will reconstruct sidewalks and add bike lanes, TSP, and bus amenities; these features are expected to increase non-SOV travel. This project is also expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 608045 | Milford–Rehabilitation on Route 16, from Route 109 to Beaver Street | Complete Streets | Improve vehicular safety and traffic flow through the implementation of a road diet, additional roadway reconstruction, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, and enhanced signalization on Route 16 (East Main Street) from Route 109 (Medway Road) to Beaver Street. | Milford | 2026 | N/A | The project area overlaps a 2017–19 all-mode HSIP crash cluster location, and the project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. The project is also expected to upgrade substandard sidewalks, add new sidewalks, and add shared-use paths; these features are expected to increase non-SOV travel. |
| 110980 | Newton, Weston– Commonwealth Avenue (Route 30) over the Charles River | Complete Streets | Replace a deteriorated bridge over the Charles River. Reconstruct the Route 30 corridor in the vicinity of the I-95 and I-90 interchange, including several I-95 on-ramps. Improve sidewalks and pedestrian amenities, add a bike lane, and develop a segment of shared-use path along the Charles River. | Newton, Weston | 2024 | N/A | The project area overlaps a 2017–19 all-mode HSIP crash cluster locations and the project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It will replace a deteriorated NHS bridge structure and will improve one lane mile of substandard pavement on the NHS. Signal and geometric improvements on Route 30 and reconfiguration of the I-95 ramps may reduce PHED and improve reliability on the NHS. The shared-use path, sidewalk improvements, and bike lane included in the project are expected to increase non-SOV travel. This project is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 609432 | Salem–Boston Street Improvements | Complete Streets | Incorporate complete streets elements and a separated bicycle path into the corridor. Add a new signal at Boston Street and Aborn Street and upgrade existing signals at other intersections along the corridor. | Salem | 2026 | N/A | The project area overlaps a 2010–19 HSIP pedestrian crash cluster location, and the project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It is expected to improve more than a lane mile of substandard NHS pavement. The project includes signal and geometry improvements and is expected to reduce delay, which may reduce PHED and improve reliability on the NHS. It will implement sidewalks on both sides of the corridor and add separated bicycle facilities; these features are expected to increase non-SOV travel. This project is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 609437 | SALEM- PEABODY- BOSTON STREET IMPROVEMENTS | Complete Streets | Incorporate complete streets elements and a separated bicycle path into the corridor. Add a new signal at Boston Street and Aborn Street and upgrade existing signals at other intersections along the corridor. | Salem | 2026 | N/A | The project area overlaps a 2010–19 HSIP pedestrian crash cluster location, and the project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It is expected to improve more than a lane mile of substandard NHS pavement. The project includes signal and geometry improvements and is expected to reduce delay, which may reduce PHED and improve reliability on the NHS. It will implement sidewalks on both sides of the corridor and add separated bicycle facilities; these features are expected to increase non-SOV travel. This project is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 610662 | Woburn–Roadway and Intersection Improvements at Woburn Common, Route 38 (Main Street), Winn Street, Pleasant Street, and Montvale Avenue | Complete Streets | Improve safety and congestion within the Woburn Common area by making safety and operational improvements, reconfiguring the Woburn Common rotary, and reconstructing and realigning roadways. The project will also reconstruct sidewalks, add bike lanes, and upgrade or add signals in the area. | Woburn | 2026 | N/A | The project area overlaps a 2017–19 all-mode HSIP crash cluster location and a 2010–19 HSIP pedestrian crash cluster location. The project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It is expected to improve nearly two lane miles of substandard pavement on the NHS. Signal and geometric improvements included in the project may improve reliability on unreliable NHS segments within the project area and potentially reduce PHED. The project will reconstruct sidewalks to support pedestrian safety and mobility. It is also expected to include bicycle accommodations and to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 603739 | Wrentham (MassDOT)– Construction of Interstate 495/Route 1A Ramps | Complete Streets | Construct ramps at the interchange of Route 1A and Interstate 495 to accommodate increased traffic volumes resulting from nearby development. | Wrentham | 2024 | This project area was studied as part of “Route 1A Corridor Study in Wrentham” (CTPS, 2017). | The project area overlaps two 2017–19 all-mode HSIP crash cluster locations and the project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. The project is expected to reduce vehicle delay and may support reductions of PHED on nearby NHS roadways. It will add sidewalks and bicycle lanes, which may support non-SOV travel. It is also expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 608436 | Ashland–Rehabilitation and Rail Crossing Improvements on Cherry Street | Intersection Improvements | Improve the safety features on Cherry Street and Main Street to establish a Federal Railroad Administration Quiet Zone surrounding the railroad crossings on those two roadways. Install roadway medians, enhance existing railroad crossing signals and gates, reconstruct pavement, construct sidewalks, and improve drainage in the project area. | Ashland | 2025 | N/A | The project is expected to improve safety performance at a railroad crossing location, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. |
| 608067 | Woburn–Intersection Reconstruction at Route 3 (Cambridge Road) and Bedford Road and South Bedford Street | Intersection Improvements | Reconstruct the intersection and all traffic signal equipment. Enhance roadway geometry to provide exclusive turn lanes for intersection approaches. Reconstruct existing sidewalks, construct new sidewalks, and add bicycle lanes and ADA-compliant bus stops, where feasible. | Woburn | 2025 | N/A | The project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. The project is expected to improve existing sidewalks and add new sidewalks at the intersection, as well as add new bike lanes; all of these features may encourage non-SOV travel. The geometric improvements included in the project are expected to help reduce delay and potentially PHED on nearby NHS routes. The project is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 605857 | Norwood–Intersection Improvements at Route 1 and University Avenue/Everett Street | Intersection Improvements | Upgrade traffic signals and make associated geometric improvements at the intersection of Route 1, University Avenue and Everett Street. Construct an additional travel lane in each direction on Route 1, lengthen left-turn lanes, upgrade pedestrian crossings and bicycle amenities, and rehabilitate sidewalks. | Norwood, Westwood | 2026-2027 | The Route 1 corridor in Norwood is identified as a priority bottleneck in the Destination 2040 Needs Assessment. This location was studied in “Route 1 at Everett Street and University Avenue” (CTPS, 2014). | The project area overlaps a 2017–19 all-mode HSIP crash cluster location and the project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It is expected to improve nearly three lane miles of pavement on the NHS. Signal and geometric improvements included in the project may improve reliability on unreliable NHS segments within the project area and potentially reduce PHED. The project will improve substandard sidewalks and add new sidewalks and bicycle accommodations, all of which may encourage non-SOV travel. It is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 608940 | Weston–Intersection Improvements at Boston Post Road (Route 20) at Wellesley Street | Intersection Improvements | Address safety, congestion, and connectivity concerns at the intersection of Route 20, Boston Post Road, and Wellesley Street by installing a new signal system, implementing geometric improvements, replacing and adding sidewalks, and adding bicycle lanes. | Weston | 2026 | This project intersects a priority bottleneck location identified in the Destination 2040 Needs Assessment. | The project area overlaps a 2017–19 all-mode HSIP crash cluster location and the project is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. Signal and geometric improvements included in the project may improve reliability on unreliable NHS segments within the project area and potentially reduce PHED. The project will improve and add sidewalks and add bicycle lanes; these features may encourage non-SOV travel. It is expected to reduce CO2 and other transportation-related emissions. |
| 607981 | Somerville–McGrath Boulevard Reconstruction | Major Infrastructure: Roadway | Remove the existing McCarthy Viaduct and replace it with an at-grade urban boulevard. Rationalize intersections, improve signalization, and create off-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Improve bus operations by installing floating/in-lane bus stops, transit signal priority, and bus queue-jump lanes at key intersections. | Somerville | 2027-2028 | This project is included in Destination 2040, the MPO’s LRTP. This project changes network capacity and is considered regionally significant for air quality modeling. | The project area overlaps a 2017–19 all-mode HSIP crash cluster location, a 2010–19 HSIP pedestrian crash cluster location, and a 2010–19 HSIP bicycle crash cluster location. It is expected to improve safety performance, including for bicyclists and pedestrians. It will improve one NHS bridge and improve more than four lane miles of substandard pavement on the NHS. The geometric and signal improvements included in the project may reduce PHED and improve reliability on this portion of the NHS network. The project will improve bus operations and amenities, reconstruct and reconfigure sidewalks, and add off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities; these features are expected to increase non-SOV travel. It was analyzed as part of a set of recommended LRTP projects, and MPO staff estimate that this set will decrease CO2 emissions in the region compared to a no-build scenario. |
| 613088 | MALDEN - SPOT POND BROOK GREENWAY | Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections | The Spot Pond Brook Greenway is a proposed shared-use path connecting Malden's Oak Grove neighborhood with the Northern Strand Community Trail and Malden River via downtown Malden. The 1.1 mile, 11 foot wide shared-use path will replace existing sidewalk infrastructure and narrow roadway widths to accommodate the new bicycle/pedestrian facility on existing right-of-way. The project will also install wayfinding signage on existing roadway facilities to connect the northern terminus of the path at Coytemore Lea Park with the Oak Grove MBTA station. | MALDEN | 2027 | This project includes sections of the Mystic Highlands Greenway, a regional trail connection initiative. | This project includes a 2017-19 bicycle HSIP crash cluster location and will improve the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians throughout the project area. The project will also improve connectivity to MBTA bus and rail transit facilities. |
| 610691 | NATICK- COCHITUATE RAIL TRAIL EXTENSION, FROM MBTA STATION TO MECHANIC STREET | Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections | Construction of a shared-use bridge to connect the Cochituate Rail Trail to Route 27. Improvements to multimodal connectivity at Natick Center commuter rail station. Project would be the final extension of the Cochituate Rail Trail. | NATICK | 2028 | This project finalizes the Cochituate Rail Trail with a direct connection into a new MBTA Natick Center Commuter Rail Station. The development of the project coordinated with the MBTA and with MassDOT, which at the time of project evaluation was implementing additional bicycle network enhancements as part of its Route 27 reconstruction. | This project constructs a new grade-separated facility as part of the Cochituate Rail Trail to establish safe pedestriana nd bicycle connections between MBTA Commuter Rail facilities and downtown Natick into the Cochituate Rail Trail. |
| 608158 | WESTWOOD- NORWOOD- RECONSTRUCTION OF CANTON STREET TO UNIVERSITY DRIVE, INCLUDING REHAB OF N-25-032=W-31-018 | Complete Streets | The project will install new pedestrian sidewalks on the west side of the roadway and a shared-use path on the east side of the roadway. These facilities are being constructed where no dedicated facilities currently exist to improve multimodal accessibility to area residences, employment centers, and open space. Bridge N25032 will be replaced for improved multimodal access and freight rail clearance beneath. The project improves roadway geometry for all vehicles, including visibility improvements on five curves for stopping sight distance, the addition of truck apron turn lanes, and median installation. High-visibility crosswalks and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) will be added in seven locations. New medians will function as pedestrian refuges. New or relocated street lighting will be mounted on utility poles. Reflective signing and markers will be improved. | WESTWOOD | 2027 | N/A | This project replaces the deck of an NHS bridge structure and improves the clearance of the superstructure to facilitate freight movement. The project creates safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities along Canton Street, which lacks any facilities at the time of project programming. These multimodal facilities improve access to nearby transit facilities at the Route 128 / University Park MBTA and Amtrak station. |
| 612989 | BOSTON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, B-16-066 (38D), CAMBRIDGE STREET OVER MBTA | Complete Streets | Replace superstructure of a major bridge over the MBTA Orange Line, commuter rail, Amtrak lines, and Interstate 93. Pursue state-of-good-repair investments to avoid closures and limit impacts to nearby projects (for example, projects on Mystic Avenue, Maffa Way, Rutherford Avenue, and McGrath Highway). Enhance multimodal accessibility for a key link to Sullivan Square MBTA station, including expanding bus facility access. | BOSTON | 2026 | This project is consistent with the City of Boston's Sullivan Square Design Project. | This project replaces the deck and superstructure of an NHS bridge structure over MBTA, Amtrak, and freight rail and beneath Interstate 93. The new bridge will support a westbound bus lane to facilitate improved transit connectivity between Boston's Charlestown neighborhood and Somerville. |
| 613145 | WAKEFIELD- COMPREHENSIVE DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET RECONSTRUCTION | Complete Streets | Complete Streets enhancements to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety along a major local economic generator. Traffic signal upgrade at the intersection of Church and Salem Streets with geometry adjustments to improve turn radii and reduce emergency response times. Pedestrian signal upgrades, new crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, installation of a shared-use-path, and new pedestrian lighting. Partial closure of Common Street to thru-traffic to improve pedestrian accessibility for Upper and Lower Common open space. | WAKEFIELD | 2028 | This project includes sections of the Mystic Highlands Greenway, a regional trail connection initiative. | This project implements complete streets enhancements and traffic calming measures along a section of NHS roadway to complement investments in transit-oriented-development in Wakefield. These investments are also part of a larger regional investment in trails and bicycle paths for the Mystic Highlands Greenway, and the project provides for connectivity into the future Wakefield-Lynnfield Rail Trail. |
| S12807 | MWRTA CATCHCONNECT MICTROTRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION PHASE 2 | Community Connections | Expansion of the CatchConnect microtransit program within the municipalities of Framingham and Natick on weeknights during evening hours. CatchConnect would be available within these communities between approximately 7:30 PM and 10:30 PM Monday through Friday, providing a supplemental public transportation resource following the conclusion of traditional fixed-route service. | MWRTA | 2024-2026 | Expansion of microtransit services in underserved transit areas is highlighted in the MPO's Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation (HST) Plan. CTPS has also conducted studies regarding MicroTransit with favorable recommendations for MWRTA in the past. | This project will reduce CO2 emissions by reducing SOV travel by providing for expanded service hours and area for microtransit. |
| S12802 | LYNN- BROAD STREET CORRIDOR TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY | Community Connections | Upgrade traffic signal equipment at seven signalized intersections to improve safety and efficiency for all modes of transportation along one of the busiest corridors in Lynn. | LYNN | 2024 | Destination 2040 cites Downtown Lynn as a priority area for reducing pedestrian crash-cluster incidents (Page 4). Parts of Broad Street are included in the ongoing MBTA North Shore Busway Study, programmed in FFY 2023 of the UPWP. | This project will reduce SOV travel and CO2 emissions by making transit improvements that improve the reliability and operability of multiple MBTA bus routes along a high-priority bus transit corridor in Lynn. |
| S12803 | MEDFORD BICYCLE PARKING - TIER 1 | Community Connections | Purchase and install 40 bicycle racks to create 80 additional bicycle parking spaces | MEDFORD | 2024 | Destination 2040 Vision, Goals, and Objectives cities supporting funding bicycle networks with the aim to create a connected network of bicycle facilities to achieve the goal of Capacity Management and Mobility. (Needs Assesment 6-83) | This project implements additional bicycle parking at numerous areas throughout Medford to facilitate active transportation usage at key public spaces and commercial centers. |
| S12804 | MEDFORD BLUEBIKES EXPANSION | Community Connections | Purchase and installation of four Bluebikes docks and 25 Bluebikes for the City of Medford’s Bluebikes network | MEDFORD | 2024 | N/A | This project invests in the expansion of the regional bikeshare network, including additional expansion of Medford's Bluebikes facilities to provide for additional connections in MBTA rapid transit facilities. |
| S12805 | CANTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS BIKE PROGRAM | Community Connections | Installation of bidirectional bicycle lanes on Dedham Street. Purchase and installation of bicycle racks at three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. | CANTON | 2024 | N/A | This project will reduce CO2 emissions by providing for new bicycle storage facilities for students of Canton's public schools to encourage mode shift and complement additional municipal investments in the bicycle network to provide for safe travel for vulnerable roadway users. |
| S12806 | CANTON CENTER BICYCLE RACKS | Community Connections | Purchase and installation of bicycle racks in downtown Canton and at the Canton Center MBTA station. | CANTON | 2024 | Destination 2040 Vision, Goals, and Objectives cities supporting funding bicycle networks with the aim to create a connected network of bicycle facilities to achieve the goal of Capacity Management and Mobility. Bicycle Parking Capacity and Utilization: 2009-10 Inventory, Boston Region MPO/CTPS noted that bicycle parking is provided at both commuter rail stations. At Canton Center the small bicycle parking is at full utilization, while at Canton Junction the large bicycle parking is not utilized. | This project reduces CO2 emissions by adding new bicycle parking facilities at key commuter rail facilities in downtowon Canton to better accomodate intermodal connectivity. |
| S12823 | BOSTON ELECTRIC BLUEBIKES ADOPTION | Community Connections | Purchase of 272 electric bikes (e-bikes) and 136 spare batteries for the City of Boston’s Bluebikes network | Boston | 2024 | N/A | This project is part of a larger regional investment in modernizing and expanding the regional Bluebikes bikeshare system and network, in addition to integrating electric vehicles to improve the accessibility and versatility of the network for all users. |
| S12824 | CAMBRIDGE ELECTRIC BLUEBIKES ADOPTION | Community Connections | Purchase of 90 new e-bikes and 45 spare batteries for the City of Cambridge’s Bluebikes network. | Cambridge | 2024 | N/A | This project is part of a larger regional investment in modernizing and expanding the regional Bluebikes bikeshare system and network, in addition to integrating electric vehicles to improve the accessibility and versatility of the network for all users. |
| 613121 | EVERETT- TARGETED MULTI-MODAL AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 16 | Intersection Improvements | This project will make targeted safety enhancements along Route 16 in Everett with a focus on enhanced multimodal accessibility along the corridor. | MassDOT | 2027 | N/A | This project makes specific and targeted investments in multimodal accessibility along a major NHS facility with significant usage for the Inner Core of the region. |
| S12818 | ACTON PARKING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | Community Connections | This project will implement digital parking management products to improve the efficiency of permitting and enforcement processes at five commuter parking lots surrounding the MBTA South Acton commuter rail station. These highly utilized lots provide nearly 500 parking spaces. The project will support the transition from a paper-based parking management system to a cloud-based one that will be more convenient for commuters and Acton’s parking management team. | Acton | 2024 | N/A | This project leverages intelligent transportation systems to better utilize and manage the existing capacity of parking facilities in Acton to better connect residents with parking opportunities at Commuter Rail facilities and facilitate mode shift. |
| 609532 | CHELSEA- TARGETED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED WORK ON BROADWAY, FROM WILLIAMS STREET TO CITY HALL AVENUE | Intersection Improvements | The project will include corridor wide safety improvements targeted at reducing incidents for all users. Standard safety countermeasures such as improved signage, lighting, traffic calming streetscape elements, curb extensions, signal upgrades (where applicable) and other countermeasures may be incorporated. In addition, it is expected that the corridor’s pavement, sidewalks and bus transit amenities will be improved or replaced. | MassDOT | 2025 | N/A | This project is located at a Top 200 crash location and will implement safety improvements for all users of the roadway. The project will reduce CO2 emissions. |
| S12819 | JACKSON SQUARE STATION ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS | Transit Modernization | Includes construction of new elevator, modernization of existing elevator, lighting improvements, and various state of good repair improvements to the station. | MBTA | 2024-2025 | This project is part of the MBTA's larger System-Wide Accessibility project portfolio. | This project provides for the maintenance and modernization of existing rapid transit facilities to encourage mode shift and support system reliability for the MBTA's Orange Line. |
| S12821 | RAIL TRANSFORMATION - EARLY ACTION ITEMS - READING STATION AND WILBUR INTERLOCKING | Transit Modernization | Addition of a turn track at Reading Station and improvements to the siding at Wilbur Interlocking on the Lowell Line to enable 30 minute headways in the short term and higher frequencies with electrified rolling stock. • Improvements would reduce conflicts with freight and the Amtrak Downeaster while facilitating bus integration. | MBTA | 2024 | This project implements early term action items for a new program in the MBTA's 2024-2028 Capital Investment Plan. | This project maintains commuter rail facilities and provides for additional signal and track improvements to increase the capacity of rail infrastructure. These capacity enhancements allow for reductions in headways and establish a foundation for future electrification efforts for the rail network. |
| S12822 | COLUMBUS AVE BUS LANE PHASE II | Transit Modernization | Building on Phase 1, Phase 2 of the project includes bus-only lanes, transit signal priority, improvements to bus stops and shelters along Columbus Ave. and Tremont St., and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections. • New project elements include green infrastructure to promote traffic calming and reduce impervious surfaces. | MBTA | 2024 | This project builds upon completed Phase 1 work along Columbus Avenue that was performed by the MBTA and City of Boston. | The project improves bus transit along Columbus Avenue in Boston to provide for rapid and reliable connectivity for bus routes running parralel to the MBTA's Orange Line facilities. This project also establishes connections into those facilities for buses, and improves bicycle and pedestrian safety along the route. |
| S12820 | BIKESHARE STATE OF GOOD REPAIR SET-ASIDE | Community Connections | This line item sets aside funding to support Bikeshare investments within the Community Connections program. Example uses of this set-aside include bikeshare system expansion, as well as replacement and upgrades to existing stations. | CTPS | 2025-2028 | This funding implements a recommendation that will be made in the MPO's upcoming LRTP, Destination 2050, regarding the establishment of dedicated funding to support Bikeshare investment throughout the region. | This line item will ensure the maintenance and modernization of existing bikeshare infrastructure within the Boston Region while providing additional funding resources for expansion into neighboring municipalities. |
| S12825 | PROJECT DESIGN SUPPORT PILOT | Project Design Support Pilot | Set-aside funding to support the Project Design Support Pilot program, which is planned to launch in the FFY 202529 TIP. | CTPS | 2025 | In tandem with previous MPO discussions, namely the TIP Project Cost Ad Hoc Committee, this line item will empower municipalities to reach the 25% design threshold for projects by allocating additional resources to fund project design. | This line item will ensure the readiness and sustainability of project delivery by providing municipalities with a competitive opportunity to utilize additional resources to fund project design and development. |
Notes: HSIP cluster locations are identified by MassDOT. Substandard pavement and sidewalk designations are based on data provided by MassDOT and project proponents and on MPO assessments conducted for TIP evaluations. The estimated lane miles of substandard NHS pavement improved is based on MPO staff’s assessment of pavement condition in the project area and their assessment of the portion of the project on the NHS. The IRI thresholds used to classify pavement are based on the TIP criteria the MPO adopted in 2020: less than 95 is good, 95 to 170 is fair, and greater than 170 is poor.
* The MPO is contributing funds to this project, which is generally funded by MassDOT or the MBTA.
AAB = Architectural Access Board. ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act. CO2 = carbon dioxide. CTPS = Central Transportation Planning Staff. FFY = federal fiscal year. HSIP = Highway Safety Improvement Program. IRI = International Roughness Index. MassDOT = Massachusetts Department of Transportation. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MCRT = Mass Central Rail Trail. MPO = metropolitan planning organization. N/A = not applicable. NHS = National Highway System. PHED = peak hours of excessive delay. SOV = single-occupancy vehicle. TSP = transit signal priority.
Source: Boston Region MPO staff.
Table A-3
FFYs 2026–30 TIP Project Evaluation Results: Multiple MPO Investment Programs
| Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections Program | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Proponent | Project Number | Project Name | MAPC Subregion | MassDOT District | Project Status | Readiness Year (Planned) | Project Cost (Adjusted) | Total Score | Total Base Score | Total Scaled Equity Score | Safety | Safety Equity Score | Mobility and Reliability | Mobility and Reliability Equity Score | Access and Connectivity | Access and Connectivity Equity Score | Resilience | Resilience Equity Score | Clean Air and Healthy Communities | Clean Air and Healthy Communities Equity Score |
| Cambridge | 613568 | Cambridge- New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Construction over Fitchburg Line at Danehy Park Connector | ICC | 6 | PRC-Approved (5/31/2024) | 2030 | $18,238,535 | 79.4 | 73.5 | 5.9 | 14.5 | 3.75 | 15 | 3 | 13 | 2.5 | 17 | 3 | 14 | 2.5 |
| Concord | 612870 | Concord- Assabet River Multi-Use Trail and Bridge Construction | MAGIC | 4 | PRC-Approved (8/29/2022) | 2030 | $9,604,800 | 55.1 | 51 | 4.1 | 14 | 3.5 | 10 | 2 | 11 | 1.25 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 1.5 |
| Newton | 613594 | Needham-Newton- Bridge Replacement on Christina Street | ICC/TRIC | 6 | PRC-Approved (10/12/2023) | 2030 | $5,551,514 | 65.6 | 61 | 4.6 | 13 | 3.5 | 12 | 2.5 | 9 | 1 | 12 | 1.5 | 15 | 3 |
| 100 | 80 | 20 | 16 | 15 | 17 | 16 | 16 | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets Program | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Proponent | Project Number | Project Name | MAPC Subregion | MassDOT District | Project Status | Readiness Year (Planned) | Project Cost (Adjusted) | Total Score | Total Base Score | Total Scaled Equity Score | Safety | Safety Equity Score | Mobility and Reliability | Mobility and Reliability Equity Score | Access and Connectivity | Access and Connectivity Equity Score | Resilience | Resilience Equity Score | Clean Air and Healthy Communities | Clean Air and Healthy Communities Equity Score |
| Bolton | 613885 | Bolton- Reconstruction of Route 117 (Main Street) from 200 feet west of John Powers Lane to the Intersection of Mechanic Street including Culvert Replacement | MAGIC | 3 | PRC-Approved (10/2/2024) | 2030 | $8,698,405 | 45.8 | 41 | 4.8 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 2.5 | 6 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 9 | 2.5 |
| Chelsea, Everett | 613585 | Chelsea-Everett- Reconstruction of Vine Street and Third Street from Chelsea Street to 2nd Street | ICC | 4 | PRC-Approved (10/12/2023) | 2030 | $13,119,298 | 67.1 | 59 | 8.1 | 14 | 6 | 12 | 5.25 | 12 | 3 | 12 | 2.25 | 9 | 3.75 |
| Framingham | S12977 | Framingham- Preliminary Design of Intersection Improvements at Route 126/135/MBTA & CSX Railroad | MWRC | 3 | Preliminary Design | 2026 | $1,400,000 | TBD | 0 | 0 | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD |
| Lexington | 613695 | Lexington- Roadway Reconstruction on Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street | MAGIC | 4 | PRC-Approved (5/31/2024) | 2030-2032 | $46,195,840 | 72.6 | 67 | 5.6 | 12 | 4 | 13 | 4 | 11 | 1 | 16 | 2 | 15 | 3 |
| Lexington | S12978 | Lexington- Design of Safety Improvements at the Interstate 95 and Route 4/225 Interchange | MAGIC | 4 | PRC-Approved (Design Only) | 2026 | $1,650,000 | TBD | 0 | 0 | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD |
| Marblehead | 612947 | Marblehead- Village Street Bridge Replacement M-04-001 | NSTF | 4 | PRC-Approved | 2030 | $5,166,582 | 37.4 | 34 | 3.4 | 6 | 2 | 11 | 3.5 | 0 | 1.5 | 6 | -1 | 11 | 2.5 |
| Melrose | 612534 | Melrose- Lebanon Street Improvement Project (Lynde Street to Malden City Line) | ICC | 4 | 25% Design Submitted | 2028(?) | $10,528,000 | 56.4 | 52 | 4.4 | 12 | 3 | 13 | 4 | 12 | 2.5 | 6 | -0.5 | 9 | 2 |
| Needham | 612536 | Needham- Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, from Webster Street to Great Plain Avenue | ICC/TRIC | 6 | PRC-Approved | 2030 | $15,776,000 | 58.9 | 52.5 | 6.4 | 9.5 | 4 | 11 | 3.5 | 12.5 | 2.5 | 5.5 | 2 | 14 | 4 |
| 100 | 80 | 20 | 16 | 19 | 15 | 14 | 16 | |||||||||||||
| Intersection Improvements Program | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Proponent | Project Number | Project Name | MAPC Subregion | MassDOT District | Project Status | Readiness Year (Planned) | Project Cost (Adjusted) | Total Score | Total Base Score | Total Scaled Equity Score | Safety | Safety Equity Score | Mobility and Reliability | Mobility and Reliability Equity Score | Access and Connectivity | Access and Connectivity Equity Score | Resilience | Resilience Equity Score | Clean Air and Healthy Communities | Clean Air and Healthy Communities Equity Score |
| Wenham | 609388 | Wenham- Safety Improvements on Route 1A | NSTF | 4 | 75% Package Received (2/8/2024) | 2028(?) | $5,337,157 | 34.4 | 32 | 2.4 | 17 | 4.5 | 9 | 2.5 | 7.5 | 1 | -4 | -2.5 | 2.5 | 0.5 |
| 100 | 80 | 20 | 25 | 18 | 14 | 12 | 11 | |||||||||||||
| Transit Transformation Program | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Proponent | Project Number | Project Name | MAPC Subregion | MassDOT District | Project Status | Readiness Year (Planned) | Project Cost (Adjusted) | Total Score | Total Base Score | Total Scaled Equity Score | Safety | Safety Equity Score | Mobility and Reliability | Mobility and Reliability Equity Score | Access and Connectivity | Access and Connectivity Equity Score | Resilience | Resilience Equity Score | Clean Air and Healthy Communities | Clean Air and Healthy Communities Equity Score |
| CATA | S12969 | CATA- Gloucester Facility Modernization | NSTF | 4 | N/A | 2026 | $312,500 | TBD | 0 | 0 | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD |
| CATA | S13202 | CATA- Automatic Passenger Counting and Automatic Vehicle Location Deployment (Transit Project ID CATA011695) | NSTF | 4 | N/A | 2026 | $680,000 | 29.4 | 26 | 3.4 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 4.5 | 9 | 2.5 | 4 | 0.5 | 2 | 1 |
| CATA | S12970 | CATA- FFY 2026 Revenue Vehicle Replacement (Bus 1001, 1002, 1201) [Transit Project ID RTD0010591] | NSTF | 4 | N/A | 2026 | $1,800,000 | TBD | 0 | 0 | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD |
| MBTA | S13152 | MBTA- Better Bus Project - Operational Safety Improvements at Bus Stops | ICC, SSC, TRIC | 4, 5, 6 | N/A | 2026 | $3,216,897 | 44.6 | 39 | 5.6 | 10 | 1 | 12 | 4 | 11 | 7.5 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1.5 |
| MBTA | S13153 | MBTA- Bus Priority and Accessibility Improvements (PATI) | Regionwide | 4, 5, 6 | N/A | 2026 | $7,000,000 | 48 | 42 | 6 | 11 | 1 | 13 | 5 | 13 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| MBTA | S13207 | MBTA- Natick Center Station Accessibility Improvements (Natick) | MWRC | 3 | Underway | 2026 | $2,500,000 | 53.6 | 47 | 6.6 | 11 | 1 | 12 | 5 | 19 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1.5 |
| MBTA | N/A | MBTA- Rail Modernization - Early Action Items: Beverly Depot Grade Crossing Elimination | NSTF | 4 | N/A | 2026 | $10,000,000 | 38 | 34 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 1.5 | 8 | 1.5 | 4 | 2 |
| MBTA | S13208 | MBTA- Wellesley Station Upgrades | MWRC | 6 | N/A | 2026 | $5,000,000 | 43.6 | 38 | 5.6 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 17 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| MBTA | S13201 | MBTA- West Broadway Ductbank Replacement | ICC | 6 | N/A | 2026 | $25,000,000 | 23.8 | 21 | 2.8 | 3 | 0.5 | 9 | 3.5 | 6 | 1.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 2 | 1 |
| MBTA | S13206 | MBTA- Catamaran Overhaul | ICC, NSTF, SSC | 4, 5, 6 | N/A | 2026 | $2,634,000 | 25 | 22 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 2 | 1 |
| MWRTA | S12972 | MWRTA- CNG Vehicle Procurement Project (6 29 foot Gillig buses) | MWRC | 3 | N/A | 2026 | $4,200,000 | 52.6 | 47 | 5.6 | 8 | 1 | 12 | 4 | 14 | 5 | 5 | 0.5 | 8 | 3.5 |
| MWRTA | S12971 | MWRTA- Blandin Hub Accessible Redesign | MWRC | 3 | N/A | 2026 | $7,750,000 | 64 | 52 | 12 | 8 | 2 | 13 | 9 | 16 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 6 | 6 |
| 100 | 79 | 21 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 15 |
| Abbreviations | ||||||||||||||||||||
| CATA = Cape Ann Transportation Authority. CNG = Compressed Natural Gas. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MWRTA = MetroWest Regional Transit Authority. N/A = not applicable. PRC = MassDOT's Project Review Committee. RRFB = Rapid Reflective Flashing Beacon. TBD = To be determined. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Table A-4
FFYs 2026–30 TIP Project Evaluation Results: Community Connections Program
| Community Connections Program | |||||||||||||
| Proponent | Project Name | MAPC Subregion | MassDOT District | Project Cost | Readiness Year(s) | Cost/Point | Total Score | Connectivity | Regional and Interlocal Coordination | Plan Implementation | Transportation Equity | Climate Change Mitigation | Performance Management |
| Boston | Boston- BikeShare Replacement (20 Stations, 380 Docks) | ICC | 6 | $783,860 | 2026 | $11,119 | 70.5 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 13.5 | 13 | 10 |
| Brookline | Brookline- BikeShare Expansion (3 Stations, 10 eBikes) | ICC | 6 | $238,646 | 2026 | $3,536 | 67.5 | 11.5 | 10 | 14 | 11 | 15 | 6 |
| Cambridge | Cambridge- FFY 2026 BikeShare Replacement (7 Stations, 123 Docks) | ICC | 6 | $268,458 | 2026 | $4,099 | 65.5 | 12.5 | 6 | 14 | 10 | 16 | 7 |
| Marblehead | Marblehead- Bicycle Rack Procurement (22 Racks, 117 Spaces) | NSTF | 4 | $6,250 | 2026 | $102 | 61 | 10 | 10 | 13 | 7 | 12 | 9 |
| Newton | Newton- Bicycle Rack, Shelter, and RRFB Procurement (67 Racks, 2 Shelters, 12 RRFBs) | ICC | 6 | $473,132 | 2026 | $7,393 | 64 | 12 | 7 | 16 | 9 | 11 | 9 |
| Somerville | Somerville - FFY 2026 BikeShare Replacement (40 Bikes, 40 Docks, 10 Slabs) | ICC | 4 | $107,417 | 2026 | $1,591 | 67.5 | 11.5 | 10 | 14 | 11 | 15 | 6 |
| Chelsea | Chelsea- BikeShare Expansion (3 Stations, 28 Bikes, 3 eBikes) | NSTF | 4 | $107,785 | 2026 | $1,633 | 66 | 14 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 13 | 7 |
| Abbreviations | ||||||||||||||||||||
| CATA = Cape Ann Transportation Authority. CNG = Compressed Natural Gas. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MWRTA = MetroWest Regional Transit Authority. N/A = not applicable. PRC = MassDOT's Project Review Committee. RRFB = Rapid Reflective Flashing Beacon. TBD = To be determined. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Table A-5
FFYs 2026–30 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections Program
| MPO Goal Area | Safety: Transportation by all modes will be safe. (Up to 20 points) | |||
| Criterion | Project improves bicycle safety (up to 5 points) +5 High total effectiveness of bicycle safety improvements +3 Medium total effectiveness of bicycle safety improvements +1 Low total effectiveness of bicycle safety improvements +0 Project does not implement bicycle safety improvements | Project improves pedestrian safety (up to 5 points) +5 High total effectiveness of pedestrian safety improvements +3 Medium total effectiveness of pedestrian safety improvements +1 Low total effectiveness of pedestrian safety improvements +0 Project does not implement pedestrian safety improvements | Project improves safety for all users (up to 3 points) +3 Project includes three or more eligible multimodal safety improvements +2 Project includes two eligible multimodal safety improvements +1 Project includes one eligible multimodal safety improvement +0 Project does not include any eligible multimodal safety improvements | |
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | Bonus (up to 2 points) +2 Improves bicycle safety at bicycle HSIP cluster | Bonus (up to 2 points) +2 Improves pedestrian safety at pedestrian HSIP cluster | Bonus (up to 3 points) +3 Addresses safety at multiple all-mode HSIP clusters OR a top-200 crash location +2 Addresses safety at one all-mode HSIP cluster | |
| Equity Multiplier? | Yes | Yes | No | |
| MPO Goal Area | System Preservation: Maintain and modernize the transportation system and plan for its resiliency. (Up to 14 points) | |||
| Criterion | Project incorporates resiliency elements into its design (up to 5 points) +1 Project implements recommendation(s) as identified in a Hazard Mitigation Plan, Municipal Vulnerability Plan, or climate adaptation plan ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project improves stormwater infrastructure ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project implements innovative resiliency solutions ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project designed to meet a range of future climate projections ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project demonstrates regional coordination on resiliency | Project improves connectivity to critical facilities (up to 2 points) +2 Project improves access to critical facilities | Project improves existing pedestrian facilities (up to 5 points) +5 Existing pedestrian facilities are in poor condition and improvements are included in the project +3 Existing pedestrian facilities are in fair condition and improvements are included in the project +1 Existing pedestrian facilities are in good condition and improvements are included in the project +0 Project does not improve existing pedestrian facilities | Project improves other existing assets (up to 2 points) +2 Project improves three or more other assets +1 Project improves one or two other assets +0 Project does not meet or address criteria |
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | Penalty -1 Project is located in an existing or projected flood zone and doesn't specify how the project will address future flooding | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Equity Multiplier? | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| MPO Goal Area | Capacity Management/Mobility: Use existing facility capacity more efficiently and increase healthy transportation options. (Up to 18 points) | |||
| Criterion | Project improves pedestrian network and ADA accessibility (up to 5 points) +5 Project adds new shared-use path +3 Project adds new high-quality sidewalks +1 Project adds new standard sidewalks +0 Project does not improve pedestrian network | Project improves bicycle network (up to 5 points) +5 Project adds new separated bicycle facility (including shared-use paths) +3 Project adds new buffered bicycle facility +1 Project adds new standard bicycle facility +0 Project does not improve bicycle network | ||
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | Bonus (up to 4 points) +4 Project closes a gap in the pedestrian network +3 Project improves ADA accessibility beyond minimum required standards +2 Project creates or improves a pedestrian connection to transit +1 Project extends existing pedestrian network | Bonus (up to 4 points) +4 Project closes a gap in the bicycle network +2 Project creates or improves a bicycle connection to transit +2 Project extends existing bicycle network +1 Project makes accommodations for bicycle parking or a bicycle share station | ||
| Equity Multiplier? | Yes | Yes | ||
| MPO Goal Area | Clean Air/Sustainable Communities: Create an environmentally friendly transportation system. (Up to 14 points) | |||
| Criterion | Project reduces CO2 (up to 4 points) +4 300 or more annual tons of CO2 reduced +3 100–299 annual tons of CO2 reduced +2 50–99 annual tons of CO2 reduced +1 Less than 50 annual tons of CO2 reduced 0 No expected impact -1 Less than 50 annual tons of CO2 increased -4 50 or more annual tons of CO2 increased | Project reduces other transportation-related emissions (up to 4 points) +4 1,500 or more total annual kilograms of other emissions reduced +3 750–1499 total annual kilograms of other emissions reduced +2 250–749 total annual kilograms of other emissions reduced +1 Less than 250 total annual kilograms of other emissions reduced 0 No impact -1 Less than 250 total annual kilograms of other emissions increased -4 250 or more total annual kilograms of other emissions increased | Enhances Natural Environment (up to 4 points) +1 Project improves water quality ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project selects a design alternative that avoids impacts to sensitive natural areas ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project reduces urban heat island effect ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project increases access to parks, open space, or other natural assets | |
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | N/A | Bonus/Penalty (up to 2 points) +2 Project reduces NOx emissions in area in top 20% of regional NOx levels -2 Project increases NOx emissions in area in top 20% of regional NOx levels | Penalty -1 Project is anticipated to lead to negative environmental outcomes | |
| Equity Multiplier? | No | Yes | No | |
| MPO Goal Area | Economic Vitality: Ensure our transportation network provides a strong foundation for economic vitality. (Up to 14 points) | |||
| Criterion | Project serves sites targeted for future development (up to 4 points) +2 Project improves bicycle access to or within a site ------------------------------------------------------------------ +2 Project improves pedestrian access to or within a site | Project serves existing employment and population centers (up to 4 points) +4 Project mostly serves an existing area of concentrated development +2 Project partly serves an existing area of concentrated development +0 Project does not serve an existing area of concentrated development | Project demonstrates proponent investment (up to 2 points) +2 20 percent or more of the project cost is provided +1 Less than 20 percent of the project cost is provided +0 No non-TIP funding is provided by the project proponent | Project promotes access to affordable housing opportunities (up to 3 points) +3 10.4% or more of housing units are affordable in project area +2 6.6-10.3% of housing units are affordable in project area +1 1-6.5% of housing units are affordable in project area +0 Less than 1% of housing units are affordable in project area |
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | N/A | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project proponent supports design process through pilot project OR robust community outreach process | N/A |
| Equity Multiplier? | No | No | No | No |
| Total Base Points Possible | 80 | |||
| Total Equity Points Possible | 20 | |||
| MPO Goal Area | Safety: Transportation by all modes will be safe. (Up to 20 points) |
Table A-6
FFYs 2026–30 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Complete Streets Program
| OBJECTIVE | CRITERIA | DATA TO USE | SUBCRITERIA/SCORING |
| SCORING CRITERIA (90 possible points) | |||
| NETWORK OR CONNECTIVITY VALUE (18 points) | |||
| The primary purpose of the Community Connections Program is to close gaps in the transportation network, especially those in the first or last mile between transit and a destination. Projects will be awarded points based on how effectively a proposed project closes different types of gaps and makes travel easier or more efficient. | Connection to existing activity hubs and residential developments (9/6 points) | Application materials, CTPS GIS layers reflecting relevant destinations and employment and population density | Projects can earn points for any combination of conditions, up to the noted overall maximum. Area projects (up to 9 points) 0 If the project area includes* no dense employment concentrations, or dense residential concentrations, or Major Civic Destinations. +2 for each dense employment concentration OR dense residential concentration included in the project area, up to a maximum of 6 points +1 if the project targets a specific dense employment concentration, OR dense residential concentration, or Major Civic Destination +.25 points for each Major Civic Destination included in the project area, up to a maximum of 2 points Point projects (up to 6 points) 0 points if the project has no locations/stops within** ½ mile of a dense employment concentration OR a dense residential concentration +1 point for each location/stop within ½ mile of a dense employment concentration OR a dense residential concentration, up to a maximum of 4 points +2 points for each location/stop within ¼ mile of a dense employment concentration OR a dense residential concentration, up to a maximum of 4 points +.25 points for each location/stop within a ½ mile of a Major Civic Destination, up to a maximum of 1 point +.5 points for each location/stop within a ¼ mile of a Major Civic Destination, up to a maximum of 1 point *A project area includes a dense employment or residential concentration if it contains more than 50% of a transportation analysis zone (TAZ) that meets employment or residential density thresholds **For dense employment or residential concentrations, ”Within” is defined as the location being within the specified distance of the centroid of the relevant TAZs |
| Connection to existing transit hubs (6 points) | Application materials, CTPS GIS layers reflecting transit stops and routes | Projects can earn points for any combination of conditions, up to the noted overall maximum. Area Projects (up to 9 points) 0 if the project area does not include any transit stops for any mode +1 for each bus stop with infrequent service in the project area, up to a maximum of 4 points +2 for each commuter rail station in the project area, up to a maximum of 4 points +3 for each bus stop with frequent service in the project area, up to a maximum of 6 points +4 for each rapid transit stop in the project area, up to a maximum of 8 points Point Projects (up to 6 points) 0 If none of the project locations are within 1/2 mile of any transit stations/routes +1 if there is one bus stop with infrequent service within ½ mile of a project location +2 if there are multiple instances of a bus stop with infrequent service within ½ mile of a project location +3 if there is a commuter rail station within ½ mile of a project location +4 if there is a bus stop with frequent service within ¼ mile of a project location +5 if there are multiple instances of bus stops with frequent service within ¼ mile of a project location +6 if there is at least one rapid transit stop within ¼ mile of a project location | |
| Connection to other transportation infrastructure (6 points) | Application materials, CTPS GIS layers including bicycle infrastructure (derived from MAPC trailmap and other sources) and MassDOT road inventory with enhanced sidewalk data | Area Projects (not eligible for points in this subcriterion) n/a Point Projects (up to 6 points) 0 if none of the project locations are within 250 feet of sidewalks or protected bicycle infrastructure +1 for each project location within 250 feet of a sidewalk, up to a maximum of 2 points +1 for each project location within 250 feet of protected bicycle infrastructure, up to a maximum of 2 points +2 if any project location is within 250 feet of BOTH a sidewalk and protected bicycle infrastructure | |
| Coordination or cooperation between multiple entities (15 points) | |||
| The MPO prioritizes collaboration among different entities in the transportation planning process. Cooperative project planning and execution is particularly important for first-mile and last-mile connections of the type that the Community Connections Program is intended to facilitate. The cooperation can involve actors from both the public and private sectors. | Number of collaborating entities (15 points) | Application materials | +3 for each collaborating entity beyond the sponsor, up to a maximum of 9 points -15 for Bus Lane, TSP, or E-Ink projects that do not have a letter of support from the MBTA Additionally +3 If the project consists of collaborators from multiple sectors (i.e., public and private, or public and nonprofit) +3 If each listed collaborator has provided a formal letter of support to the MPO |
| Inclusion in and consistency with local and regional plans (15 points) | |||
| A comprehensive planning process is important to ensure that projects occur in an environment of collaboration and careful consideration rather than independently. This criterion proposes to award points based on the extent to which a proposed project has been included in prior plans at both the local and regional levels, and whether it meets the goals of those plans. | Inclusion in local plans (6 points) | Application materials, local plans | Project is scored based on the best condition it meets. +3 if the project supports a theme, idea, or concept in a local comprehensive plan or equivalent document. +6 If the project is specifically included as a need or priority in a local comprehensive plan or equivalent document |
| Inclusion in MPO plans (6 points) | Application materials, LRTP Needs Assessment, UPWP Database, MAPC plans | Project earns points for each condition met. +3 If the project is identified as a need in a current or previous LRTP Needs Assessment or another regional plan +3 if the project or a large element thereof is recommended in MPO/MAPC technical studies | |
| Inclusion in statewide plans (3 point) | Application materials, LRTP Needs Assessment | +3 If the project is included as a need or priority in MassDOT or other statewide planning studies | |
| TRANSPORTATION EQUITY (18 points) | |||
| The MPO seeks to prioritize investments that benefit equity populations, while minimizing any burdens associated with MPO-funded projects for these populations. | Serves one or more transportation equity demographics, as identified by the MPO (18 points) | Application materials, CTPS GIS layers | See detailed scoring criteria handout: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YXBvJoj2FM2UJp0qd88Ew_n_KR5OscyS/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=110620465990841651473&rtpof=true&sd=true |
| GENERATION OF MODE SHIFT (12 points) | |||
| Another primary purpose of the Community Connection Program is to enable modal shift from SOV to transit or other modes. This criterion awards points based on the project’s effectiveness at creating mode shift and/or enabling trips that were previously impossible by non-SOV modes. | Allow new trips that would not be otherwise possible without a car (12 points) | Application materials | This criterion will be scored by MPO staff based on materials and narrative provided in the project application, considering factors such as: •Whether the project competes with or complements existing transit service •If the project brings non-SOV transportation options to an area that previously had few or none •Whether the project provides complementary connections to existing non-SOV transportation services and infrastructure •Whether the project serves a particular, identified transportation purpose that includes or facilitates mode shift •If relevant, whether the project shows it has a viable path to fiscal independence at the end of the MPO grant period •Reliability of projected local or other non-MPO financial contributions •If the project serves a population that travels through the project area but does not live adjacent to or within it •The quality and innovation of the project's marketing plan, when relevant |
| DEMAND PROJECTION (12 points) | |||
| Gaining an understanding of how many transportation network users a project will reach is crucial for understanding its cost-effectiveness. | Overall demand estimate (6 points) | Application materials | 0 If the application contains no estimates of demand or usage +3 If the application contains estimates of demand or usage, but no documentation of methods used to create them or background information +6 If the application contains estimates of demand or usage that are backed by extensive documentation of methods used to create the estimates and/or other relevant background information |
| Staff evaluation of demand estimate (6 points) | Application materials | 0 If staff judge that demand/usage projections are unrealistic or not present +3 if staff judge that demand/usage projections are somewhat realistic +6 If staff judge that demand/usage projections are realistic | |
| BUDGET SHEET (10 points) | |||
| Quality of information provided (10 points) | Application materials | 0 if there is no budget sheet present or the budget sheet does not contain useful information +5 if the budget sheet is incomplete or inaccurate, but usable with work +10 if the budget sheet is completed with all necessary information | |
| Definitions Area projects: Those that are geographically defined as a polygon, rather than delivered at a particular point or points. Examples: microtransit covering an entire town, or an education project for a neighborhood. Point projects: Those that are delivered at a particular point or points and can be geographically defined as such. Examples: bike racks, fixed-route transit (the stops are the points) Population density concentration: any TAZ with more than 4,000 people per square mile. Employment density concentration: any TAZ with more than 4,000 jobs per square mile Frequent service: Follows the MBTA Service Delivery Policy. Stops with frequent service defined are defined in a CTPS layer used in pilot round CC scoring and for the Destination 2040 Needs Assessment. This layer measures frequency at the stop level rather than the route level; that is, a stop with four buses per hour, from two different routes, is considered a frequent stop. | |||
| ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act. CMAQ = Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. CTPS = Central Transportation Planning Staff. FFY = federal fiscal year. GIS = geographic information systems. GTFS = general transit feed specification. LRTP = Long-Range Transportation Plan. MAPC = Metropolitan Area Planning Council. MassDOT = Massachusetts Department of Transportation. MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization. MVP = Municipal Vulnerability Program. SOV = single occupancy vehicle. TAD = Traffic and Design. TAZ = transportation analysis zone. TIP = Transportation Improvement Program. | |||
Table A-7
FFYs 2026–30 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Intersection Improvements Program
| MPO Goal Area | Safety: Transportation by all modes will be safe. (Up to 18 points) | |||||||
| Criterion | Project addresses severe-crash location (up to 3 points) +3 EPDO value of 1000 or more +2 EPDO value of 250 to 999 +1 EPDO value of less than 250 +0 No EPDO value | Project addresses high-crash location (up to 3 points) +3 Crash rate of 6.45 or greater +2 Crash rate between 4.25 and 6.45 +1 Crash rate between 2.05 and 4.25 +0 Crash rate below 2.05 | Project addresses truck-related safety issue (up to 2 points) +2 High total effectiveness of truck safety improvements +1 Medium total effectiveness of truck safety improvements +0 Low total effectiveness or no implementation of truck safety improvements | Project improves bicycle safety (up to 2 points) +2 High total effectiveness of bicycle safety improvements +1 Medium total effectiveness of bicycle safety improvements +0 Low total effectiveness or no inclusion of bicycle safety improvements | Project improves pedestrian safety (up to 2 points) +2 High total effectiveness of pedestrian safety improvements +1 Medium total effectiveness of pedestrian safety improvements +0 Low total effectiveness or no inclusion of pedestrian safety improvements | Project improves safety for all users (up to 2 points) +2 Project includes three or more eligible multimodal safety improvements +1 Project includes one or two eligible multimodal safety improvements +0 Project does not include any eligible multimodal safety improvements | ||
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | N/A | N/A | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Improves bicycle safety at bicycle HSIP cluster | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Improves pedestrian safety at pedestrian HSIP cluster | Bonus (up to 2 points) +2 Addresses safety at multiple all-mode HSIP clusters OR a top-200 crash location +1 Addresses safety at one all-mode HSIP cluster | ||
| Equity Multiplier? | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | ||
| MPO Goal Area | System Preservation: Maintain and modernize the transportation system and plan for its resiliency. (Up to 20 points) | |||||||
| Criterion | Project incorporates resiliency elements into its design (up to 5 points) +1 Project implements recommendation(s) as identified in a Hazard Mitigation Plan, Municipal Vulnerability Plan, or climate adaptation plan ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project improves stormwater infrastructure ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project implements innovative resiliency solutions ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project designed to meet a range of future climate projections ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project demonstrates regional coordination on resiliency | Improves evacuation route (up to 1 point) +1 Project improves an evacuation route, diversion route, or alternate diversion route | Improves connectivity to critical facilities (up to 1 point) +1 Project improves access to critical facilities | Project improves existing transit assets (up to 2 points) +2 Project makes significant improvements to existing transit assets +1 Project makes moderate improvements to existing transit assets +0 Project does not modernize or improve the condition of existing transit assets | Project improves existing pedestrian facilities (up to 3 points) +3 Existing pedestrian facilities are in poor condition and improvements are included in the project +2 Existing pedestrian facilities are in fair condition and improvements are included in the project +1 Existing pedestrian facilities are in good condition and improvements are included in the project +0 Project does not improve existing pedestrian facilities | Project improves existing bridges (up to 2 points) +2 Project improves existing bridge(s) from poor to good condition through rehabilitation or replacement +1 Project improves existing bridge(s) from fair to good condition through rehabilitation or replacement 0 Project does not include bridge improvements | Project improves existing pavement condition (up to 2 points) +2 Current roadway condition is poor and pavement improvements are included in the project +1 Current roadway condition is fair and pavement improvements are included in the project +0 Current roadway condition is good | Project improves other existing assets (up to 2 points) +2 Project improves three or more other assets +1 Project improves one or two other assets +0 Project does not meet or address criteria |
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | Penalty -1 Project is located in an existing or projected flood zone and doesn't specify how the project will address future flooding | N/A | N/A | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project reduces or removes vehicle weight/height restrictions OR improves bridge on a key roadway | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project improves pavement on a key corridor OR improves roadway substructure | N/A | |
| Equity Multiplier? | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| MPO Goal Area | Capacity Management/Mobility: Use existing facility capacity more efficiently and increase healthy transportation options. (Up to 18 points) | |||||||
| Criterion | Project reduces transit passenger delay (up to 3 points) +3 Project results in significant passenger delay reductions +2 Project results in moderate passenger delay reductions +1 Project results in limited passenger delay reductions +0 Project does not make meaningful reductions in passenger delay | Project invests in New Transit Assets (up to 2 points) +2 Project makes significant investments in new transit assets +1 Project makes moderate investments in new transit assets +0 Project does not invest in new transit assets | Project improves pedestrian network and ADA accessibility (up to 3 points) +3 Project adds new sidewalks on high-utility link +2 Project adds new sidewalks on medium-utility link +1 Project adds new sidewalks on low-utility link +0 Project does not improve pedestrian network | Project improves bicycle network (up to 3 points) +3 Project adds new separated bicycle facility (including shared-use paths) +2 Project adds new buffered bicycle facility +1 Project adds new standard bicycle facility +0 Project does not improve bicycle network | Project improves truck movement (up to 2 points) +2 Project significantly improves truck movement +1 Project somewhat improves truck movement +0 Project makes minimal improvements to truck movement or does not address criteria | Project addresses unreliable corridor (up to 1 point) +1 Project addresses a corridor with a level of travel time reliability above 1.25 +0 Project does not meet or address criteria | ||
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | Bonus/Penalty (+/- up to 1 point) +1 Project invests in bus-priority infrastructure on MPO-identified priority corridor -1 Project increases transit vehicle delays or negatively impacts transit vehicle movement | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project closes a gap in the pedestrian network +1 Project enhances ADA accessibility beyond minimum required standards +1 Project creates or improves pedestrian connection to transit | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project closes a gap in the bicycle network +1 Project creates or improves a bicycle connection to transit +1 Project makes accommodations for bicycle parking or bicycle share station +1 Project is on a high-utility link | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project addresses key freight corridor or makes accommodations for freight deliveries | N/A | ||
| Equity Multiplier? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | ||
| MPO Goal Area | Clean Air/Sustainable Communities: Create an environmentally friendly transportation system. (Up to 12 points) | |||||||
| Criterion | Project reduces CO2 (up to 3 points) +3 750 or more annual tons of CO2 reduced +2 250-749 annual tons of CO2 reduced +1 Less than 250 annual tons of CO2 reduced 0 No impact -1 Less than 250 annual tons of CO2 increased -3 250 or more annual tons of CO2 increased | Project reduces other transportation-related emissions (up to 3 points) +3 1,000 or more total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced +2 250-999 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced +1 Less than 250 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced 0 No impact -1 Less than 250 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased -3 250 or more total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased | Enhances Natural Environment (up to 4 points) +1 Project improves water quality ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project selects a design alternative that avoids impacts to sensitive natural areas ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project reduces urban heat island effect ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project increases access to parks, open space, or other natural assets | |||||
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | N/A | Bonus/Penalty (up to 2 points) +2 Project reduces NOx emissions in area in top 20% of regional NOx levels -2 Project increases NOx emissions in area in top 20% of regional NOx levels | Penalty -1 Project is anticipated to lead to negative environmental outcomes | |||||
| Equity Multiplier? | No | Yes | No | |||||
| MPO Goal Area | Economic Vitality: Ensure our transportation network provides a strong foundation for economic vitality. (Up to 12 points) | |||||||
| Criterion | Project serves sites targeted for future development (up to 3 points) +1 Project improves bicycle access to or within a site ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project improves pedestrian access to or within a site ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project improves transit access to or within a site | Project serves existing employment and population centers (up to 3 points) +3 Project mostly serves an existing area of concentrated development +1 Project partly serves an existing area of concentrated development +0 Project does not serve an existing area of concentrated development | Project demonstrates proponent investment (up to 2 points) +2 20 percent or more of the project cost is provided +1 Less than 20 percent of the project cost is provided +0 No non-TIP funding is provided by the project proponent | Project promotes access to affordable housing opportunities (up to 3 points) +3 10.4% or more of housing units are affordable in project area +2 6.6-10.3% of housing units are affordable in project area +1 1-6.5% of housing units are affordable in project area +0 Less than 1% of housing units are affordable in project area | ||||
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | N/A | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project proponent supports design process through pilot project OR robust community outreach process | N/A | ||||
| Equity Multiplier? | No | No | No | No | ||||
| Total Base Points Possible | 80 | |||||||
| Total Equity Points Possible | 20 | |||||||
| Total Possible Points | 100 |
Table A-8
FFYs 2026–30 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Transit Transformation Program
| MPO Goal Area | Safety: Transportation by all modes will be safe. (Up to 21 points) | ||||||
| Criterion | Project addresses severe-crash location (up to 3 points) +3 EPDO value of 300 or more +2 EPDO value of 100 to 299 +1 EPDO value of less than 100 +0 No EPDO value | Project addresses high-crash location (up to 3 points) Signalized Intersection: +3 Crash rate of 1.69 or greater +2 Crash rate between 1.02 and 1.69 +1 Crash rate between 0.35 and 1.02 +0 Crash rate below 0.35 Unsignalized Intersection: +3 Crash rate of 1.36 or greater +2 Crash rate between 0.78 and 1.36 +1 Crash rate between 0.20 and 0.78 +0 Crash rate below 0.20 | Project addresses truck-related safety issue (up to 2 points) +2 High total effectiveness of truck safety improvements +1 Medium total effectiveness of truck safety improvements +0 Low total effectiveness or no implementation of truck safety improvements | Project improves bicycle safety (up to 3 points) +3 High total effectiveness of bicycle safety improvements +2 Medium total effectiveness of bicycle safety improvements +1 Low total effectiveness of bicycle safety improvements +0 Project does not include bicycle safety improvements | Project improves pedestrian safety (up to 3 points) +3 High total effectiveness of pedestrian safety improvements +2 Medium total effectiveness of pedestrian safety improvements +1 Low total effectiveness of pedestrian safety improvements +0 Project does not include pedestrian safety improvements | Project improves safety for all users (up to 3 points) +3 Project includes three or more eligible multimodal safety improvements +2 Project includes two eligible multimodal safety improvements +1 Project includes one eligible multimodal safety improvement +0 Project does not include any eligible multimodal safety improvements | |
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | N/A | N/A | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Improves bicycle safety at bicycle HSIP cluster | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Improves pedestrian safety at pedestrian HSIP cluster | Bonus (up to 2 points) +2 Addresses safety at multiple all-mode HSIP clusters OR a top-200 crash location +1 Addresses safety at one all-mode HSIP cluster | |
| Equity Multiplier? | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | |
| MPO Goal Area | System Preservation: Maintain and modernize the transportation system and plan for its resiliency. (Up to 17 points) | ||||||
| Criterion | Project incorporates resiliency elements into its design (up to 5 points) +1 Project implements recommendation(s) as identified in a Hazard Mitigation Plan, Municipal Vulnerability Plan, or climate adaptation plan ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project improves stormwater infrastructure ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project implements innovative resiliency solutions ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project designed to meet a range of future climate projections ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project demonstrates regional coordination on resiliency | Improves evacuation route (up to 1 point) +1 Project improves an evacuation route, diversion route, or alternate diversion route | Improves connectivity to critical facilities (up to 1 point) +1 Project improves access to critical facilities | Project improves existing transit assets (up to 2 points) +2 Project makes significant improvements to existing transit assets +1 Project makes moderate improvements to existing transit assets +0 Project does not modernize or improve the condition of existing transit assets | Project improves existing pedestrian facilities (up to 3 points) +3 Existing pedestrian facilities are in poor condition and improvements are included in the project +2 Existing pedestrian facilities are in fair condition and improvements are included in the project +1 Existing pedestrian facilities are in good condition and improvements are included in the project +0 Project does not improve existing pedestrian facilities | Project improves existing pavement condition (up to 2 points) +2 Current roadway condition is poor and pavement improvements are included in the project +1 Current roadway condition is fair and pavement improvements are included in the project +0 Current roadway condition is good | Project improves other existing assets (up to 2 points) +2 Project improves three or more other assets +1 Project improves one or two other assets +0 Project does not meet or address criteria |
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | Penalty -1 Project is located in an existing or projected flood zone and doesn't specify how the project will address future flooding | N/A | N/A | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project improves pavement on a key corridor OR improves roadway substructure | N/A | |
| Equity Multiplier? | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| MPO Goal Area | Capacity Management/Mobility: Use existing facility capacity more efficiently and increase healthy transportation options. (Up to 18 points) | ||||||
| Criterion | Project reduces transit passenger delay (up to 3 points) +3 Project results in significant passenger delay reductions +2 Project results in moderate passenger delay reductions +1 Project results in limited passenger delay reductions +0 Project does not make meaningful reductions in passenger delay | Project invests in New Transit Assets (up to 2 points) +2 Project makes significant investments in new transit assets +1 Project makes moderate investments in new transit assets +0 Project does not invest in new transit assets | Project improves pedestrian network and ADA accessibility (up to 3 points) +3 Project adds new sidewalks on high-utility link +2 Project adds new sidewalks on medium-utility link +1 Project adds new sidewalks on low-utility link +0 Project does not improve pedestrian network | Project improves bicycle network (up to 3 points) +3 Project adds new separated bicycle facility (including shared-use paths) +2 Project adds new buffered bicycle facility +1 Project adds new standard bicycle facility +0 Project does not improve bicycle network | Project improves truck movement (up to 2 points) +2 Project significantly improves truck movement +1 Project somewhat improves truck movement +0 Project makes minimal improvements to truck movement or does not address criteria | Project addresses unreliable corridor (up to 1 point) +1 Project addresses a corridor with a level of travel time reliability above 1.25 +0 Project does not meet or address criteria | |
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | Bonus/Penalty (+/- up to 1 point) +1 Project invests in bus-priority infrastructure on MPO-identified priority corridor -1 Project increases transit vehicle delays or negatively impacts transit vehicle movement | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project closes a gap in the pedestrian network +1 Project enhances ADA accessibility beyond minimum required standards +1 Project creates or improves pedestrian connection to transit | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project closes a gap in the bicycle network +1 Project creates or improves a bicycle connection to transit +1 Project makes accommodations for bicycle parking or bicycle share station +1 Project is on a high-utility link | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project addresses key freight corridor or makes accommodations for freight deliveries | N/A | |
| Equity Multiplier? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | |
| MPO Goal Area | Clean Air/Sustainable Communities: Create an environmentally friendly transportation system. (Up to 12 points) | ||||||
| Criterion | Project reduces CO2 (up to 3 points) +3 750 or more annual tons of CO2 reduced +2 250-749 annual tons of CO2 reduced +1 Less than 250 annual tons of CO2 reduced 0 No impact -1 Less than 250 annual tons of CO2 increased -3 250 or more annual tons of CO2 increased | Project reduces other transportation-related emissions (up to 3 points) +3 1,000 or more total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced +2 250-999 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced +1 Less than 250 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced 0 No impact -1 Less than 250 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased -3 250 or more total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased | Enhances Natural Environment (up to 4 points) +1 Project improves water quality ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project selects a design alternative that avoids impacts to sensitive natural areas ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project reduces urban heat island effect ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project increases access to parks, open space, or other natural assets | ||||
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | N/A | Bonus/Penalty (up to 2 points) +2 Project reduces NOx emissions in area in top 20% of regional NOx levels -2 Project increases NOx emissions in area in top 20% of regional NOx levels | Penalty -1 Project is anticipated to lead to negative environmental outcomes | ||||
| Equity Multiplier? | No | Yes | No | ||||
| MPO Goal Area | Economic Vitality: Ensure our transportation network provides a strong foundation for economic vitality. (Up to 12 points) | ||||||
| Criterion | Project serves sites targeted for future development (up to 3 points) +1 Project improves bicycle access to or within a site ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project improves pedestrian access to or within a site ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project improves transit access to or within a site | Project serves existing employment and population centers (up to 3 points) +3 Project mostly serves an existing area of concentrated development +1 Project partly serves an existing area of concentrated development +0 Project does not serve an existing area of concentrated development | Project demonstrates proponent investment (up to 2 points) +2 20 percent or more of the project cost is provided +1 Less than 20 percent of the project cost is provided +0 No non-TIP funding is provided by the project proponent | Project promotes access to affordable housing opportunities (up to 3 points) +3 10.4% or more of housing units are affordable in project area +2 6.6-10.3% of housing units are affordable in project area +1 1-6.5% of housing units are affordable in project area +0 Less than 1% of housing units are affordable in project area | |||
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | N/A | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project proponent supports design process through pilot project OR robust community outreach process | N/A | |||
| Equity Multiplier? | No | No | No | No | |||
| Total Base Points Possible | 80 | ||||||
| Total Equity Points Possible | 20 | ||||||
| Total Possible Points | 100 |
Table A-9
FFYs 2026–30 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Community Connections–Bicycle Lanes
| MPO Goal Area | Safety: Transportation by all modes will be safe. (Up to 18 points) | |||||||
| Criterion | Project addresses severe-crash location (up to 3 points) +3 EPDO value of 1000 or more +2 EPDO value of 250 to 999 +1 EPDO value of less than 250 +0 No EPDO value | Project addresses high-crash location (up to 3 points) For corridor projects: +3 Crash rate of 6.45 or greater +2 Crash rate between 4.25 and 6.45 +1 Crash rate between 2.05 and 4.25 +0 Crash rate below 2.05 ------------------------------------------------------------------ For intersection and interchange projects: Signalized Intersection: +3 Crash rate of 1.69 or greater +2 Crash rate between 1.02 and 1.69 +1 Crash rate between 0.35 and 1.02 +0 Crash rate below 0.35 Unsignalized Intersection: +3 Crash rate of 1.36 or greater +2 Crash rate between 0.78 and 1.36 +1 Crash rate between 0.20 and 0.78 +0 Crash rate below 0.20 | Project addresses truck-related safety issue (up to 2 points) +2 High total effectiveness of truck safety improvements +1 Medium total effectiveness of truck safety improvements +0 Low total effectiveness or no implementation of truck safety improvements | Project improves bicycle safety (up to 2 points) +2 High total effectiveness of bicycle safety improvements +1 Medium total effectiveness of bicycle safety improvements +0 Low total effectiveness or no inclusion of bicycle safety improvements | Project improves pedestrian safety (up to 2 points) +2 High total effectiveness of pedestrian safety improvements +1 Medium total effectiveness of pedestrian safety improvements +0 Low total effectiveness or no inclusion of pedestrian safety improvements | Project improves safety for all users (up to 2 points) +2 Project includes three or more eligible multimodal safety improvements +1 Project includes one or two eligible multimodal safety improvements +0 Project does not include any eligible multimodal safety improvements | ||
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | N/A | N/A | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Improves bicycle safety at bicycle HSIP cluster | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Improves pedestrian safety at pedestrian HSIP cluster | Bonus (up to 2 points) +2 Addresses safety at multiple all-mode HSIP clusters OR a top-200 crash location +1 Addresses safety at one all-mode HSIP cluster | ||
| Equity Multiplier? | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | ||
| MPO Goal Area | System Preservation: Maintain and modernize the transportation system and plan for its resiliency. (Up to 20 points) | |||||||
| Criterion | Project incorporates resiliency elements into its design (up to 5 points) +1 Project implements recommendation(s) as identified in a Hazard Mitigation Plan, Municipal Vulnerability Plan, or climate adaptation plan ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project improves stormwater infrastructure ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project implements innovative resiliency solutions ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project designed to meet a range of future climate projections ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project demonstrates regional coordination on resiliency | Improves evacuation route (up to 1 point) +1 Project improves an evacuation route, diversion route, or alternate diversion route | Improves connectivity to critical facilities (up to 1 point) +1 Project improves access to critical facilities | Project improves existing transit assets (up to 2 points) +2 Project makes significant improvements to existing transit assets +1 Project makes moderate improvements to existing transit assets +0 Project does not modernize or improve the condition of existing transit assets | Project improves existing pedestrian facilities (up to 3 points) +3 Existing pedestrian facilities are in poor condition and improvements are included in the project +2 Existing pedestrian facilities are in fair condition and improvements are included in the project +1 Existing pedestrian facilities are in good condition and improvements are included in the project +0 Project does not improve existing pedestrian facilities | Project improves existing bridges (up to 2 points) +2 Project improves existing bridge(s) from poor to good condition through rehabilitation or replacement +1 Project improves existing bridge(s) from fair to good condition through rehabilitation or replacement 0 Project does not include bridge improvements | Project improves existing pavement condition (up to 2 points) +2 Current roadway condition is poor and pavement improvements are included in the project +1 Current roadway condition is fair and pavement improvements are included in the project +0 Current roadway condition is good | Project improves other existing assets (up to 2 points) +2 Project improves three or more other assets +1 Project improves one or two other assets +0 Project does not meet or address criteria |
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | Penalty -1 Project is located in an existing or projected flood zone and doesn't specify how the project will address future flooding | N/A | N/A | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project reduces or removes vehicle weight/height restrictions OR improves bridge on a key roadway | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project improves pavement on a key corridor OR improves roadway substructure | N/A | |
| Equity Multiplier? | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| MPO Goal Area | Capacity Management/Mobility: Use existing facility capacity more efficiently and increase healthy transportation options. (Up to 18 points) | |||||||
| Criterion | Project reduces transit passenger delay (up to 3 points) +3 Project results in significant passenger delay reductions +2 Project results in moderate passenger delay reductions +1 Project results in limited passenger delay reductions +0 Project does not make meaningful reductions in passenger delay | Project invests in New Transit Assets (up to 2 points) +2 Project makes significant investments in new transit assets +1 Project makes moderate investments in new transit assets +0 Project does not invest in new transit assets | Project improves pedestrian network and ADA accessibility (up to 3 points) +3 Project adds new sidewalks on high-utility link +2 Project adds new sidewalks on medium-utility link +1 Project adds new sidewalks on low-utility link +0 Project does not improve pedestrian network | Project improves bicycle network (up to 3 points) +3 Project adds new separated bicycle facility (including shared-use paths) +2 Project adds new buffered bicycle facility +1 Project adds new standard bicycle facility +0 Project does not improve bicycle network | Project improves truck movement (up to 2 points) +2 Project significantly improves truck movement +1 Project somewhat improves truck movement +0 Project makes minimal improvements to truck movement or does not address criteria | Project addresses unreliable corridor (up to 1 point) +1 Project addresses a corridor with a level of travel time reliability above 1.25 +0 Project does not meet or address criteria | ||
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | Bonus/Penalty (+/- up to 1 point) +1 Project invests in bus-priority infrastructure on MPO-identified priority corridor -1 Project increases transit vehicle delays or negatively impacts transit vehicle movement | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project closes a gap in the pedestrian network +1 Project enhances ADA accessibility beyond minimum required standards +1 Project creates or improves pedestrian connection to transit | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project closes a gap in the bicycle network +1 Project creates or improves a bicycle connection to transit +1 Project makes accommodations for bicycle parking or bicycle share station +1 Project is on a high-utility link | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project addresses key freight corridor or makes accommodations for freight deliveries | N/A | ||
| Equity Multiplier? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | ||
| MPO Goal Area | Clean Air/Sustainable Communities: Create an environmentally friendly transportation system. (Up to 12 points) | |||||||
| Criterion | Project reduces CO2 (up to 3 points) +3 750 or more annual tons of CO2 reduced +2 250-749 annual tons of CO2 reduced +1 Less than 250 annual tons of CO2 reduced 0 No impact -1 Less than 250 annual tons of CO2 increased -3 250 or more annual tons of CO2 increased | Project reduces other transportation-related emissions (up to 3 points) +3 1,000 or more total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced +2 250-999 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced +1 Less than 250 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced 0 No impact -1 Less than 250 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased -3 250 or more total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased | Enhances Natural Environment (up to 4 points) +1 Project improves water quality ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project selects a design alternative that avoids impacts to sensitive natural areas ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project reduces urban heat island effect ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project increases access to parks, open space, or other natural assets | |||||
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | N/A | Bonus/Penalty (up to 2 points) +2 Project reduces NOx emissions in area in top 20% of regional NOx levels -2 Project increases NOx emissions in area in top 20% of regional NOx levels | Penalty -1 Project is anticipated to lead to negative environmental outcomes | |||||
| Equity Multiplier? | No | Yes | No | |||||
| MPO Goal Area | Economic Vitality: Ensure our transportation network provides a strong foundation for economic vitality. (Up to 12 points) | |||||||
| Criterion | Project serves sites targeted for future development (up to 3 points) +1 Project improves bicycle access to or within a site ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project improves pedestrian access to or within a site ------------------------------------------------------------------ +1 Project improves transit access to or within a site | Project serves existing employment and population centers (up to 3 points) +3 Project mostly serves an existing area of concentrated development +1 Project partly serves an existing area of concentrated development +0 Project does not serve an existing area of concentrated development | Project demonstrates proponent investment (up to 2 points) +2 20 percent or more of the project cost is provided +1 Less than 20 percent of the project cost is provided +0 No non-TIP funding is provided by the project proponent | Project promotes access to affordable housing opportunities (up to 3 points) +3 10.4% or more of housing units are affordable in project area +2 6.6-10.3% of housing units are affordable in project area +1 1-6.5% of housing units are affordable in project area +0 Less than 1% of housing units are affordable in project area | ||||
| Bonus/Penalty (if applicable) | N/A | N/A | Bonus (up to 1 point) +1 Project proponent supports design process through pilot project OR robust community outreach process | N/A | ||||
| Equity Multiplier? | No | No | No | No | ||||
| Total Base Points Possible | 80 | |||||||
| Total Equity Points Possible | 20 | |||||||
| Total Possible Points | 100 |
Table A-10
FFYs 2026–30 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Community Connections–Bicycle Racks
| Scoring Criteria | Max Points | |
| Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations. | ||
| Work locations are near to existing areas of concentrated development or public spaces. | 0 - The proposed work locations are not near to a moderate density of residential housing, commercial businesses, or public facilities. 1 - The proposed work locations are near to some mid-density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 2 - The proposed work locations are near to mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 3 - The proposed work locations are near to a combination of mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments and public facilities and open space. | 3 |
| Work locations are near to planned developments or public spaces. | 0 - No planned developments or public realm improvements are sited near the work locations. 1 - Proposed developments in the project area are limited. 2 - Numerous developments are proposed at or near work locations for the project, and include enabling land uses. 3 - All work locations are near to areas of planned development, and the types of development are supportive to demand for cycling. Alternatively, full credit may also be earned if some of the work locations are near designated areas for Transit Oriented Development, including zones for compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act. | 3 |
| Work locations for the project are situated near to transit facilities. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not located near transit stations. 1 - At least one of the proposed work locations is within 300 feet of a transit facility. 2 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility. 3 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility, and the RTA/owner of the facility has provided written support for the project. | 3 |
| Work locations for the project complement transit operating routes. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near transit routes. 1 - Only one work location in the project is located near a transit route with limited accessibility or utility to and from that point. 2 - One work location in the project is located near a major transit route, but the location provides some utility to and from that point. Or, more than one work location is near a transit route, but the locations are not well connected to one another. 3 - The proposed work locations effectively mirror one or more transit routes, and improve accessibility to and from that route. | 3 |
| The work location or locations are safely accessible by walking. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks and crosswalks. 1 - Less than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 2 - More than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 3 - All work locations are near safe, pedestrian-accessible sites that include signalized crosswalks and continuous sidewalks. | 3 |
| The work location or locations are near to safe bicycle-supportive infrastructure. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe bicycle infrastructure. 1 - Most proposed work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that does not provide physical separation for users. 2 - Most proposed work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that provides some on-road separation for users. 3 - Most or all work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that provides full physical separation, including vertical or horizontal separation, for users. | 3 |
| Connectivity Score | 18 | |
| Regional and Interlocal Coordination | ||
| The project includes a substantial public engagement process. | 0 - The municipality or municipalities applying for the project are the primary stakeholders in the project development process. 1 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged their communities for the purpose of implementing the proposed improvements, specifically entities responsible for ensuring the continuing operations of the project (ROW, local operating costs, etc.) 2 - The municipality or municipalities have held public meetings on the proposed project, in addition to the above. 3 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged stakeholders in their communities for the purpose of soliciting feedback to improve the planning and prioritization of the project, in addition to the above. 4 - The project involves a rigorous public engagement process that addresses multiple public and private groups at the local level. The public engagement process specifically led to the identification of sites included in the project. | 4 |
| The project demonstrates collaboration between different components of the municipality for site prioritization. | 0 - The applicant is not working with other business units within the municipality as part of the project. 1 - The applicant has received support from elected officials within the municipality for the project beyond the budget process. 2 - In addition to the above, the selection of sites as part of the project was performed in consultation with other municipal units, including for example school committees, Councils on Aging, Parks Departments, etc. | 2 |
| The project demonstrates collaboration between multiple municipalities. | 0 - No direct support from other municipalities is provided. 1 - The applicant is a regional organization providing bicycle parking for one or more municipalities. 2 - The project involves collaboration between one or more municipalities. | 2 |
| The project demonstrates collaboration with other state or federal agencies. | 0 - The project does not involve any direct coordination with state or federal agencies in a manner unrelated to the TIP process. 1 - The project involves a state or federal facility, and support for the applicant to improve that facility has been provided by the facility owner. The owner is not otherwise involved in the project. 2 - The project is a direct partnership between a municipality and a state or federal agency, which may be demonstrated through providing bicycle racks at State/National Parks, publicly-accessible state/federal buildings (including universities), or other facilities. | 2 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors | 0 - No direct support from private entities is listed. 2 - The project proponent coordinated with the private sector in the development of the project as part of selecting site areas. 4 - The project includes extensive support between the public and private sectors, including private funding contributions. | 4 |
| Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO | 0 - The applicant has not attached letters of support. 2 - Letters of support are attached to demonstrate fulfillment of the above criteria. | 2 |
| Coordination Score | 16 | |
| Plan Implementation: Support local, regional, and statewide planning efforts. | ||
| Project is included in local plans or studies | 0 - The project is not included in any local plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, and those documents are cited by the applicant. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a local plan or study. | 6 |
| Project is included in regional plans or studies, including those created by the Boston Region MPO and Metropolitan Area Planning Council | 0 - The project is not included in any regional plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, and the applicant cites those documents. Alternatively, the applicant developed this project or identified the need being addressed by the project through direct consultation with MAPC or a similar body. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a regional plan or study, or is located at a regionally significant junction for the Bluebikes network as identified by MAPC or a similar entity. | 6 |
| Project is included in statewide plans or studies | 0 - The project is not included in any statewide plans or studies. 2 - The project is included in a statewide planning document, but is not cited by the applicant. 4 - The project is included in a statewide planning document cited by the applicant. | 4 |
| Project acts as an 'anchor' for development of a sustainable bicycle network. | 0 - The project does not add racks to an area of at least low-moderate utility. 1 - The project expands into an area of low-moderate utility, or add racks where none currently exist to an area of low utility. 2 - The project expands into an area of moderate or greater utility. | 2 |
| Plan Implementation Score | 18 | |
| Transportation Equity: 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. | ||
| Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO | Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index. Equity Score Look-up Table If the sum of the Indices Greater than… …And Less Than… The Project Score is… 0 1 0 0.99 6 3 5.99 11 6 10.99 16 9 15.99 21 12 20.99 27 18 | 18 |
| The project expands or maintains direct access to a safe bicycle facility. | 0 - Work locations for the project are not near to a safe bicycle facility. 1 - Work locations for the project are near to a safe bicycle facility. | 1 |
| The project serves a community with a low rate of automobile ownership. | 0 - The project does not install bicycle racks in an area with low rates of automobile ownership. 1 - The project installs bicycle racks in an area with a low rate of automobile ownership. | 1 |
| Transportation Equity Score | 20 | |
| Climate Change Mitigation | ||
| For new racks, does the project further promote mode shift? For repair/replacement projects, how many users utilize the facility? | 0 - The extent to which the project creates new trips is unclear or lacks sufficient supporting information. For rack repair/replacement projects, the applicant does not provide data for existing ridership at the involved stations. 2 - The project creates a moderate number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile. For rack repair/replacement projects, the stations being replaced are of moderate utility and consistent ridership levels. 3 - The project creates a large number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile, or increases the accessibility of an alternative transportation mode/route (ex: existing trails, routes parallel to transit operations). For rack repair/replacement projects, the stations being replaced are of significant utility with strong ridership levels, and are first priority investments. 4 - Pursuant to 3 above, but does so in area with disproportionate air quality burden. | 4 |
| Estimates for project demand are realistic and grounded in thorough analysis. | 0 - Future demand projections do not seem realistic, or the methodology as to how they were calculated is not explained. 2 - Future demand projections seem reasonable and support the above argument for substituting single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The applicant has provided realistic demand projections and accounted for possible variations in demand (seasonal variation, new enabling infrastructure, etc.) in their estimate. | 4 |
| The rack investment is complementary to an ongoing or planned surface transportation investment. | 0 - The investment does not complement any planned or nearby projects. 2 - The investment is somewhat related to a planned or nearby project, but the connection between the two is limited. 4 - The investment is related to a planned or nearby project that offers some bike-supportive infrastructure. 6 - The investment is directly and deliberately related to a planned or nearby project that offers safe and accessible bike-supportive infrastructure, such as a shared-use-path. | 6 |
| The rack investment reinforces access to an existing surface transportation facility. | 0 - The investment does not complement any nearby bicycle facilities. 2 - The investment complements an existing low to moderate utility link for biking. 4 - The investment complements an existing moderate to high utility link for biking, or a physically separated and safe pathway for all users (ex: shared use path, rail trail). | 4 |
| Climate Change Mitigation | 18 | |
| Performance Management | ||
| The project application includes a budget worksheet that outlines the sources and uses of the project. | Disqualifying - No budget worksheet is attached. 0 - A budget sheet is included, but the costs associated are unrealistic. 3 - The budget sheet is attached, and the applicant describes the expenses, including the rationale behind the selected unit type. | 3 |
| The project proponent broadly outlines expected activities necessary for asset maintenance. | 0 - No description of maintenance activities are provided. 3 - An anticipated maintenance schedule is provided. | 3 |
| The estimates for the usage rates on the bicycle racks are sound. | 0 - The applicant does not describe how demand was estimated. 2 - The process for estimating demand for the bicycle racks is vague. 4 - The demand estimates for the bicycle racks are sound. | 4 |
| Performance Management | 10 | |
| Total Score | 100 |
Table A-11
FFYs 2026–30 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Community Connections–Bikeshare Support
| Scoring Criteria | Max Points | ||
| Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations. | |||
| Work locations are near to existing areas of concentrated development or public spaces. | 0 - The proposed work locations are not near to a moderate density of residential housing, commercial businesses, or public facilities. 1 - The proposed work locations are near to some mid-density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 2 - The proposed work locations are near to mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 3 - The proposed work locations are near to a combination of mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments and public facilities and open space. | 3 | |
| Work locations are near to planned developments or public spaces. | 0 - No planned developments or public realm improvements are sited near the work locations. 1 - Proposed developments in the project area are limited. 2 - Numerous developments are proposed at or near work locations for the project, and include enabling land uses. 3 - All work locations are near to areas of planned development, and the types of development are supportive to demand for bikeshare. Alternatively, full credit may also be earned if some of the work locations are near designated areas for Transit Oriented Development, including zones for compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act. | 3 | |
| Work locations for the project are situated near to transit facilities. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not located near transit stations. 1 - At least one of the proposed work locations is within 300 feet of a transit facility. 2 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility. 3 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility, and the RTA/owner of the facility has provided written support for the project. | 3 | |
| Work locations for the project complement transit operating routes. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near transit routes. 1 - Only one work location in the project is located near a transit route with limited accessibility or utility to and from that point. 2 - One work location in the project is located near a major transit route, but the location provides some utility to and from that point. Or, more than one work location is near a transit route, but the locations are not well connected to one another. 3 - The proposed work locations effectively mirror one or more transit routes, and improve accessibility to and from that route. | 3 | |
| The work location or locations are safely accessible by walking. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks and crosswalks. 1 - Less than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 2 - More than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 3 - All work locations are near safe, pedestrian-accessible sites that include signalized crosswalks and continuous sidewalks. | 3 | |
| The work location or locations are near to safe bicycle-supportive infrastructure. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe bicycle infrastructure. 1 - Most proposed work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that does not provide physical separation for users. 2 - Most proposed work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that provides some on-road separation for users. 3 - Most or all work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that provides full physical separation, including vertical or horizontal separation, for users. | 3 | |
| Connectivity Score | 18 | ||
| Regional and Interlocal Coordination | |||
| Project demonstrates collaboration between multiple entities within the municipality or municipalities. | 0 - The municipality or municipalities applying for the project are the primary stakeholders in the project development process. 2 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged entities within their communities for the purpose of implementing the proposed improvements, specifically entities responsible for ensuring the continuing operations of the project (ROW, local operating costs, etc.) 3 - The project is a joint effort between one or more municipalities (minimum score for joint applications). 4 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged stakeholders in their communities for the purpose of soliciting feedback to improve the planning and prioritization of the project, in addition to securing any local support for ROW. 6 - The project involves a rigorous public engagement process that addresses multiple public and private groups at the local level, including direct involvement from community based organizations to help shape the scope of the project. | 6 | |
| Project demonstrates collaboration between multiple municipalities. | 0 - No direct support from other municipalities is provided. 2 - The application refers to the Bluebikes Council as providing support, but there is no written documentation. 4 - The project has the written approval of the Bluebikes Council, or letters of support from neighboring communities, or involves work spread across multiple municipalities. | 4 | |
| Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors | 0 - No direct support from private entities is listed, or the applicant refers to private collaboration that is within the existing scope of the Bluebikes contract (ex: vendor, sponsorships) 2 - The project proponent coordinated with the private sector in the development of the project beyond the private stakeholders already involved in the Bluebikes contract. 4 - The project includes extensive cooperation with the private sector, including the direct contribution of local, private funding from local businesses, fundraising, etc. | 4 | |
| Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO | 0 - The applicant has not attached letters of support. 2 - Letters of support are attached to demonstrate fulfillment of the above criteria. | 2 | |
| Coordination Score | 16 | ||
| Plan Implementation: Support local, regional, and statewide planning efforts. | |||
| Project is included in local plans or studies | 0 - The project is not included in any local plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, and those documents are cited by the applicant. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a local plan or study. | 6 | |
| Project is included in regional plans or studies, including those created by the Boston Region MPO and Metropolitan Area Planning Council | 0 - The project is not included in any regional plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, and the applicant cites those documents. Alternatively, the applicant developed this project or identified the need being addressed by the project through direct consultation with MAPC or a similar body. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a regional plan or study, or is located at a regionally significant junction for the Bluebikes network as identified by MAPC or a similar entity. | 6 | |
| Project is included in statewide plans or studies | 0 - The project is not included in any statewide plans or studies. 2 - The project is included in a statewide planning document, but is not cited by the applicant. 4 - The project is included in a statewide planning document cited by the applicant. | 4 | |
| Project acts as an 'anchor' for development of a sustainable bikeshare network. | 0 - For expansion projects, the project does not expand into an area of at least low-moderate utility, or is located in an area saturated with bikeshare. For repair projects, the project does not address an asset nearing the end of its useful life in a priority location, or in a location of at least moderate utility. 1 - For expansion projects, the project expands into an area of low-moderate utility. For repair projects, the project addresses an asset nearing the end of its useful life in a location of at least moderate utility. 2 - For expansion projects, the project expands into an entirely new part of the Boston Region, or expands into an area ranging from moderate to high utility. Alternatively, the proposed expansion seeks to link together more 'disconnected' nexuses of stations back into the larger regional system For repair projects, the project addresses an asset nearing the end of its useful life in a high utility or critical area. | 2 | |
| Plan Implementation Score | 18 | ||
| Transportation Equity: 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. | |||
| Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO | Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index. Equity Score Look-up Table If the sum of the Indices Greater than… …And Less Than… The Project Score is… 0 1 0 0.99 6 3 5.99 11 6 10.99 16 9 15.99 21 12 20.99 27 18 | 18 | |
| The project expands or maintains direct access to a safe bicycle facility. The bikeshare model supports access to these facilities for individuals who do not own a private bicycle. | 0 - Work locations for the project are not near to a safe bicycle facility. 1 - Work locations for the project are near to a safe bicycle facility. | 1 | |
| The project incorporates pedal-assist or fully electric bikes in an area with a high share of older adults. | 0 - The project does not incorporate any pedal-assist or fully electric bikes. 1 - The project incorporates pedal-assist or fully electric bikes. | 1 | |
| Transportation Equity Score | 20 | ||
| Climate Change Mitigation | |||
| For expansion projects, to what extent does the expanded service encourage new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile? For repair/replacement projects, how many trips does the existing service support? | 0 - The extent to which the project creates new trips is unclear or lacks sufficient supporting information. For station repair/replacement projects, the applicant does not provide data for existing ridership at the involved stations. 2 - The project creates a moderate number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile. For station repair/replacement projects, the stations being replaced are of moderate utility and consistent ridership levels. 3 - The project creates a large number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile, or increases the accessibility of an alternative transportation mode/route (ex: existing trails, routes parallel to transit operations). For station repair/replacement projects, the stations being replaced are of significant utility with strong ridership levels, and are first priority investments. 4 - The project performs all work necessary for 3 above, and does so in an area with disproportionate air quality burden. | 4 | |
| Estimates for project demand are realistic and grounded in thorough analysis. | 0 - Future demand projections do not seem realistic, or the methodology as to how they were calculated is not explained. 2 - Future demand projections seem reasonable and support the above argument for substituting single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The applicant has provided realistic demand projections and accounted for possible variations in demand (seasonal variation, new enabling infrastructure, etc.) in their estimate. | 4 | |
| The bikeshare investment is complementary to an ongoing or planned surface transportation investment. | 0 - The investment does not complement any planned or nearby projects. 2 - The investment is somewhat related to a planned or nearby project, but the connection between the two is limited. 4 - The investment is related to a planned or nearby project that offers some bike-supportive infrastructure. 6 - The investment is directly and deliberately related to a planned or nearby project that offers safe and accessible bike-supportive infrastructure, such as a shared-use-path. | 6 | |
| The bikeshare investment expands access to an existing surface transportation facility. | 0 - The investment does not complement any nearby bicycle facilities. 1 - The investment complements an existing low to moderate utility link for biking. 2 - The investment complements an existing moderate to high utility link for biking, or a physically separated and safe pathway for all users (ex: shared use path, rail trail). | 2 | |
| The investment incorporates improvements for bikeshare electrification. | 0 - The investment does not incorporate or support current and future electrification of the bikeshare facility (or facilities). 1 - The investment incorporates electrification of the bikeshare fleet, but not for the facility itself. 2 - The investment incorporates electrification for the bikeshare facility. | 2 | |
| Climate Change Mitigation | 18 | ||
| Performance Management | |||
| The project proponent outlines expected sources of funding to support the costs of operation associated with the project. | -3 - No sources of potential operating costs are provided. 0 - Sources of funding for operating costs are indicated, but are vague. 2 - Sources of funding for operating costs are indicated and seem secure. 3 - The proponent identifies sources of funding for operating costs that are secure and innovative in some manner. | 3 | |
| The project proponent outlines expected sources of funding to support the maintenance or replacement of the asset. In the case of Bikeshare projects seeking capital support for station repair or replacement, the project proponent outlines their plan for keeping the asset in a state of good repair. | 0 - The applicant does not describe the sources of funding necessary for long term maintenance of the asset, or describe any plan to maintain the asset. 1 - The applicant describes how they intend to maintain the asset, but does not indicate sources of funding for maintenance. Alternatively, the source of maintenance funding described is from other state or Boston Region MPO programs that have a local match requirement (which is not indicated). 2 - The applicant describes a plan to maintain the asset and identifies sources of funding to do so to some detail. 3 - The applicant thoroughly details a plan to maintain and continue to fund the maintenance of assets included in the proposed project. | 3 | |
| Project application includes completed budget worksheet that demonstrates financial viability of project | Disqualifying - No budget worksheet is attached. 0 - The project application includes a budget worksheet, but it is missing information or does not demonstrate the financial viability of the project. 2 - The project application includes a complete budget worksheet, but some concerns around the financial viability and sustainability of the project remain. 4 - Pursuant to the above criteria, the budget worksheet demonstrates the near term and long term fiscal viability and sustainability of the project. | 4 | |
| Performance Management | 10 | ||
| Total Score | 100 |
Table A-12
FFYs 2026–30 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Community Connections–Microtransit Pilots
| Scoring Criteria | Max Points | |
| Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations. | ||
| The project connects to existing residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. | 0 - The project does not connect to any current residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 1 - The project primarily connects to low to medium density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 2 - The project primarily connects to high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 3 - The project primarily connects to high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, and better integrates those developments into other non-SOV infrastructure options such as commuter rail stations, bike paths, etc. | 3 |
| The project connects to planned residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. | 0 - The project does not connect to any planned or permitted residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 1 - The project connects to some planned or permitted commercial or residential development, but the developments are limited in scope or low density. 2 - The project connects to numerous planned or permitted high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 3 - The project connects to numerous planned or permitted high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, including zones included as part of compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act or 40B developments. | 3 |
| The project provides a connection to other transit facilities or routes, including but not limited to train stations, bus hubs and stops, or other shuttle services. | 0 - The project does not primarily provide connections to other transit facilities or routes. 1 - The project provides some connections to low-frequency transit facilities or routes. 2 - The project provides some connections to moderate or high frequency transit facilities or routes. 3 - The project provides significant connections to moderate or high frequent transit facilities or routes, and the design or schedule of the project complements the schedules of those alternate transit services. The project proponent is directly collaborating with other transit providers as part of this effort. | 3 |
| The project deliberately creates connections to safe and accessible facilities for walking and biking. | 0 - The project does not provide for connections to safe and accessible facilities for walking and biking. 1 - The project provides for connections to facilities for walking and biking, but these connections are either incidental (included in the service area for a demand-response service) or are not high-utility corridors. 2 - The project deliberately provides for connections to facilities for walking and biking, and some of the included facilities are on high-utility corridors. 3 - The project deliberately provides for numerous connections to safe and accessible walking and biking facilities, many of which are on high utility corridors. Recreational trails may also be included in the project area. | 3 |
| The project increases access to open space or other natural / recreation sites. | 0 - The project does not provide for any access to open space or natural sites. 1 - The project is a demand response service that provides for access to open space or natural sites within the service area. 2 - The project is a fixed route service with connections near to open space or other recreation / natural sites. 3 - The project is a demand response or fixed route service with deliberate, priority connections to and from open space and other natural or recreation sites, with the service model intentionally aiming to increase access to those areas. | 3 |
| The proposed hours of and times of service support a variety of potential use cases. | 0 - The applicant does not provide an explanation as to why their times of service were selected. 1 - The applicant provides hours and times of service, but their explanation regarding why these times were selected are vague or largely relate to fiscal and personnel constraints. 2 - The applicant provides hours and times of service with an explanation as to how the model suits the needs of a diverse array of potential users. 3 - The applicant provides an explanation of why the hours and times of service were selected, how its operations supports the needs of a diverse array of potential users, and explains the conditions under which they may expand service offerings. | 3 |
| The project expands upon an existing service or service delivery model within the Commonwealth. | 0 - The project is entirely novel, and does not build upon an existing service or leverage a service delivery model implemented within the Commonwealth. 1 - The project expands the hours of service or area of service within a single municipality. 2 - The project expands the hours of service or area of service across multiple municipalities, including adding a new municipality to the service area. | 2 |
| Connectivity Score | 20 | |
| Regional and Interlocal Coordination | ||
| Project demonstrates collaboration between multiple entities | 0 - The project applicant is the sole entity involved in the project. 1 - The project applicant and the operator are the only entities involved in the project. 2 - The project applicant and operator are the only entities involved in the project, but the project includes robust public outreach. 3 - The project applicant is partnering with one or more municipalities in administering the service, including providing service to adjacent municipalities, but the applicant performs most of the work. 4 - Multiple municipalities are involved in overseeing the project in tandem with the operator. 5 - The project has multiple municipalities taking an active role in administering the service in addition to a diverse array of other project partners. | 5 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors | 0 - The project does not demonstrate collaboration across multiple sectors. 1 - The project demonstrates some collaboration between the public and private sector in the form of letters of support, or connections to private employers. 2 - The project demonstrates moderate collaboration between the public and private sector, with private sector stakeholders involved in some supporting functions. 3 - The project demonstrates significant collaboration between the public and private sector, with private sector stakeholders making a significant financial or in-kind contribution to support the financial sustainability of the project. | 3 |
| Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO | 0 - No letters of support have been provided by the applicant. 1 - The applicant provides letters of support, but the letters only include support from municipal entities. 2 - The applicant provides letters of support, including letters from a variety of non-governmental and/or community based organizations. | 2 |
| The Regional Transit Authority (RTA), including the MBTA, that provides service to or near the municipality or municipalities involved in the proposed service has been made aware of the application by the applicant. | 0 - The applicant has not discussed their proposed service with their local RTA or RTAs. 1 - The applicant has discussed their proposed service with their local RTA or RTAs. If the applicant is an RTA, it has discussed the proposed service with MassDOT's Rail and Transit Division (RTD). 2 - The applicant has discussed their proposed service with their local RTA or RTAs, and the RTA has provided written support for the project. If the applicant is an RTA, MassDOT Rail and Transit Division (RTD) is aware of and has provided written support for the project. | 2 |
| The project is included in statewide or regional plans and/or studies, including the Boston Region MPO's Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (CPTHST) | 0 - The applicant does not cite, or the project is not consistent with the themes or explicit needs identified in any statewide or regional planning documents or studies. 3 - The project is consistent with the broad themes or recommendations laid out for the municipality or region in the CPTHST. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in a statewide, regional, or municipal planning document, or is the direct result of a study conducted by an independent federal, state, or regional entity. | 6 |
| Coordination Score | 18 | |
| Transportation Equity: 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. | ||
| Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO | Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index. Equity Score Look-up Table If the sum of the Indices Greater than… …And Less Than… The Project Score is… 0 1 0 0.99 6 3 5.99 11 6 10.99 16 9 15.99 21 12 20.99 27 18 | 20 |
| The project supports a fare structure that does not hinder access from disadvantaged groups. | 0 - The proposed service operates on a uniform fare structure. 1 - The proposed service subsidizes fares for disadvantaged groups, including means-based fares and fare-free service for seniors and persons with disabilities. 2 - The proposed service is entirely fare-free. | 1 |
| The project prioritizes service to disadvantaged groups or areas. | 0 - The project does not prioritize service to disadvantaged groups or areas, and the applicant does not offer any information as to how they would provide services to a person with disabilities. 1 - The project serves all individuals regardless of ability, but there are restrictions in terms of eligibility (ex: residence) 2 - The project effectively prioritizes service for disadvantaged groups or areas and balances the needs of other users as well. The service is accessible to and may be used by all. | 1 |
| Transportation Equity Score | 24 | |
| Climate Change Mitigation | ||
| Is the proposed service an effective substitute for current trips conducted by private single occupancy vehicles? | Disqualifying: The project is not anticipated to have any significant impact on encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicles to the proposed service. 1 - According to the figures provided by the applicant, the project is anticipated to have a small impact on encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicles. 2- The project is anticipated to have a small impact on directly encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicle, but is also complementary to other alternative modes of transportation (transit facilities, active transportation, etc.) 3 - The project is expected to have an at least moderate impact in encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The project is expected to have a moderate impact in encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicles, and reinforces or expands access to additional alternative modes of transportation (transit facilities, active transportation, etc.) | 4 |
| Does the proposed service create new connections or trips that could not otherwise be fulfilled without an automobile? | 0 - The project is redundant to existing transit services in the project area, and the applicant has not sufficiently detailed how their service is meant to be complementary to it. 1 - The service creates new connections, but the efficacy of the service in substituting automobile trips is unclear. 2 - The project is complementary to existing transit services in the project area, specifically services that may have gaps in times of service, capacity to serve, or headways. 3 - The project creates entirely new connections in areas not otherwise served by a regional transit authority or other transit operator with a moderate likelihood of substitution. 4 - The project creates entirely new connections in areas not otherwise directly served by a regional transit authority or other transit operator, and these connections include other intermodal facilities (Commuter Rail stations, trails, etc.) | 4 |
| Does the proposed service operate with low or no emission vehicles? | 0 - The project utilizes standard internal combustion engine vehicles for its fleet. 4 - The project utilizes low emission fuel source vehicles, including diesel electric hybrids or compressed natural gas (CNG). 5 - The project utilizes fully electric vehicles. 6 - The project utilizes fully electric vehicles, and planned or existing charging facilities utilize renewable energy sources. | 6 |
| What is the expected amount of time spent operating the vehicle for non-revenue hours, or "dead-heading" between trips in the case of demand response service? | 0 - The applicant does not estimate the amount of non-revenue hours of operation for the service or provide dead-head estimates. Dead-head estimates, if provided, represent a sizable component of operating time and the vehicles used are not low/no emission vehicles. 2 - The proposed project has minimal dead-head zones. For fixed-route service, minimal time is spent moving vehicles between motor pools or staging areas towards the route. For demand response services, ridership levels and operating strategies or technologies minimize downtime between trips. 4 - The proposed project has minimal dead-head zones. For fixed-route service, minimal time is spent moving vehicles between motor pools or staging areas towards the route, and the vehicles involved are low/no emission. For demand response services, ridership levels and operating strategies or technologies minimize downtime between trips while also operating electric vehicles. | 4 |
| Is the average driving miles per passenger trip significantly different than if the trip was conducted with a single-occupancy vehicle? | Disqualifying - The average driving miles per passenger trip with a non low/zero emission vehicle are equal to or greater than the mileage for a typical SOV trip. 0 - The average driving miles per passenger trip are not significantly different from conducting the trip with a SOV, but the vehicle used is a low/no emissions vehicle. 2 - The average driving miles per passenger trip are significantly different from conducting the trip with an SOV. | 2 |
| Climate Change Mitigation | 20 | |
| Performance Management | ||
| The project application includes a budget sheet that lays out the anticipated sources and uses of operating funding for at least the first three years of the project. | Disqualifying: no budget sheet is provided. 0: A budget sheet is provided, but the funding requests are not broken out by year or the estimates provided are unrealistic/flawed. 2: A budget sheet is provided with funding sources and uses laid out for each year in the period of performance. The expected expenditures and revenues are reasonable. 4: A budget sheet is provided with funding sources and uses laid out for each year in the period of performance, in addition to potential alternative sources of funding. The applicant has identified how they may pursue funding to continue the operations of the shuttle(s), if successful, following the three-year pilot period. The expected revenues and expenditures laid out in the sheet are thoroughly defensible. | 4 |
| Project demand estimate is realistic and grounded in thorough analysis | Disqualified: The applicant does not provide a project demand estimate, or an estimate is provided but lacks any explanation of the methodology used to achieve that estimate. 0: The applicant provides a demand estimate and means of estimation, but the estimate lacks sufficient supporting information to justify the estimate. If the applicant does not provide a follow-up response with sufficient information, they may be disqualified. 5: The applicant provides a demand estimate, a means of estimation, and supporting information that justifies the estimate to an acceptable extent. 10: The applicant provides a comprehensive analysis of their estimated demand, explains their methodology, and/or has utilized technical assistance from the Boston Region MPO, MassDOT, or a similar third-party to set their ridership targets. | 10 |
| The applicant lists their performance measures and the intervals at which they evaluate their success against those metrics. | 0 - The applicant does not provide any performance measures, or is vague in their description of how those measures are to be evaluated. 2 - The performance of the proposed shuttle is evaluated against the minimum necessary parameters for the shuttle service, including average daily passenger trips, number of unique riders, total number of trips, and spending to date at monthly intervals. The monthly reporting also includes the aforementioned information at a total level for the month. Demand response services provide passenger trip time for a given month. 4 - The monthly reporting listed above will be utilized to evaluate, in a qualitative fashion, whether or not the data gathered is expected to remain steady or change in the future. The project proponent also intends to survey riders with questions including how riders would have made their trip without the service, the number of times a given rider uses the service at a weekly or monthly interval, the number of passengers that have a private vehicle available, and the purposes of that passenger trip. 6 - The project proponent exceeds the minimum requirements set in the previous thresholds for performance evaluation, reporting, and passenger surveys, and is proposing the employment of innovative strategies or technologies to gather and analyze this data. The proponent may also achieve this parameter if they are pursuing a robust community engagement strategy that emphasizes regional connections, including engaging adjacent municipalities. | 6 |
| Performance Management Score | 20 | |
| Total Score | 100 |
Table A-13
FFYs 2026–30 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Community Connections–Wayfinding Signage
| Scoring Criteria | Max Points | |
| Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations. | ||
| Project sites serve areas of concentrated development. | 0 - The proposed work locations are not near to a moderate density of residential housing, commercial businesses, or public facilities. 2 - The proposed work locations are near to mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 4 - The proposed work locations are near to a combination of mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. | 4 |
| Project sites are near to planned developments. | 0 - No planned developments or public realm improvements are sited near the work locations. 2 - Developments are proposed at or near work locations for the project, and include enabling land uses. 4 - Project sites are near to areas of planned development. Alternatively, full credit may also be earned if some of the work locations are near designated areas for Transit Oriented Development, including zones for compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act. | 4 |
| Project sites support navigation towards public facilities or community assets, including open space. | 0 - The project does not support navigation to and from public facilities or open spaces. 1 - The project indirectly supports navigation to and from public facilities or open spaces. 2 - The signage explicitly highlights public points of interest and provides information on how to access the area. | 2 |
| Project sites are situated near to transit facilities. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not located near transit stations. 1 - At least one of the proposed work locations is within 300 feet of a transit facility. 2 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility. 3 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility, and the transit operator has provided a letter of support for the project. | 3 |
| Project sites support the identification of and navigation towards transit facilities. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near transit routes. 1 - The signage indirectly supports access near transit routes or facilities, but these are not highlighted on the signs. 2 - The proposed signage highlights locations of transit facilities. 3 - The proposed signage highlights the presence of transit service in the area, and provides detail on other service features such as headways, hours of operation, etc. | 3 |
| Project sites support the identification of and navigation towards safe facilities for pedestrians. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks and crosswalks. 1 - Less than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 2 - More than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 3 - All work locations are near safe, pedestrian-accessible sites that include signalized crosswalks and continuous sidewalks. | 3 |
| Project sites support the identification of and navigation towards safe facilities for bicycles. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe bicycle infrastructure. 1 - The proposed signage provides indirect benefits for cyclists, but does not highlight any specific routes. 2 - The signage highlights and supports a single bicycle facility. 3 - The proposed signage supports a connected bicycle network, including the identification of connecting routes and trails. | 3 |
| Connectivity Score | 22 | |
| Regional and Interlocal Coordination | ||
| Project includes a substantial public engagement process. | 0 - The municipality or municipalities applying for the project are the primary stakeholders in the project development process. 1 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged their communities for the purpose of implementing the proposed improvements (ROW, local operating costs, etc.) 2 - The municipality or municipalities have held public meetings on the proposed project, in addition to the above. 3 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged stakeholders in their communities for the purpose of soliciting feedback to improve the planning and prioritization of the project, in addition to the above. 4 - The project involves a rigorous public engagement process that addresses multiple public and private groups at the local level. The public engagement process specifically led to the identification of sites included in the project. | 4 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration between different components of the municipality for site prioritization. | 0 - The applicant is not working with other business units within the municipality as part of the project. 1 - The applicant has received support from elected officials within the municipality for the project beyond the budget process. 2 - In addition to the above, the selection of sites as part of the project was performed in consultation with other municipal units, including for example school committees, Councils on Aging, Parks Departments, etc. | 2 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration between multiple municipalities. | 0 - No direct support from other municipalities is provided. 1 - The applicant is a regional organization providing bicycle parking for one or more municipalities. 2 - The project involves collaboration between one or more municipalities. | 2 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration with other state or federal agencies. | 0 - The project does not involve any direct coordination with state or federal agencies beyond that related to the TIP process. 1 - The project involves a state or federal facility, and support for the applicant to improve that facility has been provided by the facility owner. The owner is not otherwise involved in the project. 2 - The project is a direct partnership between a municipality and a state or federal agency, which may be demonstrated through providing signage to and from State/National Parks, publicly-accessible state/federal buildings (including universities), or other facilities. | 2 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors. | 0 - No direct support from private entities is listed. 2 - The project proponent coordinated with the private sector in the development of the project as part of selecting site areas. 4 - The project includes extensive support between the public and private sectors, including private funding contributions. | 4 |
| Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO. | 0 - The applicant has not attached letters of support. 2 - Letters of support are attached to demonstrate fulfillment of the above criteria. | 2 |
| Coordination Score | 16 | |
| Plan Implementation: Support local, regional, and statewide planning efforts. | ||
| Project is included in local transportation plans or studies. | 0 - The project is not included in any local plans or studies. 1 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 2 - The project is thematically consist with the contents of a local plan or study, as cited by the applicant. 3 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a local plan or study. | 3 |
| Project is included in local economic development plans or strategies. | 0 - The project does not support any local economic developments. 1 - The project indirectly supports local economic development strategies. 2 - The project directly supports local economic development strategies, including improving access to specific planned sites or destinations. 3 - The project highlights key areas and destinations for travel, and is consistent with a broader strategy for economic development in the community. | 3 |
| Project is included in regional plans or studies, including those created by the Boston Region MPO and Metropolitan Area Planning Council | 0 - The project is not included in any regional plans or studies. 1 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, and the applicant cites those documents. Alternatively, the applicant developed this project or identified the need being addressed by the project through direct consultation with MAPC or a similar body. 3 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a regional plan or study, or is located at a regionally significant junction for the Bluebikes network as identified by MAPC or a similar entity. | 3 |
| Project is included in statewide plans or studies | 0 - The project is not included in or consistent with any statewide plans or studies. 1 - The project is supportive of a statewide study, such as a vulnerable road user safety assessment, but this is not cited by the applicant. 2 - The project is supportive of a statewide study, but locations are not in priority corridors highlighted by that study. 3 - The applicant is leveraging a state study or plan to guide this investment, and investments are being made in key priority areas as determined by the study. | 3 |
| Project supports the development of a connected multimodal transportation network. | 0 - The project primarily installs signage in seemingly disconnected areas for a single mode. 1 - The project installs signage to support connections for a single mode. 2 - The project installs signage that supports connections to and from multiple transportation modes. | 2 |
| Plan Implementation Score | 14 | |
| Transportation Equity: 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. | ||
| Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO | Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index. Equity Score Look-up Table If the sum of the Indices Greater than… …And Less Than… The Project Score is… 0 1 0 0.99 6 3 5.99 11 6 10.99 16 9 15.99 21 12 20.99 27 18 | 20 |
| Transportation Equity Score | 20 | |
| Climate Change Mitigation | ||
| To what extent do these lanes encourage new trips, or shift existing trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile? | 0 - The extent to which the project creates new trips is unclear or lacks sufficient supporting information. 2 - The project creates a moderate number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile. 3 - The project creates a large number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile, or increases the accessibility of an alternative transportation mode/route (ex: existing trails, routes parallel to transit operations). 4 - Pursuant to 3 above, but does so in area with disproportionate air quality burden. | 4 |
| Estimates for traffic volumes through the corridor are realistic and grounded in thorough analysis. | 0 - Future demand projections do not seem realistic, or the methodology as to how they were calculated is not explained. 2 - Future demand projections seem reasonable and support the above argument for substituting single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The applicant has provided realistic demand projections and accounted for possible variations in demand (seasonal variation, new enabling infrastructure, etc.) in their estimate. | 4 |
| The wayfinding signage is complementary to an ongoing or planned surface transportation investment. | 0 - The investment does not complement any planned or nearby projects. 2 - The investment is somewhat related to a planned or nearby project, but the connection between the two is limited. 4 - The investment is related to a planned or nearby project that offers some bike-supportive infrastructure. 6 - The investment is directly and deliberately related to a planned or nearby project that offers safe and accessible bike-supportive infrastructure, such as a shared-use-path. | 6 |
| The wayfinding signage reinforces access to or informs users about an existing surface transportation facility. | 0 - The investment does not complement any nearby active transportation or transit facilities. 2 - The investment complements an existing low to moderate utility link for active transportation or transit. 4 - The investment complements an existing moderate to high utility link for active transportation, including physically separated and safe pathway for all users (ex: shared use path, rail trail). Or, the investment directly highlights a transit route. | 4 |
| Climate Change Mitigation | 18 | |
| Performance Management | ||
| The project application includes a budget worksheet that outlines the sources and uses of the project. | Disqualifying - No budget worksheet is attached. 0 - A budget sheet is included, but the costs associated are unrealistic. 3 - The budget sheet is attached, and the applicant describes the expenses, including the rationale behind the selected unit type. | 3 |
| The project proponent broadly outlines expected activities necessary for asset maintenance. | 0 - No description of maintenance activities are provided. 3 - An anticipated maintenance schedule is provided. | 3 |
| The estimates for average daily users for the facilities are grounded in thorough analysis. | 0 - The applicant does not describe how demand was estimated. 2 - The process for estimating traffic counts is vague. 4 - The estimates of traffic counts are sound. | 4 |
| Performance Management | 10 | |
| Total Score | 100 |
The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008 (GWSA) required statewide reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 25 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. As part of the GWSA, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) released the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2025 and 2030 (CECP) in June 2022, which outlines programs to attain GHG emissions reduction goals—including an 18 percent reduction attributed to the transportation sector by 2025 and a 34 percent reduction by 2030. EEA released an updated CECP in December 2022, which specified an emissions reduction target of 86 percent by 2050 for the transportation sector.
The Commonwealth’s 13 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are integrally involved in achieving GHG emissions reductions mandated by the GWSA. MPOs work closely with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to develop common transportation goals, policies, and projects that will help to reduce GHG emissions levels statewide and meet the specific requirements of the GWSA and its requirements for the transportation sector, defined in state regulation 310 CMR 60.05. The purpose of this regulation is to assist the Commonwealth in achieving its adopted GHG emissions reduction goals by requiring the following:
The Commonwealth’s MPOs are meeting the requirements of this regulation through the transportation goals and policies contained in their LRTPs, the major projects planned in their LRTPs, and the mix of new transportation projects that are programmed and implemented through their TIPs.
The GHG tracking and evaluation processes enable the MPOs and MassDOT to identify the anticipated GHG impacts of the planned and programmed projects, and to use GHG impacts as criteria to prioritize transportation projects. This approach is consistent with the GHG emissions reduction policies that promote healthy transportation modes through prioritizing and programming an appropriate balance of roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments, as well as policies that support smart growth development patterns by creating a balanced multimodal transportation system.
MassDOT coordinated with the Boston Region MPO and other regional planning agencies to implement GHG tracking and to evaluate projects during the development of LRTPs starting in 2011. Working together, MassDOT and the MPOs have attained the following milestones:
In addition to monitoring the GHG impacts of larger-scale projects in the LRTP, it also is important to monitor and evaluate the GHG impacts of all transportation projects that are programmed in the TIP. The TIP includes both the larger, capacity-adding projects from the LRTP and smaller projects, which are not included in the LRTP but that may affect GHG emissions. The principal objective of this tracking is to enable the MPOs to evaluate the expected GHG impacts of different projects and to use this information as criteria to prioritize and program projects in future TIPs.
In order to monitor and evaluate the GHG impacts of TIP projects, MassDOT and the MPOs have developed approaches for identifying anticipated GHG emissions impacts of different types of projects. Since carbon dioxide (CO2) is the largest component of GHG emissions overall and is the focus of regulation 310 CMR 60.05, CO2 has been used to measure the GHG emissions impacts of transportation projects in the TIP and LRTP.
All TIP projects have been sorted into two categories for analysis: 1) projects with quantified CO2 impacts and 2) projects with assumed CO2 impacts. Projects with quantified impacts consist of capacity-adding projects from the LRTP and projects from the TIP that underwent a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program spreadsheet analysis. Projects with assumed impacts are those that would be expected to produce a minor decrease or increase in emissions, and those that would be assumed to have no CO2 impact.
Projects with quantified impacts include capacity-adding projects in the LRTP that were analyzed using the Boston Region MPO’s travel demand model set. No independent calculations were done for these projects during the development of the TIP.
MassDOT’s Office of Transportation Planning provided spreadsheets that are used to determine projects’ eligibility for funding through the CMAQ program. These spreadsheets contain emissions factors produced by the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model that are used to calculate emissions reduction as a result of mode shift to active or public transportation and/or reduction of single-occupancy vehicle trips. Typically, MPO staff uses data from projects’ functional design reports, which are prepared at the 25 percent design phase, to conduct these calculations. Staff used these spreadsheets to calculate estimated projections of CO2 for each project, in compliance with GWSA regulations.
These estimates are shown in Tables B-1 and B-2. A note of “to be determined” is shown for those projects for which a functional design report was not yet available. Table B-3 summarizes the GHG impact analyses of highway projects completed before FFY 2026. Table B-4 summarizes the GHG impact analyses of transit projects completed before FFY 2026. A project is considered completed when the construction contract has been awarded.
Table B-1
Greenhouse Gas Regional Highway Project Tracking: FFYs 2026-30
Programmed Projects
| FFY 2026 | |||||
| Project ID | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG Impact Description | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | Qualitative Decrease Justification |
| 606453 | BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON BOYLSTON STREET, FROM INTERSECTION OF BROOKLINE AVENUE & PARK DRIVE TO IPSWICH STREET | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 527,474 | |
| 607342 | MILTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 28 (RANDOLPH AVENUE) & CHICKATAWBUT ROAD | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | 1,148,459 | |
| 607420 | NATICK- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, N-03-012, BODEN LANE OVER CSX/MBTA | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 608067 | WOBURN- BURLINGTON- INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION AT ROUTE 3 (CAMBRIDGE ROAD) & BEDFORD ROAD AND SOUTH BEDFORD STREET | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | 168,263 | |
| 608197 | BOSTON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-16-107, CANTERBURY STREET OVER AMTRAK RAILROAD | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 608940 | WESTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS BOSTON POST ROAD (ROUTE 20) AT WELLESLEY STREET | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | 818,733 | |
| 609204 | BELMONT- COMMUNITY PATH, BELMONT COMPONENT OF THE MCRT (PHASE I) | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 26,347 | |
| 609388 | WENHAM- SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 1A | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from safety improvements. |
| 609399 | RANDOLPH- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 28 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 610537 | BOSTON- ELLIS ELEMENTARY TRAFFIC CALMING (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from Safe Routes to School improvements. |
| 610544 | PEABODY- MULTI-USE PATH CONSTRUCTION OF INDEPENDENCE GREENWAY AT I-95 AND ROUTE 1 | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 24,423 | |
| 611940 | SOMERVILLE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-17-016 (3GF), WEBSTER AVENUE OVER MBTA & BMRR | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 611974 | MEDFORD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT MAIN STREET/SOUTH STREET, MAIN STREET/MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY RAMPS AND MAIN STREET/MYSTIC AVENUE | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | 389,745 | |
| 611982 | MEDFORD- SHARED USE PATH CONNECTION AT THE ROUTE 28/WELLINGTON UNDERPASS | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 4,309 | |
| 611997 | NEWTON- HORACE MANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from Safe Routes to School improvements. |
| 612050 | BRAINTREE- WEYMOUTH- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 3 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 612184 | REVERE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, R-05-015, REVERE BEACH PARKWAY OVER BROADWAY | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613163 | LYNNFIELD- PEABODY- RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION, FROM FORD AVENUE TO NICHOLS LANE (PHASE 1) | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 2,748 | |
| 613182 | MILFORD- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, M-21-022 (1UD, 1UE), I-495 OVER STATE ROUTE 109/MEDWAY ROAD | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613196 | BURLINGTON- LYNNFIELD- WAKEFIELD- WOBURN- BRIDGE PRESERVATION OF 10 BRIDGES CARRYING I-95 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613274 | FOXBORO- BRIDGE PRESERVATION AT 6 BRIDGES ALONG THE I-95 CORRIDOR | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613383 | LYNNFIELD- WAKEFIELD- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 613994 | LEXINGTON TO READING- GUIDE AND TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON A SECTION OF I-95/128 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| S12807 | MWRTA CATCHCONNECT MICROTRANSIT EXPANSION PHASE 2 | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | 102,845 | |
| S12970 | CATA– VEHICLE REPLACEMENT (4 VEHICLES) | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 6 | |
| S12971 | MWRTA– BLANDIN HUB EQUITABLE REDESIGN INITIATIVE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease due to increased public transit accessibility. |
| S13048 | HUDSON- BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION OF MASS CENTRAL RAIL TRAIL, FROM FELTON STREET TO PRIEST STREET (DESIGN ONLY) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| S13129 | SALEM- BROAD STREET AND DALTON PARKWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT (DESIGN ONLY) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| S13146 | LEXINGTON- DESIGN OF SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSTATE 95 AND ROUTE 4/225 INTERCHANGE | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| S13147 | FRAMINGHAM- PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 126/135/MBTA & CSX RAILROAD | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| S13152 | Better Bus Project - Operational Safety Improvements at Bus Stops | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease resulting from transit operating safety improvements. |
| S13153 | MBTA- BUS PRIORITY AND ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease due to increased public transit accessibility. |
| S13179 | BROOKLINE- BLUEBIKES EXPANSION, 3 STATIONS AND 20 ELECTRIC BIKES | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 690 | |
| S13180 | BOSTON- BLUEBIKES STATION REPLACEMENT, 20 STATIONS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from bike share replacement. |
| S13181 | SOMERVILLE- BLUEBIKES STATION REPLACEMENT, 5 STATIONS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from bike share replacement. |
| S13182 | CAMBRIDGE- BLUEBIKES STATION REPLACEMENT, 7 STATIONS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from bike share replacement. |
| S13183 | NEWTON- INSTALLATION OF 67 BIKE RACKS, 2 SHELTERS, AND 12 RRFBS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. |
| S13184 | MARBLEHEAD- INSTALLATION OF 22 BIKE RACKS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. |
| S13194 | CHELSEA- BLUEBIKES EXPANSION, 3 STATIONS, 28 CLASSIC BIKES, AND 5 ELECTRIC BIKES | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 2,139 | |
| S13291 | CTPS- PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION OF SIX AIR QUALITY SENSORS FOR GHG MONITORING (PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING PROGRAM) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| S13292 | MBTA- OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENT OF BUS ROUTES 714 AND 716 | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | 188,594 | |
| S13293 | ACTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 2A/119 (GREAT ROAD), FROM DAVIS ROAD TO HARRIS STREET | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| S13294 | MALDEN- IMPROVEMENTS ON EASTERN AVENUE (ROUTE 60), FROM FRANKLIN STREET TO LYNN STREET (DESIGN ONLY) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| S13295 | CAMBRIDGE- NEW BRIDGE AND SHARED-USE PATH CONSTRUCTION OVER FITCHBURG LINE AT DANEHY PARK CONNECTOR (DESIGN ONLY) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 |
| FFY 2027 | |||||
| Project ID | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG Impact Description | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | Qualitative Decrease Justification |
| 605168 | HINGHAM- IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 3A, FROM OTIS STREET/COLE ROAD INCLUDING SUMMER STREET AND ROTARY, ROCKLAND STREET TO GEORGE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 284736 | |
| 605857 | NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED WORK AT ROUTE 1 & UNIVERSITY AVENUE/EVERETT STREET | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | 1092131 | |
| 606901 | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-16-109, RIVER STREET BRIDGE OVER MBTA/AMTRAK | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 607684 | BRAINTREE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-21-017, WASHINGTON STREET (ST 37) OVER MBTA/CSX RAILROAD | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 607977 | HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE | Quantified | RTP project included in the statewide model | 0 | |
| 608045 | MILFORD- REHABILITATION ON ROUTE 16, FROM ROUTE 109 TO BEAVER STREET | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 192.1168 | |
| 608522 | MIDDLETON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-20-003, ROUTE 62 (MAPLE STREET) OVER IPSWICH RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 608952 | CHELSEA- BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT C-09-013, WASHINGTON AVENUE, CARTER STREET & COUNTY ROAD/ROUTE 1 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 609257 | EVERETT- RECONSTRUCTION OF BEACHAM STREET | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 9707.6068 | |
| 609437 | SALEM- PEABODY- BOSTON STREET IMPROVEMENTS | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 1758.0811 | |
| 609467 | HAMILTON- IPSWICH- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, H-03-002=I-01-006, WINTHROP STREET OVER IPSWICH RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 609532 | CHELSEA- TARGETED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED WORK ON BROADWAY, FROM WILLIAMS STREET TO CITY HALL AVENUE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from safety improvements. |
| 610680 | NATICK- LAKE COCHITUATE PATH | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 2624.56 | |
| 610823 | QUINCY- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT WILLARD STREET AND RICCIUTI DRIVE | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | 288400.9862 | |
| 611954 | BOSTON- GUIDE AND TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON I-90/I-93 WITHIN CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL SYSTEM | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612001 | MEDFORD- MILTON FULLER ROBERTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from Safe Routes to School improvements. |
| 612028 | STONEHAM- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-27-006 (2L2), (ST 28) FELLSWAY WEST OVER I-93 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612076 | TOPSFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, T-06-013, PERKINS ROW OVER MILE BROOK | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612099 | ASHLAND- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, A-14-006, CORDAVILLE ROAD OVER SUDBURY RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612100 | REVERE- IMPROVEMENTS AT BEACHMONT VETERANS ELEMENTARY (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from Safe Routes to School improvements. |
| 612173 | BELLINGHAM- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-06-022, MAPLE STREET OVER I-495 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612178 | NATICK- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, N-03-010, SPEEN STREET OVER RR MBTA/CSX | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612182 | NEWTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, N-12-040, BOYLSTON STREET OVER GREEN LINE D | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612196 | BRAINTREE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-21-067, JW MAHER HIGHWAY OVER MONATIQUOT RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612523 | REVERE- STATE ROAD BEACHMONT CONNECTOR | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 4140.44 | |
| 612599 | LYNN- TARGETED SAFETY AND MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS (PLAYBOOK PRIORITY CORRIDORS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from safety improvements. |
| 612804 | DEDHAM- IMPROVEMENTS AT AVERY ELEMENTARY (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from Safe Routes to School improvements. |
| 612816 | BROOKLINE- IMPROVEMENTS AT WILLIAM H. LINCOLN SCHOOL (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from Safe Routes to School improvements. |
| 612894 | FRAMINGHAM- IMPROVEMENTS AT HARMONY GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from Safe Routes to School improvements. |
| 612989 | BOSTON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, B-16-066 (38D), CAMBRIDGE STREET OVER MBTA | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612990 | SALEM- RECONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE STREET (ROUTE 107), FROM FLINT STREET TO 150 FEET WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from Complete Streets improvements. |
| 613099 | BOSTON- SLOPE STABILIZATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-93 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613121 | EVERETT- TARGETED MULTI-MODAL AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 16 (DESIGN ONLY) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613184 | GLOUCESTER- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, G-05-017 (2U8), STATE ROUTE 128/YANKEE DIVISION HIGHWAY OVER ANNISQUAM RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613276 | READING- WILMINGTON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, W-38-028 (2HR, 2HT) AND R-03-011 (2HK), I-93 (NB/SB) OVER MBTA/B&M RAILROAD AND I-95/STATE ROUTE 128 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613318 | BURLINGTON- WOBURN- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 613343 | FOXBOROUGH - INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 613382 | DEDHAM- NEEDHAM- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| S12963 | CHELSEA-REVERE- REGIONAL ON-DEMAND MICROTRANSIT PILOT PROJECT | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | 4054.53 | |
| S13209 | DESIGN WORK ON I-95 IMPROVEMENT WITHIN READING AND LYNNFIELD | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 |
| FFY 2028 | |||||
| Project ID | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG Impact Description | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | Qualitative Decrease Justification |
| 604564 | MAYNARD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-10-004, ROUTE 62 (MAIN STREET) OVER THE ASSABET RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 605743 | IPSWICH- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON CENTRAL & SOUTH MAIN STREETS | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 4,356 | |
| 606728 | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT B-16-365, STORROW DRIVE OVER BOWKER RAMPS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 608436 | ASHLAND- REHABILITATION AND RAIL CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS ON CHERRY STREET | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 608954 | WESTON- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 30 | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 922 | |
| 610545 | WAKEFIELD- MAIN STREET RECONSTRUCTION | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 3,506 | |
| 610660 | SUDBURY- WAYLAND- MASS CENTRAL RAIL TRAIL (MCRT) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from bicycle and pedestrian improvements. |
| 610665 | STONEHAM- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 28 (MAIN STREET), NORTH BORDER ROAD AND SOUTH STREET | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from traffic improvements. |
| 610676 | WRENTHAM- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 1A AT NORTH AND WINTER STREET | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from traffic improvements. |
| 610691 | NATICK- COCHITUATE RAIL TRAIL EXTENSION, FROM MBTA STATION TO MECHANIC STREET | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 1,025 | |
| 610782 | DANVERS- MIDDLETON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, D-03-009=M-20-005, ANDOVER STREET (SR 114) OVER IPSWICH RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 611987 | CAMBRIDGE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, C-01-026, MEMORIAL DRIVE OVER BROOKLINE STREET | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612075 | SALEM- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-01-024, JEFFERSON AVENUE OVER PARALLEL STREET | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612519 | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-16-165, BLUE HILL AVENUE OVER RAILROAD | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612607 | DANVERS- RAIL TRAIL WEST EXTENSION (PHASE 3) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. |
| 612884 | CHELSEA- IMPROVEMENTS AT MARY C. BURKE ELEMENTARY (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from Safe Routes to School improvements. |
| 613082 | MEDFORD- WELLINGTON GREENWAY CONSTRUCTION (PHASE IV) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. |
| 613124 | BOSTON- DECK/SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, B-16-054 (4T2), BEACON STREET OVER I-90 (STRUCTURE 50, MILE 132.2) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613125 | BOSTON- DECK/SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE B-16-051 (4T5), MASS AVENUE OVER I-90 & MBTA (STRUCTURE 54, MILE 132.84) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613154 | WELLESLEY- DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ROUTE 9 AND CULVERT REPLACEMENTS OVER BOULDER BROOK FOR FLOOD MITIGATION | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613164 | BOSTON- MILTON- NEW BRIDGE AND SHARED-USE PATH CONSTRUCTION OVER NEPONSET RIVER AT OSCEOLA STREET | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. |
| 613166 | ACTON- SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 2A/119 (GREAT ROAD) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from safety improvements. |
| 613275 | BEVERLY- BURLINGTON- DANVERS- GLOUCESTER- WOBURN- BRIDGE PRESERVATION AT 9 BRIDGES CARRYING STATE ROUTE 128 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613477 | HOLLISTON- LINDEN STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT ROBERT ADAMS MIDDLE SCHOOL (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from Safe Routes to School improvements. |
| 613564 | READING- OAKLAND ROAD AT READING MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL AND COOLIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from Safe Routes to School improvements. |
| 613921 | BOSTON- BRIDGE DECK PRESERVATION OF B-16-259 AND B-16-260 ON I-93 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 |
| FFY 2029 | |||||
| Project ID | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG Impact Description | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | Qualitative Decrease Justification |
| 606449 | CAMBRIDGE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, C-01-008, FIRST STREET AND C-01-040, LAND BOULEVARD OVER BROAD CANAL | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 608052 | NORWOOD- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT US 1 (PROVIDENCE HIGHWAY) & MORSE STREET | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from traffic improvements. |
| 608158 | WESTWOOD- NORWOOD- RECONSTRUCTION OF CANTON STREET TO UNIVERSITY DRIVE, INCLUDING REHAB OF N-25-032=W-31-018 | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 5,693 | |
| 608396 | LYNN- REVERE- BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION, L-18-015=R-05-008, ROUTE 1A OVER SAUGUS RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 609252 | LYNN- REHABILITATION OF ESSEX STREET | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 411,006 | |
| 609527 | READING- STONEHAM- WAKEFIELD- IMPROVEMENTS ON I-95 (NB), FROM I-93 TO NORTH AVENUE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 610543 | REVERE- MALDEN- IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 1 (NB) (PHASE 1) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 610650 | BOSTON- SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON GALLIVAN BOULEVARD (ROUTE 203), FROM WASHINGTON STREET TO GRANITE AVENUE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from safety improvements. |
| 610666 | SWAMPSCOTT- RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 138,430 | |
| 610932 | BROOKLINE- REHABILITATION OF WASHINGTON STREET | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 36,431 | |
| 612026 | STONEHAM- RESURFACING ON ROUTE 28 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 612046 | GLOUCESTER- RESURFACING ON ROUTE 128 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 612499 | MEDFORD- SOUTH MEDFORD CONNECTOR BIKE PATH | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. |
| 612613 | NEWTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 16 AND QUINOBEQUIN ROAD | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from traffic improvements. |
| 612615 | CANTON- MILTON- ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 138, FROM ROYALL STREET TO DOLLAR LANE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from Complete Streets improvements. |
| 612616 | MILTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 138 AND BRADLEE ROAD | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | ||
| 612738 | IPSWICH- ARGILLA ROAD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | 306 | |
| 612889 | SHARON- COTTAGE STREET SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from Safe Routes to School improvements. |
| 613088 | MALDEN- SPOT POND BROOK GREENWAY | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 77,012 | |
| 613319 | SUDBURY- FRAMINGHAM- BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION OF BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL, FROM THE SUDBURY DIAMOND RAILROAD CROSSING TO EATON ROAD WEST | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 18,348 | |
| 613356 | SHARON- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 613468 | NEWTON- IMPROVEMENTS AT PARKER STREET FOR THE OAK HILL MIDDLE SCHOOL (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from Safe Routes to School improvements. |
| 613640 | NATICK- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 9 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 613654 | FRAMINGHAM- BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION OF BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL, FROM EATON ROAD WEST TO FROST STREET | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. |
| FFY 2030 | |||||
| Project ID | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG Impact Description | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | Qualitative Decrease Justification |
| 605276 | BEVERLY- SALEM- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-11-005=S-01-013, KERNWOOD AVENUE OVER DANVERS RIVER AND B-11-001, BRIDGE STREET OVER BASS RIVER (HALL-WHITAKER DRAWBRIDGE) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 606226 | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE | Quantified | RTP project included in the statewide model | 0 | |
| 607748 | ACTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON SR 2 & SR 111 (MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE) AT PIPER ROAD & TAYLOR ROAD | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from traffic improvements. |
| 607981 | SOMERVILLE- MCGRATH BOULEVARD CONSTRUCTION | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 136,345 | |
| 608397 | GLOUCESTER- BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION, G-05-002, WESTERN AVENUE OVER BLYNMAN CANAL | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 608495 | CONCORD- LEXINGTON- LINCOLN- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 2A | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 608498 | QUINCY- BRAINTREE- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 53 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 609246 | LYNN- REHABILITATION OF WESTERN AVENUE (ROUTE 107) | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 902,708 | |
| 610662 | WOBURN- ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT WOBURN COMMON, ROUTE 38 (MAIN STREET), WINN STREET, PLEASANT STREET AND MONTVALE AVENUE | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | 736,275 | |
| 610675 | CHELSEA- RECONSTRUCTION OF SPRUCE STREET, FROM EVERETT AVENUE TO WILLIAMS STREET | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from Complete Streets improvements. |
| 612027 | IPSWICH- RESURFACING OF ROUTE 1A | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 612496 | SOMERVILLE- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, S-17-031, I-93 (NB & SB) FROM ROUTE 28 TO TEMPLE STREET (PHASE 2) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612534 | MELROSE- LEBANON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT | Quantified | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 8,907 | Quantitative decrease from improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. |
| 612634 | SOMERVILLE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-17-024, ROUTE 28/MCGRATH HWY OVER SOMERVILLE AVE EXT & MBTA | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 612963 | BELLINGHAM- ROADWAY REHABILITATION OF ROUTE 126 (HARTFORD ROAD), FROM 800 NORTH OF THE I-495 NB OFF RAMP TO MEDWAY TL, INCLUDING B-06-017 | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 2,558 | |
| 613130 | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-16-033, MORRISSEY BOULEVARD OVER DORCHESTER BAY | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| 613639 | FRAMINGHAM- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 9 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from pavement resurfacing. |
| 613882 | DISTRICT 4- ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS (SOUTHERN PROJECT) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Qualitative decrease from accessibility improvements. |
| S12113 | BOSTON REGION - TRANSIT TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| S12124 | BOSTON REGION - COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS PROGRAM | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| S12820 | BOSTON REGION - BIKESHARE SUPPORT SET ASIDE | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| S13145 | BOSTON REGION PROJECT DESIGN SET-ASIDE | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | 0 | |
| S13230 | WAKEFIELD - RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION NORTHERN SEGMENT | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | 0 | Not enough information yet for a quantitative analysis. Qualitative decrease from bicycle and pedestrian improvements. |
Table B-2
Greenhouse Gas Regional Transit Project Tracking: FFYs 2025-29
Programmed Projects
| FFY 2026 | ||||||
| Project ID | RTA | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG Impact Description | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | Qualitative Decrease Justification |
| CATA011694 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - Rehab/renovation of existing facility | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| CATA011695 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - APC, AVL | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010579 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -Preventive Maintenance | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010583 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -buy misc small capital | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010591 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -Revenue Vehicle Replacement. | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | ||
| T00073 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA-Rehab/Renovation Administration & Operations Facility | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011707 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- BLANDIN HUB OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPANSION - CONSTRUCTION | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011815 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - BLANDIN HUB OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPANSION - DESIGN | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011948 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- ACQUIRE HEAVY DUTY 30 FOOT REVENUE VEHICLE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Qualitative decrease from fuel-efficient bus procurement | |
| RTD0011117 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) - BLANDIN | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011118 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT/CAPITAL OUTREACH | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011119 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011125 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - 2026 ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) ADDTL ELECTRIFICATION COSTS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011134 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - RESTROOMS AT BLANDIN & FCRS HUBS - 5307 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011137 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - ACQUIRE REVENUE REPLACEMENT VEHICLES CUTAWAYS TYPE D CNG Consider For Statewide 5339 Funds | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | ||
| RTD0011195 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - OPERATING ASSISTANCE NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA041 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Revenue Vehicle Program | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 4,386,686 | |
| MBTA042 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Signals/Systems Upgrade Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA043 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Stations and Facilities Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA044 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Bridge & Tunnel Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA045 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Revenue Vehicle Program | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 4,386,686 | |
| MBTA046 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Signals/Systems Upgrade Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA047 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Stations and Facilities Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA048 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5339 Bus Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA050 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | RRIF/TIFIA Financing Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
| FFY 2027 | ||||||
| Project ID | RTA | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG Impact Description | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | Qualitative Decrease Justification |
| CATA011694 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - Rehab/renovation of existing facility | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| CATA011695 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - APC, AVL | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010579 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -Preventive Maintenance | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010583 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -buy misc small capital | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010591 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -Revenue Vehicle Replacement. | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | ||
| T00073 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA-Rehab/Renovation Administration & Operations Facility | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011701 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- DISCRETIONARY SMART EV SOLAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT PHASE TWO | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011707 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- BLANDIN HUB OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPANSION - CONSTRUCTION | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011708 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE HYDROGEN DEPLOYMENT | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011948 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- ACQUIRE HEAVY DUTY 30 FOOT REVENUE VEHICLE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Qualitative decrease from fuel-efficient bus procurement | |
| RTD0011137 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - ACQUIRE REVENUE REPLACEMENT VEHICLES CUTAWAYS TYPE D CNG Consider For Statewide 5339 Funds | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | ||
| RTD0011195 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - OPERATING ASSISTANCE NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011196 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) - BLANDIN/FCRS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011197 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT/CAPITAL OUTREACH | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011198 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011267 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - EV - Additional Electrification Infrastructure | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA053 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Bridge & Tunnel Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA054 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Revenue Vehicle Program | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 4,386,686 | |
| MBTA055 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Signals/Systems Upgrade Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA056 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Stations and Facilities Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA057 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Bridge & Tunnel Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA058 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Revenue Vehicle Program | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 4,386,686 | |
| MBTA059 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Signals/Systems Upgrade Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA060 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Stations and Facilities Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA061 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5339 Bus Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA063 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | RRIF/TIFIA Financing Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
| FFY 2028 | ||||||
| Project ID | RTA | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG Impact Description | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | Qualitative Decrease Justification |
| CATA011694 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - Rehab/renovation of existing facility | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| CATA011695 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - APC, AVL | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010579 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -Preventive Maintenance | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010583 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -buy misc small capital | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| T00073 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA-Rehab/Renovation Administration & Operations Facility | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011701 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- DISCRETIONARY SMART EV SOLAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT PHASE TWO | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011705 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA - PASSENGER TRANSFER STATION | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011707 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- BLANDIN HUB OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPANSION - CONSTRUCTION | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011708 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE HYDROGEN DEPLOYMENT | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011948 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- ACQUIRE HEAVY DUTY 30 FOOT REVENUE VEHICLE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Qualitative decrease from fuel-efficient bus procurement | |
| RTD0011137 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - ACQUIRE REVENUE REPLACEMENT VEHICLES CUTAWAYS TYPE D CNG Consider For Statewide 5339 Funds | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | ||
| RTD0011195 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - OPERATING ASSISTANCE NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011196 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) - BLANDIN/FCRS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011197 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT/CAPITAL OUTREACH | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011198 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011267 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - EV - Additional Electrification Infrastructure | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011475 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Bridge & Tunnel Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011476 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Revenue Vehicle Program | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 4,386,686 | |
| MBTA011478 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Signals/Systems Upgrade Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011481 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Bridge & Tunnel Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011484 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Stations and Facilities Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011486 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Revenue Vehicle Program | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 4,386,686 | |
| MBTA011487 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Signals/Systems Upgrade Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011488 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Stations and Facilities Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011489 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5339 Bus Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011490 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | RRIF/TIFIA Financing Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
| FFY 2029 | ||||||
| Project ID | RTA | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG Impact Description | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | Qualitative Decrease Justification |
| CATA011695 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - APC, AVL | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010579 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -Preventive Maintenance | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010583 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -buy misc small capital | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| T00073 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA-Rehab/Renovation Administration & Operations Facility | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011706 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- Hydrogen Fuel Generation and Dispensing Depot | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011948 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- ACQUIRE HEAVY DUTY 30 FOOT REVENUE VEHICLE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Qualitative decrease from fuel-efficient bus procurement | |
| RTD0011137 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - ACQUIRE REVENUE REPLACEMENT VEHICLES CUTAWAYS TYPE D CNG Consider For Statewide 5339 Funds | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | ||
| RTD0011195 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - OPERATING ASSISTANCE NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011196 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) - BLANDIN/FCRS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011197 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT/CAPITAL OUTREACH | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011198 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011267 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - EV - Additional Electrification Infrastructure | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011826 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Bridge & Tunnel Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011827 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Revenue Vehicle Program | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 4,386,686 | |
| MBTA011828 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Signals/Systems Upgrade Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011829 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Stations and Facilities Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011830 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Bridge & Tunnel Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011831 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Revenue Vehicle Program | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 4,386,686 | |
| MBTA011832 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Signals/Systems Upgrade Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011834 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5339 Bus Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011836 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Stations and Facilities Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011837 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | RRIF/TIFIA Financing Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
| FFY 2030 | ||||||
| Project ID | RTA | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG Impact Description | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | Qualitative Decrease Justification |
| CATA011695 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - APC, AVL | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010579 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -Preventive Maintenance | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010583 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -buy misc small capital | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0010591 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -Revenue Vehicle Replacement. | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 6 | |
| T00073 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA-Rehab/Renovation Administration & Operations Facility | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011948 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- ACQUIRE HEAVY DUTY 30 FOOT REVENUE VEHICLE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Qualitative decrease from fuel-efficient bus procurement | |
| MWRTA011964 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - Hydrogen Vehicle Procurement | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Qualitative decrease from fuel-efficient bus procurement | |
| RTD0011137 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - ACQUIRE REVENUE REPLACEMENT VEHICLES CUTAWAYS TYPE D CNG Consider For Statewide 5339 Funds | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 432,335 | |
| RTD0011195 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - OPERATING ASSISTANCE NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011196 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) - BLANDIN/FCRS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011197 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT/CAPITAL OUTREACH | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011198 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011267 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - EV - Additional Electrification Infrastructure | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
Table B-3 Greenhouse Gas Regional Highway Project Tracking: Completed Projects
| Project ID | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG Impact Description | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | Qualitative Decrease Justification |
| 607977 | HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE | Quantified | RTP project included in the statewide model | ||
| 608051 | WILMINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 38 (MAIN STREET), FROM ROUTE 62 TO THE WOBURN C.L. | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | 492,167 | Consultation committee: 03/06/2019 |
| 608703 | WILMINGTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-38-029 (2KV), ST 129 LOWELL STREET OVER I-93 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 609211 | PEABODY- INDEPENDENCE GREENWAY EXTENSION | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 36,612 | Consultation committee: 03/06/2019 |
| 609516 | BURLINGTON- IMPROVEMENTS AT I-95 (ROUTE 128)/ROUTE 3 INTERCHANGE | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |||
| 609531 | ARLINGTON- STRATTON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 610776 | CAMBRIDGE- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, C-01-031, US ROUTE 3/ROUTE 16/ROUTE 2 OVER MBTA REDLINE | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612044 | BROOKLINE- NEWTON- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 9 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612073 | SHARON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION OF S-09-015 AND S-09-016 ALONG THE I-95 CORRIDOR | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612094 | RANDOLPH- CANTON- DEDHAM- MILTON- WESTWOOD- PAVEMENT AND BRIDGE PRESERVATION ON I-95 AND I-93 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613181 | BOSTON- NEWTON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION OF 3 BRIDGES ALONG STATE ROUTE 9/BOYLSTON STREET | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613216 | MARLBOROUGH- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, M-06-010, ELM STREET OVER I-495 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613357 | CAMBRIDGE- SEPARATED BICYCLE LANES ON CAMBRIDGE STREET | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 86461 | LINCOLN- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, L-12-002, CONCORD ROAD (ROUTE 126) OVER MBTA/CSX RAILROAD | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12697 | PLEASANT STREET SHUTTLE SERVICE EXPANSION | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | 183,575 | Funding programmed in 2024 and 2025. Consultation committee: 04/27/2022 |
| S12699 | STONEHAM SHUTTLE SERVICE | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | 41,707 | Funding programmed in 2024 and 2025. Consultation Committee: 04/27/2022 |
| S12701 | MWRTA CATCHCONNECT MICROTRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION - HUDSON AND MARLBOROUGH | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | 11,936 | Funding programmed in 2024 and 2025. Consultation committee: 04/27/2022 |
| S12703 | MONTACHUSETT RTA MICROTRANSIT SERVICE – ON-DEMAND SERVICE FOR BOLTON, BOXBOROUGH, LITTLETON, STOW | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | 24,602 | Funding programmed in 2024 and 2025. Consultation Committee: 04/27/2022 |
| S12807 | MWRTA CATCHCONNECT MICROTRANSIT EXPANSION PHASE 2 | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | 102,845 | The project adds complementary transit service to existing MWRTA bus connections in Framingham and Natick, and extends service hours for the existing CatchConnect service. Funding programmed in 2024, 2025, and 2026. Consultation Committee: 03/13/2023 |
| S12819 | MBTA - JACKSON SQUARE STATION ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12907 | Framingham - Chris Walsh Aqueduct Trail Connectivity Project (Design Earmark MA275) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12958 | BOSTON- BLUEBIKES STATION REPLACEMENT AND ELECTRIFICATION, 12 STATIONS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12959 | BOSTON- REPURPOSING SINGLE SPACE PARKING METER POLES FOR 1600 BICYCLE RACKS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Qualitative decrease from bicycle rack investment. | |
| S12960 | CAMBRIDGE- BLUEBIKES STATE OF GOOD REPAIR, 8 STATIONS AND 65 PEDAL BIKES | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12961 | BROOKLINE- BLUEBIKES STATE OF GOOD REPAIR, 3 STATIONS AND 62 PEDAL BIKES | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12962 | SOMERVILLE- BLUEBIKES STATE OF GOOD REPAIR, 13 STATIONS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12963 | CHELSEA-REVERE- REGIONAL ON-DEMAND MICROTRANSIT PILOT PROJECT | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | 4,055 | Estimated 58 passenger trips per day, vendor would use electric vehicles. |
| S12964 | REVERE- BLUEBIKES EXPANSION TO NORTHERN STRAND (SALEM STREET AT NORTH MARSHALL STREET) AND GRISWOLD PARK | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 1,518 | Quantified decrease in emissions from bikeshare expansion investment. |
| S12965 | ARLINGTON- INSTALLATION OF 123 BICYCLE RACKS AND RELATED MATERIALS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Decrease of emissions form bicycle rack investment. | |
| S12966 | MALDEN- CANAL STREET BICYCLE LANES | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | 33,312 | Quantified decrease from creation of a new bicycle facility. |
| S12967 | SCITUATE- INSTALLATION OF 25 BICYCLE RACKS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | New bicycle rack installation. | |
| S12968 | CATA– FARE UPGRADES FOR ADA AND DIAL-A-RIDE CUSTOMERS | Qualitative | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | Qualitative improvement resulting from fare system modernization for cashless payments. | |
| S12969 | CATA– GLOUCESTER FACILITY MODERNIZATION | Qualitative | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | Air quality benefit from transit facility modernization, weatherization, and energy retrofit work. | |
| S12970 | CATA– VEHICLE REPLACEMENT (7 VEHICLES), INCLUDING TRANSIT PROJECT ID RTD0010591 | Qualitative | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | Bus replacement of seven vehicles past their useful life. Corresponds with RTD0010591 in CATA's program. | |
| S12971 | MWRTA– BLANDIN HUB REDESIGN INITIATIVE | Qualitative | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | Design of modernized transit facility including passenger facility upgrades. | |
| S12972 | MWRTA– PROCUREMENT OF NINE 29 FOOT BUSES (CNG) | Qualitative | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | Qualitative improvement from procurement of new low emission fleet vehicles. | |
| S12974 | MBTA– CENTRAL SQUARE STATION ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS (CAMBRIDGE) | Qualitative | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | ||
| S12975 | MBTA– SYSTEMWIDE PEDAL AND PARK MODERNIZATION (ALEWIFE, ASHMONT, BRAINTREE, DAVIS SQUARE, FOREST HILLS, MALDEN CENTER, NUBIAN, OAK GROVE, ROUTE 128, SALEM, SOUTH STATION, WOLLASTON, WONDERLAND) | Qualitative | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | Qualitative improvements from bicycle rack installations near transit stations. | |
| S12976 | MBTA– NUBIAN SQUARE ACCESSIBILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS (BOSTON) | Qualitative | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | Emissions reductions from circulation improvements at Nubian Station (MBTA bus facility). | |
| S12979 | ARLINGTON– BROADWAY COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12980 | MARLBOROUGH– RECONSTRUCTION OF GRANGER BOULEVARD [DESIGN ONLY] | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12981 | NORFOLK-WRENTHAM-WALPOLE- SHARED-USE PATH INSTALLATION (METACOMET GREENWAY) [DESIGN ONLY] | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12982 | FRAMINGHAM– CHRIS WALSH TRAIL PHASE 2 [DESIGN ONLY] | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12983 | SHERBORN– RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 27 AND ROUTE 16 [DESIGN ONLY] | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12984 | HOLLISTON– INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 16 AND WHITNEY STREET [DESIGN ONLY] | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12985 | MBTA– COLUMBUS AVENUE BUS LANES PHASE II (BOSTON) | Qualitative | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | ||
| S12986 | MBTA– RAIL TRANSFORMATION EARLY ACTION ITEMS - READING STATION AND WILBUR INTERLOCKING | Qualitative | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | ||
| S12989 | CAMBRIDGE- SEPARATED BICYCLE LANE ON STEEL PLACE (MA272) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | Design project | |
| S12992 | Cambridge - Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure for Cambridge Residents (Federal Earmark, Demo ID MA 287) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12998 | METROWEST RTA 5307 CARBON REDUCTION - ACQUIRE EV BUS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S13091 | Belmont Community Path (Federal Earmark for Design) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13092 | MARBLEHEAD - BORDER TO BOSTON TRAIL DESIGN | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13093 | PEABODY - BORDER TO BOSTON TRAIL DESIGN | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13094 | SALEM - BORDER TO BOSTON TRAIL DESIGN | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13095 | DOVER-NEEDHAM - CENTRE STREET / CENTRAL AVENUE BRIDGE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13096 | ARLINGTON- MYSTIC RIVER PATH TO MINUTEMAN BIKEWAY CONNECTION DESIGN | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13099 | LYNN - BROAD STREET CORRIDOR TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13100 | BOSTON- CFI ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13103 | Cambridge - Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing of the Fitchburg MBTA Commuter Rail Line (Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods Grant) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13106 | BOSTON-REPLACEMENT OF ALLSTON I-90 ELEVATED VIADUCT B-16-359, INCLUDING INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION BEACON PARK YARD LAYOVER & WEST STATION | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13107 | BOSTON-EAST BOSTON SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL (SS4A) IMPROVEMENTS | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13108 | LYNN: LYNN SAFE STREETS PROJECTS (SS4A) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13109 | PEABODY: LYNNFIELD STREET CORRIDOR SAFETY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT (SS4A) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13110 | BOSTON- RECONNECTING CHINATOWN PLANNING (FFY 2022 RCN) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13111 | BOSTON- CHELSEA- GREENING CHELSEA CREEK WATERFRONT (FFY 2023 NAE) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13112 | Temporary Quick-build Treatments on Broadway (SS4A Demonstration Grant) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13113 | Boston - Safety at Nine Key Intersections (SS4A Implementation Grant) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13114 | Somerville - Quick Build Protected Bike Lanes Pilot (FY 2023 SS4A Supp/Demo Grant) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13115 | Boston - New Traffic Signal Operations (FY 23 SS4A Implementation Grant) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13116 | Everett - Planning and Demonstration Activities (FY 2023 SS4A Demonstration Grant) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13117 | Norwood - Update Four EV Charging Ports (EVC-RAA Grant) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13120 | EVERETT- UNITING NEIGHBORHOODS AND TRANSIT OPPORTUNITIES IN EVERETT (FFY 2023 RCN) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13121 | LYNN- RIVER WORKS REIMAGINED (FFY 2023 NAE) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13122 | BOSTON REGION MPO- SS4A SUPPLEMENTAL PLANNING AND DEMONSTRATION GRANT FOR THE BOSTON REGION MPO | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13148 | SALEM- SOUTH SALEM COMMUTER RAIL STOP PROJECT (FFY 2024 RAISE/APP) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13149 | BOSTON- ROXBURY RESILIENT CORRIDORS (FFY 2022 RAISE) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13160 | MAPC- LEVERAGING INNOVATIVE NETWORKS TO KEEP URBAN PATHWAYS UNCONGESTED (LINKUP) IN GREATER BOSTON (FFY 2024 CRF) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13161 | FY24 EPA Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles (CHDV) Grant: Achieving Annual Replacement/Deployment Parity: 125 Heavy-Duty Electric School Buses for Boston | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S13162 | FY24 EPA Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles (CHDV) Grant: Hamilton-Wenham Regional School District - 17 school buses | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13163 | FY24 EPA Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles (CHDV) Grant: Hingham Public Schools/Town of Hingham - 10 school buses | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13169 | Quincy SS4A - Pedestrian Crossing Safety Improvements in Senior and School Zones Demonstration Program | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13170 | Watertown SS4A - Watertown Safe Streets Initiative | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13174 | Needham SS4A - Great Plain Avenue Multimodal Corridor Demonstration Project | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13175 | PPPP - Prioritization Improvement Program for the Greater Boston Region | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13189 | Revere RCP Grant - Walking to Wonderland- Removing the transportation barriers of the MBTA commuter rail, RT 1A and RT 60 | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13192 | MBTA Reconnecting Communities Grant - JFK/UMass Station Redesign & Replacement Project (Planning) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13197 | City of Boston - RCP Grant - Centering the RISE: Connecting People to a Healthy, Vibrant Mattapan Square | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13198 | Design of the Wakefield Broadway Commuter Rail Crossing (Federal Earmark MA270) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13199 | Construction of the Wakefield Broadway Commuter Rail Crossing (Federal Earmark MA270) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13202 | CATA- AUTOMATIC PASSENGER COUNTING AND AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATION DEPLOYMENT (TRANSIT PROJECT ID CATA011695) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Qualitative decrease from transit operational improvements. | |
| S13206 | MBTA- FFY 2025 CATAMARAN OVERHAUL | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Qualitative decrease resulting from fleet improvements. | |
| S13207 | MBTA- NATICK CENTER STATION ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Qualitative improvement in air quality resulting from improved station access, including multimodal connections to Cochituate Rail Trial. Quantitative evaluation to follow. | |
| S13208 | MBTA- WELLESLEY SQUARE STATION UPGRADES | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Qualitative decrease from station accessibility improvements | |
| S13212 | MBTA- BUS PRIORITY AND ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS (PATI) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | Quantitative evaluation of improvements to transit service to follow. | |
| S13299 | MBTA - Quincy Bus Maintenance Facility (CRP) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S13300 | MBTA - Procurement of 40ft BEBs (CRP) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
Table B-4 Greenhouse Gas Regional Transit Project Tracking: Completed Projects
| Project ID | RTA | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG Impact Description | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) |
| CATA011694 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - Rehab/renovation of existing facility | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| CATA011695 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - APC, AVL | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| CATA011816 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - Acquisition of Support Vehicles | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| CATA011817 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - Fare Collection System for ADA and DAR customers | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| CATA011818 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - Replacement vans | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| CATA012016 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - Transportation to Dialysis Services (Community Transit Grant Program) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| RTD0010579 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -Preventive Maintenance | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| RTD0010583 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -buy misc small capital | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| RTD0010591 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA - -Revenue Vehicle Replacement. | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | |
| T00073 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | CATA-Rehab/Renovation Administration & Operations Facility | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MWRTA011699 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 5307 FORMULA- ACQUIRE REVENUE VEHICLE - BUS QTY 4 | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011700 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA 5307 CARBON REDUCTION - ACQUIRE EV BUS | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011709 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | METROWEST RTA- ACQUIRE HEAVY DUTY CNG 30FT TRANSIT BUS | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MWRTA011814 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - Procurement of 3 30-Foot Buses | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MWRTA011815 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - Blandin Hub Operations and Maintenance Expansion | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MWRTA011926 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - 5307 Formula 2025 - Acquire Revenue Vehicles - Bus Qty 5 Type D Gas | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| RTD0011109 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| RTD0011110 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT/CAPITAL OUTREACH | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| RTD0011111 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) - BLANDIN | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| RTD0011121 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) - Framingham Commuter Rail Station (FCRS) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| RTD0011134 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - PUBLIC RESTROOMS AT BLANDIN & FCRS HUBS - 5307 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| RTD0011137 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - VEHICLE REPLACEMENT - ACQUIRE REVENUE CUTAWAYS | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 432335.305 |
| RTD0011195 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | MetroWest RTA - OPERATING ASSISTANCE NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011474 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Jackson Sq. Station Access Impr. (CMAQ) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011821 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Columbus Ave. Bus Lane Ph. II (CMAQ) | Not Applicable | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| MBTA011822 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Rail Transformation - Early Action CMAQ) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011823 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Central Station Accessibility Project | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011824 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Nubian Square Bus Circulation Improv. | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011825 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Pedal & Park System Modernization | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011929 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Ashmont Station BEB Charger Design (FFY 2023 APP) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011930 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Lower Broadway Everett Corridor (FFY 2024 RAISE) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011931 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Green Line B/C Branch Accessibility (FFY 2024 ASAP) | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011932 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Mobileye Shield and Bus Collision Avoidance Demonstration System (FFY 2024 SS4A) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011933 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Quincy Squantum Pier Modernization (FFY 2024 FTA Passenger Ferry) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011937 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Systemwide Flood Mitigation (PROTECT) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011938 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Fairmount Line Decarbonization (CRP) | Quantified | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011939 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Lynn Broad Street Corridor TSP (CPF) | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011940 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Lynn Station Improvements (STP) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011942 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Wonderland Multimodal Connector (CPF) | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011943 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Lynnway Multimodal Corridor (RAISE) | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| MBTA011944 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Attleboro Station Improvements (GATRA) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA011945 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Worcester Union Station (WRTA) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA012022 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Greater Lynn Senior Services - MoveSafe/MobilityLinks (MS/ML) (Community Transit Grant Program) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA012023 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Mystic Valley Elder Services - Mobility Management (Community Transit Grant Program) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA012031 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Brookline Council on Aging - Senior Transportation Service (Community Transit Grant Program) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA012036 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | JFK/UMass Station Improvement - Planning (RCP) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA012037 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | MBTA- Procurement of 40ft BEBs (CRP) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA012038 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Bus Priority and Accessibility - PATI (CMAQ) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA012039 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | MBTA Catamaran Overhaul (CMAQ, FBP) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA012040 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Natick Center Station Accessibility (CMAQ) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA012041 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Wellesley Station Upgrades (CMAQ) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA012055 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | MBTA- Quincy Bus Maintenance Facility (CRP) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA012067 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | Lynn Broad Street Corridor TSP (CMAQ) | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA028 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Revenue Vehicle Program | Quantified | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement | 4386686 |
| MBTA029 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Signals/Systems Upgrade Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA030 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5307 Stations and Facilities Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA031 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Bridge & Tunnel Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA032 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Revenue Vehicle Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA033 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Signals/Systems Upgrade Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA034 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5337 Stations and Facilities Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA035 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | 5339 Bus Program | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA036 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | RRIF Financing - PTC/ATC/Fiber | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | |
| MBTA037 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority | RRIF/TIFIA Financing Program | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
As part of the development of the FFYs 2026–30 TIP, analyses were done for the types of projects described below. A summary of steps performed in the analyses is provided.
For an intersection reconstruction or signalization project that typically reduces delay and, therefore, idling, the following steps are taken:
For a shared-use path that would enable more walking and biking trips and reduce automobile trips, the following steps are taken:
For a program that replaces old buses with new buses that reduce emissions or run on cleaner fuel, the following steps are taken:
Calculations may be performed on the project types listed below:
Projects with assumed CO2 impacts are those that could produce a minor decrease or increase in emissions, but the change in emissions cannot be calculated with any precision. Examples include a bicycle rack installation, Safe Routes to School projects, or transit marketing or customer service improvements. These projects are categorized as producing an assumed nominal increase or decrease in emissions.
Projects that do not change the capacity or use of a facility—for example, a resurfacing project that restores a roadway to its previous condition, or a bridge rehabilitation or replacement that restores the bridge to its previous condition—are assumed to have no CO2 impact.
In the course of developing the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the staff of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) regularly engages with municipalities, community-based organizations, and the general public to provide information and solicit feedback around milestones and key decision points. MPO staff publishes materials and information used by the MPO board for decision-making via the TIP development web page, bostonmpo.org/tip-dev, and shares updates via email and social media communication channels. This process affords interested stakeholders and members of the public opportunities to provide input to the MPO board during the development of the TIP and prior to the release of the draft TIP for the official public review period. This appendix documents the input received during the development of the Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs) 2026–30 TIP and comments received during the public review period.
MPO staff initiated public engagement activities for the FFYs 2026–30 TIP in October 2024. Staff held and participated in a variety of events, including MPO board and committee meetings, public information sessions and workshops, in-person pop-up engagement activities, and meetings with municipalities and organizations. Staff made particular efforts to encourage community-based organizations and members of the public to advocate for their communities’ priorities by providing feedback to the MPO about proposed TIP projects and engaging directly with municipalities and project proponents to support project development.
The following are highlights from public engagement during the development of the FFYs 2026–30 TIP:
In addition to the specific meetings and engagement activities listed above, staff held numerous one-on-one and small group meetings with municipal stakeholders and community-based organizations to share detailed information about the TIP development process, solicit input and discuss priorities, and provide opportunities for deeper engagement on specific projects currently programmed on the TIP or proposed for funding in future years. These conversations also helped inform the development of additional engagement materials, strategies, and activities to effectively address local needs expressed by stakeholders.
Moreover, the MPO board held a series of discussions at its regular meetings as the TIP was developed in stages that focused on project solicitation, project evaluation, and programming of funds. Staff informed the public at each stage via its standard communication channels (email, social media, and the MPO website) and solicited public comment at each meeting. Staff regularly shared comment letters and emails received from members of the public, municipal and elected officials, advocates, and other stakeholders with the MPO board during meetings to help inform TIP planning and programming decisions.
During in-person engagement events conducted during the development of the FFYs 2026–30 TIP, staff collected information about public priorities for project funding and for transportation infrastructure improvements in general. Figure 1 represents an aggregate analysis of an interactive polling activity conducted at multiple community events with more than 200 responses.
Figure C- 1
Public Priorities for Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Collected at In-Person Engagement Events
Source: Boston Region MPO staff.
Staff also conducted continuous analyses and presented regular updates to the MPO board on key themes and topics that emerged from input collected from stakeholders through all engagement and communications channels and activities. At the January 16, 2025, MPO board meeting, staff presented a published interactive StoryMap containing further data and analyses. The most prevalent themes from public comments during the initial phases of the development of the FFY 2026–30 TIP were safety for all users and modes of transportation, and public transit access, connectivity, and reliability.
In addition to these higher-level thematic analyses, the MPO received a number of specific oral and written comments while developing the draft TIP. These comments are summarized below in Table C-1. In addition to these comments, the MPO also received XX formal comment letters from stakeholders; the commenters and subjects of the letters are listed below in Table C-1, and the letters are available on the MPO’s website,
www.ctps.org/data/calendar/pdfs/2024/0404_MPO_LettersofSupport.
Table C-1
Public Comments Received During Development of the FFYs 2026-30 TIP
| PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2026-30 TIP | ||||
| PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT |
| 613357: Cambridge-Cambridge Street improvements | Andreas Wolfe | City of Cambridge | Support | Spoke in support of the Cambridge Street improvement project. Discussed the sustainability and mobility benefirts of the project. |
| 613357: Cambridge-Cambridge Street improvements | Bill Deignan | City of Cambridge | Support | Spoke in support of the Cambridge Street improvement project. Advocated for the project to be funded in FFY26 to replace an expiring congressional earmark. Also discussed Cambridge's Fitchburg Crossing Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge project which Cambridge was awarded a USDOT Reconnecting Communities grant for, and requested that the MPO consider supporting this project in the future for construction and pending changes to Cambridge's federal grant. |
| 612947: Marblehead--Village Street Bridge Replacement | Logan Casey | Town of Marblehead Sustainability Coordinator | Support | Letter in support of Marblehead Village Street Bridge replacement project |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Emily Andreano | Swampscott resident | Support | Letter in support of the Swampscott Rail Trail |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Jennifer Honig and Christopher Muntiu | Swampscott Residents | Support | Letter in support of the Swampscott Rail Trail |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Marc Barden | Swampscott Resident | Support | Letter in support of the Swampscott Rail Trail |
| 613594: Newton--Christina Street Bridge | Ruthanne Fuller | City of Newton (mayor) | Support | Letter in support of TIP Scenario 2a and Project 613594: Newton--Christina Street Bridge |
| 605168 - Hingham - Improvements on Route 3A | JR Frey | Higham Town Engineer | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Route 3A improvement project (#605168). Discussed the local support for the project and its safety benefits for the corridor. |
| 605168- Hingham - Improvements on Route 3A | Joseph Fisher | Hingham Select Board Chair | Support | Letter in support of Hingham Route 3A project |
| 606226-Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue from City Square to Sullivan Square | Jascha Franklin-Hodge | City of Boston Chief of Streets | Support | Letter of support for funding the Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue from City Square to Sullivan Square from the City of Boston. |
| 608954: Weston--Reconstruction on Route 30 | Lou and Rebecca Mercuri | Not provided | Oppose | We have corresponded a number of times in the past few years regarding the Route 30 reconstruction project in Weston (#608954), usually as part of the preparation of the annual TIP. Going back at least three years, we have forwarded to you a number of letters for inclusion as part of the TIP review process. Some of these letters have been signed by well over 100 Weston residents expressing many concerns about public safety, environmental concerns and the proposed 3.6 mile shared use path. At this time, we envision once again forwarding communications and letters of concern/opposition to this project for inclusion in the FFY2026-30 TIP document. This year we want our comments and concerns to be more pointed to concerns at the MPO level and to have greater scrutiny assigned to the assessment of this project and its programming. In addition, conditions have changed since 2024 and there is a considerable groundswell of local support for an alternative bicycle facilities plan that would use the Hultman Aqueduct land that closely parallels Route 30. With that in mind, we would respectfully request an in person meeting with you and potentially members of your staff at your offices to discuss and evaluate the following: 1. The methodology of the scoring and ranking of the project from past years may be different as a result of more up to date data and changing conditions in the corridor that we would like to discuss and understand. 2. How we may forward community based TIP comments that will have the greatest impact on CTPS and MPO members about decisions going forward concerning project funding. Bicyclist, pedestrian and vehicular safety and the potential compromises that this project entails remains an absolute top priority for residents. 3. How a possible change to the project scope by using the Hultman Aqueduct for bicycle accommodations could remain part of the current Route 30 project in terms of project placement and financing. We look forward to an opportunity to discuss these issues with you. Would you be available to meet early in the week of March 24 to meet with us? Thank you for your consideration. |
| 609204 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Holly Muson | Chair, Belmont Community Path Project Committee | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project (#609204) and its safety, mobility, and connectivity benefits for residents of the town. Discussed the progression of design for the project. |
| 609204 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Matt Taylor | Vice Chair, Belmont Select Board | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project (#609204) and its safety, mobility, and connectivity benefits for residents of the town. Discussed the progression of design for the project. |
| 609204 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | William Brownsberger | State Senator | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project (#609204) and its safety, mobility, and connectivity benefits for residents of the town. Discussed the progression of design for the project. |
| 609204-Belmont--Community Path, Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Everett Tatelbaum | Belmont resident | Support | I wanted to share my support for the Belmont Community Path. It will be a tremendous benefit to the area. |
| 609204 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Amanda Lubarsky | Belmont Resident | Support | I am very much in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I feel the underpass tunnel that will allow kids walking to the Belmont Middle and Belmont High schools (grades 7th-12th) to have safe passage underneath the train tracks is especially important. Right now kids who live just on the other side of the school jump a fence and cut across the active tracks, which is unsafe but much quicker than the longer road route that's available now. My son bikes to school several days a week and the new community path will be a much safer option than the congested roads. This path and tunnel will have a huge impact not just on the students, but also on parents who can leave their cars at home and walk to events at the schools, and on community members who would like to go from one part of Belmont to the other. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. I can't wait to have it started and completed. Thank you for your work to create new, vital infrastructure like this. |
| 609204 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Catherine Rockwood | Belmont resident | Support | I'm a resident of Belmont, MA where we deal (like most inner Boston suburbs) with a heavy automotive-traffic burden, which reduces the safety of our streets for pedestrians and people on bikes and scooters -- including a lot of school-age kids who travel to school that way -- and contributes to atmospheric pollution, accelerates the harm of climate-change, etc., etc., etc. We truly do need to complete the Belmont Community Path, so people have increased access to safe travel-ways for bike traffic. Belmont has a lot of committed bike-commuters, and people really are looking for methods of reducing their dependence on cars: but they need to not be penalized for this effort via consistent risk to life and limb. I'm grateful we have funding thus far for the construction of Phase I, and hope we will continue to be supported via the Transportation Improvement Program. |
| 609204 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Ciara Glenmullen | Belmont Resident | Support | I am writing in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I am excited at the prospect of my kids having a way to walk from the Winn Brook neighborhood directly to the Belmont Middle/High School via the underpass, as well as safer access to Alewife via bike/walking. Additionally, our family very much prefers to get around on our bikes, rather than with by car, and this will make it easier to do so. I am very pleased that the project is slated to begin construction in 2026. The project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609204 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Corinne Foster | Belmont Resident | Support | I write in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I look forward to using this new off-road path for safely commuting through Belmont and am very pleased that it is slated to begin construction in 2026. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. Having a safe route for my children to travel to school and other town activities on foot or bike is good for my family and the town and is incredibly important to me. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609204 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Dan Eldridge | Belmont Resident | Support | I understand that the the Boston Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will be gauging community support for the first phase of the Belmont Community Path project. I would like to express my wholehearted support for this project! This path represents a critical missing piece of infrastructure for the town of Belmont and to connect through to Cambridge and Boston from points west of the city. Having a dedicated mixed-use path would benefit residents in a number ways. Personally I would use it for transportation, exercise and recreation (all with and without my kids). It would also help reduce traffic and provide a much safer way for many students to get to the middle and high schools in town. |
| 609204 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Ed Barker | Belmont Resident | Support | I write in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I look forward to using this new off-road path for l walking and cycling and am very pleased that it is slated to begin construction in 2026. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. This project has deep support within town residents as evidenced by the multiple votes of Town Meeting to allocate Community Preservation Funds for the design of the path. I like to get around town on bicycle and this will make it easier to do so. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609204 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Support | I'm writing in support of the Belmont community path project, which will be a significant improvement in quality of life, non vehicular transportation, and safety for a wide range of people in Belmont and beyond. This path will make it possible for bikers to avoid the busy and dangerous Concord Avenue bridge intersection when traveling to and from Cambridge. It will allow students to walk to school more quickly and safely from the neighborhoods north and east of the tracks, and it will encourage greater use of alternative modes of transportation to reach important public infrastructure like the library, hockey rink and high/middle school. Please help to ensure that the funding and political support for this project continues. | ||
| 609205 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Erika Roberts | Belmont Resident | Support | We are writing today with enthusiastic support of the Belmont Community Path project. We purchased our Belmont home in 2008 specifically so my husband could bike to work in Cambridge every day and I could bike to Alewife and take the redline to work in Boston. (In fact, we first looked to buy in Arlington along their Minuteman Bikeway for this purpose but lost out on a number of competitive bids there and turned to the Belmont housing market instead.) We were so happy when the bike path was improved/extended from Alewife Station to Brighton Street in Belmont along the active railroad track and use it regularly with the family for commuting, exercise, and pleasure. We have been anxious to see the rest of the Belmont Community Path come to fruition! We will have innumerable uses for the Belmont Community Path project when complete. We would walk and cycle even more than we do currently which will in turn reduce traffic congestion, emissions, and parking issues in our local community. Due to our prime location just off Channing Road where it intersects Alexander Avenue, our family would especially take advantage of the proposed Alexander Avenue Tunnel underneath the railroad that connects our Winn Brook neighborhood with new Belmont Middle and High School (BMHS) campus as well as other desirable amenities on Concord Avenue. We can’t wait to have safe and convenient access by foot and by bike to: the brand new Belmont Library (under construction) the brand new skating rink (under construction) the post office Underwood Pool where we are members in the summer Higginbottom Pool within BMHS where our children have Dolphins Swim Team practice and meets Countless events at BMHS (concerts, art shows, plays, musicals, dances, etc.) Countless events at Harris Field and Stadium (Belmont Soccer Night, BHMS sporting events, charity runs, etc.). Every day we see students and residents cut cross the live railroad tracks to access BMHS and know the tunnel will provide a safe and much needed alternative. Just like we have for years with the Minuteman Trail, we will regularly use the new off-road Belmont Community Path for exercising, dog walking, cycling, meeting up with friends, and commuting. This will give our children more autonomy getting to friends’ homes in other parts of town safely and help them avoid the congested and dangerous intersection under the Belmont Center bridge where Leonard Street meets Concord Ave. We understand construction is slated to begin in 2026 and support any and all efforts to stay on or ahead of schedule. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area, it really is life-changing and quality-of-life-changing. We commit to being good neighbors and stewards of the project once built, use it safely, and take care of this wonderful addition to our town for all our years. |
| 609206 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Erin Lynch | Belmont Resident | Support | I write in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I look forward to using this new off-road path for [pick one or more: exercise/socializing/walking/running/cycling/commuting] and am very pleased that it is slated to begin construction in 2026. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. Other possible comments to add if desired: This path will fill a missing link in the Massachusetts Central Rail Trail. Having a safe route for my children to travel to [school/sports activities/the public library/town pool] on foot or bike is good for my family and the town. This project has deep support within town residents as evidenced by the multiple votes of Town Meeting to allocate Community Preservation Funds for the design of the path. I like to get [around town/to work/my exercise] without using my car and this will make it easier to do so. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609207 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Georgina Lamont | Belmont Resident | Support | My whole family supports and needs the Belmont Community Path project - thank you for your help in bringing this long-awaited project to life. My 10 and 8 year-old daughters will need a safer walking/bike route to the Middle/High School via the planned underpass to avoid dangerous roads (a cyclist competing with cars on busy Brighton St is no joke - for a child cyclist it is unthinkable). My husband and I already use the existing Minuteman bike path almost daily for cycling, running, walking, socializing, and accessing Alewife & Davis. My group of Winn Brook Elementary friends who walk together as a parenting sanity-break each morning can't wait for this extension to vary our exercise routine :) Belmont needs this path to ease traffic congestion and bring more footfall to local businesses from surrounding towns. I appreciated discussing the Path Project with helpful representatives at the last Town Day - I am one of many (perhaps quiet, unheard) voices who think construction can't start soon enough. |
| 609208 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Gi Yoon-Huang, Ambrose Huang, Children | Belmont Resident | Support | I have lived in Belmont for 12 years with my 2 children and husband. We all support the Belmont Community Path project. We look forward to using the underpass so that my daughters can safely walk to school, my husband can bike off-road to work, and that I can jog off road. We are thrilled that Phase 1 is slated to begin construction in 2026. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. When a town becomes more walkable, it not only improves the traffic, decreases car emissions and improves air quality, but it also makes it a more of a hometown where people can see each other and talk. What a great way to help build relationships and help address the epidemic of loneliness and mental health issues. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609209 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | John and Ann Verrilli | Belmont resident | Support | I want to express our support for the Belmont Community Path, construction scheduled to start in 2026. Thank you. |
| 609210 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Julie Lemay | Belmont Resident | Support | I write in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I look forward to using this new off-road path for safe commuting options for families and am very pleased that it is slated to begin construction in 2026. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. Having a safe route for my children to travel to school and other local activities on foot or bike is good for my family and the town. This community path will also alleviate high school-related traffic on Brighton St in Belmont, which is important to commuters in our region. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609211 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Lucia Sullivan | Belmont Resident | Support | I write in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I write as a resident and also am the Assistant Superintendent of schools, and can't help but consider my professional capacity as well as my personal desire for a more walkable community. We currently have a situation where the train tracks create significant bottlenecks as there are only two congested routes (through Belmont center on Leonard St or Brighton ST) that allow access from a large section of town to the middle and high school campus. It creates tremendous traffic at peak times, but even more distressing, it leads to students illegally (perilously!) crossing the train tracks at the location where the pedestrian access is slated to be so they can get to school without adding 20 minutes (walking and traffic are fairly similar timing). I look forward to using this new off-road path for my own personal access to this part of town and am very pleased that it is slated to begin construction in 2026. It can't come quickly enough!! This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. But most importantly, it will create safe ACCESS to schools for thousands of students. My husband served on this bike path committee more than a decade ago. I am amazed it has taken so long to get this final leg completed. It will be transformational in terms of community access through town and traffic reduction, because this safe and legal cut through will dramatically reduce the distance kids are now going to get to school. We all realize that walkability (bike access etc) creates a higher quality of life and I am so eager to see this well supported project enter its final phase. Please know the whole community would like to see this come to fruition!! Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609212 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Lydia Kogler | Belmont Resident | Support | I write in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I look forward to using this new off-road path for walking and am very pleased that it is slated to begin construction in 2026. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. I live in a neighborhood that will directly benefit from this improvement. My children will be able to use the path and the tunnel to walk to Belmont Middle and High Schools. As a family that currently walks to our local elementary school, I am thrilled that my children will continue to have a convenient and safe way to get to their future schools on foot. As a Town Meeting member, I am well aware of the deep support for this project across the town as evidenced by the multiple votes we have had to allocate Community Preservation Funds for the design of the path. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. I am deeply appreciative of your work to make our community a safer place to travel by foot. |
| 609213 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Marcy Franck | Belmont resident | Support | I'm a resident of Belmont, MA where I’m nervous about the safety of our streets for pedestrians and others traveling not in cars. I’m especially nervous about the paths kids take to and from school, as there are way too many incidents of pedestrians being struck by cars. I am horrified to be among the drivers who did not see a kid in time to stop fully. The child was not hurt seriously, but we both came away with emotional scars. I know too well that being an attentive driver doesn’t prohibit these accidents from happening. We need to complete the Belmont Community Path, so people have increased access to safe travel in town. We have a lot folks who commute on bikes in addition to so many pedestrians. I am writing to express my deep desire and support to complete this project. |
| 609214 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Martha Pickett | Belmont Resident | Support | I write in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I look forward to using this new off-road path for [pick one or more: exercise/socializing/walking/running/cycling/commuting] and am very pleased that it is slated to begin construction in 2026. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. Other possible comments to add if desired: This path will fill a missing link in the Massachusetts Central Rail Trail. Having a safe route for my children to travel to [school/sports activities/the public library/town pool] on foot or bike is good for my family and the town. This project has deep support within town residents as evidenced by the multiple votes of Town Meeting to allocate Community Preservation Funds for the design of the path. I like to get [around town/to work/my exercise] without using my car and this will make it easier to do so. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609215 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Meenal Bagla | Belmont Resident | Support | I write in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I look forward to using this new off-road path for commuting and having my kids commute as well. I am very pleased that it is slated to begin construction in 2026. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. Having a safe route for my children (and us grown-ups) to travel to school, the town pool, and the public library on foot or bike will be wonderful for my family. It would also be so beneficial for the town to enable independence for our children, in a safe manner, and also hopefully reduce cars on the roads. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609216 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Rebecca Benson | Belmont resident | Support | I continue to strongly support the development of the community path for Belmont. |
| 609217 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Sarah Sanderson Meade | Belmont Resident | Support | I write in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I look forward to using this new off-road path for walking, running, and cycling with my kids and am very pleased that it is slated to begin construction in 2026. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. Having a safe route for my children to travel to school, the public library, and town pool on foot or bike is good for my family and the town. This project has deep support among town residents as evidenced by the multiple votes of Town Meeting to allocate Community Preservation Funds for the design of the path. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609218 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Taylor Yates | Belmont Resident | Support | I write in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I look forward to using this new off-road path for getting around town and am very pleased that it is slated to begin construction in 2026. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. This path will fill a missing link in the Massachusetts Central Rail Trail. This project has deep support within town residents as evidenced by the multiple votes of Town Meeting to allocate Community Preservation Funds for the design of the path. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609219 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Tom Lynch | Belmont Resident | Support | I write in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I look forward to having this new off-road path as a safe route for my kids to travel to school, sports, and the library on foot or bike. I am also excited to use the path for running, walking, and biking and just to get around Belmont without having to use my car. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses, and I am very pleased that it is slated to begin construction in 2026. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609220 - Belmont - Community Path, Belmont Component of the MCRT (Phase 1) | Trisha Kahn | Belmont Resident | Support | I write in support of the Belmont Community Path project. I look forward to using this new off-road path for walking, cycling & commuting and am very pleased that it is slated to begin construction in 2026. This project will help to ease car traffic congestion on our local roads, improve safety for all users, and support the economy in this area by increasing access to businesses. This path will fill a missing link in the Massachusetts Central Rail Trail. Having a safe route for my children to travel to school/sports activities/the public library/town pool on foot or bike is good for my family and the town. This project has deep support within town residents as evidenced by the multiple votes of Town Meeting to allocate Community Preservation Funds for the design of the path. I like to get around town without using my car and this will make it easier to do so. Thank you for your work to create new infrastructure like this in the greater Boston area. |
| 609246- LYNN - Rehabilitation of Western Ave & 609252- LYNN - Rehabilitation of Essex Street | Jared Nicholson | City of Lynn Mayor | Support | Letter in support of Lynn roadway rehabilitation projects on Western Avenue and on Essex Street |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Alexis Runstadler | Friends of the Swampscott Rail Trail President | Support | Letter in support of the Swampscott Rail Trail |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Erin Pierce | Swampscott resident | Support | Hello- I am writing to ask you to continue to support funding for the rail trail in Swampscott. I moved to Swampscott about three years ago. I live a few houses down from where the rail trail crosses Walker Road. I was curious about this empty and overgrown space and learned that it is an unfinished portion of the Swampscott Rail Trail. I quickly became involved with Friends of the Swampscott Rail Trail because I see it as a potential asset to our wonderful community. The road where I live is very busy and we have no driveway. My kids don't have a safe place nearby to ride their bikes or scooters. If the trail were finished, they would have easy access to a safe place to walk and ride. Additionally, they would be able to take the trail all the way to the elementary school and middle school (a little more than a mile) without having to cross any streets. It would be a great option for my kids and my neighbors' kids so they don't have to deal with traffic. In the other direction, we would be able to walk to the commuter train stop without having to cross any streets, including the very busy Paradise Road/Route 1A. (I've almost been hit by cars running the crosswalk light there a few times.) The rail trail bridge there would make it much safer for all pedestrians. I have a native plant nursery and I have donated plants and spent time removing invasive plants on the finished portion of the trail. Every single time I am there working, the trail is busy with walkers and bike riders. Many people have stopped to talk to me about my work on the trail and tell me how much they appreciate having the trail finished. They also ask when the rest of the trail will be done because they can't wait to use it. A few people have expressed frustration that the unfinished portion in Swampscott keeps the trail system from being connected from Lynn to Marblehead and Salem. Please continue to fund this project which would be so beneficial to the community. I look forward to being able to walk the finished trail with my kids. Thank you, Erin Pierce Swampscott Resident and member of the Friends of the Swampscott Rail Trail |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Irene and Jonathan Leamon | Swampscott residents | Support | Letter in support of the Swampscott Rail Trail |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Larry G Simmons | Swampscott resident | Support | Hi Ethan, Rail trails are awesome for everyone. Swampscott is in desperate need of more and better bike trails in general. I don’t know how anyone could be against a rail trail unless they have never seen a rail trail. We have enjoyed the rail trails throughout Massachusetts and New England. New Hampshire and Vermont have some exceptional rail trails. I lived next to a bike/rail trail which was part of the extensive trail network in Boulder, Colorado. It was completely unobtrusive and convenient. It was a great way to meet neighbors and other community members taking walks, riding bikes or walking their dogs. It would be great if we could connect with the existing trails in literally every adjoining city- Marblehead, Salem and Lynn. Do not listen to ignorance and obstructionism. Nobody actually opposes the rail trail, unless they just oppose change…even when it’s for the benefit of all. Thank you for your time, Larry G. Simmons |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott Community Development Director | Support | Spoke in support of the Swampscott Rail Trail project (#610666). Discussed the benefits of the project and its importance in connecting rail trail networks throughout the region. |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Matthew Dragani, Andrew Samalis | Not provided | Oppose | Letter in opposition to the Swampscott Rail Trail |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Maura Carroll | Not provided | Oppose | Letter in opposition to the Swampscott Rail Trail |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Pamela Angelakis | Swampscott Superintendent of Schools/Swampscott Public Schools | Support | Letter in support of the Swampscott Rail Trail |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Paula Claridge | Swampscott resident | Support | Hello Ethan, I was given your contact information as the person to send a letter of support for the Swampscott Rail Trail. I live within a few houses of the proposed rail trail route and fully support its completion. I've used many rail trails throughout New England, as well as the small section that has been completed in Swampscott and feel it will be a tremendous benefit to our town. I think it will provide a vital, safe and healthy community connection for the adults and children of our town to access schools, parks and businesses, while reducing vehicular traffic and enjoying the natural areas within our special community. The connection it will provide to neighboring communities and the commuter rail station in Swampscott will also be an opportunity for people to have a safe link to walk and bike to those destinations, as well. I hope you will also agree that the Swampscott rail trail will be a valuable asset to our community. Thank you, Paula Claridge |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Tania Lillak | Swampscott Open Space & Recreation Plan Committee Chair | Support | Letter in support of the Swampscott Rail Trail |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Toni Bandrowicz | Swampscott Conservancy President | Support | Letter in support of the Swampscott Rail Trail |
| 610932 - Brookline - Rehabilitation of Washington Street; 609252 - Lynn - Rehabilitation of Essex Street; 609246 - Lynn - Rehabilitation of Western Avenue | Rich Benevento | Tighe and Bond | Support | Discussed several projects that had been flagged for readiness concerns in the FFYs 26-30 TIP programming scenarios (for which Tighe and Bond is the consultant). Stated that the Brookline Washington St project (#610932) has completed a robust initial public process and has scheduled a 25% design submission for September 2025, and that the project is advancing expeditiously to be on track to remain programmed in FFY28 of the TIP. Also discussed the Essex Street project in Lynn (#609252) , and stated that he is representing the City of Lynn in support of the project's continued advancement and programming in FFY28. Stated that 25% design for the project will be submitted next week. Also discussed the Western Avenue project in Lynn (#609246), and the regional significance of the project. Stated that 25% design submission is scheduled for July 2025. Stated that the City is supportive of moving the project into FFY29. |
| 613111- Littleton Bridge Preservation, Route 119 over I-595 | Maren Toohill | Littleton Town Planner | Support | Letter in support of Littleton Bridge Preservation project (route 119 over I-495) and request |
| 613163 - Lynnfield: Rail Trail Construction | John Scenna | Lynnfield Director of Public Works | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield Rail Trail (#613163). Stated that the town has reached 100% design on the project and looks forward to constructing phase 1 of the project in FFY26, and to working towards phase 2 in subsequent years. Discussed the value of rail trails and the benefits of this project for the town. |
| 613163 - Lynnfield: Rail Trail Construction | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield Town Administrator | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield Rail Trail (#613163). Stated that the town Selectboard has expressed unanimous support for the project. Discussed the safety benefits of the project and the town's readiness to advance phase 1 of the project. |
| 613357: Cambridge: Separated Bicycle Lane on Steel place (MA272) | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Previous projects of this type have been enormously controversial. While the bicycle lobby loves them local residents complain about the lack of parking, and the difficulty of navigating these streets when real life situations occur (like delivery trucks stopping in the middle of the travel lane because there is nowhere for them to pull off). I personally live near several of these previous projects in both Cambridge and Somerville. My experience is the at they have been poorly designed and often crush local residents needs while pandering to a vocal minority. I would urge you not to fund this project until more analysis is done on where previous projects went wrong. |
| 613695: Lexington—Bedford and Hartwell Complete Streets Reconstruction Project and S12978: Lexington—Design of Safety Improvements at Interstate 95 and Route 4/225 Interchange | Michelle Ciccolo | State Representative - 15th Middlesex District | Support | Spoke in support of the Lexington projects - #613625 Lexington Bedford St-Hartwell Ave project and the importance of the project corridor for regional mobility and connectivity. Also spoke in support of project S12978, the related bridge and highway interchange project that would also support and must be coordinated with the Bedford-Hartwell project. |
| 613695: Lexington—Bedford and Hartwell Complete Streets Reconstruction Project | Steve Bartha | Lexington Town Manager | Support | Spoke in support of the Lexington Bedford St-Hartwell Ave project (#613625) and discussed the importance of the project to support Lexington's planned housing production. |
| 613695: Lexington—Bedford and Hartwell Complete Streets Reconstruction Project and S12978: Lexington—Design of Safety Improvements at Interstate 95 and Route 4/225 Interchange | Michelle Ciccolo | State Representative, 15th Middlesex District | Support | Letter in support of Lexington Bedford and Hartwell Complete Streets Reconstruction Project and Design of Safety Improvements at Interstate 95 and Route 4/225 Interchange project |
| 613816-Malden - Design Improvements on Route 60 | Stephen Winslow | Malden City Councilor | Support | Letter in support of Malden Route 60 project |
| 613926 - Hudson - Bike Path Construction of Mass Central Rail Trail, from Felton Street to Priest Street (Design Only) | Kristina Johnson | Hudson Director of Planning and Community Development | Support | Spoke in support of the Mass Central Rail Trail and Hudson's design project proposed in the FFYs26-30 TIP (#613926) to support the Hudson segment of the Mass Central Rail Trail. Discussed the importance and value of rail trails and the value of this project for Hudson and the region. Also discussed the value of the MPO's project design funding to support municipalities who do not have capacity to advance design otherwise. |
| 613319: Sudbury-Framingham--Bruce Freeman Rail Trail | Len Simon | Sudbury resident | Support | Discussed support for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail and phase 3 construction in Sudbury and Framingham. Asked about the relationship between federal policy and funding considerations and project programming on the TIP. |
| MBTA Natick Center Station project / FFYs 25-29 TIP Amendment 10 | David Linsky | State Representative - 5th Middlesex District | Support | Letter in support of MBTA Natick Center Station Accessibility Project |
| MBTA Natick Center Station project / FFYs 25-29 TIP Amendment 10 | Kathryn M Coughlin | Chair, Natick Select Board | Support | Letter in support of MBTA Natick Center Station Accessibility Project |
| S13184-Marblehead--Procurement of 22 bicycle racks with 117 spaces | Felix Twaalfhoven | Marblehead resident | Support | Letter in support of Marblehead's bike rack application |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Jenny Armini | State Representative Eighth Essex District | Support | Letter of support for the Swampscott Rail Trail (610666) |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Trevor Henry | Swampscott resident | Support | Letter of support for the Swampscott Rail Trail (610666) |
| 611983: Chelsea--Park Street and Pearl Street Reconstruction | Fidel A. Maltez | Chelsea City Manager | Support | Letter in support of Park Street and Pearl Street Reconstruction project (611983) |
| 610666: Swampscott—Swampscott Rail Trail | Kimberly S. Nassar | Swampscott resident | Oppose | Letter in opposition to the Swampscott Rail Trail |
| General / Process | ||||
| Elissa Landre | Mass Audubon | Request | Down the line, suggest a communications plan using local businesses, ngo's like Mass Audubon sanctuaries, Mass Horticultural Society and many more to commuicate these projects and encourage community feedback from a "user" perspective. Perhaps organized through each municipality. | |
| Imai Aiu | Weston | Request | We sometimes struggle with engaging and coordinating with MassDOT on project initiation and development. Is there anything the MPO can do to help? | |
| Hudson | Concern | Expressed frustration about funding. Noted that towns struggle to fund design, especially to MassDOT's standards. Many competing priorities above things like a small section of trail of other small transportation project make it hard to make incremental tor small-scale transportation improvements. Some towns also feel we aren't competitive for the limited bucket of MPO funding for design, becuase of our demographic and transit contexts. It feels like nothing will get done without dramatic shifts to funding availability. | ||
| Not provided | Request | Invest in microtransit and first-last mile transportation improvements. | ||
| Not provided | Request | Municipalities need more top-down help, regional coordination, and funding support to advance transportation priorities. | ||
| Not provided | Request | Need for increased MBTA funding and bus service expansion. | ||
| Not provided | Request | Question about how projects/ideas get into the TIP universe, and what to do when legacy universe projects no longer reflect town priorities. Should we have a regular evaluation of universe projects? | ||
| Robert Wolff | Sherborn | Request | Can land acquisition be funded through the TIP? | |
| Sheila Page | Wellesley | Request | MPO assistance in facilitating municipal/state coordination is appreciated |
Source: MPO staff.
Appendix D provides information about the geographic distribution of federal highway funding in the Boston region in the Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs) 2026–30 Transportation Improvement Program as well as for all years since 2011. It includes the distribution of the Boston Region MPO’s Regional Target Program funding (the MPO’s discretionary funding) and funding for projects and programs prioritized by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Funding amounts shown include the state’s matching funds that leverage the available federal funds.
Figures D-1 through D-4 summarize the distribution of the MPO’s Regional Target Program funding and all federal highway funding by subregion. Funding is shown for the time period covered by this TIP (FFYs 2026–30) and a longer time period (FFYs 2011–30). Table D-1 shows the breakdown of this data for each municipality in the Boston region for FFYs 2026–30.
The analysis presented here provides details about how the MPO has allocated its federal transportation highway dollars across its geographic region by showing which municipalities and areas of the Boston region have received highway funding for the construction of transportation projects. This data was first compiled for FFYs 2008–13 in response to the Boston Region MPO’s 2014 Certification Review by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration.
Figure D-1
Distribution of Regional Target Funding by Subregion (FFYs 2026–30)
Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
Figure D-2
Distribution of All Federal Highway Funding in the Boston Region by Subregion (FFYs 2026–30)
FFY = Federal Fiscal Year.
Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
Figure D-3
Distribution of Regional Target Funding by Subregion (FFYs 2011–30)
FFY = Federal Fiscal Year.
Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
Figure D-4
Distribution of All Federal Highway Funding in the Boston Region by Subregion (FFYs 2011–30)
FFY = Federal Fiscal Year.
Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
Table D-1
Federal Highway Programming for Municipalities in the Boston Region (FFYs 2026–30)
| MPO Municipality | Subregion | Community Type | Pct Pop. | Pct Empl. | Percent Federal Aid Roadway Miles (2016) | Regionally Prioritized Target Funding (FFY 2026-30) | Percent Regionally Prioritized Target Funding | State Prioritized Funding | Percent State Prioritized Funding | Total Funding (Regionally Prioritized and State Prioritized) | Percent Total Funding (Regionally Prioritized and State Prioritized) | FFYs 2011-2030 (Target) | FFYs 2011-2030 (State) | FFYs 2011-2030 (All) | Percent FFYs 11-30 Target | Percent FFYs 11-30 State | Percent FFYs 11-30 All |
| Boston | Inner Core | Inner Core | 20.1% | 33.3% | 11.1% | $84,501,531 | 13.3% | $322,404,598 | 20.4% | $406,906,129 | 18.4% | $147,920,238 | $722,337,550 | $870,257,788 | 8.81% | 22.99% | 22.99% |
| Somerville | Inner Core | Inner Core | 2.4% | 1.5% | 1.2% | $125,417,417 | 19.7% | $222,116,485 | 14.1% | $347,533,902 | 15.7% | $218,886,101 | $264,781,728 | $483,667,829 | 13.04% | 8.43% | 8.43% |
| Hopkinton | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.5% | 1.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $58,933,687 | 3.7% | $58,933,687 | 2.7% | $11,346,584 | $121,988,704 | $133,335,288 | 0.68% | 3.88% | 3.88% |
| Beverly | NSTF | Regional Urban Center | 1.3% | 1.2% | 1.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $73,986,690 | 4.7% | $73,986,690 | 3.3% | $38,972,530 | $73,986,690 | $112,959,220 | 2.32% | 2.36% | 2.36% |
| Natick | MetroWest | Maturing Suburb | 1.1% | 1.0% | 1.2% | $7,574,099 | 1.2% | $13,532,668 | 0.9% | $21,106,767 | 1.0% | $30,373,868 | $24,399,562 | $54,773,430 | 1.81% | 0.78% | 0.78% |
| Cambridge | Inner Core | Inner Core | 3.5% | 7.1% | 1.8% | $2,223,715 | 0.3% | $96,641,246 | 6.1% | $98,864,961 | 4.5% | $47,211,356 | $103,044,677 | $150,256,033 | 2.81% | 3.28% | 3.28% |
| Wilmington | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.7% | 1.1% | 1.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $24,970,700 | 1.6% | $24,970,700 | 1.1% | $6,441,358 | $57,163,509 | $63,604,867 | 0.38% | 1.82% | 1.82% |
| Salem | NSTF | Regional Urban Center | 1.3% | 0.9% | 0.7% | $26,223,993 | 4.1% | $86,230,396 | 5.5% | $112,454,389 | 5.1% | $36,953,962 | $91,681,834 | $128,635,796 | 2.20% | 2.92% | 2.92% |
| Lynn | Inner Core | Regional Urban Center | 3.0% | 1.3% | 1.3% | $48,567,554 | 7.6% | $83,926,592 | 5.3% | $132,494,146 | 6.0% | $60,940,245 | $132,566,126 | $193,506,371 | 3.63% | 4.22% | 4.22% |
| Norwood | TRIC | Regional Urban Center | 0.9% | 1.1% | 1.0% | $27,636,336 | 4.3% | $14,087,774 | 0.9% | $41,724,110 | 1.9% | $35,588,616 | $19,071,360 | $54,659,976 | 2.12% | 0.61% | 0.61% |
| Milton | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.9% | 0.1% | 1.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $30,184,826 | 1.9% | $30,184,826 | 1.4% | $0 | $70,067,842 | $70,067,842 | 0.00% | 2.23% | 2.23% |
| Peabody | NSTF | Regional Urban Center | 1.6% | 1.1% | 1.4% | $20,433,746 | 3.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $20,433,746 | 0.9% | $35,653,606 | $17,595,688 | $53,249,294 | 2.12% | 0.56% | 0.56% |
| Chelsea | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.2% | 0.8% | 0.6% | $107,785 | 0.0% | $14,228,485 | 0.9% | $14,336,270 | 0.6% | $12,001,398 | $232,636,476 | $244,637,874 | 0.71% | 7.40% | 7.40% |
| Framingham | MetroWest | Regional Urban Center | 2.2% | 2.1% | 2.5% | $2,444,400 | 0.4% | $10,315,782 | 0.7% | $12,760,182 | 0.6% | $16,120,530 | $17,066,025 | $33,186,555 | 0.96% | 0.54% | 0.54% |
| Brookline | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.9% | 0.9% | 1.3% | $28,198,367 | 4.4% | $10,666,511 | 0.7% | $38,864,878 | 1.8% | $35,128,893 | $14,357,021 | $49,485,914 | 2.09% | 0.46% | 0.46% |
| Watertown | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.1% | 1.0% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $24,518,429 | $0 | $24,518,429 | 1.46% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Medford | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.8% | 1.1% | 1.5% | $5,488,945 | 0.9% | $21,484,897 | 1.4% | $26,973,842 | 1.2% | $47,341,343 | $35,057,390 | $82,398,732 | 2.82% | 1.12% | 1.12% |
| Revere | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.9% | 0.5% | 1.3% | $457,043 | 0.1% | $85,023,908 | 5.4% | $85,480,951 | 3.9% | $457,043 | $91,193,101 | $91,650,143 | 0.03% | 2.90% | 2.90% |
| Woburn | NSPC | Regional Urban Center | 1.2% | 2.1% | 1.5% | $22,910,150 | 3.6% | $23,727,883 | 1.5% | $46,638,033 | 2.1% | $52,987,076 | $34,936,804 | $87,923,880 | 3.16% | 1.11% | 1.11% |
| Everett | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.5% | 0.8% | 0.6% | $10,954,656 | 1.7% | $8,662,582 | 0.5% | $19,617,238 | 0.9% | $40,201,854 | $8,662,582 | $48,864,436 | 2.39% | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| Braintree | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 1.2% | 1.3% | 1.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $19,244,697 | 1.2% | $19,244,697 | 0.9% | $0 | $47,698,168 | $47,698,168 | 0.00% | 1.52% | 1.52% |
| Randolph | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 1.0% | 0.4% | 1.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $6,321,315 | 0.4% | $6,321,315 | 0.3% | $2,000,000 | $33,435,774 | $35,435,774 | 0.12% | 1.06% | 1.06% |
| Quincy | Inner Core | Regional Urban Center | 3.0% | 2.4% | 2.1% | $3,700,546 | 0.6% | $331,753 | 0.0% | $4,032,299 | 0.2% | $13,328,386 | $53,245,011 | $66,573,397 | 0.79% | 1.69% | 1.69% |
| Canton | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.7% | 1.1% | 1.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $16,380,483 | 1.0% | $16,380,483 | 0.7% | $2,386,278 | $22,273,053 | $24,659,331 | 0.14% | 0.71% | 0.71% |
| Newton | Inner Core | Inner Core | 2.6% | 2.6% | 2.6% | $3,248,889 | 0.5% | $16,859,731 | 1.1% | $20,108,620 | 0.9% | $21,825,852 | $31,595,088 | $53,420,940 | 1.30% | 1.01% | 1.01% |
| Belmont | Inner Core | Inner Core | 0.8% | 0.4% | 0.6% | $27,306,266 | 4.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $27,306,266 | 1.2% | $42,806,380 | $10,727,859 | $53,534,239 | 2.55% | 0.34% | 0.34% |
| Lexington | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 1.0% | 1.1% | 1.9% | $1,650,000 | 0.3% | $13,469,585 | 0.9% | $15,119,585 | 0.7% | $6,850,000 | $37,677,913 | $44,527,913 | 0.41% | 1.20% | 1.20% |
| Weston | MetroWest | Maturing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.3% | 1.3% | $23,966,298 | 3.8% | $0 | 0.0% | $23,966,298 | 1.1% | $23,966,298 | $8,490,504 | $32,456,802 | 1.43% | 0.27% | 0.27% |
| Reading | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.8% | 0.4% | 0.8% | $0 | 0.0% | $25,265,783 | 1.6% | $25,265,783 | 1.1% | $10,093,721 | $39,985,486 | $50,079,207 | 0.60% | 1.27% | 1.27% |
| Stoneham | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.7% | 0.3% | 0.8% | $0 | 0.0% | $6,933,186 | 0.4% | $6,933,186 | 0.3% | $2,139,892 | $21,131,516 | $23,271,408 | 0.13% | 0.67% | 0.67% |
| Waltham | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.9% | 3.2% | 1.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $3,887,210 | $3,887,210 | 0.00% | 0.12% | 0.12% |
| Burlington | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.8% | 2.4% | 1.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $9,690,331 | 0.6% | $9,690,331 | 0.4% | $14,563,174 | $9,690,331 | $24,253,505 | 0.87% | 0.31% | 0.31% |
| Hingham | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 0.7% | 0.8% | 1.3% | $31,949,531 | 5.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $31,949,531 | 1.4% | $40,920,038 | $6,355,441 | $47,275,479 | 2.44% | 0.20% | 0.20% |
| Wrentham | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.3% | 1.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $6,712,937 | 0.4% | $6,712,937 | 0.3% | $0 | $6,712,937 | $6,712,937 | 0.00% | 0.21% | 0.21% |
| Boxborough | MAGIC | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $16,002,485 | $16,002,485 | 0.00% | 0.51% | 0.51% |
| Bellingham | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.5% | 0.3% | 0.9% | $15,848,000 | 2.5% | $13,721,814 | 0.9% | $29,569,814 | 1.3% | $22,562,278 | $24,561,779 | $47,124,057 | 1.34% | 0.78% | 0.78% |
| Cohasset | SSC | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $4,336,600 | $4,336,600 | 0.00% | 0.14% | 0.14% |
| Milford | SWAP | Regional Urban Center | 0.9% | 0.9% | 1.2% | $13,548,565 | 2.1% | $3,744,000 | 0.2% | $17,292,565 | 0.8% | $20,016,509 | $11,296,000 | $31,312,509 | 1.19% | 0.36% | 0.36% |
| Dedham | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.8% | 0.8% | 1.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $23,521,801 | 1.5% | $23,521,801 | 1.1% | $16,090,272 | $34,250,686 | $50,340,957 | 0.96% | 1.09% | 1.09% |
| Weymouth | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 1.7% | 1.0% | 1.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $8,039,052 | 0.5% | $8,039,052 | 0.4% | $25,040,879 | $14,838,033 | $39,878,912 | 1.49% | 0.47% | 0.47% |
| Swampscott | NSTF | Maturing Suburb | 0.5% | 0.2% | 0.3% | $8,624,000 | 1.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $8,624,000 | 0.4% | $8,624,000 | $1,762,074 | $10,386,074 | 0.51% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| Middleton | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.2% | 0.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $14,122,021 | 0.9% | $14,122,021 | 0.6% | $0 | $17,979,629 | $17,979,629 | 0.00% | 0.57% | 0.57% |
| Danvers | NSTF | Maturing Suburb | 0.8% | 1.3% | 1.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $20,674,715 | 1.3% | $20,674,715 | 0.9% | $8,836,648 | $54,806,261 | $63,642,909 | 0.53% | 1.74% | 1.74% |
| Winchester | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.7% | 0.4% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $1,786,779 | 0.1% | $1,786,779 | 0.1% | $1,809,703 | $16,888,298 | $18,698,001 | 0.11% | 0.54% | 0.54% |
| Ipswich | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.7% | $20,219,083 | 3.2% | $5,692,103 | 0.4% | $25,911,186 | 1.2% | $21,295,318 | $5,692,103 | $26,987,421 | 1.27% | 0.18% | 0.18% |
| Foxborough | TRIC | Developing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.6% | 1.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $19,677,840 | 1.2% | $19,677,840 | 0.9% | $0 | $38,601,920 | $38,601,920 | 0.00% | 1.23% | 1.23% |
| Acton | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.7% | 0.5% | 1.1% | $860,000 | 0.1% | $2,506,600 | 0.2% | $3,366,600 | 0.2% | $16,722,768 | $16,997,257 | $33,720,025 | 1.00% | 0.54% | 0.54% |
| Winthrop | Inner Core | Inner Core | 0.6% | 0.1% | 0.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $6,617,959 | $1,768,974 | $8,386,933 | 0.39% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| Littleton | MAGIC | Developing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.4% | 1.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $15,078,675 | 1.0% | $15,078,675 | 0.7% | $1,842,528 | $17,133,899 | $18,976,427 | 0.11% | 0.55% | 0.55% |
| Lynnfield | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.6% | $6,062,695 | 1.0% | $6,147,577 | 0.4% | $12,210,272 | 0.6% | $6,062,695 | $19,666,315 | $25,729,010 | 0.36% | 0.63% | 0.63% |
| Wakefield | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.8% | 0.7% | 0.9% | $18,435,976 | 2.9% | $16,215,726 | 1.0% | $34,651,702 | 1.6% | $18,435,976 | $29,520,992 | $47,956,968 | 1.10% | 0.94% | 0.94% |
| Ashland | MetroWest | Maturing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.2% | 0.5% | $836,339 | 0.1% | $449,354 | 0.0% | $1,285,693 | 0.1% | $20,425,893 | $449,354 | $20,875,247 | 1.22% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| Nahant | Inner Core | Maturing Suburb | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $4,681,875 | $4,681,875 | 0.00% | 0.15% | 0.15% |
| Malden | Inner Core | Inner Core | 2.0% | 0.7% | 1.0% | $5,658,127 | 0.9% | $4,715,200 | 0.3% | $10,373,327 | 0.5% | $7,955,670 | $12,294,862 | $20,250,531 | 0.47% | 0.39% | 0.39% |
| Stow | MAGIC | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $10,160,964 | $10,160,964 | 0.00% | 0.32% | 0.32% |
| Topsfield | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $5,896,563 | 0.4% | $5,896,563 | 0.3% | $0 | $8,705,128 | $8,705,128 | 0.00% | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| Hudson | MAGIC | Developing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.5% | 0.7% | $909,700 | 0.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $909,700 | 0.0% | $12,024,180 | $6,475,328 | $18,499,508 | 0.72% | 0.21% | 0.21% |
| Marlborough | MetroWest | Regional Urban Center | 1.2% | 1.6% | 2.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $2,160,000 | 0.1% | $2,160,000 | 0.1% | $5,613,636 | $20,379,656 | $25,993,292 | 0.33% | 0.65% | 0.65% |
| Medway | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $12,062,567 | $0 | $12,062,567 | 0.72% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Sudbury | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.3% | 1.0% | $4,049,850 | 0.6% | $783,273 | 0.0% | $4,833,123 | 0.2% | $15,669,937 | $2,758,009 | $18,427,946 | 0.93% | 0.09% | 0.09% |
| Wayland | MetroWest | Maturing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.7% | $0 | 0.0% | $3,133,090 | 0.2% | $3,133,090 | 0.1% | $0 | $10,322,572 | $10,322,572 | 0.00% | 0.33% | 0.33% |
| Hamilton | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $5,692,103 | 0.4% | $5,692,103 | 0.3% | $0 | $5,692,103 | $5,692,103 | 0.00% | 0.18% | 0.18% |
| Maynard | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.2% | 0.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $8,410,036 | 0.5% | $8,410,036 | 0.4% | $0 | $14,996,142 | $14,996,142 | 0.00% | 0.48% | 0.48% |
| Sharon | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.2% | 1.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $21,817,146 | 1.4% | $21,817,146 | 1.0% | $42,000 | $35,178,164 | $35,220,164 | 0.00% | 1.12% | 1.12% |
| Arlington | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.4% | 0.5% | 0.8% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $5,239,052 | $10,898,857 | $16,137,909 | 0.31% | 0.35% | 0.35% |
| Scituate | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.2% | 1.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $515,000 | $515,000 | 0.00% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| Westwood | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.5% | 0.6% | 0.7% | $22,854,847 | 3.6% | $9,966,667 | 0.6% | $32,821,514 | 1.5% | $34,630,264 | $11,038,095 | $45,668,359 | 2.06% | 0.35% | 0.35% |
| Bedford | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.9% | 0.8% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $24,507,736 | $0 | $24,507,736 | 1.46% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Bolton | MAGIC | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.7% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $533,333 | $533,333 | 0.00% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| Carlisle | MAGIC | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $3,696,000 | $3,696,000 | 0.00% | 0.12% | 0.12% |
| Concord | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.6% | 1.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $22,592,311 | $14,195,453 | $36,787,763 | 1.35% | 0.45% | 0.45% |
| Dover | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Essex | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $10,659,471 | $10,659,471 | 0.00% | 0.34% | 0.34% |
| Franklin | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 1.0% | 0.8% | 1.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $13,462,467 | $13,462,467 | 0.00% | 0.43% | 0.43% |
| Gloucester | NSTF | Regional Urban Center | 0.9% | 0.5% | 1.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $8,024,184 | 0.5% | $8,024,184 | 0.4% | $0 | $23,502,917 | $23,502,917 | 0.00% | 0.75% | 0.75% |
| Holbrook | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $3,036,628 | $1,527,250 | $4,563,878 | 0.18% | 0.05% | 0.05% |
| Holliston | MetroWest | Developing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $1,012,500 | 0.1% | $1,012,500 | 0.0% | $0 | $1,012,500 | $1,012,500 | 0.00% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| Hull | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $8,223,422 | $0 | $8,223,422 | 0.49% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Lincoln | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $12,224,546 | 0.8% | $12,224,546 | 0.6% | $22,492,311 | $13,413,612 | $35,905,923 | 1.34% | 0.43% | 0.43% |
| Manchester | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $5,589,309 | $5,589,309 | 0.00% | 0.18% | 0.18% |
| Marblehead | NSTF | Maturing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.2% | 0.5% | $6,250 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $6,250 | 0.0% | $628,534 | $0 | $628,534 | 0.04% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Marshfield | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 0.8% | 0.3% | 1.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $5,682,660 | $6,502,559 | $12,185,219 | 0.34% | 0.21% | 0.21% |
| Medfield | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Melrose | Inner Core | Inner Core | 0.9% | 0.3% | 0.4% | $10,528,000 | 1.7% | $0 | 0.0% | $10,528,000 | 0.5% | $14,933,030 | $629,930 | $15,562,960 | 0.89% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| Millis | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Needham | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 1.0% | 1.1% | 1.2% | $2,775,757 | 0.4% | $3,662,750 | 0.2% | $6,438,507 | 0.3% | $103,140,952 | $3,662,750 | $106,803,702 | 6.14% | 0.12% | 0.12% |
| Norfolk | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.2% | 0.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| North Reading | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Norwell | SSC | Developing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.5% | 0.8% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $18,691,376 | $18,691,376 | 0.00% | 0.59% | 0.59% |
| Rockland | SSC | Developing Suburb | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $2,312,703 | $2,312,703 | 0.00% | 0.07% | 0.07% |
| Rockport | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $775,913 | $775,913 | 0.00% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| Saugus | Inner Core | Maturing Suburb | 0.9% | 0.5% | 0.8% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $41,317,699 | $41,317,699 | 0.00% | 1.32% | 1.32% |
| Sherborn | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Southborough | MetroWest | Maturing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.4% | 1.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $7,294,520 | $533,333 | $7,827,853 | 0.43% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| Walpole | TRIC | Developing Suburb | 0.8% | 0.5% | 1.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $25,653,571 | $9,175,135 | $34,828,706 | 1.53% | 0.29% | 0.29% |
| Wellesley | MetroWest | Maturing Suburb | 0.9% | 0.9% | 0.9% | $0 | 0.0% | $11,252,815 | 0.7% | $11,252,815 | 0.5% | $73,350,868 | $14,369,917 | $87,720,785 | 4.37% | 0.46% | 0.46% |
| Wenham | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $4,941,812 | 0.3% | $4,941,812 | 0.2% | $0 | $9,906,121 | $9,906,121 | 0.00% | 0.32% | 0.32% |
FFY = Federal Fiscal Year.
Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
This appendix contains detailed background on the regulatory documents, legislation, and guidance that shape the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) transportation planning process.
The Boston Region MPO is charged with executing its planning activities in line with federal and state regulatory guidance. Maintaining compliance with these regulations allows the MPO to directly support the work of these critical partners and ensures its continued role in helping the region move closer to achieving federal, state, and regional transportation goals. This appendix describes the regulations, policies, and guidance taken into consideration by the MPO during development of the Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs) 2026–30 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and other certification documents.
The MPO’s planning processes are guided by provisions in federal transportation authorization bills, which are codified in federal statutes and supported by guidance from federal agencies. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) was signed into law on November 15, 2021, as the nation’s five-year surface transportation bill, and covers FFYs 2022–26. This section describes new provisions established in the BIL.
The purpose of the national transportation goals, outlined in Title 23, section 150, of the United States Code (23 USC § 150), is to increase the accountability and transparency of the Federal-Aid Highway Program and to improve decision-making through performance-based planning and programming. The national transportation goals include the following:
The Boston Region MPO has incorporated these national goals, where practicable, into its vision, goals, and objectives, which provide a framework for the MPO’s planning processes. More information about the MPO’s vision, goals, and objectives is included in Chapter 1.
The MPO gives specific consideration to the federal planning factors, described in Title 23, section 134, of the US Code (23 USC § 134), when developing all documents that program federal transportation funds. In accordance with the legislation, studies and strategies undertaken by the MPO shall
The Boston Region MPO has also incorporated these federal planning factors into its vision, goals, and objectives.
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), in consultation with states, MPOs, and other stakeholders, established performance measures relevant to the national goals established in the prior federal transportation authorization bill, the FAST Act. These performance topic areas include roadway safety, transit system safety, National Highway System (NHS) bridge and pavement condition, transit asset condition, NHS reliability for both passenger and freight travel, traffic congestion, and on-road mobile source emissions. The FAST Act and related federal rulemakings required states, MPOs, and public transportation operators to follow performance-based planning and programming practices—such as setting targets—to ensure that transportation investments support progress towards these goals. See Chapter 4 for more information about how the MPO has and will continue to conduct performance-based planning and programming.
On December 30, 2021, the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration jointly issued updated planning emphasis areas for use in MPOs’ transportation planning process, following the enactment of the BIL. Those planning emphasis areas include the following:
The Clean Air Act, most recently amended in 1990, forms the basis of the United States’ air pollution control policy. The act identifies air quality standards, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designates geographic areas as attainment (in compliance) or nonattainment (not in compliance) areas with respect to these standards. If air quality in a nonattainment area improves such that it meets EPA standards, the EPA may redesignate that area as being a maintenance area for a 20-year period to ensure that the standard is maintained in that area.
The conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act “require that those areas that have poor air quality, or had it in the past, should examine the long-term air quality impacts of their transportation system and ensure its compatibility with the area’s clean air goals.” Agencies responsible for Clean Air Act requirements for nonattainment and maintenance areas must conduct air quality conformity determinations, which are demonstrations that transportation plans, programs, and projects addressing that area are consistent with a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining air quality standards.
Air quality conformity determinations must be performed for capital improvement projects that receive federal funding and for those that are considered regionally significant, regardless of the funding source. These determinations must show that projects in the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program will not cause or contribute to any new air quality violations; will not increase the frequency or severity of any existing air quality violations in any area; and will not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards in any area. The policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating air quality conformity in the Boston region were established in Title 40, parts 51 and 53, of the Code of Federal Regulations (40. C.F.R. 51, 40 C.F.R. 53).
On April 1, 1996, the EPA classified the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville as in attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Subsequently, the Commonwealth established a CO maintenance plan through the Massachusetts SIP process to ensure that emission levels did not increase. While the maintenance plan was in effect, past TIPs and LRTPs included an air quality conformity analysis for these communities. As of April 1, 2016, the 20-year maintenance period for this maintenance area expired and transportation conformity is no longer required for carbon monoxide in these communities. This ruling is documented in a letter from the EPA dated May 12, 2016.
On April 22, 2002, the EPA classified the City of Waltham as being in attainment for CO emissions with an EPA-approved limited-maintenance plan. In areas that have approved limited-maintenance plans, federal actions requiring conformity determinations under the EPA’s transportation conformity rule are considered to satisfy the conformity test. The MPO is not required to perform a modeling analysis for a conformity determination for carbon monoxide, but it has been required to provide a status report on the timely implementation of projects and programs that will reduce emissions from transportation sources—so-called transportation control measures—which are included in the Massachusetts SIP. In April 2022, the EPA issued a letter explaining that the carbon monoxide limited maintenance area in Waltham has expired. Therefore, the MPO is no longer required to demonstrate transportation conformity for this area, but the rest of the maintenance plan requirements, however, continue to apply, in accordance with the SIP.
On February 16, 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a decision in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, which struck down portions of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) SIP Requirements Rule concerning the ozone NAAQS. Those portions of the SIP Requirements Rule included transportation conformity requirements associated with the EPA’s revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Massachusetts was designated as an attainment area in accord with the 2008 ozone NAAQS but as a nonattainment or maintenance area as relates to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As a result of this court ruling, MPOs in Massachusetts must once again demonstrate conformity for ozone when developing LRTPs and TIPs.
MPOs must also perform conformity determinations if transportation control measures (TCMs) are in effect in the region. TCMs are strategies that reduce transportation-related air pollution and fuel use by reducing vehicle-miles traveled and improving roadway operations. The Massachusetts SIP identifies TCMs in the Boston region. SIP-identified TCMs are federally enforceable and projects that address the identified air quality issues must be given first priority when federal transportation dollars are spent. Examples of TCMs that were programmed in previous TIPs include rapid-transit and commuter-rail extension programs (such as the Green Line Extension in Cambridge, Medford, and Somerville, and the Fairmount Line improvements in Boston), parking-freeze programs in Boston and Cambridge, statewide rideshare programs, park-and-ride facilities, residential parking-sticker programs, and the operation of high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes.
In addition to reporting on the pollutants identified in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the MPOs in Massachusetts are also required to perform air quality analyses for carbon dioxide as part of the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) (see below).
The Boston Region MPO complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and other federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities it conducts. Per federal and state law, the MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin (including limited-English proficiency), religion, creed, gender, ancestry, ethnicity, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, veteran’s status, or background. The MPO strives to provide meaningful opportunities for participation of all persons in the region, including those protected by Title VI, the ADA, and other nondiscrimination mandates.
The MPO also assesses the likely benefits and adverse effects of transportation projects on protected populations (populations covered by federal regulations, as identified in the MPO’s Community Transportation Access program) when deciding which projects to fund. This is done through the MPO’s project selection criteria. MPO staff also evaluate the projects that are selected for funding, in the aggregate, to determine their overall impacts and whether they improve transportation outcomes for protected populations. The major federal requirements pertaining to nondiscrimination are discussed below.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that no person be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, under any program or activity provided by an agency receiving federal financial assistance. Executive Order 13166—Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, dated August 11, 2000, extends Title VI protections to people who, as a result of their nationality, have limited English proficiency. Specifically, it calls for improved access to federally assisted programs and activities, and it requires MPOs to develop and implement a system through which people with limited English proficiency can meaningfully participate in the transportation planning process. This requirement includes the development of a Language Assistance Plan that documents the organization’s process for providing meaningful language access to people with limited English proficiency who access their services and programs.
On April 15, 1997, the USDOT issued its Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which was updated May 14, 2021. Among other provisions, this order requires programming and planning activities to
The 1997 Final Order was updated in 2021 with USDOT Order 5610.2(a), which provided clarification while maintaining the original framework and procedures.
Title III of the ADA “prohibits states, MPOs, and other public entities from discriminating on the basis of disability in the entities’ services, programs, or activities,” and requires all transportation projects, plans, and programs to be accessible to people with disabilities. Therefore, MPOs must consider the mobility needs of people with disabilities when programming federal funding for studies and capital projects. MPO-sponsored meetings must also be held in accessible venues and be conducted in a manner that provides for accessibility. Also, MPO materials must be made available in accessible formats.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. In addition, the Rehabilitation Act of 1975, and Title 23, section 324, of the US Code (23 USC § 324) prohibit discrimination based on sex.
Much of the MPO’s work focuses on encouraging mode shift and diminishing GHG emissions through improving transit service, enhancing bicycle and pedestrian networks, and studying emerging transportation technologies. All of this work helps the Boston region contribute to statewide progress towards the priorities discussed in this section.
Beyond Mobility, the Massachusetts 2050 Transportation Plan, is a planning process that will result in a blueprint for guiding transportation decision-making and investments in Massachusetts in a way that advances MassDOT’s goals and maximizes the equity and resiliency of the transportation system. MPO staff continue to coordinate with MassDOT staff so that Destination 2050, the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan, is aligned with the Beyond Mobility plan.
The Commission on the Future of Transportation in the Commonwealth—established by former Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s Executive Order 579—published Choices for Stewardship in 2019. This report makes 18 recommendations across the following five thematic categories to adapt the transportation system in the Commonwealth to emerging needs:
Beyond Mobility builds upon the Commission report’s recommendations. The Boston Region MPO supports these statewide goals by conducting planning work and making investment decisions that complement MassDOT’s efforts and reflect the evolving needs of the transportation system in the region.
The Massachusetts 2023 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) identifies the state’s key safety needs and guides investment decisions to achieve significant reductions in highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The SHSP establishes statewide safety goals and objectives and key safety emphasis areas, and it draws on the strengths of all highway safety partners in the Commonwealth to align and leverage resources to address the state’s safety challenges collectively. The Boston Region MPO considers SHSP goals, emphasis areas, and strategies when developing its plans, programs, and activities.
The Massachusetts Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) is a risk-based asset management plan for the bridges and pavement that are in the NHS inventory. The plan describes the condition of these assets, identifies assets that are particularly vulnerable following declared emergencies such as extreme weather, and discusses MassDOT’s financial plan and risk management strategy for these assets. The Boston Region MPO considers MassDOT TAMP goals, targets, and strategies when developing its plans, programs, and activities. MassDOT’s TAMP was most recently updated in 2023.
In 2018, MassDOT released the related Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Rail Plan, which outlines short- and long-term investment strategies for Massachusetts’ freight and passenger rail systems (excluding the commuter rail system). In 2019, MassDOT released the Massachusetts Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Massachusetts Pedestrian Transportation Plan, both of which define roadmaps, initiatives, and action plans to improve bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the Commonwealth. These plans were updated in 2021 to reflect new investments in bicycle and pedestrian projects made by MassDOT since their release. In 2023, MassDOT released the Massachusetts Freight Plan, which identifies short- and long-term improvements and strategies for the state’s freight systems. The MPO considers the findings and strategies of MassDOT’s modal plans when conducting its planning, including through its Freight Planning Support and Bicycle/Pedestrian Support Activities programs.
The GWSA makes Massachusetts a leader in setting aggressive and enforceable GHG reduction targets and implementing policies and initiatives to achieve these targets. In keeping with this law, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), in consultation with other state agencies and the public, developed the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. This implementation plan, released on December 29, 2010, and updated in 2022 to reflect new interim targets, establishes the following targets for overall statewide GHG emission reductions:
In 2018, EEA published its GWSA 10-year Progress Report and the GHG Inventory estimated that 2018 GHG emissions were 22 percent below the 1990 baseline level.
On June 30, 2022, EEA certified its compliance with the 2020 emissions limit of 25 percent below the 1990 levels, noting that there was an estimated emissions reduction of 31.4 percent below the 1990 level in 2020.
MassDOT fulfills its responsibilities, defined in the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2050, through a policy directive that sets three principal objectives:
In January 2015, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection amended Title 310, section 7.00, of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (310 CMR 60.05), Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, which was subsequently amended in August 2017. This regulation places a range of obligations on MassDOT and MPOs to support achievement of the Commonwealth’s climate change goals through the programming of transportation funds. For example, MPOs must use GHG impact as a selection criterion when they review projects to be programmed in their TIPs, and they must evaluate and report the GHG emissions impacts of transportation projects in LRTPs and TIPs.
The Commonwealth’s 10 MPOs (and three non-metropolitan planning regions) are integrally involved in supporting the GHG reductions mandated under the GWSA. The MPOs seek to realize these objectives by prioritizing projects in the LRTP and TIP that will help reduce emissions from the transportation sector. The Boston Region MPO uses its TIP project evaluation criteria to score projects based on their GHG emissions impacts, multimodal Complete Streets accommodations, and ability to support smart growth development. Tracking and evaluating GHG emissions by project will enable the MPO to anticipate GHG impacts of planned and programmed projects. See Chapter 5 for more details related to how the MPO conducts GHG monitoring and evaluation.
On September 9, 2013, MassDOT passed the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive to formalize its commitment to implementing and maintaining transportation networks that allow for various mode choices. This directive will ensure that all MassDOT projects are designed and implemented in ways that provide all users with access to safe and comfortable walking, bicycling, and transit options. MassDOT’s design justification process, which established controlling criteria for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit provisions and the length of off- and on-ramps, has helped to operationalize and further the goals of the original Healthy Transportation Policy Directive.
In November 2015, MassDOT released the Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide. This guide represents a step in MassDOT’s continuing commitment to Complete Streets, sustainable transportation, and the creation of more safe and convenient transportation options for Massachusetts’ residents. This guide may be used by project planners and designers as a resource for considering, evaluating, and designing separated bike lanes as part of a Complete Streets approach.
In the current LRTP, Destination 2050, the Boston Region MPO continues to use investment programs—particularly its Complete Streets and Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections programs—that support the implementation of Complete Streets projects. In the Unified Planning Work Program, the MPO budgets to support these projects, such as the MPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning program, corridor studies undertaken by MPO staff to make conceptual recommendations for Complete Streets treatments, and various discrete studies aimed at improving pedestrian and bicycle accommodations.
MassDOT developed the Congestion in the Commonwealth 2019 report to identify specific causes of and impacts from traffic congestion on the NHS. The report also made recommendations for reducing congestion, including addressing local and regional bottlenecks, redesigning bus networks within the systems operated by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the other regional transit authorities, increasing MBTA capacity, and investigating congestion pricing mechanisms such as managed lanes. These recommendations guide multiple new efforts within MassDOT and the MBTA and are actively considered by the Boston Region MPO when making planning and investment decisions.
On March 18, 2019, MassDOT and the MBTA released Focus40, the MBTA’s Program for Mass Transportation, which is the 25-year investment plan that aims to position the MBTA to meet the transit needs of the Greater Boston region through 2040. Complemented by the MBTA’s Strategic Plan and other internal and external policy and planning initiatives, Focus40 serves as a comprehensive plan guiding all capital planning initiatives at the MBTA. These initiatives include the Rail Vision plan, which will inform the vision for the future of the MBTA’s commuter rail system; the Bus Network Redesign (formerly the Better Bus Project), the plan to re-envision and improve the MBTA’s bus network; and other plans. The next update of the Program for Mass Transportation is planned for development beginning in Summer 2025. The Boston Region MPO continues to monitor the status of Focus40 and related MBTA modal plans to inform its decision-making about transit capital investments, which are incorporated into the TIP and LRTP.
MetroCommon 2050, which was developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and adopted in 2021, is Greater Boston’s regional land use and policy plan. MetroCommon 2050 builds upon MAPC’s previous plan, MetroFuture (adopted in 2008), and includes an updated set of strategies for achieving sustainable growth and equitable prosperity in the region. The MPO considers MetroCommon 2050’s goals, objectives, and strategies in its planning and activities. MetroCommon 2050 is the foundation for land use projections in the MPO’s LRTP, Destination 2050.
The congestion management process (CMP) is a systematic approach for managing congestion that provides accurate, up-to-date information on transportation system performance and assesses alternative strategies for congestion management. Its purpose is to provide for safe and effective integrated management and operation of the multimodal transportation system in the Boston region. The CMP formulates solutions for congestion management by
Every four years, the Boston Region MPO completes a Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (CPT‒HST), in coordination with the development of the LRTP. The CPT‒HST supports improved coordination of transportation for seniors and people with disabilities in the Boston region by guiding transportation providers in their development of proposals for funding from the Federal Transit Administration’s Section 5310 Program (known in Massachusetts as the Community Transit Grant Program). To be eligible for funding, a proposal must meet a need identified in the CPT‒HST. The CPT‒HST contains information about
The MPO adopted its current CPT‒HST in 2023.
The MBTA and the region’s RTAs—the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA) and the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA)—are responsible for producing transit asset management plans that describe their asset inventories and the condition of these assets, strategies, and priorities for improving the state of good repair of these assets. The Boston Region MPO considers goals and priorities established in these plans when developing its plans, programs, and activities.
The MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA are required to create and annually update Public Transit Agency Safety Plans that describe their approaches for implementing Safety Management Systems on their transit systems. The Boston Region MPO considers goals, targets, and priorities established in these plans when developing its plans, programs, and activities.
The COVID-19 pandemic has radically shifted the way many people in the Boston region interact with the regional transportation system. The pandemic’s effect on everyday life has had short-term impacts on the system and how people travel, but it may also have other lasting effects. Five years on from the beginning of the pandemic, travel patterns have shifted to reflect a hybrid working schedule for many workers. Some changes made in response to the pandemic may become permanent, such as the expansion of bicycle, bus, sidewalk, and plaza networks. As the region recovers from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the long-term effects become apparent, state and regional partners’ guidance and priorities are likely to be adjusted.
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) includes both permanent members and municipal members who are elected for three-year terms. Details about the MPO’s members are listed below.
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) was established under Chapter 25 (An Act Modernizing the Transportation Systems of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) of the Acts of 2009. MassDOT has four divisions: Highway, Rail and Transit, Aeronautics, and the Registry of Motor Vehicles. The MassDOT Board of Directors, composed of 11 members appointed by the governor, oversees all four divisions and MassDOT operations and works closely with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Board of Directors. MassDOT has three seats on the MPO board, including seats for the Highway Division.
The MassDOT Highway Division has jurisdiction over the roadways, bridges, and tunnels that were overseen by the former Massachusetts Highway Department and Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. The Highway Division also has jurisdiction over many bridges and parkways that previously were under the authority of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The Highway Division is responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of the Commonwealth’s state highways and bridges. It is also responsible for overseeing traffic safety and engineering activities for the state highway system. These activities include operating the Highway Operations Control Center to ensure safe road and travel conditions.
The MBTA, created in 1964, is a body politic and corporate, and a political subdivision of the Commonwealth. Under the provisions of Chapter 161A of the Massachusetts General Laws, it has the statutory responsibility within its district of operating the public transportation system in the Boston region, preparing the engineering and architectural designs for transit development projects, and constructing and operating transit development projects. The MBTA district comprises 177 communities, including all of the 97 cities and towns of the Boston Region MPO area.
The MBTA Board of Directors provides oversight for the agency. By statute, the board consists of nine members, including the Secretary of Transportation as an ex-officio member. The MBTA Advisory Board appoints one member who has municipal government experience in the MBTA’s service area and experience in transportation operations, transportation planning, housing policy, urban planning, or public or private finance. The Governor appoints the remaining seven board members, which include an MBTA rider and member of an environmental justice population, and a person recommended by the President of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.
In 2024, the Regional Transit Authorities (RTA) of the Boston Region, the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA), and the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA) earned a shared seat on the MPO Board. CATA was founded in 1976 and operates public transportation for Gloucester, Rockport, Ipswich, Essex, and Hamilton across 12 bus routes. CATA offers fixed-route, microtransit, and dial-a-ride service. The MWRTA was formed in 2006 and commenced service on July 1, 2007, making it the youngest of the RTAs in the Commonwealth. The MWRTA serves 16 communities across the MetroWest Region from its headquarters in Framingham. The MWRTA operates fixed route, microtransit, and paratransit service, and offers a shuttle service that provides connections to the MBTA Green Line at Woodland Station.
The MBTA Advisory Board was created by the Massachusetts Legislature in 1964 through the same legislation that created the MBTA. The Advisory Board consists of representatives of the 175 cities and towns that compose the MBTA’s service area. Cities are represented by either the city manager or mayor, and towns are represented by the chairperson of the board of selectmen. Specific responsibilities of the Advisory Board include reviewing and commenting on the MBTA’s long-range plan, the Program for Mass Transportation; proposed fare increases; the annual MBTA Capital Investment Program; the MBTA’s documentation of net operating investment per passenger; and the MBTA’s operating budget. The MBTA Advisory Board advocates for the transit needs of its member communities and the riding public.
The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) has the statutory responsibility under Chapter 465 of the Acts of 1956, as amended, for planning, constructing, owning, and operating such transportation and related facilities as may be necessary for developing and improving commerce in Boston and the surrounding metropolitan area. Massport owns and operates Boston Logan International Airport, the Port of Boston’s Conley Terminal, Flynn Cruiseport Boston, Hanscom Field, Worcester Regional Airport, and various maritime and waterfront properties, including parks in the Boston neighborhoods of East Boston, South Boston, and Charlestown.
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) is the regional planning agency for the Boston region. It is composed of the chief executive officer (or a designee) of each of the cities and towns in the MAPC’s planning region, 21 gubernatorial appointees, and 12 ex-officio members. It has statutory responsibility for comprehensive regional planning in its region under Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws. It is the Boston Metropolitan Clearinghouse under Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and Title VI of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. Also, its region has been designated an economic development district under Title IV of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended. MAPC’s responsibilities for comprehensive planning encompass the areas of technical assistance to communities, transportation planning, and development of zoning, land use, demographic, and environmental studies. MAPC activities that are funded with federal metropolitan transportation planning dollars are documented in the Boston Region MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program.
The City of Boston, six elected cities (currently Beverly, Everett, Framingham, Newton, Somerville, and Burlington), and six elected towns (currently Acton, Arlington, Brookline, Hull, Wrentham, and Norwood,) represent the 97 municipalities in the Boston Region MPO area. The City of Boston is a permanent MPO member and has two seats. There is one elected municipal seat for each of the eight MAPC subregions and four seats for at-large elected municipalities (two cities and two towns). The elected at-large municipalities serve staggered three-year terms, as do the eight municipalities representing the MAPC subregions.
The Boston Region MPO supports an Advisory Council to advance public engagement in the 3C planning process. As a public forum that guides MPO planning and decision-making, the Advisory Council includes and elevates diverse perspectives from stakeholders representing areas and interests throughout the region. The Advisory Council’s mission is to create space for knowledge-building and productive discussions about regional transportation issues and to advise the development of MPO programs and projects to ensure that they are responsive to public priorities.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) participate in the Boston Region MPO in an advisory and nonvoting capacity, reviewing the Long-Range Transportation Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, and Unified Planning Work Program, and other facets of the MPO’s planning process to ensure compliance with federal planning and programming requirements. These two agencies oversee the highway and transit programs, respectively, of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) under pertinent legislation and the provisions of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL).