Draft Memorandum for the Record

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization

Congestion Management Process (CMP) Committee Meeting Minutes

January 9, 2025, Meeting

9:00 AM–10:00 AM, Zoom Video Conferencing Platform

Jay Monty, Chair, Representing Mayor Carlo DeMaria, City of Everett

Decisions

The CMP Committee agreed to the following:

• Approve the minutes of the meeting of September 19, 2024
• Adopt objectives for the CMP program after incorporating feedback from committee members at the meeting

Meeting Agenda

1. Introductions

See attendance below.

2. Public Comments  

There were none.

3. Action Item: Approval of September 19, 2024, CMP Committee Meeting Minutes

Documents posted to the MPO meeting calendar

1. September 19, 2024 Meeting Minutes (pdf) (html)

A motion to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2024, CMP Committee meeting was made by the Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of Norwood, Steve Olanoff) and seconded by Town of Arlington (John Alessi). The motion carried.

4. Action Item: CMP Objectives Documents posted to the MPO meeting calendar

1. CMP Objectives Memo (pdf) (html)

Priyanka Chapekar, MPO staff, provided a brief overview of the meeting agenda, which included three main items: a formal endorsement to adopt regional CMP objectives for the Boston region, a discussion of components of the CMP network (a topic carried over from the last meeting), and an introduction to CMP performance measures.

P. Chapekar stated that the objectives will be adopted for upcoming program work for the next four to five years according to the typical CMP update cycle. P. Chapekar also stated that while there are no federal requirements on frequency of updating the CMP, a four-to-five-year cycle is usually followed by most metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).

P. Chapekar stated that the objectives presented had been revised and updated based on CMP Committee members’ feedback during the past two meetings. P. Chapekar stated that, as federal guidelines require CMP objectives to align with the regional Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) goals, the objectives were presented along with the LRTP goal area to which they align most closely. The draft CMP objectives are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Proposed Revised Draft of CMP Objectives

Discussion

Lenard Diggins (Regional Transportation Advisory Council) suggested a revision to Objective 4 as “To develop a holistic approach to congestion management by exploring multiple avenues for alleviating congestion, including encouraging mode shift, demand pricing strategies, and seeing and balancing land use considerations.” L. Diggins stated that this revision emphasizes the primary approach to the process.

Jen Rowe (City of Boston) seconded L. Diggins’ suggestion to revise Objective 4. J. Rowe suggested that Objective 4 could also include curb use and deliveries for strategy consideration as they currently comprise a significant volume of transportation systems.

Steve Olanoff (Three Rivers Interlocal Council, Town of Norwood) seconded J. Rowe’s suggestion on deliveries. S. Olanoff commented that the draft objectives include several aspects, such as freight and public transportation, not previously considered as part of the CMP, which has historically focused on automobiles. S Olanoff commented that it would be useful to think about the implications of including other modes besides automobiles from a data standpoint.

P. Chapekar stated that L. Diggins’ rephrasing of Objective 4 is helpful as it considers a more focused approach that is useful to convey its intent.

P. Chapekar responded to J. Rowe’s comment, saying that while considering deliveries is important, it might be too narrow for the scope of the regional objectives but could be included in some other way as part of the CMP.

P. Chapekar responded to S. Olanoff’s comment on including public transportation in the CMP by stating that this inclusion serves a two-fold purpose of analyzing high user volumes on the transit network as well as considering public transportation as a way of alleviating roadway congestion.

L. Diggins suggested that as freight is an important component of curb management it could be included in Objective 2.

For Objective 5, J. Rowe suggested adding “reduction in noise pollution as well as fatal and serious injury crashes” as they also pertain to public health and safety.

Committee members agreed that the objectives could get a motion for approval with the understanding that a revised version with members’ suggestions incorporated would be sent out to the committee prior to formally adopting them as regional objectives for the CMP program.

Vote

A motion for approving the CMP objectives with edits incorporated from the committee members’ suggestions was made by the Regional Transportation Advisory Council (L. Diggins) and seconded by City of Boston (J. Rowe). The motion carried.

5. Proposed CMP Multimodal Network—Priyanka Chapekar, MPO Staff

P. Chapekar gave an overview of the proposed multimodal CMP network, stating that this network generally comprises only roadways for most CMPs. However, it is crucial to consider a multimodal network for the Boston region due to its well-developed public transportation network. A multimodal perspective could help to reduce roadway congestion, as discussed in the proposed objectives.

P. Chapekar stated that the discussion at this meeting would focus on the part of the CMP network that was not covered during the previous meeting, which includes roadways with Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) counts greater than 10,000, freight corridors as defined by the National Highway Freight Network, MBTA bus routes with total average weekly ridership higher than 10,000, MBTA rapid transit, and commuter rail.

P. Chapekar talked about the regional transit authority(RTA) component of the CMP network, which includes fixed routes operated by the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA) and Metrowest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and stated that these routes are open to modification based on user volume data from the RTAs.

P. Chapekar then talked about the bicycle and pedestrian components of the CMP network, which includes bicycle facilities and walking trails mapped by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and sourced from the MAPC’s DataCommon. P. Chapekar stated that these data have some caveats because most of the trails in national parks, open spaces, or greenways may not relate to the urban setting, and user volume data is lacking.

P. Chapekar stated that while the MPO has plans to set up automatic bicycle and pedestrian counters at strategic locations, the CMP program would benefit from other suggested data sources until data are acquired from the counters.

J. Rowe asked whether the pedestrian network only includes walking trails or sidewalk infrastructure as well.

P. Chapekar responded that currently it has only walking trails across the region.

J. Monty asked for clarification about the purpose of requiring bicycle and pedestrian network volumes and whether it is to understand utilization of the facilities or to identify gaps in the network.

P. Chapekar responded that having the volume data is not a requirement because the CMP network typically includes only vehicle-related data. Including bicycle and pedestrian networks is already expanding the scope of the CMP network. If those data become available, bicycle and pedestrian user volumes will be considered for identifying high-usage links. The aspect of identifying gaps in the network to promote mode shift would be included at a later stage in the CMP for performance measurement.

S. Olanoff suggested referring to sidewalk data housed at MAPC, which includes data on sidewalk location and length. S. Olanoff also mentioned that MAPC might be starting some work on volume counts, which can be coordinated between the Boston Region MPO and MAPC.

J. Monty asked about granularity and the level of detail needed for bicycle and pedestrian volumes and infrastructure that would be most useful to incorporate into the network.

S. Olanoff asked whether the trails also included biking and walking infrastructure used for commuting as these facilities have a more significant user volume for the purposes of the CMP.

P. Chapekar responded that a way to achieve a balance between granularity and required level of detail is to set benchmarks to determine parts of the bicycle and pedestrian networks to be included in the CMP network. If volume data are unavailable, an option would be to include existing bicycle and pedestrian network data simply as an overlay entirely separate from the CMP network to see gaps or connections within the multimodal network.

L. Diggins commented that even if granular data is available, there is an option to aggregate it so that it shows a higher-level average value.

J. Rowe asked for clarity on the components of the CMP network and criteria used for determining them as a part of the next meeting.

P. Chapekar responded that the distinction would be made clear along with a list of modes represented in the final draft network.

S. Olanoff commented that certain bicycle paths have a significant impact on reducing traffic, so it would be worthwhile to identify them and their overlap with the roadway networks.

P. Chapekar responded that staff would consider identifying existing high user volume networks and gaps in the multimodal network to encourage mode shift as part of congestion mitigation strategies.

6. Introduction to CMP Performance Measures

This agenda item was deferred to the next meeting.

7. Public Comments

There were none.

8. Member Items

L. Diggins asked for links to materials on performance measures published on the MPO’s CMP webpage as background information for the next meeting.

9. Adjourn

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

Attendance

CIVIL RIGHTS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

Welcome. Bem Vinda. Bienvenido. Akeyi. 欢迎. 歡迎 .

You are invited to participate in our transportation planning process, free from discrimination. The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is committed to nondiscrimination in all activities and complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin (including limited English proficiency). Related federal and state nondiscrimination laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, sex, disability, and additional protected characteristics.

For additional information or to file a civil rights complaint, visit www.bostonmpo.org/mpo_non_discrimination.

To request accommodations at meetings (such as assistive listening devices, materials in accessible formats and languages other than English, and interpreters in American Sign Language and other languages) or if you need this information in another language, please contact:

Boston Region MPO Title VI Specialist

10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150
Boston, MA 02116

Phone: 857.702.3700
Email: civilrights@ctps.org

For people with hearing or speaking difficulties, connect through the state MassRelay service, www.mass.gov/massrelay. Please allow at least five business days for your request to be fulfilled.