Appendices                                                                                                                                                    

A   Universe of Projects

B   Project Information Forms and Evaluations                

C   Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Evaluation

D   FFY 2016 Highway Projects Status       

E   Transit Projects Status

F   Public Comments on the Draft FFYs 2017 – 21 TIP

G  MPO Glossary of Acronyms

H  FFYs 2008 – 2021 TIP Funding by Municipality

Appendix A

Universe of Projects for Highway Discretionary (“Regional Target”) Funding & Evaluation Results

This appendix lists information about transportation projects that cities and towns in the region identified as their priority projects to be considered for funding through the Boston Region MPO’s Highway Discretionary (“Regional Target”) Program. It also contains the evaluation results of those projects scored by MPO staff based on the evaluation criteria.

Through an outreach process that seeks input from local officials and interested parties, the MPO staff compiles project requests and relevant information into a Universe of Projects list for the MPO. The Universe of Projects list includes projects in varied stages of development, from projects in the conceptual stage to those that are fully designed and ready to be advertised for construction. The MPO staff also collects data on each project to support the evaluation of projects. (Typically, at a minimum, a functional design report is required.)

The MPO’s project selection process uses evaluation criteria to make the process of selecting projects for programming in the TIP both more logical and more transparent. The criteria are based on the MPO’s goals and objectives, which were adopted for its current Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040. 

The MPO staff uses the project information and evaluations to prepare a First-Tier List of Projects that have high ratings in the evaluation process and could be

made ready for advertising in the time frame of the TIP. The MPO staff then prepares a staff recommendation for the TIP taking into consideration the First-Tier list and factors such as the construction readiness of the project, the estimated project cost, community priority, geographic equity (to ensure that needs are addressed throughout the region), and consistency with the MPO’s LRTP.

The MPO discusses the First-Tier List of Projects, the staff recommendation, and other information before voting on a draft TIP to release for a 30-day public review and comment period.

Table A-1 contains a summary of the evaluated projects in this year’s TIP development process. Projects that are programmed with MPO Target Funding in the FFYs 2017-21 TIP are in bold type.

A full list of the Universe of Projects (including those project that were evaluated and those projects that were not evaluated) is contained in Table A-2. Projects in bold type are programmed with Target Funding in the FFYs 2017–21 TIP.

TABLE A-1: FFYs 2017-21 TIP - Summary of Evaluated Highway Projects

TABLE A-2: FFYs 2017-21 TIP - Universe of Projects

Appendix B

Roadway Project Funding Application Forms & Evaluations

This appendix provides an explanation of the project funding application form for roadway projects that is used to understand requests for funding and to evaluate projects for possible programming. MPO staff and project proponents update these project funding application forms when new information becomes available. The forms are used to evaluate projects using criteria that reflect MPO visions and policies. Some information is provided specifically by the project proponent and other information is provided by MPO staff or by various state agencies.

Project funding application forms are available on the MPO website, http://www.ctps.org/. Proponents enter the project information on-line. Other information is input by MPO staff or automatically updated through links to other databases.

Roadway Project funding application Forms

Overview Tab

Project Background Information

1    ID Number  

The MassDOT Project Information System (PROJIS) number assigned to the project. If the project does not have a PROJIS number, an identification number will be assigned to the project by the MPO for internal tracking purposes.

2    Municipality(ies)

The municipality (or municipalities) in which the project is located.

3    Project Name

The name of the project. (Source: MassDOT)

4    Project Category

(determined by MPO staff):

• Arterial and Intersection – Arterial roadway and intersection projects
• Major Highway – Limited access roadway projects
• Bridge – Bridge projects
• Bicycle and Pedestrian – Projects dedicated solely to bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as walkways, paths, and trails
• Transit – Transit projects consisting of improvements to trains, buses, and ferries
• Enhancement – Streetscape improvements and enhancements to transportation facilities
• Regional Mobility – Transportation demand management (TDM) and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs or projects

5    MassDOT Highway District

The MassDOT Highway District in which the project is located.

6    MAPC Subregion

The MAPC subregion in which the project is located.

7    MAPC Community Type

The MAPC community type in which the project is located as defined by land use and housing patterns, recent growth trends, and projected development patterns.

8    Estimated Cost

The estimated total cost of the project. (Source: MassDOT)

9    Evaluation Rating

The number of points scored by the project, if it has been evaluated.

10   Description

A description of the project, including its primary purpose, major elements and geographic limits. (Source: MassDOT).

11   Project Length (Miles)

Total length of project in miles.

12   Project Lane Miles

Total lane miles of project.

Project Background Information

P1  Community Priority

The priority rank of the project as determined by the community. (Source: Proponent)

Additional Status

13   MPO/CTPS Study

Past UPWP-funded studies or reports conducted within the project area.

14   Air Quality Status

The air quality status of the project in the MPO’s travel demand model. Projects with “exempt” status do not add capacity to the transportation system. Projects with “model” status add capacity to the transportation system and are included in the travel demand model.

Readiness Tab

“Readiness” is a determination of the appropriate year of programming for a project. In order to make this determination, the MPO tracks project development milestones and coordinates with the MassDOT Highway Division to estimate when a project will be ready for advertising.

All non-transit projects programmed in the first year of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) must be advertised before the end of the federal fiscal year (September 30). That funding authorization is not transferred to the next federal fiscal year, therefore any “leftover” funds are effectively “lost” to the region. If a project in the first year of the TIP is determined as “not ready to be advertised before September 30,” it will be removed from the TIP and replaced with another project by amendment.

For projects in the first year of the TIP, it is important to communicate any perceived problems that may affect the schedule to the Boston Region MPO as soon as possible.

Project Background Information

15   Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Status

Advertised, Programmed, Pre-TIP, or Conceptual (Source: MPO database):

• Advertised – projects have been advertised by the implementation agency for bids.
• Programmed – projects have been identified for funds in the current TIP.
• Pre-TIP – projects have received Project Review Committee (PRC) approval from MassDOT Highway Division and have an “active” PROJIS number, but do not have funds identified in the TIP.
• Conceptual – projects are project concepts or ideas that are not yet under design.

16   Functional Design Report (FDR) Status

The year that a functional design report was completed, if one has been conducted for the project. 

17   Design Status

Current design status of the project in the MassDOT Highway Division Design Process. Dates are provided where available. (Source: MassDOT Project Info)

• Project Review Committee (PRC) Approved
• 25% Submitted
• 25% Approved
• 75% Submitted
• 75% Approved
• 100% Submitted
• 100% Approved
• PS&E Submitted

18   Right-of-Way (ROW) Requirement

(Source: MassDOT Project Info):

Required – ROW action is required for completion of the project

Not Required – No ROW action required for completion of the project

19   Right-of-Way (ROW) Responsibility

(Source: MassDOT Project Info):

MassDOT Responsibility – Providing the required right-of-way is the responsibility of MassDOT.

Municipal Responsibility – Providing the required right-of-way is the responsibility of the municipality.

Municipal Approval – Municipal approval has been given to the right-of-way plan (with date of approval):

20   Right-of-Way (ROW) Certification

(Source: MassDOT Project Info):

Expected – Expected date of ROW plan and order of taking

Recorded – Date the ROW plan and order of taking were recorded at the Registry of Deeds

Expires – Expiration date of the rights of entry, easements, or order of taking

21   Required Permits

Permits required by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). (Source: MassDOT Project Info.)

Possible required permits include:

• Environmental Impact Statement
• Construction Engineering Checklist
• Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
• Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Section 10 Permit
• MEPA Environmental Notification Form
• MEPA Environmental Impact Report
• Massachusetts Historical Commission Approval
• M.G.L. Ch. 131 Wetlands Order of Conditions
• Conservation Commission Order of Conditions

Safety Tab

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to guide investments that implement the following MPO safety objectives:

• Reduce the number and severity of crashes, all modes
• Reduce serious injuries and fatalities from transportation
• Protect transportation customers and employees from safety and security threats

Project Background Information

22   Top 200 Rank

Ranks of highest crash intersection clusters in the project area listed within MassDOT’s top 200 high crash intersection locations. The crash rankings are weighted by crash severity as indicated by Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) values. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division 2011-2013 Top Crash Locations Report)

23   EPDO/Injury Value

An estimated value of property damage. Fatal crashes are weighted by 10, injury crashes are weighted by 5 and property damage only or nonreported is weighted by 1. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2011-2013)

24   Crash Rate/Crashes per Mile

Intersection projects list the crash rate as total crashes per million vehicle entering the intersection. Arterial projects list the crash rate as total crashes per mile. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2011-2013)

25   Bicycle-Involved Crashes (Total EPDO)

Total EPDO value of bicycle-involved crashes in the project area. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2011-2013)

26   Pedestrian-Involved Crashes (Total EPDO)

Total EPDO value of pedestrian-involved crashes in the project area. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2011-2013)

27   Truck-Involved Crashes (Total EPDO)

Total EPDO value of truck-involved crashes in the project area. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2011-2013)

Proponent Provided Information

P2  What is the primary safety need associated with
      this project and how does it address that need?

Describe the need for the project from a local and a regional perspective. What are the existing safety needs/improvements the project is designed to address? How will this design accomplish those needed improvements? Please be as specific as possible. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Highway Division Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

Safety Evaluation Scoring (30 total points possible):

Crash Severity Value: Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index (up to 5 points)

+5 EPDO value of 300 or more

+4 EPDO value between 200-299

+3 EPDO value between 100-199

+2 EPDO value between 50-99

+1 EPDO value less than 50

+0 No EPDO value

Crash Severity Rate: Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index per VMT (up to 5 points)

+5 Average annual EPDO per 1,000,000 VMT of 20 or more

+4 Average annual EPDO per 1,000,000 VMT between 15-20

+3 Average annual EPDO per 1,000,000 VMT between 10-15

+2 Average annual EPDO per 1,000,000 VMT between 5-10

+1 Average annual EPDO per 1,000,000 VMT less than 5

+0 No EPDO rate

Improves truck-related safety issue (up to 5 points)

+3 High total effectiveness of truck safety countermeasures

+2 Medium total effectiveness of truck safety countermeasures

+1 Low total effectiveness of truck safety countermeasures

+0 Does not implement truck safety countermeasures

If project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points below:

+2 Improves truck safety at HSIP Cluster

Improves bicycle safety (up to 5 points)

+3 High total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures

+2 Medium total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures

+1 Low total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures

  0  Does not implement bicycle safety countermeasures

If project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points below:

+2 Improves bicycle safety at HSIP Bicycle Cluster

+1 Improves bicycle safety at HSIP Cluster

Improves pedestrian safety (up to 5 points)

+3 High total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures

+2 Medium total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures

+1 Low total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures

  0  Does not implement pedestrian safety countermeasures

If project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points below:

+2 Improves pedestrian safety at HSIP Pedestrian Cluster

+1 Improves pedestrian safety at HSIP Cluster

Improves safety or removes an at-grade railroad crossing (up to 5 points)

+5 Removes an at-grade railroad crossing

+3 Significantly improves safety at an at-grade railroad crossing

+1 Improves safety at an at-grade railroad crossing

  0  Does not include a railroad crossing

System Preservation Tab

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to guide investments that implement the following MPO system preservation objectives:

• Improve the condition of on- and off-system bridges
• Improve pavement condition on the MassDOT-monitored roadway system
• Maintain and modernize capital assets throughout the system
• Maintain and modernize capital assets throughout the system (surface condition of sidewalks)  
• Prioritize projects that support planned response capability to existing or future extreme conditions (sea level rise, flooding, and other natural and security-related man-made hazards)
• Protect freight network elements, such as port facilities, that are vulnerable to climate-change impacts

Project Background Information

28   Existing Pavement Condition

(Source: MassDOT Roadway Inventory File)

Pavement Roughness (IRI) – International Roughness Index (IRI) rating reflects the calibrated value in inches of roughness per mile. IRI ratings are classified as follows:

• Good – Ranges of 0 - 190
• Fair – Ranges of 191- 320
• Poor – Above 320 

29   Equipment Condition

Existing signal equipment condition. (Source: CMP, Massachusetts permitted signal information, municipal signal information, submitted design).

30   Natural Hazard Zones**

• Project lies within a flood zone
• Project lies within a hurricane surge zone
• Project lies within ¼ mile of an emergency support location
• Project lies within an area of liquefiable soils

**Please refer to the All-hazards Planning Application (hyperlink to http://www.ctps.org/map/www/apps/eehmApp/pub_eehm_index.html) for more information on natural hazard zones.

Proponent Provided Information

P3  What are the infrastructure condition needs or
issues of the project area?

Please include additional pavement information from municipal pavement management programs. In addition, qualitative descriptions of existing problems or anticipated needs can be provided. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)

P4  How does this project address the infrastructure
condition needs or issues in the project area?

Please include detail regarding the pavement management system employed by the community or agency, and of how this system will maximize the useful life of any pavement repaired or replaced by the project. (Source: Proponent)

P5  What is the primary security need associated with this project and how does it address that need?

Describe the need for the project from a local and a regional perspective. What are the existing security needs/improvements the project is designed to address? How will this design accomplish those needed improvements? Please be as specific as possible. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Highway Division Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

System Preservation Evaluation Scoring (29 total points possible):

Improves substandard roadway bridge(s) (up to 3 points)

+3 Condition is structurally deficient and improvements are included in the project

+1 Condition is functionally obsolete and improvements are included in the project

+0 Does not improve substandard bridge or does not include a bridge

Improves substandard pavement (up to 6 points)

+6 IRI rating greater than 320: Poor and pavement improvements are included in the project

+4 IRI rating between 320 and 191: Fair and pavement improvements are included in the project

  0  IRI rating less than 190: Good or better

Improves substandard signal equipment condition (up to 6 points)

+6 Poor condition, improvements are included in the project

+4 Fair condition, improvements are included in the project

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Improves transit asset(s) (up to 3 points)

+2 Brings transit asset into State of Good Repair

+1 Meets an identified-need in an Asset Management Plan

+0 Does not meet or address criteria

Improves substandard sidewalk(s) (up to 3 points)

+3 Poor condition and sidewalk improvements are included in the project

+2 Fair condition and sidewalk improvements are included in the project

+0 Sidewalk condition is good or better

Improves emergency response (up to 2 points)

+1 Project improves an evacuation route, diversion route, or alternate diversion route

+1 Project improves an access route to or in proximity to an emergency support location

Improves ability to respond to extreme conditions (up to 6 points)

+2 Addresses flooding problem and/or sea level rise and enables facility to function in such a condition

+1 Brings facility up to current seismic design standards

+1 Addresses critical transportation infrastructure

+1 Protects freight network elements

+1 Implements hazard mitigation or climate adaptation plans

Capacity Management/Mobility Tab

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to guide investments that implement the following MPO capacity management/mobility objectives:

• Improve reliability of transit
• Implement roadway management and operations strategies, constructing improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian network, and supporting community-based transportation
• Create connected network of bicycle and accessible sidewalk facilities (at both regional and neighborhood scale) by expanding existing facilities and closing gaps
• Increase automobile and bicycle parking capacity and usage at transit stations
• Increase the percentage of population and places of employment within one-quarter mile of transit stations and stops
• Increase the percentage of population and employment with access to bicycle facilities
• Improve access to and accessibility of transit and active modes
• Enhance intermodal connections
• Support community-based and private-initiative services and programs to meet last mile, reverse commute and other non-traditional transit/ transportation needs, including those of the elderly and persons with disabilities
• Eliminate bottlenecks on the freight network

Project Background Information

31   Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

(Source: MassDOT Bicycle Facility Inventory and Roadway Inventory File and MPO bicycle GIS coverage)

Pedestrian Facilities:

• Sidewalks – Indicates if sidewalks are present on one side or on both sides of the roadway.
• Shared Use Path – Facilities with a stabilized firm surface and separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier.
• Minimally Improved Path – Facilities with a rough surface and separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier.

Bicycle Facilities:

• Cycle Track – Bikeways separated from parallel motor vehicle roadway by a line of parked cars, landscaping, or another form of physical barrier that motor vehicles cannot cross.
• Striped Bicycle Lane – A portion of a roadway (greater than or equal to 4 feet) which has been designated by striping, and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.
• Marked Shared Lane – Travel lanes with specific bicycle markings, often referred to as sharrows.
• Signed Route – Roadway is designated and signed as a bicycle route.  
• Shared Use Path – Facilities with a stabilized firm surface and separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier.
• Minimally Improved Path – Facilities with a rough surface and separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier.

32   Transit Vehicles Use of Roadway

Identifies the fixed route transit vehicles using the roadway

33   Usage

• Average Daily Traffic Volumes
• Average Daily Truck Volumes
• Average Weekday Transit Rider Volumes
• AM Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes
• AM Peak Hour Bicyclist Volumes
• PM Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes
• PM Peak Hour Bicyclist Volumes

34   A.M./P.M. Travel Time Index***

Travel Time Index directly compares peak-period travel time conditions with free-flow travel time conditions. Travel time Index indicates how much contingency time should be considered to ensure an on-time arrival during the peak period versus optimum travel times.

Travel time index = average peak-period travel time / free-flow travel time

Information provided is determined by the Boston Region MPO’s CMP Arterial Performance Dashboard. If a Project Funding Application Form does not have any CMP data listed, this does not necessarily mean that the roadway or intersection does not experience congestion problems; this simply means that data from the CMP are not available.

35   A.M./P.M. Speed Index***

Speed index is equal to the average speed divided by the posted speed limit of a Traffic Message Channel (TMC). Speed index indicates congestion more accurately than travel speeds alone because low travel speeds may be a result of low speed limits on certain facilities.

Speed Index = average speed / posted speed limit

Information provided is determined by the Boston Region MPO’s CMP Arterial Performance Dashboard. If a Project Funding Application Form does not have any CMP data listed, this does not necessarily mean that the roadway or intersection does not experience congestion problems; this simply means that data from the CMP are not available.

***Please refer to the CMP Arterial Performance Dashboard (hyperlink to http://www.ctps.org/map/www/apps/arterialHighwayPerformanceDashboard/index.html) for data on roadway congestion in the MPO region.

Proponent Provided Information

P6  What is the primary mobility need for this
      project and how does it address that need?

Describe the need for the project from a local and a regional perspective. What are the existing or anticipated mobility needs the project is designed to address? Please include information on how the project improves level of service and reduces congestion, provides multimodal elements (for example, access to transit stations or parking, access to bicycle or pedestrian connections), enhances freight mobility, and closes gaps in the existing transportation system. For roadway projects, it is MPO and MassDOT policy that auto congestion reductions not occur at the expense of pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit users. Please explain the mobility benefits of the project for all modes. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)

P7  What intelligent transportation systems (ITS)
      elements does this project include?

Examples of ITS elements include new signal systems or emergency vehicle override applications. (Source: Proponent)

P8  How does the project improve access for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation? How does the project support MassDOT’s mode shift goal of tripling the share of walking, biking, and transit travel?

Describe what improvements are in the project for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation, and what level of improvement will be achieved over existing conditions. (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

Capacity Management/Mobility Evaluation Scoring (29 total points possible):

Reduces transit vehicle delay (up to 4 points)

+3 5 hours or more of daily transit vehicle delay reduced

+2 1-5 hours of daily transit vehicle delay reduced

+1 Less than one hour of daily transit vehicle delay reduced

+0 Does not reduce transit delay

If project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points below:

+1 Improves one or more key bus route(s)

Improves pedestrian network and ADA accessibility (up to 5 points)

+2 Adds new sidewalk(s) (including shared-use paths)

+2 Improves ADA accessibility

+1 Closes a gap in the pedestrian network

  0  Does not improve pedestrian network

Improves bicycle network (up to 4 points)

+3 Adds new physically separated bicycle facility (including shared-use paths)

+2 Adds new buffered bicycle facility

+1 Adds new standard bicycle facility

+1 Closes a gap in the bicycle network

+0 Does not improve bicycle network

Improves intermodal accommodations/ connections to transit (up to 6 points)

+6 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a low degree

+0 Does not meet or address criteria

Improves truck movement (up to 4 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or addresses criteria to a low degree

+0 Does not meet or address criteria

If project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points below:

+1 Addresses MPO-identified bottleneck location

Project reduces congestion (up to 6 points)

+6 400 hours or more of daily vehicle delay reduced

+4 100-400 hours of daily vehicle delay reduced

+2 Less than 100 hours of daily vehicle delay reduced

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Clean Air/Clean Communities Tab

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to guide investments that implement the following MPO clean air/clean communities objectives:

• Reduce GHGs generated in the Boston Region by all transportation modes as outlined in the Global Warming Solutions Act
• Reduce other transportation-related pollutants
• Minimize negative environmental impacts of the transportation system, when possible
• Support land use policies consistent with smart and healthy growth

Project Background Information

36   CO₂ Impact

The quantified or assumed annual tons of carbon dioxide estimated to be reduced by the project. (Source: MPO Database)

37   Located in a Green Community

Project is in an Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) certified Green Community. (Source: EOEEA)

38   Located in an Area of Critical Environmental
      Concern

Areas designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs. (Source: MassGIS)

39   Located adjacent to (within 200 feet of) a
      waterway

Hydrographic (water related) features, including surface water (lakes, ponds, reservoirs), flats, rivers, streams, and others from MassGIS. Two hundred feet from the hydrographic feature is the distance protected by the Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act. (Source: MassGIS)

Proponent Provided Information

P9  How does the project relate to community
      character?

Is the project located in an existing community or neighborhood center or other pedestrian-oriented area? Explain the community context (cultural, historical, other) in which the project will occur and indicate the positive or negative effect this project will have on community character. (Source: Proponent)

P10 What are the environmental impacts of the
      project?

How will this project improve air quality, improve water quality, or reduce noise levels in the project area and in the region? Air quality improvements can come from reductions in the number or length of vehicle trips or from reductions in vehicle cold starts. Water quality improvements can result from reductions in runoff from impervious surfaces, water supply protection, and habitat protection. Noise barriers can reduce noise impacts. (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

Clean Air/Clean Communities Evaluation Scoring (16 total points possible):

Reduces CO₂ (up to 5 points)

+5 1,000 or more annual tons of CO₂ reduced

+4 500-999 annual tons of CO₂ reduced

+3 250-499 annual tons of CO₂ reduced

+2 100-249 annual tons of CO₂ reduced

+1 Less than 100 annual tons of CO₂ reduced

  0  No impact

-1  Less than 100 annual tons of CO₂ increased

-2  100-249 annual tons of CO₂ increased

-3  250-499 annual tons of CO₂ increased

-4  500-999 annual tons of CO₂ increased

-5  1,000 or more annual tons of CO₂ increased

Reduces other transportation-related emissions (VOC, NOx, CO) (up to 5 points)

+5 2,000 or more total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced

+4 1,000-1999 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced

+3 500-999 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced

+2 250-499 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

-2  250-499 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased

-3  500-999 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased

-4  1,000-1999 total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased

-5  2,000 or more total kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased

Addresses environmental impacts (up to 4 points)

+1 Addresses water quality

+1 Addresses cultural resources/open space

+1 Addresses wetlands/resource areas

+1 Addresses wildlife preservation/protected habitats

  0 Does not meet or address criteria

Project is in an Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA)-certified “Green Community” (up to 2 points)

+2 Project is located in a “Green Community”

  0  Project is not located in a “Green Community”

Transportation Equity Tab

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to guide investments that implement the following MPO transportation equity objectives:

• Target investments to areas that benefit a high percentage of low income and minority populations
• Minimize any burdens associated with MPO-funded projects in low income and minority areas
• Break down barriers to participation in MPO-decision making

Proponent Provided Information

P11 Are any other transportation equity issues
      addressed by this project?

This answer should only be addressed by those projects that serve Title VI/non-discrimination populations. Please be specific. (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

Transportation Equity Evaluation Scoring (12 total points possible):

Serves Title VI/non-discrimination populations (up to 12 points)

+2 Serves minority (high concentration) population

+1 Serves minority (low concentration) population

+2 Serves low-income (high concentration) population

+1 Serves low-income (low concentration) population

+2 Serves limited-English proficiency (high concentration) population

+1 Serves limited-English proficiency (low concentration) population

+2 Serves elderly (high concentration) population

+1 Serves elderly (low concentration) population

+2 Serves zero vehicle households (high concentration) population

+1 Serves zero vehicle households (low concentration) population

+2 Serves persons with disabilities (high concentration) population

+1 Serves persons with disabilities (low concentration) population

+0   Does not serve Title VI or non-discrimination populations

-10  Creates a burden for Title VI/non -discrimination populations

Economic Vitality Tab

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to guide investments that implement the following MPO economic vitality objectives:

• Prioritize transportation investments that serve targeted development sites
• Prioritize transportation investments that support development consistent with the compact growth strategies of MetroFuture
• Minimize the burden of housing and transportation costs for residents in the region

Proponent Provided Information

P12 How is the project consistent with local land use policies? How does the project advance local efforts to improve design and access?

Explain how this project will support existing or proposed local land use policies. (Source: Proponent)

P13 How does the zoning of the area within ½ mile
      of this project support transit-oriented
      development and preserve any new roadway
      capacity?

Will the project have an impact on adjacent land uses? Please review the land use information if the project is expected to have an impact on land use. Is there a local project currently under development that would provide a better balance between housing and jobs in this corridor? If so, please provide details on the project status. (Source: Proponent)

P14 How is the project consistent with state,
      regional, and local economic development
      priorities?

Explain how this project will support economic development in the community or in the project area (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

Economic Vitality Evaluation Scoring (18 total points possible):

Serves targeted development site (up to 6 points)

+2 Provides new transit access to or within site

+1 Improves transit access to or within site

+1 Provides for bicycle access to or within site

+1 Provides for pedestrian access to or within site

+1 Provides for improved road access to or within site

+0 Does not provide any of the above measures

Provides for development consistent with the compact growth strategies of MetroFuture (up to 5 points)

+2 Mostly serves an existing area of concentrated development

+1 Partly serves an existing area of concentrated development

+1 Supports local zoning or other regulations that are supportive of smart growth development

+2 Complements other local financial or regulatory support that fosters economic revitalization in a manner consistent with smart growth development principles 

  0  Does not provide for any of the above measures

Provides multimodal access to an activity center (up to 4 points)

+1 Provides transit access (within a quarter mile) to an activity center

+1 Provides truck access to an activity center

+1 Provides bicycle access to an activity center

+1 Provides pedestrian access to an activity center

  0  Does not provide multimodal access

Leverages other investments (non-TIP funding) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree (>30% of the project cost)

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree (10-30% of the project cost)

+1 Meets or addresses criteria to a low degree (<10% of the project cost)

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Other Tab

Cost per Unit

These two measures of cost per unit are derived by dividing project cost by quantified data in the MPO database. These measures can be used to compare similar types of projects.

40   $ per User

Cost divided by ADT (ADT for roadway projects or other user estimate)

41   $ per Lane Mile

Cost divided by proposed total lane miles

Additional Project Background Information

Targeted Development Areas

A targeted development area is located within ½ mile of the project area. Eligible targeted development areas include 43D, 43E, and 40R sites, Regionally Significant Priority Development Areas, Growth District Initiatives, and MBTA transit station areas.

• 43D Priority Development Site:  The Chapter 43D Program offers communities expedited permitting to promote targeted economic and housing development. Sites approved under the program are guaranteed local permitting decisions on priority development sites within 180 days.  (Source: Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development)
• 43E Priority Development Site: The Chapter 43E Program promotes the expedited permitting of commercial, industrial, residential and mixed-use projects on sites with dual designation as a Priority Development Site and Growth District. Sites approved under the program are guaranteed state permitting decisions on priority development sites within 180 days. (Source: Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development)
• 40R Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District: The program encourages communities to zone for compact residential and mixed-use development in “smart growth” locations by offering financial incentives and control over design. (Source: Department of Housing and Community Development) 
• Regionally Significant Priority Development Area: A site or district that has been identified by the local municipality as an eligible and desirable site for housing and/or economic development, and which has been identified as a “regionally significant” site by MAPC through a subregional screening process that considers development potential, accessibility, environmental impacts, equity, and other factors. 
• Growth District Initiative: The EOHED initiative focuses on expediting commercial and residential development at appropriate locations for significant new growth. (Source: Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development)
• Eligible MBTA Transit Station Area: Areas within ½ mile of existing or proposed subway, trolley, commuter rail, or ferry service, with the exception of “Undeveloped” station areas as defined by MAPC (www.mapc.org/TOD); or areas within ¼ mile of an MBTA “Key Bus Route.”

Municipality Provides Financial or Regulatory Support for Targeted Development

The proposed project will improve access to or within a commercial district served by a Main Street organization, local business association, Business Improvement District, or comparable, geographically targeted organization (i.e., not a city/town-wide chamber of commerce).

Local Efforts to improve Design and Access:

• Form-based codes
• Official design guidelines for new development/redevelopment
• Official local plan for pedestrian/bike/handicap access, the recommendations of which are reflected in the proposal

Appendix C

Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Evaluation

Background

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008 (GWSA) requires 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 developed the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan (CECP), which outlines programs to attain the 25 percent reduction by 2020—including a 7.6 percent reduction to be attributed to the transportation sector.

The Commonwealth’s 13 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are integrally involved in helping to achieve greenhouse gas reductions mandated under the GWSA. The MPOs work closely with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and other involved agencies to develop common transportation goals, policies, and projects that would help to reduce GHG emission levels statewide, and meet the specific requirements of the GWSA regulation – Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (310 CMR 60.05). The purpose of this regulation is to assist the Commonwealth in achieving its adopted GHG emission-reduction goals by requiring:

• MassDOT to demonstrate that its GHG reduction commitments and targets are being achieved
• Each MPO to evaluate and track the GHG emissions and impacts of both its LRTP and TIP
• Each MPO, in consultation with MassDOT, to develop and utilize procedures to prioritize and select projects in its LRTP and TIP based on factors that include GHG emissions and impacts

The Commonwealth’s MPOs are meeting the requirements of this regulation through the transportation goals and policies contained in their 2016 LRTPs, the major projects planned in the LRTPs, and the mix of new transportation projects that are programmed and implemented through the TIP.

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 greenhouse-gas reduction policies of promoting healthy transportation modes through prioritizing and programming an appropriate balance of roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian investments; as well as supporting smart-growth development patterns by creating a balanced multi-modal transportation system. All of the Commonwealth’s MPOs and MassDOT are working toward reducing greenhouse gases with “sustainable” transportation plans, actions, and strategies that include, but are not limited to:

• Reducing emissions from construction and operations
• Using more fuel-efficient fleets
• Implementing and expanding travel demand management programs
• Encouraging eco-driving
• Providing mitigation for development projects
• Improving pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit infrastructure and operations (healthy transportation)
• Investing in higher-density, mixed-use, and transit-oriented developments (smart growth)

Regional Tracking and Evaluation in Long-Range Transportation Plans

MassDOT coordinated with the Boston Region MPO and regional planning agencies to implement GHG tracking and evaluation in developing each MPO’s 2012 LRTPs, which were adopted in September 2011. This collaboration continued for the MPOs’ 2016 RTPs, 2016–19 TIPs, and 2017–21 TIPs. This information is now being updated and included in the Boston Region MPO’s Amendment One to the 2016 LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040. Working together, MassDOT and the MPOs have attained the following milestones:

• As a supplement to the 2016 LRTPs and the Boston Region MPO Amendment One to Charting Progress to 2040, the MPOs have completed modeling and long-range statewide projections for GHG emissions resulting from the transportation sector. Using the Boston Region MPO’s travel demand model and the statewide travel demand model for the remainder of the state, the MPOs have projected GHG emissions for 2020 no-build (base) and build (action) conditions, and for 2040 no-build (base) and build (action) conditions.
• All of the MPOs have addressed GHG emissions-reduction projections in their LRTPs, discussed climate change, and included a statement of MPO support to reduce GHG emissions as a regional goal.

Tracking and Evaluating in The Transportation Improvement Program

In addition to monitoring the GHG impacts of capacity-adding 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 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 emission impacts of different project types. Since carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the largest component of GHG emissions overall, CO₂ has been used to measure the GHG impacts of transportation projects in the TIP and LRTP. All TIP projects have been sorted into two main categories for analysis: 1) projects with quantified impacts, and 2) projects with assumed 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 include ones 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

Travel Demand Model Set

This includes capacity-adding projects in the LRTP that were analyzed using the travel demand model set. No independent TIP calculations were done for these projects.

Reduction or Increase in the Number of Tons of CO₂ Associated with the Project

The Office of Transportation Planning at MassDOT provided spreadsheets that are used to determine CMAQ Improvement Program eligibility. Typically, the data and analysis required by MPO staff to conduct these calculations is derived from functional design reports submitted for projects at the 25-percent design phase. Estimated projections of CO₂ for each project in this category are shown in Tables C-1 and C-2. A note of “To be determined” is shown for those projects for which a functional design report was not yet available. Analyses are done for the following types of projects:

Traffic Operational Improvement

An intersection reconstruction or signalization project that typically reduces delays and therefore idling

• Step 1: Calculate the AM-peak-hour total intersection delay (secs)
• Step 2: Calculate the PM-peak-hour total intersection delay (secs)
• Step 3: Select the peak hour with the longer intersection delay
• Step 4: Calculate the selected peak-hour total intersection delay with improvements
• Step 5: Calculate the vehicle delay in hours per day (assumes peak-hour delay is 10 percent of daily delay)
• Step 6: Input the MOBILE 6/MOVES emission factors for arterial idling speed
• Step 7: Calculate the net emissions change in kilograms per day
• Step 8: Calculate the net emissions change in kilograms per year (seasonally adjusted)
• Step 9: Calculate the cost-effectiveness (first year cost per kilogram of emissions reduced)

Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure

A shared-use path that would enable increased walking and biking and reduces automobile trips

• Step 1: Calculate the estimated number of one-way trips based on the percentage of workers residing in the communities of the facilities service area and the communities’ bicycle and pedestrian commuter mode share
• Step 2: Calculate the reduction in vehicle-miles traveled per day and per year (assumes each trip is the length of the facility; assumes the facility operates 200 days per year)
• Step 3: Input the MOBILE 6/MOVES emission factors for the average commuter travel speed (assumes 35 mph)
• Step 4: Calculate the net emissions change in kilograms per year (seasonally adjusted)
• Step 5: Calculate the cost-effectiveness (first year cost per kilogram of emissions reduced)

Calculations may be performed on the following project types; however, there are no projects of these types in the TIP.

New and Additional Transit Service

A new bus or shuttle service that reduces automobile trips

Park-and-Ride Lot

A facility that reduces automobile trips by encouraging high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) travel through carpooling or transit

Bus Replacement

A new bus that replaces an old bus with newer, cleaner technology

Projects with Assumed Impacts

Assumed Nominal Decrease or Increase in CO₂ Emissions

Projects that could produce a minor decrease or increase in emissions (but which cannot be calculated with any precision)

Examples include roadway repaving or reconstruction projects that add a new sidewalk or new bike lanes. Such projects would enable increased travel by walking or bicycling, but there may not be sufficient data or analysis to support any projections of GHG impacts. These projects are categorized as an assumed nominal increase or decrease from pedestrian and/or bicycle infrastructure, intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and/or traffic operational improvements, transit infrastructure, and freight infrastructure.

No CO₂ Impact

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, and a bridge rehabilitation/replacement that restores the bridge to its previous condition—and which would be assumed to have no CO₂ impact.

More details on these projects, including a description of each project’s anticipated CO₂ impacts, are discussed in Chapter 3. The following tables display the GHG impact analyses of projects funded in the Highway Program (Table C-1) and Transit Program (Table C-2).

TABLE C-1: Greenhouse Gas Regional Highway Project Tracking

TABLE C-2: Greenhouse Gas Regional Transit Project Tracking

TABLE C-3: Greenhouse Gas Regional Highway "Completed" Project Tracking

Appendix D

FFY 2016 Highway Projects Status

This appendix lists information about the status of roadway projects in the federal fiscal year 2016 element of the FFYs 2016–20 TIP.

TABLE D-1

Advanced construction projects

TABLE D-2

Projects advertised in FFY 2016

TABLE D-3

Projects expected to be advertised in FFY 2016

TABLE D-3 (CONTINUED)

Projects expected to be advertised in FFY 2016

TABLE D-4

Projects that will be advertised in a future TIP element

TABLE D-5

Projects that were removed from the TIP

TABLE D-6

Projects that were added to the TIP

Appendix E

Transit Projects Status

This appendix is under development. It will list information about the status of transit projects programmed on previous elements of the TIP.

Appendix F

Public Comments on the Draft FFYs 2017 – 21 TIP

Appendix G

MPO Glossary of Acronyms

Appendix H

FFYs 2008―2021 TIP Funding by Municipality

PURPOSE and METHODOLOGY

Purpose

Appendix H summarizes the geographic distribution of Target Program funding within the MPO region between federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2008 and 2021. This data was first compiled for FFYs 2008 through 2013 as part of a response to the MPO’s 2014 Certification Review by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). For this FFYs’ 2017–2021 TIP, the data was updated to reflect the distribution of Target Program funding, as currently planned, through FFY 2021.

The purpose of this data collection and analysis is to understand the geographic spread of the TIP Target Program funding throughout the region. In other words, this exercise serves to illuminate which communities and areas of our metropolitan region have received Target Program funding for transportation construction projects.

Methodology

MPO staff took the following steps to develop the dataset:

• Recorded information about TIP projects and the amount of funding programmed in each federal fiscal year.
• For projects that spanned multiple municipalities, divided programmed funds equally by the number of municipalities located within the project area.
• For each federal fiscal year, calculated the amount of programmed funds associated with each municipality. Funding from FFYs 2008 to 2016 is displayed in a single column, while funding information is displayed for each FFY in the current TIP cycle.
• Recorded the total amount of programmed funds for each municipality for each fiscal year in the dataset.

To focus this compilation of data on transportation projects programmed for individual municipalities or groups of municipalities more directly, this dataset excluded several projects that have a regionwide scope. Examples of regionwide projects include traffic-management center operations and systemwide transit capital upgrades.

NEXT STEPS

The data summarized in this appendix (and future TIP funding data that is added to it) could be used in various ways to help guide spending decisions made in future TIPs. Some analyses that the MPO could perform in the future include:

• Add to this analysis TIP projects that are funded through statewide funding programs.
• Examine in more detail the geographic distribution of TIP funding per subregion, or MAPC community type.
• Examine TIP funding by community and compare that data to the number of road miles, the Chapter 90 apportionment, and the distribution of needs—as identified in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040, Needs Assessment—for each community.

Maintaining a database to track the geographic distribution of TIP funding can serve as one important input into the funding decisions made each FFY. When considered in combination with other data, as described above, this data on geographic distribution of Target Program funding can help guide the MPO’s public outreach and decision making to help ensure that, over time, we are meeting the transportation needs of the region.

TABLE X-1: TIP Target Programming by Municipality, FFYs 2008-2016