Transportation Improvement Program and Air Quality Conformity Determination:
Federal Fiscal Years 2018–22
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. The MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, English proficiency, income, religious creed, ancestry, disability, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or military service. Any person who believes herself/himself or any specific class of persons has been subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI, ADA, or other non-discrimination statute or regulation may, herself/himself or via a representative, file a written complaint with the MPO. A complaint must be filed no later than 180 calendar days after the date on which the person believes the discrimination occurred. A complaint form and additional information can be obtained by contacting the MPO (see below) or at www.bostonmpo.org.
Please visit www.ctps.org to view the full TIP. To request a copy of the TIP in CD or accessible formats, please contact us by any of the following means:
This document was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Its contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. DOT.
Executive Summary
Federal Fiscal Years 2018–22 Transportation Improvement Program
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s five-year transportation capital investment plan, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), is the near-term investment program for the region’s transportation system. Guided by the Boston Region MPO’s vision, goals, and objectives, the TIP prioritizes investments that preserve the current transportation system in a state of good repair, provide safe transportation for all modes, enhance livability, and improve mobility throughout the region. These investments fund major highway reconstruction, arterial and intersection improvements, maintenance and expansion of the public transit system, bicycle path construction, and improvements for pedestrians.
The Boston Region MPO is a 22-member board with representatives of state agencies, regional organizations, and municipalities; its jurisdiction extends from Boston north to Ipswich, south to Duxbury, and west to Interstate 495. Each year, the MPO conducts a process to decide how to spend federal transportation funds for capital projects. The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS), which is the staff to the MPO, manages the TIP-development process.
MPO staff coordinate the evaluation of project requests, propose programming of current and new projects based on anticipated funding levels, support the MPO in developing a draft TIP document, and facilitate a public review of the draft before the MPO endorses the final document.
The federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2018–22 TIP consists of transportation investments programmed in the Highway Program and Transit Program. These investments reflect the MPO’s goal of targeting a majority of transportation resources to preserve and modernize the existing roadway and transit system and maintain them in a state of good repair.
This TIP also devotes a significant portion of funding for the targeted expansion of the rapid transit system and new shared-use paths. In addition, a number of the infrastructure investments in this TIP address needs identified in the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040, or implement recommendations from past studies and reports that were funded through the MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) http://www.bostonmpo.org/upwp.
The TIP also supports the strategic priorities of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT):
The Transit Program of the TIP provides funding for projects and programs that address the capital needs prioritized by the three transit agencies in the region: the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA), and the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA). The Transit Program is predominantly dedicated to achieving and maintaining a state of good repair for all assets throughout the transit system.
The Highway Program of the TIP funds the priority transportation projects advanced by MassDOT and the cities and towns within the 101-municipality MPO region. The program is devoted primarily to preserve and modernize the existing roadway network by resurfacing highways, replacing bridges, and reconstructing arterial roadways.
In Massachusetts, Federal-Aid Highway Program funding is portioned out by MassDOT, which allocates funding to Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) payments, various statewide programs, and the state’s MPOs. The “Regional Target” funding provided to the MPOs can be programmed for projects at the discretion of each MPO.
During FFYs 2018–22, the Boston Region MPO plans to fund 32 projects and programs with its Regional Target funding:
Figure ES-1 shows how the Regional Target funding for FFYs 2018–22 is distributed across the MPO’s investment programs. As the chart shows, the Boston Region MPO’s Regional Target Program is devoted primarily to modernizing and expanding the transportation network through Major Infrastructure and Complete Streets investments.
FIGURE ES-1
FFYs 2018-22 TIP Regional Target Funding,
by Investment Program Type
Data Source: CTPS
These investments will be implemented in 31 cities and towns throughout the MPO region, ranging from high-density, built-out Inner Core communities to Developing Suburbs with large expanses of vacant developable land. Figure ES-2 identifies the type of communities—as defined by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)—that will receive these investments.
FIGURE ES-2
MPO Municipalities containing FFYs 2018–22 TIP Program Projects, by MAPC Community Type
Data Source: CTPS
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) allocates the funds programmed in the TIP Transit Program by formula. The three regional transit authorities in the Boston Region MPO area that are recipients of these funds are the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA. The MBTA, with its extensive transit program and infrastructure, is the recipient of the preponderance of the region’s federal transit funds.
Under the federal transportation legislation, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, funding is allocated by the following categories:
The TIP Highway Program was developed with the assumption that federal funding for the state would range between $648 million and $708 million annually over the next five years (these amounts include the funds that would be set aside as payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program and exclude required matching funds).
The process of deciding how to use this federal funding in the Boston region follows several steps. MassDOT first reserves funding for Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) debt service payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program; annual GANs payments range between $62 million and $117 million annually over the five years of this TIP.
The remaining Federal-Aid Highway Program funds are budgeted to support state and regional (i.e., MPO) priorities. In this planning cycle, $704 million to $745 million annually was available statewide for programming (these amounts include both federal dollars and the local match). MassDOT customarily provides the local match (which can also be provided by other entities); thus, projects are typically funded with 80 percent federal dollars and 20 percent state dollars, depending on the funding program.
Next, MassDOT allocates funding across the following funding categories:
After these needs have been satisfied, MassDOT allocates the remaining funding among the state’s MPOs for programming. This discretionary funding for MPOs is suballocated by formula to determine the Regional Target amounts. MassDOT develops these targets in consultation with the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies. This TIP assumes that the Boston Region MPO will have between $95 million and $101 million annually for Regional Target amounts.
Each MPO may decide how to prioritize their Regional Target funding. Given that the Regional Target funding is a subset of the Highway Program, the MPO typically programs the majority of funding on roadway projects; however, the MPO has flexed portions of its highway funding to the Transit Program for transit expansion projects. The TIP Highway Program details both the projects that will receive Regional Target funding from the Boston Region MPO and statewide infrastructure projects within the Boston region.
In order to determine which projects to fund through the Regional Target funding process, MPO members collaborate with municipalities, state agencies, members of the public, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders. The MPO’s project selection process uses evaluation criteria to help identify and prioritize projects that advance the MPO’s goals:
These goals also shape a series of MPO investment programs, which are designed to direct Regional Target funding towards MPO priority areas over the next 25 years:
Projects that the MPO will select to receive Regional Target funding through the TIP development process are included in one of the five programs listed above.
The outreach process begins early in the federal fiscal year, when cities and towns designate TIP contacts and begin developing a list of priority projects to be considered for federal funding. Each November, MPO staff ask the staff of cities and towns in the region to identify their priority projects.
MPO staff compile the project funding requests into a Universe of Projects, a list of all projects identified as potential candidates to receive funding through the TIP. The Universe includes projects that are fully designed and ready to be advertised for construction, those that are undergoing preliminary engineering and design, as well as projects still in the conceptual or planning stage. MPO staff also collect data on each project in the Universe so that the projects can be evaluated.
MPO staff evaluate projects based on how well they address the MPO’s goals. To fully evaluate a project, it must be at the 25 percent design stage or the plans must include the level of detail defined in a functional design report. The evaluation results are posted on the MPO’s website, allowing project proponents, municipal officials, and members of the public to view them and provide feedback.
An important step toward TIP programming takes place midway through the TIP development cycle at a meeting, referred to as TIP Readiness Day, attended by MassDOT and MPO staff. At this meeting, MassDOT project managers provide updates about cost and schedule changes related to currently programmed projects. These cost and schedule changes must to be taken into account as MPO staff help the MPO board consider updates to the already programmed years of the TIP as well as the addition of new projects in the outermost year of the TIP.
Using the evaluation results and information about project readiness (when a project likely would be fully designed and ready for construction), staff prepare the First-Tier List of Projects. This list contains those projects that are supported by a project proponent (a municipality or MassDOT) and that could be made ready for advertising within the TIP’s time horizon—the next five federal fiscal years. The projects are ranked based on the evaluation results.
MPO staff then prepare a recommendation or a series of programming scenarios for how to program the Regional Target funding in the TIP based on the First-Tier List of Projects and other considerations, such as whether a project was included in the LRTP, addresses an identified transportation need, or promotes a distribution of transportation investments across the region.
The staff recommendation is always financially constrained, subject to available funding. There was approximately $493 million of Regional Target funding available to the Boston Region MPO for FFYs 2018–22. This year, the MPO discussed programming scenarios for the discretionary Highway Target Program in March, and developed a final draft recommendation in April.
The MPO considers the evaluation results, First-Tier List of Projects, and staff recommendation when prioritizing which projects should receive Regional Target funding. In addition to prioritizing the Regional Target funding, the MPO also reviews the Statewide Infrastructure Items and Bridge Programs that are programmed by MassDOT, as well as the capital programs for the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA, before voting to release a draft TIP for public review.
In April 2017, the MPO voted to release the draft FFYs 2018–22 TIP for a 21-day public comment period, during which the MPO invited members of the public, regional and local officials, and other stakeholders in the Boston region to review the proposed program. During the public comment period, MPO staff hosted extended “Office Hours,” an open-house style public meeting, to discuss the draft document and elicit additional comments on the draft TIP.
After the public comment period concluded, the MPO reviewed all municipal and public comments and made changes to the document as appropriate. The MPO then endorsed the TIP and submitted it to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the FTA for approval. MassDOT incorporates the MPO-endorsed TIP into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The FHWA, FTA and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review the STIP for certification by September 30, the close of the federal fiscal year.
Even after the TIP has been finalized, administrative modifications, amendments, and adjustments often must be introduced because of changes in project status, project cost, or available revenues. This may necessitate reprogramming a project to a later funding year or programming additional funds for a project.
Notices of administrative modifications and amendments are posted on the MPO’s website. If an amendment is necessary, the Regional Transportation Advisory Council—the public advisory board to the MPO—is informed, and the MPO notifies affected municipalities and other stakeholders via email. The MPO typically holds a 30-day public comment period (in FFY 2017, a 21-day period was used) before taking final action on an amendment. In extraordinary circumstances, the MPO may vote to shorten the public comment period to a minimum of 15 days.1 Administrative modifications and adjustments are generally minor and usually do not warrant a public comment period. See Chapter 2 for more details on what qualifies as an adjustment or an amendment and the process of updating the TIP.
Public input is an important aspect of the transportation-planning process. Please visit www.bostonmpo.org for more information about the MPO, to view the entire TIP, and to submit your comments. You also may wish to sign up for our email news updates and notices by contacting us at publicinfo@ctps.org or signing up at www.ctps.org/subscribe.
To request a copy of the TIP in CD or accessible formats, please contact us by any of the following means:
Mail: Boston Region MPO c/o CTPS
Certification Activities Group
10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150
Boston, MA 02116-3968
Telephone: 857.702.3700
TTY: 617.973.7089
Fax: 617.570.9192
Email: publicinfo@ctps.org
Chapter One
The 3C Process
Decisions about how to spend transportation funds in a metropolitan area are guided by information and ideas from a broad group of people, including elected officials, municipal planners and engineers, transportation advocates, and other interested persons. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are the bodies responsible for providing a forum for this decision-making process. Each metropolitan area in the United States with a population of 50,000 or more has an MPO, which decides how to spend federal transportation funds for capital projects and planning studies.
In order to be eligible for federal funds, metropolitan areas are required to maintain a continuous, comprehensive, and cooperative (3C) multimodal, performance-based transportation-planning process that results in plans and programs consistent with the objectives of the metropolitan area.2 The 3C planning process in the Boston region is the responsibility of the Boston Region MPO, which has established the following objectives for the process:
The Boston Region MPO is a 22-member board consisting of state agencies and regional and municipal organizations. Its jurisdiction extends from Boston north to Ipswich, south to Duxbury, and west to Interstate 495. There are 101 cities and towns that make up this area. Those municipalities are divided into eight subregional areas (as shown in Figure 1-1).
As part of its 3C planning process, the Boston Region MPO annually produces the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). These documents, along with the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), are required for the MPO to be certified as meeting federal requirements, which, in turn, is a prerequisite for receiving federal transportation funds. These three plans are often referred to as certification documents.
This TIP was developed and approved by the permanent and elected MPO voting members. The following are permanent voting members:
Municipal MPO members are elected by chief elected officials of the 101 municipalities in the MPO region to represent the entire region. There are seats designated for at-large cities and at-large towns—which, respectively, may be filled by any city and town in the region—as well as seats for cities and towns within specific subregions. The current elected municipal MPO voting members and their respective seats are as follows:
In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) participate in the MPO as advisory (nonvoting) members. Figure 1-2 is an organization chart of MPO membership and of the MPO’s staff, the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS).
More details about the MPO’s members are cited below. All members—except for MassDOT and the City of Boston—hold one seat on the MPO board. MassDOT has three seats, including one for the Highway Division. The City of Boston has two seats.
MassDOT was established under Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009, An Act Modernizing the Transportation Systems of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. MassDOT has four divisions: Highway, Rail and Transit, Aeronautics, and Registry of Motor Vehicles. The MassDOT Board of Directors, comprised of 11 members appointed by the governor, oversees all four divisions and all MassDOT operations, including the MBTA.
The MBTA has the statutory responsibility within its district, under the provisions of Chapter 161A of the Massachusetts General Laws (MGLs), for preparing the engineering and architectural designs for transit development projects, constructing and operating transit development projects, and operating the public transportation system. The MBTA district comprises 175 communities, including all of the 101 cities and towns of the Boston Region MPO area. Starting in April 2015, as a result of an action plan to improve the MBTA, a five-member Fiscal and Management Control Board (FMCB) was created to oversee the MBTA’s finances and management and to increase accountability over a three-to-five-year period. By statute, the FMCB consists of five members, one with experience in transportation finance, one with experience in mass transit operations, and three who are also members of the MassDOT Board of Directors.
Massport has the statutory responsibility under Chapter 465 of the Acts of 1956, as amended, of 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’s Logan International Airport, Conley Freight Terminal, Cruiseport Boston, Hanscom Field, Worcester Regional Airport, and various maritime and waterfront properties, including parks in East Boston, South Boston, and Charlestown.
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council is the regional planning agency for the 101 cities and towns in the Boston region. It is composed of the chief executive officer (or their designee) of each city and town in the region, 21 gubernatorial appointees, and 12 ex officio members. MAPC has statutory responsibility for comprehensive regional planning in the region under Chapter 40B of the MGLs. 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. MAPC’s planning area also has been designated as 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 include providing technical assistance to communities, transportation planning, and the development of zoning, land use, and demographic and environmental studies.
The City of Boston, six elected cities (currently Beverly, Braintree, Everett, Newton, Somerville, and Woburn), and six elected towns (currently Arlington, Bedford, Framingham, Lexington, Medway, and Norwood) represent the region’s 101 municipalities in the Boston Region MPO. The City of Boston is a permanent MPO member (with two seats). There is one elected municipal seat for each of the eight MAPC subregions, and there are four 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 Regional Transportation Advisory Council, the MPO’s public advisory group, provides the opportunity for transportation-related organizations, agencies, and municipal representatives to become actively involved in the MPO’s decision-making processes for planning and programming transportation projects in the region. The Advisory Council reviews, comments on, and makes recommendations on the MPO’s certification documents. The Advisory Council also provides information about transportation topics in the region, identifies issues, advocates for ways to address the region’s transportation needs, and generates interest in the work of the MPO among members of the general public.
Two other members participate in the Boston Region MPO in an advisory (nonvoting) capacity, reviewing the MPO’s certification documents to ensure compliance with federal planning and programming requirements: the FHWA and FTA oversee the highway and transit programs of the US Department of Transportation under the pertinent legislation and the provisions of FAST Act.
Two entities assist the MPO board in carrying out the responsibilities of the MPO’s 3C planning process through policy implementation, technical support, and public participation:
The following section briefly describes the three documents produced by the MPO as part of its federally required 3C planning process:
public transit expansion and maintenance, bicycle paths and related facilities, and improvements to pedestrian infrastructure. The TIP contains a financial plan that shows the revenue sources, current or proposed, for each project. The TIP serves as the implementation arm of the LRTP; the Boston Region MPO updates the TIP annually. An MPO-endorsed TIP is incorporated into the State Transportation Improvement Program, which in turn is submitted to FHWA, FTA, and the US Environmental Protection Agency for approval.
The FAST Act requires all MPOs to fulfill the 3C planning process. To meet this requirement, MPOs must perform the following activities:
The FAST Act also maintains national goals for federal highway programs, including the following:
1. Safety: Achieve significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads
2. Infrastructure condition: Maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair
3. Congestion reduction: Achieve significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System
4. System reliability: Improve efficiency of the surface transportation system
5. Freight movement and economic vitality: Improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development
6. Environmental sustainability: Enhance performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment
7. Reduced project delivery delays: Reduce project costs; promote jobs and the economy; and expedite movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion, eliminating delays in the development and delivery process, lessening regulatory burdens, and improving the work practices of the agencies involved
In addition, the FAST Act maintains the federal planning factors established in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and adds two new planning factors. In accordance with the legislation, the MPO shall comply with the following factors:
Federal guidance dictates that the 3C planning process should facilitate the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight. The surface transportation system should foster economic growth and development within and between states and urbanized areas, and take into consideration resiliency needs while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution.
The FAST Act continues to emphasize performance-based planning as an integral part of the metropolitan-planning process. States are to develop performance goals, guided by the national goals, and then MPOs will work with state departments of transportation (DOTs) and public transportation providers to develop MPO performance targets. The TIP will integrate the MPOs’ performance measures and link transportation investment decisions to progress toward achieving performance goals.
Air quality conformity determinations must be performed for LRTPs and TIPs in areas that are classified as in nonattainment for pollutants controlled by national air quality standards. Capital improvement projects that receive federal funding and that are considered regionally significant must be analyzed for their effect on air quality. These determinations must show that the LRTP and TIP 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.
A determination must also be performed if there are transportation control measures identified in the Commonwealth’s State Implementation Plan for the attainment of air quality standards in the region. Transportation control measures are federally enforceable and projects that address the identified air quality issues must be given first priority when using federal funds. Such projects previously programmed in past TIPs include parking-freeze programs in Boston and Cambridge, statewide rideshare programs, rapid-transit and commuter-rail extension programs, park-and-ride facilities, residential parking-sticker programs, and operation of high-occupancy-vehicle lanes.
The Boston Region MPO complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA, and other federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all of its programs and activities. The MPO does not discriminate based on race, color, national origin, English proficiency, income, religious creed, ancestry, disability, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or military service. The major federal requirements are discussed below.
This statute requires that no person be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or 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, dated August 11, 2000, extends Title VI protections to persons who, as a result of national origin, have limited English-language proficiency (LEP). Specifically, it calls for improved access to programs and activities conducted or assisted by federal agencies, and it requires MPOs to develop and implement a system by which LEP persons can meaningfully participate in the transportation-planning process.
Executive Order 12898, dated February 11, 1994, further expands upon Title VI, requiring each federal agency to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing any disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, including interrelated social and economic effects, resulting from its programs, policies, and activities.
On April 15, 1997, the US Department of Transportation issued its Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Among other provisions, this order calls for programming and planning activities to meet the following requirements:
Title III of the ADA requires all transportation projects, plans, and programs to be accessible to people with disabilities. At the MPO level, this means that public meetings must be held in accessible buildings and documents must be made available in accessible formats.
Executive Order 13330, dated February 26, 2004, calls for the establishment of the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, under the aegis of the US Secretary of Transportation. This executive order reinforces both environmental justice and ADA requirements by charging the council with developing policies and methods for improving access for people with disabilities, low-income persons, and older adults.
The MPO considers the degree to which a proposed TIP project would advance the goals and objectives of its LRTP. The MPO also reviews TIP projects within the context of the recommended projects already included in the LRTP.
The MPO aims to implement the findings and recommendations of past studies and reports conducted through the UPWP when developing the TIP.
The purpose of the Congestion Management Process (CMP) is to monitor and analyze the performance of transportation facilities and services; develop strategies to alleviate congestion; and move these strategies into the implementation stage by providing decision-makers in the region with information and recommendations. The CMP monitors roadways and park-and-ride facilities in the MPO region for safety, congestion, and mobility, and identifies problematic locations. Projects that help address problems identified in the most recent CMP monitoring endeavor were considered for inclusion in this TIP.
The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) makes Massachusetts a leader in setting aggressive and enforceable greenhouse gas (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, 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 2015), establishes the following targets for overall statewide GHG emission reductions:
In January 2015, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection promulgated regulation 310 CMR 60.05, Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. 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. In particular, MPOs must use GHG impact as a selection criterion when they review projects to be programmed in their TIPs. Appendix C of this document includes information about these requirements and how the Boston Region MPO has addressed them in developing the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2018-22 TIP.
The transportation sector is the single largest contributor of GHGs—accounting for more than one-third of GHG emissions—and therefore is a major focus of the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. MassDOT’s approach to fulfilling its part of the plan is presented in its GreenDOT Policy Directive, a comprehensive sustainability initiative that sets three principal objectives:
The Commonwealth’s 13 MPOs are integrally involved in helping MassDOT achieve its GreenDOT objectives and 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 MPOs to anticipate GHG impacts of the planned and programmed projects.
In 2009, the MBTA adopted its current Program for Mass Transportation (PMT). The PMT was developed with extensive public involvement and was approved by the MBTA Advisory Board.
The next PMT, Focus40, is under development. Focus40 is the 25-year investment plan to position the MBTA to meet the needs of the greater Boston region through 2040. The Focus40 process will create a long-term investment vision that recognizes current infrastructure challenges and the shifting demographics, changing climate, and evolving technology that may alter the role that the MBTA will play in greater Boston in the future. Focus40 will emphasize 1) improving system performance and reliability; 2) supporting economic growth; 3) supporting inclusive growth; 4) climate change mitigation and adaptation; and 5) providing a seamless multimodal experience.
In 2016, the Focus40 team examined the existing conditions and future context for the transit system, developed goals, and collected feedback and ideas for improvements through an extensive public engagement process. During 2017, the team will finalize the plan’s framework and objectives, propose programs and strategies that align with that framework, develop a recommended strategy, and finalize the plan. Recommendations from Focus40 will support MassDOT’s Capital Investment Plan. The Boston MPO continues to monitor the development of Focus40 to inform its decision making about transit capital investments.
MetroFuture, which was developed by MAPC and adopted in 2008, is the long-range plan for land use, housing, economic development, and environmental preservation in the Boston region. It includes a vision for the region’s future and a set of strategies for achieving that future. Its goals and objectives were used in developing the future land-use scenario for Charting Progress to 2040. MetroFuture’s goals, objectives, and strategies were considered in the development of this TIP.
A statewide initiative designed as a bottom-up approach to transportation planning, youMove Massachusetts (YMM) derived 10 core themes from a broad-based public participation process that articulated the expressed concerns, needs, and aspirations of Massachusetts residents related to their transportation network. Those themes have been considered in the development of this TIP.
In May 2014, MassDOT released weMove Massachusetts: Planning for Performance (WMM), the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ 2040 LRTP. WMM is a statewide strategic multimodal plan that is a product of the transportation reform legislation of 2009 and the YMM civic engagement process. It identifies high-level policy priorities that were considered in the development of this TIP. WMM also incorporates performance management into investment decision-making to calculate the differences in performance outcomes resulting from different funding levels available to MassDOT. In the future, MassDOT will use this scenario-based tool to update and refine investment priorities. The TIP builds on this data-driven method to prioritize transportation investments.
The Healthy Transportation Compact (HTC) is a major requirement of the Massachusetts landmark transportation reform legislation that took effect on November 1, 2009. It is an interagency initiative that will help ensure that the transportation decisions made by the Commonwealth balance the needs of all transportation users, expand mobility, improve public health, support a cleaner environment, and create stronger communities.
The agencies work together to achieve positive health outcomes by coordinating land-use, transportation, and public health policy. HTC membership is made up of the secretary of transportation (co-chair), secretary of health and human services (co-chair), secretary of energy and environmental affairs, secretary of housing and economic development, administrator of transportation for highways, administrator of transportation for mass transit, and the commissioner of public health (each of whom may select a representative to serve in their stead).
The HTC also promotes improved coordination among the public sector, private sector, and advocacy groups, as well as among transportation, land-use, and public health stakeholders. As part of the framework for the HTC, MassDOT established a HTC Advisory Council comprised of advocates and leaders in the fields of land-use, transportation, and public health policy.
In the fall of 2012, MassDOT announced a statewide mode shift goal to triple the share of travel by bicycling, transit, and walking between 2010 and 2030. The mode shift goal aims to foster improved quality of life by protecting our environment and preserving the capacity of our highway network. In addition, positive public health outcomes will be achieved by providing more healthy transportation options.
On September 9, 2013, MassDOT passed the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive to formalize its commitment to implementing and maintaining transportation networks that serve all mode choices. This directive will ensure that all MassDOT projects are designed and implemented in ways that provide all customers with access to safe and comfortable walking, bicycling, and transit options.
In November 2015, MassDOT released the Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide. This guide represents the next—but not the last—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 Charting Progress to 2040, the Boston Region MPO has established investment programs—particularly its Complete Streets and Bicycle and Pedestrian programs—that support the implementation of Complete Streets projects. These investment programs are reflected in this TIP. The MPO’s TIP project selection criteria also support the programming of Complete Streets and bicycle and pedestrian investments.
In the development of Charting Progress to 2040, the Boston Region MPO updated its vision, goals, and objectives. These updated goals and objectives, listed on the following pages, guided the 2016 update of the TIP evaluation criteria. As such, the investments in the TIP aim to achieve the following:
Figure 1-3:
Goals and Objectives
| GOALS | OBJECTIVES |
| SAFETY Transportation by all modes will be safe |
• Reduce number and severity of crashes, all modes • Reduce serious injuries and fatalities from transportation • Protect transportation customers and employees from safety and security threats (Note: The MPO action will be to incorporate security investments into capital planning.) |
| SYSTEM PRESERVATION Maintain the transportation system |
• Improve condition of on- and off-system bridges • Improve pavement conditions on MassDOT-monitored roadway system • Maintain and modernize capital assets, including transit assets, throughout the system • 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 |
| CAPACITY MANAGEMENT/MOBILITY Use existing facility capacity more efficiently and increase healthy transportation capacity |
• 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 percentage of population and places of employment within one-quarter mile of transit stations and stops • Increase percentage of population and places of employment with access to bicycle facilities • Improve access to and accessibility of transit and active modes • 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 • Enhance intermodal connections • Emphasize capacity management through low-cost investments; give priority to projects that focus on lower-cost O&M-type improvements such as intersection improvements and Complete Streets solutions |
| CLEAN AIR/CLEAN COMMUNITIES Create an environmentally friendly transportation system |
• Reduce greenhouse gases 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 • Support land use policies consistent with smart and healthy growth |
| TRANSPORTATION EQUITY Provide comparable transportation access and service quality among communities, regardless of income level or minority population |
• 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 |
| ECONOMIC VITALITY Ensure our transportation network provides a strong foundation for economic vitality |
• Respond to the mobility needs of the 25–34-year-old workforce • Minimize the burden of housing and transportation costs for residents in the region • Prioritize transportation investments that serve targeted development sites • Prioritize transportation investments consistent with the compact-growth strategies of MetroFuture |
Chapter Two
The TIP Process
Thus, each year, the Boston Region MPO conducts a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development process that prioritizes transportation investments and helps the MPO decide how to spend federal transportation funds for capital projects. The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) to the Boston Region MPO manages the annual development process for the TIP. MPO staff help evaluate project funding requests, propose programming for new and ongoing projects based on anticipated yearly funding levels, support the MPO by creating a draft TIP document, and facilitate a public review of the draft before the MPO endorses the final document.
The first step in allocating federal transportation funds is the passage by the United States Congress of a multiyear act that establishes a maximum level of federal transportation funding per federal fiscal year (FFY). The establishment of this level of funding is referred to as an authorization. The most recent authorization act, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), was signed into law on December 4, 2015.
Once the authorization level has been established, the United States Department of Transportation allocates funding among the states annually, based on various federal formulas. This allocation is referred to as an apportionment. The annual apportionment rarely represents the actual amount of federal funds that are ultimately committed to a state because of federally imposed limitations on spending in a given fiscal year, referred to as the obligation authority. In Massachusetts, TIPs are developed based on the estimated obligation authority.
Two of the most important distinctions between apportionment and obligation authority are 1) apportionment is allocated on a per program basis, while obligation authority is generally allocated as a lump sum; and 2) unused apportionment carries forward into successive FFYs, but unused obligation authority does not. Unused apportionment that is carried forward is referred to as an unobligated balance. Although a state’s unobligated balance can be used to increase the amount of federal aid programmed within a particular funding category in a given FFY, it cannot be used to increase the total amount of the state’s highway apportionment.
Federal regulations require states to “provide MPOs with estimates of Federal and State funds which the MPOs shall utilize in developing financial plans” for TIPs. 3
The TIP Highway Program was developed with the assumption that federal funding for the state would range between $648 million and $708 million annually over the next five years (these amounts include the funds that would be set aside as payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program and exclude required matching funds).
The process of deciding how to use this federal funding in the Boston Region follows several steps. MassDOT first reserves funding for Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) debt service payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program; annual GANs payments range between $62 million and $117 million annually over the five years of this TIP.
The remaining Federal-Aid Highway Program funds are budgeted to support state and regional (i.e., MPO) priorities. In this planning cycle, $704 million to $745 million annually was available statewide for programming (these amounts include both federal dollars and the local match). MassDOT customarily provides the local match (which can also be provided by other entities); thus, projects are typically funded with 80 percent federal dollars and 20 percent state dollars, depending on the funding program.
Next, MassDOT allocates the remaining federal funding into the following categories:
The Regional Targets are discretionary funding for MPOs, suballocated by formula. MassDOT develops these targets in consultation with the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies (MARPA). Each MPO in the state can decide how to prioritize its Regional Target funding. Given that the Regional Target funding is a subset of the Highway Program, the MPO typically programs the majority of funding on roadway projects; however the Boston Region MPO has flexed portions of its Highway Program funding to the Transit Program for the Green Line Extension, a transit expansion project.
The MPO discretionary funding typically is used for modernization programs (intersection improvements and roadway reconstruction) and expansion projects (capacity and bicycle and pedestrian facilities), whereas statewide highway items cover the reliability programs (bridges, pavement, safety, and others).
During the next five years, the Boston Region MPO’s total Regional Target funding will be approximately $493 million, an average of $98 million per year. To decide how to spend its Regional Target funding, the Boston Region MPO engages its 101 cities and towns in an annual TIP development process.
Federal aid for public transit authorities is allocated by formula to urbanized areas (UZAs). MassDOT is the recipient of this federal aid in the Boston UZA. In UZAs with populations greater than 200,000, such as the Boston UZA, the distribution formula factors in passenger-miles traveled, population density, and other factors associated with each transit provider. The three regional transit authorities (RTAs) in the Boston Region MPO area are the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA). The MBTA, with its extensive transit program and infrastructure, is the recipient of the preponderance of federal transit funds in the region.
Metropolitan areas require support from many different federal-aid transportation programs, and each program has unique requirements. Federal programs in the FAST Act that fund projects in the FFYs 2018–22 TIP are listed in the following two tables.
TABLE 2-1:
Federal Highway Administration Programs Applicable to the FFYs 2018-22 TIP
FAST Act Program |
Eligible Uses |
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) |
A wide range of projects to reduce congestion and improve air quality in nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter |
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) |
Implementation of infrastructure-related highway safety improvements. |
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)
|
Improvements to interstate routes, major urban and rural arterials, connectors to major intermodal facilities, and the national defense network; replacement or rehabilitation of any public bridge; and resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating routes on the Interstate Highway System |
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) [formerly the Surface Transportation Program (STP)] |
A broad range of surface transportation capital needs, including roads; transit, sea, and airport access; and vanpool, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities |
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
|
A set-aside from the STBGP that funds the construction of infrastructure-related projects (for example, sidewalk, crossing, and on-road bicycle facility improvements) |
Metropolitan Planning |
For facilities that contribute to an intermodal transportation system, including intercity bus, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities |
National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) |
For projects that improve the efficient movement of freight on the National Highway Freight Network |
TABLE 2-2:
Federal Transit Administration Programs Applicable to the FFYs 2018-22 TIP
FAST Act Program |
Eligible Uses |
Urbanized Area Formula Grants |
Transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas |
Fixed Guideway/Bus |
Replacement, rehabilitation, and other state-of-good-repair capital projects |
Bus and Bus Facilities |
Capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment, and to construct |
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities |
Capital expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities |
Fixed-Guideway Capital Investment Grants |
Provides grants for new and expanded rail, bus rapid transit, and ferry systems that reflect local priorities to improve transportation options in key corridors |
The MPO’s process for selecting projects to receive highway discretionary—or Regional Target—funding involves using evaluation criteria to help identify and prioritize projects that advance the MPO’s goals. 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. All projects are required to show consistency with the LRTP and other statewide and regional plans.
The MPO staff evaluates each project that is considered for inclusion in the TIP based on a set of specific criteria that were developed by the MPO. Other factors considered include the readiness of a project for construction and municipal support for the project. Background information about the TIP project evaluation process is presented in Appendix B.
The process of reaching out to the public begins early in the FFY, when cities and towns designate TIP contacts and begin developing a list of priority projects to be considered for federal funding. Each November, MPO staff asks the staff of cities and towns in the region to identify their priority projects for consideration for federal funding. The MPO also elicits input from interested parties and members of the general public.
New projects must be initiated by the MassDOT Highway Division before they can be considered for programming in the TIP. MassDOT details the project initiation process and posts relevant documents on its Project Review Committee’s webpage, www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/ProjectManagement/ProjectReviewCommittee.aspx. Municipal TIP Contacts and the MPO staff coordinate to update each project’s Project Funding Application Form through the MPO’s Interactive TIP Database, www.bostonmpo.org/apps/tip11/tip_query.html, which summarizes information about each project's background, infrastructure condition and needs, development status, and ability to help the region attain the MPO’s goals and objectives. More information on the Project Funding Application Forms is presented in Appendix B.
MPO staff compiles the project funding requests into a Universe of Projects list, which consists of all identified projects being advanced for possible funding. The Universe includes projects that are fully designed and ready to be advertised for construction, those that are undergoing preliminary engineering and design, and projects still in the conceptual planning stage.
The MPO staff also monitors the anticipated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of each planned and programmed project in order to consider these impacts when prioritizing transportation investments. For more information on GHG emission monitoring and evaluation, see Appendix C.
The MPO uses TIP project evaluation criteria to logically and transparently evaluate and select projects for programming in the TIP that advance the transportation future envisioned by the MPO. This process favors projects that support the following aims:
The project evaluation criteria consist of 28 questions that relate to six goals. A list of the TIP evaluation criteria (on page 2-9) provides an overview of the goals, criteria, and their point values.
In order for MPO staff to conduct a complete project evaluation, the project must have a functional design report. See MassDOT’s Project Development and Design Guide for information about what is included in a functional design report or be at a 25 percent design stage, or its plans must include the level of detail defined in a functional design report. This guide is available at www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/DoingBusinessWithUs/ManualsPublicationsForms/ProjectDevelopmentDesignGuide.aspx.
The summary of evaluation results for projects considered for programming in the FFYs 2018–22 TIP is available in Table A-1 in Appendix A. The table contains the total project rating for each project. For more details about the evaluation criteria used to score projects, see Appendix B.
An important step toward TIP programming takes place midway through the TIP development cycle at a meeting, referred to as TIP Readiness Day, attended by MassDOT and MPO staff. At this meeting, MassDOT project managers provide updates about cost and schedule changes related to currently programmed projects. These cost and schedule changes must to be taken into account as MPO staff help the MPO board consider updates to the already programmed years of the TIP as well as the addition of new projects in the outermost year of the TIP.
Using the evaluation ratings and information gathered about project readiness (when a project likely would be fully designed and ready for construction), staff prepares a First-Tier List of Projects. This list cites the projects that both earned the highest ratings in the MPO’s evaluation process, and which could be made ready for advertising within the TIP’s time horizon—the next five FFYs.
The MPO staff strongly considers the First-Tier List of Projects when preparing a recommendation to the MPO for projects to program in the TIP. Other factors considered include whether a project was programmed in the LRTP, investment program goals, equity of investments across the region, and whether sufficient funding is available for the proposed projects.
The graphic shows the 28 evaluation criteria across six goals that the MPO uses to score TIP projects.
Figure 2-1:
TIP Evaluation Criteria
The process of selecting transit, bridge, and statewide infrastructure projects to be programmed in the TIP draws primarily from MassDOT’s Capital Investment Plan (CIP), which is a fully integrated capital plan produced by all MassDOT divisions and the MBTA.
Projects in the CIP are selected from MassDOT’s Universe of Projects. They are prioritized based on a process recommended by the independent Project Selection Advisory Council and on data from asset management systems maintained by MassDOT agencies.
Projects that receive the highest priority are those that meet MassDOT’s goals for maintaining and improving the overall condition and reliability of the system; modernizing the system to make it safer and more accessible and to accommodate growth; and expanding and diversifying transportation options for communities. The following criteria guide project selection:
The transit element of the TIP also includes the federal-aid programs of the other two transit authorities in the region, CATA and MWRTA. CATA and MWRTA coordinate with the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division to develop their capital programs.
The MPO considers the evaluation results, First-Tier List of Projects, and staff recommendation in prioritizing projects for Regional Target funding. The body also considers public input, regional importance, and other factors in developing the draft TIP. In addition to prioritizing the Regional Target funding, the MPO reviews statewide infrastructure items, the Bridge Program, and the capital programs for the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA before voting to release a draft TIP for public review.
The MPO votes to release the draft document for public review and comment and invites members of the public, regional and local officials, and other stakeholders in the Boston region to review the proposed program. MPO staff hosts outreach events, including its Office Hours and similar Open House events, during the public comment period to elicit comments on the draft document; summaries of these public comments are listed in Appendix F.
After the comment period ends, the MPO reviews all municipal and public comments and makes changes to the document as appropriate. It then endorses the TIP and submits it to FHWA and FTA for approval. MassDOT incorporates the MPO-endorsed TIP into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The FHWA, FTA and US Environmental Protection Agency review the STIP for certification by September 30, the FFY end.
The TIP is a dynamic program that may be amended and adjusted throughout the year. Administrative modifications and amendments often must be introduced because of changes in project status (advertisement readiness), project cost, project design scope, or available revenues. An amendment is a revision that requires public review and comment and a demonstration of fiscal constraint.
Consistent with federal guidelines, if a project is valued at $5 million or less, the threshold for defining an amendment is a change of $500,000 or more. The threshold for projects valued at greater than $5 million is 10 percent or more of the project value. Changes that are less than these thresholds may be considered in the form of administrative modifications. The MPO acts on administrative modifications, and although a public review period is not required, one may be provided at the MPO’s discretion.
Affected municipalities and constituencies and the public are notified of pending amendments at the start of an amendment’s public review period. The proposed amendments are posted on the MPO’s website, www.bostonmpo.org. Public notices are distributed through MPOinfo, the MPO’s email contact list, which members of the public may join by signing up on the MPO’s website, www.ctps.org/subscribe.
These notices provide a summary of the amendment’s contents, dates of the public review period, contact information for submitting a comment to the MPO, and the date, time and location that the MPO will take a vote on that amendment. Also during the public review period, the MPO staff notifies and briefs the Regional Transportation Advisory Council on the amendment and provides comments from the Council to the MPO. Municipal representatives and members of the public are also invited to submit written or oral testimony at the MPO meetings at which amendments are discussed or voted upon.
The MPO typically holds a 30-day comment period (in FFY 2017 the comment period was 21 days) before taking final action on an amendment. In extraordinary circumstances, the MPO may vote to shorten the public comment period to a minimum of 15 days. The MPO’s Public Participation Plan was amended in March 2017 to revise the duration of the public comment period from 30 days to 21 days for FFY 2017. The MPO’s website is the best place to find current information about the TIP.
All changes to the draft TIP that have been approved by the MPO, and changes to the endorsed TIP, such as amendments and modifications, that have been approved by the MPO, are available on the TIP webpage on the MPO’s website, www.bostonmpo.org/tip.
Comments or questions about the draft materials may be submitted directly through the website, via email, voiced at MPO meetings and other public MPO events, or submitted via US postal mail.
Summary of Highway and Transit Programming
The following tables list, by year, the projects and programs funded in FFYs 2018–22.
A description of each project and program funded in the TIP’s Highway Program is presented, and programs funded under the Highway Program are listed by municipality.
| 2018 | Boston Region Transportation Improvement Program | |||||||||||
| Amendment / Adjustment Type ▼ |
STIP Program ▼ | MassDOT Project ID ▼ | Metropolitan Planning Organization ▼ | Municipality Name ▼ | MassDOT Project Description▼ | MassDOT District ▼ | Funding Source ▼ | Total Programmed Funds ▼ | Federal Funds ▼ | Non-Federal Funds ▼ | Additional Information ▼ Present information as follows, if applicable: a) Planning / Design / or Construction; b) total project cost and funding sources used; c) advance construction status; d) MPO project score; e) name of entity receiving a transfer; f) name of entity paying the non-state non-federal match; g) earmark details; h) TAP project proponent; i) other information | |
| ►Section 1A / Regionally Prioritized Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Regionally Prioritized Projects | ||||||||||||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 600518 | Boston Region | Hingham | HINGHAM- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT DERBY STREET, WHITING STREET (ROUTE 53) AND GARDNER STREET | 5 | HSIP | $611,547 | $550,392 | $61,155 | Construction; STP+HSIP Total Cost = $2,844,392; MPO Evaluation Score = 28 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 600518 | Boston Region | Hingham | HINGHAM- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT DERBY STREET, WHITING STREET (ROUTE 53) AND GARDNER STREET | 5 | STP | $2,232,845 | $1,786,276 | $446,569 | Construction; STP+HSIP Total Cost = $2,844,392; MPO Evaluation Score = 28 | ||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | 1570 | Boston Region | Multiple | GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR | 6 | CMAQ | $13,427,220 | $10,741,776 | $2,685,444 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local contributions; AC Yr 3 of 6 |
||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | 1570 | Boston Region | Multiple | GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR | 6 | STP | $33,072,780 | $26,458,224 | $6,614,556 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local contributions; AC Yr 3 of 6 |
||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 604989 | Boston Region | Southborough | SOUTHBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 30), FROM SEARS ROAD TO PARK STREET | 6 | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $7,271,690; MPO Evaluation Score = 42 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 604989 | Boston Region | Southborough | SOUTHBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 30), FROM SEARS ROAD TO PARK STREET | 3 | TAP | $1,456,250 | $1,165,000 | $291,250 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $7,271,690; MPO Evaluation Score = 42; TAP project proponent = Southborough | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 604989 | Boston Region | Southborough | SOUTHBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 30), FROM SEARS ROAD TO PARK STREET | 3 | STP | $4,815,440 | $3,852,352 | $963,088 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $7,271,690; MPO Evaluation Score = 42 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 605110 | Boston Region | Brookline | BROOKLINE- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 9 & VILLAGE SQUARE (GATEWAY EAST) | 6 | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Construction; TAP+STP+CMAQ+Private Sector Constribution ($1,000,000) = $7,000,834; MPO Evaluation Score = 68 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 605110 | Boston Region | Brookline | BROOKLINE- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 9 & VILLAGE SQUARE (GATEWAY EAST) | 6 | TAP | $1,255,000 | $1,004,000 | $251,000 | Construction; TAP+STP+CMAQ+Private Sector Constribution ($1,000,000) = $7,000,834; MPO Evaluation Score = 68; TAP project proponent = Brookline | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 605110 | Boston Region | Brookline | BROOKLINE- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 9 & VILLAGE SQUARE (GATEWAY EAST) | 6 | STP | $3,745,834 | $2,996,667 | $749,167 | Construction; TAP+STP+CMAQ+Private Sector Constribution ($1,000,000) = $7,000,834; MPO Evaluation Score = 68 | ||
| Capacity program | 601630 | Boston Region | Multiple | WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REPLACING W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) | 6 | STP | $27,631,758 | $22,105,406 | $5,526,352 | Construction; STP+NHPP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark+BR Total Cost = $81,812,268; AC Yr 3 of 3 (project originally funded into FFY 2019, but all remaining funding was transferred into FFY 2018) | ||
| Capacity program | 603711 | Boston Region | Multiple | NEEDHAM- WELLESLEY- REHAB/REPLACEMENT OF 6 BRIDGES ON I-95/ROUTE 128: N-04-020, N-04-021, N-04-022, N-04-026, N-04-027, N-04-037 & W-13-023 (ADD-A-LANE - CONTRACT V) | 6 | NHPP | $1,988,367 | $1,590,694 | $397,673 | Construction; NHPP+BR+Statewide Infrastructure Total Cost = $164,919,140 ($1,988,367 programmed within FFYs 2018-22 TIP) ; AC Yr 5 of 5 | ||
| Bicycles and pedestrians program | 608352 | Boston Region | Salem | SALEM- CANAL STREET RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION (PHASE 2) | 4 | TAP | $2,787,456 | $2,229,965 | $557,491 | Construction; TAP Total Cost = $2,787,456; MPO Evaluation Score = 37; TAP project proponent = Salem | ||
| Regionally Prioritized Projects subtotal ► | $95,024,497 | $76,080,752 | $18,943,745 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Section 1A / Fiscal Constraint Analysis | ||||||||||||
| Total Regional Federal Aid Funds Programmed ► | $95,024,497 | $95,038,936 | ◄Total Budget | $14,439 | Target Funds Available | |||||||
| Section 1A instructions: MPO Template Name) Choose Regional Name from dropdown list to populate header and MPO column; Column C) Enter ID from ProjectInfo; Column E) Choose Municipality Name from dropdown list; Column H) Choose the Funding Source being used for the project - if multiple funding sources are being used enter multiple lines; Column I) Enter the total amount of funds being programmed in this fiscal year and for each funding source; Column J) Federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the amount and only change if needed for flex. Column K) Non-federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the split/match - if matching an FTA flex, coordinate with Rail & Transit Division before programming; Column L) Enter Additional Information as described - please do not use any other format. | STP programmed ► | $73,487,024 | $77,071,365 | ◄ Max STP | $3,584,341 | STP available | ||||||
| HSIP programmed ► | $611,547 | $4,296,710 | ◄ Min. HSIP | $3,685,163 | HSIP recommended not met | |||||||
| CMAQ programmed ► | $15,427,220 | $10,741,776 | ◄ Min. CMAQ | $(4,685,444) | CMAQ recommended met | |||||||
| TAP programmed ► | $5,498,706 | $2,929,085 | ◄ Min. TAP | $(2,569,621) | TAP amount exceeded! | |||||||
| Remaining HSIP, CMAQ, and TAP Funds | $14,439 | |||||||||||
| ►Section 1B / Earmark or Discretionary Grant Funded Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Other Federal Aid | ||||||||||||
| Earmark Discretionary | 606134 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON BLUE HILL AVENUE AND WARREN STREET | 6 | HPP | $2,501,046 | $2,000,837 | $500,209 | Construction; HPP 2129 (MA155) | ||
| Earmark Discretionary | Project # | Boston | Municipalities | Description | District | HPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Other Federal Aid subtotal ► | $2,501,046 | $2,000,837 | $500,209 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 2A / State Prioritized Reliability Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Inspections | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | Project # | Statewide | N/A | Bridge Inspection | Multiple | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bridge Program / Inspections subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Off-System | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 606632 | Boston Region | Multiple | HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, H-23-006=W-24-016, FRUIT STREET OVER CSX & SUDBURY RIVER | 3 | STP-BR-OFF | $12,993,071 | $10,394,457 | $2,598,614 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program | 604655 | Boston Region | Marshfield | MARSHFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-07-007, BEACH STREET OVER THE CUT RIVER | 5 | STP-BR-OFF | $4,189,856 | $3,351,884 | $837,971 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program | 607533 | Boston Region | Waltham | WALTHAM- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-04-006, WOERD AVENUE OVER CHARLES RIVER | 4 | STP-BR-OFF | $2,197,943 | $1,758,354 | $439,589 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program / Off-System subtotal ► | $19,380,870 | $15,504,696 | $3,876,174 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 604952 | Boston Region | Multiple | LYNN- SAUGUS- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-18-016=S-05-008, ROUTE 107 OVER THE SAUGUS RIVER (AKA - BELDEN G. BLY BRIDGE) | 4 | NHPP-On | $51,527,391 | $41,221,913 | $10,305,478 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program | 604173 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE BOSTON INNER HARBOR | 6 | NHPP-On | $42,000,000 | $33,600,000 | $8,400,000 | Construction / AC Year 2 of 5, Total Cost $144,066,616 | ||
| Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) subtotal ► | $93,527,391 | $74,821,913 | $18,705,478 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | Project # | MPO | N/A | Description | District | NHPP-Off | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 607915 | Boston Region | Multiple | NEWTON- WELLESLEY- WESTON- BRIDGE MAINTENANCE OF N-12-063, N-12-054, N-12-055 & N-12-056 ON I-95/ROUTE 128 | 6 | NHPP-On | $1,596,667 | $1,277,334 | $319,333 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program | 608521 | Boston Region | Salem | SALEM- BRIDGE MAINTENANCE, S-01-018 (32T), (ST 114) NORTH STREET OVER (ST 107) BRIDGE STREET & MBTA | 4 | NHPP-Off | $2,400,000 | $1,920,000 | $480,000 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance subtotal ► | $3,996,667 | $3,197,334 | $799,333 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Interstate Pavement | ||||||||||||
| Interstate Pavement | 608823 | Boston Region | Multiple | WELLESLEY- NEWTON- WESTON- PAVEMENT RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | 6 | NHPP | $6,074,640 | $5,467,176 | $607,464 | Construction | ||
| Insterstate Pavement subtotal ► | $6,074,640 | $5,467,176 | $607,464 | ◄ 90% Federal + 10% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Non-Interstate Pavement | ||||||||||||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608008 | Boston Region | Saugus | SAUGUS- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1 | 4 | NHPP | $9,812,880 | $7,850,304 | $1,962,576 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608478 | Boston Region | Concord | CONCORD- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 2 | 4 | NHPP | $4,248,000 | $3,398,400 | $849,600 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608379 | Boston Region | Multiple | LEXINGTON- BELMONT- ARLINGTON- CAMBRIDGE- PAVEMENT PRESERVATION ON ROUTE 2 | 4 | NHPP | $8,437,000 | $6,749,600 | $1,687,400 | Construction / Includes $1,040,000 of stormwater improvements | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608069 | Boston Region | Multiple | MARSHFIELD- PEMBROKE- NORWELL- HANOVER- ROCKLAND- HINGHAM- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 3 | 5 | NHPP | $13,876,216 | $11,100,973 | $2,775,243 | Construction / Includes $400,000 of stormwater improvements | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement subtotal ► | $36,374,096 | $29,099,277 | $7,274,819 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ► Roadway Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Roadway Improvements | Project # | MPO | Multiple | Description | District | STP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Roadway Improvements subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ► Safety Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Safety Improvements | 606381 | Boston Region | Multiple | ARLINGTON- BELMONT- HIGHWAY LIGHTING REPAIR & MAINTENANCE ON ROUTE 2 | 4 | STP | $9,100,506 | $7,280,405 | $1,820,101 | Construction | ||
| Safety Improvements subtotal ► | $9,100,506 | $7,280,405 | $1,820,101 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 2B / State Prioritized Modernization Projects | ||||||||||||
| ► ADA Retrofits | ||||||||||||
| ADA Retrofits | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | STP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| ADA Retrofits subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Intersection Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Intersection Improvements | 608651 | Boston Region | Braintree | BRAINTREE- ADAPTIVE SIGNAL CONTROLS ON ROUTE 37 (GRANITE STREET) | 6 | CMAQ | $500,000 | $400,000 | $100,000 | Construction | ||
| Intersection Improvements subtotal ► | $500,000 | $400,000 | $100,000 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Intelligent Transportation Systems | ||||||||||||
| Intelligent Transportation Systems | Project # | Statewide | Multiple | Description | Multiple | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Intelligent Transportation System subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Roadway Reconstruction | ||||||||||||
| Roadway Reconstruction | Project # | MPO | N/A | Description | District | CMAQ | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Roadway Reconstruction subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Section 2C / State Prioritized Expansion Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Bicycles and Pedestrians | ||||||||||||
| Bicycles and Pedestrians | 607732 | Boston Region | Multiple | FRAMINGHAM- NATICK- COCHITUATE RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, N-03-014, OVER ROUTE 9 & F-07-033=N-03-029 OVER ROUTE 30 | 3 | CMAQ | $9,770,863 | $7,816,690 | $1,954,173 | Construction / PSAC score 35.5 | ||
| Bicycles and Pedestrians subtotal ► | $9,770,863 | $7,816,690 | $1,954,173 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Capacity | ||||||||||||
| Capacity | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | CMAQ | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Capacity subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 3 / Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | ||||||||||||
| ►Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | ||||||||||||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | Project # | Statewide | Multiple | Description | Multiple | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Other Statewide Items subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 4 / Non-Federally Aided Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Non-Federally Aided Projects | ||||||||||||
| Non Federal Aid | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | NFA | $- | $- | ||||
| Non-Federal Aid subtotal► | $- | $- | ◄100% Non-Federal | |||||||||
| 2018 Summary | TIP Section 1 - 3: ▼ | TIP Section 4: ▼ | Total of All Projects ▼ | |||||||||
| Total ► | $276,250,576 | $- | $276,250,576 | ◄ Total Spending in Region | ||||||||
| Federal Funds ► | $221,669,080 | $221,669,080 | ◄ Total Federal Spending in Region | |||||||||
| Non-Federal Funds ► | $54,581,497 | $- | $54,581,497 | ◄ Total Non-Federal Spending in Region | ||||||||
| 701 CMR 7.00 Use of Road Flaggers and Police Details on Public Works Projects / 701 CMR 7.00 (the Regulation) was promulgated and became law on October 3, 2008. Under this Regulation, the CMR is applicable to any Public works Project that is performed within the limits of, or that impact traffic on, any Public Road. The Municipal Limitation referenced in this Regulation is applicable only to projects where the Municipality is the Awarding Authority. For all projects contained in the TIP, the Commonwealth is the Awarding Authority. Therefore, all projects must be considered and implemented in accordance with 701 CMR 7.00, and the Road Flagger and Police Detail Guidelines. By placing a project on the TIP, the Municipality acknowledges that 701 CMR 7.00 is applicable to its project and design and construction will be fully compliant with this Regulation. This information, and additional information relative to guidance and implementation of the Regulation can be found at the following link on the MassDOT Highway Division website: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/flaggers/main.aspx | ||||||||||||
| Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) | ||||||||||
| Project List (FY2018) | ||||||||||
| FTA Program | Project Number | Transit Agency | FTA Activity Line Item | Project Description | Carryover (unobligated) | Federal Funds | State Funds | TDC | Local Funds | Total Cost |
| 5307 | ||||||||||
| 5307 | RTD0005465 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 117A00 | PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE | $350,000 | $0 | $0 | $87,500 | $437,500 | |
| 5307 | RTD0005467 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 114206 | ACQUIRE - SHOP EQ/SOFTWARE MAINT | $40,000 | $10,000 | $0 | $0 | $50,000 | |
| 5307 | RTD0005469 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 114220 | ACQUIRE - MISC SUPPORT EQUIPMENT | $27,267 | $6,817 | $0 | $0 | $34,084 | |
| 5307 | RTD0005473 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 114206 | ACQUIRE - SHOP EQUIPMENT | $52,000 | $13,000 | $0 | $0 | $65,000 | |
| 5307 | RTD0005474 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 113410 | REHAB- SHELTERS Railroad, P&R, Emerson Ave | $33,600 | $8,400 | $0 | $0 | $42,000 | |
| 5307 | RTD0005475 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 113310 | CONSTRUCT - BUS SHELTER-CATA HUB/COA | $14,400 | $3,600 | $0 | $0 | $18,000 | |
| 5307 | RTD0005476 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 113410 | REHAB/RENOVATE - BUS PASSENGER SHELTERS | $9,600 | $2,400 | $0 | $0 | $12,000 | |
| 5307 | RTD0005989 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 113403 | TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) | $150,000 | $37,500 | $0 | $0 | $187,500 | |
| 5307 | RTD0005990 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 117C00 | NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV | $1,300,000 | $325,000 | $0 | $0 | $1,625,000 | |
| 5307 | RTD0005991 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 114200 | ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES | $248,415 | $62,104 | $0 | $0 | $310,519 | |
| 5307 | RTD0005992 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 440000 | Mobility Management | $25,000 | $6,250 | $0 | $0 | $31,250 | |
| 5307 | RTD0006350 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 121200 | Revenue Vehicle Program | $76,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $19,000,000 | $95,000,000 | |
| 5307 | RTD0006351 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 126301 | Systemwide Signals Program | $65,446,986 | $0 | $0 | $16,361,747 | $81,808,733 | |
| Subtotal | $143,697,268 | $475,071 | $0 | $35,449,247 | $179,621,586 | |||||
| 5309 | ||||||||||
| 5309 | RTD0005980 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 132303 | Green Line Extension Project | $150,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $147,878,038 | $297,878,038 | |
| Subtotal | $150,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $147,878,038 | $297,878,038 | |||||
| 5310 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 5311 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 5337 | ||||||||||
| 5337 | RTD0006352 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 122405 | Bridge & Tunnel Program | $72,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $18,000,000 | $90,000,000 | |
| 5337 | RTD0006353 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 123400 | Stations and Facilities Program | $50,401,533 | $0 | $0 | $12,600,383 | $63,001,916 | |
| 5337 | RTD0006354 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 124400 | System Upgrades Program | $20,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $5,000,000 | $25,000,000 | |
| Subtotal | $142,401,533 | $0 | $0 | $35,600,383 | $178,001,916 | |||||
| 5339 | ||||||||||
| 5339 | RTD0006355 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 111400 | Bus Program | $5,318,786 | $0 | $0 | $1,329,696 | $6,648,482 | |
| Subtotal | $5,318,786 | $0 | $0 | $1,329,696 | $6,648,482 | |||||
| 5320 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Other Federal | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Other Non-Federal | ||||||||||
| Other Non-Federal | RTD0006002 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 115320 | CONSTRUCT MISC ELEC/POWER EQUIP | $0 | $750,000 | $0 | $0 | $750,000 | |
| Subtotal | $0 | $750,000 | $0 | $0 | $750,000 | |||||
| Total | $441,417,587 | $1,225,071 | $0 | $220,257,364 | $662,900,022 | |||||
| Funds listed under the Carry Over column are included in the Federal Amount | ||||||||||
| 2019 | Boston Region Transportation Improvement Program | |||||||||||
| Amendment / Adjustment Type ▼ |
STIP Program ▼ | MassDOT Project ID ▼ | Metropolitan Planning Organization ▼ | Municipality Name ▼ | MassDOT Project Description▼ | MassDOT District ▼ | Funding Source ▼ | Total Programmed Funds ▼ | Federal Funds ▼ | Non-Federal Funds ▼ | Additional Information ▼ Present information as follows, if applicable: a) Planning / Design / or Construction; b) total project cost and funding sources used; c) advance construction status; d) MPO project score; e) name of entity receiving a transfer; f) name of entity paying the non-state non-federal match; g) earmark details; h) TAP project proponent; i) other information | |
| ►Section 1A / Regionally Prioritized Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Regionally Prioritized Projects | ||||||||||||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 607428 | Boston Region | Multiple | HOPEDALE- MILFORD- RESURFACING & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 16 (MAIN STREET), FROM WATER STREET WEST TO APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET WEST OF THE MILFORD/HOPEDALE T.L AND THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 140. | 3 | HSIP | $1,940,476 | $1,746,428 | $194,048 | Construction; CMAQ+HSIP Total Cost = $2,727,881; MPO Evaluation Score = 54 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 607428 | Boston Region | Multiple | HOPEDALE- MILFORD- RESURFACING & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 16 (MAIN STREET), FROM WATER STREET WEST TO APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET WEST OF THE MILFORD/HOPEDALE T.L AND THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 140. | 3 | CMAQ | $787,405 | $629,924 | $157,481 | Construction; CMAQ+HSIP Total Cost = $2,727,881; MPO Evaluation Score = 54 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 607652 | Boston Region | Everett | EVERETT- RECONSTRUCTION OF FERRY STREET, SOUTH FERRY STREET AND A PORTION OF ELM STREET | 4 | HSIP | $1,448,825 | $1,303,943 | $144,883 | Cosntruction; CMAQ+STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $16,599,002; MPO Evaluation Score = 73 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 607652 | Boston Region | Everett | EVERETT- RECONSTRUCTION OF FERRY STREET, SOUTH FERRY STREET AND A PORTION OF ELM STREET | 4 | CMAQ | $1,275,588 | $1,020,470 | $255,118 | Cosntruction; CMAQ+STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $16,599,002; MPO Evaluation Score = 73 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 607652 | Boston Region | Everett | EVERETT- RECONSTRUCTION OF FERRY STREET, SOUTH FERRY STREET AND A PORTION OF ELM STREET | 4 | TAP | $724,412 | $579,530 | $144,882 | Cosntruction; CMAQ+STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $16,599,002; MPO Evaluation Score = 73; TAP project proponent = Everett | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 607652 | Boston Region | Everett | EVERETT- RECONSTRUCTION OF FERRY STREET, SOUTH FERRY STREET AND A PORTION OF ELM STREET | 4 | STP | $13,150,177 | $10,520,142 | $2,630,035 | Cosntruction; CMAQ+STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $16,599,002; MPO Evaluation Score = 73 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606043 | Boston Region | Hopkinton | HOPKINTON- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 135 | 3 | HSIP | $1,275,206 | $1,147,685 | $127,521 | Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+STP Total Cost = $8,174,400 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606043 | Boston Region | Hopkinton | HOPKINTON- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 135 | 3 | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+STP Total Cost = $8,174,400 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606043 | Boston Region | Hopkinton | HOPKINTON- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 135 | 3 | TAP | $5,899,194 | $4,719,355 | $1,179,839 | Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+STP Total Cost = $8,174,400; TAP project proponent = Hopkinton | ||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | 1570 | Boston Region | Multiple | GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR | 6 | CMAQ | $13,427,220 | $10,741,776 | $2,685,444 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; AC Yr 4 of 6; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local contributions |
||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | 1570 | Boston Region | Multiple | GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR | 6 | STP | $27,072,780 | $21,658,224 | $5,414,556 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; AC Yr 4 of 6; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local contributions |
||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 605034 | Boston Region | Natick | NATICK- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 27 (NORTH MAIN STREET), FROM NORTH AVENUE TO THE WAYLAND T.L. | 3 | CMAQ | $2,415,334 | $1,932,267 | $483,067 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $12,688,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 60 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 605034 | Boston Region | Natick | NATICK- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 27 (NORTH MAIN STREET), FROM NORTH AVENUE TO THE WAYLAND T.L. | 3 | TAP | $1,318,933 | $1,055,146 | $263,787 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $12,688,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 60 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 605034 | Boston Region | Natick | NATICK- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 27 (NORTH MAIN STREET), FROM NORTH AVENUE TO THE WAYLAND T.L. | 3 | STP | $8,953,733 | $7,162,986 | $1,790,747 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $12,688,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 60 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 605789 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD | 6 | STP | $7,348,506 | $5,878,805 | $1,469,701 | Construction; STP+Earmark Total Cost = $24,792,845 ; MPO Evaluation Score = 59 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606635 | Boston Region | Multiple | NEEDHAM-NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO REOUT 9 (NEWTON) | 6 | HSIP | $2,319,644 | $2,087,680 | $231,964 | Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = $21,434,400; AC Yr 1 of 2; MPO Evaluation Score = 75 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606635 | Boston Region | Multiple | NEEDHAM-NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO REOUT 9 (NEWTON) | 6 | CMAQ | $2,000,000 | $1,600,000 | $400,000 | Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = $21,434,400; AC Yr 1 of 2; MPO Evaluation Score = 75 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606635 | Boston Region | Multiple | NEEDHAM-NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO REOUT 9 (NEWTON) | 6 | TAP | $1,546,492 | $1,237,194 | $309,298 | Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = $21,434,400; AC Yr 1 of 2; MPO Evaluation Score = 75; TAP project proponent = Needham | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606635 | Boston Region | Multiple | NEEDHAM-NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO REOUT 9 (NEWTON) | 6 | STP | $4,851,064 | $3,880,851 | $970,213 | Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = $21,434,400; AC Yr 1 of 2; MPO Evaluation Score = 75 | ||
| Regionally Prioritized Projects subtotal ► | $6,176,706 | $5,280,295 | $896,411 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Section 1A / Fiscal Constraint Analysis | ||||||||||||
| Total Regional Federal Aid Funds Programmed ► | $98,754,989 | $98,794,261 | ◄Total Budget | $39,272 | Target Funds Available | |||||||
| Section 1A instructions: MPO Template Name) Choose Regional Name from dropdown list to populate header and MPO column; Column C) Enter ID from ProjectInfo; Column E) Choose Municipality Name from dropdown list; Column H) Choose the Funding Source being used for the project - if multiple funding sources are being used enter multiple lines; Column I) Enter the total amount of funds being programmed in this fiscal year and for each funding source; Column J) Federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the amount and only change if needed for flex. Column K) Non-federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the split/match - if matching an FTA flex, coordinate with Rail & Transit Division before programming; Column L) Enter Additional Information as described - please do not use any other format. | STP programmed ► | $61,376,260 | $80,826,690 | ◄ Max STP | $19,450,430 | STP available | ||||||
| HSIP programmed ► | $6,984,151 | $4,296,710 | ◄ Min. HSIP | $(2,687,441) | HSIP recommended met | |||||||
| CMAQ programmed ► | $20,905,547 | $10,741,776 | ◄ Min. CMAQ | $(10,163,771) | CMAQ recommended met | |||||||
| TAP programmed ► | $9,489,031 | $2,929,085 | ◄ Min. TAP | $(6,559,946) | TAP amount exceeded! | |||||||
| Remaining HSIP, CMAQ, and TAP Funds | $39,272 | |||||||||||
| ►Section 1B / Earmark or Discretionary Grant Funded Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Other Federal Aid | ||||||||||||
| Earmark Discretionary | 605789 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD | 6 | HPP | $5,007,375 | $4,005,900 | $1,001,475 | Construction; HPP 4284 (MA203); STP+Earmarks Total Cost = $24,792,845 | ||
| Earmark Discretionary | 605789 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD | 6 | HPP | $2,703,983 | $2,163,186 | $540,797 | Construction; HPP 756 (MA126); STP+Earmarks Total Cost = $24,792,845 | ||
| Earmark Discretionary | 605789 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD | 6 | HPP | $6,259,219 | $5,007,375 | $1,251,844 | Construction; (MA154); STP+Earmarks Total Cost = $24,792,845 | ||
| Earmark Discretionary | 605789 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD | 6 | HPP | $3,473,764 | $2,779,011 | $694,753 | Construction; (MA194); STP+Earmarks Total Cost = $24,792,845 | ||
| Earmark Discretionary | 607330 | Boston Region | Milton | MILTON- DECK RECONSTRUCTION OVER SE EXPRESSWAY (EAST MILTON SQUARE), INCLUDES PARKING & NEW LANDSCAPED AREA | 4 | HPP | $1,502,213 | $1,201,770 | $300,443 | Construction; (MA125) | ||
| Earmark Discretionary | 607330 | Boston Region | Milton | MILTON- DECK RECONSTRUCTION OVER SE EXPRESSWAY (EAST MILTON SQUARE), INCLUDES PARKING & NEW LANDSCAPED AREA | 4 | HPP | $1,251,844 | $1,001,475 | $250,369 | Construction; (MA134) | ||
| Earmark Discretionary | 606316 | Boston Region | Brookline | BROOKLINE- PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-27-016, OVER MBTA OFF CARLTON STREET | 6 | HPP | $751,106 | $600,885 | $150,221 | Demo ID: MA 149 Repurposed earmark, formerly design and construct signal crossing and other safety improvements to Emerald Necklace Greenway Bicycle Trail, Town of Brookline |
||
| Other Federal Aid subtotal ► | $20,949,502 | $16,759,602 | $4,189,900 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 2A / State Prioritized Reliability Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Inspections | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bridge Program / Inspections subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Off-System | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 608079 | Boston Region | Sharon | SHARON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-09-003 (40N), MASKWONICUT STREET OVER AMTRAK/MBTA | 5 | STP-BR-OFF | $5,219,900 | $4,175,920 | $1,043,980 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program | 608255 | Boston Region | Stow | STOW- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-29-011, BOX MILL ROAD OVER ELIZABETH BROOK | 3 | STP-BR-OFF | $1,482,000 | $1,185,600 | $296,400 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program / Off-System subtotal ► | $6,701,900 | $5,361,520 | $1,340,380 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 604173 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE BOSTON INNER HARBOR | 6 | NHPP-On | $42,000,000 | $33,600,000 | $8,400,000 | AC Year 3 of 5, Total Cost $144,066,616 | ||
| Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) subtotal ► | $42,000,000 | $33,600,000 | $8,400,000 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | Project # | MPO | N/A | Description | District | NHPP-Off | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 608234 | Boston Region | Multiple | BOSTON- RANDOLPH- BRIDGE PRESERVATION OF 3 BRIDGES: B-16-165, R-01-005 & R-01-007 | 6 | NHPP-On | $2,303,571 | $1,842,857 | $460,714 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance subtotal ► | $2,303,571 | $1,842,857 | $460,714 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Interstate Pavement | ||||||||||||
| Interstate Pavement | 608219 | Boston Region | Multiple | READING- WAKEFIELD- INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | 4 | NHPP | $4,123,392 | $3,711,053 | $412,339 | Construction | ||
| Insterstate Pavement subtotal ► | $4,123,392 | $3,711,053 | $412,339 | ◄ 90% Federal + 10% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Non-Interstate Pavement | ||||||||||||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608467 | Boston Region | Marlborough | MARLBOROUGH- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20 | 3 | NHPP | $9,940,320 | $7,952,256 | $1,988,064 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608468 | Boston Region | Multiple | PEABODY- DANVERS- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1 | 4 | NHPP | $11,597,040 | $9,277,632 | $2,319,408 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608528 | Boston Region | Multiple | WESTON- WALTHAM- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20 | 4 | NHPP | $12,026,560 | $9,621,248 | $2,405,312 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608587 | Boston Region | Dedham | DEDHAM- RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK OF BRIDGE STREET (ROUTE 109) AND AMES STREET | 6 | NHPP | $5,424,717 | $4,339,774 | $1,084,943 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement subtotal ► | $38,988,637 | $31,190,910 | $7,797,727 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ► Roadway Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Roadway Improvements | 608214 | Boston Region | Winchester | WINCHESTER- STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ROUTE 3 | 4 | STP | $232,960 | $186,368 | $46,592 | Construction | ||
| Roadway Improvements | 608599 | Boston Region | Multiple | CANTON- SHARON- FOXBOROUGH- NORWOOD-WALPOLE- STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ROUTE 1, ROUTE 1A & INTERSTATE 95 | 5 | STP | $526,235 | $420,988 | $105,247 | Construction | ||
| Roadway Improvements subtotal ► | $759,195 | $607,356 | $151,839 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ► Safety Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Safety Improvements | 608608 | Boston Region | Braintree | BRAINTREE- HIGHWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AT I-93/ROUTE 3 INTERCHANGE | 6 | STP | $7,008,503 | $5,606,802 | $1,401,701 | Construction / Total Project Cost $9,697,229 / AC YR 1 of 2 | ||
| Safety Improvements | 608205 | Boston Region | Multiple | READING TO LYNNFIELD- GUIDE AND TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON A SECTION OF I-95 (SR 128) | 4 | HSIP | $4,513,288 | $4,061,959 | $451,329 | Construction | ||
| Safety Improvements | 608206 | Boston Region | Multiple | CHELSEA TO DANVERS- GUIDE AND TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON A SECTION OF US ROUTE 1 | 4 | HSIP | $7,195,084 | $6,475,576 | $719,508 | Construction | ||
| Safety Improvements subtotal ► | $18,716,875 | $16,144,337 | $2,572,538 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 2B / State Prioritized Modernization Projects | ||||||||||||
| ► ADA Retrofits | ||||||||||||
| ADA Retrofits | Project # | Statewide | Multiple | Description | 1 | STP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| ADA Retrofits subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Intersection Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Intersection Improvements | 607759 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE VFW PARKWAY & SPRING STREET | 6 | HSIP | $974,815 | $877,334 | $97,482 | Construction / PSAC score 39 | ||
| Intersection Improvements | 607763 | Boston Region | Milton | MILTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT 2 LOCATIONS: SR 138 (BLUE HILL AVENUE) AT ATHERTON STREET & BRADLEE ROAD AND SR 138 (BLUE HILL AVENUE) AT MILTON STREET & DOLLAR LANE | 6 | HSIP | $1,188,000 | $1,069,200 | $118,800 | Construction / PSAC score 44 | ||
| Intersection Improvements | 608052 | Boston Region | Norwood | NORWOOD- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT US 1 (PROVIDENCE HIGHWAY) & MORSE STREET | 5 | HSIP | $974,815 | $877,334 | $97,482 | Construction / PSAC score 50 | ||
| Intersection Improvements | 607748 | Boston Region | Acton | ACTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON SR 2 & SR 111 (MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE) AT PIPER ROAD & TAYLOR ROAD | 3 | HSIP | $1,400,000 | $1,260,000 | $140,000 | Construction / PSAC score 58 | ||
| Intersection Improvements | 608755 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT MORTON STREET AND HARVARD STREET | 6 | HSIP | $1,500,000 | $1,350,000 | $150,000 | Construction | ||
| Intersection Improvements | 607761 | Boston Region | Swampscott | SWAMPSCOTT- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT SR 1A (PARADISE ROAD) AT SWAMPSCOTT MALL | 4 | HSIP | $2,000,000 | $1,800,000 | $200,000 | Construction / PSAC score 50 | ||
| Intersection Improvements subtotal ► | $8,037,630 | $7,233,867 | $803,763 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Intelligent Transportation Systems | ||||||||||||
| Intelligent Transportation Systems | Project # | Statewide | Multiple | Description | Multiple | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Intelligent Transportation System subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Roadway Reconstruction | ||||||||||||
| Roadway Reconstruction | Project # | MPO | N/A | Description | District | CMAQ | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Roadway Reconstruction subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Section 2C / State Prioritized Expansion Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Bicycles and Pedestrians | ||||||||||||
| Bicycles and Pedestrians | 607888 | Boston Region | Multiple | BOSTON- BROOKLINE- MULTI-USE PATH CONSTRUCTION ON NEW FENWAY | 6 | CMAQ | $1,770,722 | $1,416,578 | $354,144 | Construction / PSAC score 41 | ||
| Bicycles and Pedestrians | 606223 | Boston Region | Multiple | ACTON- CONCORD- BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDES REPLACING BRIDGE C-19-037, RAIL TRAIL OVER NASHOBA BROOK, NEW BRIDGE C-19-039, RAIL TRAIL OVER ROUTE 2 & NEW CULVERT C-19-040, ROUTE 2 OVER WILDLIFE CROSSING (PHASE II-B) | 4 | CMAQ | $9,495,746 | $7,596,597 | $1,899,149 | Construction / PSAC score 31.5 | ||
| Bicycles and Pedestrians | 606316 | Boston Region | Brookline | BROOKLINE- PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-27-016, OVER MBTA OFF CARLTON STREET | 6 | CMAQ | $3,087,238 | $2,469,790 | $617,448 | Construction / Total Project Cost $3,838,344 w/ additional funding from earmark at $751,106 | ||
| Bicycles and Pedestrians subtotal ► | $11,266,468 | $9,013,174 | $2,253,294 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Capacity | ||||||||||||
| Capacity | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | CMAQ | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Capacity subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 3 / Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | ||||||||||||
| ►Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | ||||||||||||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | Project # | Statewide | Multiple | ABP GANS Repayment | Multiple | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Earmark Discretionary | BN0008 | Boston Region | Newburyport | Parker River National Wildlife Refuge - Replace Hellcat Trail Boardwalk | 4 | Other FA | $1,200,000 | $960,000 | $240,000 | Transfer to Eastern Federal Lands | ||
| Other Statewide Items subtotal ► | $1,200,000 | $960,000 | $240,000 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 4 / Non-Federally Aided Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Non-Federally Aided Projects | ||||||||||||
| Non Federal Aid | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | NFA | $- | $- | ||||
| Non-Federal Aid subtotal► | $- | $- | ◄100% Non-Federal | |||||||||
| 2019 Summary | TIP Section 1 - 3: ▼ | TIP Section 4: ▼ | Total of All Projects ▼ | |||||||||
| Total ► | $161,223,876 | $- | $161,223,876 | ◄ Total Spending in Region | ||||||||
| Federal Funds ► | $131,704,971 | $131,704,971 | ◄ Total Federal Spending in Region | |||||||||
| Non-Federal Funds ► | $29,518,906 | $- | $29,518,906 | ◄ Total Non-Federal Spending in Region | ||||||||
| 701 CMR 7.00 Use of Road Flaggers and Police Details on Public Works Projects / 701 CMR 7.00 (the Regulation) was promulgated and became law on October 3, 2008. Under this Regulation, the CMR is applicable to any Public works Project that is performed within the limits of, or that impact traffic on, any Public Road. The Municipal Limitation referenced in this Regulation is applicable only to projects where the Municipality is the Awarding Authority. For all projects contained in the TIP, the Commonwealth is the Awarding Authority. Therefore, all projects must be considered and implemented in accordance with 701 CMR 7.00, and the Road Flagger and Police Detail Guidelines. By placing a project on the TIP, the Municipality acknowledges that 701 CMR 7.00 is applicable to its project and design and construction will be fully compliant with this Regulation. This information, and additional information relative to guidance and implementation of the Regulation can be found at the following link on the MassDOT Highway Division website: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/flaggers/main.aspx | ||||||||||||
| Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) | ||||||||||
| Project List (FY2019) | ||||||||||
| FTA Program | Project Number | Transit Agency | FTA Activity Line Item | Project Description | Carryover (unobligated) | Federal Funds | State Funds | TDC | Local Funds | Total Cost |
| 5307 | ||||||||||
| 5307 | RTD0005466 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 117A00 | PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE | 2017 - $92,000; 2018 - $450,000 | $542,000 | $0 | $0 | $135,500 | $677,500 |
| 5307 | RTD0005470 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 114206 | ACQUIRE - SHOP EQ/COMPUTER/SFTWR | 2018 - $44,000 | $44,000 | $11,000 | $0 | $0 | $55,000 |
| 5307 | RTD0005471 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 114220 | ACQUIRE - MISC SUPPORT EQUIPMENT | 2018 - $30,055 | $30,055 | $7,514 | $0 | $0 | $37,569 |
| 5307 | RTD0005993 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 113303 | TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT): Facil. Improvements | 2018 - $150,000 | $150,000 | $37,500 | $0 | $0 | $187,500 |
| 5307 | RTD0005994 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 117C00 | NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV | 2018 - $1,300,000 | $1,300,000 | $325,000 | $0 | $0 | $1,625,000 |
| 5307 | RTD0005995 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 114200 | ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES | 2018 - $248,415 | $248,415 | $62,104 | $0 | $0 | $310,519 |
| 5307 | RTD0005996 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 440000 | Mobility Management | 2018 - $25,000 | $25,000 | $6,250 | $0 | $0 | $31,250 |
| 5307 | RTD0006356 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 121200 | Revenue Vehicle Program | $112,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $28,000,000 | $140,000,000 | |
| 5307 | RTD0006357 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 123400 | Stations and Facilities Program | $31,445,210 | $0 | $0 | $7,861,303 | $39,306,513 | |
| Subtotal | $145,784,680 | $449,368 | $0 | $35,996,803 | $182,230,851 | |||||
| 5309 | ||||||||||
| 5309 | RTD0005979 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 132303 | Green Line Extension Project | $150,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $147,848,038 | $297,848,038 | |
| Subtotal | $150,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $147,848,038 | $297,848,038 | |||||
| 5310 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 5311 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 5337 | ||||||||||
| 5337 | RTD0006358 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 123400 | Stations and Facilities Program | $136,853,672 | $0 | $0 | $34,213,418 | $171,067,090 | |
| 5337 | RTD0006359 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 124400 | System Upgrades Program | 2018 - $8,000,000 | $8,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $2,000,000 | $10,000,000 |
| Subtotal | $144,853,672 | $0 | $0 | $36,213,418 | $181,067,090 | |||||
| 5339 | ||||||||||
| 5339 | RTD0006360 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 111400 | Bus Program | $5,434,322 | $0 | $0 | $1,358,581 | $6,792,903 | |
| Subtotal | $5,434,322 | $0 | $0 | $1,358,581 | $6,792,903 | |||||
| 5320 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Other Federal | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Other Non-Federal | ||||||||||
| Other Non-Federal | RTD0006089 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 111209 | BUY REPLACEMENT TROLLEY BUS | $0 | $900,000 | $0 | $0 | $900,000 | |
| Subtotal | $0 | $900,000 | $0 | $0 | $900,000 | |||||
| Total | $446,072,674 | $1,349,368 | $0 | $221,416,840 | $668,838,882 | |||||
| Funds listed under the Carry Over column are included in the Federal Amount | ||||||||||
| 2020 | Boston Region Transportation Improvement Program | |||||||||||
| Amendment / Adjustment Type ▼ |
STIP Program ▼ | MassDOT Project ID ▼ | Metropolitan Planning Organization ▼ | Municipality Name ▼ | MassDOT Project Description▼ | MassDOT District ▼ | Funding Source ▼ | Total Programmed Funds ▼ | Federal Funds ▼ | Non-Federal Funds ▼ | Additional Information ▼ Present information as follows, if applicable: a) Planning / Design / or Construction; b) total project cost and funding sources used; c) advance construction status; d) MPO project score; e) name of entity receiving a transfer; f) name of entity paying the non-state non-federal match; g) earmark details; h) TAP project proponent; i) other information | |
| ►Section 1A / Regionally Prioritized Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Regionally Prioritized Projects | ||||||||||||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | 1570 | Boston Region | Multiple | GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR | 6 | CMAQ | $13,427,220 | $10,741,776 | $2,685,444 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; AC Yr 5 of 6; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local contributions |
||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | 1570 | Boston Region | Multiple | GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR | 6 | STP | $21,872,780 | $17,498,224 | $4,374,556 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; AC Yr 5 of 6; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local contributions |
||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 604123 | Boston Region | Ashland | ASHLAND- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 126 (POND STREET), FROM THE FRAMINGHAM T.L. TO THE HOLLISTON T.L. | 3 | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $14,636,338; MPO Evaluation Score = 54 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 604123 | Boston Region | Ashland | ASHLAND- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 126 (POND STREET), FROM THE FRAMINGHAM T.L. TO THE HOLLISTON T.L. | 3 | TAP | $2,106,481 | $1,685,185 | $421,296 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $14,636,338; MPO Evaluation Score = 54; TAP project proponent = Ashland | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 604123 | Boston Region | Ashland | ASHLAND- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 126 (POND STREET), FROM THE FRAMINGHAM T.L. TO THE HOLLISTON T.L. | 3 | STP | $11,529,857 | $9,223,886 | $2,305,971 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $14,636,338; MPO Evaluation Score = 54 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 602077 | Boston Region | Lynn | LYNN- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 129 (LYNNFIELD STREET), FROM GREAT WOODS ROAD TO WYOMA SQUARE | 4 | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Construction; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $4,755,714; MPO Evaluation Score = 38 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 602077 | Boston Region | Lynn | LYNN- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 129 (LYNNFIELD STREET), FROM GREAT WOODS ROAD TO WYOMA SQUARE | 4 | STP | $3,755,714 | $3,004,571 | $751,143 | Construction; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $4,755,714; MPO Evaluation Score = 38 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 602261 | Boston Region | Walpole | WALPOLE- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 1A (MAIN STREET), FROM THE NORWOOD T.L. TO ROUTE 27, INCLUDES W-03-024 OVER THE NEPONSET RIVER | 5 | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $17,390,216; MPO Evaluation Score = 51 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 602261 | Boston Region | Walpole | WALPOLE- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 1A (MAIN STREET), FROM THE NORWOOD T.L. TO ROUTE 27, INCLUDES W-03-024 OVER THE NEPONSET RIVER | 5 | TAP | $1,858,437 | $1,486,750 | $371,687 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $17,390,216; MPO Evaluation Score = 51; TAP project proponent = Walpole | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 602261 | Boston Region | Walpole | WALPOLE- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 1A (MAIN STREET), FROM THE NORWOOD T.L. TO ROUTE 27, INCLUDES W-03-024 OVER THE NEPONSET RIVER | 5 | STP | $14,531,779 | $11,625,423 | $2,906,356 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $17,390,216; MPO Evaluation Score = 51 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606453 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON BOYLSTON STREET, FROM INTERSECTION OF BROOKLINE AVENUE & PARK DRIVE TO IPSWICH STREET | 6 | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,214,319; MPO Evaluation Score = 58 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606453 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON BOYLSTON STREET, FROM INTERSECTION OF BROOKLINE AVENUE & PARK DRIVE TO IPSWICH STREET | 6 | TAP | $812,432 | $649,946 | $162,486 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,214,319; MPO Evaluation Score = 58; TAP project proponent = Boston | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606453 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON BOYLSTON STREET, FROM INTERSECTION OF BROOKLINE AVENUE & PARK DRIVE TO IPSWICH STREET | 6 | STP | $6,401,887 | $5,121,510 | $1,280,377 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,214,319; MPO Evaluation Score = 58 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606226 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE | 6 | STP | $7,000,000 | $5,600,000 | $1,400,000 | Construction; TAP+STP Total Cost = $152,000,000; AC Yr 1 of 5; Total funding in this TIP = $76,626,515 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606635 | Boston Region | Multiple | NEEDHAM- NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO ROUTE 9 (NEWTON) | 6 | HSIP | $2,319,644 | $2,087,680 | $231,964 | Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = $21,434,400; AC Yr 2 of 2; MPO Evaluation Score = 75 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606635 | Boston Region | Multiple | NEEDHAM- NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO ROUTE 9 (NEWTON) | 6 | STP | $8,397,556 | $6,718,045 | $1,679,511 | Construction; CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = $21,434,400; AC Yr 2 of 2; MPO Evaluation Score = 75 | ||
| Regionally Prioritized Projects subtotal ► | $98,013,787 | $78,642,994 | $19,370,793 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Section 1A / Fiscal Constraint Analysis | ||||||||||||
| Total Regional Federal Aid Funds Programmed ► | $98,013,787 | $98,029,447 | ◄Total Budget | $15,660 | Target Funds Available | |||||||
| Section 1A instructions: MPO Template Name) Choose Regional Name from dropdown list to populate header and MPO column; Column C) Enter ID from ProjectInfo; Column E) Choose Municipality Name from dropdown list; Column H) Choose the Funding Source being used for the project - if multiple funding sources are being used enter multiple lines; Column I) Enter the total amount of funds being programmed in this fiscal year and for each funding source; Column J) Federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the amount and only change if needed for flex. Column K) Non-federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the split/match - if matching an FTA flex, coordinate with Rail & Transit Division before programming; Column L) Enter Additional Information as described - please do not use any other format. | STP programmed ► | $73,489,573 | $80,061,875 | ◄ Max STP | $6,572,302 | STP available | ||||||
| HSIP programmed ► | $2,319,644 | $4,296,710 | ◄ Min. HSIP | $1,977,066 | HSIP recommended not met | |||||||
| CMAQ programmed ► | $17,427,220 | $10,741,776 | ◄ Min. CMAQ | $(6,685,444) | CMAQ recommended met | |||||||
| TAP programmed ► | $4,777,350 | $2,929,085 | ◄ Min. TAP | $(1,848,265) | TAP amount exceeded! | |||||||
| Remaining HSIP, CMAQ, and TAP Funds | $15,660 | |||||||||||
| ►Section 1B / Earmark or Discretionary Grant Funded Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Other Federal Aid | ||||||||||||
| Earmark Discretionary | Project # | Boston | Municipalities | Description | District | HPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Earmark Discretionary | Project # | Boston | Municipalities | Description | District | HPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Other Federal Aid subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 2A / State Prioritized Reliability Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Inspections | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | Project # | N/A | Multiple | Description | Multiple | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bridge Program / Inspections subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Off-System | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | Project # | MPO | N/A | Description | District | STP-BR-OFF | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bridge Program / Off-System subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 605342 | Boston Region | Stow | STOW- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-29-001, (ST 62) GLEASONDALE ROAD OVER THE ASSABET RIVER | 3 | NHPP-On | $6,706,560 | $5,365,248 | $1,341,312 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program | 608614 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, B-16-179, AUSTIN STREET OVER I-93 RAMPS, MBTA COMMUTER RAIL AND ORANGE LINE | 6 | NHPP-On | $20,606,400 | $16,485,120 | $4,121,280 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program | 604173 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE BOSTON INNER HARBOR | 6 | NHPP-On | $35,000,000 | $28,000,000 | $7,000,000 | Construction / AC Year 4 of 5, Total Cost $144,066,616 | ||
| Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) subtotal ► | $62,312,960 | $49,850,368 | $12,462,592 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 608009 | Boston Region | Boxborough | BOXBOROUGH- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-18-002, ROUTE 111 OVER I-495 | 3 | NHPP-Off | $9,147,500 | $7,318,000 | $1,829,500 | AC Year 1 of 2, Total Cost $14,295,000 | ||
| Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) subtotal ► | $9,147,500 | $7,318,000 | $1,829,500 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 608596 | Boston Region | Essex | ESSEX- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, E-11-001 (2TV), ROUTE 133\MAIN STREET OVER ESSEX RIVER | 4 | NHPP-Off | $2,400,000 | $1,920,000 | $480,000 | |||
| Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance subtotal ► | $2,400,000 | $1,920,000 | $480,000 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Interstate Pavement | ||||||||||||
| Interstate Pavement | 608208 | Boston Region | Multiple | QUINCY- MILTON- BOSTON- INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE & RELATED WORK ON I-93 | 6 | NHPP | $24,264,576 | $21,838,118 | $2,426,458 | Construction / Includes $540,000 of stormwater improvements | ||
| Insterstate Pavement subtotal ► | $24,264,576 | $21,838,118 | $2,426,458 | ◄ 90% Federal + 10% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Non-Interstate Pavement | ||||||||||||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608480 | Boston Region | Multiple | FOXBOROUGH- WALPOLE- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1 | 5 | NHPP | $8,063,129 | $6,450,503 | $1,612,626 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608484 | Boston Region | Multiple | CANTON- MILTON- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 138 | 6 | NHPP | $15,343,776 | $12,275,021 | $3,068,755 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608482 | Boston Region | Multiple | CAMBRIDGE- SOMERVILLE- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 28 | 6 | NHPP | $7,761,096 | $6,208,877 | $1,552,219 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement subtotal ► | $31,168,001 | $24,934,401 | $6,233,600 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ► Roadway Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Roadway Improvements | Project # | MPO | N/A | Description | District | STP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Roadway Improvements subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ► Safety Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Safety Improvements | 608608 | Boston Region | Braintree | BRAINTREE- HIGHWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AT I-93/ROUTE 3 INTERCHANGE | 6 | STP | $2,688,726 | $2,150,981 | $537,745 | Construction / Total Project Cost $9,697,229 / AC YR 2 of 2 | ||
| Safety Improvements | 608611 | Boston Region | Multiple | CANTON- MILTON- RANDOLPH- REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION OF THE HIGHWAY LIGHTING SYSTEM AT THE ROUTE 24/ROUTE 1/I-93 INTERCHANGE | 6 | HSIP | $9,434,070 | $8,490,663 | $943,407 | Construction | ||
| Safety Improvements subtotal ► | $12,122,796 | $10,641,644 | $1,481,152 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 2B / State Prioritized Modernization Projects | ||||||||||||
| ► ADA Retrofits | ||||||||||||
| ADA Retrofits | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | STP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| ADA Retrofits subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Intersection Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Intersection Improvements | 608562 | Boston Region | Somerville | SOMERVILLE- SIGNAL AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT ON I-93 AT MYSTIC AVENUE AND MCGRATH HIGHWAY (TOP 200 CRASH LOCATION) | 4 | HSIP | $2,688,000 | $2,419,200 | $268,800 | Construction / PSAC score 68 | ||
| Intersection Improvements | 608564 | Boston Region | Watertown | WATERTOWN- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 16 AND GALEN STREET | 6 | HSIP | $2,688,000 | $2,419,200 | $268,800 | Construction / PSAC score 56 | ||
| Intersection Improvements subtotal ► | $5,376,000 | $4,838,400 | $537,600 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Intelligent Transportation Systems | ||||||||||||
| Intelligent Transportation Systems | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Intelligent Transportation System subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Roadway Reconstruction | ||||||||||||
| Roadway Reconstruction | 608835 | Boston Region | Medford | MEDFORD- IMPROVEMENTS AT BROOKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SRTS) | 4 | TAP | $1,200,000 | $960,000 | $240,000 | Construction / TAP project proponent is Medford | ||
| Roadway Reconstruction | 608743 | Boston Region | Salem | SALEM- IMPROVEMENTS AT BATES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SRTS) | 4 | TAP | $937,500 | $750,000 | $187,500 | Construction / TAP project proponent is Salem | ||
| Roadway Reconstruction | 608829 | Boston Region | Stoughton | STOUGHTON - IMPROVEMENTS AT WEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SRTS) | 5 | TAP | $2,226,600 | $1,781,280 | $445,320 | Construction / TAP project proponent is Stoughton | ||
| Roadway Reconstruction | 608791 | Boston Region | Winchester | WINCHESTER- IMPROVEMENTS AT VINSON-OWEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SRTS) | 4 | TAP | $1,666,200 | $1,332,960 | $333,240 | Construction / TAP project proponent is Winchester | ||
| Roadway Reconstruction | 607977 | Boston Region | Multiple | HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE | 3 | NHPP | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Construction / Total Project Cost = $270,000,000 / AC YR 1 of 6 / PSAC score 49 | ||
| Roadway Reconstruction subtotal ► | $7,030,300 | $5,624,240 | $1,406,060 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Section 2C / State Prioritized Expansion Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Bicycles and Pedestrians | ||||||||||||
| Bicycles and Pedestrians | Project # | MPO | N/A | Description | District | CMAQ | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bicycles and Pedestrians subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Capacity | ||||||||||||
| Capacity | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Capacity subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 3 / Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | ||||||||||||
| ►Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | ||||||||||||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | Project # | Statewide | Multiple | Description | Multiple | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Other Statewide Items subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 4 / Non-Federally Aided Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Non-Federally Aided Projects | ||||||||||||
| Non Federal Aid | 607977 | Boston Region | Multiple | HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE | 3 | NFA | $18,112,483 | $18,112,483 | Construction / Total Project Cost = $270,000,000 / AC YR 1 of 6 / PSAC score 49 | |||
| Non-Federal Aid subtotal► | $18,112,483 | $18,112,483 | ◄100% Non-Federal | |||||||||
| 2020 Summary | TIP Section 1 - 3: ▼ | TIP Section 4: ▼ | Total of All Projects ▼ | |||||||||
| Total ► | $251,835,920 | $18,112,483 | $269,948,403 | ◄ Total Spending in Region | ||||||||
| Federal Funds ► | $205,608,165 | $205,608,165 | ◄ Total Federal Spending in Region | |||||||||
| Non-Federal Funds ► | $46,227,755 | $18,112,483 | $64,340,238 | ◄ Total Non-Federal Spending in Region | ||||||||
| 701 CMR 7.00 Use of Road Flaggers and Police Details on Public Works Projects / 701 CMR 7.00 (the Regulation) was promulgated and became law on October 3, 2008. Under this Regulation, the CMR is applicable to any Public works Project that is performed within the limits of, or that impact traffic on, any Public Road. The Municipal Limitation referenced in this Regulation is applicable only to projects where the Municipality is the Awarding Authority. For all projects contained in the TIP, the Commonwealth is the Awarding Authority. Therefore, all projects must be considered and implemented in accordance with 701 CMR 7.00, and the Road Flagger and Police Detail Guidelines. By placing a project on the TIP, the Municipality acknowledges that 701 CMR 7.00 is applicable to its project and design and construction will be fully compliant with this Regulation. This information, and additional information relative to guidance and implementation of the Regulation can be found at the following link on the MassDOT Highway Division website: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/flaggers/main.aspx | ||||||||||||
| Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) | ||||||||||
| Project List (FY2020) | ||||||||||
| FTA Program | Project Number | Transit Agency | FTA Activity Line Item | Project Description | Carryover (unobligated) | Federal Funds | State Funds | TDC | Local Funds | Total Cost |
| 5307 | ||||||||||
| 5307 | RTD0005472 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 117A00 | PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE | 2019 - $350,000 | $350,000 | $0 | $0 | $87,500 | $437,500 |
| 5307 | RTD0005477 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 114206 | ACQUIRE - SHOP EQ/COMP/SFTWR | 2019 - $40,000 | $40,000 | $10,000 | $0 | $0 | $50,000 |
| 5307 | RTD0005478 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 114220 | ACQUIRE - MISC SUPPORT EQUIPMENT | 2019 - $11,296 | $11,296 | $2,824 | $0 | $0 | $14,120 |
| 5307 | RTD0005997 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 114200 | ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES | 2019 - $248,415 | $248,415 | $62,104 | $0 | $0 | $310,519 |
| 5307 | RTD0005998 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 440000 | Mobility Management | 2019 - $25,000 | $25,000 | $6,250 | $0 | $0 | $31,250 |
| 5307 | RTD0005999 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 117C00 | NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV | 2019 - $1,300,000 | $1,300,000 | $325,000 | $0 | $0 | $1,625,000 |
| 5307 | RTD0006000 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 113303 | TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) | 2019 - $150,000 | $150,000 | $37,500 | $0 | $0 | $187,500 |
| 5307 | RTD0006361 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 121200 | Revenue Vehicle Program | $40,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $10,000,000 | $50,000,000 | |
| 5307 | RTD0006362 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 123400 | Stations and Facilities Program | $44,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $11,000,000 | $55,000,000 | |
| 5307 | RTD0006363 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 126301 | Systemwide Signals Program | $61,840,976 | $0 | $0 | $15,460,244 | $77,301,220 | |
| Subtotal | $147,965,687 | $443,678 | $0 | $36,547,744 | $184,957,109 | |||||
| 5309 | ||||||||||
| 5309 | RTD0005987 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 132303 | Green Line Extension Project | $150,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $147,848,038 | $297,848,038 | |
| Subtotal | $150,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $147,848,038 | $297,848,038 | |||||
| 5310 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 5311 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 5337 | ||||||||||
| 5337 | RTD0006364 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 122405 | Bridge & Tunnel Program | $24,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $6,000,000 | $30,000,000 | |
| 5337 | RTD0006365 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 123402 | Elevator Program | $48,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $12,000,000 | $60,000,000 | |
| 5337 | RTD0006366 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 123400 | Stations and Facilities Program | $47,347,989 | $0 | $0 | $11,836,997 | $59,184,986 | |
| 5337 | RTD0006367 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 124400 | System Upgrades Program | $28,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $7,000,000 | $35,000,000 | |
| Subtotal | $147,347,989 | $0 | $0 | $36,836,997 | $184,184,986 | |||||
| 5339 | ||||||||||
| 5339 | RTD0006368 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 111400 | Bus Program | $5,552,214 | $0 | $0 | $1,388,053 | $6,940,267 | |
| Subtotal | $5,552,214 | $0 | $0 | $1,388,053 | $6,940,267 | |||||
| 5320 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Other Federal | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Other Non-Federal | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Total | $450,865,890 | $443,678 | $0 | $222,620,832 | $673,930,400 | |||||
| Funds listed under the Carry Over column are included in the Federal Amount | ||||||||||
| 2021 | Boston Region Transportation Improvement Program | |||||||||||
| Amendment / Adjustment Type ▼ |
STIP Program ▼ | MassDOT Project ID ▼ | Metropolitan Planning Organization ▼ | Municipality Name ▼ | MassDOT Project Description▼ | MassDOT District ▼ | Funding Source ▼ | Total Programmed Funds ▼ | Federal Funds ▼ | Non-Federal Funds ▼ | Additional Information ▼ Present information as follows, if applicable: a) Planning / Design / or Construction; b) total project cost and funding sources used; c) advance construction status; d) MPO project score; e) name of entity receiving a transfer; f) name of entity paying the non-state non-federal match; g) earmark details; h) TAP project proponent; i) other information | |
| ►Section 1A / Regionally Prioritized Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Regionally Prioritized Projects | ||||||||||||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 608228 | Boston Region | Framingham | FRAMINGHAM- RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION AVENUE, FROM PROCTOR STREET TO MAIN STREET | 3 | HSIP | $1,509,587 | $1,358,628 | $150,959 | Construction; STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $10,304,881; MPO Evaluation Score = 58 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 608228 | Boston Region | Framingham | FRAMINGHAM- RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION AVENUE, FROM PROCTOR STREET TO MAIN STREET | 3 | TAP | $1,006,391 | $805,113 | $201,278 | Construction; STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $10,304,881; MPO Evaluation Score = 58; TAP project proponent = Framingham | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 608228 | Boston Region | Framingham | FRAMINGHAM- RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION AVENUE, FROM PROCTOR STREET TO MAIN STREET | 3 | STP | $7,788,903 | $6,231,122 | $1,557,781 | Construction; STP+HSIP+TAP Total Cost = $10,304,881; MPO Evaluation Score = 58 | ||
| Intersection improvements program | 606130 | Boston Region | Norwood | NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 1A & UPLAND ROAD/WASHINGTON STREET & PROSPECT STREET/FULTON STREET | 5 | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Construction; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $3,668,437; MPO Evaluation Score = 53 | ||
| Intersection improvements program | 606130 | Boston Region | Norwood | NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 1A & UPLAND ROAD/WASHINGTON STREET & PROSPECT STREET/FULTON STREET | 5 | STP | $2,668,437 | $2,134,750 | $533,687 | Construction; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $3,668,437; MPO Evaluation Score = 53 | ||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | 608347 | Boston Region | Beverly | BEVERLY- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ 3 LOCATIONS: CABOT STREET (ROUTE 1A/97) @ DODGE STREET (ROUTE 1A), COUNTY WAY, LONGMEADOW ROAD & SCOTT STREET, MCKAY STREET @ BALCH STREET & VETERANS MEMORIAL BRIDGE (ROUTE 1A) AT RANTOUL, CABOT, WATER & FRONT STREETS | 4 | HSIP | $2,339,729 | $2,105,756 | $233,973 | Construction; HSIP+CMAQ Total Cost = $3,360,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 63 | ||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | 608347 | Boston Region | Beverly | BEVERLY- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ 3 LOCATIONS: CABOT STREET (ROUTE 1A/97) @ DODGE STREET (ROUTE 1A), COUNTY WAY, LONGMEADOW ROAD & SCOTT STREET, MCKAY STREET @ BALCH STREET & VETERANS MEMORIAL BRIDGE (ROUTE 1A) AT RANTOUL, CABOT, WATER & FRONT STREETS | 4 | CMAQ | $1,020,271 | $816,217 | $204,054 | Construction; HSIP+CMAQ Total Cost = $3,360,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 63 | ||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | BN0009 | Boston Region | Multiple | COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM | NA | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Planning, Design, or Construction; Set Aside for LRTP Clean Air and Mobility Program | ||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | 1570 | Boston Region | Multiple | GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR | 6 | CMAQ | $10,000,000 | $8,000,000 | $2,000,000 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; AC Yr 6 of 6; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local contributions |
||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | 1570 | Boston Region | Multiple | GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR | 6 | STP | $19,700,000 | $15,760,000 | $3,940,000 | Construction; STP+CMAQ+Section 5309 (Transit) Total MPO Contribution = $190,000,000; AC Yr 6 of 6; funding flexed to FTA; match provided by local contributions |
||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606501 | Boston Region | Holbrook | HOLBROOK- RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION STREET (ROUTE 139), FROM LINFIELD STREET TO CENTRE STREET/WATER STREET | 5 | TAP | $289,088 | $231,270 | $57,818 | Construction; TAP+STP+Earmark Total Cost = $2,890,880; MPO Evaluation Score = 45; TAP project proponent = Holbrook | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606501 | Boston Region | Holbrook | HOLBROOK- RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION STREET (ROUTE 139), FROM LINFIELD STREET TO CENTRE STREET/WATER STREET | 5 | STP | $1,074,542 | $859,634 | $214,908 | Construction; TAP+STP+Earmark Total Cost = $2,890,880; MPO Evaluation Score = 45 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606226 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE | 6 | TAP | $2,183,253 | $1,746,602 | $436,651 | Construction; TAP+STP Total Cost = $152,000,000; AC Yr 2 of 5; Total funding in this TIP = $76,626,515; TAP project proponent = Boston | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606226 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE | 6 | STP | $24,997,494 | $19,997,995 | $4,999,499 | Construction; TAP+STP Total Cost = $152,000,000; AC Yr 2 of 5; Total funding in this TIP = $76,626,515 | ||
| Bridge Program | 604996 | Boston Region | Woburn | WOBURN- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-43-017, NEW BOSTON STREET OVER MBTA | 4 | STP | $17,026,434 | $13,621,147 | $3,405,287 | Construction; Total Cost = $17,026,434; MPO Evaluation Score = 55 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 601607 | Boston Region | Hull | HULL- RECONSTRUCTION OF ATLANTIC AVENUE AND RELATED WORK FROM NANTASKET AVENUE TO COHASSET TOWN LINE | 5 | STP | $6,693,980 | $5,355,184 | $1,338,796 | Construction; Total Cost = $6,693,980; MPO Evaluation Score = 44 | ||
| Regionally Prioritized Projects subtotal ► | $100,298,109 | $80,623,419 | $19,674,690 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Section 1A / Fiscal Constraint Analysis | ||||||||||||
| Total Regional Federal Aid Funds Programmed ► | $100,298,109 | $100,298,110 | ◄Total Budget | $1 | Target Funds Available | |||||||
| Section 1A instructions: MPO Template Name) Choose Regional Name from dropdown list to populate header and MPO column; Column C) Enter ID from ProjectInfo; Column E) Choose Municipality Name from dropdown list; Column H) Choose the Funding Source being used for the project - if multiple funding sources are being used enter multiple lines; Column I) Enter the total amount of funds being programmed in this fiscal year and for each funding source; Column J) Federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the amount and only change if needed for flex. Column K) Non-federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the split/match - if matching an FTA flex, coordinate with Rail & Transit Division before programming; Column L) Enter Additional Information as described - please do not use any other format. | STP programmed ► | $79,949,790 | $82,330,538 | ◄ Max STP | $2,380,748 | STP available | ||||||
| HSIP programmed ► | $3,849,316 | $4,296,710 | ◄ Min. HSIP | $447,394 | HSIP recommended not met | |||||||
| CMAQ programmed ► | $13,020,271 | $10,741,776 | ◄ Min. CMAQ | $(2,278,495) | CMAQ recommended met | |||||||
| TAP programmed ► | $3,478,732 | $2,929,085 | ◄ Min. TAP | $(549,647) | TAP amount exceeded! | |||||||
| Remaining HSIP, CMAQ, and TAP Funds | $1 | |||||||||||
| ►Section 1B / Earmark or Discretionary Grant Funded Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Other Federal Aid | ||||||||||||
| Earmark Discretionary | 606226 | Boston Region | Municipalities | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE | 6 | HPP | $126,970 | $101,576 | $25,394 | Demo ID MA183 | ||
| Earmark Discretionary | 606226 | Boston Region | Municipalities | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE | 6 | HPP | $8,451,960 | $6,761,568 | $1,690,392 | Demo ID MA210 | ||
| Earmark Discretionary | 606501 | Boston Region | Municipalities | HOLBROOK- RECONSTRUCTION OF UNION STREET (ROUTE 139), FROM LINFIELD STREET TO CENTRE STREET/WATER STREET | 5 | HPP | $1,527,250 | $1,221,800 | $305,450 | Demo ID MA177 | ||
| Other Federal Aid subtotal ► | $10,106,180 | $8,084,944 | $2,021,236 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 2A / State Prioritized Reliability Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Inspections | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bridge Program / Inspections subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Off-System | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 608637 | Boston Region | Maynard | MAYNARD- BRIDGE REPLACMENT, M-10-006, CARRYING FLORIDA ROAD OVER THE ASSABET RIVER | 3 | STP-BR-OFF | $1,589,840 | $1,271,872 | $317,968 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program / Off-System subtotal ► | $1,589,840 | $1,271,872 | $317,968 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 608703 | Boston Region | Wilmington | WILMINGTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-38-029 (2KV), ST 129 LOWELL STREET OVER I 93 | 4 | NHPP-On | $16,546,880 | $13,237,504 | $3,309,376 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program | 607327 | Boston Region | Wilmington | WILMINGTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-38-002, ROUTE 38 (MAIN STREET) OVER THE B&M RAILROAD | 4 | NHPP-On | $10,760,960 | $8,608,768 | $2,152,192 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program | 604173 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE BOSTON INNER HARBOR | 6 | NHPP-On | $18,666,616 | $14,933,293 | $3,733,323 | Construction / AC Year 5 of 5, Total Cost $144,066,616 | ||
| Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) subtotal ► | $45,974,456 | $36,779,565 | $9,194,891 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 608522 | Boston Region | Middleton | MIDDLETON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-20-003, ROUTE 62 (MAPLE STREET) OVER IPSWICH RIVER | 4 | NHPP-Off | $3,933,440 | $3,146,752 | $786,688 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program | 608596 | Boston Region | Essex | ESSEX- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, E-11-001 (2TV), ROUTE 133\MAIN STREET OVER ESSEX RIVER | 4 | NHPP-Off | $4,028,000 | $3,222,400 | $805,600 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program | 608009 | Boston Region | Boxborough | BOXBOROUGH- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-18-002, ROUTE 111 OVER I-495 | 3 | NHPP-Off | $5,147,500 | $4,118,000 | $1,029,500 | Construction / AC Year 2 of 2, Total Cost $14,295,000 | ||
| Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) subtotal ► | $13,108,940 | $10,487,152 | $2,621,788 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | NHPP-On | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Interstate Pavement | ||||||||||||
| Interstate Pavement | Project # | MPO | Multiple | Description | District | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Insterstate Pavement subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 90% Federal + 10% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Non-Interstate Pavement | ||||||||||||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608493 | Boston Region | Topsfield | TOPSFIELD- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1 | 4 | NHPP | $9,119,040 | $7,295,232 | $1,823,808 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608495 | Boston Region | Multiple | CONCORD- LEXINGTON- LINCOLN- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 2A | 4 | NHPP | $3,171,840 | $2,537,472 | $634,368 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608498 | Boston Region | Multiple | HINGHAM- WEMOUTH- BRAINTREE- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 53 | 5 | NHPP | $7,929,600 | $6,343,680 | $1,585,920 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement subtotal ► | $20,220,480 | $16,176,384 | $4,044,096 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ► Roadway Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Roadway Improvements | Project # | MPO | N/A | Description | District | STP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Roadway Improvements subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ► Safety Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Safety Improvements | Project # | MPO | Multiple | Description | District | STP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Safety Improvements subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 2B / State Prioritized Modernization Projects | ||||||||||||
| ► ADA Retrofits | ||||||||||||
| ADA Retrofits | Project # | Statewide | Multiple | Description | 4 | STP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| ADA Retrofits subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Intersection Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Intersection Improvements | 608566 | Boston Region | Marlborough | MARLBOROUGH- IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 20 (EAST MAIN STREET) AT CURTIS AVENUE | 3 | HSIP | $2,784,000 | $2,505,600 | $278,400 | Construction / PSAC score 51.5 | ||
| Intersection Improvements | 608567 | Boston Region | Peabody | PEABODY- IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 114 AT SYLVAN STREET, CROSS STREET, NORTHSHORE MALL, LORIS ROAD, ROUTE 128 INTERCHANGE AND ESQUIRE DRIVE | 4 | HSIP | $2,784,000 | $2,505,600 | $278,400 | Construction / PSAC score 61.5 | ||
| Intersection Improvements | 607342 | Boston Region | Milton | MILTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 28 (RANDOLPH AVENUE) & CHICKATAWBUT ROAD | 6 | HSIP | $1,531,200 | $1,378,080 | $153,120 | Construction / PSAC score 43 | ||
| Intersection Improvements | 608569 | Boston Region | Quincy | QUINCY- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 3A (SOUTHERN ARTERY) AND BROAD STREET | 6 | HSIP | $2,784,000 | $2,505,600 | $278,400 | Construction / PSAC score 55 | ||
| Intersection Improvements subtotal ► | $9,883,200 | $8,894,880 | $988,320 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Intelligent Transportation Systems | ||||||||||||
| Intelligent Transportation Systems | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Intelligent Transportation System subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Roadway Reconstruction | ||||||||||||
| Roadway Reconstruction | 607901 | Boston Region | Dedham | DEDHAM- PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ELM STREET & RUSTCRAFT ROAD CORRIDORS | 6 | CMAQ | $2,581,113 | $2,064,890 | $516,223 | Construction / PSAC score 51.25 | ||
| Roadway Reconstruction | 607977 | Boston Region | Multiple | HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE | 3 | NHPP | $37,500,000 | $30,000,000 | $7,500,000 | Construction / Total Project Cost = $270,000,000 / AC YR 2 of 6 / PSAC score 49 | ||
| Roadway Reconstruction subtotal ► | $40,081,113 | $32,064,890 | $8,016,223 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Section 2C / State Prioritized Expansion Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Bicycles and Pedestrians | ||||||||||||
| Bicycles and Pedestrians | 607329 | Boston Region | Multiple | WAKEFIELD- LYNNFIELD- RAIL TRAIL EXTENSION, FROM THE GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL TO LYNNFIELD/PEABODY T.L. | 4 | CMAQ | $7,084,000 | $5,667,200 | $1,416,800 | Construction / PSAC score 32.5 | ||
| Bicycles and Pedestrians subtotal ► | $7,084,000 | $5,667,200 | $1,416,800 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Capacity | ||||||||||||
| Capacity | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | CMAQ | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Capacity subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 3 / Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | ||||||||||||
| ►Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | ||||||||||||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | Project # | Statewide | Multiple | ABP GANS Repayment | Multiple | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Other Statewide Items subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 4 / Non-Federally Aided Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Non-Federally Aided Projects | ||||||||||||
| Non Federal Aid | 607977 | Boston Region | Multiple | HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE | 3 | NFA | $18,112,483 | $18,112,483 | Construction / Total Project Cost = $270,000,000 / AC YR 2 of 6 / PSAC score 49 | |||
| Non-Federal Aid subtotal► | $18,112,483 | $18,112,483 | ◄100% Non-Federal | |||||||||
| 2021 Summary | TIP Section 1 - 3: ▼ | TIP Section 4: ▼ | Total of All Projects ▼ | |||||||||
| Total ► | $248,346,318 | $18,112,483 | $266,458,801 | ◄ Total Spending in Region | ||||||||
| Federal Funds ► | $200,050,306 | $200,050,306 | ◄ Total Federal Spending in Region | |||||||||
| Non-Federal Funds ► | $48,296,012 | $18,112,483 | $66,408,495 | ◄ Total Non-Federal Spending in Region | ||||||||
| 701 CMR 7.00 Use of Road Flaggers and Police Details on Public Works Projects / 701 CMR 7.00 (the Regulation) was promulgated and became law on October 3, 2008. Under this Regulation, the CMR is applicable to any Public works Project that is performed within the limits of, or that impact traffic on, any Public Road. The Municipal Limitation referenced in this Regulation is applicable only to projects where the Municipality is the Awarding Authority. For all projects contained in the TIP, the Commonwealth is the Awarding Authority. Therefore, all projects must be considered and implemented in accordance with 701 CMR 7.00, and the Road Flagger and Police Detail Guidelines. By placing a project on the TIP, the Municipality acknowledges that 701 CMR 7.00 is applicable to its project and design and construction will be fully compliant with this Regulation. This information, and additional information relative to guidance and implementation of the Regulation can be found at the following link on the MassDOT Highway Division website: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/flaggers/main.aspx | ||||||||||||
| Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) | ||||||||||
| Project List (FY2021) | ||||||||||
| FTA Program | Project Number | Transit Agency | FTA Activity Line Item | Project Description | Carryover (unobligated) | Federal Funds | State Funds | TDC | Local Funds | Total Cost |
| 5307 | ||||||||||
| 5307 | RTD0005479 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 117A00 | PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE | 2020 - $350,000 | $350,000 | $87,500 | $0 | $0 | $437,500 |
| 5307 | RTD0005480 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 114206 | ACQUIRE - SHOP EQ/COMP/SFTWR | 2020 - $40,000 | $40,000 | $10,000 | $0 | $0 | $50,000 |
| 5307 | RTD0005163 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 440000 | Mobility Management | 2020 - $25,000 | $25,000 | $6,250 | $0 | $0 | $31,250 |
| 5307 | RTD0006003 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 117C00 | NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV | 2020 - $1,300,000 | $1,300,000 | $325,000 | $0 | $0 | $1,625,000 |
| 5307 | RTD0006004 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 113403 | TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) | 2020 - $150,000 | $150,000 | $37,500 | $0 | $0 | $187,500 |
| 5307 | RTD0006005 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 114200 | ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES | 2020 - $248,415 | $248,415 | $62,104 | $0 | $0 | $310,519 |
| 5307 | RTD0006369 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 121200 | Revenue Vehicle Program | $120,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $30,000,000 | $150,000,000 | |
| 5307 | RTD0006370 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 126301 | Systemwide Signals Program | $25,840,976 | $0 | $0 | $6,460,244 | $32,301,220 | |
| Subtotal | $147,954,391 | $528,354 | $0 | $36,460,244 | $184,942,989 | |||||
| 5309 | ||||||||||
| 5309 | RTD0005988 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 132303 | Green Line Extension Project | $146,121,000 | $0 | $0 | $147,848,038 | $293,969,038 | |
| Subtotal | $146,121,000 | $0 | $0 | $147,848,038 | $293,969,038 | |||||
| 5310 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 5311 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 5337 | ||||||||||
| 5337 | RTD0006371 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 122405 | Bridge & Tunnel Program | $96,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $24,000,000 | $120,000,000 | |
| 5337 | RTD0006372 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 123400 | Stations and Facilities Program | $35,347,989 | $0 | $0 | $8,836,997 | $44,184,986 | |
| 5337 | RTD0006373 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 124400 | System Upgrades Program | $16,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $4,000,000 | $20,000,000 | |
| Subtotal | $147,347,989 | $0 | $0 | $36,836,997 | $184,184,986 | |||||
| 5339 | ||||||||||
| 5339 | RTD0006374 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 111400 | Bus Program | $5,552,214 | $0 | $0 | $1,388,053 | $6,940,267 | |
| Subtotal | $5,552,214 | $0 | $0 | $1,388,053 | $6,940,267 | |||||
| 5320 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Other Federal | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Other Non-Federal | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Total | $446,975,594 | $528,354 | $0 | $222,533,332 | $670,037,280 | |||||
| Funds listed under the Carry Over column are included in the Federal Amount | ||||||||||
| 2022 | Boston Region Transportation Improvement Program | |||||||||||
| Amendment / Adjustment Type ▼ |
STIP Program ▼ | MassDOT Project ID ▼ | Metropolitan Planning Organization ▼ | Municipality Name ▼ | MassDOT Project Description▼ | MassDOT District ▼ | Funding Source ▼ | Total Programmed Funds ▼ | Federal Funds ▼ | Non-Federal Funds ▼ | Additional Information ▼ Present information as follows, if applicable: a) Planning / Design / or Construction; b) total project cost and funding sources used; c) advance construction status; d) MPO project score; e) name of entity receiving a transfer; f) name of entity paying the non-state non-federal match; g) earmark details; h) TAP project proponent; i) other information | |
| ►Section 1A / Regionally Prioritized Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Regionally Prioritized Projects | ||||||||||||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606226 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE | 6 | TAP | $2,000,000 | $1,600,000 | $400,000 | Construction; TAP+STP Total Cost = $152,000,000; AC Yr 3 of 5; Total funding in this TIP = $76,626,515; TAP project proponent = Boston | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 606226 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE | 6 | STP | $40,445,768 | $32,356,614 | $8,089,154 | Construction; TAP+STP Total Cost = $152,000,000; AC Yr 3 of 5; Total funding in this TIP = $76,626,515 | ||
| Intersection improvements program | 605857 | Boston Region | Norwood | NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 1 & UNIVERSITY AVENUE/EVERETT STREET | 5 | HSIP | $631,724 | $568,552 | $63,172 | Construction; HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $9,377,782; MPO Evaluation Score = 55 | ||
| Intersection improvements program | 605857 | Boston Region | Norwood | NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 1 & UNIVERSITY AVENUE/EVERETT STREET | 5 | CMAQ | $3,000,000 | $2,400,000 | $600,000 | Construction; HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $9,377,782; MPO Evaluation Score = 55 | ||
| Intersection improvements program | 605857 | Boston Region | Norwood | NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 1 & UNIVERSITY AVENUE/EVERETT STREET | 5 | STP | $5,746,058 | $4,596,846 | $1,149,212 | Construction; HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $9,377,782; MPO Evaluation Score = 55 | ||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | BN0009 | Boston Region | Multiple | COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM | NA | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Planning, Design, or Construction; Set Aside for LRTP Clean Air and Mobility Program | ||
| Bicycles and pedestrians program | 607738 | Boston Region | Bedford | BEDFORD- MINUTEMAN BIKEWAY EXTENSION, FROM LOOMIS STREET TO THE CONCORD T.L. | 4 | CMAQ | $3,000,000 | $2,400,000 | $600,000 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $7,862,878; MPO Evaluation Score = 47 | ||
| Bicycles and pedestrians program | 607738 | Boston Region | Bedford | BEDFORD- MINUTEMAN BIKEWAY EXTENSION, FROM LOOMIS STREET TO THE CONCORD T.L. | 4 | TAP | $350,000 | $280,000 | $70,000 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $7,862,878; MPO Evaluation Score = 47; TAP project proponent = Bedford | ||
| Bicycles and pedestrians program | 607738 | Boston Region | Bedford | BEDFORD- MINUTEMAN BIKEWAY EXTENSION, FROM LOOMIS STREET TO THE CONCORD T.L. | 4 | STP | $4,512,878 | $3,610,302 | $902,576 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $7,862,878; MPO Evaluation Score = 47 | ||
| Bicycles and pedestrians program | 608164 | Boston Region | Sudbury | SUDBURY- BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION (BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL) | 3 | CMAQ | $3,000,000 | $2,400,000 | $600,000 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,004,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 40 | ||
| Bicycles and pedestrians program | 608164 | Boston Region | Sudbury | SUDBURY- BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION (BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL) | 3 | TAP | $500,000 | $400,000 | $100,000 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,004,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 40; TAP project proponent = Sudbury | ||
| Bicycles and pedestrians program | 608164 | Boston Region | Sudbury | SUDBURY- BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION (BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL) | 3 | STP | $4,504,000 | $3,603,200 | $900,800 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,004,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 40 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 607777 | Boston Region | Watertown | WATERTOWN- REHABILITATION OF MOUNT AUBURN STREET (ROUTE 16) | 6 | HSIP | $2,000,000 | $1,800,000 | $200,000 | Construction; HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $14,190,425; MPO Evaluation Score = 75 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 607777 | Boston Region | Watertown | WATERTOWN- REHABILITATION OF MOUNT AUBURN STREET (ROUTE 16) | 6 | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Construction; HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $14,190,425; MPO Evaluation Score = 75 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 607777 | Boston Region | Watertown | WATERTOWN- REHABILITATION OF MOUNT AUBURN STREET (ROUTE 16) | 6 | STP | $11,190,425 | $8,952,340 | $2,238,085 | Construction; HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $14,190,425; MPO Evaluation Score = 75 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 608078 | Boston Region | Chelsea | CHELSEA- RECONSTRUCTION ON BROADWAY (ROUTE 107), FROM CITY HALL AVENUE TO THE REVERE C.L. | 6 | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Construction; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $9,028,628; MPO Evaluation Score = 61 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 608078 | Boston Region | Chelsea | CHELSEA- RECONSTRUCTION ON BROADWAY (ROUTE 107), FROM CITY HALL AVENUE TO THE REVERE C.L. | 6 | STP | $8,028,628 | $6,422,902 | $1,605,726 | Construction; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $9,028,628; MPO Evaluation Score = 61 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 608229 | Boston Region | Acton | ACTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT KELLEY'S CORNER, ROUTE 111 (MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE) AND ROUTE 27 (MAIN STREET) | 3 | CMAQ | $1,000,000 | $800,000 | $200,000 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,671,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 45 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 608229 | Boston Region | Acton | ACTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT KELLEY'S CORNER, ROUTE 111 (MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE) AND ROUTE 27 (MAIN STREET) | 3 | TAP | $200,000 | $160,000 | $40,000 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,671,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 45; TAP project proponent = Acton | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 608229 | Boston Region | Acton | ACTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT KELLEY'S CORNER, ROUTE 111 (MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE) AND ROUTE 27 (MAIN STREET) | 3 | STP | $7,471,000 | $5,976,800 | $1,494,200 | Construction; CMAQ+TAP+STP Total Cost = $8,671,000; MPO Evaluation Score = 45 | ||
| Roadway reconstruction program | 608146 | Boston Region | Marblehead | MARBLEHEAD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT PLEASANT STREET & VILLAGE, VINE AND CROSS STREETS | 4 | STP | $959,378 | $767,502 | $191,876 | Construction; STP Total Cost = $959,378; MPO Evaluation Score = 40 | ||
| Regionally Prioritized Projects subtotal ► | $49,716,309 | $39,973,047 | $9,743,262 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Section 1A / Fiscal Constraint Analysis | ||||||||||||
| Total Regional Federal Aid Funds Programmed ► | $101,539,859 | $101,539,859 | ◄Total Budget | $(0) | Funds Over Programmed | |||||||
| Section 1A instructions: MPO Template Name) Choose Regional Name from dropdown list to populate header and MPO column; Column C) Enter ID from ProjectInfo; Column E) Choose Municipality Name from dropdown list; Column H) Choose the Funding Source being used for the project - if multiple funding sources are being used enter multiple lines; Column I) Enter the total amount of funds being programmed in this fiscal year and for each funding source; Column J) Federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the amount and only change if needed for flex. Column K) Non-federal funds autocalculates. Please verify the split/match - if matching an FTA flex, coordinate with Rail & Transit Division before programming; Column L) Enter Additional Information as described - please do not use any other format. | STP programmed ► | $82,858,135 | $83,572,288 | ◄ Max STP | $714,153 | STP available | ||||||
| HSIP programmed ► | $2,631,724 | $4,296,710 | ◄ Min. HSIP | $1,664,986 | HSIP recommended not met | |||||||
| CMAQ programmed ► | $13,000,000 | $10,741,776 | ◄ Min. CMAQ | $(2,258,224) | CMAQ recommended met | |||||||
| TAP programmed ► | $3,050,000 | $2,929,085 | ◄ Min. TAP | $(120,915) | TAP amount exceeded! | |||||||
| HSIP, CMAQ, TAP Overprogrammed | $(0) | |||||||||||
| ►Section 1B / Earmark or Discretionary Grant Funded Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Other Federal Aid | ||||||||||||
| Earmark Discretionary | Project # | Boston | Municipalities | Description | District | HPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Earmark Discretionary | Project # | Boston | Municipalities | Description | District | HPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Other Federal Aid subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 2A / State Prioritized Reliability Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Inspections | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | Project # | Statewide | Multiple | Description | Multiple | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bridge Program / Inspections subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Off-System | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | Project # | MPO | N/A | Description | District | STP-BR-OFF | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bridge Program / Off-System subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | 606728 | Boston Region | Boston | BOSTON- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPAIRS ON B-16-365, BOWKER OVERPASS OVER STORROW DRIVE (EB) | 6 | NHPP-On | $24,009,680 | $19,207,744 | $4,801,936 | Construction | ||
| Bridge Program / On-System (NHS) subtotal ► | $24,009,680 | $19,207,744 | $4,801,936 | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | NHPP-Off | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bridge Program / On-System (Non-NHS) subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance | ||||||||||||
| Bridge Program | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | NHPP-On | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bridge Program / Systematic Maintenance subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Interstate Pavement | ||||||||||||
| Interstate Pavement | 608210 | Boston Region | Multiple | FOXBOROUGH- PLAINVILLE- WRENTHAM- FRANKLIN- INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE & RELATED WORK ON I-495 | 5 | NHPP | $11,497,920 | $10,348,128 | $1,149,792 | Construction | ||
| Insterstate Pavement subtotal ► | $11,497,920 | $10,348,128 | $1,149,792 | ◄ 90% Federal + 10% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Non-Interstate Pavement | ||||||||||||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608817 | Boston Region | Multiple | SALEM- LYNN- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 107 | 4 | NHPP | $2,566,500 | $2,053,200 | $513,300 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement | 608818 | Boston Region | Danvers | DANVERS- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 114 | 4 | NHPP | $1,916,320 | $1,533,056 | $383,264 | Construction | ||
| Non-Interstate Pavement subtotal ► | $4,482,820 | $3,586,256 | $896,564 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ► Roadway Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Roadway Improvements | Project # | MPO | N/A | Description | 5 | STP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Roadway Improvements subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ► Safety Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Safety Improvements | Project # | MPO | N/A | Description | Multiple | HSIP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Safety Improvements subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 2B / State Prioritized Modernization Projects | ||||||||||||
| ► ADA Retrofits | ||||||||||||
| ADA Retrofits | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | STP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| ADA Retrofits subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Intersection Improvements | ||||||||||||
| Intersection Improvements | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | HSIP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Intersection Improvements subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Intelligent Transportation Systems | ||||||||||||
| Intelligent Transportation Systems | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Intelligent Transportation System subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Roadway Reconstruction | ||||||||||||
| Roadway Reconstruction | 607977 | Boston Region | Multiple | HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE | 3 | NHPP | $37,500,000 | $30,000,000 | $7,500,000 | Construction / Total Project Cost = $270,000,000 / AC YR 3 of 6 / PSAC score 49 | ||
| Roadway Reconstruction subtotal ► | $37,500,000 | $30,000,000 | $7,500,000 | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Section 2C / State Prioritized Expansion Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Bicycles and Pedestrians | ||||||||||||
| Bicycles and Pedestrians | Project # | MPO | N/A | Description | District | CMAQ | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Bicycles and Pedestrians subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ 80% Federal + 20% Non-Federal | ||||||||
| ►Capacity | ||||||||||||
| Capacity | Project # | MPO | Municipalities | Description | District | CMAQ | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Capacity subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 3 / Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | ||||||||||||
| ►Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | ||||||||||||
| Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs | Project # | Statewide | Multiple | Description | Multiple | NHPP | $- | $- | $- | |||
| Other Statewide Items subtotal ► | $- | $- | $- | ◄ Funding Split Varies by Funding Source | ||||||||
| ►Section 4 / Non-Federally Aided Projects | ||||||||||||
| ►Non-Federally Aided Projects | ||||||||||||
| Non Federal Aid | 607977 | Boston Region | Multiple | HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE | 3 | NFA | $18,112,483 | $18,112,483 | Construction / Total Project Cost = $270,000,000 / AC YR 3 of 6 / PSAC score 49 | |||
| Non-Federal Aid subtotal► | $18,112,483 | $18,112,483 | ◄100% Non-Federal | |||||||||
| 2022 Summary | TIP Section 1 - 3: ▼ | TIP Section 4: ▼ | Total of All Projects ▼ | |||||||||
| Total ► | $127,206,729 | $18,112,483 | $145,319,212 | ◄ Total Spending in Region | ||||||||
| Federal Funds ► | $103,115,175 | $103,115,175 | ◄ Total Federal Spending in Region | |||||||||
| Non-Federal Funds ► | $24,091,554 | $18,112,483 | $42,204,037 | ◄ Total Non-Federal Spending in Region | ||||||||
| 701 CMR 7.00 Use of Road Flaggers and Police Details on Public Works Projects / 701 CMR 7.00 (the Regulation) was promulgated and became law on October 3, 2008. Under this Regulation, the CMR is applicable to any Public works Project that is performed within the limits of, or that impact traffic on, any Public Road. The Municipal Limitation referenced in this Regulation is applicable only to projects where the Municipality is the Awarding Authority. For all projects contained in the TIP, the Commonwealth is the Awarding Authority. Therefore, all projects must be considered and implemented in accordance with 701 CMR 7.00, and the Road Flagger and Police Detail Guidelines. By placing a project on the TIP, the Municipality acknowledges that 701 CMR 7.00 is applicable to its project and design and construction will be fully compliant with this Regulation. This information, and additional information relative to guidance and implementation of the Regulation can be found at the following link on the MassDOT Highway Division website: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/flaggers/main.aspx | ||||||||||||
| Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) | ||||||||||
| Project List (FY2022) | ||||||||||
| FTA Program | Project Number | Transit Agency | FTA Activity Line Item | Project Description | Carryover (unobligated) | Federal Funds | State Funds | TDC | Local Funds | Total Cost |
| 5307 | ||||||||||
| 5307 | RTD0006090 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 117A00 | PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE | 2021 - $325,000 | $325,000 | $0 | $0 | $81,250 | $406,250 |
| 5307 | RTD0006091 | Cape Ann Transportation Authority | 114206 | ACQUIRE - SHOP EQUIPMENT | 2021 - $40,000 | $40,000 | $10,000 | $0 | $0 | $50,000 |
| 5307 | RTD0006299 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 117C00 | NON FIXED ROUTE ADA PARA SERV | 2021 - $1,300,000 | $1,300,000 | $325,000 | $0 | $0 | $1,625,000 |
| 5307 | RTD0006300 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 114200 | ACQUISITION OF BUS SUPPORT EQUIP/FACILITIES | 2021 - $248,415 | $248,415 | $62,104 | $0 | $0 | $310,519 |
| 5307 | RTD0006301 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 113403 | TERMINAL, INTERMODAL (TRANSIT) | 2021 - $150,000 | $150,000 | $37,500 | $0 | $0 | $187,500 |
| 5307 | RTD0006302 | MetroWest Regional Transit Authority | 440000 | Mobility Management | 2021 - $25,000 | $25,000 | $6,250 | $0 | $0 | $31,250 |
| 5307 | RTD0006375 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 121200 | Revenue Vehicle Program | $80,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $20,000,000 | $100,000,000 | |
| 5307 | RTD0006376 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 126301 | Systemwide Signals Program | $65,840,976 | $0 | $0 | $16,460,244 | $82,301,220 | |
| Subtotal | $147,929,391 | $440,854 | $0 | $36,541,494 | $184,911,739 | |||||
| 5309 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 5310 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 5311 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| 5337 | ||||||||||
| 5337 | RTD0006377 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 122405 | Bridge & Tunnel Program | $72,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $18,000,000 | $90,000,000 | |
| 5337 | RTD0006378 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 123400 | Stations and Facilities Program | $11,347,989 | $0 | $0 | $2,836,997 | $14,184,986 | |
| 5337 | RTD0006379 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 126301 | Systemwide Signals Program | $64,000,000 | $0 | $0 | $16,000,000 | $80,000,000 | |
| Subtotal | $147,347,989 | $0 | $0 | $36,836,997 | $184,184,986 | |||||
| 5339 | ||||||||||
| 5339 | RTD0006380 | Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) | 111400 | Bus Program | $5,552,214 | $0 | $0 | $1,388,053 | $6,940,267 | |
| Subtotal | $5,552,214 | $0 | $0 | $1,388,053 | $6,940,267 | |||||
| 5320 | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Other Federal | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Other Non-Federal | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||||
| Total | $300,829,594 | $440,854 | $0 | $74,766,544 | $376,036,992 | |||||
| Funds listed under the Carry Over column are included in the Federal Amount | ||||||||||
Municipality(ies): The municipality (or municipalities) in which a project is located.
Project Name: The project name or descriptor of the project location.
STIP Program: Every project programmed in the TIP is categorized by MassDOT into one of three state priority areas: reliability, modernization, or expansion. Within these priority areas, projects are categorized into one of several STIP programs. This organization is illustrated below:
Air Quality Status: The air quality status of the project in the MPO’s regional travel demand model. A project can be analyzed in the model if it adds capacity to the transportation system (for example, additional travel lanes on a highway, new transit service, or changes in transit service frequency or headways). Individual project benefits are not calculated, but are included in a total emission reduction calculation for the region. If the project is not included in the model it is shown as “exempt.”
CO2 Impact: As discussed above, if a project is included in the model it will have no individual carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emission impact calculation associated with it. For all other projects, if project information is available, the quantified or assumed annual tons of carbon dioxide reduced (or increased) by the project are shown. A CO2 impact analysis can be done for intersection improvement projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects, replacement bus projects, and new transit service. A CO2 impact analysis cannot be done for bridge replacement projects or pavement maintenance/or rehabilitation projects; these projects are listed as having no CO2 impact. See Appendix C for more details on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission monitoring and evaluation.
Evaluation Rating: The number of points scored by the project based on the evaluation criteria.
MPO/CTPS Study: Past studies funded in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) or reports conducted within the project area.
LRTP Status: The time band that the project is programmed in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), if applicable.
Project Length: The length of the project in miles. This information is based on the best available data, and comes mainly from MassDOT’s Project Information website and from communication with project proponents or MassDOT project managers. Project lengths are engineering design estimates and may change during project development and construction.
Project Description: The description of the project, if it is available. This is based on the written description of the project that is included on MassDOT’s Project Information website, http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ProjectInfo.aspx.
Year: The programming year(s) of the project.
Funding Program: The funding program(s) of the project. See Chapter 2 for more details on funding programs.
Total Funding Programmed: The total funding programmed for the project based on the year of expenditure.
Information regarding TIP projects changes periodically. For more information on all projects please visit MassDOT’s Project Information website, www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ProjectInfo.aspx; the Boston Region MPO’s website, www.bostonmpo.org/; or, contact Ali Kleyman, TIP Manager, at akleyman@ctps.org.
The following pages contain written descriptions of each of the projects funded in the FFYs 2018-2022 TIP. These are currently only provided in PDF format. If you need the information in a different format, please contact Ali Kleyman at akleyman@ctps.org.
Chapter four
Using Performance Measures to Track and Demonstrate Progress
Increasingly, over the past two decades, transportation agencies have been applying performance management—a strategic approach that uses performance data to help achieve desired outcomes—to support decision-making. Performance management is credited with improving project and program delivery, informing investment decision-making, focusing staff on leadership priorities, and providing greater transparency and accountability to the public.
Performance-based planning and programming (PBPP) refers to transportation agencies’ application of performance management in their planning and programming work to achieve desired outcomes for the multimodal transportation system. For metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), this embraces a range of activities and products developed together with other agencies, stakeholders, and the public as part of the 3C metropolitan transportation planning process. This includes developing the following:
The goal of PBPP is to ensure that transportation investment decisions—both for long-term planning and short-term funding—are oriented toward meeting established goals.
The cornerstone of the transportation authorization legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century’s (MAP-21), was the establishment of a performance- and outcome-based surface transportation program. The current legislation, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), continues the PBPP provisions established under MAP-21.
States will invest resources in projects to achieve individual state targets that collectively will make progress toward national goals, as detailed in the FAST Act:
Safety—Achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads
Infrastructure condition—Maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state-of-good repair
Congestion reduction—Achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System (NHS)
System reliability—Improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system
Freight movement and economic vitality—Improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development
Table 4-1 shows the relationship between these national goals and the MPO’s goals, which were established as part of the MPO’s current LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040. These goals and related objectives are described in Chapter 1 of this document.
TABLE 4-1:
National and MPO Performance Goals
National Goal |
MPO Goal |
Safety |
Safety |
Infrastructure Condition |
System Preservation |
System Reliability |
Capacity Management/Mobility |
Congestion Reduction |
Capacity Management/Mobility |
Environmental Sustainability |
Clean Air/Clean Communities |
Freight Movement/ Economic Vitality |
Capacity Management/Mobility and Economic Vitality |
Reduced Project Delivery Delays |
Not applicable |
Not applicable |
Transportation Equity |
This performance-based planning mandate is also designed to help the nation’s public transportation systems to provide high-quality service to all users, including people with disabilities, seniors, and individuals who depend on public transportation.
The US Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with states, MPOs, and other stakeholders, has established measures in performance areas relevant to the aforementioned national goals. Table 4-2 lists federally required performance measures for the transit system and Table 4-3 lists federally required performance measures for the highway system.
TABLE 4-2:
Federally Required TRANSIT Performance measures
National Goal |
Transit Performance Area or Asset Category |
Performance Measure |
Safety |
Fatalities |
Total number of reportable fatalities and rate per total vehicle revenue-miles by mode |
Safety |
Injuries |
Total number of reportable injuries and rate per total vehicle revenue-miles by mode |
Safety |
Safety Events |
Total number of reportable events and rate per total vehicle revenue-miles by mode |
Safety |
System Reliability |
Mean distance between major mechanical failures by mode |
Infrastructure Condition |
Equipment |
Percentage of vehicles that have met or exceeded their Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) |
Infrastructure Condition |
Rolling Stock |
Percent of revenue vehicles within a particular asset class that have met or exceeded their ULB |
Infrastructure Condition |
Infrastructure |
Percentage of track segments with performance restrictions |
Infrastructure Condition |
Facilities |
Percentage of facilities within an asset class rated below 3.0 on the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Economic Requirements Model scale |
Note: This table reflects federally required transit performance measures as of May 20, 2017. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA), and MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA) are developing targets for infrastructure condition measures, which are described in the Transit Asset Management (TAM) Rule, which was finalized in July 2016 and is in effect. The Boston Region MPO anticipates adopting metropolitan area targets for these measures by fall 2018. The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan Rule, which requires public transportation operators and MPOs to develop targets for safety measures identified in the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, has not been finalized.
1The definition of reportable for fatalities, injuries, and events is defined in the National Transit Database Safety and Security Reporting Manual.
Sources: National Public Transportation Safety Plan, the proposed Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan Rule, and the final TAM Rule
TABLE 4-3:
Federally Required Highway Performance measures
| National Goal |
Highway Performance Area |
Performance Measure |
|---|---|---|
Safety |
Injuries and Fatalities |
|
Infrastructure Condition |
Pavement Condition |
|
Infrastructure Condition |
Bridge Condition |
|
System Reliability |
Performance of the National Highway System |
|
Freight Movement and Economic Vitality |
Freight Movement on the Interstate System |
Truck Travel Time Reliability Index |
Congestion Reduction |
Traffic Congestion |
|
Environmental Sustainability |
On-Road Mobile Source Emissions |
Total emissions reduction |
Note: This table reflects federally required highway performance measures as of May 20, 2017. Rules pertaining to these performance measures (except
where noted) are now in effect. The MPO will develop targets for these measures according to the federal government’s and Commonwealth’s guidelines
and schedules.
1 The provisions of the final rules for federally required highway performance measures that pertain to carbon dioxide emissions on the National Highway
System have been indefinitely delayed pending further notice and comment procedures. For more information on the MPO’s response to the
Commonwealth’s greenhouse gas monitoring requirements, see Chapters 1 and 2 and Appendix C.
NHS: National Highway System
States, public transit operators, and MPOs are required to set performance targets to address these measures and track progress toward attainment of desired outcomes for the transportation system. MPOs must set targets no later than 180 days after their respective states or public transit operators have set their targets for highway or transit system performance. States, public transit operators, and MPOs are required to coordinate with one another and to share information and data so that there is consistency across these agencies’ target setting processes.
Once the MPO has established targets for each performance measure, the MPO’s LRTP and TIP will become planning and programming mechanisms to help achieve these targets. They will also become valuable reporting tools. Future LRTPs and TIPs will include descriptions of the MPO’s performance measures and targets, including those that are federally required. The LRTPs will describe the state of the transportation system with respect to the federally required measures and will report on progress toward meeting required targets. The TIPs will describe the links between short-term capital investment priorities and these measures and targets, and discuss how these investments are anticipated to help the MPO achieve its targets.
The Boston Region MPO continues to integrate PBPP practices into its activities to meet FAST Act performance-measure requirements and improve MPO decision-making. The MPO has conducted the following activities:
There are two major next steps for the MPO. First, the MPO will establish a set of performance measures to track on an ongoing basis, including federally required measures and other measures of interest. Then, targets will be set for federally required measures, and potentially other measures.
The MPO’s goals provide the foundation for the TIP evaluation criteria used in the project selection process, as described in Chapter 2. These criteria describe the ways that individual projects can help the MPO advance its various goals. Over time, the contributions made by TIP projects are expected to generate changes in the transportation system’s performance.
In Charting Progress to 2040, the MPO strengthened the link between its spending and improvements to transportation performance by establishing a series of investment programs. These programs each support multiple MPO goals, and include the following:
As part of developing this LRTP, the MPO allocated a large portion of its discretionary funds to these investment programs over the two-decade span of the LRTP. These funds are assigned to TIP projects that meet the investment programs’ criteria. Details about these programs and their relationship to MPO goals are shown in Figure 4-1. Table 4-4 and Figure 4-2 show how FFYs 2018−22 Regional Target funding is distributed across MPO investment programs.
TABLE 4-4:
Projects and funding, by MPO Investment program
Investment Program |
Number of Projects |
Funding for Projects |
Major Infrastructure |
7 |
$304.1 million |
Complete Streets |
15 |
$140 million |
Intersection Improvements |
6 |
$28.9 million |
Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections |
3 |
$18.7 million |
Community Transportation / Parking / Clean Air and Mobility |
N/A |
$2.0 million |
Total Projects |
31 |
$493.6 million |
Note: No projects are currently programmed in the Community Transportation/Parking/Clean Air and Mobility Program. Funding amounts have been rounded to the nearest $100,000.
Source: CTPS
FIGURE 4-2:
FFYs 2018−22 TIP Regional Target funding, by MPO Investment program
Source: CTPS
The following sections of this chapter describe trends for several performance measures and demonstrate how transportation investments for the next five years would advance the MPO’s goals and objectives using available project data. These sections will be updated over time as the MPO integrates methods for monitoring federally required performance measures and others into its PBPP practice.
Safety for all transportation modes continues to be a top priority for the Boston Region MPO. The MPO’s goals commit to investing in projects and programs that reduce the severity of crashes for all modes.
The MPO tracks traffic fatalities and serious injuries in the Boston region using data on motor vehicle crashes to examine past trends, identify regional safety issues, and set future targets for preferred performance. Tracking these measures helps to gauge the effectiveness of MPO transportation investments in helping to reduce fatalities and injuries.
Between 2009 and 2014, traffic fatalities (based on a rolling five-year average) decreased from 137 fatalities in 2009 to 121 in 2014, a decline of 12 percent. Figure 4-3 shows the change in traffic fatalities by mode during this period and indicates that the decline in fatalities represents fewer automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle fatalities. Similarly, total traffic crashes and injuries declined by 24 percent and 25 percent, respectively, between 2009 and 2014. Information on injuries is shown in Figure 4-4.
FIGURE 4-3:
Traffic Fatalities in the Boston Region by Mode, 2009−2014
Sources: MassDOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Reporting System, and the MassDOT Crash Data System.
Despite these overall gains, crashes and injuries involving pedestrians and bicyclists rose during this same period. Between 2009 and 2014, roughly two-thirds of pedestrian and bicycle crashes resulted in an injury. For pedestrian-involved crashes, the number of crashes increased by 22 percent and injuries by 39 percent. For bicyclist-involved crashes, the number of crashes increased by 17 percent and injuries by 27 percent.
In addition to pedestrian and bicycle safety issues, motor vehicle safety issues remain concerning. Though the number of traffic crashes is decreasing, there are a number of high-crash locations throughout the Boston region, including 69 of the Top 200 Crash Locations statewide.4
FIGURE 4-4:
Traffic Injuries in the Boston Region by Mode, 2009−2014
Sources: MassDOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Reporting System, and the MassDOT Crash Data System.
Figure 4-5 shows the change in the traffic fatality rate and traffic injury rate in the Boston region between 2009 and 2014; these rates are based on 100 million vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and rolling five-year averages for fatalities, injuries, and VMT. During this period, the traffic fatality rate steadily declined by 12 percent from 0.52 fatalities per 100 million VMT to 0.46 fatalities per 100 million VMT. The traffic injury rate dropped by 26 percent, from 84 injuries per 100 million VMT to 62 injuries per 100 million VMT.
FIGURE 4-5:
Total Traffic Injury Rate and Traffic Fatality Rate (per 100 million Vehicle-Miles Traveled) in the Boston Region, 2009-14
Sources: MassDOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Reporting System, and the MassDOT Crash Data System.
In prioritizing its capital investments for the TIP, the MPO uses project-evaluation criteria to determine projects’ ability to support the objective of reducing crash severity for all modes. These criteria assess the safety needs at locations where projects are proposed based on the equivalent property damage only (EPDO) method of assessing crash severity; this method applies weighting factors based on whether motor vehicle crashes at the location involved property damage, injuries, or fatalities. These criteria also assess how well projects will address safety issues by considering proposed safety countermeasures that would be implemented.
Within the TIP’s Regional Target Program, 12 proposed highway investments will improve safety at 25 high-crash locations to reduce crash severity for all modes. 5
Three intersection improvement projects will enhance safety for automobiles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians by implementing safety countermeasures at four high-crash locations: Derby Street, Whiting Street (Route 53) and Gardner Street in Hingham; Cabot Street at Dodge Street in Beverly; Cabot Street at Rantoul Street in Beverly; and Route 1 at University Avenue in Norwood.
One example of a major infrastructure project that will improve safety is the Route 128 Add-a-Lane project, which will widen 3.25 miles of Interstate 95 in Needham and Wellesley to install an additional 12-foot travel lane and 10-foot shoulder in each direction to address serious safety issues. The addition of a fourth travel lane will eliminate use of the breakdown lane during peak periods. Also, adding collector roads between Highland Avenue and Kendrick Streets will provide safer weaving movements between the interchanges.
The FFYs 2018-22 TIP Regional Target Program proposes 15 Complete Streets projects that will implement safety improvements at eight high-crash locations along corridors across the region. These corridor investments will provide safety improvements for automobiles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians. In addition, improvements on these 15 corridors will provide safe and continuous accommodations for non-motorized users by adding 32 lane miles of new bicycle facilities and eight miles of new sidewalk.
For example, the reconstruction of Broadway in Chelsea will implement safety improvements that will address three high-crash locations along the one-mile corridor. In addition, reconstruction of Ferry Street in Everett will improve safe access for pedestrians to businesses, schools, and bus stops along the corridor by providing continuous sidewalks and improved crossings.
System preservation is a priority for the Boston Region MPO because the region’s transportation infrastructure is aging. The demands placed on highway and transit facilities have been taxing to the point that routine maintenance is insufficient to keep up with the need. As a result, there is a significant backlog of maintenance and state-of-good-repair work to be done on the highway and transit systems, including on bridges, roadway pavement, transit rolling stock, and traffic- and transit-control equipment.
As of 2014, MassDOT’s Pavement Management Program monitored approximately 4,150 lane miles of interstate, access-controlled arterial and collector roadways, and other arterial and collector roadways in the Boston region. 6 It has been the policy of the MPO not to fund resurfacing-only projects through the TIP. However, the MPO does make funding decisions for roadway reconstruction projects that include resurfacing, usually full-depth reconstruction, in addition to other design elements.
Figure 4-6 displays the number of lane miles in the Boston region—sorted by roadway classification—that were in good or better condition, based on International Roughness Index ratings, between 2010 and 2014. The figure indicates that, during this period, the number of lane miles in good or better condition on MassDOT-maintained roadways has remained relatively constant for 1) interstates, 2) access-controlled arterials and collectors, and 3) other arterials and collectors. Specifically, the total number of interstate miles in good condition has remained relatively consistent over this period, while the total number of access-controlled arterial and collector miles in good condition has increased by 11 percent, and the total number of other arterial and collector miles in good condition has declined by about two percent.
FIGURE 4-6:
Lane Miles of Pavement in Good or Better Condition in the Boston Region by Roadway Classification, 2010-2014
Note: This chart reflects data recorded in the year-end Massachusetts Road Inventory files for 2010 through 2014. The lane miles for each year in this chart were calculated using pavement condition data from the past five years to account for data collection cycles and data processing. Good, fair, and poor classifications are based on International Roughness Index (IRI) ratings.
Source: MassDOT Pavement Management Program.
Figure 4-7 shows the number of interstate, access-controlled arterial and collector, and other arterial and collector lane miles that are in good, fair, or poor condition. According to data on measured roadways from the 2014 year-end Massachusetts Road Inventory file, approximately 71 percent of roadway lane miles are in good condition, 25 percent are in fair condition, and four percent are in poor condition—which meets MassDOT’s performance measure of at least 65 percent of the pavement in good condition. However, MassDOT-maintained arterial and collector roadways (without access controls) continue to account for a disproportionate share of substandard roadway lane miles. This roadway type accounted for 55 percent of the monitored roadway lane miles, but about 88 percent of the roadway lane miles that are in substandard condition.
FIGURE 4-7:
Pavement Condition in the Boston Region by Roadway Classification
Note: This chart reflects data recorded in the year-end 2014 Massachusetts Road Inventory file, which includes pavement data collected primarily in 2013. Good, fair, and poor classifications are based on International Roughness Index (IRI) ratings.
Source: MassDOT Pavement Management Program.
MassDOT also monitors the condition of its bridges across the state. There are 2,866 bridges located within the Boston region. Some are in substandard condition because they have been deemed by MassDOT bridge inspectors to be structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, or weight restricted (posted). Figure 4-8 displays the number of substandard bridges in the Boston region by condition between 2012 and 2016. During this period, the percentage of structurally deficient bridges remained relatively constant, varying between five and six percent of all bridges in the region. The share of functionally obsolete bridges increased from 19 to 20 percent, and the share of posted bridges declined from five to four percent.
FIGURE 4-8:
NUMBERS of Substandard Bridges in the Boston Region by Condition
Source: MassDOT Bridge Inventory.
In prioritizing its capital investments for the TIP, the MPO uses project-evaluation criteria to assess how well each project improves pavement, bridge, signal, and transit asset condition to advance the MPO’s goal of maintaining a state-of-good repair on the region’s transportation system.
Virtually all of the Regional Target Program investments in the TIP advance the MPO’s system preservation goal to maintain the transportation system by improving pavement condition, traffic signal equipment, or sidewalk infrastructure; prioritizing projects that enable improved emergency response; or improving the resiliency of the transportation system to extreme weather conditions. In addition, the Regional Target Program highway investments contribute modestly to bridge preservation. Yet, the MassDOT Bridge Program remains the primary funding source for replacement or rehabilitation of substandard bridges.
The FFYs 2018-22 TIP’s Regional Target Program investments will improve approximately 67 lane miles of substandard pavement traveled daily by nearly 573,000 vehicles; 47 miles of substandard sidewalk; and 10 substandard bridges traveled daily by approximately 326,900 vehicles. In addition, there are 19 projects that will improve emergency response or make the transportation system more resilient to extreme weather conditions.
The FFYs 2018–22 TIP’s Regional Target Program will improve substandard pavement at seven locations and will also improve emergency response or make the transportation system more resilient to extreme weather conditions.
The FFYs 2018-22 TIP Regional Target Program will resurface or reconstruct more than 38 lane miles of substandard pavement; repair 27 miles of sidewalk infrastructure; and rehabilitate one substandard bridge on an arterial roadway. In addition, there are nine projects that will improve emergency response or make the transportation more resilient to extreme weather conditions.
For example, the reconstruction of Ferry Street in Everett will resurface more than three lane miles of substandard pavement while bringing six traffic signals, substandard sidewalks, street lighting, signs, and pavement markings into a state of good repair.
The reconstruction of Route 1A in Walpole will resurface nearly five lane miles of substandard pavement; repair nearly five miles of substandard sidewalk; signalize four intersections; and improve one substandard bridge.
The FFYs 2018-22 TIP’s Regional Target Program will resurface or reconstruct approximately 25 lane miles of substandard pavement, and improve more than 15 miles of sidewalk infrastructure, and nine substandard bridges. In addition, there are five projects that will improve emergency response or make the transportation more resilient to extreme weather conditions.
For example, the reconstruction of Highland Avenue and Needham Street in Newton and Needham will improve four lane miles of substandard pavement, three miles of sidewalk infrastructure, and one substandard bridge, while bringing traffic signals, street lighting, signs, and pavement markings into a state of good repair.
The Route 128 Add-a-Lane project will replace one structurally deficient bridge and three functionally obsolete bridges as part of widening Interstate 95 in Needham and Wellesley.
Through its goal and objectives for capacity management and mobility, the MPO seeks to maximize the region’s existing transportation system so that both people and goods can move reliably and connect to key destinations. The Boston region is mature in development, which creates challenges to making major changes to its transportation infrastructure.
In order to determine how well the region’s roadways are performing, the MPO applies performance measures that gauge the duration, extent, intensity, and reliability (or regularity) of the occurrence of congestion. MPO staff analyzed congestion in the region using the CMP Express Highway and Arterial Performance Dashboards to establish a baseline for future comparison. MPO staff established congestion thresholds based on travel time index (TTI), which is the average peak-period travel time divided by free-flow travel time. When the average peak-period travel time equals free-flow travel time, the index equals one (1); higher values indicate more congestion. MPO staff established the following congestion thresholds based on TTI:
Figure 4-9 displays the percentage of lane miles of congestion based on TTI on the CMP-monitored expressway network. In the Boston region, 22 percent of all expressway lane miles in the AM peak period and 20 percent of all expressway lane miles in PM peak period experience moderate to severe congestion.
FIGURE 4-9:
Lane Miles of Congestion in the Boston Region: CMP-Monitored Expressways
Source: Boston Region MPO Congestion Management Process (2012 INRIX data).
The measure of lane miles of congestion was significantly less for the arterial network. Figure 4-10 displays the percentage of lane miles of congestion based on TTI on the CMP arterial network. For the arterial network, only seven percent of arterials in the AM peak period and four percent of arterials in the PM peak period experience moderate to severe congestion.
FIGURE 4-10:
Lane Miles of Congestion in the Boston Region: CMP-Monitored Arterials
Moving forward, the MPO will continue to monitor roadway congestion data to track system performance. This annual analysis will depend on routinely updated data sources, which may require the purchase of INRIX data or other comparable data. As the MPO integrates methods for monitoring federally required system reliability, congestion reduction, and freight movement performance measures into its PBPP practice, it will report information specific to these measures.
In prioritizing its capital investments in the TIP, the MPO uses evaluation criteria to assess how well each project expands transportation options or helps reduce congestion and delay to advance the MPO’s goal of managing capacity and improving mobility.
The MPO seeks to manage capacity on its transportation network and improve mobility for its users by extending transit service to provide alternatives to the single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) mode of travel, adding roadway capacity at bottleneck locations, and implementing traffic and operational improvements along congested corridors.
The FFYs 2018-22 TIP Regional Target Program highway investments will add 1 lane miles of bicycle facilities, add 10 miles of new sidewalk, and improve intermodal connections and/or access to transit at 24 locations. In addition, these investments would result in about 9,700 hours of reduced daily vehicle delay.7
The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program will add five lane miles of bicycle lanes and over a mile of sidewalk infrastructure, and will improve intermodal connections and/or access to transit as a result of four projects. Combined, Intersection Improvement Program investments are expected to result in more than 1,970 hours of reduced daily vehicle delay.
The FFYs 2018-22 TIP Regional Target Program will add nearly 32 lane miles of bicycle facilities; eight miles of new sidewalk infrastructure; and improve intermodal connections and/or connections to transit along 13 corridors.
For example, the reconstruction of Route 126 (Pond Street) in Ashland will transform the corridor by adding sidewalks and bicycle lanes where no such facilities currently exist. These improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians will provide the necessary facilities to support access to existing MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA) bus services in the corridor. In addition, the Gateway East project in Brookline will provide safe access for bicyclists by implementing bicycle lanes that physically separate the facility from the travel lane to reduce conflicts between motorists and bicyclists.
The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program highway investments will add more than 19 miles of bicycle facilities, nearly a mile of sidewalk infrastructure, and improve intermodal connections and/or access to transit along four corridors.
For example, the reconstruction of Route 18 (Main Street) in Weymouth will improve an arterial bottleneck location by widening a four-mile section of the corridor from two to four lanes. In addition, the project will expand transportation options by adding eight miles of bicycle lanes. The Route 128 Add-a-Lane project will improve an express highway bottleneck location by widening 3.25 miles of Interstate 95 in Needham and Wellesley.
The MPO’s transportation equity goals are to ensure that all residents fairly share the benefits and burdens of its transportation planning decisions, have opportunities to participate in the transportation planning process, and have a voice in the selection of the transportation investments in their communities. To this end, the MPO systematically integrates the concerns of specific populations it has identified as transportation equity populations into its planning process and strives to address these concerns through its selection of transportation projects.
Several populations are considered transportation equity populations by the MPO; their needs are specifically considered at the various stages of the MPO’s planning process—including analyses of benefits and burdens, project evaluation, and public outreach. These populations include minorities, the elderly (75 years or older), people with limited English proficiency (LEP), low income households, zero-vehicle households, and people with disabilities. These populations include those that are protected by federal laws and regulations—such as minorities and persons with disabilities—as well as those that are not covered by federal laws or regulations but are of interest to the MPO from an equity standpoint (such as zero-vehicle households).
The MPO’s equity considerations are rooted in several federal regulations and presidential executive orders, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898 (addressing environmental justice), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other US Department of Transportation orders. (For more information on these laws and orders, see Chapter 1.)
The MPO’s project evaluation process analyzes the extent to which projects that are considered for funding through the TIP would potentially serve transportation equity populations. Table 4-5 lists each transportation equity population group and the percentage of the Boston region’s total population that falls into each category.
TABLE 4-5:
Transportation Equity Populations
in the Boston Region
Transportation Equity Category |
Equity Populationa |
Boston Region Total Populationa |
Share of Boston Region Total Population |
Minority Population |
878,118 |
3,161,712 |
27.8% |
Limited English Proficiency Populationb |
312,343 |
2,985,344 |
10.5% |
Elderly Population (75 years and older) |
211,347 |
3,161,712 |
6.7% |
Persons with Disabilitiesc |
314,010 |
3,129,938 |
10.0% |
Low-Income Householdsd |
399,607 |
1,243,189 |
32.1% |
Zero-Vehicle Households |
196,718 |
1,243,189 |
15.8% |
a: For the minority, LEP, elderly, and persons with disabilities categories, the amounts in the “Equity Population” and “Boston Region Total Populations” columns reflect numbers of people. For the low-income and zero-vehicle household categories, the amounts in these columns reflect numbers of households. b: Limited English proficiency is tabulated for the population aged five and older: c: Disability status is tabulated for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. d: The median household income in the Boston region was $76,040 in 2010-14. The MPO’s low-income threshold is 60 percent of this value, or $45,624.
Sources: 2010 U S Census, 2010-14 American Community Survey.
The MPO’s transportation investments advance transportation equity by prioritizing projects with the potential to serve transportation equity populations. When conducting evaluations of proposed TIP projects, the MPO examines whether each project has the potential to serve one or more of these populations by examining the share each equity population comprises of the total population within one-half mile of the project. This share is then compared to the share that each transportation equity population group makes up of the total Boston region population. Appendix A lists the results for each evaluated project.
Table 4-6 provides a illustrative comparison of the transportation equity populations that may be served by the Green Line Extension and the highway projects programmed in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP (funded by Regional Targets) to the total population that may be served by these investments (based on proximity to the project, as defined above).
The table shows that the share of each group that may be served by these Regional Target-funded projects (of the total population served by these projects) approaches or exceeds the share each group comprises of the total Boston region population (shown in Table 4-5).
TABLE 4-6:
Transportation Equity populations NEAR FFYs 2018-22 Regional Target-Funded TIP PROJECTS
Transportation Equity Category |
Equity Population in Project Areaa,b |
Total Population in Project Areaa,b |
Share of Population in Project Area |
Minority Population |
145,386 |
413,470 |
35.2% |
Limited English Proficiency Populationc |
56,828 |
391,374 |
14.5% |
Elderly Population |
21,730 |
413,470 |
5.3% |
Persons with Disabilitiesd |
38,991 |
408,711 |
9.5% |
Low-Income Householdse |
63,707 |
166,809 |
38.2% |
Zero-Vehicle Households |
41,566 |
166,809 |
24.9% |
a: For minority, LEP, elderly, and persons with disabilities populations, the numbers in the “Equity Population in a Project Area” and “Share of Population in Project Area” columns reflect numbers of people. For the low-income and zero-vehicle household categories, the numbers in these columns reflect the number of households. b: This analysis examines populations located within a one-half mile buffer of FFYs 2018-22 TIP projects. c: Limited English proficiency is tabulated for the population aged five and older: d: Disability status is tabulated for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. e: The median household income in the Boston region was $76,040 in 2010-14. The low income threshold is 60 percent of this value, or $45,624.
Sources: 2010 U S Census, 2010-14 American Community Survey.
The results of this analysis indicate that the communities benefitting from these projects generally have a larger percentage of transportation equity populations than the Boston region as a whole. However, this analysis uses a very basic approach for understanding how various transportation equity populations may be affected by TIP projects, and it also only includes a subset of all projects described in the TIP (statewide roadway and transit projects are not included).
The MPO is continuing to evaluate more sophisticated methods for conducting equity analyses on Regional Target-funded projects to ensure the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens from these projects across all communities in the Boston region. For instance, MPO staff are investigating data sources and analytical techniques to determine the most effective and appropriate ways to factor transportation equity populations into equity analyses. Future TIPs will describe new performance metrics and analyses as new methods are implemented.
The Boston Region MPO agrees that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute to climate change. If climate trends continue as projected, the conditions in the Boston region will include a rise in sea level coupled with storm-induced flooding, and warmer temperatures that would affect the region’s infrastructure, economy, human health, and natural resources. Massachusetts is responding to this challenge by taking action to reduce the GHGs produced in the state, including those generated by the transportation sector. To that end, Massachusetts passed its Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires reductions of GHGs by 2020, and further reductions by 2050, relative to 1990 baseline conditions.
In prioritizing its capital investments for the TIP and to advance the MPO’s goal of promoting clean air and clean communities, the MPO uses evaluation criteria to assess the projected transportation-related emissions of each project. For more information about the MPO’s GHG monitoring and evaluation activities, see Appendix C.
The MPO’s transportation investments advance its goal of creating an environmentally friendly transportation system by prioritizing projects that reduce GHGs and other transportation-related emissions as well as those that address environmental problems.
The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program highway investments are estimated to reduce nearly 12,200 annual tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and more than 18,300 annual kilograms of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) because of traffic flow improvements and increased bicycle and pedestrian travel8 .
The Intersection Improvement projects in the FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program are estimated to reduce approximately 1,940 annual tons of CO2 and 2,200 annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, and CO because of traffic flow improvements and increased bicycle and pedestrian travel.
The Complete Streets projects in the FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program are estimated to reduce more than 5,680 annual tons of CO2 and more than 8,900 annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, and CO because of traffic flow improvements and increased bicycle and pedestrian travel.
For example, the reconstruction of Boylston Street in Boston will provide significant reductions in vehicle delay through improvements at five intersections, and encourage increased bicycle and pedestrian trips through safer pedestrian crossings and new bicycle lanes.
The Major Infrastructure highway projects in the FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program are estimated to reduce more than 4,470 annual tons of CO2 and nearly 6,690 annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, and CO because of traffic-flow improvements and increased bicycle and pedestrian travel. 9
For example, the reconstruction of Highland Avenue and Needham Street in Newton and Needham will provide significant reductions in vehicle delay through intersection improvements, and encourage increased bicycle and pedestrian trips via safer pedestrian crossings and new bicycle lanes.
The MPO seeks to ensure that the transportation network provides a strong foundation for an economically vibrant region, and for that reason, the MPO has set a goal for enhancing economic vitality. This goal supports the Boston region’s land-use plan, MetroFuture, which was developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC).
One of MetroFuture’s strategies is to coordinate transportation investments to guide economic growth in the region.
MAPC worked with its state partners at the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (EOHED) and the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA), as well as municipalities, to identify locations throughout the region appropriate for building housing stock and siting employers, and for preserving open space in the future. They also identified the infrastructure improvements required to support the outcomes planned for these local, regional, and state-level priority development and preservation areas.
This process identified locations that are best suited to support the type of continued economic vitality and future growth that the market demands, and which communities desire. Identifying these key growth and preservation locations also helps MAPC, the Boston Region MPO, and state agencies to understand both the infrastructure and technical-assistance needs required to support MetroFuture’s vision and to prioritize limited regional and state funding for development and land preservation.
The MPO has not yet established performance measures to track the coordination of land-use development and transportation investments. However, the MPO uses evaluation criteria to assess how well each project considered for TIP funding advances MetroFuture’s land-use planning. This means supporting investments in locations that have already been developed for residential, commercial, or industrial use; locations with adequate sewer and water infrastructure; areas identified for economic development by state, regional, and local planning; and areas with a relatively high density of existing development.
The MPO’s transportation investments advance economic vitality by prioritizing projects that provide access by multiple transportation modes to targeted development areas and that serve areas of concentrated development. The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program includes 21 highway investments that provide multimodal access to targeted development areas and 29 highway investments that serve areas of concentrated development.
The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program includes four Intersection Improvements projects that provide multimodal access to targeted development areas that are well suited to support continued economic vitality and future growth.
The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program includes 11 Complete Streets projects that provide multimodal access to targeted development areas. For example, the reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main Street) in Natick will provide access to a 40R site located at the former Paperboard site at 182 North Main Street.
The FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target Program includes five Major Infrastructure projects that provide multimodal access to five targeted development areas well suited to support continued economic vitality and future growth.
For example, the reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue in Boston, Route 18 (Main Street) in Weymouth, and Highland Avenue and Needham Street in Newton and Needham will expand transportation options and enhance access to transit to support future growth and facilitate new development.
In addition, the reconstruction of Highland Avenue and Needham Street in Newton and Needham will leverage other investments in the form of an EOHED MassWorks award. This award will fund reconstruction of two intersections within the limits of the corridor reconstruction to address safety and congestion and support future development.
Figure 4-11 describes how the FFYs 2018–22 Regional Target-funded highway projects address various performance areas.
Figure 4-11
FFYS 2018-22 TIP TARGET PROGRAM HIGHWAY PROJECTS: BY THE NUMBERS
As mentioned previously, two major next steps for the Boston Region MPO will be to
States and MPOs are required to establish targets for the highway performance measures listed in Table 4-3. States will establish targets according to schedules established in various rulemakings on performance measures. Once these state targets have been set, for each measure, MPOs will decide whether to
The Boston Region MPO participates in the Transportation Program Managers Group’s subcommittee on performance measures, which is made up of staff of MassDOT and MPOs across the Commonwealth. The subcommittee focuses on performance measure and target coordination and shares knowledge and information regarding target-setting. The subcommittee will determine how MPOs will work with MassDOT’s targets as the MPOs decide whether to support a statewide target or set separate targets for their regions. During FFYs 2017 and 2018, the Boston Region MPO will set targets for highway performance measures.
Public transportation operators and MPOs are required to establish targets for the transit performance measures listed in Table 4-2. The Boston Region MPO has and will continue to coordinate with the MBTA, the MWRTA, and the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA) on their target-setting processes. The input from these transit operators will inform how the Boston Region MPO sets transit-related targets.
As the MPO’s targets for highway and transit performance measures are established, future TIPs will describe these targets, and how the MPO anticipates that TIP investments will help achieve them.
The FAST Act’s requirements for performance management form the backbone of the Boston Region MPO’s PBPP process. However, the MPO may choose to monitor other performance measures related to its goals in addition to those that are federally required. During FFYs 2017 and 2018, the MPO will review other potential performance measures to see whether there are others it wishes to track on an ongoing basis. As part of this process, the MPO may choose to establish targets for some of these measures.
Performance-based planning is an ongoing process that will continue to evolve as the MPO monitors and evaluates its planning and investment programs using performance measures. In addition to establishing measures and setting targets, the MPO will advance performance-based planning through its core planning documents by
In future years, if in its annual monitoring, the MPO sees that it is not making progress toward its targets, then the organization will need to consider modifying investment or policy priorities, and weigh the tradeoffs involved.
For example, allocating a greater share of funding to intersection improvements at high-crash locations may make significant progress toward reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries; however, it also may affect the MPO’s ability to meet system preservation targets for pavement or bridge conditions. By continuously monitoring and evaluating its progress, the MPO will be able to make these difficult decisions across competing goals and objectives in a more informed manner, resulting in greater outcomes for all concerned.
Chapter five
Determination of Air Quality Conformity
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts—with the exception of the islands of Dukes County—meets federal air quality standards for ground-level ozone. Therefore, the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is not required to perform a conformity determination for ozone for its Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to prove that new transportation projects will not result in emission levels that violate the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
In addition, the requirement to perform a conformity determination for carbon monoxide for several cities in the Boston region has expired. On April 1, 1996, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville as in attainment (in compliance) for carbon monoxide emissions. Subsequently, a carbon monoxide maintenance plan was set up through the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP) to ensure that emission levels did not increase. As the maintenance plan was in effect, past LRTPs included an air quality conformity analysis for these communities. As of April 1, 2016, however, the 20-year maintenance period for this carbon monoxide maintenance area expired and transportation conformity is no longer required for this pollutant in these communities. This is documented in a letter from the EPA dated May 12, 2016.
On April 22, 2002, the City of Waltham was re-designated as being in attainment for carbon monoxide 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 “budget test” (as budgets are not treated as being constraining in these areas for the length of the initial maintenance period). Any requirements for future “project-level” conformity determinations for projects located within this community will continue to use a “hot-spot” analysis to ensure that any new transportation projects in this area do not cause or contribute to violations of the carbon monoxide NAAQS.
Therefore, the MPO is not required to perform modeling analyses for a conformity determination for ozone or carbon monoxide; it is only required to provide the statement in the paragraph above regarding the Waltham “attainment area” in the TIP. However, the MPO still is 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. This status report is provided below.
Transportation control measures (TCMs) were submitted to EPA as SIP revisions in 1979 and 1982, and also as part of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project. The TCMs in the 1979 and 1982 submissions were accomplished through construction or implementation of ongoing programs.
The TCMs submitted as part of the CA/T project mitigation have been documented in the LRTP as recommended or completed projects, except for the following three projects:
MassDOT works with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to implement TCMs documented in the SIP, and continues to keep the Boston Region MPO informed of the status of these projects through monthly reports at the MPO’s regularly scheduled meetings. The Boston Region MPO will continue to include relevant projects—including those implemented to provide equal or better emissions outcomes when the primary TMCs do not meet deadlines—in the LRTP and TIP until the process for completing all active TCMs has concluded. When the process has been completed, the MPO will amend the LRTP and future TIPs and their conformity determinations to document any changes (including any interim projects or programs).
The status of the TCM SIP projects has been updated using the SIP Transit Commitments Status Report, submitted to DEP by MassDOT in June 2016, with updates from staff through April 2017. Highlights of the report are presented below. For a detailed description of these projects’ status, please visit the MassDOT website at
MassDOT initiated a process to amend the SIP to permanently and completely remove the obligation to prepare a final design of the Red Line-Blue Line Connector. To that end, MassDOT officially sought approval from DEP to support a SIP amendment process. MassDOT did not propose to substitute any new projects in place of the Red Line-Blue Line Connector commitment, given the absence of any air-quality benefits associated with that project (final design only). Correspondence from MassDOT to DEP to formally initiate the amendment process was submitted on July 27, 2011. This letter is posted on MassDOT’s website.
On September 13, 2012, DEP held two hearings to accept public comment on MassDOT’s proposed amendments to regulation 310 CMR 7.36, Transit System Improvements. The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement to complete the final design of the Red Line-Blue Line Connector. Sixteen people attended the hearings, ten of whom gave oral testimony. All who spoke at the hearings were in favor of DEP preserving the commitment. DEP accepted written testimony until September 24, 2012.
On August 23, 2013, EPA sent a letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to provide an update on Massachusetts’ air quality conformity. In that letter, EPA noted that the project to design the Red Line-Blue Line Connector had not met its completion date of December 2011, but that MassDOT was not obligated to implement interim emission-reduction projects because no emission reductions were associated with the design of the project.
On October 8, 2013, DEP approved a request made by MassDOT in July 2011 to revise 310 CMR 7.36 to remove the requirement that MassDOT complete the design of the Red Line-Blue Line Connector. This revision to the SIP needed to be approved by EPA. The text of the revision is available on the MassDOT website at
www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/sip/October13UpdatedSIPReg.pdf.
On December 8, 2015, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register approving the SIP revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on November 6, 2013. The final rule removes from the SIP the commitment to design the Red Line-Blue Line Connector project. Because this commitment has been removed, the status of this project will no longer be reported as part of conformity in future TIPs.
Funding Source: This commitment has been nullified.
The Four Corners and Newmarket Stations on the Fairmount commuter rail line opened for service on July 1, 2013. All change orders have been paid and the project is officially closed out. The Talbot Avenue Station opened in November 2012.
A station at Blue Hill Avenue has been the subject of significant community controversy during the past seven years. Redesign of the station reached the 100 percent design phase, with plans submitted to MassDOT in March 2016. In October 2016, MassDOT updated the public on the design plans and the next steps toward implementing the project. The project team is now advancing with the understanding that continued coordination with the community is paramount. Construction is scheduled to begin in spring 2017, and the station to open in spring 2019.
MassDOT and the MBTA prepared a Petition to Delay and an Interim Emission Offset Plan to be implemented for the duration of the delay of the Fairmount Line Improvements project. MassDOT estimated the amount of emission reduction that would be expected from the implementation of the new Fairmount Line stations. With input from Fairmount Line stakeholders, MassDOT proposed offset measures that would meet emissions-reduction targets while the project remains under construction. The measures include providing shuttle bus service in Boston connecting Andrew Square to Boston Medical Center and increasing service on MBTA bus Route 31, which serves the Boston neighborhoods of Dorchester and Mattapan. These measures were implemented on January 2, 2012, and currently are in place.
Funding Source: The Commonwealth
State-level environmental review, under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), was completed in July 2010. Documents from the federal-level environmental review, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), were submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in September 2011. A public hearing was held on October 20, 2011. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by FTA on July 9, 2012.
On January 5, 2015, the US Secretary of Transportation and the MBTA signed the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the Green Line Extension (GLX) project, approving $996,121,000 of FTA New Starts funding to support design and construction of the project. Execution of the FFGA was the result of many years of planning, design and pre-construction efforts by MassDOT and the MBTA, in collaboration with the FTA and its project management oversight consultant. Federal funding is scheduled to be paid between federal fiscal years 2015 and 2022. As noted in the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for fiscal year 2016, MassDOT and the MBTA would use Commonwealth funds in addition to federal funding to support design and construction activities.
As the project proceeded, it was later found that the estimated cost to construct the GLX project had grown from the $1.992 billion project cost established in January 2015. The new total cost was projected between $2.7 billion and $3.0 billion. The Commonwealth’s share of overall project costs would then be between $1.7 billion and $2.0 billion, rather than the initial budget of $996 million.
With the federal contribution capped at $996 million and the Commonwealth responsible for all project cost increases, MassDOT and the MBTA re-evaluated the GLX project in order to recommend to the Commonwealth if, and how, the project should proceed. Then MassDOT and the MBTA worked to identify opportunities to value engineer elements of the project in order to bring costs of the overall project closer to the original anticipated costs. The MBTA Fiscal and Management Control Board (FMCB) and the MassDOT Board of Directors were briefed on August 24, 2015 and September 9, 2015, respectively, about these developments.
Before seeking additional state funding, MassDOT and the MBTA considered the following:
MassDOT and the MBTA actively sought stakeholder and public input on, as well as staff analysis of, several options.
Option 1 - Reduce the Project Scope and Project Costs
Downsize, delay, or eliminate the planned vehicle maintenance and storage facility.
Option 2 - Find Additional Sources of Funds, Other than State Bonds
Other sources could include the following:
Option 3 - Change Procurement Method
Halt the construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) project-delivery process and rebid the project—in smaller contract packages—using a more traditional procurement method.
Option 4 - Mothball or Cancel the Project
On May 9, 2016, the MBTA FMCB and the MassDOT Board of Directors voted to advance a scaled-down version of the project by submitting a redesign to federal regulators and continuing with plans for financing the project.
The GLX project management team developed a new approach to the GLX project that focused on maintaining the same functionality and service plan of the former concept (so as to not diminish ridership, and air quality and transportation benefits), but to do so in a manner that utilized different construction approaches and designs to reduce costs. In addition, the project management team developed station designs and a vehicle maintenance facility that could provide the same function as originally envisioned, but that were greatly reduced in scope and costs.
Based on this redesign, the project management team developed a new project, which had a total capital cost estimate of $2.28 billion. While this is an increase of 15 percent over the prior costs, it is far more affordable for the MBTA and MassDOT.
The MBTA is now moving forward on the project utilizing a design-build (DB) project delivery method. The MBTA issued an invitation to bid in November 2016 and identified three qualified DB teams. A draft request for proposal (RFP) was issued in March 2017. A final RFP will be issued in May 2017 with proposals and bids due in September 2017. The award of the contract will occur in November 2017 with construction beginning in the spring of 2018.
Prior to the cost increase, the project had been moving forward, with MassDOT and MBTA implementing a four-phased project-delivery plan.
Under the new project-delivery method, the contractor will be required to bring one branch of the system into revenue service in June 2021 and the second branch into service in September 2021. The vehicle maintenance facility will be available for use at the time of the opening of the first branch of service.
New Green Line Vehicles: The MBTA vehicle procurement contract to purchase 24 Type 9 vehicles was awarded to CAF USA Inc. in an amount not to exceed $118,159,822 at the MassDOT Board meeting held on May 14, 2014. The notice to proceed for this contract was issued on September 4, 2014.
CAF is in the process of developing drawing packages for the preliminary design; and the MBTA project team and CAF continue to hold technical working sessions and project meetings. In addition, weekly project management meetings are held between MBTA and CAF to discuss project status, short-term schedules, and priorities. Monthly project status meetings are held to review and discuss all project issues, including schedules, deliverables, and milestones.
The first vehicle is to be delivered no later than 36 months from the notice to proceed. The pilot car delivery is scheduled between September and October 2017. The pilot car will receive comprehensive testing for six months followed by delivery of the remaining 22 vehicles, with the last car to be delivered by August 2018. All vehicles are expected to be in service in early 2019, well in advance of the opening of revenue service.
Somerville Community Path: The previous design included the construction of theCommunity Path from south of Lowell Street to the Inner Belt area of Somerville. As part of the redesign of the project, the MBTA found that the section of the Community Path from East Somerville Station (formerly known as Washington Street Station) to the Cambridge/North Point area was cost prohibitive. As a result, the new design includes the Community Path from its current terminal at Lowell Street to East Somerville Station. The Path Extension is not part of the SIP commitment and is currently under reconsideration.
SIP Requirement Status
By filing an Expanded Environmental Notification Form, procuring multiple design consultants, and publishing Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports, MassDOT met the first four interim milestones associated with the GLX project. MassDOT—which has committed substantial resources to the project, a top transportation priority of the Commonwealth and the largest expansion of the MBTA rapid transit system in decades—has transitioned the project from the planning and environmental review phases to design, engineering, and eventual construction, coupled with the tasks associated with applying for federal New Starts funding.
In the 2011 SIP Status Report, MassDOT reported that the GLX project would not meet the legal deadline of December 31, 2014.
The timeline for overall project completion listed above represents a substantial delay beyond the current SIP deadline of December 31, 2014; this delay triggered the need to provide interim emission reduction offset projects and measures for the period of the delay (beginning January 1, 2015). Working with the Central Transportation Planning Staff, MassDOT and the MBTA calculated the reductions of non-methane hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide—reductions equal to or greater than those projected for the GLX itself, as specified in the SIP regulation—that will be required for the period of the delay.
In June 2012, MassDOT released a list of potential mitigation ideas received from the public that could be used as offset measures. In the summer and fall of 2012, MassDOT elicited public comments on these potential measures. The MBTA created an internal working group to determine a final portfolio of interim mitigation measures to implement by December 31, 2014, the legal deadline for implementation of the GLX.
This work resulted in a recommendation to implement the following three interim mitigation measures, which collectively would meet the emissions-reduction target for the project:
The Petition to Delay was submitted to DEP on July 22, 2014. The petition expands further on the analysis and determination of the interim offset measures. DEP conditionally approved MassDOT’s request to delay the project and the implementation of the above mitigation measures. Both the Petition to Delay and the Conditional Approval are available on MassDOT’s website. These measures went into effect at the beginning of 2015 and will remain in place for as long as is necessary.
Funding Source: The Commonwealth
Former MassDOT Secretary Richard Davey approved construction of the permitted Russia Wharf Ferry Terminal in South Boston and a $460,000 ferry-service startup subsidy in October 2012. The 2005 facility plans and specifications were revised to meet the latest MassDOT Highway Division standards. The bid package was issued in the fall of 2013. A contractor was selected and the notice to proceed was issued in April 2014. Pre-construction activities progressed, but contractual issues associated with the project design led MassDOT to decide to rebid the contract. The new submission is due in May 2017. There is no regularly scheduled passenger water transportation service in this area, nor are there any plans to provide such a service.
The City of Boston, however, is undertaking design and engineering work to address the Old Northern Avenue Bridge, which will consider ferry vessel clearance. The city received a grant in 2012 to purchase two ferry vessels for use in Boston’s inner harbor, which could serve this ferry terminal. The Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (MCCA) is working with the City of Boston, MassDOT, and other agencies to develop a business plan for potential ferry service from Lovejoy Wharf to the South Boston waterfront, as recommended in the 2015 South Boston Waterfront Sustainable Transportation Plan. This business plan will include current and future demand projections for ferry ridership, the number and size of ferries needed to satisfy the demand, and the cost for this service. The business plan should be completed in summer 2017, at which time MCCA could take over the City of Boston’s grant to help with future costs.
Funding Source: The Commonwealth
Chapter Six
Financial Constraint
The Boston Region MPO has the discretion to allocate its share of funds from the Federal-Aid Highway Program—the MPO’s Regional Targets—to projects identified as regional priorities as it sees fit. However, the allocation of those funds is constrained by projections of available federal aid.
As shown in the table below, the MPO has programmed its discretionary funds within the limits of projected funding for highway funding programs. As such, the FFYs 2018–22 TIP Regional Target highway funding program complies with financial constraint requirements.
TABLE 6-1:
Boston Region MPO Regional Target Highway Funding Program
MPO Discretionary Funds Sourced from the Federal-Aid Highway Program
(including state matching funds, but excluding earmarked funds)
Regional Target Funding Program |
FFY 2018 |
FFY 2019 |
FFY 2020 |
FFY 2021 |
FFY 2022 |
FFYs 2018–22 |
Regional Target Obligation Authority |
$95,038,936 |
$98,794,261 |
$98,029,447 |
$100,298,109 |
$101,539,859 |
$493,700,612 |
Regional Target Programmed |
$95,024,497 |
$98,754,989 |
$98,013,787 |
$100,298,109 |
$101,539,859 |
$493,631,241 |
STBGP Target |
$77,071,365 |
$80,826,690 |
$80,061,876 |
$82,330,538 |
$83,572,288 |
$403,862,757 |
STBGP Programmed, including |
$73,487,024 |
$61,376,260 |
$73,489,573 |
$79,949,790 |
$82,858,135 |
$371,160,782 |
NHPP Programmed* |
$1,988,367 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$1,988,367 |
CMAQ Target |
$10,741,776 |
$10,741,776 |
$10,741,776 |
$10,741,776 |
$10,741,776 |
$53,708,880 |
CMAQ Programmed |
$15,427,220 |
$20,905,547 |
$17,427,220 |
$13,020,271 |
$13,000,000 |
$79,780,258 |
HSIP Target |
$4,296,710 |
$4,296,710 |
$4,296,710 |
$4,296,710 |
$4,296,710 |
$21,483,550 |
HSIP Programmed |
$611,547 |
$6,984,151 |
$2,319,644 |
$3,849,316 |
$2,631,724 |
$16,396,382 |
TAP Target |
$2,929,085 |
$2,929,085 |
$2,929,085 |
$2,929,085 |
$2,929,085 |
$14,645,425 |
TAP Programmed |
$5,498,706 |
$9,489,031 |
$4,777,350 |
$3,478,732 |
$3,050,000 |
$26,293,819 |
FFY: Federal Fiscal Year (October 1-September 30); STPBG: Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (formerly Surface Transportation Program or STP); CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program; HSIP: Highway Safety Improvement Program; TAP: Transportation Alternatives Program
* National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds are included in the STPBG target programmed amounts.
Appendix A
Universe of Projects for Highway Discretionary (“Regional Target”) Funding and 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 21-day public review and comment period.
Table A-1 presents the Universe of Projects that MPO staff developed for the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. Table A-2 summarizes projects programmed with MPO Target funding in FFYs 2017-21, and Table A-3 summarizes the evaluation results for projects that MPO staff had enough data with which to evaluate and consider for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP.
TABLE A-1
Universe of Projects to Consider for Programming
| TIP ID |
Proponent |
Project Description |
MPO Investment Program |
|---|---|---|---|
Evaluate and Consider for Programming |
|
||
607738 |
Bedford |
Minuteman Bikeway Extension, from Loomis St to the Concord T.L. |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
608006 |
MassDOT |
Framingham - Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Installation at Route 9 and Maynard Rd |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
608164 |
Sudbury |
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
608007 |
Cohasset |
Corridor Improvements and Related Work on Justice Cushing Highway (Route 3A), from Beechwood St to the Scituate Town Line |
Complete Streets |
608275 |
Malden |
Lighting and sidewalk improvements on Exchange St |
Complete Streets |
607305 |
MassDOT |
Reading - Intersection signalization at Route 28 and Hopkins St |
Intersection Improvements |
608229 |
Acton |
Intersection and Signal Improvements at Kelley's Corner, Route 111 (Massachusetts Ave) and Route 27 (Main St) |
Intersection Improvements |
Evaluated in FFY 2016 and Consider for Programming (review for need to update evaluations) |
|
||
608348 |
Beverly |
Rehabilitation of Bridge St |
Complete Streets |
606460 |
Boston |
Improvements at Audobon Circle |
Complete Streets |
608449 |
Boston |
Improvements along Commonwealth Ave (Route 30), from Alcorn St to Warren/Kelton Sts (Phase 3 and Phase 4) |
Complete Streets |
602310 |
Danvers |
Reconstruction on Collins St, from Sylvan St to Centre and Holten Sts |
Complete Streets |
607899 |
Dedham |
Dedham - Pedestrian Improvements along Bussey St, Including Superstructure Replacement, D-05-010, Bussey St over Mother Brook |
Complete Streets |
606002 |
Duxbury |
Signal Installation at Route 3 (NB & SB) Ramps and Route 3A (Tremont St) |
Complete Streets |
601359 |
Franklin |
Reconstruction of Pleasant St, from Main St to Chestnut St |
Complete Streets |
601607 |
Hull |
Reconstruction of Atlantic Ave and Related Work, from Nantasket Ave to Cohasset Town Line |
Complete Streets |
605743 |
Ipswich |
Resurfacing and Related Work on Central and South Main Sts |
Complete Streets |
604811 |
Marlborough |
Reconstruction of Route 20 (East Main St), from Main St Easterly to Lincoln St |
Complete Streets |
604735 |
Medfield |
Reconstruction of North St, from Frairy St to Pine St |
Complete Streets |
607777 |
Watertown |
Rehabilitation of Mount Auburn St (Route 16) |
Complete Streets |
604745 |
Wrentham |
Reconstruction of Taunton St (Route 152) |
Complete Streets |
601704 |
Newton |
Reconstruction and Signal Improvements on Walnut St, from Homer St to Route 9 |
Complete Streets |
608146 |
Marblehead |
Intersection Improvements to Pleasant St at Village/Vine/Cross Sts |
Intersection Improvements |
604231 |
Marlborough |
Intersection and Signal Improvements on Route 20 (East Main St/Boston Post Rd) at Concord Rd |
Intersection Improvements |
607249 |
MassDOT |
Sudbury - Intersection Improvements at Route 20 and Landham Rd |
Intersection Improvements |
606130 |
Norwood |
Intersection Improvements at Route 1A and Upland Rd/Washington St and Prospect St/Fulton St |
Intersection Improvements |
603739 |
MassDOT |
Wrentham - Construction of I-495/Route 1A Ramps |
Major Infrastructure |
604638 |
MassDOT |
Danvers and Peabody - Mainline Improvements on Route 128 (Phase II) |
Major Infrastructure |
605313 |
Natick |
Bridge Replacement, Route 27 (North Main Street) over Route 9 (Worcester Street) and Interchange Improvements |
Major Infrastructure |
601513 |
Saugus |
Interchange Reconstruction at Walnut St and Route 1 (Phase II) |
Major Infrastructure |
607981 |
Somerville |
McGrath Boulevard Project |
Major Infrastructure |
Priorities, Not Ready for Evaluation |
|
||
602038 |
Framingham |
Edgell Road Corridor Project |
Complete Streets |
5399 |
Salem |
Reconstruction of Bridge St, from Flint St to Washington St |
Complete Streets |
na |
Salem |
Boston St |
Complete Streets |
608051 |
Wilmington |
Reconstruction on Route 38 (Main St), from Route 62 to the Woburn C.L. |
Complete Streets |
603865 |
MassDOT |
Framingham - Signal and Intersection Improvements at Route 9 (Worcester Rd) and Temple St |
Intersection Improvements |
606109 |
Framingham |
Intersection Improvements at Route 126/135/MBTA and CSX Railroad |
Intersection Improvements |
604862 |
MassDOT |
Bellingham - Ramp Construction and Relocation, I-495 at Route 126 (Hartford Ave) |
Major Infrastructure |
87790 |
MassDOT |
Canton, Dedham, Norwood and Westwood - Interchange Improvements at I-95/I-93/University Ave/I-95 Widening |
Major Infrastructure |
PRC-Approved, Not Planned for Evaluation in FFY 2017 |
|
||
606304 |
Woburn |
Middlesex Canal Park Improvements, from Alfred St to School St (Phase II - Segment 5) |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
608070 |
Boston |
Reconstruction of South Bank Park |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
608658 |
Boston |
Sidewalk, Wheelchair Ramp and crosswalk repairs at Various CA/T Locations (CRC 25) Contract 2 |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
608735 |
Boston |
Sidewalk, Wheelchair Ramp and crosswalk repairs at Various CA/T Locations (CRC 25) Contract 3 |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
602929 |
Holliston |
Multi-use Trail Construction on a Section of the Upper Charles Rail (2 Miles of Proposed 27 Miles - Phase I) |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
608055 |
Boston |
Grade Separated Multi-use Path Construction along the Paul Dudley White Path at North Harvard St Bridge over Charles River (Anderson Memorial Bridge) |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
608741 |
Boston |
Sidewalk, Wheelchair Ramp and crosswalk repairs at Various CA/T Locations (CRC 25) Contract 4 |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
604993 |
Cambridge |
Innovation Boulevard Streetscape and Pedestrian Improvements, Between Main St and Binney St (Phase I) |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
608097 |
Woburn |
Bridge Replacement and Related Work, W-43-028, Washington Street over I-95 |
Bridge |
601906 |
MassDOT |
Hudson - Bridge Replacement, Cox St over the Assabet River |
Bridge |
601507 |
Boston |
Reconstruction of Tremont St, from Stuart St to Marginal Rd (1,830 Ft) |
Complete Streets |
601274 |
Boston |
Reconstruction of Tremont St, from Court St to Boylston St |
Complete Streets |
603883 |
Canton |
Reconstruction on Route 138, from I-93 to Dan Rd |
Complete Streets |
605974 |
Chelsea |
Reconstruction on Washington Ave, from Revere Beach Parkway to Heard St |
Complete Streets |
608078 |
Chelsea |
Reconstruction of Broadway, from City Hall Ave to the Revere City Line |
Complete Streets |
605745 |
Holliston |
Reconstruction on Route 16 (Washington St), from Quail Run to the Sherborn T.L. |
Complete Streets |
605168 |
Hingham |
Improvements on Route 3A from Otis St/Cole Rd Including Summer St and Rotary; Rockland St to George Washington Blvd |
Complete Streets |
602155 |
Holliston |
Reconstruction of Norfolk St, from Sabina Dr to Holly La |
Complete Streets |
604697 |
Marlborough |
Reconstruction of Farm Rd, from Cook La to Route 20 (Boston Post Rd) |
Complete Streets |
602252 |
Bolton |
Reconstruction of Route 110 (Still River Rd) |
Complete Streets |
608045 |
Milford |
Rehabilitation on Route 16, from Route 109 to Beaver St |
Complete Streets |
602364 |
Millis |
Reconstruction of Village St, from Main St (Route 109) to the Medway Town Line |
Complete Streets |
604206 |
Milton |
Rehabilitation of Central Ave, from Brook Rd to Eliot St |
Complete Streets |
608406 |
Milton |
Reconstruction on Granite Ave, from Neponset River to Squantum St |
Complete Streets |
600932 |
Newton |
Reconstruction on Route 30 (Commonwealth Ave), from Weston Town Line to Auburn St |
Complete Streets |
608707 |
Quincy |
Reconstruction of Sea St |
Complete Streets |
608158 |
Westwood |
Reconstruction of Canton St and Everett St |
Complete Streets |
607244 |
Winthrop |
Reconstruction and Related Work along Winthrop St and Revere St Corridor |
Complete Streets |
607214 |
Stoughton |
Reconstruction of Turnpike St |
Complete Streets |
608067 |
MassDOT |
Woburn - Intersection Reconstruction at Route 3 (Cambridge Road) and Bedford Rd and South Bedford St |
Intersection Improvements |
604453 |
Bellingham |
Improvements at 2 Locations: Mechanic St/Mendon St (Route 140) and North Main St/South Main St (Route 126) |
Intersection Improvements |
606666 |
Bolton |
Intersection Improvements at I-495/Route 117 Interchange |
Intersection Improvements |
606318 |
Boston |
Intersection Improvements at Gallivan Blvd (Route 203) and Morton St |
Intersection Improvements |
608755 |
Boston |
Intersection Improvements at Morton St and Harvard St |
Intersection Improvements |
604911 |
Cambridge |
Intersection Improvements at 7 Intersections on (Route 28 (Monsignor O'Brien Hwy) |
Intersection Improvements |
603137 |
Hingham |
Intersection Improvements on Route 3A at Kilby St |
Intersection Improvements |
602462 |
Holliston |
Signal Installation at Route 16/126 and Oak St |
Intersection Improvements |
608443 |
Littleton, Ayer |
Intersection Improvements on Route 2A at Willow Road and Bruce St |
Intersection Improvements |
607342 |
Milton |
Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 28 (Randolph Ave) and Chickatawbut Rd |
Intersection Improvements |
607889 |
Needham |
Intersection Improvements at Highland Ave and First Ave |
Intersection Improvements |
608137 |
Newton |
Intersection Improvements at Oak St, Christina St and Needham St |
Intersection Improvements |
608013 |
Quincy |
Intersection Improvements at Sea St and Quincy Shore Dr |
Intersection Improvements |
605708 |
Sharon |
Signal and Intersection Improvements on South Main St |
Intersection Improvements |
608279 |
Stoughton |
Intersection Improvements and Related Work at Central St, Canton St and Tosca Dr |
Intersection Improvements |
607727 |
Beverly |
Interchange Reconstruction at Route 128/Exit 19 at Brimbal Avenue (Phase II) |
Major Infrastructure |
606475 |
Boston |
Replacement of Allston I-90 Elevated Viaduct, B-16-359, Including Interchange Reconstruction Beacon Park Yard Layover and West Station |
Major Infrastructure |
608730 |
Boston |
Fort Point Channel Water Transportation Facility Construction |
Major Infrastructure |
602091 |
Concord |
Improvements and Upgrades to Concord Rotary (Routes 2/2A/119) |
Major Infrastructure |
608015 |
Concord |
Reconstruction and Widening on Route 2, from Sandy Pond Rd to Bridge Over MBTA/B&M Railroad |
Major Infrastructure |
608096 |
MassDOT |
Reading, Stoneham, Wakefield - Improvements Along Route 128/95, From North of Interchange 37 to Interchange 40, Including Modifications to Interchange 38 |
Major Infrastructure |
603345 |
MassDOT |
Hudson and Marlborough - Reconstruction on Routes I-290 and 495 and Bridge Replacement |
Major Infrastructure |
605012 |
MassDOT |
Malden, Revere and Saugus - Reconstruction & Widening on Route 1, from Route 60 to Route 99 |
Major Infrastructure |
607701 |
MassDOT |
Southborough and Westborough - Improvements at I-495 and Route 9 |
Major Infrastructure |
605605 |
MassDOT |
Reading, Stoneham, Wakefield and Woburn - Interchange Improvements to I-93/I-95 |
Major Infrastructure |
606472 |
Newton |
Breakdown Lane Construction at Various Locations, From Route 128 to Exit 17 |
Major Infrastructure |
607940 |
Newton |
Improvements of Route 128/I-95 and Grove St |
Major Infrastructure |
607935 |
Weston |
New Parking Construction Near the M7 Maintenance Garage |
Parking |
NOTE: Orange cells indicate projects that Boston Region MPO Staff have received updates about either from municipalities or the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
Projcts in BOLD are in the LRTP: project #605313 is in the 2021-25 LRTP and projects #607981 and #606109 are in the 2026-30 LRTP.
na = this is not an active MassDOT project, but is a priority of the city.
TABLE A-2
Projects Programmed in FFYs 2017-2021 with MPO Target Funds
| TIP ID |
Proponent |
Project Description |
Status (TIP/LRTP Year) |
MPO Investment Program |
|---|---|---|---|---|
607309 |
Hingham |
Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby St from Pond Park Rd to Cushing St |
2017 |
Complete Streets |
604810 |
Marlborough |
Reconstruction of Route 85 (Maple St) |
2017 |
Complete Streets |
604935 |
Woburn |
Reconstruction of Montvale Ave, from I-93 Interchange to Central St |
2017/2016-2020 |
Complete Streets |
29492 |
Bedford, Billerica & Burlington |
Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, from Crosby Drive North to Manning Rd (Phase III) |
2017/2016-2020 |
Major Infrastructure |
603711 |
MassDOT |
Rehab/Replacement of 6 Bridges on I-95/Route 128 (Add-a-Lane Contract 5) |
2017-2018/2016-2020 |
Major Infrastructure |
601630 |
Weymouth |
Reconstruction & Widening on Route 18 (Main St), from Highland Pl to Route 139 |
2017-2019/2016-2020 |
Major Infrastructure |
1570 |
Multiple |
Green Line Extension Project - Extension to College Ave with the Union Square Spur |
2017-2021/ |
Major Infrastructure |
605110 |
Brookline |
Intersection & Signal Improvements at Route 9 & Village Square (Gateway East) |
2018 |
Intersection Improvements |
600518 |
MassDOT |
Hingham - Intersection Improvements at Derby St, Whiting St (Route 53) and Gardner St |
2018 |
Intersection Improvements |
606635 |
Newton & Needham |
Reconstruction of Highland Ave, Needham St & Charles River Bridge, from Webster St to Route 9 |
2018 |
Complete Streets |
604989 |
Southborough |
Reconstruction of Main St (Route 30), from Sears Rd to Park St |
2018 |
Complete Streets |
605789 |
Boston |
Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Blvd |
2019 |
Complete Streets |
607652 |
Everett |
Reconstruction of Ferry St, South Ferry St and a Portion of Elm St |
2019 |
Complete Streets |
607428 |
Hopedale & Milford |
Resurfacing & Intersection Improvements on Route 16 (Main St), from Water St to the Hopedale T.L. and the Intersection of Route 140 |
2019 |
Complete Streets |
606043 |
Hopkinton |
Signal & Intersection Improvements on Route 135 |
2019 |
Intersection Improvements |
608352 |
Salem |
Canal Street Rail Trail Construction (Phase 2) |
2019 |
Bicycle and Pedestrian |
605034 |
Natick |
Reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main St), from North Ave to the Wayland Town Line |
2019/2021-2025 |
Complete Streets |
604123 |
Ashland |
Reconstruction on Route 126 (Pond St), from the Framingham T.L. to the Holliston T.L. |
2020 |
Complete Streets |
606453 |
Boston |
Improvements on Boylston St, from Intersection of Brookline Ave & Park Dr to Ipswich St |
2020 |
Complete Streets |
602077 |
Lynn |
Reconstruction on Route 129 (Lynnfield St), from Great Woods Rd to Wyoma Square |
2020 |
Complete Streets |
602261 |
Walpole |
Reconstruction on Route 1A (Main St), from the Norwood Town Line to Route 27 |
2020 |
Complete Streets |
606226 |
Boston |
Reconstruction of Rutherford Ave, from City Square to Sullivan Square |
2020-2021 |
Complete Streets |
606501 |
Holbrook |
Reconstruction of Union St (Route 139), from Linfield St to Centre St/Water St |
2021 |
Complete Streets |
605857 |
Norwood |
Intersection Improvements at Route 1 & University Avenue/Everett Street |
2021 |
Intersection Improvements |
608347 |
Beverly |
Intersection Improvements at Three Locations: Cabot St (Route 1A/97) at Dodge St (Route 1A), County Way, Longmeadow Rd and Scott St, McKay St at Balch St and Veterans Memorial Bridge (Route 1A) at Rantoul, Cabot, Water and Front Sts |
2121 |
Intersection Improvements |
608228 |
Framingham |
Reconstruction of Union Ave, from Proctor St to Main St |
2121 |
Complete Streets |
604996 |
Woburn |
Bridge Replacement, New Boston St over MBTA |
2121/2016-2020 |
Major Infrastructure |
TABLE A-3
Project Evaluation Results
| TIP ID | Proponent(s) | Project Name | DRAFT TOTAL SCORE (out of 134) |
FINAL TOTAL SCORE (out of 134) |
SAFETY (30 possible points) |
Crash Severity Value: Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index (up to 5 points) |
Crash Severity Rate: Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index per VMT (up to 5 points) |
Improves truck-related safety issue (up to 5 points) |
Improves bicycle safety (up to 5 points) |
Improves pedestrian safety (up to 5 points) |
Improves safety or removes an at-grade railroad crossing (up to 5 points) |
SYSTEM PRESERVATION (29 possible points) |
Improves substandard roadway bridge(s) (up to 3 points) |
Improves substandard pavement (up to 6 points) |
Improves substandard traffic signal equipment (up to 6 points) |
Improves transit asset(s) (up to 3 points) |
Improves substandard sidewalk(s) (up to 3 points) |
Improves emergency response (up to 2 points) |
Improves ability to respond to extreme conditions (up to 6 points) |
CAPACITY MANAGEMENT/MOBILITY (29 possible points) |
Reduces transit vehicle delay (up to 4 points) |
Improves pedestrian network and ADA accessibility (up to 5 points) |
Improves bicycle network (up to 4 points) |
Improves intermodal accommodations/connections to transit (up to 6 points) |
Improves truck movement (up to 4 points) |
Reduces vehicle congestion (up to 6 points) |
CLEAN AIR/CLEAN COMMUNITIES (16 possible points) |
Reduces CO2 (up to 5 points) |
Reduces other transportation-related emissions (VOC, Nox, CO) (up to 5 points) |
Addresses environmental impacts (up to 4 points) |
Is in an EOEEA-certified "Green Community" (up to 2 points) |
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY (12 possible points) |
Serves Title VI/non-discrimination populations (up to 12 points) |
ECONOMIC VITALITY (18 possible points) |
Serves targeted development site (up to 6 points) |
Provides for development consistent with the compact growth strategies of MetroFuture (up to 5 points) |
Provides multimodal access to an activity center (up to 4 points) |
Leverages other investments (non-TIP funding) (up to 3 points) |
| Bicycle/Pedestrian | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 607738 | Bedford | Minuteman Bikeway Extension, from Loomis Street to the Concord T.L. | 38 | 47 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| 608164 | Sudbury | Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D | 38 | 40 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| 608006 | Framingham (MassDOT) | Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Installation at Route 9 and Maynard Road | 26 | 26 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Complete Streets | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 607777 | Watertown | Rehabilitation of Mount Auburn St. (Route 16) | 68 | 75 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 18 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 12 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| 608078 | Chelsea | Reconstruction of Broadway, from City Hall Ave to the Revere City Line | 61 | 61 | 17 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 12 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| 608348 | Beverly | Rehabilitation of Bridge St. | 59 | 59 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| 608275 | Malden | Lighting and Sidewalk Improvements on Exchange Street | 47 | 54 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 602310 | Danvers | Reconstruction on Collins St. | 50 | 50 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| 601607 | Hull |
Reconstruction of Atlantic Ave. and related work | 44 | 44 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| 601704 | Newton | Reconstruction and signal improvements on Walnut St. | 42 | 42 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 4 | -1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| 605743 | Ipswich | Resurfacing and related work on Central and South Main Sts. | 38 | 38 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| 608007 | Cohasset | Corridor Improvements and Related Work on Justice Cushing Highway (Route 3A), from Beechwood Street to the Scituate Town Line | 36 | 36 | 15 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| 604735 | Medfield | Reconstruction of North St. | 29 | 29 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| 604745 | Wrentham | Reconstruction of Taunton St. (Route 152) | 29 | 29 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| 607899 | Dedham | Pedestrian improvements along Bussey St. | 25 | 25 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Intersection Improvements | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 606130 | Norwood | Intersection improvements at Route 1A and Upland Rd./Washington St. and Prospect St./Fulton St. | 47 | 53 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| 608229 | Acton | Intersection Improvements at Massachusetts Avenue (Route 111) and Main Street (Route 27) (Kelly's Corner) | 45 | 45 | 15 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| 608146 | Marblehead | Intersection improvements to Pleasant St. at Village/Vine/Cross Sts. | 36 | 40 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| 604231 | Marlborough | Intersection and signal improvements on Route 20 (East Main St./Boston Post Rd.) at Concord Rd. | 39 | 39 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 607249 | Sudbury (MassDOT) | Intersection improvements at Route 20 and Landham Rd. | 37 | 37 | 16 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 607305 | Reading (MassDOT) | Intersection Signalization at Route 28 & Hopkins Street | 34 | 34 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| 606002 | Duxbury | Signal installation at Route 3 (NB and SB) ramps and Route 3A (Tremont St.) | 33 | 33 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Major Infrastructure | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 607981 | Somerville | McGrath Boulevard project | 68 | 68 | 13 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| 608449 | Boston | Commonwealth Avenue, phases 3 and 4 | 67 | 67 | 17 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| 605313 | Natick (MassDOT) | Bridge replacement, Route 27 (North Main St.) over Route 9 (Worcester St.) | 53 | 56 | 18 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 19 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -1 | -1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| 601513 | Saugus (MassDOT) | Interchange reconstruction at Walnut St. and Route 1 (phase II) | 42 | 42 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| 603739 | Wrentham | Construction of I-495/Route 1A ramps | 35 | 35 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 604638 | Peabody (MassDOT) | Mainline improvements on Route 128 (phase II) | 34 | 34 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Appendix B
Roadway Project Information Forms & Evaluation
This appendix provides an explanation of the Project Information Form that is used by the MPO to evaluate roadway projects that are candidates for programming in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Some information in these forms is provided by the project proponent and other information is provided by MPO staff or by various state agencies. MPO staff and project proponents update these forms when new information about projects becomes available. The information gathered is then used during project evaluations, when the reviewers assess each candidate project by using evaluation criteria that reflect MPO visions and policies.
The first part of this appendix describes all of the information collected through the online Project Information Forms and the source of the information. The following sections describe the MPO’s TIP project evaluation criteria and the point system used for scoring projects. These sections are organized based on the MPO’s goals for Safety, System Preservation, Capacity Management/Mobility, Clean Air/Clean Communities, Transportation Equity, and Economic Vitality.
Project Information Forms are available through the TIP Interactive Database on the MPO website, www.ctps.org/apps/tip11/tip_query.html. Proponents must log into the database and may enter project information online. Other information is input by MPO staff or automatically updated through links to other databases.
Under the current organization of the online TIP database, each section includes data gathered from various transportation-related databases as well as proponent provided information about the need for the project and the specific improvements proposed. Project information fields from transportation-related databases that are entered and maintained by MPO staff are shown under Project Background Information and numbered 1 through 41. Proponent provided fields are denoted by a ‘P.’
Reviewing these aspects of project data collection and management as well as project evaluation illustrates the connection between the information entered into the Project Information Forms and the points awarded to each project.
The ID number is usually 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.
The municipality (or municipalities) in which the project is located.
The name of the project. (Source: MassDOT)
Projects are categorized by MPO staff. The categories will be changed to reflect the applicable State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Program and the MPO Investment Category for each project. The STIP Program categories are listed for each project in Chapter 3 of this document. The current project categories used in the online TIP database are as follows:
The MassDOT Highway District in which the project is located.
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) subregion in which the project is located.
The type of community in which the project is located. Community types are defined by the MAPC based on land-use and housing patterns, recent growth trends, and projected development patterns.
The estimated total cost of the project. (Source: MassDOT)
The number of points awarded to the project in the MPO’s project evaluation process.
A description of the project, including its primary purpose, major elements, and geographic limits. (Source: MassDOT Project Information website, www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ProjectInfo.aspx.)
Total length of the project in miles.
Total lane miles of the project.
The priority rank of the project as determined by the community. (Source: Proponent)
Past studies or reports, funded through the Unified Planning Work Program, that were conducted within the project area.
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.
The main municipal contact for TIP projects.
Project “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 fiscal element of the TIP must be advertised before the end of the federal fiscal year (FFY), September 30. That funding authorization is not transferred to the next FFY; therefore any “leftover” funds are effectively “lost” to the region. If a project in the first fiscal element of the TIP is determined to be “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 fiscal element of the TIP, it is important that project proponents communicate any perceived problems that may affect the schedule to the MPO as soon as possible.
Projects are recorded in the MPO database as either, advertised, programmed, pre-TIP, or conceptual:
The year that a functional design report was completed, if one has been prepared for the project.
Current design status of the project in the MassDOT Highway Division’s design process. Dates are provided where available.
Design status is noted as follows:
(Source: MassDOT Project Info database)
A notation of whether or not ROW acquisition is required for the project:
Required – ROW action is required for completion of the project
Not Required – No ROW action required for completion of the project
(Source: MassDOT Project Info database)
The party responsible for providing ROW:
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)
(Source: MassDOT Project Info)
ROW certification status:
Expected – Expected date of right-of-way 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
(Source: MassDOT Project Info)
Permits required by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
Possible required permits include the following:
(Source: MassDOT Project Info database)
The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to guide investments that implement the following MPO safety objectives:
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 2012-14 Top Crash Locations Report)
EPDO is an index used to assess the severity of crashes involving motor vehicles. Weighted values are assigned to each crash based on whether the crash resulted in property damage (weighted by one), injury (weighted by five), or a fatality (weighted by 10). (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2012-14 Top Crash Locations Report)
Crash rates for intersection projects are listed as total crashes per million vehicles entering the intersection. Crash rates for arterial projects are listed as total crashes per mile. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2012-14 Top Crash Locations Report)
Total EPDO value of crashes involving bicyclists in the project area. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2012-14 Top Crash Locations Report)
Total EPDO value of crashes involving pedestrians in the project area. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2011-13)
Total EPDO value of crashes involving truck crashes in the project area. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2011-13)
Responses to this question describes the need for the project from a local and a regional perspective, discussing the existing safety issues the project is designed to address and how the design would accomplish the needed improvements. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Highway Division Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)
The evaluation criteria below serve to guide decision-making about investments that implement the following MPO system preservation objectives:
Pavement Roughness (IRI) – International Roughness Index (IRI) rating reflects the calibrated value in inches of roughness per mile. IRI ratings are classified as follows:
(Source: MassDOT Roadway Inventory File)
Existing signal equipment condition. (Source: Congestion Management Process (CMP), Massachusetts permitted signal information, municipal signal information, and submitted design.)
**Please refer to the All-hazards Planning Application (www.ctps.org/map/www/apps/eehmApp/pub_eehm_index.html) for more information on natural hazard zones.
Responses to this question provide 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)
Responses to this question include details regarding the pavement management system employed by the community or agency, and how this system will maximize the useful life of any pavement repaired or replaced by the project. (Source: Proponent)
Responses to this question describe the need for the project from a local and a regional perspective, discussing the existing security issues the project is designed to address and how the design will accomplish those needed improvements. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Highway Division Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)
The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to guide investments that implement the following MPO capacity management/mobility objectives:
Pedestrian Facilities:
Bicycle Facilities:
(Source: MassDOT Bicycle Facility Inventory and Roadway Inventory File and MPO bicycle GIS coverage)
The fixed route transit vehicles that use the roadway are identified.
The Travel Time Index directly compares peak-period travel time conditions with free-flow travel time conditions. The 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. The Travel Time Index equals the average peak-period travel time divided by the free-flow travel time.
This information is taken from the Boston Region MPO’s Congestion Management Process (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.
The Speed Index equals the average speed divided by the posted speed limit of a Traffic Message Channel (TMC). The 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.
This information taken from the 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 (www.ctps.org/map/www/apps/arterialHighwayPerformanceDashboard/index.html) for data on roadway congestion in the MPO region.
Responses to this question describe the need for the project from a local and a regional perspective. The information provided explains how the project will address the existing or anticipated mobility issues, improve level of service and reduces congestion, provide multimodal elements (for example, access to transit stations, parking, or bicycle or pedestrian connections), enhance freight mobility, and close gaps in the existing transportation system.
For roadway projects, it is the MPO’s and MassDOT’s policy that auto congestion reductions not occur at the expense of pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit users. When applicable, this information should be consistent with project need information provided in the MassDOT Project Need Form. (Source: Proponent)
Examples of ITS elements include new signal systems or emergency vehicle override applications. (Source: Proponent)
Responses to this question 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)
The evaluation criteria below serve to guide decision-making about investments that implement the following MPO clean air/clean communities objectives:
The quantified or assumed annual tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) estimated to be reduced by the project. (Source: MPO Database)
Indicates if the project is in an Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) certified Green Community. (Source: EOEEA)
Indicates if the project is located in areas designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs. (Source: MassGIS)
Indicates if the project is within 200 feet of a hydrographic feature, including surface water (lakes, ponds, and reservoirs), flats, rivers, streams, and other water bodies. Areas within two hundred feet of a hydrographic feature are protected by the Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act. (Source: MassGIS)
Responses to this question indicate if the project is located in an existing community or neighborhood center or other pedestrian-oriented area, and discuss the community context for the project (cultural and historical aspects for example, and the effect this project will have on community character. (Source: Proponent)
Response to this question address how the project will improve air or 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)
The evaluation criteria below serve to guide decision-making about investments that implement the following MPO transportation equity objectives:
This question relates to projects that serve Title VI/non-discrimination populations. (Source: Proponent)
The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to guide decision-making about investments that implement the following MPO economic vitality objectives:
Responses to this question explain how the project will support existing or proposed local land-use policies. (Source: Proponent)
Responses to this question address the project’s impact on adjacent land uses. Consideration is given to whether there a local project currently under development that would provide a better balance between housing and jobs in this corridor. (Source: Proponent)
Responses to this question explain how the project will support economic development in the community or in the project area. (Source: Proponent)
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.
Cost divided by average daily traffic (ADT)
Cost divided by proposed total lane miles
Below is a summary of the point system used in the MPO’s project evaluation process.
Safety Evaluation Scoring (30 total points possible):
Crash Severity Value: 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: EPDO Index per Vehicle-Miles Traveled (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 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 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 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”
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 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
A targeted development area is located within one-half 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.
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).
Appendix C
Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Evaluation
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 the following:
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 GHG 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 multi-modal transportation system.
MassDOT coordinated with MPOs and regional planning agencies to implement GHG tracking and evaluation during the development of LRTPs, which were adopted in September 2011. This collaboration continued for the MPOs’ 2016 LRTPs and amendments, federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2016–19 TIPs, FFYs 2017–21 TIPs, and FFYs 2018–22 TIPs. Working together, MassDOT and the MPOs have attained the following milestones:
In addition to monitoring the GHG impacts of projects in the LRTP that will add capacity to the transportation system, 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 emission 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 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 TIP calculations were done for these projects.
MassDOT’s Office of Transportation Planning provided spreadsheets that are used to determine projects’ eligibility for funding through the CMAQ Program. Typically, the MPO staff use data from projects’ functional design reports, which are submitted at the 25-percent design phase, to conduct these calculations. These spreadsheets were used for calculating estimated projections of CO2 for each project to comply with the GWSA regulations. These estimates 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.
As part of this TIP, analyses were done for the types of projects described below. A summary of the steps in the analyses are provided.
An intersection reconstruction or signalization project that typically reduces delays and, therefore, idling
A shared-use path that would enable more walking and biking trips and reduce automobile trips
A program that replaces old buses with new buses that reduce emissions or run on cleaner fuel
Calculations may be performed on the following project types; however, there are no projects of these types in this TIP.
A new bus or shuttle service that reduces automobile trips
A facility that reduces automobile trips by encouraging high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) travel through carpooling or transit
A new vehicle procurement that replaces traditional gas or diesel vehicles with alternative fuel or advanced technology vehicles
Anti-idling strategies include incorporating anti-idling technology into fleets and using light-emitting diode (LED) lights on trucks for the purpose of illuminating worksites
Bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a short-term basis allowing each bicycle to serve several users per day
Considers new or reduced automobile trips associated with a roadway capacity change
Considers emission reductions associated with a reduction in roadway speeds of not less than 55 miles per hour
Technology at a signalized intersection or along a corridor that impacts bus travel times
Provides truck drivers the necessary services, such as heating, air conditioning, or appliances, without requiring them to idle their engine
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 project, or transit marketing or customer service improvement. These projects are categorized as producing an assumed nominal increase or decrease.
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.
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-3 summarizes the GHG impact analyses of highway projects completed in FFY 2017. Table C-4 summarizes the GHG impact analyses of transit projects completed in FFY 2017. A project is considered completed when the construction contract has been awarded or the transit vehicles have been purchased.
TABLE C-1:
Greenhouse Gas Regional Highway Project Tracking
| MassDOT Project Description |
GHG Analysis Type |
GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) |
GHG Impact Description |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
608229 |
Acton - Intersection and Signal Improvements at Kelley's Corner |
Quantified |
111,958 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
606223 |
Acton-Concord - Bruce Freeman Rail Construction (Phase II-B) |
Quantified |
10,315 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure |
607748 |
Acton - Intersection and Signal Improvements on SR 2 and |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
606381 |
Arlington- Belmont - Highway Lighting Repair and Maintenance on Route 2 |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
604123 |
Ashland - Reconstruction on Route 126 (Pond St) from Framingham Town Line to Holliston Town Line |
Quantified |
148,097 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
607738 |
Bedford - Minuteman Bikeway Extension from Loomis St to the Concord Town Line |
Quantified |
21,098 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure |
608347 |
Beverly- Intersection Improvements at 3 Locations: Cabot St (Route 1A/97) at Dodge St (Route 1A), County Way, Longmeadow Rd and Scott St, McKay St at Balch St and Veterans Memorial Bridge (Route 1A) at Rantoul, Cabot, Water, and Front Sts |
Quantified |
582,422 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement |
608614 |
Boston - Superstructure Replacement, B-16-179, Austin St over I-93 Ramps, MBTA Commuter Rail and Orange Line |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
604173 |
Boston- Bridge Rehabilitation, B-16-016, North Washington St over the Boston Inner Harbor |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
607888 |
Boston-Brookline - Multi-Use Path Construction on New Fenway |
Quantified |
54,724 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure |
608755 |
Boston- Intersection Improvements at Morton St and |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
606453 |
Boston- Improvements on Boylston St, from Intersection of Brookline Ave and Park Dr to Ipswich St |
Quantified |
1,920,790 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
607759 |
Boston- Intersection and Signal Improvements at the VFW Pkwy and Spring St |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
606728 |
Boston- Superstructure Repairs on B-16-365, Bowker Overpass over Storrow Dr (EB) |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
608234 |
Boston-Randolph - Bridge Preservation of 3 Bridges: B-16-165, R-01-005 and R-01-007 |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
605789 |
Boston- Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Blvd |
Quantified |
2,872,641 |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
606226 |
Boston- Reconstruction of Rutherford Ave, from City Square to Sullivan Square |
Quantified |
blank |
LRTP project included in the statewide model |
606134 |
Boston- Traffic Signal Improvements on Blue Hill Ave and |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608009 |
Boxborough- Bridge Replacement, B-18-002, Route 111 over I-495 |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
608651 |
Braintree - Adaptive Signal Controls on Route 37 (Granite St) |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608608 |
Braintree - Highway Lighting Improvements at I-93/Route 3 Interchange |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
605110 |
Brookline- Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 9 and Village Square (Gateway East) |
Quantified |
67,056 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
606316 |
Brookline- Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation, B-27-016, over MBTA off Carlton St |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608482 |
Cambridge-Somerville - Resurfacing and Related Work on |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608484 |
Canton-Milton - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 138 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608599 |
Canton-Foxborough-Norwood-Walpole - Stormwater Improvements along Route 1, Route 1A, and Interstate 95 |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
608611 |
Canton-Milton-Randolph - Replacement and Rehabilitation of the Highway Lighting System at the Route 24/Route 1/I-93 Interchange |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
608078 |
Chelsea- Reconstruction on Broadway (Route 107) from City Hall to Revere City Line |
Quantified |
93,278 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
608206 |
Chelsea to Danvers - Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on a Section of US Route 1 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
BN1800 |
Community Transportation Program |
Quantified |
blank |
LRTP project included in the statewide model |
608495 |
Concord-Lexington-Lincoln - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 2A |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608478 |
Concord - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 2 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608818 |
Danvers - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 114 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
607901 |
Dedham - Pedestrian Improvements along Elm St and |
Quantified |
12,722 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
608587 |
Dedham - Reconstruction and Related Work on Bridge St |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608596 |
Essex - Bridge Preservation, E-11-001, Route 133/Main St over Essex River |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
607652 |
Everett - Reconstruction of Ferry St, South Ferry St and a Portion of Elm St |
Quantified |
435,976 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
608210 |
Foxborough-Plainville-Wrentham-Franklin - Interstate Maintenance and Related Work on I-495 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608480 |
Foxborough-Walpole - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
607732 |
Framingham-Natick - Cochituate Rail Trail Construction |
Quantified |
62,441 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure |
608228 |
Framingham - Reconstruction of Union Ave, from Proctor St to Main St |
Quantified |
-217,978 |
Quantified Increase in Emissions |
608498 |
Hingham-Weymouth-Braintree - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 53 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
600518 |
Hingham - Intersection Improvements at Derby St, Whiting St, and Gardner St |
Quantified |
-145,683 |
Quantified Increase in Emissions |
606501 |
Holbrook - Reconstruction of Union Street (Route 139), from Linfield St to Centre St and Water St |
Quantified |
4,097 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
607428 |
Hopedale-Milford - Resurfacing and Intersection Improvements on Route 16 (Main St), from Water St west to approximately 120 feet west of the Milford/Hopedale town line and the intersection of Route 140 |
Quantified |
201,148 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
606043 |
Hopkinton - Signal and Intersection Improvements on Route 135 |
Quantified |
1,298,625 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
606632 |
Hopkinton-Westborough - Bridge Replacement, |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
607977 |
Hopkinton-Westborough - Reconstruction of I-90/I-495 Interchange |
Quantified |
blank |
LRTP project included in the statewide model |
601607 |
Hull - Reconstruction of Atlantic Avenue and Related Work |
Quantified |
6,586 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
608379 |
Lexington-Belmont-Arlington-Cambridge - Pavement Preservation on Route 2 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
602077 |
Lynn - Reconstruction on Route 129 (Lynnfield St), from Great Woods Rd to Wyoma Square |
Quantified |
12,761 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
604952 |
Lynn-Saugus - Bridge Replacement, L-18-016=S-05-008, |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
608146 |
Marblehead - Intersection Improvements at Pleasant St and Village, Vine and Cross St |
Quantified |
531 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement |
608566 |
Marlborough - Improvements at Route 20 (East Main St) at |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608467 |
Marlborough-Sudbury - Resurfacing and Related Work on |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
604655 |
Marshfield - Bridge Replacement, M-07-007, Beach St over the Cut River |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
608069 |
Marshfield-Pembroke-Norwell-Hanover-Rockland-Hingham - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 3 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608637 |
Maynard - Bridge Replacement, M-10-006, Florida Rd over Assabet River |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
608835 |
Medford - Improvements at Brook Elementary School |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608522 |
Middleton - Bridge Replacement- M-20-003, RT 62/Maple St over Ipswich River |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
607342 |
Milton - Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 28 (Randolph Ave) and Chickatawbut Rd |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
607763 |
Milton - Intersection and Signal Improvements at 2 Locations: |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
607330 |
Milton - Deck Reconstruction Over SE Expressway |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
605034 |
Natick - Reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main St), from |
Quantified |
189,410 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
606635 |
Needham-Newton - Reconstruction of Highland Ave, Needham St and Charles River Bridge, N-04-002, from Webster St (Needham) to Route 9 (Newton) |
Quantified |
1,186,210 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
603711 |
Needham-Wellesley - Rehab/Replacement of 6 Bridges on |
Quantified |
blank |
LRTP project included in the statewide model |
607915 |
Newton-Wellesley-Weston - Bridge Maintenance of N-12-063, |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
608052 |
Norwood - Intersection and Signal Improvements at US 1 (Providence Highway) and Morse St |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
605857 |
Norwood - Intersection Improvements at Route 1 and |
Quantified |
1,092,131 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement |
606130 |
Norwood - Intersection Improvements at Route 1A and Upland Rd |
Quantified |
72,964 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement |
608468 |
Peabody-Danvers - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608567 |
Peabody - Improvements at Route 114 at Sylvan St, Cross St, Northshore Mall, Loris Rd, Route 128 Interchange |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608208 |
Quincy-Milton-Boston - Interstate Maintenance and Related Work on I-93 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608569 |
Quincy- Intersection Improvements at Route 3A (Southern Artery) and Broad St |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608205 |
Reading to Lynnfield - Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on a Section of I-95 (SR 128) |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608219 |
Reading-Wakefield - Interstate Maintenance and Related Work on I-95 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608743 |
Salem - Improvements at Bates Elementary School |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608521 |
Salem - Structural Steel Repairs, Bridge No. S-01-018 |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
608352 |
Salem - Canal St Rail Trail Construction (Phase 2) |
Quantified |
6,651 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure |
608817 |
Salem-Lynn - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 107 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608008 |
Saugus - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608079 |
Sharon - Bridge Replacement, S-09-003 (40N), Maskwonicut St over Amtrak/MBTA |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
BN1570 |
Somerville-Medford - Green Line Extension Project - Extension to College Ave with the Union Square Spur |
Quantified |
blank |
LRTP project included in the statewide model |
608562 |
Somerville - Signal and Intersection Improvement on I-93 at |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
604989 |
Southborough - Reconstruction of Main Street (Route 30), from Sears Rd to Park St |
Quantified |
231,813 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
608829 |
Stoughton - Improvements at West Elementary School |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
605342 |
Stow - Bridge Replacement, S-29-001, (ST 62) Gleasondale Rd over the Assabet River |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
608255 |
Stow - Bridge Replacement, S-29-011, Box Mill Rd over Elizabeth Brook |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
608164 |
Sudbury - Bike Path Construction (Bruce Freeman Rail Trail) |
Quantified |
49,903 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure |
607761 |
Swampscott - Intersection and Signal Improvements at SR 1A (Paradise Road) at Swampscott Mall |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608493 |
Topsfield - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
607329 |
Wakefield-Lynnfield - Rail Trail Extension, from the Galvin Middle School to Lynnfield/Peabody Town Line |
Quantified |
158,032 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure |
602261 |
Walpole - Reconstruction on Route 1A (Main St), from the Norwood Town Line to Route 27, includes W-03-024 over the Neponset River |
Quantified |
230,473 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
607533 |
Waltham - Bridge Replacement, W-04-006, Woerd Ave over Charles River |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
607777 |
Watertown - Rehabilitation of Mount Auburn St (Route 16) |
Quantified |
536,769 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
608564 |
Watertown - Intersection Improvements at Route 16 and |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608823 |
Wellesley-Newton-Weston - Pavement Resurfacing and Related Work on I-95 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608528 |
Weston-Waltham - Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 20 |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
601630 |
Weymouth-Abington - Reconstruction and Widening on Route 18 (Main St) from Highland Place to Route 139 (4.0 Miles) includes replacing W-32-013, Route 18 over the Old Colony Railroad (MBTA) |
Quantified |
blank |
LRTP project included in the statewide model |
608703 |
Wilmington - Bridge Replacement W-38-029 (2KV) Route 129 Lowell St Over I-93 |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
607327 |
Wilmington - Bridge Replacement W-38-002 (2KV) Route 38 Main St Over the B&M Railroad |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
608791 |
Winchester - Improvements at Vinson-Owen Elementary School |
Qualitative |
blank |
Qualitative Decrease in Emissions |
608214 |
Winchester - Stormwater Improvements along Route 3 |
Qualitative |
blank |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
604996 |
Woburn - Bridge Replacement, W-43-017, New Boston St over MBTA |
Quantified |
blank |
LRTP project included in the statewide model |
TABLE C-2
Greenhouse Gas Regional Transit Project Tracking
| Project Description |
GHG Analysis Type |
GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) |
GHG Impact Description |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
CATA |
Acquire - Miscellaneous Support Equipment |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
CATA |
Acquire - Shop Equipment/Software Maintenance |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
CATA |
Buy Replacement Trolley Buses (2) |
Quantified |
530 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
CATA |
Construct - Bus Shelter-CATA HUB/COA |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
CATA |
Preventative Maintenance |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
CATA |
Rehab - Shelters Railroad, Park and Ride, Emerson Ave |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
CATA |
Rehab/Renovate - Bus Passenger Shelters |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MBTA |
Bridge and Tunnel Program |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MBTA |
Green Line Extension Project - Extension to College Avenue with the Union Square Spur |
Quantified |
0 |
LRTP project included in the statewide model |
MBTA |
Stations and Facilities |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MBTA |
Bus Overhaul |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MBTA |
Bus Program |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MBTA |
Bus Procurement (60 Hybrid Buses) |
Quantified |
2,398,879 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
MBTA |
Elevator Program |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MBTA |
Revenue Vehicle Program |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MBTA |
Positive Train Control |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MBTA |
Systems Upgrade |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MBTA |
Signal Program |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MWRTA |
Acquisition of Bus Support Equipment/Facilities |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MWRTA |
Construct Miscellaneous Electric/Power Equipment |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MWRTA |
Mobility Management |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MWRTA |
Non-Fixed Route ADA Paratransit Services |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
MWRTA |
Terminal, Intermodal (Transit) |
Qualitative |
0 |
No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions |
TABLE C-3:
Greenhouse Gas Regional Highway "Completed" Project Tracking
MassDOT Project Description |
GHG Analysis Type |
GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) |
GHG Impact Description |
FFY of Contract Award |
|
606284 |
Boston- Improvements to Commonwealth Avenue, from Amory Street to Alcorn Street |
Quantified |
162,389 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
2015 |
605657 |
Medway- Reconstruction on Route 109, from Holliston Street to 100 Feet West of Highland Street |
Quantified |
707,616 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
2015 |
605146 |
Salem- Reconstruction on Canal Street, from Washington Street and Mill Street to Loring Avenue and Jefferson Avenue |
Quantified |
66,226 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
2015 |
604531 |
Acton- Assabet River Rail Trail |
Quantified |
61,690 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure |
2015 |
602000 |
Weston- Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 30 (South Ave) and Wellesley Street |
Quantified |
214,099 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement |
2015 |
607209 |
Somerville- Cambridge- Reconstruction of Beacon Street, from Oxford Street to Cambridge City Line |
Quantified |
684,057 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
2015 |
601579 |
Wayland- Signal and Intersection Improvements at Route 27 (Main Street) and Route 30 (Commonwealth Road |
Quantified |
205,105 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement |
2016 |
29492 |
Bedford-Billerica - Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, from Crosby Dr north to Manning Rd, includes reconstruction of B-04-006 (Phase III) |
Quantified |
LRTP |
LRTP project included in the statewide model |
2017 |
604761 |
Boston - Multi-Use Trail Construction (South Bay Harbor), from Ruggles Station to Fort Point Channel |
Quantified |
767,491 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure |
2017 |
607309 |
Hingham – Reconstruction and related work on Derby St, from Pond Park Rd to Cushing St |
Quantified |
351.994 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions |
2017 |
604810 |
Marlborough - Reconstruction of Route 85 (Maple St) |
Quantified |
589,680 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
2017 |
602165 |
Stoneham - Signal and Intersection Improvements at Route 28/North St |
Quantified |
139,709 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement |
2017 |
604935 |
Woburn - Reconstruction of Montvale Ave, from I-93 Interchange to Central St (approximately 1,850 feet) |
Quantified |
98,885 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project |
2017 |
TABLE C-4:
GREENHOUSE GAS REGIONAL TRANSIT "COMPLETED" PROJECT TRACKING
Project Description |
GHG Analysis Type |
GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) |
GHG Impact Description |
FFY of Contract Award |
|
CATA |
Bus Replacement - 30-Foot Bus (2) |
Quantified |
786 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
2015 |
CATA |
Bus Replacement - Less than 30-Foot Bus (3) |
Quantified |
18,666 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
2015 |
MBTA |
Revenue Vehicle Program - Bus Replacement (60) |
Quantified |
2,398,879 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
2015 |
MWRTA |
Van Replacement (2) |
Quantified |
4,457 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
2015 |
MWRTA |
Mini-Van Replacement (8) |
Quantified |
5,211 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
2015 |
MWRTA |
Bus Replacement - Less than 30-Foot Bus (2) |
Quantified |
8,640 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
2015 |
CATA |
Bus Replacement - 30-Foot Bus (4) |
Quantified |
1,660 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
2016 |
CATA |
Bus Replacement - Less than 30-Foot Bus (3) |
Quantified |
10,151 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
2016 |
MBTA |
Revenue Vehicle Program - Bus Replacement (369) |
Quantified |
1,264,520 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
2016 |
MWRTA |
Bus Replacement - Less than 30-Foot Bus (5) |
Quantified |
20,107 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
2016 |
CATA |
Buy Replacement 30-Foot Buses (3) |
Quantified |
1,278 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
2017 |
MWRTA |
Non-Fixed Route ADA Paratransit Vehicles (4) |
Quantified |
6,653 |
Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bus Replacement |
2017 |
Appendix D
Public Comments on the Draft FFYs 2018–22 TIP
MPO staff’s responses to comments are preceded by an asterisk.
TABLE D-1:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
| PROJECT(S) /ISSUE(S) | SUPPORT OPPOSE REQUEST |
COMMENTER(S) | COMMENT (SUMMARIZED) | Page in PDF |
Draft Response |
| Regional Transportation Advisory Council | |||||
| TIP Outreach | Support | Organization: RTAC | Thanks the MPO staff for its attention to reframing and improving communication, information, and material related to the TIP. States this information has been helpful in explaining the TIP processes to stakeholders and the public. |
1 | Thank you for your comment. |
| Project Scoring & Evaluation | Request | Organization: RTAC | Expresses appreciation for the MPO's attention to newly established priorities and the "binning" approach by which projects are compared to other projects of the same type in the TIP scoring. Requests the MPO begin to consider criteria related to the sustainability of projects in the Community Transportation category. Notes a study has been identified to do this in the FFY 2018 UPWP. States there are several projects on the TIP programming scenario list that were given initial approval as much as 15 or 20 years ago. Notes there have been many examples of changes in both regional and local priorities since that time. Requests that the MPO reconfirm that those projects are still priorities with the project sponsors, and to re-score the projects on a regular basis. |
1 | Thank you for your comment. The Community Transportation/Parking/Clean Air and Mobility investment program will be defined by the MPO and MPO staff during FFY 2018. MPO Staff will work with MassDOT to ensure that projects listed in the Universe of Projects are active and remain priorities of the municipal project proponents. If considered necessary, projects will be reevaluated and rescored during TIP development. |
| Project Programming & Funding | Request | Organization: RTAC | Expresses appreciation of the effort MPO staff has made in shuffling projects to keep them on their original schedule and ensure they are "shovel-ready." Encourages the MPO to consider any opportunities to fund programmed projects from sources other than the MPO, should such opportunities arise, so that funds can be reallocated to other projects to reduce the backlog on the MPO list. |
1-2 | Thank you for your comment. During development of the TIP and discussions with MassDOT, all options for funding projects will be considered. |
| Cost Estimates | Support | Organization: RTAC | States the Advisory Council looks forward to continuing discussion with the MPO and MassDOT on cost estimation, processes to budget realistically, and avoidance of major cost increases. |
2 | Thank you for your comment. |
| Subregional Groups | |||||
| Project Selection in the MAGIC Region | Support + Request | Organization: MAGIC | Supports inclusion of three projects programmed in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. MAGIC's top priorities are as follows (listed in order of priority): 1) Minuteman Bikeway Extension (Bedford) 2) Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D 3) Intersection Improvements at Massachusetts Avenue (Route 111) and Main Street (Route 27) (Kelley's Corner) Requests consideration of programming the Intersection Improvements at Route 20 and Landham Road project. |
3-4 | As noted, the three projects supported by the Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. When developing the FFYs 2019-23 TIP, the MPO will maintain its commitment to currently programmed projects and consider programming the unfunded priority projects in the Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination's subregion that were evaluated by MPO staff during this past TIP cycle. In addition, as those unfunded projects advance to the 25% design stage, MPO staff will evaluate and add them to the list of evaluated projects for the MPO's consideration. |
| Project Selection in the South Shore Region | Support + Request | Organization: SSC | Supports inclusion of five projects in the South Shore region in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. SSC's top priorities are as follows (listed in order of priority): 1) Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby Street from Pond Park Road to Cushing Street 2) Intersection Improvements at Derby Street, Whiting Street (Route 53) and Gardner Street 3) Intersection Improvements at Middle Street, Libbey Industrial Parkway and Tara Drive 4) Reconstruction and Widening on Route 18 (Main Street) 5) Reconstruction of Atlantic Avenue and Related Work from Nantasket Avenue to Cohasset Town Line Requests consideration of two projects not currently programmed in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP: 1) Signal Installation at Route 3 (northbound and southbound) Ramps and Route 3A (Tremont Street) 2) Reconstruction of Union Street (Route 139), from Linfield Street to Center Street/Water Street |
5-6 | As noted, the four projects supported by the South Shore Coalition are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. When developing the FFYs 2019-23 TIP, the MPO will maintain its commitment to currently programmed projects and consider programming the unfunded priority projects in the South Shore Coalitions's subregion that were evaluated by MPO staff during this past TIP cycle. In addition, as those unfunded projects advance to the 25% design stage, MPO staff will evaluate and add them to the list of evaluated projects for the MPO's consideration. |
| Project Selection in the TRIC Region | Support + Request | Organization: TRIC | Supports the following four projects programmed in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP, and requests scheduling them in the earliest possible TIP element. TRIC's top priorities are as follows (listed in order of priority): 1) Reconstruction of Route 1A (Walpole) 2) Intersection Improvements at Route 1A and Upload Rd./Washington St. and Prospect St./Fulton St. (Norwood) 3) Intersection Improvements at Route 1 and University Ave./Everett St. (Norwood) 4) Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street, and the Charles River Bridge (Needham & Newton) TRIC's overall top priority is the I-93 / I-95 Canton Interchange Project. While they are aware of fiscal constraints, they are hopeful that the final phase of the Interchange Project will begin before the Dedham Corridor phase is completed. |
7-8 | As noted, the four projects supported by the Three Rivers Interlocal Council are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. When developing the FFYs 2019-23 TIP, the MPO will maintain its commitment to currently programmed projects and consider programming the unfunded priority projects in the Three Rivers Interlocal Council's subregion that were evaluated by MPO staff during this past TIP cycle. In addition, as those unfunded projects advance to the 25% design stage, MPO staff will evaluate and add them to the list of evaluated projects for the MPO's consideration. |
| Regionally-Focused Organizations | |||||
| Project Selection | Support + Request | Organization: A Better City | Supports inclusion of ten projects in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP that A Better City and its members identify as priorities. Requests consideration of Improvements Along Commonwealth Avenue (Boston) and the McGrath Boulevard Project (Somerville), if not in the current draft TIP, then in future amendments and future TIPs. |
9-10 | As noted, the ten projects supported by A Better City are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The Commonwealth Avenue project is considered a Major Infrastructure project because the construction cost is estimated to be more than $20 million. Therefore, before this project can be included in the TIP, the MPO board needs to include it in the Boston Region MPO's Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Deliberations about programming this project can take place during the development of the next LRTP, which will begin in FFY 2018. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the MPO's current LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040. Assuming this project maintains it place in the next LRTP, the MPO board can consider programming it in the TIP in coming years. The investment goals established by the MPO are factors that dictate the programming of projects in the TIP. No Major Infrastructure projects were added to the TIP during this year's TIP development cycle due to the fact that currently, about 60 percent of the MPO's TIP Target Program funding is dedicated to projects classified as Major Infrastructure, while the MPO's goal for spending in this category is 44 percent. The Major Infrastructure commitments currently programmed in the TIP include the Rutherford Avenue project (# 606226) and the Green Line Extension to College Avenue with the Union Square Spur (# 1570). Therefore, when recommending new projects for programming, MPO staff focused on funding bicycle and pedestrian projects, Complete Streets projects, and intersection improvement projects. The Commonwealth Avenue and McGrath Boulevard projects, which are both Major Infrastructure projects, will be considered for TIP funding by the MPO board in the future. |
| Replacement of Allston I-90 Elevated Viaduct, including Interchange Reconstruction Beacon Park Yard Layover and West Station (Boston) |
Request | Organization: A Better City | Requests immediate evaluation of the Replacement of Allston I-90 Elevated Viaduct. States that this critical project should move forward as soon as funding becomes available, and construction is scheduled to begin before FFY 2022. | 10 | The project to replace the Interstate 90 Allston Viaduct is categorized as a Major Infrastructure project. As such, the project must be evaluated and recommended in the MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) before it can be programmed in the TIP to recieve federal funds. We expect the MPO board will consider programming the project during the next update to the LRTP, which will be endorsed in 2019. |
| Universe of Projects | Request | Organization: A Better City | Requests that a number of bus rapid transit (BRT) projects and routes being considered in the urban core be added to the Universe of Projects. The BRT projects should be considered for inclusion in the TIP in future amendments as more information is developed. Requests that the South Station Expansion Project be added to the Universe of Projects for work that will begin during this TIP cycle, if funding is available. |
10 | Bus rapid transit projects and the expansion of MBTA stations are planned and prioritized for funding by MassDOT and the MBTA. The selection process for those transit projects is different than for the projects that typically make up the TIP's Universe of Projects. The latter tend to consist of roadway improvement projects because the funding programs that the MPO has discretion over are administered by the Federal Highway Administration. The MBTA and other transit authorities in the state receive funding from the Federal Transit Administration. The prioritization of their capital improvements primarily occurs via the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) process, now underway. For more information on MassDOT's transit planning efforts, please refer to Focus40 (www.mbtafocus40.com/) and the Capital Investment Plan (www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx). Both of these planning efforts will provide opportunities for public input. |
| Multiple | Support | Organization: CrossTown Connect TMA | Supports the inclusion of 11 projects that help improve the transportation infrastructure in, around, and accessing the region served by CrossTown Connect. Expresses particular appreciation for the inclusion of the Minuteman Bikeway Extension (Bedford), Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D (Sudbury), and Intersection and Signal Improvements at Kelley's Corner (Acton). | 11-12 | As noted, the eleven projects supported by CrossTown Connect TMA are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. See Chapter 3 of the TIP. |
| Modernization of the MBTA | Request | Organization: CrossTown Connect TMA | Requests investment toward modernizing and increasing reliability of the MBTA, particularly the Red Line. States that a number of shuttles use Alewife Station as a beginning and end point, and the station is a gateway to the region. The MBTA needs to run efficiently in order for the TMA's services to run efficiently and for the region to benefit as much as possible. |
13 | The MBTA's capital investments and expansion projects are prioritized through planning processes led by the MassDOT and the MBTA, including Focus40 (the long-term investment strategy); the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (the five-year financial plan for MassDOT and the MBTA); and the MBTA's Stations and Facilities Plan. (For more information visit www.mbtafocus40.com/ and www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx.) These planning efforts also factor into the development of the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan, which will be underway in the coming year. MBTA projects currently planned for funding in FFYs 2018-22 are included in the following tables on the MPO's website: FFYs 2018-22 TIP tables at www.bostonmpo.org/data/pdf/plans/tip/FFYs_2018_2022_Draft_TIP_Tables_042417.pdf; and MBTA Transit Program shown by federal fiscal year at www.bostonmpo.org/data/pdf/plans/tip/FFYs_2018_2022_TIP_Draft_MBTA_Program_by_FY.pdf. Please remain involved in these efforts in order to make your priorities known. |
| Project Selection | Support | Organization: MASCO | Supports inclusion of six projects in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP that will improve multimodal access to the Longwood Medical Area (LMA). States that transit and roadway congestion constrain access to the LMA and contribute to 62% of area employees having commutes more than 40 minutes long. |
14-15 | The projects you cite are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP, in the following years: - 605110 in FFY 2018 (Section 1A) - 606316 in FFY 2019 (Section 1B) - 605789 in FFY 2019 (Section 1A) - 606453 in FFY 2020 (Section 1A) - 607888 in FFY 2019 (Section 2C) - 606728 in FFY 2022 (Section 2A) |
| Project Selection in the 495 / MetroWest Region | Support + Request | Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership | Supports inclusion of 22 projects within the 495/MetroWest Region in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. Expresses particular appreciation for the inclusion of the Reconstruction of I-90/I-495 Interchange, Resurfacing and Intersection Improvements on Route 16 (Milford), and MWRTA funding, all of which address 495/MetroWest Partnership-defined "transportation nightmares." Appreciates the inclusion of a variety of new projects that traverse several subregions. Requests that the MPO consider 24 projects within the 495/MetroWest Region for TIP funding; nine of these projects have been designated as "transportation nightmares" by the 495/MetroWest Partnership. States that a lack of sound financial footing for transportation infrastructure results in major projects that would have significant regional impact remaining idle in the TIP Universe of Projects. Notes that projects such as Improvements at I-495 and Route 9 (Southborough, Westborough) and the Reconstruction of I-290/I-495 Interchange (Hudson, Marlborough) must be addressed to successfully confront congestion, safety, air quality, and sustainable development issues in the region. |
16-20 | As noted, the 22 projects supported by the MetroWest Partnership are programmed for funding in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. See Chapter 3 of the TIP. When developing the FFYs 2019-23 TIP, the MPO will maintain its commitment to currently programmed projects and consider programming the MetroWest Partnership's unfunded priority projects that were evaluated by MPO staff during this past TIP cycle. In addition, as those unfunded projects advance to the 25% design stage, MPO staff will evaluate and add them to the list of evaluated projects for the MPO's consideration. |
| Funding for 495/MetroWest Region Communities | Request | Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership | Notes that several communities in the 495/MetroWest Region have projects in the TIP Universe but have not received TIP funding since 2008 or before. The communities include, but may not be limited to, Bellingham, Holliston, Medfield, Millis, and Wrentham. Several other communities have received no TIP funding for the time period between 2008 and 2022, and do not have projects ready for consideration. States that this demonstrates the challenge for municipalities when funding project designs as the designs may be outdated by the time the projects are considered for the TIP. The Partnership will recommend that policymakers consider state design funding in exchange for partial municipal funding of projects. |
19 | The MPO is examining the regional distribution of TIP funding and considering forming a subcommittee to examine the challenges faced by some municipalities that make it difficult for them to initiate and advance projects through the TIP process and win federal funding. It is also important that municipalities (project proponents) take the initiative to understand and be involved in the TIP process and other transportation planning processes in the region. |
| State Representatives, State Officials, Municipal Officials, Residents, and Local Advocacy Organizations (Project Specific Comments) | |||||
| Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phases 2B and 2D | |||||
| Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phases 2B & 2D) |
Support | Legislative: Sen. Mike Barrett, Sen. Jamie Eldridge, Rep. Cory Atkins, Rep. Jennifer E. Benson Aspen, CO resident: Nathaniel B. Bates Nashua, NH resident: Denise Marchionda Organizations: CrossTown Connect TMA, 495/MetroWest Partnership, Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Concord residents: Bruce Bowden, Nancy Kerr, Richard A. Wells, Don Detweiler, Erik Waters, William Lehr, Dean Sullender, Pat Goldstein, Suzanne Knight, Steve Sutter Sudbury residents: Alexander Glover, Chris Menge, Bettina Westerberg, Jason Viehland, Clyde Newton, Maile Hulihan Acton residents: Irwin Abrams, Jim Snyder-Grant, Nancy Savage, Anne H. Anderson, Martin Burke, Bethel Gilbert, Dot Keyworth Framingham residents: Sandy Gotlib, Katherine Reiner, Ed Kross Medford resident: John G. Sieber Carlisle resident: Steven W. Hinton, Bob Macauley Westford residents: David Martin, Chris Barrett Chelmsford resident: Mary Reese Weston resident: David Hutcheson Belmont resident: John Dieckmann Lowell resident: Szifra Birke |
Supports the inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phases 2B and 2D) in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The completed project will connect communities along the trail to public transportation, recreation areas, local businesses, schools, and other amenities. Quality of life along the corridor will be enhanced, and increased tourism will benefit the local economy. The trail will encourage mode shift, reducing vehicle trips and reducing emissions, and provide a safe transportation option for cyclists and pedestrians. | 11-12, 16-20, 21-60 |
Phases 2B and 2D of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project are funded in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. Phase 2B is programmed in the FFY 2019 element of the TIP, and listed under Section 2C/State Prioritized Expansion Projects. Phase 2D is programmed in the FFY 2022 element, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. See Chapter 3 of the TIP document. |
| Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phase 2B) |
Support | Acton residents: Barbara Dowds, Joe Holmes Lawrence resident: J. Breen Chelmsford resident: Michael Mark Ross Westford resident: Emily Teller |
Supports the inclusion of Phase 2B of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The project will connect the existing trail to West Concord and allow cyclists and pedestrians to safely cross Route 2. Phase 2B will connect trail users to nearby communities, public transportation, and local businesses. The project will improve quality of life and is consistent with other efforts to mitigate climate change. | 61-65 | Phase 2B of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project is programmed in the FFY 2019 element of the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The funding amount is listed under Section 2C/State Prioritized Expansion Projects. For details, please see www.bostonmpo.org/data/pdf/plans/tip/FFYs_2018_2022_Draft_TIP_Tables_042417.pdf |
| Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phase 2D) |
Support | Municipal: Melissa Murphy-Rodrigues, Sudbury Town Manager Organization: MAGIC Concord resident: Barbara Pike Sudbury residents: Leonard Simon, James C. Richards, Dick Williamson Groton resident: Thomas Knatt |
Supports the inclusion of Phase 2D of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (BFRT) in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The completed trail will provide safe bicycle and pedestrian access to nearby schools, recreation and conservation areas, local businesses, and public transportation. Phase 2D is an important connection with Phase 2C, since Phase 2D would bring the trail out of a more rural area in Concord and through the town center of Sudbury. On March 7, the Sudbury Board of Selectmen voted unanimously to request $330,000 in free cash to continue designing the BFRT to MassDOT's standards. The Town Meeting voted overwhelmingly in favor of approving that funding. |
66-72 | Phase 2D of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project is programmed in the FFY 2022 element of the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The funding amount is listed under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. For details, please see www.bostonmpo.org/data/pdf/plans/tip/FFYs_2018_2022_Draft_TIP_Tables_042417.pdf |
| Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phase 2B) |
Request | Acton resident: Terra Friedrichs | Requests the use of field stone in the construction of the bridge over Route 2 rather than manufactured blocks, stating this will help retain "town character." Requests information regarding who to contact about design of the bridge. MPO staff have assisted with this request. |
73 | Commenter has received information that the project proponent is responsible for design decisions. |
| Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phase 2D) |
Request | Sudbury resident: Pat Brown | States that Phase 2D of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail received one point in the TIP evaluation process, under the "improves truck movement" criterion, because the construction of the trail is expected to result in removing bicycle traffic from local roads. Requests that the greenhouse gas reduction estimate for the project be reduced to reflect users who will not be removing cars from the road, as they already use bicycles. Adds that the improvement in truck movement should be quantifiable. Alternately, if there is no discernable diversion of bicycle traffic from roadways, the point for "improves truck movement" should be removed. |
74-75 | The Town of Sudbury's Environmental Planner stated, during the evaluation of this project, that truck movements are affected by pedestrian and bicycle use of roadways, especially on the numerous narrow and winding roads of Sudbury, and that reducing non-vehicular traffic on the roadways will help with truck movements. The MPO's project evaluation process attempts to score projects based on the various benefits the projects are expected to provide. Some of the evaluation criteria are quantitative (such as measures of substandard pavement and hours of vehicle delay), whereas other criteria rely on professional judgement. In many instances, such as measuring truck movement, the reliance on professional judgement is necessary in part because of issues related to the availability and completeness of data. The evaluation criteria were developed to reflect the many diverse and interrelated aspects of the MPO's goals and objectives. The MPO may consider revisions of the evaluation criteria in future TIP development cycles. During this year's evaluation process, MPO staff evaluated Phase 2D of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail project’s potential affect on truck movements and considered the roadway network in Sudbury in relation to surrounding towns and major roadway corridors. The Sudbury Road/Concord Road corridor provides an important connection for vehicles travelling from the east or west along Route 2 to downtown Sudbury. This route allows trucks to avoid travelling through Maynard. The MPO uses MassDOT’s TIP Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting Guidance to calculate the air quality benefits that would be produced by projects. This guidance is used for • the evaluation of projects proposed for programming in the TIP; • reporting for compliance with the Global Warming Solution Act; and • determination of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality eligibility. The evaluation for this project under the Clean Air and Clean Community goal category was done in accordance with this guidance. |
| For the air quality analysis, MassDOT provides spreadsheets for each project type, including bicycle and pedestrian projects. Inputs into the spreadsheet include information on the facility length and service area, along with population and employment, are considered. Another important factor is the bicycle and commuter mode share; Census and American Community Survey data were used to account for work-related trips. The mode share estimate may be a conservative assumption since it only takes into account commuters who travel to work and does not consider those who would use the facility for shopping and school trips. The MPO uses bicycle facility data from the 2011 MassDOT Road Inventory and 2011 MassDOT Bicycle Accommodation Inventory, as well as the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's Bicycle and Pedestrian Mapping Index for bicycle and pedestrian planning in the MPO area; however, we understand that we have a limited amount of actual bicycle data with which to work. Addressing your comments would require us to perform before-and-after studies and surveys to determine those users who drive to the site; use it for recreation only; bike instead of using their car for traveling to work, school or for shopping purposes; or bike on another facility. A request to conduct this additional work could be submitted as a comment during the development of the next Unified Planning Work Program. |
|||||
| Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phase 2D) |
Request | Sudbury resident: Pat Brown | States that the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phase 2D) was awarded three points in the TIP project evaluation process under the "improves substandard sidewalk" criterion in the System Preservation category. Because this is an expansion project, she asks how it would be awarded points for preservation. Notes that the five points awarded under the "improves pedestrian network" criterion in the Capacity Management/Mobility category includes two points for "adds new sidewalk(s) (including shared use paths)." Requests removal of the three points for improving substandard sidewalks. |
74-75 | The Town of Sudbury's Environmental Planner stated that some sections of the trail are routinely used, even though there are rail tracks and ties in place. The running team from the high school regularly uses a portion of the path as part of a running circuit. In these and some other frequently visited sections, there are path clearings, commonly called “goat paths,” that indicate routine use. Based on this input, MPO staff assigned points for system preservation and improving a currently used path/sidewalk. The project was also awarded points for adding a new sidewalk. This project will allow the entire trail to be used and, since it will be paved, it will be accessible to more users. |
| Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (Phase 2D) |
Request | Sudbury resident: Bill Schineller | Asks if Eversource should be offered right of first refusal over MassDOT to create Phase 2D of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, citing MAPC's promotion of "piggybacking" on utilities projects and Eversource's planned north-south upgrade between Sudbury and Maynard/Concord in 2020. |
76 | The general division of responsibilities for this project is such that the town is responsible for funding the design, engineering, right-of-way, and permitting work while it receives federal and state funds for project construction. When a transportation project receives federal and state funds for construction, the project proponent must ensure compliance with MassDOT’s engineering standards. In this case, since Sudbury is the project proponent, it is the responsibility of the town to engage Eversource, if the company is interested in getting involved in construction of the trail. Projects funded in the TIP are supported by multiple interrelated planning processes, including the MPO's Long-Range Transportation Plan, MassDOT's Bicycle Transportation Plan, and local transportation planning and long-range planning. As communities undertake roadway and transportation improvements, they often plan for these to coincide with needed utility work. |
| Bruce Freeman Rail Trail | Oppose | Acton resident: Kurt Marden | States that building the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail on the right-of-way as planned would destroy what could be a viable circumferential light rail commuter line between Lowell and Walpole that would connect nearly all existing commuter lines. A small percentage of advocates desire the trail, and building it would be at the expense of creating an interconnected transit system in the outer Boston suburbs. | 77-78 | Rail corridors are generally leased to municipalities for use as rail trails with provisions that the state can take the corridor back if rail service is being introduced back into that area. |
| Reconstruction of Highland Avenue | |||||
| Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) | Oppose | Municipal: Mayor Setti Warren; Marianne B. Cooley, Chair, Needham Board of Selectmen; Kate Fitzpatrick, Needham Town Manager; James Cote, Newton City Councilor Dedham resident: Linda L. Logan Dover resident: Wendy Bornstein Walpole resident: Karen Griffey Waltham resident: Rachel Weinstein Boston resident: Michelle Kohanloo Chestnut Hill resident: Joyce Plotkin Others: Scott Wolf, John Brennan, Joanne Briggs, Joanne Minichino, John Foley, Emily Connor, David Conti Organizations: TRIC, TripAdvisor, Newton Technology Park, Newton Center Associates, New Art Center Boston Development Group, Building 36, William James College, ArtScience Group, Sheraton Needham Hotel, New Coat Painting, Global Urban Solutions, Creative Development Co., Bakers Best Catering, Ball Consulting Group, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Massachusetts Bay Community College, Mantra Computing Newton residents: Allison Yee, Jarrad Glennon, Steffi Aronson Karp, Ruth Barnett, Jane Frantz, Michael Norman, Carrie Tracy, Vadim Kagan, Jan Huffman, Alan Huberman, Drew Grandi, Kent Gonzales, David P. Boronkay, Linda R. Green, Julie Lamie, Diane Pruente Needham residents: Glenn A. Mulno, Jim Galovski, Mary H., Martin Sklar, Rhanna Kidwell, Glenn K. Rosengard, Daniel Gersh, Marina Glekel, Matthew Talcoff |
Opposes reprogramming the Reconstruction of Highland Avenue from the FFY 2018 to the FFY 2019 element of the TIP. The congestion and safety issues along the corridor are a detriment to the local economy and quality of life. The project is essential to the region's economic and residential growth; delaying the project will affect planned developments that are contingent on the proposed improvements, and congestion will worsen if traffic conditions are not addressed. Improving travel times is vital to both attracting and retaining residents and employees, as is improving the currently dangerous conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. Requests that MassDOT accelerate their efforts in order to keep the project on its former timeline. |
7-8, 79-137 |
Due to the large number of easements that need to be acquired for construction of this project, it is not possible to meet a schedule of advertising this project for construction in FFY 2018. |
| Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) | Oppose | Newton resident: Srdjan S. Nedeljkovic | Asks that the MPO delay the Reconstruction of Highland Avenue and that the Commonwealth withhold further funding until a plan is developed regarding underground utilities. States that the current design does not move overhead utilities underground, despite appeals to the City of Newton. At a minimum, a plan should be developed for a conduit to be placed during roadway construction; a plan should also be developed to determine construction factors and a definite cost estimate. Construction should not begin until underground utilities have been addressed and included in the design. | 138 | Your comment was transmitted to MassDOT. The responsibility of relocating utilities underground lies with the City of Newton and not MassDOT. The cost of relocating utilities would be paid by rate payers of the City of Newton. Although the relocation of utilities underground was discussed during project design and development, it was determined to be cost prohibitive and, therefore, was not pursued as a viable option. Relocating utilities underground is not necessary in order to construct this project and, therefore, MassDOT is not participating in this design element. To become involved in the transportation planning and construction process in the Boston Region, you are encouraged to attend MPO meetings and contact the MassDOT project manager for more information on specific construction issues concerning this project. You can look up information on the project online (www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ProjectInfo.aspx) and contact MassDOT through this website. |
| Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) | Oppose | Newton resident: Bob K. | Asks that the Reconstruction of Highland Avenue receive only local funds from Needham and Newton, rather than federal and state funds. States that federal and state funding is not justified and unnecessary. Current financial issues in the Commonwealth should render this project a low priority. | 139 | Every year, the MPO receives funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to program transportation construction projects that are determined by the MPO to be a priority for the region. In order to select projects for funding, MPO staff evaluates each project using criteria that reflect the MPO's goals and objectives in the Long-Range Transportation Plan. This project had a high score and significant community support, both from residents and elected officials. For all of these reasons, it was selected for funding in the Transportation Improvement Program to be constructed using federal funds and state matching funds. |
| Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) | Support + Request | Newton resident: Andreae Downs | Supports the inclusion of the Reconstruction of Highland Avenue project in the FFYs 2019 and 2020 elements of the TIP, noting disappointment in the delay from FFY 2018. Expresses gratitude that MassDOT will use the delay to modernize and improve the bike/ped elements of the project. Notes that new developments are contingent on the completion of the project. Requests that MassDOT work closely with Newton officials regarding changes to the design, and that better avenues of communication are established. |
140 | Due to the large number of easements that need to be acquired for construction of this project, it is not possible to meet a schedule of advertising this project for construction in FFY 2018. MassDOT will continue to coordinate with the municipalities affected by this project. |
| Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) | Request | Needham resident: Christina Hua | States that plans for Highland Avenue show that a wooden fence would be built on their property beyond the sound barrier leading to I-95 South. Their neighbor received a wooden fence while they only received four panels. | 141 | Your comment was transmitted to MassDOT. According to the MassDOT project manager, no fencing is being installed on abutter properties as part of the Reconstruction of Highland Avenue project (MassDOT ID # 606635). The fencing you see may be related to the I-95/Route 128 (Add-a-Lane) project (MassDOT ID # 603711). To become involved in the transportation planning and construction process in the Boston region, you are encouraged to attend MPO meetings and contact the MassDOT project manager for more information on specific construction issues. You can look up information on the project online (www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ProjectInfo.aspx) and contact MassDOT through this website. |
| Minuteman Bikeway Extension | |||||
| Minuteman Bikeway Extension (Bedford) |
Support | Organizations: CrossTown Connect TMA, MAGIC, Bedford Friends of the Minuteman Bikeway | Supports inclusion of the Minuteman Bikeway Extension in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The project is a step toward building a regional trail network that will connect Concord to Alewife Station and the urban core, as well as link the communities along the trail; this could benefit the local economy by attracting residents and visitors. The project will also promote community health and reduce greenhouse gases. The Bedford Friends of the Minuteman Bikeway note they collected 392 signatures in support of the project. |
3-4, 11-12, 142-144 | This project is funded in the FFY 2022 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. |
| Minuteman Bikeway Extension (Bedford) |
Request | Sudbury resident: Pat Brown | States that the Minuteman Bikeway Extension was awarded three points under the "improves substandard sidewalk" criterion in the System Preservation category. Because this is an expansion project, she asks how it would be awarded points for preservation. Notes that the five points awarded under the "improves pedestrian network" criterion in the Capacity Management/Mobility category includes two points earned under the "adds new sidewalk(s) (including shared use paths)" criterion. Requests removal of the three points for improving substandard sidewalks. |
74-75 | The Minuteman Bikeway project includes a section on Railroad Avenue where existing sidewalks will be improved and new sidewalks added. Additionally, this section of the Minuteman Bikeway currently functions as the Reformatory Branch Trail. Existing conditions along the Reformatory Branch Trail are described in the feasibility study. The existing trail is described as being frequented by bicyclists and pedestrians and as a popular recreational path. Additionally, the path is currently covered with gravel. Due to these existing conditions, points were awarded for system preservation. Since this project both improves existing assets and plans to add new pedestrian and bicycle amenities, it was awarded points in each category. |
| Other Projects (Not Currently Programmed) | |||||
| Grade Separated Multi-Use Path Construction along the Paul Dudley White Path at North Harvard Street Bridge over Charles River (Anderson Memorial Bridge) (Boston) |
Request | Boston resident: Paul Moyer | Requests inclusion of the Grade Separated Multi-Use Path Construction project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. States the proposed tunnel underneath North Harvard Street would eliminate the currently dangerous at-grade intersection. | 145 | When developing the FFYs 2019-23 TIP, the MPO will maintain its commitment to currently programmed projects and will consider the unfunded projects that were evaluated by MPO staff during this past TIP cycle. This project was not evaluated by MPO staff because a functional design report was not provided; these reports are critical to understanding a project's proposed improvements. During the next TIP cycle, MPO staff will again reach out to project proponents and MassDOT in order to obtain information with which to evaluate this project, so that it may be considered for funding in the FFYs 2019-23 TIP. |
| Bowker Overpass (Boston) |
Request | Boston resident: Paul Moyer | Requests inclusion of the Signal Installation at Route 3 Ramps and Route 3A project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. States that signalization is a high priority for the town, as two higher-density developments at the location have recently completed full build-out, and medical office use is expanding in the vicinity. Notes that heavier traffic is anticipated for the 400-year anniversaries of Plymouth and other coastal communities. Requests the MPO reconsider these aspects in the scoring the project. | 145 | A project addressing the Bowker Overpass is programmed for funding in the FFY 2022 element of the TIP. This project is referenced in the TIP as project ID number 606728, Superstructure Repairs on B-16-365, Bowker Overpass over Storrow Drive (EB). |
| I-93/I-95 Canton Interchange Project |
Request | Legislative: Representative William C. Galvin Municipal: Charles Aspinwall, Canton Town Administrator |
Requests the inclusion of the I-93/I-95 Canton Interchange Project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The flaws in the current design have been known for decades. The sharp turns are a safety hazard for truckers and have resulted in numerous accidents involving serious personal injury, the release of hazardous materials, and deaths. Traffic congestion has reduced air quality, hampered local businesses, and impeded economic growth, costing the region millions in potential tax revenue. Completion of the project will honor a long-standing commitment of the Commonwealth to residents who use the corridor. | 146-147 | This project will be reevaluated and considered for inclusion in the MPO's new Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), which will be developed in FFY 2019. Prior to being programmed in the TIP to receive federal funding, this project would need to be included as a priority in the LRTP. |
| Signal Installation at Route 3 (NB & SB) Ramps and Route 3A (Tremont St) (Duxbury) |
Request | Organization: SSC Municipal: Duxbury Board of Selectmen |
Requests the inclusion of the Signal Installation at Route 3 Ramps and Route 3A project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. States that signalization is a high priority for the town, as two high-density developments at the location have recently completed full build-out, and medical office use is expanding in the vicinity. Notes that heavier traffic is anticipated for the 400-year anniversaries of Plymouth and other coastal communities. Requests that the MPO reconsider these aspects in the scoring the project. | 5-6, 148-149 |
This project is not currently included in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. MPO staff can examine the project evaluation score during development of the next TIP. For consideration for future TIP funding, it is important that the municipality, as the project proponent, participate in MPO meetings and the TIP development process to advocate for the community’s priority projects. The MPO may consider this project for funding in the FFYs 2019-23 TIP or, if funding becomes available, include it in an amendment to the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. |
| Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Installation at Route 9 and Maynard Road (Framingham) |
Request | Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership Framingham resident: William Hanson |
Requests future inclusion of the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Installation project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. Notes that a large number of pedestrians cross the four-lane divided highway. Many of these crossings are made by Framingham State students, and in 2012 one student was killed while attempting the crossing. The 495/MetroWest Partnership identifies this project location as a "transportation nightmare." |
16-20, 150 | When developing the FFYs 2019-23 TIP, the MPO will maintain its commitment to currently programmed projects and will consider the unfunded projects that were evaluated by MPO staff during this past TIP cycle. The MPO will continue to consider this project as funding becomes available. |
| Southern New England Trunkline Trail (Franklin and Medway) |
Request | Other: David Labonte | Requests that the MPO consider funding the Southern New England Trunkline Trail (SNETT) in Franklin and Medway. States that for two-and-a-half years, advocacy groups and residents have been waiting for funds to be released from the 2014 Environmental Bond Bill for the trail. States that there are tens of thousands of residents who want the state to help develop the SNETT. | 151 | In order for the MPO to consider funding a project along the SNETT, the project would need to be included as a priority in the statewide Bicycle Transportation Plan. MassDOT is currently updating the statewide Bicycle Transportation Plan. Information on the planning process and how to get involved is located at www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/StatewidePlans/BicyclePlan.aspx. Alternatively, to advance the project at the local level and seek federal funding for construction through the MPO, municipal staff would need to engage MassDOT in discussion of this project, initiate a project review through MassDOT’s project design and development process, and fund the design. It is important that project proponents engage with the MPO by participating in MPO meetings and the TIP development process to advocate for their priority projects. As projects advance to the 25% design stage, MPO staff can evaluate and present them to the MPO for consideration. |
| Intersection Improvements at Route 20 & Landham Road (Sudbury) |
Request | Municipal: Melissa Murphy-Rodrigues, Sudbury Town Manager Organizations: MAGIC, 495/Metrowest Partnership Sudbury resident: Pat Brown |
Requests inclusion of the Intersection Improvements at Route 20 and Landham Road project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The intersection is a significant safety concern; there have been 170 reported accidents in the past 10 years, one resulting in a fatality. The proposed improvements will also improve traffic flow by widening the roadway and introducing turning lanes. The Town of Sudbury has advocated for improvements to the intersection for a number of years. | 3-4, 16-20, 66-67, 74-75 |
This project will continue to be considered for TIP funding when funds become available. |
| Commuter Parking | Request | Boston resident: Charles Dow | Requests increased commuter parking at Braintree, MBTA station on the Red Line, and at the intersection of Route 24 and Route 139 in Stoughton. |
152 | The MBTA's capital investments and expansion projects are prioritized through planning processes led by MassDOT and the MBTA, including Focus40 (the long-term investment strategy); the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (the five-year financial plan for MassDOT and the MBTA); and the MBTA's Stations and Facilities Plan. (For more information visit www.mbtafocus40.com/ and www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx.) The MPO is also in the process of developing a funding program for Community Transportation and Parking projects. If there is a project to expand parking, which is advanced by a community and supported by the MBTA, it could be considered for funding under the MPO's Community Transportation and Parking Program. |
| Spur Line to the Highland Avenue Corridor (Newton and Needham) |
Request | Needham resident: Martin Sklar | Requests a public/private partnership to create a spur line for the D Branch of the Green Line to the Highland Avenue corridor. States that a transit option in the area would reduce traffic. The right-of-way from the prior rail line could be used, allowing a reasonable cost for construction. Adds that benefits to the private sector would benefit in ways that are hard to quantify, and raises the question of sustainability of the spur line. | 119 | The MBTA's capital investments and expansion projects are prioritized through planning processes led by MassDOT and the MBTA, including Focus40 (the long-term investment strategy); the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (the five-year financial plan for MassDOT and the MBTA); and the MBTA's Stations and Facilities Plan. (For more information visit www.mbtafocus40.com/ and www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx.) These planning and programming efforts are inputs to the MPO’s long-range transportation plan (LRTP), which will be developed in the coming year. Please remain involved in these efforts in order to make your priorities known. |
| Various Improvements in the Wells Avenue / Needham / Newton Development Area | Request | Newton resident: Andrea Edson | Requests improved public transportation planning in the Wells Avenue / Needham / Newton development area. States that a lack of comprehensive public transit in the area has resulted in heavy vehicle congestion, which will worsen due to new exits and entrances to Route 128. States the bike lane from on Nahanton Street is dangerous, as it crosses the Route 128/I-95 North exit. Requests the installation of a stop sign for bike lane traffic. Requests that the Route 60 bus stop at Putterham Circle, granting those in the area easy access to Skyline Park. Requests the installation of sidewalks along Hammond Pond Parkway. Requests planning efforts for connecting the Needham commuter rail line to Wells Avenue. |
153 | Transit projects and other MBTA capital investments are planned through processes led by the MassDOT and the MBTA, including Focus40 (the long-term investment strategy); the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (the five-year financial plan for MassDOT and the MBTA); and the MBTA's Stations and Facilities Plan. (For more information visit www.mbtafocus40.com/ and www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx.) These planning efforts prioritize expansion and reliability projects for the MBTA. Projects for constructing bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and improved pedestrian connections must be prioritized by the municipality. The municipal proponent must discuss the priority projects with the appropriate MassDOT district office, an important step toward determining the timing of construction and identifying funding. Then the projects can be initiated and advanced through the MassDOT project development and design process. |
| Multiple | Request | Boston resident: Carl Seglem | Requests prioritization of the following projects not programmed in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP: McGrath Boulevard Project (Somerville) Commonwealth Avenue, Phases 3 and 4 (Boston) Lighting and Sidewalk Improvements on Exchange Street (Malden) |
154 | The Commonwealth Avenue project is considered a Major Infrastructure project because the construction cost is estimated to be more than $20 million. Therefore, before this project can be included in the TIP, the MPO board needs to include it in the Boston Region MPO's Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Deliberations about programming this project can take place during the development of the next LRTP, which will begin in FFY 2018. The McGrath Boulevard project is included in the MPO's current LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040. Assuming this project maintains it place in the next LRTP, the MPO board can consider programming it in the TIP in coming years. The investment goals established by the MPO are factors that dictate the programming of projects in the TIP. No Major Infrastructure projects were added to the TIP during this year's TIP development cycle due to the fact that currently, about 60 percent of the MPO's TIP Target Program funding is dedicated to projects classified as Major Infrastructure, while the MPO's goal for spending in this category is 44 percent. The Major Infrastructure commitments currently programmed in the TIP include the Rutherford Avenue project (# 606226) and the Green Line Extension to College Avenue with the Union Square Spur (# 1570). Therefore, when recommending new projects for programming, MPO staff focused on funding bicycle and pedestrian projects, Complete Streets projects, and intersection improvement projects. The Commonwealth Avenue and McGrath Boulevard projects, which are both Major Infrastructure projects, will be considered for TIP funding by the MPO board in the future. |
The City of Malden's project, Lighting and Sidewalk Improvements on Exchange Street, was evaluated by MPO staff earlier this year. Due to the high demand for funding and the numerous worthy transportation construction projects in the region, the MPO did not choose to fund this project during this TIP cycle. The MPO hopes that the City of Malden will continue to advance this project and remain involved in the MPO’s planning process. This project will be considered for programming in the TIP as funding becomes available. This project scored a 54 when it was evaluated with the MPO's evaluation criteria. When ranked among all Complete Streets projects considered for funding in the FFYs 2018-2022 TIP, it ranked 4th out of 12. |
|||||
| Other Projects (Currently Programmed) | |||||
| Intersection and Signal Improvements at Kelley's Corner, Route 111, and Route 27 (Acton) |
Support | Municipal: Acton Board of Selectmen, Acton Design Review Board, Acton 2020 Committee Organizations: 495/MetroWest Partnership, MAGIC, CrossTown Connect TMA, Vincent Cuttone (local business owner) Acton residents: Terra Friedrichs, Brendan Bettez |
Supports inclusion of the Intersection and Signal Improvements at Kelley's Corner in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The project area is currently dangerous for pedestrians, many of whom are students, due to a lack of pedestrian facilities and traffic flow. The project will address regional vehicular congestion and provide safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities, creating a foundation for a walkable town center and economic growth. The proposed improvements to bicycle and pedestrian safety are in line with Acton residents' support of Complete Streets projects. | 3-4, 11-12, 16-20, 155-159 |
This project is funded in the FFY 2022 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. |
| Reconstruction on Route 126 (Pond Street) (Ashland) |
Support | Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership Ashland resident: Yolanda Greaves |
Supports the inclusion of the Reconstruction of Route 126 project in the FFY 2020 element of the TIP. States that the project will upgrade a major business corridor in Ashland, and that residents of the community fully support the project. Notes they are actively working to move engineering along which, if possible, would mean the project could move into the FFY 2019 element. |
16-20, 160 | This project is funded in the FFY 2020 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. If this project is ready to advertise for construction sooner and funding becomes available in the TIP, the MPO could consider advancing this project to the FFY 2019 element of the TIP. |
| Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard (Boston) |
Oppose | Boston resident: Anne McKinnon | Requests reconsideration of programming the Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard project in the 2019 element of the TIP as currently designed. States the project cost is too high for the project area, adding that few residents of the neighborhood support the current design. | 161 | Your comment will be transmitted to the MPO board and MassDOT for their consideration. Please remain involved in the design process, which is conducted by the City of Boston. The City of Boston is responsible for design, engineering, permitting, and the related public process. |
| Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation over MBTA off Carlton Street (Brookline) |
Support | Municipal: Melvin A. Kleckner, Brookline Town Administrator Organization: MASCO |
Supports the inclusion of the Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP, noting disappointment that the project moved from the FFY 2018 to the FFY 2019 element. States the project will restore a historic pedestrian link to the Emerald Necklace Parks and provide universal access to this regional resource. Notes the project is a mitigation measure, required by MEPA, associated with Phase II of the Muddy River Restoration project, also scheduled to begin in FFY 2019. | 14-15, 162-163 |
The decision was made to shift this project from the FFY 2018 to FFY 2019 element of the TIP because of delays in the design and engineering process, which will likely prevent the project from being advertised for construction in FFY 2018. |
| Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 9 & Village Square (Gateway East) (Brookline) |
Support | Municipal: Melvin A. Kleckner, Brookline Town Administrator; Brookline Housing Authority Organization: MASCO |
Supports inclusion of the Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 9 & Village Square project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The project will enhance the mobility of cyclists and pedestrians, including many low-income residents south of Route 9. The improvements will provide protected access to Brookline Village; MBTA rail and bus service; the Longwood Medical Area; and the Emerald Necklace park system's multi-use paths, which are used for both recreational purposes and access to regional employment centers. |
162-168 | This project is funded in the FFY 2018 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. |
| Reconstruction of Broadway (Chelsea) |
Support | Boston resident: Carl Seglem | Supports the inclusion of the Reconstruction of Broadway project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. | 154 | This project is funded in the FFY 2022 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. |
| Reconstruction of Union Avenue (Framingham) |
Support | Framingham resident: Ed Kross | Requests the use of basins under sidewalks in order to place storm grates out of the path of cyclists. Inlets can be vertical as part of the curb, with a solid cleanout access cover located in the sidewalk. Notes that basin covers in concrete sidewalks are less susceptible to settling than those located in the roadway. |
169 | Please contact the project proponent, the City of Framingham, for issues regarding project design. |
| Signal and Intersection Improvements on Route 135 (Hopkinton) |
Support | Municipal: Hopkinton Board of Selectmen Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership |
Supports inclusion of the Signal and Intersection Improvements on Route 135 project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. States that Route 135 serves as Hopkinton's principal commercial corridor and as a major regional corridor for MetroWest and Central Massachusetts towns. The project is needed to address the projected 75% increase in traffic volume that is expected to result from traffic associated with permitted development. The proposed improvements will provide access to the Town's public safety facilities, town hall, public library, and the new village district. Adds that the start of the Boston Marathon is within the project limits. Notes that two locations in the project area are ranked with the top 5% of high crash locations within the MPO. |
16-20, 170-171 |
This project is funded in the FFY 2019 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. |
| Safe Routes to School Improvements at Brooks Elementary (Medford) |
Support | Medford residents: Ken Krause, Lois Bronnenkant, Ellery Klein, Martha Ondras | Supports the inclusion of the Safe Routes to School Improvements at Brooks Elementary in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The area is currently dangerous for pedestrians and children, and design changes are needed to ensure a safe flow of traffic. | 172-175 | This project is funded in the FFY 2020 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 2B. |
| Reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main Street) (Natick) |
Support | Municipal: Natick Board of Selectmen Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership |
Support the inclusion of the Reconstruction of Route 27 project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. States the project will support numerous economic development and quality of life initiatives within the community, including connecting housing and business developments to Natick Center and the Natick Center MBTA station. |
16-20, 176-179 |
This project is funded in the FFY 2019 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. |
| Cochituate Rail Trail, Phase 2 (Natick and Framingham) |
Support | Municipal: Natick Board of Selectmen Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership |
Supports the inclusion of the Cochituate Rail Trail, Phase 2, in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The project will support economic development and quality of life initiatives within the community. Expresses appreciation of MassDOT's support of the increased funding level, stating that the cost increase is attributable to the full replacement of the Route 9 bridge, as well as the expansion of the project scope. A nearby development is partially funding the work on Route 30. The Town has recently acquired the CSX right-of-way. Notes that the Town anticipates that a project will be initiated to establish a link between the trail and a redesigned Natick Center MBTA station, which is now at the beginning of a comprehensive design process. |
16-20, 176-179 |
This project is funded in the FFY 2018 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 2C/Regionally Prioritized Projects. |
| Green Line Extension to College Avenue | Support | Organization: A Better City Medford residents: Ken Krause, Martha Ondras |
Supports the inclusion of the Green Line Extension to College Avenue project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The project will provide access to educational and job opportunities, reduce vehicle congestion, and increase mobility for low-income households and the elderly. |
9-10, 172, 180 | This project is funded in the FFYs 2018-21 TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. |
| Rehabilitation of Mount Auburn Street (Route 16) (Watertown) |
Support | Municipal: Matthew Shuman, Town Engineer Boston resident: Carl Seglem |
Supports the inclusion of the Rehabilitation of Mount Auburn Street project in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. The Town looks forward to proceeding with design to meet the FFY 2022 schedule. | 154, 181 | This project is funded in the FFY 2022 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. |
| Reconstruction of Route 1A (Main Street) (Walpole) |
Support | Municipal: James A. Johnson, Town Administrator Organization: TRIC |
Supports the inclusion of the Reconstruction of Route 1A project in the FFY 2020 element of the TIP. States the project is imperative to addressing significant traffic and pedestrian safety concerns, as well as enhancing the economic development potential in the region. The corridor is one of the region's main thoroughfares, and the project area encompasses several businesses, large commercial plazas, residential areas, and several public schools. Adds the project has been in development since 1997. |
7-8, 182 | This project is funded in the FFY 2020 element of the TIP. The funding amount is listed in Chapter 3 of the TIP document, under Section 1A/Regionally Prioritized Projects. |
| TIP Process and Documentation | |||||
| TIP Document | Request | MassDOT: Office of Transportation Planning | Requests minor changes and clarifications to the document text and TIP tables. | 183-185 | The requested changes and clarifications will be addressed and incorporated into the final draft of the TIP tables and TIP document. The final version of the TIP will be transmitted to MassDOT after the MPO board endorses the document at their meeting on May 25. |
| Funding for Bike/Ped Projects | Request | Beverly resident: Kellie N. Gentry | Requests a higher percentage of funding for bike/ped connectivity projects, stating that only 3.8% of the FFYs 2018-22 TIP is dedicated to such projects. |
186 | During development of the current Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040, the MPO set a goal to invest five percent of the funding in the five-year TIP to bicycle and pedestrian projects. This amount equates to approximately $5 million to $6 million per year. These investment goals could change when the MPO revisits its goals during the development of the next LRTP, which will be adopted by the MPO in FFY 2019. |
| CMAQ Eligibility | Comment Only | Acton resident: Kurt Marden | Questions CMAQ funding for three projects (Cochituate Rail Trail, Phase 2; the Lynnfield/Wakefield Trail Extension; and Phase 2B of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail) in the FFYs 2018-22 TIP. Using BFRT as an example, states that the projected number of trips on the corridor would not meet cost-effectiveness guidelines outlined in the CMAQ Guidance. Cites sections IV and VI of the Guidance regarding cost-effectiveness. Adds that the projects will not significantly reduce vehicle emissions, stating that very few commuters use the Minuteman Bikeway Extension during peak hours. Cites section VII of the CMAQ Guidance, noting that trails should not be exclusively recreational and should reduce vehicle trips. Questions how many commuters would use the BFRT in inclement weather. |
77-78 | The noted bicycle trails were selected, as a result of MassDOT’s project selection process, to receive statewide Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding. MassDOT is committed to promoting bicycling as an important transportation mode that can reduce emissions and support healthy lifestyles. MassDOT’s Bicycle Transportation Plan proposes the creation of the Bay State Greenway system, a cohesive network of bicycle facilities. The sections of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the towns of Acton, Carlisle, Concord, and Westford are part of this system. The section in Sudbury (funded by the MPO) and the proposed extension to Framingham will extend this trail to create a 25-mile path. The rail trail in Wakefield and Lynnfield is part of the Border to Boston Trail, which is also part of the Bay Sate Greenway system. As outlined in the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the MPO is committed, through its vision, goals, and objectives, to provide a transportation system that includes bicycle and pedestrian options to support a sustainable, healthy, livable, and economically vibrant region. In the LRTP, the MPO set aside funding for a bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure program to promote walking and biking in the region. A network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities will provide alternatives to travel by automobile. |
| Under Section V1.A of CMAQ MAP-21 Interim Program Guidance dated November 12, 2013, areas eligible to receive CMAQ funding include ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter nonattainment and maintenance areas, including areas where the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been revoked. The Boston MPO was formerly in an ozone nonattainment area prior to the revocation of the ozone standard, so it continues to receive this funding, as noted in Section VI.A. CMAQ funds are used to ensure continued attainment of the air quality standards. Your comment relative to “geographic areas that are eligible to use CMAQ funds” reflects the language in Section VI.C regarding particulate matter. The Boston MPO is in attainment for particulate matter, so this section does not apply in this case. The MPO uses MassDOT’s TIP Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting Guidance to calculate the air quality benefits and cost effectiveness of projects proposed for programming in the TIP. This guidance is used for determining CMAQ eligibility. Each project that receives CMAQ funding has been reviewed by a statewide CMAQ Eligibility Committee. Members of the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection are part of the committee that deems projects eligible for CMAQ funding. For the air quality analysis, MassDOT provides spreadsheets for each project type, including bicycle and pedestrian projects. Inputs include information on the facility length and service area, and population and employment are considered. Another important factor is the bicycle and commuter mode share; census and American Community Survey data were used to account for work-related trips. The mode share estimate may be a conservative assumption since it only takes into account commuters who travel to work and does not consider those who would use the facility for shopping and school trips. The bike facilities that you mentioned provide access to commercial areas and schools, so not all trips on those facilities are commuting trips. Such trips replace automobile trips and are not recreational trips. Many of these facilities provide access to MBTA commuter rail stations as well. | |||||
| Cost Estimates | Request | Other: AnaCristina Fragoso | States that cost estimates for projects based on the 25% submittal phase and cost adjustments of 4% for projects beginning in 2019 are too low. Requests reconsideration of the adjustment contingency if the estimate is based on an early submittal. |
187 | The Chief Engineer for MassDOT has an initiative underway to improve project delivery, a key component of which involves improving methods for estimating project construction costs. The agency is working with the Transportation Agency Liaison Committee/Highway Division Committee of the American Council of Engineering Companies on these project delivery issues. Currently, MassDOT is proposing to take the following actions to improve project cost estimation: • Including design contingencies in project cost estimates and assigning larger design contingencies to high-risk projects • Using a value for inflation that is adjusted to the midpoint time of construction • Developing guidance on incorporating costs for utility relocation and traffic police into the estimates • Developing protocols for entering costs into MassDOT's project information database • Establishing guidance for estimating project costs at the pre-25% design stage • Developing guidance that provides a framework for designers to prepare preliminary design estimates (25% design) Your comment has been transmitted to MassDOT for their consideration. Boston Region MPO staff and staff of the other MPOs in the state currently adhere to an approach recommended by MassDOT for adjusting projects’ construction costs for inflation: this guidance requires using an annual four percent inflation rate for project cost estimates beginning in the second programming year of the TIP. |
| Local Access Scoring | Request | Sudbury resident: Pat Brown | States data underlying the local access score, known to be flawed, is used for project rankings for local access. The availability of sidewalks is calculated based upon sidewalks listed in the MassDOT Roads Inventory. The database lists these known problems with the current data set. Many communities do not have the resources to update the Inventory for their community—nor do they have any incentive to do so, since listing more sidewalks would decrease their apparent need for funding to build bicycle/pedestrian accommodations. Requests the MPO insist on a minimum level of accuracy for all communities for comparative rankings or decrease the points awarded projects for improving local access. |
74-75 | The scoring of projects in the TIP evaluation process does not rely on the local access score developed by MAPC. The availability of sidewalks is determined either from a site visit, information in engineering design drawings or reports, conversations with municipal staff, or aerial images provided via Google Earth. Further, the scoring process does not rely on the listing of sidewalk availability in the MassDOT Roadway Inventory. A project may receive points for improving access if it would close a gap in the sidewalk network or the bicycle network. This determination is made using verifiable data. |
| Table of Evaluated Projects (Appendix A) |
Support | Sudbury resident: Pat Brown | Expresses appreciation for the new format for the table of evaluated projects. States that breaking out all sub-scoring and providing a text summary for each column is clearer than previous iterations of the table. Adds that the glossary of acronyms continues to be useful. |
74-75 | Thank you for your comment. We continuously strive to improve the clarity of our materials and documentation. |
| CMAQ Funding for Shared Use Paths | Request | Sudbury resident: Pat Brown | States that CMAQ funding for shared use paths should be based upon the facility reducing GHG emissions by reducing single-occupant auto travel. Trails provide recreation opportunities, and recreational users may drive to the trail. Requests that the MPO consider this when developing TIP documents in the future. |
74-75 | The MPO uses MassDOT’s TIP Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting Guidance to calculate the air quality benefits that would be produced by projects. This guidance is used for • the evaluation of projects proposed for programming in the TIP; • reporting for compliance with the Global Warming Solution Act; and • determination of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality eligibility. The evaluation for this project under the Clean Air and Clean Community goal category was done in accordance with this guidance. |
| For the air quality analysis, MassDOT provides spreadsheets for each project type, including bicycle and pedestrian projects. Inputs include information on the facility length and service area, and population and employment are considered. Another important factor is the bicycle and commuter mode share; census and American Community Survey data were used to account for work-related trips. The mode share estimate may be a conservative assumption since it only takes into account commuters who travel to work and does not consider those who would use the facility for shopping and school trips. The MPO uses bicycle facility data from the 2011 MassDOT Road Inventory and 2011 MassDOT Bicycle Accommodation Inventory, as well as the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's Bicycle and Pedestrian Mapping Index for bicycle and pedestrian planning in the MPO area; however, we understand that we have a limited amount of actual bicycle data with which to work. Addressing your comments would require us to perform before-and-after studies and surveys to determine those users who drive to the site; use it for recreation only; bike instead of using their car for traveling to work, school or for shopping purposes; or bike on another facility. A request to conduct this additional work could be submitted as a comment during the development of the next Unified Planning Work Program. |
|||||
| Project Evaluations/ EPDO / Injury Values for Shared Use Paths | Request | Sudbury resident: Pat Brown | States that EPDO/Injury values for shared-use paths do not accurately reflect their expected contribution to public safety. EPDO/Injury values accurately report accidents involving motor vehicles, while accidents involving bicycles and pedestrians but not involving a motor vehicle are not customarily reported. Adds that the meaning of EPDO values in project areas for shared-use paths is unclear. Requests that the FFYs 2018-22 TIP state that only accidents involving motorized vehicles are reliably reported under items 23, 25, and 26 on pages B-4 and B-5. This should also be noted in the discussion of safety improvements in Chapter 4. Requests that the MPO consider how to derive meaningful safety measurements for shared-use paths in future TIP documents. |
74-75 | As you correctly state, EPDO values reflect crashes involving motor vehicles, but not bicycle and pedestrian crashes that do not involve motor vehicles. For off-road paths specifically, EPDO values provide an important quantitative approach to measure crash severity and crash rates at locations where a path crosses a road. Other aspects of safety are assessed in the project evaluation process through the use of evaluation criteria that qualitatively measure the effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures. For example, a project that adds a protected bicycle lane may be awarded more points than a project that adds an on-road bicycle lane. The MPO staff can clarify how EPDO values are used for evaluating shared-use paths in the document that describes the TIP evaluation criteria. Also, new or revised safety measurements will be considered when the MPO undertakes a revision of the TIP project evaluation criteria. |
| Document Readability (Chapter 2) |
Request | Sudbury resident: Pat Brown | States page 2-8 of the TIP document, which documents project ranking criteria, lacks sufficient contrast between text and background for legibility. Requests recoloring of the page. |
74-75 | The color scheme of this graphic will be adjusted. |
| Quantification of CO2 Reduction | Request | Sudbury resident: Pat Brown | Requests that the MPO either quantify CO2 reduction in tons (the method used in the Highway Program Project Detail pages) or in kilograms (the method used in Appendix C), or clarify why different units are used in different sections. |
74-75 | The MPO quantifies greenhouse gas reductions associated with projects in both kilograms and tons. Kilograms are used for reporting in Appendix C of the TIP, as required by MassDOT’s TIP Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting Guidance. The measurement is reported in tons in the project descriptions in Chapter 3 of the TIP because it is assumed that it is easier for the public to visualize tons than kilograms. |
Appendix E
MPO Glossary of Acronyms
| Acronym |
Definition |
|---|---|
3C |
continuous, comprehensive, cooperative [metropolitan transportation planning process] |
A&F |
Administration and Finance Committee |
AACT |
Access Advisory Committee to the MBTA |
ABP |
Accelerated Bridge Program [MassDOT] |
ADA |
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 |
ADT |
average daily traffic |
AADT |
annual average daily traffic |
AFC |
automated fare collection [system] |
AMPO |
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations |
APC |
automatic passenger counter |
APTA |
American Public Transportation Association |
ARAN |
automatic road analyzer |
ARRA |
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 |
ASL |
American sign language |
ATR |
automatic traffic recorder |
AVL |
automatic vehicle location |
AWDT |
average weekday daily traffic |
BCIL |
Boston Center for Independent Living |
BPDA |
Boston Planning and Development Agency, formerly known as the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) [City of Boston] |
BRA |
Boston Redevelopment Authority [City of Boston] |
BRT |
bus rapid transit |
BTD |
Boston Transportation Department |
CA/T |
Central Artery/Tunnel [project] (also known as “the Big Dig”) |
CAA |
Clean Air Act of 1970 |
CAAA |
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 |
CATA |
Cape Ann Transportation Authority |
CBD |
central business district |
CFR |
Code of Federal Regulation |
CHSTP |
Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan |
CIC |
Community Innovation Challenge |
CIP |
Capital Investment Plan [MassDOT] |
CMAQ |
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality [federal funding program] |
CMP |
Congestion Management Process |
CNG |
compressed natural gas |
CO |
carbon monoxide |
CO2 |
carbon dioxide |
CTPS |
Central Transportation Planning Staff |
CTTAP |
Community Transportation Technical Assistance Program |
DBMS |
Database Management System |
DCAMM |
Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance [Massachusetts] |
DCR |
Department of Conservation and Recreation |
DEIR |
draft environmental impact report |
DEP |
Department of Environmental Protection [Massachusetts] |
DMU |
diesel multiple unit [transit vehicle] |
DTA |
dynamic traffic assignment [travel demand modeling] |
EERPAT |
Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool |
EIR |
environmental impact report |
EIS |
environmental impact statement |
EJ |
environmental justice |
EOEEA |
Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs |
EOHED |
Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development |
EOHHS |
Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services |
EPA |
Environmental Protection Agency [federal] |
EPDO |
equivalent property damage only [a traffic-related index] |
ETC |
electronic toll collection |
FAST Act FDR |
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act functional design report |
FEIR |
final environmental impact report |
FFGA |
full funding grant agreement |
FFY, FFYs |
federal fiscal year, federal fiscal years |
FHEA |
Fair Housing Equity Assessment |
FHWA |
Federal Highway Administration |
FMCB |
Fiscal and Management Control Board of the MBTA |
FONSI |
finding of no significant impact |
FTA |
Federal Transit Administration |
GANS |
grant anticipation notes [municipal bond financing] |
GHG |
greenhouse gas [as in greenhouse gas emissions] |
GIS |
geographic information system |
GLX |
Green Line Extension [Green Line Extension project] |
GPS |
global positioning system |
GTFS |
General Transit Feed Specification [data standard] |
GWI |
global warming index |
GWSA |
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008 [Massachusetts] |
HOV |
high-occupancy vehicle |
HPP |
high-priority projects |
HSIP |
Highway Safety Improvement Program [federal funding program] |
HTC |
Healthy Transportation Compact |
ICC |
Inner Core Committee [MAPC municipal subregion] |
IMS |
intermodal management system |
INVEST |
Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool [FHWA] |
IPCC |
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |
IT&S |
Information Technology and Systems [CTPS group] |
ITDP |
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy |
ITE |
Institute of Transportation Engineers |
ITS |
intelligent transportation systems |
JARC |
Job Access and Reverse Commute [program] |
LAP |
language access plan |
LCW |
Livable Community Workshop |
LEP |
limited English proficiency |
LNG |
liquefied natural gas |
LOS |
level of service |
LRTA |
Lowell Regional Transit Authority |
LRTP |
Long-Range Transportation Plan [MPO certification document] |
MAGIC |
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination [MAPC municipal subregion] |
MAP-21 |
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act |
MAPC |
Metropolitan Area Planning Council |
MARPA |
Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies |
MassDOT |
Massachusetts Department of Transportation |
MassGIS |
[Commonwealth’s] Office of Geographic Information Systems |
Massport |
Massachusetts Port Authority |
MassRIDES |
MassDOT’s statewide travel options program |
MBCR |
Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad |
MBTA |
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (also known as “the T”) |
MCAD |
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination |
MEMA |
Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency |
MEPA |
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act |
MGL |
Massachusetts general laws |
MHS |
metropolitan highway system |
memorandum of understanding |
|
MOVES |
Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator [EPA air quality model] |
MPO |
metropolitan planning organization [Boston Region MPO] |
MPOinfo |
Boston Region MPO’s email contact list |
MWGMC |
MetroWest Growth Management Committee [MAPC municipal subregion] |
MWRC |
MetroWest Regional Collaborative [MAPC municipal subregion] |
MWRTA |
MetroWest Regional Transit Authority |
NAAQS |
National Ambient Air Quality Standards |
NBPD |
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project |
NEPA |
National Environmental Policy Act |
NHPP |
National Highway Performance Program |
NHS |
National Highway System |
NMHC |
non-methane hydrocarbons |
NOx |
nitrogen oxides |
NTD |
National Transit Database |
NTP |
notice to proceed |
O&M |
operations and management |
ODCR |
Office of Diversity and Civil Rights [MassDOT] |
OE |
operating expenses |
OTA |
Office for Transportation Access [MBTA] |
OTP |
Office of Transportation Planning [MassDOT] |
P3 |
Public Participation Plan [MPO document] |
PBPP |
performance-based planning and programming |
PDM |
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program [federal] |
PEV |
pedestrian environmental variable |
PL |
metropolitan planning funds [FHWA] or public law funds |
PM |
particulate matter [category of air pollution] |
PMT |
Program for Mass Transportation [MBTA] |
ppm |
parts per million |
PRC |
Project Review Committee [MassDOT] |
PSAC |
Project Selection Advisory Council [MassDOT] |
RCCs |
Regional Coordinating Councils |
RIF |
roadway inventory file |
RMV |
Registry of Motor Vehicles [MassDOT division] |
ROC |
Rider Oversight Committee [MBTA] |
ROW |
right-of-way |
RPA |
regional planning agency |
RSA |
Roadway Safety Audit [FHWA] |
RSS |
rich site summary [Web, feed] |
RTA |
regional transit authority |
RTAC |
Regional Transportation Advisory Council [of the Boston Region MPO] |
RTC |
Regional Transportation Center |
SAFE |
service and fare equity [Title VI] |
SAFETEA-LU |
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act−A Legacy for Users |
SCCCT |
Statewide Coordinating Council on Community Transportation |
SCI |
sustainable communities initiative |
SDO |
supplier diversity office |
SFY |
state fiscal year |
SGR |
state of good repair |
SHRP |
Strategic Highway Research Program |
SHSP |
Strategic Highway Safety Plan |
SIP |
State Implementation Plan |
SNAC |
special needs advisory committee |
SNLA |
Small Necessities Leave Act |
SORE |
statement of revenue and expenses |
SOV |
single-occupancy vehicle |
SPR |
Statewide Planning and Research |
SRTS |
Safe Routes to School [federal program] |
STB |
State Transportation Building [Boston] |
STBGP |
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program [federal funding program; replaced STP] |
STIP |
State Transportation Improvement Program |
STP |
Surface Transportation Program [federal funding program; replaced by STBGP] |
TAM |
transit asset management |
TAP |
Transportation Alternatives Program [federal funding program] |
TAZ |
transportation analysis zone [travel demand modeling term] |
TCMs |
transportation control measures |
TCRP |
Transit Cooperative Research Program |
TDM |
travel-demand management, or transportation-demand management |
TE |
transportation equity |
TEAMS |
Travel Efficiency Assessment Method |
TIGER |
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery [TIGER Discretionary Grant program, federal] |
TIP |
Transportation Improvement Program [MPO certification document] |
Title VI |
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 |
TMA [1] |
transportation management area [FTA, FHWA] |
TMA [2] |
Transportation Management Association |
TMC |
turning movement counts |
TOD |
transit-oriented development |
TRB |
Transportation Research Board |
TREDIS |
Transportation Economic Development Impact System [software] |
TSIMS |
Transportation Safety Information Management System |
TSM |
transportation systems management [FHWA] |
UFP |
ultrafine particles |
UPWP |
Unified Planning Work Program [MPO certification document] |
USDOT |
United States Department of Transportation [agency oversees FHWA and FTA] |
USGS |
United States Geological Survey |
UZA |
urbanized area |
V/C |
volume-to-capacity ratio |
VHT |
vehicle-hours traveled |
VMS |
variable message signs |
VMT |
vehicle-miles traveled |
VOCs |
volatile organic compounds [pollutants] |
VRH |
vehicle revenue-hours |
VRM |
vehicle revenue-miles |
WalkBoston |
pedestrian advocacy group [Boston area] |
WAT |
walk-access transit |
WMM |
weMove Massachusetts [MassDOT planning initiative] |
WTS |
Women in Transportation Seminar |
YMM |
youMove Massachusetts [MassDOT planning initiative] |
Appendix F
Geographic Distribution Analysis of the TIP’s MPO Target Programming
Appendix F summarizes the geographic distribution of Regional Target Program funding within the Boston MPO region between federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2008 and 2022. This data was first compiled for FFYs 2008 through 2013 as part of a response to the Boston Region MPO’s 2014 Certification Review by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). For this FFYs 2018–22 TIP, the data was updated to reflect the distribution of Regional Target Program funding, as currently planned, through FFY 2022.
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 Regional Target Program funding for transportation construction projects. (Additional federal transportation dollars from earmarks and MassDOT discretionary items are excluded from this analysis.)
MPO staff took the following steps to develop the dataset:
The data summarized in this appendix could be used in various ways to help guide spending decisions in future TIPs. Some analyses that the MPO could perform in the future include the following:
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 Regional 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.
Figures F-1 and F-2 summarize this data by subregion and municipality type and Table F-1 shows the detailed data for each municipality in the Boston region.
Figure F-1:
TIP Target Funding by Subregion, FFYs 2008-22
MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination, NSPC = North Shore Planning Council, NSTF = North Shore Task Force,
SSC = South Shore Coalition, SWAP = South West Advisory Planning Committee, TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council
Figure F-2:
TIP Target Funding by Municipality Type, FFYs 2008-22
MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination, NSPC = North Shore Planning Council, NSTF = North Shore Task Force,
SSC = South Shore Coalition, SWAP = South West Advisory Planning Committee, TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council
Table F-1:
TIP Target Programming by Municipality (FFYs 2008-22)
| Municipality | FFYs 2008-16 TIP | FFY 2017 TIP | FFY 2018 TIP | FFY 2019 TIP | FFY 2020 TIP | FFY 2021 TIP | FFY 2022 TIP | FFYs 2018-22 TIP | FFYs 2008-22 TIP | Additional Information |
| Acton | $275,507 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $275,507 | blank | |
| Arlington | $5,125,719 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $5,125,719 | blank | |
| Ashland | blank | blank | blank | blank | $15,532,405 | blank | $15,532,405 | $15,532,405 | blank | |
| Bedford | $17,353,183 | $3,302,453 | blank | blank | blank | blank | $3,302,453 | $20,655,636 | $13,014,923 split with Burlington (29491); $28,296,348 split with Burlington (29492) | |
| Bellingham | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Belmont | $17,229,071 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $17,229,071 | $5,200,000 split with Somerville and Cambridge (600811) | |
| Beverly | $21,982,712 | blank | blank | blank | blank | $3,509,576 | $3,509,576 | $25,492,288 | blank | |
| Bolton | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Boston | $29,525,377 | blank | blank | $7,853,499 | $15,214,319 | $21,832,529 | $44,900,347 | $74,425,724 | $4,842,540 split with Everett (602382) | |
| Boxborough | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Braintree | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Brookline | $213,702 | $5,273,202 | blank | blank | blank | $5,273,202 | $5,486,904 | blank | ||
| Burlington | $17,353,183 | $3,302,453 | blank | blank | blank | blank | $3,302,453 | $20,655,636 | $13,014,923 split with Bedford (29491); $28,296,348 split with Bedford (29492) | |
| Cambridge | $4,766,654 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $4,766,654 | $5,200,000 split with Somerville and Belmont (600811) | |
| Canton | $10,688,605 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $10,688,605 | $26,959,389 split with Dedham, Randolph, and Westwood (87800) | |
| Carlisle | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Chelsea | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Cohasset | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Concord | $26,093,441 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $26,093,441 | $39,584,874 split with Lincoln (602984) | |
| Danvers | $32,716,174 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $32,716,174 | blank | |
| Dedham | $21,129,280 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $21,129,280 | $46,956,250 split with Needham (603206); $26,959,389 split with Canton, Randolph, and Westwood (87800) | |
| Dover | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Duxbury | $247,076 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $247,076 | GATRA funding split with Marshfield; submit TIP funding requests through OCPC | |
| Essex | $6,166,644 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $6,166,644 | blank | |
| Everett | $2,421,270 | blank | blank | $7,244,124 | blank | blank | $7,244,124 | $9,665,394 | $4,842,540 split with Boston (602382) | |
| Foxborough | $2,711,153 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $2,711,153 | $8,133,460 split with Norfolk and Wrentham (602496) | |
| Framingham | $550,814 | blank | blank | blank | blank | $10,063,912 | $10,063,912 | $10,614,726 | MWRTA Route 7 service funding; MWRTA Route 1 service funding |
|
| Franklin | $4,991,116 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $4,991,116 | blank | |
| Gloucester | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Hamilton | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Hanover | $1,993,926 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $1,993,926 | blank | |
| Hingham | blank | $4,927,769 | $3,057,735 | blank | blank | blank | $7,985,504 | $7,985,504 | blank | |
| Holbrook | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $1,363,630 | $1,363,630 | $1,363,630 | blank | |
| Holliston | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Hopkinton | blank | blank | blank | $8,501,376 | blank | blank | $8,501,376 | $8,501,376 | blank | |
| Hudson | $11,114,480 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $11,114,480 | $300,000 split with Route 128 Business Council | |
| Hull | $1,885,976 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $1,885,976 | blank | |
| Ipswich | $3,250,305 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $3,250,305 | blank | |
| Lexington | $7,438,080 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $7,438,080 | blank | |
| Lincoln | $22,492,311 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $22,492,311 | $39,584,874 split with Concord (602984) | |
| Littleton | $4,200,000 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $4,200,000 | blank | |
| Lynn | $5,531,280 | blank | blank | blank | $4,953,270 | blank | $4,953,270 | $10,484,550 | blank | |
| Lynnfield | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Malden | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Manchester | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Marblehead | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Marlborough | blank | $5,613,636 | blank | blank | blank | blank | $5,613,636 | $5,613,636 | blank | |
| Marshfield | $5,929,736 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $5,929,736 | GATRA funding split with Duxbury | |
| Maynard | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Medfield | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Medford | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Medway | $12,062,567 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $12,062,567 | blank | |
| Melrose | $4,405,030 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $4,405,030 | blank | |
| Middleton | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Milford | $7,600,000 | blank | blank | $3,149,619 | blank | blank | $3,149,619 | $10,749,619 | blank | |
| Millis | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Milton | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Nahant | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Natick | $4,450,987 | blank | blank | $15,459,553 | blank | blank | $15,459,553 | $19,910,540 | blank | |
| Needham | $74,110,472 | $12,269,908 | $8,726,330 | blank | blank | blank | $20,996,238 | $95,106,710 | $46,956,250 split with Dedham (603206); $28,613,160 split with Wellesley (603711); $15,464,292 split with Newton (606635) | |
| Newton | $10,988,203 | blank | $7,732,146 | blank | blank | blank | $7,732,146 | $18,720,349 | $7,197,384 split with Watertown (601686); $15,464,292 split with Needham (606635) | |
| Norfolk | $2,711,153 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $2,711,153 | $8,133,460 split with Foxborough and Wrentham (602496) | |
| North Reading | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Norwell | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Norwood | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $6,317,236 | $6,317,236 | $6,317,236 | blank | |
| Peabody | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Pembroke | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | Submit TIP funding requests through OCPC | |
| Quincy | $3,575,278 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $3,575,278 | blank | |
| Randolph | $10,529,796 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $10,529,796 | $26,959,389 split with Canton, Dedham, and Westwood (87800) | |
| Reading | $8,072,234 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $8,072,234 | blank | |
| Revere | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Rockland | $7,500,000 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $7,500,000 | $15,000,000 split with Weymouth (604510) | |
| Rockport | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Salem | $10,126,263 | blank | blank | $2,595,840 | blank | blank | $2,595,840 | $12,722,103 | blank | |
| Saugus | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Scituate | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Sharon | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Sherborn | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Somerville | $23,420,945 | $29,900,000 | $40,000,000 | $40,000,000 | $40,000,000 | $32,000,000 | $181,900,000 | $205,320,945 | $5,200,000 split with Belmont and Cambridge (600811) | |
| Southborough | $71,521 | blank | $7,281,248 | blank | blank | blank | $7,281,248 | $7,352,769 | blank | |
| Stoneham | $1,809,703 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $1,809,703 | $5,429,110 split with Winchester and Woburn (604652) | |
| Stoughton | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | Submit TIP funding requests through OCPC | |
| Stow | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Sudbury | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Swampscott | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Topsfield | $3,936,780 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $3,936,780 | blank | |
| Wakefield | $2,254,636 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $2,254,636 | blank | |
| Walpole | blank | blank | blank | blank | $18,584,373 | blank | $18,584,373 | $18,584,373 | blank | |
| Waltham | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Watertown | $5,387,812 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $5,387,812 | $7,197,384 split with Newton (601686) | |
| Wayland | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Wellesley | $60,001,722 | $12,269,908 | $994,184 | blank | blank | blank | $13,264,092 | $73,265,814 | $28,613,160 split with Needham (603711) | |
| Wenham | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Weston | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Westwood | $24,638,546 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $24,638,546 | $26,959,389 split with Canton, Dedham, and Randolph (87800) | |
| Weymouth | $14,883,300 | $12,850,000 | $19,591,490 | $8,040,268 | blank | blank | $40,481,758 | $55,365,058 | $15,000,000 split with Rockland (604510) | |
| Wilmington | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Winchester | $1,809,703 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $1,809,703 | $5,429,110 split with Stoneham and Woburn (604652) | |
| Winthrop | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | |
| Woburn | $1,809,703 | $4,752,838 | blank | blank | blank | $17,784,392 | $22,537,230 | $24,346,933 | $5,429,110 split with Stoneham and Winchester (604652) | |
| Wrentham | $2,711,153 | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | blank | $2,711,153 | $8,133,460 split with Foxborough and Norfolk (602496) |
MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination, NSPC = North Shore Planning Council, NSTF = North Shore Task Force, SSC = South Shore Coalition, SWAP = South West Advisory Planning Committee,
TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council
1 The MPO’s Public Participation Plan was amended in March 2017 to revise the duration of the public comment period from 30 days to 21 days for FFY 2017.
2 Section 134 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act and Section 5303 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended.
3 Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 450.324(e).
4 Source: MassDOT, 2014 Top Crash Locations Report, August 2016, http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/CrashData/14TopCrashLocationsRpt.pdf.
5 The term “high-crash locations” refers to MassDOT-identified 2012-14 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) clusters, which rank in the top five percent of crash clusters within each Regional Planning Agency (RPA) area. This ranking is based on a combination of factors, including EPDO index values, based on motor vehicle crash data.
6 This monitoring accounts for approximately 46 percent of the interstate, arterial, and collector roadways (approximately 9,100 lane miles) in the Commonwealth, according to the Boston Region MPO lane miles listed in the MassDOT’s 2014 Road Inventory Year-End Report.
7 Calculations for reduced daily vehicle delay exclude several highway projects that were included in the air quality modeling results in Charting Progress for 2040.
8 Calculations for carbon dioxide and other emission reductions exclude several highway projects that were included in the air quality modeling results in Charting Progress for 2040.
9 Calculations for carbon dioxide and other emission reductions exclude several highway projects that were included in the air quality modeling results in Charting Progress for 2040.