Transportation Improvement Program
and Air Quality Conformity Determination:
Federal Fiscal Years 2015–18

 

Endorsed on July 10, 2014

 

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Staff

Directed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is composed of the:

 

MassDOT Office of Planning and Programming                                City of Somerville  (Inner Core Committee)

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority                                 City of Woburn  (North Suburban Planning Council)

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Advisory Board       Town of Arlington  (At-Large Town)

MassDOT Highway Department                                                         Town of Bedford 

Massachusetts Port Authority                                                          (Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination)

Metropolitan Area Planning Council                                                Town of Braintree  (South Shore Coalition)

Regional Transportation Advisory Council                                       Town of Framingham  (MetroWest Regional Collaborative)

City of Boston                                                                                     Town of Lexington  (At-Large Town)

City of Beverly  (North Shore Task Force)                                        Town of Medway  (South West Advisory Planning Committee)

City of Everett  (At-Large City)                                                        Town of Norwood  (Three Rivers Interlocal Council)

City of Newton  (At-Large City)                                                        Federal Highway Administration (nonvoting)

Federal Transit Administration (nonvoting)


 

101 Boston Region Municipalities Map: This map includes the boundaries of the 101 cities and towns that are located within the region.


The MPO complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal and state non-discrimination 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.

 

For additional copies of this document or to request it in an accessible format, contact:

 

By mail                 Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization
                             Certification Activities Group
                             10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150
                             Boston, MA 02116
 
By telephone        (617) 973-7107 (voice)
                             (617) 973-7089 (TTY)
By fax                   (617) 973-8855
 
By e-mail             spfalzer@ctps.org
Or download it at www.ctps.org

 

 

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.

 

 

SELF CERTIFICATION DOCUMENTS OF THE BOSTON REGION MPO

These images list the ten requirements of the transportation planning process to be conducted by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and certifies that the Boston Region MPO complies with these requirements. The certification of the Transportation Planning Process is signed by the members of the Boston Region MPO members, with the exception of:

North Suburban Planning Council – City of Woburn

Massachusetts Port Authority

 

 These images list the ten requirements of the transportation planning process to be conducted by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and certifies that the Boston Region MPO complies with these requirements. The certification of the Transportation Planning Process is signed by the members of the Boston Region MPO members, with the exception of:

North Suburban Planning Council – City of Woburn

Massachusetts Port Authority

Table of Contents

 

Executive summary

Chapter One – The 3C Process                                                                 

Chapter Two – The TIP Process

Chapter Three – Project Information

         Project Tables FFYs 2015 – 18 TIP

         Highway Element  

         Transit Element 

Chapter FOUR – Tracking and Demonstrating Progress USING Performance Measures

Chapter Five – Determination of Air Quality Conformity

Chapter SIX – Financial Constraint

Chapter SEVEN – Operations and Maintenance

Appendices                                                                                                                                                     

      A   Universe of Projects 

      B   Project Information Forms and Evaluations

       C   Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Evaluation

      D   FFY 2014 Highway Projects Status       

      E   Transit Projects Status

      F   Public Comments on the Draft FFYs 2015 – 18 TIP

 

Executive Summary

Federal Fiscal Years 2015–2018 TIP



introduction

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) four-year, nearly $2 billion transportation capital plan, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), is the near-term investment program for the region’s transportation system. Guided by the MPO’s visions and policies, 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, which is the staff to the MPO, manages the TIP-development process.

MPO staff coordinate the evaluation of project requests, propose the programming of current and new projects based on anticipated funding levels, support the MPO in the development of a draft document, and facilitate a public review of the draft document before the MPO endorses the final document.

FFYs 2015–18 Tip overview

The federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2015–18 TIP consists of approximately $675 million worth of transportation investments in the Highway Program and more than $1.3 billion in the transit program. These investments reflect the MPO’s goal of targeting a majority of transportation resources to preserving and modernizing the existing roadway and transit system and maintaining it in a state of good repair.

This TIP also devotes a greater portion of funding for the targeted expansion of the rapid transit system and new shared-use paths than previous TIPs. In addition, a number of the infrastructure investments in this TIP address needs identified in the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan, Paths to a Sustainable Region, or implement recommendations from past studies and reports that were funded through the MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program.


 

FFYs 2015–18 TIP investments

Transit Program

The Transit Program of the TIP provides funding for projects and programs that address capital needs that had been given priority by the three transit agencies in the region: the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA), and the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA). The Transit Program is predominately dedicated to achieving and maintaining a state of good repair for all assets throughout the transit system.

Over the next four fiscal years, the MBTA will invest heavily in modernizing subway, commuter rail, and bus fleets, including $400 million for procuring new cars for the Red and Orange subway lines (part of a $750 million project).

 

The MBTA will also invest in the MBTA’s bridges (of which there are 476) and tunnels. Funds will also be dedicated to improving accessibility at MBTA subway stations—including Government Center Station–and other light rail, commuter rail, Silver Line, and bus stations throughout the system. Transit expansion will be funded in the Highway Program, discussed below.

Highway Program

Image of Orange Line train at stationThe Highway Program of the TIP funds priority transportation projects advanced by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and cities and towns within the 101-municipality MPO region. The program is primarily devoted to preserving and modernizing the existing roadway network through the resurfacing of highways, replacement of bridges, and reconstruction of arterial roadways.

Over the next four years, nearly $206 million (31 percent) of funds in the Highway Program will be used to resurface almost 50 miles of interstate highways, replace highway lighting, and add travel lanes and shoulders to more than three miles of Route 128. Approximately $155 million (23 percent) will be spent to modernize roadways in order to balance the needs of all users—motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Multimodal projects such as the improvements to Commonwealth Avenue in Boston and Route 9 in Brookline will improve safety and enhance access for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and automobiles. In total, roadway modernization projects will result in nearly 27 miles of new bicycle accommodations. More than $200 million (30 percent) of the Highway Program will invest in addressing—functionally obsolete and—structurally deficient bridges.

Map of study areaThe program also invests in the targeted expansion of transit service and bicycle and pedestrian facilities to grow the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. In this draft TIP, $78 million (12 percent) of the Highway Program funds are flexed to transit to extend the Green Line beyond College Avenue to Route 16/Mystic Valley Parkway in Medford. More than $30 million (4 percent) will be invested in extending rail trails, constructing shared-use paths, and improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities around schools—adding more than 20 miles to the off-road bicycle network. A majority of these facilities will also provide direct access to MBTA commuter rail stations: the Tri‑Community Bikeway will connect to Winchester Center and Wedgemere stations; the Assabet River Rail Trail will terminate at South Acton Station, and the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail will link to West Concord Station.

financing the ffys 2015–18 tip

Transit Program

Funds programmed in the Transit Program of the TIP are allocated by the Federal Transit Administration by formula. The three regional transit authorities (RTAs) in the Boston Region MPO area that are recipients of these formula funds are: the MBTA, MWRTA, and CATA. The MBTA, with its extensive transit program and infrastructure, is the recipient of the preponderance of federal transit funds in the region.

 

Funding is allocated by the following funding categories, under the federal transportation legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21):

Highway Program

The Highway Program of the TIP was developed under the assumption that there would be $600 million of federal dollars available annually over the next four years for highway projects statewide. In Massachusetts, federal highway program funding is allocated to several main funding categories.

First, MassDOT allocates federal funding to Grant Anticipation Note (GANs) payments. Over the four years of this TIP, approximately $308 million of the Highway Program is dedicated to GANs payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program. MassDOT matches the remaining amount of federal funding with an 80 percent (federal) and 20 percent (state) split.

Next, MassDOT allocates funding across the following funding categories:

After these needs have been satisfied, MassDOT allocates the remaining federal funding among the state’s MPOs for programming. This discretionary funding for MPOs is suballocated by formula to determine “Regional Target” amounts. These targets are developed by MassDOT in consultation with the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies. Each MPO can decide how the Regional Target funding they receive is prioritized.

the tip development process

Overview

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. The criteria are based on the MPO’s visions and policies, which were adopted for its Long-Range Transportation Plan, Paths to a Sustainable Region.

Outreach and Data Collection

The outreach process begins early in the fiscal year, when MPO staff begin to brief local officials and members of the public on the upcoming year’s development process. In November MPO staff ask the staffs of cities and towns in the region to identify their priority projects for consideration for federal funding. MPO staff compile the 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. MPO staff also collect data on each project in the universe so that the projects can be evaluated.

Project Evaluation

Once project updates are complete, the staff evaluates projects based on how well they address the MPO’s policies in the following categories:

This year, the staff was able to increase the number of projects that have complete evaluations from 50 to 60 projects. A basic level of design is needed to provide enough information to fully evaluate a potential TIP project. In some cases not enough information is available to fully evaluate a project across all six policy categories. The evaluation results are posted on the MPO’s website, allowing municipal officials and members of the public to view and provide feedback on the evaluation results.

Staff Recommendation and Draft TIP

MPO staff use the project information and evaluation results to prepare a First-Tier List of Projects—projects that have received high scores through the TIP evaluation process and that could be made ready for advertisement within the time frame of the upcoming TIP. MPO staff then prepare a staff recommendation for the TIP considering the First-Tier list and other factors, such as the construction readiness of a project, the estimated project cost, community priority, geographic equity (to ensure that needs are addressed throughout the region), and consistency with the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan. The staff recommendation proposes the projects to be funded with the MPO’s Regional Target funding over the next four years.

The staff recommendation is always financially constrained. This year it is constrained to the approximately $293 million available for MPO Regional Target projects in FFYs 2015–18. The staff recommendation was submitted to the MPO and was discussed in April 2014.

approving the tip

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, and the capital programs for the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA, before voting to release a draft TIP for public review.

This year, the MPO voted in mid-May to release the draft FFYs 2015–18 TIP for a 30-day public comment period. The MPO invites members of the public, regional and local officials, and other stakeholders in the Boston region to review the proposed program during that time period. Several outreach sessions are held during the public comment period, as well, to solicit comments on the draft TIP.

After the comment period ends, the MPO reviews all of the comments it has received and makes changes to the document as appropriate. This year, the MPO endorsed the FFYs 2015–2018 TIP on July 10, 2014. Once the TIP has been endorsed by the MPO, it is incorporated into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)—which is a compilation of TIPs from all of the MPOs in Massachusetts—and sent to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration to enable the document to be approved by the federal agencies by September 30, before the start of FFY 2015.

Updates to the TIP

Even after the TIP has been finalized, administrative modifications and amendments must often 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 amendments and administrative modifications are posted on the MPO’s website. If there must be an amendment, the Regional Transportation Advisory Council is informed and the affected municipalities and other stakeholders are notified through the MPO’s email listserv, MPOinfo. The MPO holds a 30-day public comment period before taking action on an amendment. Administrative modifications are generally minor adjustments that usually do not warrant a public comment period.

stay involved with 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 full TIP, and to submit your comments. You may also want to sign up for our email news updates by contacting us at publicinformation@ctps.org.

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

                        Certification Activities Group

                        10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150

                        Boston, MA 02116

 

Telephone:   617-973-7100

                        617-973-7089 (TTY)

Fax:                 617-973-8855

Email:            publicinformation@ctps.org


 

 

Chapter One

The 3C Process


introduction to 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, other 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 continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3C) transportation-planning process that results in plans and programs consistent with the planning objectives of the metropolitan area. 1 The 3C transportation-planning process in the Boston region is the responsibility of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which has established the following objectives for the process:

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization

The Boston Region MPO is a 22-member board consisting of state agencies, regional organizations, and municipalities; its jurisdiction extends from Boston to Ipswich in the north, Duxbury in the south, and approximately to Interstate 495 in the west. The map that follows the title page of this document shows the 101 cities and towns that make up this area.

As part of its 3C 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’s process to be certified as meeting federal requirements; this certification is a prerequisite for receiving federal transportation funds.

This TIP was developed and approved by the MPO members listed below. The permanent MPO voting members are the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT); Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC); MBTA Advisory Board; Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA); Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport); City of Boston, and Regional Transportation Advisory Council. The elected MPO voting members and their respective seats are:

City of Beverly – North Shore Task Force
City of Everett – At-Large City
City of Newton – At-Large City
City of Somerville – Inner Core Committee
City of Woburn – North Suburban Planning Council
Town of Arlington – At-Large Town
Town of Bedford – Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination
Town of Braintree – South Shore Coalition
Town of Framingham – MetroWest Regional Collaborative
Town of Lexington – At-Large Town
Town of Medway – SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee
Town of Norwood – Three Rivers Interlocal Council

In addition, the FHWA and the FTA participate in the MPO as advisory (nonvoting) members. The organization chart on the following page also shows MPO membership and the MPO’s staff, Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS).

This figure shows the membership of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, as described in the chapter, along with the groups that fall within CTPS.

MassDOT has three seats on the MPO, including one for theHighway Division.

Two members participate in the Boston Region MPO in an advisory (nonvoting) capacity, reviewing the LRTP, the TIP, and the UPWP to ensure compliance with federal planning and programming requirements:

Two other entities assist MPO members in carrying out the responsibilities of the MPO’s 3C planning process through policy implementation, technical support, and public participation:

Certification Documents

The following section briefly describes the three documents the MPO produces as part of its federally required 3C process:

This figure shows the boundaries of the MAPC subregional groups within the Boston region. There are eight subregional groups: North Shore Task Force, North Suburban Planning Council, Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination, MetroWest Regional Collaborative, SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee, Three Rivers Interlocal Council, South Shore Coalition, and Inner Core Committee.

Consistency with Federal Planning Regulations

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21)

This legislation requires all MPOs to carry out the 3C process. To meet this requirement, MPOs must perform the following activities:

The MAP-21 legislation establishes national goals for federal highway programs, including:

  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 enriching 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 through eliminating delays in the development and delivery process, including lessening regulatory burdens and improving agencies’ work practices

MAP-21 also establishes performance-based planning as an integral part of the metropolitan planning process. Under MAP-21, states will develop performance goals, guided by the national goals cited in MAP-21, and MPOs will work with state departments of transportation (DOTs) to develop MPO performance targets. The TIP will integrate the MPO’s performance measures and link transportation-investment decisions to progress toward achieving performance goals.

Consistency with Other Federal Legislative Requirements

Nondiscrimination Mandates

The Boston Region 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 of its 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. The major federal requirements are discussed below.

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

This statute requires that no person be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, 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 federally conducted and assisted programs and activities and requires MPOs to develop and implement a system by which LEP persons can meaningfully participate in the transportation-planning process. 

Environmental Justice Executive Orders

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, including interrelated social and economic effects, of its programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations.

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 requires programming and planning activities to:

The Americans with Disabilities Act

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act 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 MPO materials must be made available in accessible formats.

The 1990 Clean Air Act

Air-quality conformity determinations must be performed for capital improvement projects that receive federal funding and for those that are considered regionally significant, regardless of the funding source. These determinations must show that the MPO’s 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 the air-quality standards in any area.

Transportation control measures (TCMs) identified in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the attainment of air-quality standards are federally enforceable and must be given first priority when using federal funds. Such projects 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 the operation of high-occupancy-vehicle lanes.

 

CONSISTENCY WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS

Global Warming Solutions Act

The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), which Governor Deval Patrick signed into law in August 2008, 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 (EOEEA), 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, establishes the following targets for overall, statewide GHG emissions:

GreenDOT Policy

The transportation sector is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gases, accounting for more than one-third of GHG emissions, and therefore is a major focus of the Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. MassDOT’s approach to supporting implementation 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 to achieve the 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. The Boston Region MPO’s TIP project evaluation criteria are used to score projects based on GHG emissions impacts, multimodal “complete streets” accommodations, and their ability to support smart-growth development. Tracking and evaluating GHG emissions by project will enable the MPOs to identify anticipated GHG impacts of the planned and programmed projects and also to use GHG impacts as a criterion to prioritize transportation investments.

Coordination with Other Planning Activities

Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)

The MPO considered the degree to which a proposed TIP project would advance the policies that guided the development of its LRTP. The MPO also reviewed TIP projects within the context of the recommended projects included in the LRTP.

Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)

The MPO aims to implement the recommendations of past studies and reports of the UPWP. This information was considered by the MPO in the development of the draft TIP.

Congestion Management Process (CMP)

The purpose of the CMP is to 1) monitor and analyze the performance of facilities and services; 2) develop strategies for the management of congestion based on the results of monitoring; and 3) move those strategies into the implementation stage by providing decision makers in the region with information and recommendations for the improvement of transportation system performance. The CMP monitors roadways and park-and-ride facilities in the MPO region for safety, congestion, and mobility, and identifies “problem” locations. Projects that help address problems identified in the most recent CMP monitoring were considered for inclusion in this TIP.

The MBTA’s Program for Mass Transportation (PMT)

In 2009, the MBTA adopted its current PMT, which is the MBTA’s long-range capital plan. The PMT was developed with extensive public involvement and was approved by the MBTA Advisory Board. The PMT includes projects that are currently in design for inclusion in the TIP.

MetroFuture

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, and it was adopted as the future land use scenario for the MPO LRTP, Paths to a Sustainable Region. MetroFuture’s goals, objectives, and strategies were considered in the development of this TIP.

youMove Massachusetts (YMM)

YMM, a statewide initiative designed as a bottom-up approach to transportation planning, developed 10 core themes derived from a broad-based public participation process that articulated the expressed concerns, needs, and aspirations of Massachusetts residents related to their transportation network. These themes formed the basis for the YMM Interim Report (2009), and were considered in the development of this TIP.

weMove Massachusetts (WMM)

WMM is MassDOT’s statewide strategic multimodal plan. The initiative is a product of the transportation reform legislation of 2009 and the YMM civic engagement process. In December, 2013, MassDOT released WMM: Planning for Performance, a single, multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan. The WMM Planning for Performance 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 tool to update and refine investment priorities. The TIP builds on this data-driven method to prioritize transportation investments.

Healthy Transportation Compact (HTC)

The 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 the Commonwealth makes 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 or designee (co-chair), the Secretary of Health and Human Services or designee (co-chair), the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs or designee, the Administrator of Transportation for Highways or designee, the Administrator of Transportation for Mass Transit or designee, and the Commissioner of Public Health or designee.

The HTC also promotes improved coordination among the public and private sectors, and advocacy groups, as well as transportation, land-use, and public health stakeholders. As part of the framework for the HTC, MassDOT established a Healthy Transportation Advisory Group comprised of advocates and leaders in the fields of land-use, transportation, and public health policy.

Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP)

The $3 billion Patrick-Murray ABP Program represents a monumental investment in Massachusetts bridges. This program will greatly reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges in the state system, while creating thousands of construction jobs.

To complete this program, MassDOT and the DCR have relied on innovative and accelerated project development and construction techniques. As a result, projects have been completed on time, on budget, and with minimum disruption to people and commerce.

Since 2008, the number of former structurally deficient bridges has dropped, from 543 to 416, a decline of more than 23 percent. As of April 1, 2014, the ABP Program has completed 155 bridge projects, with another 29 bridge projects currently in construction and an additional 15 bridge projects scheduled to start construction within the next calendar year. Over the course of the eight-year ABP program, in excess of 200 bridges will be replaced or repaired.

MassDOT Mode Shift Goal

In the fall of 2012, MassDOT announced a statewide mode shift goal: to triple the share of travel in Massachusetts that uses bicycling, transit, and walking. The mode shift goal aims to foster improved quality of life by enhancing 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 would provide all customers with access to safe and comfortable walking, bicycling, and transit options.

 

Consistency with MPO Policies

In choosing projects to include in the TIP, the Boston Region MPO considers the degree to which a project promotes the following MPO policies—which were adopted in April 2010, and are the basis for the TIP evaluation process:

System Preservation, Modernization, and Efficiency

Maximizing efficiency, reliability, mobility, and accessibility within our existing infrastructure, and current and ongoing fiscal constraints, will require following a program of strategic, needs-based investments. To accomplish this, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

Livability

To make livability a hallmark of communities in the MPO region and to achieve mobility, foster sustainable communities, and expand economic opportunities and prosperity, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

Mobility

To improve mobility for people and freight, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

Environment

To protect the environment and minimize the impacts from transportation systems, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

Transportation Equity

To provide for the equitable sharing of the benefits and burdens of transportation investments among all residents of the region, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

Climate Change

To meet targets for reducing GHG emissions, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

Safety and Security

To provide for maximum transportation safety and to support security in the region, the MPO will put a priority on programs, services, and projects that:

 

Chapter Two

The TIP Process

 

INTRODUCTION TO THE TIP Process

Among the most important decisions faced in planning for the future are those involving how to spend scarce funds to achieve the best possible transportation system. Transportation improvements are part of the solution to many critical regional, state, national, and even global problems, such as traffic congestion, air pollution, traffic fatalities and injuries, climate change, and environmental justice. With not nearly enough transportation funding available to build all of the needed and worthy projects that would address these problems, investments should be guided by policies that help identify the most viable solutions. The TIP prioritizes these transportation investments through its annual development process.

 

Each year, the MPO conducts a TIP development process to decide how to spend federal transportation funds for capital projects. The Central Transportation Planning Staff to the Boston Region MPO manages the annual development process for the TIP. The MPO staff coordinates the evaluation of project requests, proposes programming of current and new projects based on anticipated funding levels, supports the MPO in the development a draft document, and facilitates public review of the draft document before the final MPO endorsement.

FINANCING THE PROGRAM

Federal Framework

The first step in the process of allocating federal transportation funds is a multiyear federal transportation authorization act that establishes a maximum level of federal transportation funding per federal fiscal year. The establishment of this level of funding is referred to as an authorization. The most recent authorization act is Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), which was signed into law on July 6, 2012.

 

Once the authorization level has been established, the United States Department of Transportation annually allocates funding among the states, 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 is committed to a state because of federally imposed funding limitations on spending in a given fiscal year, referred to as the obligation authority.

 

Obligation authority may be imposed in a multiyear authorization act, in the annual appropriations act, or in both. Obligation authority is typically less than a state’s apportionment. 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 federal fiscal years (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 Highway Program

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 FFYs 2015–18 TIP was developed under the assumption that the Statewide Federal Highway Program funding would be $600 million annually over the next four years. In Massachusetts, federal highway program funding is allocated to several major funding categories. First, MassDOT allocates federal funding to repay Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) used to fund the Accelerated Bridge Program. Over the four years of this TIP, approximately $308 million of the Highway Program is dedicated to GANs payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program. MassDOT matches the remaining amount of federal funding with an 80 percent (federal) and 20 percent (state) split. Next, MassDOT allocates funding based on the following funding categories:

After these needs have been satisfied, the remaining federal funding is allocated to the state’s MPOs for programming. This discretionary funding for MPOs is suballocated by formula to determine “regional target” amounts, which are developed in consultation with the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies. Each MPO decides how its Regional Target funding is prioritized. Over the next four years, the Boston Region MPO’s total Regional Target Program funding is approximately $293.3 million, an average of $73.3 million annually. To decide how to spend its Regional Target funding, the Boston Region MPO engages its 101 cities and towns in an annual development process.

 

Federal Transit Program

The Federal Transit Program is allocated within the Boston Urbanized Area (UZA) by formula to the transit service operators. The formula considers passenger-miles, population density, and other factors associated with each transit provider. The three regional transit authorities (RTAs) in the Boston Region MPO area are the MBTA, the MWRTA, and the CATA. The MBTA, with its extensive transit program and infrastructure, is the recipient of the preponderance of federal transit funds in the region.

Funding Programs

Many federal-aid transportation programs support transportation activities in metropolitan areas, each area having different requirements and program characteristics. Non-federal aid (state funds) for the Statewide Infrastructure Items, the Bridge Program, and the Regional Targets is derived from various sources, including the Commonwealth’s Transportation Bond Bill. Under MAP-21, federal programs that fund projects in the FFYs 2015–18 TIP are listed in the following two tables.

 

 

TABLE 2-1

Federal Transit Administration Programs

 

MAP-21 Program

Eligible Uses

Examples

Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307)

Transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas. Under MAP-21, job access and reverse-commute activities (formerly funded under Section 5316) are now eligible for funding under Section 5307.

Government Center (MBTA Stations) – FFY 2015

Fixed Guideway/Bus (Section 5337)

 

 

Replacement, rehabilitation, and other state-of-good-repair capital projects.

MBTA Bridge & Tunnel Program – FFYs 2015-18

Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339)

Capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment, and to construct bus-related facilities.

MBTA Systems Upgrades Program – FFYs 2015–18

Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities

(Section 5310)

Capital expenses that support transportation to meet the special needs of older adults and persons with disabilities. Under MAP-21, New Freedom program (Section 5317) activities are now eligible under Section 5310.

 

 

 

TABLE 2-2

Federal Highway Administration Programs

 

MAP-21 Program

Eligible Uses

Examples

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)

A wide range of projects in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and small particulate matter, which reduce transportation-related emissions.

Tri-Community Bikeway (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn) – FFY 2015

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

Implementation of infrastructure-related highway safety improvements

Reconstruction of Route 85/ Maple Street (Marlborough) – FFY 2016

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)

 

Improvements to interstate routes, major urban and rural arterials, connectors to major intermodal facilities, and the national defense network. Also includes replacing or rehabilitating any public bridge, and resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating routes on the Interstate Highway System.

Route 128 Improvement Program (Needham & Wellesley) – FFYs 2015–18

 

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.

Improvements to Commonwealth Avenue (Boston) – FFY 2015

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)

 

Construction of infrastructure-related projects (for example, sidewalk, crossing, and on-road bicycle facility improvements). Under MAP-21, Safe Routes to School Program and Recreational Trails Program are now eligible under TAP.

Veterans Memorial School (Saugus) – FFY 2016

High-Priority Projects (HPP)

[Carried over from SAFETEA-LU]

Specific, named projects for which funds are carried over from previous authorizations.

Traffic Signal Improvements on Blue Hill Avenue and Warren Street (Boston) – FFY 2015

Discretionary Funding

Specific projects included annual appropriations that are funded through grant programs such as the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program; Value Pricing Pilot Program; and Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program.

 


developing the tip

Highway Discretionary (“Regional Target”) Funding Project Selection Process

Overview

The MPO’s project selection process for highway discretionary (“regional target”) funding uses evaluation criteria to help identify and prioritize projects that advance the MPO’s goals. The criteria are based on the MPO’s visions and policies, which were adopted for its current Long-Range Transportation Plan, Paths to a Sustainable Region.

 

All projects are required to show consistency with the Long-Range Transportation Plan and other statewide and regional plans (for example, the MBTA’s Program for Mass Transportation and the Massachusetts Statewide Bicycle Transportation Plan).

The MPO staff evaluates each project that is considered for inclusion in the TIP based on the specific criteria that were developed by the MPO. Other criteria include project readiness and municipal support. Additional background information on the TIP project evaluation process is in Appendix B and on the MPO’s website, http://bostonmpo.org. The MPO reviews the effectiveness of this evaluation method and makes alterations to the process as appropriate.

Outreach and Data Collection (November 2013–February 2014)

The outreach process begins early in the federal fiscal year, when the MPO staff begins to brief local officials and members of the public on the year’s development process. Every November, the MPO staff asks the staffs of cities and towns in the region to identify their priority projects for  consideration for federal funding. The MPO also solicits input from interested parties and members of the general public. The staff then compiles the project funding requests and relevant information into a Universe of Projects list for the MPO. The Universe of Projects list consists of all of the identified projects being advanced for possible funding; including projects in various stages of development, from the conceptual stage to the stage when a project is fully designed and ready to be advertised for construction.

 

New projects must be initiated by the MassDOT Highway Division before they can be considered for programming in the TIP. Details of the project initiation process and relevant documents can be found on MassDOT’s Project Review Committee’s webpage, www.mhd.state.ma.us. Municipal TIP Contacts and the MPO staff coordinate with each other to update each project´s Project Funding Application Form through the MPO´s Interactive TIP Database, www.bostonmpo.org. The form provides information on each project´s background, the conditions and needs of the existing infrastructure, the development status, and the potential of the project to help the region attain the MPO’s visions. More information on the Project Funding Application Forms is in Appendix B.

 

The MPO has begun to monitor the anticipated greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts of planned and programmed projects. This tracking will enable the MPO to consider the anticipated impacts when prioritizing transportation investments. For more information on the GHG emission monitoring and evaluation, see Appendix C.

Evaluation of Projects (February–March 2014)

The MPO uses TIP project evaluation criteria to develop a numeric score that gives an indication of how well a project would help the region attain the visions established by the MPO. This score can then be used to guide the MPO in selecting the projects that will be most successful. The MPO’s visions include: to maintain a state of good repair, focus investments on existing activity centers, improve mobility for people and freight, reduce the level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, minimize environmental burdens from transportation facilities on low-income and minority populations, and provide safe transportation in all modes. Projects with components and outcomes that help attain the MPO’s goals receive higher scores.

 

The project evaluation criteria consist of 35 questions across six policy categories. A figure that illustrates the TIP evaluation criteria (on the following page) provides an overview of the policy categories, their point values, and the criteria measures.

 

The MPO staff requires a Functional Design Report (FDR) to conduct a complete evaluation (see MassDOT’s Project Development and Design Guide for information about what is included in a Functional Design Report). If not enough information is available, a project cannot be fully evaluated across all categories.

 

The summary of evaluation results for projects being considered for the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2015–18 TIP is available in Table A-1, in Appendix A. The table contains the total project rating for each project. For more details on the evaluation criteria used to score projects, see Appendix B.

Staff Recommendation (March–April 2014)

The MPO staff used evaluations and project readiness information to prepare a First-Tier List of Projects. This is a list of the projects with the highest ratings that could be made ready for advertising within the TIP’s time horizon (the next four federal fiscal years). The staff relies on the MassDOT Highway Division to provide information about what year a project would be ready for advertising. In developing the staff recommendation for the draft TIP, the MPO staff strongly considered the First-Tier List of Projects. The MPO staff also factored in projects that are listed in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) in order to implement the LRTP, considered geographic equity to help ensure that the list of projects addresses needs throughout the region, and accounted for costs to comply with the fiscal constraint requirement.

Bridge Program - Project Selection Process

The project selection criteria for the Bridge Program are based on MassDOT’s continuous, ongoing prioritization process. The underlying basis of this prioritization is the condition of the bridges, based largely on information gathered through the Bridge Inspection Management System.


The graphic shows 35 evaluation criteria across six policy categories that the MPO uses to score TIP projects.

Statewide Infrastructure Items – Project Selection Process

The project selection process for the Statewide Infrastructure Items involves coordination between the MassDOT divisions to review and prioritize projects that advance important statewide policy goals for improving mobility, protecting the environment, promoting economic growth, and improving public health and quality of life. Other prioritization factors include project readiness and consistency with MassDOT’s GreenDOT sustainability policy, the Bay State Greenway Priority 100, and the Safe Routes to School Program.

Transit – Project Selection Process

The process of selecting transit projects for the TIP draws primarily from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Capital Investment Program (CIP). The CIP is a rolling five-year plan that outlines the transit system´s infrastructure needs and planned investments within that short-range time frame. The MBTA updates the CIP annually. Prioritization of projects for inclusion in the CIP is based on their impacts on the following, as defined in the MBTA’s enabling legislation: the effectiveness of the commonwealth’s transportation system; service quality; the environment, health, and safety; the state of good repair of MBTA infrastructure; and the MBTA’s operating costs and debt service.

Projects that receive the highest priority are those with the greatest benefit and the least cost, as prioritized by the following criteria:

 

The transit element of the TIP also includes the federal-aid programs of the other two transit authorities in the region, the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA) and MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA). CATA and MWRTA coordinate with the MassDOT Rail and Transit Division to develop their capital programs.

approving the tip

Approval of the Draft TIP for Public Review

The MPO considers the evaluation results, First-Tier List of Projects, and staff recommendation in prioritizing projects for Regional Target funding. They also consider public input, regional importance, and other factors in the development of the draft TIP. In addition to prioritizing the Regional Target funding, the MPO reviews the 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.

 

This year, the MPO is scheduled to vote in May to release the draft federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2015–18 TIP for a 30-day public review and comment period. The MPO invites members of the public, regional and local officials, and other stakeholders in the Boston region to review the proposed program. Several TIP outreach sessions are held during the public comment period to solicit comments on the draft TIP. Summaries of the comments received on the draft TIP are in Appendix F.

Approval of the Draft TIP

After the comment period ends, the MPO reviews all comments and makes changes to the document as appropriate. This year, the MPO endorsed the FFYs 2015–2018 TIP on July 10, 2014. Once the TIP has been endorsed by the MPO, it is incorporated into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and sent to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration in order to obtain federal approval by September 30, the end of the federal fiscal year.

Updating the TIP

The TIP is a dynamic program that is amended and adjusted throughout the year. Administrative modifications and amendments must often be introduced due to changes in project status, project cost, or available revenues.

 

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 below these thresholds may be considered administrative modifications. The MPO acts on administrative modifications, and, although no public review period is required, one may be provided at the MPO’s discretion.

 

Affected municipalities and constituencies are notified of pending amendments. Legal notices of amendments are placed in the region’s major newspaper, in its most widely read minority newspaper and Spanish-language newspaper, and on the MPO’s website, www.bostonmpo.org. In addition, a notice of a pending amendment is distributed to the MPO’s email listserv, MPOinfo, and, along with the actual amendment, is posted on the MPO’s website. These notices include information on the 30-day public comment period that precedes MPO action on an amendment. The Regional Transportation Advisory Council is notified and briefed during this period and provides comments to the MPO. Municipal representatives and members of the public may also submit written or oral testimony at the MPO meetings at which amendments are discussed.

 

Because the print version of the TIP is prepared prior to the start of each federal fiscal year, it may not reflect all of the changes to the program and projects that occur during the course of the year. 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). Comments or questions on the draft materials may be submitted directly through the website, as well as at MPO meetings at which the materials are discussed, and via US mail.

 

 

Chapter Three

Project Information



This chapter begins with tables listing, by year, the projects and programs funded in FFYs 2015–18.

Following the tables, information on projects and programs funded in the Highway and Transit Programs is presented. Projects funded under the Highway Program are listed by municipality, while programs funded under the Transit Program are listed by transit agency.

Highway Program - project information key

ID Number: Projects in MassDOT’s project-tracking system are given a number; those projects not in the

Project-tracking system have no number. Transit projects are identified by regional transit agency.

 

Municipality(ies): The municipality (or municipalities) in which a project is located.

 

Project Name: The location or name of the project.

 

Project Type: The category of the project (e.g., Major Highway, Arterial and Intersection, or Bicycle and Pedestrian).

 

Air Quality Status: The air quality status of the project in the MPO’s regional travel demand model.

CO2 Impact: The quantified or assumed annual tons of carbon dioxide reduced by the project.

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, if it has been evaluated.

 

MPO/CTPS Study: Past UPWP-funded studies or reports conducted within the project area.

 

LRTP Status: The time band that the project is listed in the Long-Range Transportation Plan, if applicable.

 

Project Length: The length of the project in miles.

 

Project Description: The description of the project, if available.

 

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 the Interactive TIP Database at www.bostonmpo.org.

Transit Program - Project information key

Transit Agency: Regional transit agency that is the proponent of the project.

 

Program/Project Name: The description of the program or project.

 

Air Quality Status: The air quality status of the project in the MPO’s regional travel demand model.

 

CO2 Impact: The quantified or assumed annual tons of carbon dioxide reduced by the project.

See Appendix C for more details on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission monitoring and evaluation.

 

Project Description: The description of the program or project, if available.

 

Year: The programming year(s) of the program or 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 program or project based on the year of expenditure.

 

 

Highway Program

 

MassDOT Project Description MassDOT Project ID  TIP Year Primary Funding Source  Total Funds  Federal Funds  Non-Federal Funds  Additional Information                                 TIP Document
SALEM- RECONSTRUCTION ON CANAL STREET, FROM WASHINGTON STREET & MILL STREET TO LORING AVENUE & JEFFERSON AVENUE 605146 2015 HSIP  $2,000,000  $1,800,000  $200,000 STP+HSIP+CMAQ Total Cost = $7,867,762  Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
MEDWAY- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 109, FROM HOLLISTON STREET TO 100 FT. WEST OF HIGHLAND STREET, INCLUDES REHAB OF M-13-012 605657 2015 HSIP  $3,000,000  $2,700,000  $300,000 STP+HSIP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $12,062,567; HSIP pending Road Safety Audit Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
SALEM- RECONSTRUCTION ON CANAL STREET, FROM WASHINGTON STREET & MILL STREET TO LORING AVENUE & JEFFERSON AVENUE 605146 2015 CMAQ  $2,000,000  $1,600,000  $400,000 STP+HSIP+CMAQ Total Cost = $7,867,762  Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1571 2015 CMAQ  $400,000  $320,000  $80,000 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
STONEHAM- WINCHESTER- WOBURN- TRI-COMMUNITY BIKEWAY 604652 2015 CMAQ  $5,429,110  $4,343,288  $1,085,822 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMONWEALTH AVENUE, FROM AMORY STREET TO ALCORN STREET 606284 2015 CMAQ  $5,000,000  $4,000,000  $1,000,000 STP+CMAQ+Earmarks (SAFETEA-LU, Section 125 and 129, STPP, TCSP) Total Cost = $16,866,250  Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
MEDWAY- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 109, FROM HOLLISTON STREET TO 100 FT. WEST OF HIGHLAND STREET, INCLUDES REHAB OF M-13-012 605657 2015 CMAQ  $5,000,000  $4,000,000  $1,000,000 STP+HSIP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $12,062,567 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
MEDWAY- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 109, FROM HOLLISTON STREET TO 100 FT. WEST OF HIGHLAND STREET, INCLUDES REHAB OF M-13-012 605657 2015 TAP  $2,548,719  $2,038,975  $509,744 STP+HSIP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $12,062,567 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
SALEM- RECONSTRUCTION ON CANAL STREET, FROM WASHINGTON STREET & MILL STREET TO LORING AVENUE & JEFFERSON AVENUE 605146 2015 STP  $3,867,762  $3,094,210  $773,552 STP+HSIP+CMAQ Total Cost = $7,867,762  Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMONWEALTH AVENUE, FROM AMORY STREET TO ALCORN STREET 606284 2015 STP  $7,446,852  $5,957,482  $1,489,370 STP+CMAQ+Earmarks (SAFETEA-LU, Section 125 and 129, STPP, TCSP) Total Cost = $16,866,250  Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
MEDWAY- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 109, FROM HOLLISTON STREET TO 100 FT. WEST OF HIGHLAND STREET, INCLUDES REHAB OF M-13-012 605657 2015 STP  $1,513,848  $1,211,078  $302,770 STP+HSIP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $12,062,567 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
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 & W-13-023 (ADD-A-LANE - CONTRACT V) 603711 2015 NHPP  $30,000,000  $24,000,000  $6,000,000 AC Yr 2 of 5; NHPP+BR+Statewide Infrastructure Total Cost = $164,919,140 ($87,768,183 programmed within FFYs 2015-18 TIP)                                       Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
LEXINGTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-10-009, ROUTE 2 (EB & WB) OVER ROUTE I-95 (ROUTE 128) 600703 2015 NHPP  $14,886,555  $11,909,244  $2,977,311 AC Yr 3 of 4; Total Cost = $35,108,000 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
GLOUCESTER- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, G-05-017, ROUTE 128 OVER ANNISQUAM RIVER (PHASE II) 607338 2015 NHPP  $5,506,585  $4,405,268  $1,101,317 AC Yr 2 of 2; Total Cost = $13,956,585 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
DEDHAM- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, D-05-033, PROVIDENCE HIGHWAY OVER MOTHER BROOK 604796 2015 NHPP  $1,192,805  $954,244  $238,561 AC Yr 2 of 2; Total Cost = $7,051,805 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
FRANKLIN- BRIDGE DEMOLITION, F-08-005, OLD STATE ROUTE 140 OVER MBTA/CSX & NEW PEDESTRAIN BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 607273 2015 NHPP  $1,780,272  $1,424,218  $356,054 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
DEDHAM- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, D-05-003 (33K), NEEDHAM STREET OVER GREAT DITCH 605883 2015 NHPP  $3,029,032  $2,423,226  $605,806 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WOBURN- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-43-003, SALEM STREET OVER MBTA 603008 2015 NHPP  $5,018,477  $4,014,782  $1,003,695 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- ADVANCED UTILITY RELOCATIONS FOR BRIDGE B-16-237, MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE (ROUTE 2A) OVER COMMONWEALTH AVENUE 608019 2015 NHPP  $6,000,000  $4,800,000  $1,200,000 AC Yr 1 of 3; Total Cost = $15,100,020 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD (HPP 756 & 4284)  605789 2015 Earmark  $2,429,730  $1,943,784  $485,946 Construction; HPP 756 (MA126); SAFETEA-LU Earmark (HPP 756)+ SAFETEA-LU Earmark (HPP 4284) =Total Cost $7,437,105 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD (HPP 756 & 4284)  605789 2015 Earmark  $5,007,375  $4,005,900  $1,001,475 Construction; HPP 4284 (MA203); SAFETEA-LU Earmark (HPP 756)+ SAFETEA-LU Earmark (HPP 4284) =Total Cost $7,437,105 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON BLUE HILL AVENUE AND WARREN STREET 606134 2015 Earmark  $2,377,900  $1,902,320  $475,580 Construction; HPP 2129 (MA155)
Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMONWEALTH AVENUE, FROM AMORY STREET TO ALCORN STREET 606284 2015 Earmark  $1,114,501  $891,601  $222,900 Construction; HPP 682; STP+CMAQ+Earmarks (SAFETEA-LU, Sections 125 and 129, STPP, TCSP) Total Cost = $16,866,250 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMONWEALTH AVENUE, FROM AMORY STREET TO ALCORN STREET 606284 2015 Earmark  $980,000  $980,000  $-   Construction; Section 129 (MA246); STP+CMAQ+Earmarks (SAFETEA-LU, Sections 125 and 129, STPP, TCSP) Total Cost = $16,866,250  Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMONWEALTH AVENUE, FROM AMORY STREET TO ALCORN STREET 606284 2015 Earmark  $475,000  $475,000  $-   Construction; Section 125 (MA252); STP+CMAQ+Earmarks (SAFETEA-LU, Sections 125 and 129, STPP, TCSP) Total Cost = $16,866,250  Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMONWEALTH AVENUE, FROM AMORY STREET TO ALCORN STREET 606284 2015 Discretionary  $599,897  $599,897  $-   Construction; STPP (MA267); STP+CMAQ+Earmarks (SAFETEA-LU, Sections 125 and 129, STPP, TCSP) Total Cost = $16,866,250 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMONWEALTH AVENUE, FROM AMORY STREET TO ALCORN STREET 606284 2015 Discretionary  $1,250,000  $1,000,000  $250,000 Construction; TCSP (11MA008); STP+CMAQ+Earmarks (SAFETEA-LU, Sections 125 and 129, STPP, TCSP) Total Cost = $16,866,250 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
ACTON- MAYNARD- ASSABET RIVER RAIL TRAIL 604531 2015 CMAQ  $4,042,873  $3,234,298  $808,575 Statewide TE+Statewide CMAQ Total Cost = $4,575,977 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
ACTON- MAYNARD- ASSABET RIVER RAIL TRAIL 604531 2015 STP  $533,104  $426,483  $106,621 Statewide TE+Statewide CMAQ Total Cost = $4,575,977 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
DISTRICT 4- HIGHWAY LIGHTING BRANCH CIRCUIT RE-CABLING FROM SIX (6) LIGHTING LOAD CENTERS ALONG ROUTE I-95 (128) LEXINGTON-WOBURN 607700 2015 STP  $2,500,000  $2,000,000  $500,000 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
MILTON- SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (GLOVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) 607920 2015 TAP  $725,000  $580,000  $145,000 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
SOMERVILLE- SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (HEALEY SCHOOL) 607892 2015 TAP  $700,000  $560,000  $140,000 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
CHELSEA- REVERE- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1  607174 2015 NHPP  $8,663,824  6,931,059  1,732,765 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BEVERLY - RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 128 607891 2015 NHPP  $5,805,600  4,644,480  1,161,120 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
CANTON- NORWOOD- WESTWOOD- RAMP CONSTRUCTION ON I-95 (NB) & IMPROVEMENTS ON CANTON STREET/DEDHAM STREET, INCLUDES REPLACEMENT OF C-02-034, REHAB OF C-02-024, C-02-002=N-25-016=W-31-002 & 5 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 606146 2015 OTHER  $38,000,000  $-    $38,000,000 Non-federal aid Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR 1570 2015 OTHER  $244,427,508  $-    $244,427,508 The Green Line Extension project is currently in the New Starts pipeline and the Commonwealth anticipates a decision in a Full Funding Grant Agreement in FFY 2015. The cash flows for the project, therefore, provide 100% bond funding for FFYs 2013-14 and begin programming New Starts funding in FFY 2015. The Commonwealth is committed to fully funding this project with bond funds if New Starts is not awarded.   Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
FAIRMOUNT IMPROVEMENTS 1568 2015 OTHER  $4,863,082  $-    $4,863,082 Lists cash flows (based on state fiscal year) for Fairmount Improvements Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
RED LINE-BLUE LINE CONNECTOR DESIGN 1572 2015 OTHER  $10,000,000  $-    $10,000,000 MassDOT made a formal request on Aug. 1, 2011, to remove this project from the State Implementation Plan regulation. The MPO is continuing to reference this project in the document until the process is complete. Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REHAB OF W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2016 HSIP  $1,000,000  $900,000  $100,000 AC Yr 1 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518 ($53,453,518 programmed in FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
MARLBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 85 (MAPLE STREET) 604810 2016 HSIP  $3,397,727  $3,057,954  $339,773 HSIP+CMAQ Total Cost = $5,397,727; HSIP pending Road Safety Audit Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
CLEAN AIR AND MOBILITY  1559 2016 CMAQ  $374,850  $299,880  $74,970 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE II), MEDFORD HILLSIDE (COLLEGE AVENUE) TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2016 CMAQ  $8,100,000  $6,480,000  $1,620,000 Yr 1 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($78,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
MARLBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 85 (MAPLE STREET) 604810 2016 CMAQ  $2,000,000  $1,600,000  $400,000 HSIP+CMAQ Total Cost = $5,397,727 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BROOKLINE- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 9 & VILLAGE SQUARE (GATEWAY EAST) 605110 2016 CMAQ  $244,171  $195,337  $48,834 TAP+CMAQ+Private Sector Contribution ($1,000,000) Total Cost = $5,591,009  Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BROOKLINE- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 9 & VILLAGE SQUARE (GATEWAY EAST) 605110 2016 TAP  $4,346,838  $3,477,470  $869,368 TAP+CMAQ+Private Sector Contribution ($1,000,000) Total Cost = $5,591,009  Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BEDFORD- BILLERICA- BURLINGTON- MIDDLESEX TURNPIKE IMPROVEMENTS, FROM CROSBY DRIVE NORTH TO MANNING ROAD, INCLUDES RECONSTRUCTION OF B-04-006 (PHASE III) 29492 2016 STP  $21,691,442  $17,353,154  $4,338,288 AC Yr 1 of 2; STP+Northern Middlesex Council of Governments contribution ($1,000,000) Total Cost = $29,296,348 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
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 & W-13-023 (ADD-A-LANE - CONTRACT V) 603711 2016 NHPP  $30,000,000  $24,000,000  $6,000,000 AC Yr 3 of 5; NHPP+BR+Statewide Infrastructure Total Cost = $164,919,140 ($87,768,183 programmed within FFYs 2015-18 TIP)                                       Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REHAB OF W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2016 STP  $3,800,000  $3,040,000  $760,000 AC Yr 1 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518 ($53,453,518 programmed in FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
LEXINGTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-10-009, ROUTE 2 (EB & WB) OVER ROUTE I-95 (ROUTE 128) 600703 2016 NHPP  $5,108,000  $4,086,400  $1,021,600 AC Yr 4 of 4; Total Cost = $35,108,000 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-16-237, MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE (ROUTE 2A) OVER COMMONWEALTH AVENUE 600867 2016 NHPP  $3,135,181  $2,508,145  $627,036 AC Yr 2 of 3; Total Cost = $15,100,020 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE CHARLES RIVER 604173 2016 NHPP  $5,000,000  $4,000,000  $1,000,000 AC Yr 1 of 5; Total Cost = $85,000,000 ($53,035,161 programmed within FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BRAINTREE- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-21-060 AND B-21-061, ST 3 (SB) AND ST 3 (NB) OVER RAMP C (QUINCY ADAMS) 607685 2016 NHPP  $6,668,480  $5,334,784  $1,333,696 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
HANOVER- NORWELL- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, H-06-010, ST 3 OVER ST 123 (WEBSTER STREET) & N-24-003, ST 3 OVER ST 123 (HIGH STREET) 606553 2016 NHPP  $8,554,209  $6,843,367  $1,710,842 AC Yr 1 of 2; Total Cost = $11,434,190 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
COHASSET- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT & SUBSTRUCTURE REHABILITATION, C-17-002, ATLANTIC AVENUE OVER LITTLE HARBOR INLET 607345 2016 STP  $6,416,550  $5,133,240  $1,283,310 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REHAB OF W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2016 Earmark  $9,221,760  $7,377,408  $1,844,352 AC Yr 1 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518 ($53,453,518 programmed in FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
MEDFORD- STONEHAM- WOBURN- READING- HIGHWAY LIGHTING REHABILITATION ON I-93 (PHASE II) 603917 2016 STP  $15,000,000  $12,000,000  $3,000,000 AC Yr 1 of 2; Total Cost = $17,500,000 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
DISTRICT 6- HIGHWAY LIGHTING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ON I-93, FROM SOUTHAMPTON STREET TO NEPONSET AVENUE IN BOSTON 605733 2016 STP  $2,500,000  $2,000,000  $500,000 AC Yr 1 of 3; Total Cost = $8,250,000 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
SAUGUS- SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (VETERANS MEMORIAL) 607997 2016 TAP  $676,000  $540,800  $135,200 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
EVERETT- SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (MADELAINE ENGLISH) 607998 2016 TAP  $624,000  $499,200  $124,800 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
REVERE- SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (GARFIELD ELEMENTARY & MIDDLE SCHOOL) 607999 2016 TAP  $936,000  $748,800  $187,200 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BEDFORD- SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (JOHN GLENN MIDDLE) 608000 2016 TAP  $780,000  $624,000  $156,000 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WAYLAND- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 27 (MAIN STREET) AND ROUTE 30 (COMMONWEALTH ROAD) 601579 2016 CMAQ  $1,931,854  $1,545,483  $386,371 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
STONEHAM- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 28/NORTH STREET 602165 2016 CMAQ  $3,268,366  $2,614,693  $653,673 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
CONCORD- BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION, FROM COMMONWEALTH AVENUE TO POWDER MILL ROAD, INCLUDES 2 RAILROAD BRIDGES & 1 CULVERT (PHASE II-C) 605189 2016 CMAQ  $5,753,887  $4,603,110  $1,150,777 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BROOKLINE- PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-27-016, OVER MBTA OFF CARLTON STREET 606316 2016 CMAQ  $1,847,452  $1,477,962  $369,490 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
FOXBOROUGH- PLAINVILLE- WRENTHAM- INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE & RELATED WORK ON I-495 (NB & SB) 606176 2016 NHPP  $14,692,038  13,222,834  1,469,204 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
CANTON- DEDHAM- NORWOOD- WESTWOOD- INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS AT I-95/I-93/ UNIVERSITY AVENUE/I-95 WIDENING 87790 2016 OTHER  $190,000,000  $-    $190,000,000 Non-federal aid Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR 1570 2016 OTHER  $428,900,255  $-    $428,900,255 The Green Line Extension project is currently in the New Starts pipeline and the Commonwealth anticipates a decision in a Full Funding Grant Agreement in FFY 2015. The cash flows for the project, therefore, provide 100% bond funding for FFYs 2013-14 and begin programming New Starts funding in FFY 2015. The Commonwealth is committed to fully funding this project with bond funds if New Starts is not awarded.   Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
RED LINE-BLUE LINE CONNECTOR DESIGN 1572 2016 OTHER  $29,000,000  $-    $29,000,000 MassDOT made a formal request on Aug. 1, 2011, to remove this project from the State Implementation Plan regulation. The MPO is continuing to reference this project in the document until the process is complete. Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WOBURN- RECONSTRUCTION OF MONTVALE AVENUE, FROM I-93 INTERCHANGE TO CENTRAL STREET (APPROX. 1,850 FT) 604935 2017 HSIP  $4,752,838  $4,277,554  $475,284 HSIP pending Road Safety Audit Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
SOUTHBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET (RTE 30), FROM SEARS ROAD TO PARK STREET 604989 2017 CMAQ  $4,038,370  $3,230,696  $807,674 CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $6,862,752 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE II), MEDFORD HILLSIDE (COLLEGE AVENUE) TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2017 CMAQ  $13,427,220  $10,741,776  $2,685,444 Yr 2 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($78,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
SOUTHBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET (RTE 30), FROM SEARS ROAD TO PARK STREET 604989 2017 TAP  $2,824,382  $2,259,506  $564,876 CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $6,862,752 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BEDFORD- BILLERICA- BURLINGTON- MIDDLESEX TURNPIKE IMPROVEMENTS, FROM CROSBY DRIVE NORTH TO MANNING ROAD, INCLUDES RECONSTRUCTION OF B-04-006 (PHASE III) 29492 2017 STP  $6,604,906  $5,283,925  $1,320,981 AC Yr 2 of 2; STP+Northern Middlesex Council of Governments contribution ($1,000,000) Total Cost = $29,296,348 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE II), MEDFORD HILLSIDE (COLLEGE AVENUE) TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2017 STP  $16,472,780  $13,178,224  $3,294,556 Yr 2 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($78,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REHAB OF W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2017 STP  $12,850,000  $10,280,000  $2,570,000 AC Yr 2 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518 ($53,453,518 programmed in FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
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 & W-13-023 (ADD-A-LANE - CONTRACT V) 603711 2017 NHPP  $14,000,000  $11,200,000  $2,800,000 AC Yr 4 of 5; NHPP+BR+Statewide Infrastructure Total Cost = $164,919,140 ($87,768,183 programmed within FFYs 2015-18 TIP)                                       Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WAKEFIELD- BRIDGE DECK REPLACEMENT, W-01-021 (2MF), HOPKINS STREET OVER I-95/ST 128 607507 2017 NHPP  $2,469,936  $1,975,949  $493,987 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-16-237, MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE (ROUTE 2A) OVER COMMONWEALTH AVENUE 600867 2017 NHPP  $5,964,839  $4,771,871  $1,192,968 AC Yr 3 of 3; Total Cost = $15,100,020 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE CHARLES RIVER 604173 2017 NHPP  $18,035,161  $14,428,129  $3,607,032 AC Yr 2 of 5; Total Cost = $85,000,000 ($53,035,161 programmed within FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
HANOVER- NORWELL- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, H-06-010, ST 3 OVER ST 123 (WEBSTER STREET) & N-24-003, ST 3 OVER ST 123 (HIGH STREET) 606553 2017 NHPP  $2,879,981  $2,303,985  $575,996 AC Yr 2 of 2; Total Cost = $11,434,190 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
LYNN- SAUGUS- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-18-016=S-05-008, ROUTE 107 OVER THE SAUGUS RIVER (AKA - BELDEN G. BLY BRIDGE) 604952 2017 NHPP  $4,150,000  $3,320,000  $830,000 AC Yr 1 of 4; Total Cost = $45,000,000 ($20,400,000 programmed within the FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
DANVERS - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, D-03-018, ROUTE 128 OVER WATERS RIVER 607954 2017 NHPP  $8,949,150  $7,159,320  $1,789,830 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REHAB OF W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2017 Earmark  $5,550,000  $4,440,000  $1,110,000 AC Yr 2 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518 ($53,453,518 programmed in FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
MEDFORD- STONEHAM- WOBURN- READING- HIGHWAY LIGHTING REHABILITATION ON I-93 (PHASE II) 603917 2017 STP  $2,500,000  $2,000,000  $500,000 AC Yr 2 of 2; Total Cost = $17,500,000 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
DISTRICT 6- HIGHWAY LIGHTING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ON I-93, FROM SOUTHAMPTON STREET TO NEPONSET AVENUE IN BOSTON 605733 2017 STP  $4,500,000  $3,600,000  $900,000 AC Yr 2 of 3; Total Cost = $8,250,000 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WEYMOUTH- SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (PINGREE ELEMENTARY) 608003 2017 TAP  $648,000  $518,400  $129,600 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WATERTOWN- SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (HOSMER ELEMENTARY) 608004 2017 TAP  $664,200  $531,360  $132,840 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
ACTON- CONCORD- BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION (PHASE II-B) 606223 2017 CMAQ  $6,220,800  $4,976,640  $1,244,160 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
RANDOLPH- QUINCY- BRAINTREE - RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON I-93 607481 2017 NHPP  $12,055,824  10,850,242  1,205,582 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
LYNNFIELD- PEABODY - RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1 607477 2017 NHPP  $6,490,417  5,192,334  1,298,083 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR 1570 2017 OTHER  $338,011,653  $-    $338,011,653 The Green Line Extension project is currently in the New Starts pipeline and the Commonwealth anticipates a decision in a Full Funding Grant Agreement in FFY 2015. The cash flows for the project, therefore, provide 100% bond funding for FFYs 2013-14 and begin programming New Starts funding in FFY 2015. The Commonwealth is committed to fully funding this project with bond funds if New Starts is not awarded.   Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
RED LINE-BLUE LINE CONNECTOR DESIGN 1572 2017 OTHER  $10,000,000  $-    $10,000,000 MassDOT made a formal request on Aug. 1, 2011, to remove this project from the State Implementation Plan regulation. The MPO is continuing to reference this project in the document until the process is complete. Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE II), MEDFORD HILLSIDE (COLLEGE AVENUE) TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2018 CMAQ  $13,427,220  $10,741,776  $2,685,444 Yr 3 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($78,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE II), MEDFORD HILLSIDE (COLLEGE AVENUE) TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2018 STP  $26,572,780  $21,258,224  $5,314,556 Yr 3 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($78,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REHAB OF W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2018 STP  $21,031,758  $16,825,406  $4,206,352 AC Yr 3 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518 ($53,453,518 programmed in FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
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 & W-13-023 (ADD-A-LANE - CONTRACT V) 603711 2018 NHPP  $13,768,183  $11,014,546  $2,753,637 AC Yr 5 of 5; NHPP+BR+Statewide Infrastructure Total Cost = $164,919,140 ($87,768,183 programmed within FFYs 2015-18 TIP)                                       Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
NEWTON- WELLESLEY- WESTON- BRIDGE MAINTENANCE OF N-12-063, N-12-054, N-12-055 & N-12-056 ON I-95/ROUTE 128 607915 2018 NHPP  $1,724,400  $1,379,520  $344,880 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
BOSTON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE CHARLES RIVER 604173 2018 NHPP  $30,000,000  $24,000,000  $6,000,000 AC Yr 3 of 5; Total Cost = $85,000,000 ($53,035,161 programmed within FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
LYNN- SAUGUS- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-18-016=S-05-008, ROUTE 107 OVER THE SAUGUS RIVER (AKA - BELDEN G. BLY BRIDGE) 604952 2018 NHPP  $16,250,000  $13,000,000  $3,250,000 AC Yr 2 of 4; Total Cost = $45,000,000 ($20,400,000 programmed within the FFYs 2015-18 TIP) Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, H-23-006=W-24-016, FRUIT STREET OVER CSX & SUDBURY RIVER 606632 2018 STP  $12,727,339  $10,181,871  $2,545,468 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
QUINCY- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, Q-01-039, ROBERTSON STREET OVER I-93/US 1/SR 3 607133 2018 STP  $6,435,763  $5,148,610  $1,287,153 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
MARSHFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-07-007, BEACH STREET OVER THE CUT RIVER 604655 2018 STP  $4,822,854  $3,858,283  $964,571 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WALTHAM- WOERD AVENUE OVER THE CHARLES RIVER  607533 2018 STP  $3,873,360  $3,098,688  $774,672 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
WAKEFIELD- LYNNFIELD- RAIL TRAIL EXTENSION, FROM THE GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL TO LYNNFIELD/PEABODY T.L. 607329 2018 CMAQ  $7,084,000  $5,667,200  $1,416,800 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
DISTRICT 6- HIGHWAY LIGHTING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ON I-93, FROM SOUTHAMPTON STREET TO NEPONSET AVENUE IN BOSTON 605733 2018 STP  $1,250,000  $1,000,000  $250,000 AC Yr 3 of 3; Total Cost = $8,250,000 Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
ARLINGTON- BELMONT- HIGHWAY LIGHTING REPAIR & MAINTENANCE ON ROUTE 2 606381 2018 STP  $5,750,000  $4,600,000  $1,150,000 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
FRANKLIN- INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE & RELATED WORK ON I-495 606546 2018 NHPP  $6,280,243  5,652,219  628,024 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
SAUGUS - RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1 608008 2018 NHPP  $10,620,378  8,496,302  2,124,076 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
MARSHFIELD - PLYMOUTH - RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 3 607988 2018 NHPP  $16,229,512  12,983,610  3,245,902 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
MARSHFIELD - RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 3 607989 2018 NHPP  $4,398,285  3,518,628  879,657 na Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR 1570 2018 OTHER  $214,270,798  $-    $214,270,798 The Green Line Extension project is currently in the New Starts pipeline and the Commonwealth anticipates a decision in a Full Funding Grant Agreement in FFY 2015. The cash flows for the project, therefore, provide 100% bond funding for FFYs 2013-14 and begin programming New Starts funding in FFY 2015. The Commonwealth is committed to fully funding this project with bond funds if New Starts is not awarded.   Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transit Program

 


Transit Agency:

MBTA

Program/Project Name:

Stations

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

Assumed Nominal Reduction

Project Description:

Funds accessibility improvements at all MBTA heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, Silver Line, and bus stations. The program also includes major bus transfer stations, bus stops, and shelters. The majority of this program is devoted to renovation of subway stations and systemwide replacement of escalators and elevators.

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2015

Section 5337

$40,000,000

$10,000,000

$50,000,000

2015

Section 5307

$32,761,068

$8,190,267

$40,951,335

2015

Section 5307

$25,924,448

$6,481,112

$32,405,560

2016

Section 5337

$16,000,000

$4,000,000

$20,000,000

 

Total Funding Programmed

$114,685,516

$28,671,379

$143,356,895


 


 

 

Transit Agency:

MBTA

Program/Project Name:

Revenue Vehicles

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

Consists primarily of fleet procurement and overhaul programs in subway, commuter rail and bus fleets, including the procurement of new vehicles for the red and orange lines of the subway system.

 

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2015

Section 5307

$64,000,000

$16,000,000

$80,000,000

2016

Section 5307

$64,000,000

$16,000,000

$80,000,000

2017

Section 5307

$96,000,000

$24,000,000

$120,000,000

2018

Section 5307

$96,000,000

$24,000,000

$120,000,000

 

Total Funding Programmed

$320,000,000

$80,000,000

$400,000,000

 

 

 

 

 

Transit Agency:

 

 

MBTA

Program/Project Name:

Bridge & Tunnel Program

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

No CO2 Impact

Project Description:

Upgrades and maintains the 476 systemwide bridges owned by the MBTA. Active bridge projects include the Merrimack River, Shawsheen River, Dean Road, and Neponset River bridges.

 

 

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2015

Section 5337

$60,000,000

$15,000,000

$75,000,000

2016

Section 5337

$85,000,000

$21,250,000

$106,250,000

2017

Section 5337

$100,000,000

$25,000,000

$125,000,000

2018

Section 5337

$60,000,000

$15,000,000

$75,000,000

 

Total Funding Programmed

$305,000,000

$76,250,000

$381,250,000

 

 

 

 

Transit Agency:

 

 MBTA

Program/Project Name:

Systems Upgrades

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

Funds upgrades on rapid transit and commuter rail systems. The program includes funding for the Light Rail Accessibility Program (LRAP) for the Green Line to modernize stations, install elevators, raise platforms, and construct new headhouses.

 

 

 


 

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2015

Section 5337

$21,190,546

$5,297,637

$26,488,183

2015

Section 5339

$5,287,027

$1,321,757

$6,608,784

2016

Section 5307

$58,685,516

$14,671,379

$73,356,895

2016

Section 5337

$20,190,546

$5,047,637

$25,238,183

2016

Section 5339

$5,287,027

$1,321,757

$6,608,784

2017

Section 5307

$26,685,516

$6,671,379

$33,356,895

2017

Section 5337

$21,190,546

$5,297,637

$26,488,183

2017

Section 5339

$5,287,027

$1,321,757

$6,608,784

2018

Section 5307

$26,685,516

$6,671,379

$33,356,895

2018

Section 5337

$61,190,546

$15,297,637

$76,488,183

2018

Section 5339

$5,287,027

$1,321,757

$6,608,784

 

Total Funding Programmed

$256,966,840

$64,241,713

$321,208,553

 

 

Transit Agency:

 

 MBTA

Program/Project Name:

Preventative Maintenance

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

Funds preventative maintenance on buses, vehicles, stations, and other MBTA facilities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2015

Section 5307

$12,000,000

$3,000,000

$15,000,000

2016

Section 5307

$12,000,000

$3,000,000

$15,000,000

2017

Section 5307

$12,000,000

$3,000,000

$15,000,000

2018

Section 5307

$12,000,000

$3,000,000

$15,000,000

 

Total Funding Programmed

$48,000,000

$12,000,000

$60,000,000

 

 

 

 

 

Transit Agency:

 CATA

Program/Project Name:

Preventative Maintenance

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

Funds preventative maintenance on buses, vehicles, and other CATA facilities.

 

 

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2015

Section 5307

$193,391

$48,347

$241,738

2016

Section 5307

$193,391

$48,347

$241,738

2017

Section 5307

$193,391

$48,347

$241,738

2018

Section 5307

$193,391

$48,347

$241,738

 

Total Funding Programmed

$773,564

$193,388

$966,952

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transit Agency:

 

 CATA

Program/Project Name:

Equipment and Facilities

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

Funds bus replacement and acquisition of support equipment.

 

 

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2015

Section 5307

$336,701

$84,175

$420,876

2016

Section 5307

$342,002

$85,500

$427,502

2017

Section 5307

$347,356

$86,839

$434,195

2018

Section 5307

$352,764

$88,191

$440,955

 

Total Funding Programmed

$1,378,823

$344,705

$1,723,528

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transit Agency:

 MWRTA

Program/Project Name:

ADA Paratransit

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

Funds the operation of MWRTA’s non-fixed route ADA paratransit service.


 

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2015

Section 5307

$1,000,000

$250,000

$1,250,000

2016

Section 5307

$1,000,000

$250,000

$1,250,000

2017

Section 5307

$1,000,000

$250,000

$1,250,000

2018

Section 5307

$1,000,000

$250,000

$1,250,000

 

Total Funding Programmed

$4,000,000

$1,000,000

$5,000,000

 

 

 

 

Transit Agency:

 MWRTA

Program/Project Name:

Equipment and Facilities

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

Funds intermodal transit terminal improvements, signage, support vehicles, security equipment, and bus support equipiment.


 

 

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2015

Section 5307

$706,357

$176,589

$882,946

2016

Section 5307

$706,357

$176,589

$882,946

2017

Section 5307

$706,357

$176,589

$882,946

2018

Section 5307

$706,357

$176,589

$882,946

 

Total Funding Programmed

$2,825,427

$706,357

$3,531,784

 

 

Chapter four

Tracking and Demonstrating Progress Using Performance Measures

 

INTRODUCTION TO Performance measures

Increasingly, over the past two decades, transportation agencies have been applying “performance management”—a strategic approach that uses performance data to support decisions that would help achieve desired outcomes. 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 processes to achieve desired performance outcomes for the multimodal transportation system. For MPOs, this includes a range of activities and products undertaken by a transportation agency together with other agencies, stakeholders, and the public as part of the 3C Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process. This includes developing: long-range transportation plans (LRTPs); other plans and processes (including those that are federally required, such as Strategic Highway Safety Plans, Asset Management Plans, the Congestion Management Process, Transit Agency Asset Management Plans, and Transit Agency Safety Plans, as well as others that are not required); and programming documents, including State and metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs and TIPs). PBPP tries to ensure that transportation investment decisions—both long-term planning and short-term programming—are based on their ability to meet established goals.

 

The cornerstone of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century’s (MAP-21) highway program transformation is this movement to performance- and outcome-based results. States will invest resources in projects to achieve individual state targets that collectively will make progress toward national goals.

 

MAP-21 establishes national performance goals for federal highway programs:

The US Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with states, MPOs, and other stakeholders, will establish performance measures for pavement conditions and for the Interstate and NHS; bridges; injuries and fatalities; traffic congestion; on-road mobile source emissions; and freight movement on the interstate system. States and MPOs will set performance targets to support these measures; and state and metropolitan plans will describe how program and project selection would help to achieve the targets.

Work Underway at MassDOT

MassDOT has begun to respond to the new MAP-21 performance-measure requirements by incorporating PBPP into weMove Massachusetts (WMM), MassDOT’s statewide strategic multimodal plan. In December 2013, MassDOT released WMM: Planning for Performance, a single, multimodal LRTP. The WMM Planning for Performance incorporates PBPP into investment decision making to calculate the differences in pavement and bridge conditions, mobility, and safety resulting from the different funding levels available to MassDOT. In the future, MassDOT will use the scenario tool developed for this process to update and refine investment priorities.

Work Underway at the Boston Region MPO

The Boston Region MPO also has begun to prepare for new MAP-21 performance-measure requirements by: setting MPO goals; ensuring that MPO goals align with national goals; identifying performance measures and associated performance targets that support objectives and can be used to track results over time; and demonstrating, through analysis, how MPO investment decisions are making progress toward achieving the MPO goals using performance measures.

 

Table 4-1 cites the proposed MPO goals and how they align with established national goals. Thus far, the MPO has made progress in its performance-based planning in its goal of safety (as seen in “Safety—Tracking Performance Measures” below). As the MPO advances in its performance-based planning, staff will create sections for the remaining goals.

 

TABLE 4-1

National and MPO Performance Goals

National Goal

Proposed MPO Goal

Infrastructure, System Reliability

System Preservation

Congestion Reduction

Congestion Reduction

Safety

Safety

Safety

Security

Environmental Sustainability

Transportation Options/ Mode Share

Environmental Sustainability

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Freight Movement/ Economic Vitality

Economic Impact

 

Safety—Tracking Performance Measures

Safety for all transportation modes continues to be a top priority for the MPO. The existing MPO policies are committed to investing in projects and programs that would reduce the severity of crashes and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

In prioritizing its capital investments, the MPO uses TIP project-evaluation criteria to support the goal of improving safety for all modes. These criteria identify projects with high safety needs and assess whether proposed improvements address those needs. Projects with higher scores in the safety-evaluation criteria tend to be most effective at providing safety for all modes.

 

Safety also continues to be a primary goal of the US Department of Transportation (USDOT). To achieve the national safety goal—of a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads—USDOT proposed rulemaking would require state DOTs and MPOs to establish and report specific annual targets for fatalities and serious injuries.

 

Going forward, the MPO will track traffic fatalities and serious injuries in the Boston region to determine past trends, identify regional safety issues, and set targets for preferred performance. Tracking these measures also would help determine whether the MPO’s transportation investment decisions support reduced fatalities and serious injuries. Based on available data, MPO staff already has begun to track overall traffic fatalities and the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). Figure 4-1 demonstrates how the MPO will track these safety measures in the future. The figure shows the number of traffic fatalities (based on a rolling five-year average) and the fatality rate (per 100 million VMT) between 2004 and 2011. During those eight years, there was a steady decline in overall traffic fatalities from 154 fatalities in 2004 to 131 fatalities in 2011, representing more than three lives saved per year.

 

There also was a decline in the fatality rate from 0.76 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 2004 to 0.63 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 2011. These results provide baseline data for traffic fatalities and indicate that safety is improving in the region. However, the results also indicate that safety is not improving for all modes.

 

FIGURE 4-1

Traffic Fatalities and Fatality per 100-Million Vehicle-Miles

Traveled in the Boston Region MPO, 2004-2011

This is a bar chart indicating the traffic fatalities and fatality per 100-million vehicle-miles traveled in the Boston Region MPO during 2004−2011. It Shows a downward trend from 0.76 to 0.63 over that period.

Examining traffic fatalities by mode reveals that pedestrians did not experience comparable safety improvements between 2004 and 2011. Figure 4-2 displays pedestrian and bicycle fatalities relative to total traffic fatalities from 2004 to 2011. The table indicates that pedestrian fatalities did not decline at the same rate as total fatalities, and that they actually increased in three of the years.

 

Thus, pedestrian fatalities continue to make up a disproportionate share of traffic fatalities. While pedestrians typically account for approximately 16 percent of all trips in the region, they accounted for 22 to 26 percent of all traffic fatalities between 2004 and 2011. 

 

FIGURE 4-2

Traffic Fatalities in the Boston Region MPO by Mode, 2004-2011

This is a bar chart indicating the traffic fatalities in the Boston Region MPO separated by vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles during 2004−2011. The totals indicate a slight downward trend from 154 to 131 over that period. The fatalities among bicycles and pedestrians are much fewer in number and fairly level across the years with pedestrians under 40 and bicycles under 10.

Safety —Demonstrating Progress Using Performance Measures

There are numerous MassDOT and MPO investment and policy priorities that would help the agencies progress toward reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries. MassDOT’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan identifies nine strategic, proactive, and emerging emphasis areas that represent a significant share of traffic fatalities and serious injuries, as well as strategies to help to reduce them.

 

Pedestrians are one of the state’s nine strategic emphasis areas. Massachusetts agencies are involved in several initiatives to promote and improve pedestrian safety, including: applying Complete Streets in project development; the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program; and Road Safety Audits. Other strategies include incorporating the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive to provide all customers with access to safe and comfortable walking, bicycling, and transit options; and piloting the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Awareness and Enforcement Program in 12 communities with high pedestrian and bicycle crash rates.

 

The Boston Region MPO is most actively involved in reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries through its investments in projects and planning activities. The MPO evaluates projects based on crashes and the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index to assess locations with safety needs, and considers proposed improvements to determine whether they would address those needs. This evaluation process helps to identify the projects that would have the greatest impact on reducing crash severity.

 

The projects programmed in the draft federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2015-18 TIP Target Program propose safety improvements at numerous high-crash locations, thus aiming to make significant progress toward reducing fatalities and serious injuries in the region.

Arterials

Arterial roadway investment will provide safety improvements for automobiles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians at numerous high-crash locations in the region. Of the nine arterials programmed in the MPO’s Target Program, five projects address high-crash clusters in the region, including two of the top-200 crash locations statewide. All of the arterials will provide bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, adding 13 miles of new sidewalk and 20 miles of new bicycle lanes, as well as addressing inadequate existing facilities.

Intersections

Continued investment in the Intersection Improvement Program can help reduce intersection crashes through signal retiming at prioritized locations throughout the region.

Shared-use Paths

Construction of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn will provide safety improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians by providing safe access to downtown, recreational areas, and two commuter rail stations.

Highway Expansion

Widening 3.25 miles of I-95 in Needham and Wellesley to install an additional 12-foot travel lane and 10-foot shoulder in each direction will address serious safety issues. Adding a fourth full-time travel lane will allow the state to end breakdown lane usage during the peak periods and adding collector roads between Highland Avenue and Kendrick Streets will provide safer weaving movements between the interchanges.

Transit Expansion

The extension of the MBTA Green Line, Phase 2 from College Avenue to Route 16, likely would provide indirect safety benefits by reducing VMT. The project is expected to shift more than 600 daily drivers to transit, which would result in an annual reduction of two million VMT on nearby roadways, and increased traffic safety.

Safety—Next Steps in Advancing Performance Measures

Performance-based planning is an ongoing process and will continue to evolve as the MPO monitors and evaluates its progress using performance measures and their associated targets. In the future, the MPO will set targets for the safety performance measure as well as targets for performance measures under the remaining goals. If, in its annual monitoring, the MPO sees it is not making progress toward its safety goal, then the organization would 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 impact 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 safety outcomes for all concerned.

 

 

Chapter FIVE

Determination of Air Quality Conformity


Introduction

 

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require metropolitan planning organizations within nonattainment and maintenance areas to perform air-quality conformity determinations prior to the approval of Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and at such other times as required by regulation. A nonattainment area is one that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated as not meeting certain air-quality standards. A maintenance area is a nonattainment area that now meets the standards and has been redesignated as maintaining the standard. A conformity determination is a demonstration that a region’s plans, programs, and projects are consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the air-quality standards. The CAAA requirement to perform a conformity determination ensures that federal approval and funding go to transportation activities that are consistent with air-quality goals. This chapter presents information and analyses for the air-quality conformity determination for the projects in the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2015–18 TIP, as required by federal regulations (40 CFR Part 93) and the Massachusetts Conformity Regulations (310 CMR 60.03). It also includes the regulatory framework, conformity requirements, planning assumptions, mobile-source emission budgets, and conformity consultation procedures related to the determination.

Legislative Background

 

The 1970 Clean Air Act defined a one-hour national ambient air-quality standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. The 1990 CAAA further classified degrees of nonattainment of the one-hour standard based on the severity of the monitored levels of the pollutant. The entire commonwealth of Massachusetts was classified as being in serious nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, with a required attainment date of 1999. The attainment date was later extended, first to 2003 and then to 2007.

In 1997, the EPA proposed a new, eight-hour ozone standard that replaced the one-hour standard; the new standards became effective June 15, 2005. Scientific research had shown that ozone could affect human health at lower levels than previously thought, and over longer exposure times than one hour. The new standard was challenged in court, and after a lengthy legal battle, the courts upheld it. It was finalized in June 2004. The eight-hour standard is 0.08 parts per million, averaged over eight hours and not to be exceeded more than once per year. Nonattainment areas were again further classified based on the severity of the eight-hour values. Massachusetts as a whole was classified as being in moderate nonattainment for the eight-hour standard, but it was separated into two nonattainment areas – Eastern Massachusetts and Western Massachusetts. The Eastern Massachusetts Ozone Nonattainment Area includes all of Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Worcester counties. Because of this nonattainment classification, the CAAA required the Commonwealth to reduce its emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), the two major precursors of ozone formation, to achieve attainment of the eight- hour ozone standard by 2009.

In addition, on April 1, 1996, the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville were classified as being in attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. As part of the TIP, an air-quality conformity analysis must still be completed for these communities, as they have a carbon monoxide maintenance plan approved as part of the SIP. The 2010 CO motor vehicle emission budget established for the Boston CO attainment area with a maintenance plan is 228.33 tons of CO per winter day.

As of April 22, 2002, the community of Waltham was redesignated as being in attainment for CO, with an EPA-approved limited-maintenance plan. In areas that have approved limited-maintenance plans, federal actions requiring conformity determinations under the transportation conformity rule are considered to satisfy the “budget test” (since 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 CO attainment area do not cause or contribute to CO nonattainment.

In March 2008, EPA published revisions to the eight-hour ozone NAAQS that established a level of 0.075 ppm (March 27, 2008; 73 FR 16483). In 2009, the EPA announced it would reconsider this standard because it fell outside of the range recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. However, the EPA never took final action on the reconsideration so the standard would remain at 0.075 ppm.

After reviewing data from Massachusetts monitoring stations, the EPA sent a letter on December 16, 2011, proposing that only Dukes County would be designated as being in nonattainment for the new, proposed 0.075 ozone standard. Massachusetts concurred with these findings.

On Monday, May 21, 2012, the final rule (77 FR 30088) was published in the Federal Register, defining the 2008 NAAQS at 0.075 ppm, the standard that was promulgated in March 2008. A second rule (77 FR 30160), published on May 21, 2012, revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which was to become effective one year after the 2008 NAAQS became effective (July 20, 2012).

Also on Monday, May 21, 2012, the air-quality designations areas for the 2008 NAAQS were published in the Federal Register. In this Federal Register, the only area in Massachusetts that was designated as being in nonattainment was Dukes County. All other counties were classified as unclassifiable/attainment. Therefore, the Boston Region MPO does not have to perform a conformity determination for ozone for this TIP.

However, the Boston Region MPO is required to continue to perform conformity determinations for the Boston CO Maintenance Area until at least 2020 to comply with regulations requiring continued conformity for an additional 10 years after 2010. In addition, the MPO is required to implement the SIP’s Transportation Control Measures (for example, the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project mitigation commitments). The Boston Region MPO will also be required to continue to perform conformity determinations for the Waltham CO Limited-Maintenance Area.

Conformity Regulations

 

Designated MPOs are required to perform conformity determinations by nonattainment or maintenance area for their LRTPs and TIPs. Section 176 of the CAAA defines conformity to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to mean conformity to the plan’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. The Boston Region MPO must certify with regard to the activities outlined in the LRTP and TIP that:

•    None will cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area.

•    None will increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area.

•    None will delay the timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.

The EPA issued final conformity regulations in the November 24, 1993, Federal Register, and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued conformity regulations that became effective December 30, 1994. They set forth requirements for determining conformity of LRTPs, TIPs, and individual projects. The federal conformity regulations were amended several times through August 2010. The components of the required conformity analysis are listed below and are explained in detail subsequently.

Conformity Criteria

•    Horizon years

•    Latest planning assumptions

•    Latest emission model used

•    Timely implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs)

•    Conformity in accordance with consultation procedures and SIP revisions

•    Public participation procedures

•    Financially constrained document

Procedures for Determining Regional Transportation Emissions

The Conformity Test

The conformity test must be consistent with emission budgets set forth in the SIP. This conformity determination will show the consistency of the FFYs 2015–18 TIP with the CO emission budget for the Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville maintenance area.

Conformity Determination Criteria

This conformity determination has been prepared in accordance with 40 CFR Part 93, Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Flexibility and Streamlining: Final Rule. It shows that the TIP has been prepared following all the guidelines and requirements of the Rule.

Horizon Year Requirements

The horizon years for regional model analysis were established to comply with 40 CFR 93.106(a) of the Federal Conformity Regulations. The years for which emissions are calculated are shown below.

•    2016 – Milestone Year and Analysis Year: This year is used to show conformity with the CO budget in the Boston nonattainment area.

•    2025 – Analysis Year

•    2035 – Horizon Year: Last forecast year of the LRTP

Latest Planning Assumptions

Section 93.110 of the Federal Conformity Regulations outlines the requirements for the most recent planning assumptions that must be in place at the time of the conformity determination. Assumptions must be derived from current estimates and future projections of population, household, employment, travel, and congestion data developed by the MPO staff. Analysis for the TIP is based on US census data and information obtained from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), and other sources. The sources of data used for model calibration in this analysis are listed below:

•    Population, households, and household size: Year 2009 data at a community level received from the US Census Bureau. Community to TAZ-level (transportation analysis zone) distribution is based on Census 2000 allocation.

•    Employment: The Central Transportation Planning Staff’s Eastern Massachusetts Site- Level Employment Database for 2009, finalized in 2010.

•    Household income, resident workers, and vehicle ownership: The data from Summary File 3 data for Massachusetts from the 2000 US Census of Population and Housing were interpolated to produce year 2009 data.

•    Household workers: The year 2009 data were arrived at by interpolating Census Transportation Planning Package Part 1 for Massachusetts from the 2000 US Census of Population and Housing

•    Traffic volumes: MassDOT 2008–09 Traffic Volumes for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Traffic counts taken for external stations and screen lines were used.

•    Population, household, and employment forecasts: The forecasts of population, households, and employment for the 101 cities and towns within the Boston Region MPO area were developed by MAPC using what is called the “MetroFuture” scenario. This scenario was developed by altering a number of assumptions from their previous Extended Growth scenario. The MetroFuture scenario seeks to channel regional growth and development by targeting the majority of growth to denser areas that already have available water, sewer, and transit infrastructure. In this scenario, it is assumed that a greater percentage of residents will be living within walking distance of transit and of major activity centers. The forecasts of population, households, and employment for the 63 cities and towns outside of the Boston Region MPO area that are in the MPO’s modeled area were developed by MassDOT and the neighboring regional planning agencies (RPAs).

•    Project-level data: Obtained from the responsible implementing agency.

Transit Service Policy Assumptions

The transit service assumptions used in ridership modeling for the TIP were based on MBTA service in the spring of 2009. The model calibration was performed using the following data:

•    Ridership and Service Statistics, 8th edition, MBTA Blue Book, 2009

•    MBTA Systemwide Passenger Survey (2008–09)

Emission Inventory Assumptions

For the FFYs 2015–18 TIP, conformity is determined in relation to the SIP mobile-source CO emission projections that have been set for the nine cities in the Boston area that are classified as being in attainment for CO. An emission attainment inventory for CO of 501.53 tons per winter day was established for all sources of CO emissions (mobile, industrial, and all other sources) for the redesignation year 1993. Of the 501.53 tons, 305.43 tons per winter day was allocated for mobile sources. In addition to the attainment year inventory, the EPA required that emission projections for every five years through 2010 be developed for all sources to ensure that the combination of all CO emissions would not exceed the 501.53 tons per winter day maximum allowance in the future. The mobile-source emission projection of 228.33 tons per winter day was set for 2010. Emissions from those nine towns in the Boston area may not exceed the amount in the last year of the maintenance plan (2010).

The Boston Region MPO estimated the results for the nine towns collectively using the Boston Region MPO’s regional travel demand model set, using the latest planning assumptions for the conformity analysis.

Latest Emission Model

Emission factors used for calculating emission changes were determined using the EPA’s latest emissions model – Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2010b. Emission factors for motor vehicles are specific to each model year, pollutant type, temperature, and travel speed. MOVES requires a wide range of input parameters, including inspection and maintenance program information and other data, such as fuel formulation and supply, speed distribution, vehicle fleet mix, and fleet age distribution.

The inputs used for the years 2016 through 2035 were received from the DEP, and include information on programs that were submitted to the EPA as the strategy for the Commonwealth to attain ambient air-quality standards. EPA regulations require that emission factors using the MOVES model be used for all conformity determinations performed after March 2, 2013.

Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures

Transportation control measures (TCMs) were required in the SIP in revisions submitted to the EPA in 1979 and 1982 and in those submitted as part of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project. The TCMs included in the 1979 and 1982 submissions were accomplished through construction or through implementation of ongoing programs. The only exceptions are the bus immersion-heater program, the Newton Rider bus service, the private bus insurance discount concept, and the pedestrian malls in Lynn, Cambridge, and Needham. Other services have been substituted for these TCMs. These projects were all included in past Boston Region MPO LRTPs and TIPs.

TCMs were also submitted as SIP commitments as part of the Central Artery/Tunnel project mitigation. The status of these projects has been updated using the Administrative Consent Order (ACO) signed by the Executive Office of Transportation and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), in September 2000 and January 2005, and the SIP – Transit Commitments Status Report, which was submitted by MassDOT to DEP in May 2014. All of the projects are included in the conformity of the FFYs 2015–18 TIP as recommended or completed projects. They include:

•    Southeast Expressway High-Occupancy-Vehicle (HOV) Lane

•    HOV Lane on I-93 to Mystic Avenue

•    20,000 New Park-and-Ride Spaces

•    Ipswich Commuter Rail Extension to Newburyport

•    Old Colony Commuter Rail Extension

•    Framingham Commuter Rail Extension to Worcester

•    South Boston Piers Transitway

Reevaluation Process of SIP TCMs

 

MassDOT and DEP went through an extensive process of reevaluating TCMs that had been included in the original Central Artery SIP that had not been completed on schedule – the Green Line Arborway Restoration, the Red Line–Blue Line Connector, and the Green Line Extension to Ball Square/Tufts University. This process began in 2004 and was completed in 2008. The outcome included DEP’s agreeing to the following alternative commitments:

•    1,000 New Parking Spaces in the Boston region

•    Completion of a final design of the Red Line–Blue Line Connector from the Blue Line at Government Center to the Red Line at Charles Station

•    Fairmount Line Improvements

•    Enhanced Green Line extended beyond Lechmere Station to Medford Hillside and Union Square

MassDOT announced through its State Implementation Plan – Transit Commitments 2011 Status Report, submitted to DEP on July 27, 2011, that they are proposing delays in or changes to these projects. In that submission, MassDOT included a Petition to Delay for the Fairmount Line Improvements project and the 1,000 New Parking Spaces. They also made a formal request to remove the Red Line–Blue Line project and informed DEP that the Green Line Extension to College Avenue would be delayed. MassDOT worked with the DEP to set up a process for addressing these changes and continues to keep the Boston Region MPO informed of this process through its monthly reports at the MPO’s regularly scheduled meetings. The Boston Region MPO will continue to include these projects in the LRTP and TIP until the process has been completed, assuming that any interim projects or programs will provide equal or better emissions benefits. When the process has been completed, the MPO will amend the LRTP and future TIPs and their conformity determinations to include any changes (including any interim projects or programs). The status of each of these projects, as reported in the status report, is provided below.

A Status Report of the Uncompleted SIP Projects

A more detailed description of the status of these projects can be found on MassDOT’s website at  www.massdot.state.ma.us.  

1,000 New Parking Spaces — SIP Required Completion by December 2011

Project Status

MassDOT, along with the MBTA, identified a set of parking projects to fulfill the necessary SIP commitments and requirements. These projects include:

•    Wonderland/Blue Line (Revere) – 612 spaces

•    Beverly Depot/Commuter Rail – 102 spaces

•    Savin Hill/Red Line (Dorchester) – 20 spaces

•    Woodland/Green Line (Newton) – 100 spaces

•    Quincy Shipyard/Ferry – 168 spaces

All of the projects slated to fulfill the SIP commitment were complete with the opening of Wonderland garage on June 30, 2012. In addition, MassDOT and the MBTA provided interim offset measures for the six-month delay in fulfilling the 1,000-parking-space commitment. The offset increased Saturday bus service on MBTA Route 111, the highest-ridership route serving the communities to the northeast of Boston.

Funding Source: the Commonwealth

Red Line–Blue Line Connector — Final Design — SIP Required Completion by December 2011

Project Status

MassDOT and the MBTA proposed to nullify the commitment to perform final design of the Red Line–Blue Line Connector because the construction of the project would be unaffordable. 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 the current Red Line–Blue Line commitment (final design only). MassDOT submitted correspondence to DEP on July 27, 2011, which formally initiated the amendment process.

On September 13, 2012, DEP held two hearings (at 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM) to take public comment on MassDOT’s proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7.36, Transit System Improvements, including elimination of the requirement to complete final design of the Red Line–Blue Line Connector. Between the two hearings there were 16 attendees, 10 of whom gave oral testimony. All those who spoke at the hearings were in favor of DEP not removing the commitment. DEP accepted written testimony until September 24, 2012.

On August 23, 2013, EPA sent a letter to FHWA providing an update on Massachusetts Air Quality Conformity. In that letter, EPA noted that the Red Line–Blue Line Connector Design project had not met the completion date on December 2011, but that MassDOT was not obligated to implement interim emission-reduction projects because no emission reductions are associated with the design project.

On October 8, 2013, DEP approved the request made by MassDOT in July 2011 to revise 310 CMR 7.36 to remove the requirement for MassDOT to complete the design of the Red Line–Blue Line Connector. This revision to the SIP must now be approved by EPA. The timing of the final approval is currently unknown.

Funding Source: MassDOT is proposing to nullify this commitment

Fairmount Line Improvements Project — SIP Required Completion by December 2011

Project Status

The Four Corners and NewMarket Stations opened for service on July 1, 2013. The punch-list construction items for the Four Corners station will be complete in 2014. The Talbot Avenue Station opened in November 2012. A station at Blue Hill Avenue, which had provoked controversy among abutters, is now moving forward, and design is 60 percent complete. An independent peer review of the location, design, and environmental impacts was recently completed and the draft results were received and are being reviewed internally at MassDOT. The MBTA will develop a schedule for completion after reviewing the results. Given the unexpected delays, the station likely would not be completed before 2015, at the earliest.

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 reduced emissions that were expected to be generated by implementing the new Fairmount Line station and proposed offset measures that were identified with the input and assistance of Fairmount Line stakeholders. MassDOT estimated that the potential offset measures would meet the emissions-reduction targets. The measures include shuttle bus service from Andrew Square to Boston Medical Center and increased bus service on bus Route 31, which serves Dorchester and Mattapan. These measures were implemented on January 2, 2012, and currently are in place.

Funding Source: the Commonwealth

Green Line Extension Project — SIP Requires Completion by December 2014

Project Status

State-level environmental review (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA) was completed in July 2010. Federal-level environmental review (National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA) documents were submitted to the Federal Transit Administration in September 2011, and a public hearing was held on October 20, 2011. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on July 9, 2012.

MassDOT and the MBTA continue to work with the FTA to seek funding for the Green Line Extension project under the FTA New Starts capital funding program. In June 2012, the FTA selected the Green Line Extension project for approval to move into Preliminary Engineering. Upon Congressional approval of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), the Project’s status was revised by FTA from Preliminary Engineering to Engineering, allowing planning to begin for submission of the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) application.

As part of the State Legislative Transportation Funding Plan completed last year, the budget needed to complete the project was determined to be $1.33 billion—including all phases of the Green Line Extension project, all capital costs, new vehicles, design costs, and real estate acquisitions.

During September and October of 2013, the MBTA Green Line Extension team developed and submitted a Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) New Starts Update package to FTA, which included an updated Green Line Extension Project Finance Plan. In late January 2014, the MBTA General Manager sent a letter to the FTA reiterating the project’s goals and the importance of the timing of the Advance Work approval and FFGA execution.

In order to introduce passenger service, it is critical that the following steps in the New Starts process be completed: 1) submission of the New Starts Update and a viable Finance Plan update to FTA [completed]; 2) favorable rating by the FTA and inclusion in the FY2015 budget [completed]; 3) approval from FTA to start construction on essential items in August 2014 [submitted March 31, 2014]; 4) completion of the package for initiation of negotiations for a FFGA [ongoing]; and 5) receipt of an FFGA within a six-to-nine month time frame, depending upon how long the FTA needs to complete the review of the Green Line Extension application and finalize the grant. The receipt of the FFGA is a key milestone, as it restricts the start of construction for the bulk of the Phase 2/2A and Phase 4 work.

To tailor the project-delivery method to best mitigate the larger project risks, MassDOT and MBTA are implementing a phased project-delivery plan. This plan has divided the project into four phases, which will be further divided into design and interim construction work packages.

Phase 1 will rely on the traditional design-bid-build approach to deliver the contract for widening the Harvard Street and Medford Street railroad bridges and demolishing 21 Water Street. The contract award occurred in December 2012, and the Notice to Proceed was issued on January 31, 2013.

At the Harvard Street site in Medford, the new (relocated) outbound Commuter Rail track bridge was erected on April 26, 2014. This is the first of three separate steel erection activities that will be completed for the Harvard Street Bridge. As of this report, work on retaining walls located north and south of the Harvard Street Bridge continues. The installation of temporary support of excavation (SOE) for the southeast retaining wall extension continues in advance of the retaining wall construction (currently anticipated to begin in late May 2014). The installation of the new storm drainage system and associated sewer lateral relocation work in Winchester Street and Harvard Street also is ongoing.

At the Medford Street site in Somerville, temporary SOE installation associated with the concrete abutment modification work began on April 29, 2014. These work elements are in advance of steel erection activities to widen the bridge structure (anticipated to begin mid-to-late summer 2014).

The Green Line Extension team continues to store soil at the 21 Water Street site in Cambridge; this soil will be reused in the Harvard Street bridge walls. The Green Line Extension team also has responded to the latest round of EPA SIP comments. After EPA SIP approval is received, the building will be scheduled to be demolished and PCBs to be remediated.

Phase 2/2A will extend service from the (new) Lechmere Station to the Washington Street and Union Square Stations and relocate the bus facility and vehicle storage at Lechmere Station. MBTA’s construction-phasing plans are developed so as to complete construction in time to permit this portion of the Green Line Extension to begin by mid-summer 2017. This schedule assumes that advance work activities are approved by FTA to begin in the summer of 2014 ahead of the FFGA approval.

Phase 3 will construct the vehicle-maintenance facility and storage yard. As the full yard and maintenance facility are not needed to support the initial passenger service to Washington Street and Union Square, this phase has been scheduled for completion approximately six months ahead of the date for revenue service to College Avenue.

Phase 4 will provide service from Washington Street Station (completed as part of Phase 2, above) to College Avenue Station. A risk-evaluation process indicates that this phase, representing the completion of the Green Line Extension project, has a 50 percent probability of being completed on or before July 2019. This date assumes that the project was successful in advancing certain items into construction ahead of the Full Funding Grant Agreement. The updated risk-evaluation workshop held in January 2014 will be used to confirm or adjust the schedule for this work.

New Green Line Vehicles: The procurement of the 24 new Green Line vehicles that are needed to support the operation of the Green Line Extension is underway. The MBTA advertised for the new vehicles in January 2011 and held a pre-bid meeting for prospective bidders in February 2011. On June 13, 2011, two potential builders submitted proposals to the MBTA, which were reviewed by the MBTA Technical Selection Committee. A contract for the new vehicles was awarded on May14, 2014. The MBTA also is proceeding with the plan to rehabilitate eight currently out-of-service cars to support the Phase 2/2A opening of the extension to Washington Street and Union Square.

Somerville Community Path: The Green Line Extension project also includes the design of the extension of the Somerville Community Path from south of Lowell Street to the Inner Belt area of Somerville. Additional designs are being developed for south of the Inner Belt area. In April, Governor Patrick, Secretary Davey, Somerville Mayor Curtatone and the Green Line Extension team announced that an agreement had been reached to construct the Community Path from Lowell Street station to Lechmere Station as part of the GLX project.

Potential Challenges

The schedule for the overall project completion dates remains in effect. Any revisions to the schedule will be included in the New Starts application expected to be filed in September 2014.

MassDOT and the MBTA continue to seek measures to accelerate the project time line wherever possible. The phasing approach discussed above should provide for accelerated delivery of some portions of the project. In addition, MassDOT and the MBTA have received authorization from the state legislature, the state Office of the Inspector General, and MassDOT board of directors to use the Construction Manager / General Contractor delivery method described above. This should help to complete the project by the dates above and overcome some of the delays related to FONSI and the approval to enter into preliminary engineering.

Although the goal of the phased project-delivery approach is to complete components in an incremental way, the timeline for overall project completion represents a substantial delay beyond the current SIP deadline of December 31, 2014—triggering 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 (CTPS), MassDOT and the MBTA have begun calculating the emission reductions equal to or greater than the reductions projected for the Green Line Extension itself, as specified in the SIP regulation, which will be required for the period of the delay. MassDOT and the MBTA also have worked with the public to develop a portfolio of interim projects and/or measures that may meet the requirements, and have sought input on the portfolio from the public.

In June 2012, MassDOT released a list of potential mitigation ideas received from the public that could be used as offset measures. MassDOT solicited public comments on these potential measures. Since that time, the MBTA has created an internal working group to determine a final portfolio of interim mitigation measures that would be in service by December 31, 2014, the legal deadline for implementation of the Green Line Extension. This work is ongoing and an announcement is expected soon.

Funding Source: the Commonwealth

Russia Wharf Ferry Terminal

Project Status

The Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project was responsible for constructing the Russia Wharf Ferry Terminal. Actual ferry service to the wharf is not included in the SIP requirement, and the CA/T project was not responsible for providing that service. In May 2006, the CA/T Project requested—from the Massachusetts DEP and the Boston Conservation Commission (BCC)—to defer construction of the facility pending the availability of ferry service and resolution of the status of the Old Northern Avenue Bridge which is not adequate to provide the necessary clearance to vessels of a size or configuration suited to regularly scheduled passenger service. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority completed a marketing demand study in October 2009 to determine the potential demand for service in this area, the type of service that could be provided, and the inherent physical, operational, and financial constraints of providing this service. In February 2010, this information was forwarded to MassDOT as part of the ongoing evaluation of this facility. This study was completed and sent to the DEP Waterways Program in February 2012.

MassDOT Secretary Richard Davey approved construction of the permitted ferry facility 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. The construction schedule will be submitted in June 2014. As included in the contact, work must be completed by May 25, 2015. 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's vessel-clearance issue, and is purchasing two ferry vessels for Inner Harbor use, which could include this ferry terminal as a destination.

Consultation Procedures

The conformity regulations require the MPO to make a conformity determination according to consultation procedures set out in state and federal regulations and to follow public involvement procedures established by the MPO under federal metropolitan transportation-planning regulations.

Both state and federal regulations require that the Boston Region MPO, MassDOT, DEP, EPA, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) consult on the following issues:

•    Selection of regional emissions analysis models, including model development and assessment of project design factors for modeling

•    Selection of inputs to the most recent EPA-approved emissions factor model

•    Selection of CO hot-spot modeling procedures, as necessary

•    Identification of regionally significant projects to be included in the regional emissions analysis

•    Identification of projects that have changed in design and scope

•    Identification of exempt projects

•    Identification of exempt projects that should be treated as nonexempt because of adverse air-quality impacts

•    Identification of the latest planning assumptions and determination of consistency with SIP assumptions

These issues have all been addressed through consultation among the agencies listed above.

Public Participation Procedures

 

Title 23 CFR Sections 450.324 and 40 CFR 90.105(e) require that the development of the LRTP, TIP, and related certification documents provide an adequate opportunity for public review and comment.

Section 450.316(b) establishes the outline for MPO public participation programs. The Boston Region MPO’s public participation program was adopted in June 2007, revised in April 2010, and updated in May 2012. The development and adoption of this program conform to these requirements. The program guarantees public access to the LRTP and TIP and all supporting documentation, provides for public notification of the availability of the LRTP and TIP and the public’s right to review the draft documents and comment on them, and provides a public review and comment period prior to the adoption of the LRTP and TIP and related certification documents by the MPO.

On May 21, 2014, a public notice was sent to the MPO’s email contact list inviting the recipients to comment on this draft document. On May 15, the Boston Region MPO voted to approve the draft FFYs 2015–18 TIP and its Air Quality Conformity Determination. This allowed ample opportunity for public comment and MPO review of the draft document. These procedures comply with the associated federal requirements.

Financial Consistency

 

Title 23 CFR Section 450.324 and 40 CFR 93.108 require the LRTP and TIP  to “be financially constrained by year and include a financial plan that demonstrates which projects can be implemented using current revenue sources and which projects are to be implemented using proposed revenue sources.” This Boston Region MPO’s FFYs 2015–18 TIP is financially constrained to projections of federal and state resources that are reasonably expected to be available during the appropriate time frame. Projections of federal resources are based on the estimated apportionment of the federal authorizations contained in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), the two-year transportation reauthorization bill, as allocated to the region by the state or as allocated among the various Massachusetts MPOs according to federal formulas or MPO agreement. Projections of state resources are based on the allocations contained in the current state Transportation Bond Bill and on historic trends. Therefore, this TIP complies with federal requirements relating to financial planning.

Procedures for Determining Regional Transportation Emissions

 

The federal conformity regulations set forth specific requirements for determining transportation emissions. The requirements and the procedures used for the TIP are summarized below.

Demographics, Employment, and Transportation Demand

 

Specific sources of population, household, employment, and traffic information used in the FFYs 2015–18 TIP are listed above in the Latest Planning Assumptions section. Table 5-1, below, outlines recommendations for specific projects for the time period ending in 2035 (as included in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP and the Boston Region MPO’s current LRTP, the amended Paths to a Sustainable Region: Long-Range Transportation Plan of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization).

Only regionally significant projects are required to be included in the travel-demand modeling efforts. The federal conformity regulations define regionally significant as follows:

A transportation project (other than an exempt project) that is on a facility that serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the MPO region; major activity centers in the region; major planned developments, such as new retail malls and sport complexes; and transportation terminals (as well as most terminals themselves) and would be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area’s transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed-guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel.

In addition, specific projects are exempt from regional modeling emissions analysis.

The categories of exempt projects include:

•    Intersection channelization projects

•    Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections

•    Interchange reconfiguration projects

•    Changes in vertical and horizontal alignment

•    Truck size and weight inspection stations

•    Bus terminals and transfer points

The Recommended Networks in this conformity determination are composed of projects proposed in the approved TIPs and LRTP, and projects in the MBTA capital budget. A list of the projects that meet these criteria and are included in the recommended transportation networks and this conformity determination is provided in Table 5-1(projects under construction or recently completed) and Table 5-2 (recommended LRTP and TIP projects). The list includes all regionally significant projects in the Boston Region MPO area.

 

Table 5-1

Regionally Significant Projects Included in the Regional Transportation Models for the Boston Region MPO
Projects under Construction or Recently Completed

Analysis Year

Community

Description of Projects

2016

Bedford, Burlington

Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, Phases 1 and 2

2016

Bellingham

Pulaski Boulevard

2016

Boston

Fairmount Line Improvements

2016

Boston

East Boston Haul Road/Chelsea Truck Route (new grade-separated roadway)

2016

Concord, Lincoln

Route 2/Crosby’s Corner (Grade Separation)

2016

Danvers

Route 128/Route 35 and Route 62

2016

Hudson

Route 85 Capacity Improvements from Marlborough Town Line to Route 62

2016

Marshfield

Route 139 Widening (to four lanes between School St. and Furnace St.

2016

Quincy

Quincy Center Concourse, Phase II (new roadway from Parking Way to Hancock St.)

2016

Somerville

Assembly Square Orange Line Station

2016

Somerville

Assembly Square Roadways (new and reconfigured)

2016

Weymouth, Hingham, Rockland

South Weymouth Naval Air Station Improvements

2016

Regionwide

1,000 New Parking Spaces

2020

Randolph to Wellesley

Route 128 Additional Lanes

 


 

Table 5-2

Regionally Significant Projects Included in the Regional Transportation Models for the Boston Region MPO
Recommended LRTP and TIP Projects

Analysis Year

Community

Description of Projects

2016

Beverly

Beverly Station Commuter Rail Parking Garage

2016

Boston

Conley Haul Road

2016

Hanover

Route 53, Final Phase (widening to four lanes between Route 3 and Route 123)

2016

Salem

Salem Station Commuter Rail Parking Garage Expansion

2016

Somerville, Cambridge, Medford

Green Line Extension to Medford Hillside (College Avenue)/Union Square

2020

Bedford, Burlington, Billerica

Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, Phase 3 – widening Plank St. to Manning Rd.

2020

Boston

Sullivan Square/Rutherford Avenue Improvements

2020

Salem

Bridge Street widening to four lanes between Flint St. and Washington St.

2020

Somerville, Medford

Green Line Extension from Medford Hillside (College Ave.) to Mystic Valley Parkway (Rte. 16)

2020

Weymouth

Route 18 Capacity Improvements

2020

Woburn

Montvale Ave. widening from Central St. to east of Washington St.

2020

Woburn

New Boston Street Bridge (reestablish connection over MBTA Lowell Line)

2020

Canton

I-95 (NB)/Dedham St. Ramp/Dedham St. Corridor (new ramp with widening on Dedham St. from I-95 to University Ave.)

2025

Canton

Interstate 95/Interstate 93 Interchange (new direct connect ramps)

2025

Newton, Needham

Needham St./Highland Ave. (includes widening of the Charles River Bridge)

2035

Braintree

Braintree Split – I-93/Route 3 Interchange

2035

Framingham

Route 126/135 Grade Separation

2035

Reading, Woburn, Stoneham

I-93/I-95 Interchange (new direct connect ramps)

2035

Revere, Malden. Saugus

Route 1 (widening from four to six lanes between Copeland Circle and Route 99)

2035

Wilmington

Tri-Town Interchange (new “Lowell Junction” interchange on I-93 between Route 125 and Dascomb Rd.)


Changes in Project Design and Construction Schedule since the Last Conformity Determination Analysis

The Commonwealth requires that any changes in the mix of projects, project design, and construction schedule from the previous conformity determination for the region be identified. The last conformity determination was performed for the Boston Region FFYs 2014–17 TIP in July 2013. The mix of projects included in the conformity determination for this TIP is the same as the mix for the conformity determination for the FFYs 2015–18 TIP. The only change is the update to the status of uncompleted SIP projects.

This conformity determination shows that the FFYs 2015–18 TIP is in conformity with the carbon monoxide budget set for the maintenance area for Boston and eight surrounding municipalities. It also shows that the transportation control measures included in the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan are moving forward in a timely manner.

Model-Specific Information

40 CFR Part 93.111 outlines the requirements pertaining to the network-based transportation demand models. These requirements include the modeling methods and functional relationships that are to be used in accordance with accepted professional practice and are to be reasonable for purposes of estimating emissions. The Boston Region MPO used the methods described in the conformity regulations for the analysis in this TIP.

Highway Performance Monitoring System Adjustments

As stated in EPA guidance, all areas of carbon monoxide nonattainment must use the FHWA’s Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) to track daily vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) prior to attainment to ensure that the state is in line with commitments made in reaching attainment of the ambient air-quality standards by the required attainment dates. MassDOT provided HPMS information to DEP. DEP used this information in setting the mobile-source budget for CO in all SIP revisions prior to 1997.

An HPMS adjustment factor was developed by comparing the 1990 CO emissions of the nine cities and towns (Boston and eight surrounding communities in the Boston maintenance area) resulting from the 1990 base-year model run to the 1990 HPMS-generated CO emissions data submitted as part of the SIP. The HPMS data were divided by the model data to determine the CO adjustment factor to be applied to all modeled CO emissions for future years. The CO HPMS adjustment factor is 0.71.

The Conformity Test

Consistency with the Emission Budgets Set Forth in the SIP

The Boston Region MPO conducted an air-quality analysis for the Boston Region MPO’s FFYs 2014–17 TIP. Project information used in the conformity determination for the FFYs 2014–17 TIP has not changed for this TIP, so the results of the emissions analysis remains the same. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the air-quality impacts on the SIP of the projects included in the TIP. The analysis evaluated the change in CO emissions due to implementation of the TIP. The modeling procedures and assumptions used in this air-quality analysis follow the EPA’s conformity regulations. They are also consistent with the procedures used by the DEP to develop Massachusetts’s “1990 Base-Year Emission Inventory,” “1996 Reasonable Further Progress Plan,” “Post-1996 Reasonable Further Progress Plan,” and “1996 Rate of Progress Report.” All consultation procedures were followed to ensure that a complete analysis of the TIP was performed and was consistent with the SIP.

The primary test for showing conformity with the SIP is demonstrating that the air-quality conformity of this TIP is consistent with the emission budget set forth in the SIP. The CO mobile-source attainment inventory for 1993 for the nine cities in the Boston area reclassified as being in attainment is 305.43 tons per winter day. The projection of mobile sources for the Boston maintenance area is 228.33 tons per winter day for 2010. Estimates of CO emissions for the nine cities in the Boston maintenance area for various years are shown in Table 5-3. The CO emissions are less than the CO emission budget.

 

Table 5-3

Winter CO Emissions Estimates for the CO Maintenance Area for the Nine Cities in the Boston Area (all emissions are in tons per winter day)

Year

Boston Region Action Emission

 

Emission Budget

Difference (Action Minus Budget)

2016

82.30

228.33

-146.03

2025

76.09

228.33

-152.24

2035

77.30

228.33

-151.03

 

Conclusion

 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established air-quality conformity requirements for transportation plans, programs, and projects. The EPA published a final rule in the November 24, 1993, Federal Register, with several amendments through January 2008, providing procedures to be followed by the US Department of Transportation in determining conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects with the SIP for meeting air-quality standards. Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville are designated a “maintenance area” for the CO standard. Federal conformity regulations require that the impact of transportation plans, programs, and projects on maintenance areas be evaluated.

 

The Boston Region MPO conducted an air-quality analysis for projects in this TIP. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the air-quality impacts of the TIP projects on the SIP. The analysis evaluates the change in CO emissions due to the implementation of the FFYs 2015–18 TIP. The modeling procedures and assumptions used in this air-quality analysis follow the EPA’s and the Commonwealth’s guidelines and are consistent with all present and past procedures used by the Massachusetts DEP to develop and amend the SIP.

Boston Region MPO has found the emission levels from the Boston area CO Maintenance Area, including emissions resulting from implementation of the TIP, to be in conformance with the SIP according to state and federal conformity criteria. Specifically, the CO emissions for the build scenarios of the MPO’s regional travel demand model set are less than the projections for analysis years 2016 through 2035 for the nine cities in the Boston CO Maintenance area.

In accordance with Section 176(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990, the Boston Region MPO has completed this review and hereby certifies that the FFYs 2015–18 TIP, and its latest conformity determination, conditionally conforms with 40 CFR Part 93 and 310 CMR 60.03 and is consistent with the air-quality goals in the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.

 

Chapter Six

Financial Constraint



For financial constraint of the TIP, the transit and highway programs must be financially constrained to projections of available federal aid.

As shown in the tables below, the federal fiscal years 2015–18 TIP complies with financial constraint.


 

TABLE 6-1

The Federal-Aid Transit Program

Transit Program

FFY 2015

FFY 2016

FFY 2017

FFY 2018

FFYs 2015–18

Section 5307 Authorization

$134,685,516

$134,685,516

$134,685,516

$134,685,516

$538,742,064

Section 5307 Program

$134,685,516

$134,685,516

$134,685,516

$134,685,516

$538,742,064

Section 5337 Authorization

$121,190,546

$121,190,546

$121,190,546

$121,190,546

$484,762,184

Section 5337 Program

$121,190,546

$121,190,546

$121,190,546

$121,190,546

$484,762,184

Section 5339 Authorization

$5,287,027

$5,287,027

$5,287,027

$5,287,027

$21,148,108

Section 5339 Program

$5,287,027

$5,287,027

$5,287,027

$5,287,027

$21,148,108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 6-2

The Federal-Aid Highway Regional Target Program
(Including state matching funds, but excluding earmarked funds)

Regional Target

FFY 2015

FFY 2016

FFY 2017

FFY 2018

FFYs 2015–18

Regional Target Obligation Authority

$68,221,673

$75,009,821

$75,009,821

$75,009,821

$293,251,136

Regional Target Programmed

$68,206,291

$74,955,028

$74,970,496

$74,799,941

$292,931,756

STP Target

$44,786,168

$52,939,052

$54,461,509

$54,461,508

$206,648,237

      STP Programmed

$12,828,462

$25,491,442

$35,927,686

$47,604,538

$121,852,128

NHPP Target

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

      NHPP Programmed*

$30,000,000

$30,000,000

$14,000,000

$13,768,183

$87,768,183

HSIP Target

$4,774,123

$4,296,710

$4,296,710

$4,296,710

$17,664,253

      HSIP Programmed

$5,000,000

$4,397,727

$4,752,838

$0

$14,150,565

CMAQ Target

$16,112,664

$13,427,220

$13,427,220

$13,427,220

$56,394,324

      CMAQ Programmed

$17,829,110

$10,719,021

$17,465,590

$13,427,220

$59,440,941

TAP Target

$2,548,719

$4,346,838

$2,824,382

$2,824,382

$12,544,321

      TAP Programmed

$2,548,719

$4,346,838

$2,824,382

$0

$9,719,939

*   National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds are from Surface Transportation Program (STP) target amounts.

 

TABLE 6-3

The Federal-Aid Bridge Program

Bridge Program

FFY 2015

FFY 2016

FFY 2017

FFY 2018

FFYs 2015–18

Federal-Aid Bridges*

$33,013,726

$39,282,400

$42,449,067

$75,833,716

$190,578,909

      Accelerated Bridge Program

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

*   This amount includes Boston Region Accelerated Bridge Program projects that leverage federal aid.

 

 

 

 

Chapter Seven

Operation and Maintenance

One requirement of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) is the assessment of the operation and maintenance of the transportation system in the Boston region. State and regional agencies develop estimates of transit and highway operating and maintenance costs through their budgeting process. The information on projects and funding sources presented in Chapter 3 represents operations and maintenance estimates from the implementing agencies: the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA), the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), and the MassDOT Highway Division. The tables on pages 7-2 and 7 -3 present the operations and maintenance estimates for state fiscal years (SFYs) 2015 through 2018 for MassDOT projects. The tables on pages 7-4 through 7-6 present operations and maintenance estimates for SFYs 2014 through 2017 for the MBTA, CATA, and the MWRTA.

 

 

First of two images that list the ten requirements of the transportation planning process to be conducted by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and certifies that the Boston Region MPO complies with these requirements. The certification of the Transportation Planning Process is signed by the members of the Boston Region MPO members, with the exception of:
North Suburban Planning Council – City of Woburn
South Shore Coalition – Town of Braintree
SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee – Town of Medway

image 2 of continued page from above

 

 

Appendix A

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


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

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

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 visions and policies that were adopted for its Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Paths to a Sustainable Region. 

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

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

Table A-1 contains a summary of the evaluated projects in this year’s TIP development process. Projects that are programmed in the draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP are in bold type.

A full list of the Universe of Projects (including those project that were evaluated and those projects that were not evaluated) is contained in Table A-2. Projects in bold type are programmed in the draft FFYs 2015–18 TIP.

 

TABLE A-1

FFYs 2015-18 TIP – Summary of Evaluated Projects

 

TIP ID Proponent(s) Project Name TIP/
LRTP Status 
Total Rating

(154 Points Possible):
System Preservation, Modernization,
and Efficiency
Rating

(36 Points Possible):
Livability
and
Economic Benefit
Rating

(29 Points Possible):
Mobility
Rating

(25 Points Possible):
Environment
and Climate Change
Rating

(25 Points Possible):
Environmental Justice
Rating

(10 Points Possible):
Safety and Security
Rating

(29 Points Possible):
Greenhouse Gas Impact (Annual Tons of CO2 Reduced)
606635 Newton & Needham Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street & Charles River Bridge, from Webster Street to Route 9 LRTP
2021-25
104 30 17 13 18 6 20 312
600220 Beverly Reconstruction & Signal Improvements on Rantoul Street (Route 1A), from Cabot Street (South) to Cabot Street (North) 2014 98 28 18 15 18 0 19 294
606284 Boston Improvements to Commonwealth Avenue, from Amory Street to Alcorn Street 2015 96 28 16 15 9 8 20 57
1616 Somerville Grounding of the McCarthy Overpass 96 30 18 13 12 9 14 636
606320 Boston Reconstruction of Causeway Street (Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements) 92 32 20 12 6 7 15 -135
607409 Lexington Reconstruction on Massachusetts Avenue, from Marrett Road to Pleasant Street 87 30 10 15 8 6 18 80
605034 Natick Reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main Street), from North Avenue to the Wayland Town Line 86 32 16 14 9 0 15 74
605146 Salem Reconstruction on Canal Street, from Washington Street & Mill Street to Loring Avenue & Jefferson Avenue 2014 85 22 16 12 10 6 19 18
606043 Hopkinton Signal & Intersection Improvements on Route 135 85 24 14 14 16 0 17 566
605110 Brookline Intersection & Signal Improvements at Route 9 & Village Square (Gateway East) 2015 84 30 19 14 10 0 11 22
605313 Natick Bridge Replacement, Route 27 (North Main St.) over Route 9 (Worcester St.) and Interchange Improvements 84 34 12 15 8 0 15 -41
029492 Bedford, Billerica, & Burlington Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, from Crosby Drive North to Manning Road (Phase III) 2016 83 28 9 18 13 3 12 Awaiting new information
607652 Everett Reconstruction of Ferry Street, South Ferry Street and a Portion of Elm Street 83 30 9 14 7 5 18 159
606453 Boston Improvements on Boylston Street, from Intersection of Brookline Avenue & Park Drive to Ipswich Street 83 16 18 14 16 5 14 806
604810 Marlborough Reconstruction of Route 85 (Maple Street) 2015 82 16 14 10 18 6 18 325
605657 Medway Reconstruction on Route 109, from Holliston Street to 100 Feet West of Highland Street 2016 82 28 13 10 16 0 15 352
606460 Boston Improvements at Audubon Circle 2017 78 24 14 11 9 7 13 74
602261 Walpole (MassDOT) Reconstruction on Route 1A (Main Street), from the Norwood Town Line to Route 27 76 28 14 10 6 6 12 94
604532 Acton, Carlisle, & Westford Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2A 2014 75 24 14 8 14 2 13 150
604652 Winchester, Stoneham, & Woburn Tri-Community Bikeway 2015 75 20 15 9 17 0 14 435
605189 Concord Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2C 2016 73 24 14 10 10 2 13 79
604989 Southborough Reconstruction of Main Street (Route 30), from Sears Road to Park Street 2017 73 22 13 12 11 0 15 101
604935 Woburn Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue, from I-93 Interchange to Central Street 2017 71 26 10 9 8 0 18 46
607309 Hingham  Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby Street from Pond Park Road to Cushing Street 71 22 9 15 8 0 17 166
601579 Wayland Signal & Intersection Improvements at Route 27 (Main Street) and Route 30 (Commonwealth Road) 2016 70 24 10 10 12 0 14 115
601704 Newton Reconstruction & Signal Improvements on Walnut Street, from Homer Street to Route 9 70 24 16 8 7 0 15 -18
606885 Arlington Bikeway Connection at Intersection Route 3 & Route 60, Massachusetts Avenue, Pleasant Street & Mystic Street 2014 69 18 17 10 8 2 14 8
601513 Saugus (MassDOT) Interchange Reconstruction at Walnut Street & Route 1 (Phase II) 69 22 12 15 7 0 13 Awaiting preferred alternative
602077 Lynn Reconstruction on Route 129 (Lynnfield Street), from Great Woods Road to Wyoma Square 69 20 8 11 9 5 16 3
604531 Acton & Maynard Assabet River Rail Trail 2015 68 16 14 10 13 2 13 183
602310 Danvers Reconstruction on Collins Street, from Sylvan Street to Centre & Holten Streets 68 20 13 14 6 2 13 63
605721 Weymouth Intersection Improvements at Middle Street, Libbey Industrial Parkway and Tara Drive 68 20 12 16 5 0 15 6
606117 Boston Traffic Signal Improvements at 11 Locations 67 16 13 12 7 5 14 13
601705 Reading Reconstruction of West Street, from Woburn City Line to Summer Ave/Willow Street 2014 66 24 13 11 6 0 12 46
607255 Holbrook Intersection Improvements and Related Work at Weymouth Street/Pine Street/Sycamore Street 66 24 6 13 7 0 16 106
604377 Gloucester Washington Street and Railroad Avenue 65 12 15 9 8 4 17 Assumed nominal decrease
607888 Boston Multi-use Path Construction on New Fenway 65 6 17 11 13 5 13 106
604231 Marlborough Intersection & Signal Improvements on Route 20 (East Main Street/Boston Post Road) at Concord Road 64 24 4 16 7 3 10 67
601019 Winchester Signal & Improvements at 4 Locations on Church Street & Route 3 (Cambridge Street) 2014 62 18 9 11 17 0 7 367
604996 Woburn Bridge Replacement, New Boston Street over MBTA LRTP
2016-20
62 12 19 11 13 0 7 1501
600518 Hingham (MassDOT) Intersection Improvements at Derby Street, Whiting Street (Route 53) and Gardner Street 59 22 10 13 2 0 12 -64
602000 Weston Intersection & Signal Improvements at Route 30 (South Ave) & Wellesley Street 58 18 5 12 12 0 11 102
606002 Duxbury Signal Installation at Route 3 (NB & SB) Ramps & Route 3A (Tremont St) 57 20 4 17 3 0 13 70
602602 Hanover (MassDOT) Reconstruction of Washington Street (Route 53) and Related Work From the Route 3 Northbound Ramp to Webster Street (Route 123) 2014 56 20 9 11 7 0 9 -31
603739 Wrentham Construction of I-495/Route 1A Ramps 55 18 1 15 10 0 11 540
604697 Marlborough Reconstruction of Farm Road, from Cook Lane to Route 20 (Boston Post Road) 55 20 7 6 8 3 11 60
605857 Norwood Intersection Improvements at Route 1 & University Avenue/Everett Street 54 22 8 12 3 0 9 No capacity analysis
606316 Brookline Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation over MBTA off Carlton Street 2016 53 10 7 8 11 5 12 Assumed nominal decrease
606130 Norwood Intersection Improvements at Route 1A & Upland Road/Washington Street & Prospect Street/Fulton Street 53 20 5 10 5 0 13 37
606501 Holbrook Reconstruction of Union Street (Route 139), from Linfield Street to Centre Street/Water Street 48 10 13 7 5 0 13 Assumed nominal decrease
604638 Danvers & Peabody (MassDOT) Mainline Improvements on Route 128 (Phase II) 47 12 1 18 3 0 13 No impact
605743 Ipswich Resurfacing & Related Work on Central & South Main Streets 47 6 13 8 6 0 14 Assumed nominal decrease
601359 Franklin Reconstruction of Pleasant Street, from Main Street to Chestnut Street 45 12 11 6 4 0 12 Assumed nominal decrease
601607 Hull Reconstruction of Atlantic Avenue and Related Work, from Nantasket Avenue to Cohasset Town Line 43 6 11 2 8 0 16 Assumed nominal decrease
604811 Marlborough Reconstruction of Route 20 (East Main Street), from Main Street Easterly to Lincoln Street 42 6 4 11 7 3 11 6
604745 Wrentham Reconstruction of Taunton Street (Route 152) 36 6 10 2 4 0 14 Assumed nominal decrease

 

 

TABLE A-2

FFYs 2015-18 TIP – Universe of Projects

 

Proponent(s) TIP ID Project Name TIP/LRTP Funding Status 
Acton & Maynard 604531 Assabet River Rail Trail 2015
Acton, Carlisle, & Westford 604532 Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2A 2014
Ashland 604123 Reconstruction on Route 126 (Pond Street), from the Framingham T.L. to the Holliston T.L.
Bedford, Billerica & Burlington 029492 Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, from Crosby Drive North to Manning Road (Phase III) 2016
Beverly 604369 Reconstruction & Improvements on Route 128 (Interchange 19) at Brimbal Avenue, Sohier Road, Dunham Road, Otis Road
Beverly 600220 Reconstruction & Signal Improvements on Rantoul and Cabot Streets (Route 1A), from Cabot Street (South, at Veterans Memorial Bridge) to Cabot Street (North, at Memorial Building at 502 Cabot Street) 2014
Boston 601274 Reconstruction of Tremont Street, from Court Street to Boylston Street
Boston 606320 Reconstruction of Causeway Street (Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements)
Boston 053001 Northern Avenue Connector Roads (Phase 1)
Boston 605789 Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard 2015
Boston 606453 Improvements on Boylston Street, from Intersection of Brookline Avenue & Park Drive to Ipswich Street
Boston 606460 Improvements at Audubon Circle
Boston 606117 Traffic Signal Improvements at 11 Locations
Boston 606134 Traffic Signal Improvements on Blue Hill Avenue and Warren Street 2015
Boston 607888 Multi-use Path Construction on New Fenway
Boston 604761 Multi-Use Trail Construction (South Bay Harbor) From Ruggles Station to Fort Point Channel 2014
Boston 606226 Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue, from City Square to Sullivan Square LRTP 2016-20
Boston 606284 Improvements to Commonwealth Avenue, from Amory Street to Alcorn Street 2015
Brookline 606316 Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation over MBTA off Carlton Street 2016
Brookline 605110 Intersection & Signal Improvements at Route 9 & Village Square (Gateway East) 2016
Burlington 950 South Bedford Street
Cambridge 604993 Innovation Boulevard Streetscape & Pedestrian Improvements, Between Main Street & Binney Street (Phase I)
Cambridge (MassDOT) 605637 Improvements at Route 2 and Route 16
Canton 900 East-West Connector, between Pleasant St. & Route 138
Canton 603883 Reconstruction on Route 138, from I-93 to Dan Road
Canton, Dedham, & Norwood (MassDOT) 87790 Interchange Improvements at I-95/I-93/University Avenue/I-95 Widening 2016
Canton, Norwood, & Westwood (MassDOT) 606146 Ramp Construction on I-95 (NB) & Improvements on Dedham Street, Includes Replacement of 4 Signalized Intersections 2015
Chelsea 1063 Beacham and Williams Street
Chelsea 953 Spruce Street
Chelsea 1443 Broadway Reconstruction
Chelsea 1615 Spruce Street/Second Street/Carter Street Improvements
Cohasset, Marshfield, & Scituate (MassDOT) 605664 Resurfacing & Related Work on Route 3A
Concord 602091 Improvements & Upgrades to Concord Rotary (Routes 2/2A/119)
Concord 605189 Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2C 2016
Concord 1441 Concord – Route 62 (Main St) Phase 3
Concord 1450 Route 117 (Fitchburg Turnpike)
Concord & Lincoln 602984 Limited Access Highway Improvements at Route 2 & 2A, Between Crosby's Corner & Bedford Road Advertised
Concord, Acton 606223 Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Construction (Phase II-B) 2017
Danvers 602310 Reconstruction on Collins Street, from Sylvan Street to Centre & Holten Streets
Dedham 1618 Bussey Street and Rustcraft Road/Elm Street
Duxbury 942 Intersection Improvements at Route 3A & Route 139
Duxbury 600650 Route 3A (Tremont Street) Bridge
Duxbury 606002 Signal Installation at Route 3 (NB & SB) Ramps & Route 3A (Tremont St)
Duxbury (MassDOT) 603462 Intersection Improvements at Kingstown Way (Route 53) & Winter Street Advertised
Everett 607652 Reconstruction of Ferry Street, South Ferry Street and a Portion of Elm Street
Everett & Malden 649 TeleCom Boulevard, Phase 2
Framingham 356 Route 126 (Hollis Street )
Framingham 602038 Edgell Road Corridor Project
Framingham 606109 Intersection Improvements at Route 126/135/MBTA & CSX Railroad LRTP 2026-30
Framingham 955 Route 126 (Route 9 to Lincoln Street)
Franklin 601359 Reconstruction of Pleasant Street, from Main Street to Chestnut Street
Gloucester 604377 Washington Street And Railroad Avenue
Hanover 602602 Reconstruction of Washington Street (Route 53) and Related Work From the Route 3 Northbound Ramp to Webster Street (Route 123) 2014
Hingham 607309 Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby Street from Pond Park Road to Cushing Street
Hingham (MassDOT) 600518 Intersection Improvements at Derby Street, Whiting Street (Route 53) and Gardner Street
Holbrook 602260 Abington Avenue-Plymouth Street
Holbrook 606501 Reconstruction of Union Street (Route 139), from Linfield Street to Centre Street/Water Street
Holbrook 607255 Intersection Improvements and Related Work at Weymouth Street/Pine Street/Sycamore Street
Holliston 602462 Signal Installation at Route 16/126 and Oak Street 2016
Holliston 602929 Multi-Use Trail Construction on a Section of the Upper Charles Trail (2 Miles of Proposed 27 Miles) 2017
Hopkinton 1006 School Street/W. Main Street Intersections
Hopkinton 606043 Signal & Intersection Improvements on Route 135
Hudson 1047 South Street
Hudson 1488 Lincoln St. at Cox St. and Packard St.
Hudson 1617 Route 85/ Route 62 Rotary Improvements
Hudson & Marlborough (MassDOT) 603345 Reconstruction on Routes I-290 & 495 and Bridge Replacement
Hudson (MassDOT) 601906 Bridge Replacement, Cox Street over the Assabet River
Hull 601607 Reconstruction of Atlantic Avenue and Related Work, from Nantasket Avenue to Cohasset Town Line
Ipswich 605743 Resurfacing & Related Work on Central & South Main Streets
Lexington 604619 Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue
Lexington 1141 West Lexington Greenway
Lexington 607409 Reconstruction on Massachusetts Avenue, from Marrett Road to Pleasant Street
Littleton 1460 Harvard Street
Lynn 602077 Reconstruction on Route 129 (Lynnfield Street), from Great Woods Road to Wyoma Square
Lynn 602081 Route 107 (Western Avenue)/Eastern Avenue
Lynn 602093 Route 107 (Western Avenue)
Lynn 943 Broad Street/Lewis Street /Route 129
Lynn 944 Boston Street -Hamilton Street
Lynn 601138 Traffic Signals at 4 Locations (Contract E)
Lynn 1454 Route 1 South (Jug handle lights at Goodwin Circle)
Lynn 1319 Route 129 (Boston St./Washington St.)
Lynn 1320 Route 1 (Copeland Circle, Fox Hill Bridge)
Lynn 1321 Route 1A Lynnway at Blossom Street
Lynn 1322 Route 1A Lynnway intersection at Market St.
Lynn 1323 Route 1A Lynn (GE Bridge  Nahant Rotary)
Lynn 1324 Blue Line Extension (Wonderland connection)
Lynn 374 Lynn Garage
Lynn, Malden, Revere & Saugus 351 Bike to the Sea, Phase 2
Lynnfield, Wakefield 607329 Rail Trail Extension, from the Galvin Middle School to Lynnfield/Peabody Town Line
Malden, Revere, & Saugus (MassDOT) 605012 Reconstruction & Widening on Route 1, from Route 60 to Route 99 LRTP 2031-35
Marlborough 604810 Reconstruction of Route 85 (Maple Street) 2016
Marlborough 604811 Reconstruction of Route 20 (East Main Street), from Main Street Easterly to Lincoln Street
Marlborough 604231 Intersection & Signal Improvements on Route 20 (East Main Street/Boston Post Road) at Concord Road
Marlborough 604697 Reconstruction of Farm Road, from Cook Lane to Route 20 (Boston Post Road)
Marshfield (MassDOT) 604655 Bridge Replacement, Beach Street over the Cut River 2018
MassDOT 600831 I-93 Mystic Avenue Interchange (Design and Study)
Medford 1455 Medford Square Phase 2 Improvements
Medford 1456 Medford Square Water Taxi Landing and Related Park Improvements
Medford 1457 Medford Square Transit Center
Medford 1458 Mystic River Linear Park
Medford 1146 Medford Square Parking
Medway 602134 Resurfacing & Related Work on a Section of Village Street
Medway 1167 Route 109 (Milford Street)
Medway 605657 Reconstruction on Route 109, from Holliston Street to 100 Feet West of Highland Street 2015
Melrose 601551 Intersection & Signal Improvements at Main Street & Essex Street
Melrose 601553 Intersection & Signal Improvement to Lebanon Street, from Lynde Street to Main Street Advertised
Milford 967 Veteran's Memorial Drive/Alternate Route
Milford 607428 Resurfacing & Intersection Improvements on Route 16 (Main Street), from Water Street  to the Hopedale T.L.
Millis 602364 Reconstruction of Village Street, from Main Street (Route 109) to the Medway Town Line
Natick 605034 Reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main Street), from North Avenue to the Wayland Town Line
Natick 1066 Cochituate Rail Trail, Phase Two
Natick 607312 Superstructure Replacement, Marion Street over MBTA
Natick 605313 Bridge Replacement, Route 27 (North Main Street) over Route 9 (Worcester Street) and Interchange Improvements
Needham & Wellesley (MassDOT) 603711 Rehab/Replacement of 6 Bridges on I-95/Route 128 (Add-a-Lane Contract 5) Advertised
Newton 601704 Reconstruction & Signal Improvements on Walnut Street, from Homer Street to Route 9
Newton 1067 Washington St., Phase 2
Newton 600932 Reconstruction on Route 30 (Commonwealth Avenue), from Weston Town Line to Auburn Street
Newton & Needham 606635 Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street & Charles River Bridge, from Webster Street to Route 9
Norwood 605857 Intersection Improvements at Route 1 & University Avenue/Everett Street
Norwood 606130 Intersection Improvements at Route 1A & Upland Road/Washington Street & Prospect Street/Fulton Street
Peabody (MassDOT) 604638 Mainline Improvements on Route 128 (Phase II)
Quincy 1451 Quincy Center Multimodal MBTA Station
Quincy 605729 Intersection & Signal Improvements at Hancock Street & East/West Squantum Streets Advertised
Reading 601705 Reconstruction of West Street, from Woburn City Line to Summer Ave/Willow Street 2014
Reading, Stoneham, Wakefield, & Woburn 605605 Interchange Improvements to I-93/I-95
Salem 600986 Boston Street
Salem 005399 Reconstruction of Bridge Street, from Flint Street to Washington Street
Salem 1311 Canal Street Bikeway
Salem 605146 Reconstruction on Canal Street, from Washington Street & Mill Street to Loring Avenue & Jefferson Avenue 2015
Saugus 601513 Interchange Reconstruction at Walnut Street & Route 1 (Phase II)
Somerville 607209 Reconstruction of Beacon Street, from Oxford Street to Cambridge City Line 2014
Somerville 1461 Community Path (Phase 3) – Lowell to Lechmere
Somerville 1616 Grounding of the McCarthy Overpass
Somerville & Medford 1569 Green Line Extension Project (Phase II), Medford Hillside (College Avenue) to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 2016-2018
Southborough 604989 Reconstruction of Main Street (Route 30), from Sears Road to Park Street 2017
Southborough 1064 Cordaville Road/Route 85 Rehabilitation
Southborough & Westborough (MassDOT) 607701 Improvements at I-495 & Route 9
Stow, Hudson 1139 Assabet River Rail Trail
Sudbury 1037 Route 20/Horsepond Road
Sudbury 1069 Route 20/Wayside Inn Road
Sudbury 971 Old Sudbury Road (Route 27)
Sudbury 1164 Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D
Sudbury 1305 Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2E
Sudbury (MassDOT) 607249 Intersection Improvements at Route 20 & Landham Road
Swampscott 604923 Reconstruction of Humphrey Street and Salem Street
Walpole 602261 Reconstruction on Route 1A (Main Street), from the Norwood Town Line to Route 27
Walpole 600671 Reconstruction of Route 1A, from Common Street to the Norfolk Town Line
Walpole 1151 Walpole Central Business District
Walpole 1152 Elm St Improvements
Walpole (MassDOT) 997 Coney Street Interchange with Route 95
Wayland 601579 Signal & Intersection Improvements at Route 27 (Main Street) and Route 30 (Commonwealth Road) 2016
Weston 602000 Intersection & Signal Improvements at Route 30 (South Ave) & Wellesley Street
Weymouth 601630 Reconstruction & Widening on Route 18 (Main Street), from Highland Place to Route 139 2016-18
Weymouth 605721 Intersection Improvements at Middle Street, Libbey Industrial Parkway and Tara Drive
Wilmington 605021 Intersection Improvements on Route 62 (Middlesex Avenue) at Glenn Road and Wildwood Street
Winchester 601019 Signal & Improvements at 4 Locations on Church Street & Route 3 (Cambridge Street) 2014
Winchester, Stoneham, & Woburn 604652 Tri-Community Bikeway 2015
Winthrop 607244 Reconstruction & Related Work along Winthrop Street & Revere Street Corridor
Woburn 1449 Route 38 (Main St.) Traffic Lights
Woburn 604996 Bridge Replacement, New Boston Street over MBTA LRTP 2016-20
Woburn 604935 Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue, from I-93 Interchange to Central Street 2017
Woburn 1153 Woburn Loop Bikeway Project
Wrentham 604745 Reconstruction of Taunton Street (Route 152)
Wrentham (MassDOT) 603739 Construction of I-495/Route 1A Ramps

 

Appendix B

Roadway Project Funding Application Forms & Evaluations

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

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

Roadway Project funding application Forms

Overview Tab

Project Background Information

1    ID Number  

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

2    Municipality(ies)

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

3    Project Name

The name of the project. (Source: MassDOT)

4    Project Category

(determined by MPO staff):

5    MassDOT Highway District

The MassDOT Highway District in which the project is located.

6    MAPC Subregion

The MAPC subregion in which the project is located.

7    MAPC Community Type

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

8    Estimated Cost

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

9    Evaluation Rating

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

10   Description

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

11   Project Length (Miles)

Total length of project in miles.

12   Project Lane Miles

Total lane miles of project.

Project Background Information

P1  Community Priority

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

Additional Status

13   MPO/CTPS Study

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

14   Air Quality Status

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

Readiness Tab

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

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

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

Project Background Information

15   Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Status

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

16   Functional Design Report (FDR) Status

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

17   Design Status

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

18   Right-of-Way (ROW) Requirement

(Source: MassDOT Project Info):

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

19   Right-of-Way (ROW) Responsibility

(Source: MassDOT Project Info):

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

Municipal Responsibility – Providing the required right-of-way is the responsibility of the municipality.
Municipal Approval – Municipal approval has been given to the right-of-way plan (with date of approval):

20   Right-of-Way (ROW) Certification

(Source: MassDOT Project Info):

Expected – Expected date of ROW plan and order of taking
Recorded – Date the ROW plan and order of taking were recorded at the Registry of Deeds
Expires – Expiration date of the rights of entry, easements, or order of taking

21   Required Permits

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

System Preservation, Modernization, and Efficiency Tab

System Preservation, Modernization, and Efficiency of our roadway is important to the vitality of our region. The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to measure the MPO’s efforts to emphasize the preservation, modernization and efficiency of the existing transportation system. The MPO has expressed these measures in the following policies:

Project Background Information

22   Existing Pavement Condition

(Source: MassDOT Roadway Inventory File)

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

23   Equipment Condition

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

24   CMP Congested Area

Identifies a project that is located within a Boston Region MPO Congestion Management Process (CMP) area.

Proponent Provided Information

P2  What are the infrastructure condition needs or issues of the project area?

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

P3  How does this project address the infrastructure condition needs or issues in the project area?

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

Evaluation

System Preservation, Modernization and Efficiency Evaluation Scoring (36 total points possible):

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 and all equipment will be replaced

+4 Mediocre condition, replacement of majority of equipment will occur

+2 Fair condition, partial replacement will occur

  0  All other values

 

Improves traffic signal operations (signal equipment upgrades, including for adaptive signal controls and coordination with adjacent signals (ITS) (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 address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

In a Congestion Management Process Identified Area (up to 6 points)

+6 CMP data indicates project area is in one of the most highly congested project areas monitored

+4 CMP data indicates project area is in one of the most congested project areas monitored

+2 CMP data indicates project area is in a congested project areas monitored

  0  CMP data indicates project area is in the top 80 to 51 % of the most congested project areas monitored

 

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 address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Implements ITS strategies other than traffic signal operations (improve traffic flow as identified by an ITS strategy for the municipality or state (e.g. variable message signs) (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 address criteria to a low degree

0  Does not meet or address criteria

Livability and Economic Benefit Tab

The livability and economic benefit of our roadway is important to the vitality of our region. The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to measure the MPO’s efforts to emphasize and implement their livability policies. The MPO has expressed these measures in the following policies:

 

Project Background Information

Using the current available zoning coverage, the following calculations will be made by MAPC:

25   Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

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

Pedestrian Facilities:

Bicycle Facilities:

26   TDM Program Required for All New Developments

For all new development, a Transportation demand management (TDM) program is required that implements at least four of the following components:

 

In addition, this criteria can be met if the community is taking steps to significantly reduce single-occupant travel as part of the project or in the project area.

27   Targeted Development Areas

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

28   Municipality Provides Financial or Regulatory Support for Targeted Development

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

29   Local Efforts to improve Design and Access:

Proponent Provided Information

P4   How does the project improve access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation? How does the project support MassDOT’s mode shift goal of tripling the share of walking, biking, and transit travel?

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

P5  How is the project consistent with local land use policies? How does the project advance local efforts to improve design and access?

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

P6  How does the zoning of the area within ½ mile of this project support transit-
oriented development and preserve any new roadway capacity?

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

P7  How is the project consistent with state, regional, and local economic development priorities?

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

Evaluation

Livability and Economic Benefit Evaluation Scoring (29 total points possible):

Design is consistent with complete streets policies (up to 4 points)

+1 Project is a “complete street”

+1 Project provides for transit service

+1 Project provides for bicycle facilities

+1 Project provides for pedestrian facilities

  0  Does not provide any complete streets components

 

Provides multimodal access to an activity center (up to 3 points)

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

+1 Project provides bicycle access to an activity center

+1 Project provides pedestrian access to an activity center

  0  Does not provide multimodal access

 

Reduces auto dependency (up to 8 points)

+3 Project provides for a new transit service

+1 Project is identified in MassDOT’s Bay State Greenway Priority 100

+1 Project completes a known gap in the bicycle or pedestrian network

+1 Project provides for a new bicycle facility

+1 Project provides for a new pedestrian facility

+1 Project implements a transportation demand management strategy

  0  Does not provide for any of the above measures

 

Project serves a targeted development site (40R, 43D, 43E, Regionally Significant Priority Development Area, Growth District Initiative, or eligible MBTA transit station areas) (up to 6 points)

+2 Project provides new transit access to or within a site

+1 Project improves transit access to or within a site

+1 Project provides for bicycle access to or within a site

+1 Project provides for pedestrian access to or within a site

+1 Project provides for improved road access to or within a site

 

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

+2 Project mostly serves an existing area of concentrated development+1 Project partly serves an existing area of concentrated development

+1 Project complements other local efforts to improve design and access

+2 Project complements other local financial or regulatory support to foster economic revitalization

  0  Does not provide for any of the above measures

Project improves Quality of Life (up to 3 points)

+1 Reduces cut through within the project area

+1 Implements traffic calming measures

+1 Improves the character of the project area

Mobility Tab

Increased travel choices and improved access for and across all modes—pedestrian, bicycle, public transportation, and vehicular—is a key mobility issue. Mobility is not merely about moving motor vehicles more quickly through an intersection or along a roadway segment, but includes increasing access and promoting use of all modes. The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to measure the MPO’s efforts to emphasize and implement their mobility policies. The MPO has expressed these measures in the following policies:

Project Background Information

29   Transit Vehicles Use of Roadway

Identifies the fixed route transit vehicles using the roadway

36   Usage

31   Average A.M./P.M. Peak Period Speed

The average peak period, through vehicle travel speed along a corridor, for both directions of travel.

32   Average A.M./P.M. Peak Period Speed Index

The level of service (LOS) based on the average peak period, through vehicle travel speed index along a corridor, for both directions of travel. The speed index is the ratio of the average observed peak period travel speed to the posted speed limit. The LOS associated with the speed index is loosely based on the definition provided by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 for urban streets:

LOS A > 0.9

LOS B > 0.7

LOS C > 0.5

LOS D > 0.4

  LOS E > 0.33

  LOS F < 0.33

 

LOS A indicates traffic conditions at primarily free flow or speed limit values, and LOS F indicates the worst traffic conditions, characterized by extremely low speeds and likely congestion at critical signalized locations.

33   Supports Regional Freight Infrastructure

Proponent Provided Information

P8  What is the primary mobility need for this project and how does it address that need?

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

P9  What intelligent transportation systems (ITS) elements does this project include?

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

Evaluation

Mobility Evaluation Scoring (25 total points possible):

Existing peak hour level of service (LOS) (up to 3 points)

+3 Source data indicates project area has an LOS value of F at peak travel times

+2 Source data indicates project area has an LOS value of E at peak travel times

+1 Source data indicates project area has an LOS value of D at peak travel times

  0  All other values

 

Improves or completes an MPO or State identified freight movement issue (Identified in MPO or State published freight plan) (up to 3 points)

+3 Project implements a solution to an MPO or State identified freight movement issue

+2 Project supports significant improvements or removes barriers to an existing MPO or State identified freight movement issue

+1 Project supports improvements to an existing MPO or State identified freight movement issue

  0  All other results

Address proponent identified primary mobility need (Project design will address the primary mobility need identified by the proponent in the question P7 and evaluated by staff) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Address MPO-identified primary mobility need (Project design will address the primary mobility need identified by MPO staff) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Project reduces congestion (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 address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Improves transit reliability (up to 7 points)

+2 Implements queue jumping ability for transit

+2 Project prioritizes signals for transit vehicles (ITS)

+2 Project provides for a dedicated busway

+1 Project provides for a bus bump out

Environment and Climate Change Tab

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to measure the MPO’s efforts to emphasize and implement their environmental policies. The MPO has expressed these measures in the following:

Project Background Information

34   CO2 Impact

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

35   Located in a Green Community

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

36   Located in an Area of Critical Environmental Concern

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

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

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

Proponent Provided Information

P10 How does the project relate to community character?

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

P11 What are the environmental impacts of the project?

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

Evaluation

Environment and Climate Change Evaluation Scoring (25 total points possible):

Air Quality (improves or degrades) (up to 5 points)

+5 Project significant improves air quality

+3 Project includes major elements improving air quality

+1 Project includes minor elements improving air quality

  0  Project has no significant air quality impacts

 

CO2 reduction (up to 5 points)

+5 Project will provide for significant movement towards the goals of the

     Global Warming Solutions act

+3 Project will provide for movement towards the goals of the Global

     Warming Solutions Act

+1 Project will provide a minor air quality benefit

  0  Project will no additional benefit to air quality

 

Project is in an Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) certified “Green Community” (up to 4 points)

+4 Project is in a “Green Community”

  0  Project is not in a “Green Community”

 

Project reduces VMT/VHT (up to 7 points)

+3 Project provides for a new transit service

+1 Project provides for improved transit access

+1 Project provides for a new bicycle facility

+1 Project provides for a new pedestrian facility

+1 Project implements a transportation demand management strategy

  0  Does not provide for any of the above measures

 

Addresses identified environmental impacts (Project design will address the environmental impacts identified by the proponent in the question P9 and/or identified by MPO staff) (up to 4 points)

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Environmental Justice Tab

The MPO developed its Transportation Equity Program to provide a systematic method of considering environmental justice in all of its transportation planning work. There are twenty-eight environmental justice (EJ) areas identified by the MPO based on percentage of minority residents and percentages of households with low incomes.

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to measure the MPO’s efforts to emphasize and implement their environmental justice policies. The MPO has expressed these measures in the following policies:

Project Background Information

38   Located within ½ mile of an Environmental Justice Area

Twenty-eight areas were identified by the MPO based on percentage of minority residents and percentages of households with low incomes. The following thresholds were determined by the MPO for low-income and minority environmental justice areas (Source: 2010 U.S. Census):

39   Located within ½ mile of an Environmental Justice Population Zone

The MPO’s thresholds for low-income and minority population zones are less restrictive, and therefore include many more TAZs:

40   If this project is located in an MPO-defined environmental justice area or environmental justice population zone, how would it improve access to an existing transit facility?

Explain how this project would provide needed or additional access to a transit facility. (Source: Proponent)

41   If this project is located in an MPO-defined environmental justice area or environmental justice population zone, how would it improve safety for users of the transportation facility?

Explain how this project would provide needed or additional safety improvements to the facility identified. (Source: Proponent)

42   If this project is located in an MPO-defined environmental justice area or environmental justice population zone, how would it improve air quality?

Explain how this project would provide needed or additional air quality improvements to the area. (Source: Proponent)

43   If this project is located in an MPO-defined environmental justice area or environmental justice population zone, does it address an MPO-identified EJ community need?

The MPO conducts outreach to the EJ communities and compiles a list of identified needs. Is this project addressing one of these needs? (Source: Proponent)

Proponent Provided Information

P12 Are any other Environmental Justice issues addressed by this project?

This answer should only be addressed by those projects in an Environmental Justice area or population zone that address an environmental justice need. Please be specific. (Source: Proponent)

Evaluation

Environmental Justice Evaluation Scoring (10 total points possible):

Improves transit for an EJ population (up to 3 points)

+3 Project is located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and will provide new transit access

+1 Project is located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and will provide improved access

  0  Project provides no improvement in transit access or is not in an MPO environmental justice area or population zone

 

Design is consistent with complete streets policies in an EJ area (up to 4 points)

+1 Project is located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and is a “complete street”

+1 Project is located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and provides for transit service

+1 Project is located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and provides for bicycle facilities

+1 Project is located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and provides for pedestrian facilities

  0  Does not provide any complete streets components

 

Addresses an MPO-identified EJ transportation issue (up to 3 points)

+3 Project located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and the project will provide for substantial improvement to an MPO identified EJ transportation issue

+2 Project located within half-mile buffer or affects an MPO environmental justice area or population zone and the project will provide for improvement to an MPO-identified EJ   transportation issue

 

Project provides no additional benefit and/or is not in an MPO environmental justice area or population zone

 –10 Creates a burden in an EJ area

Safety and Security Tab

The evaluation criteria below serve as a way to measure the MPO’s efforts to emphasize and implement their safety and security policies. The MPO has expressed these measures in the following policies:

Project Background Information

44   Top 200 Rank

Ranks of highest crash intersection clusters in the project area listed within MassDOT’s top 200 high crash intersection locations. The crash rankings are weighted by crash severity as indicated by Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) values. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division 2009 Top Crash Locations Report)

45   EPDO/Injury Value

An estimated value of property damage. Fatal crashes are weighted by 10, injury crashes are weighted by 5 and property damage only or nonreported is weighted by 1. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2009-2011)

46   Crash Rate/Crashes per Mile

Intersection projects list the crash rate as total crashes per million vehicle entering the intersection. Arterial projects list the crash rate as total crashes per mile. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2009-2011)

47   Bicycle-Involved Crashes

Total bicycle involved crashes. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2009-2011)

48   Pedestrian-Involved Crashes

Total pedestrian involved crashes. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2009-2011)

49   Truck-Involved Crashes

Total truck involved crashes. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2009-2011)

50   Natural Hazard Zoness

Proponent Provided Information

P13 What is the primary safety need associated with
      this project and how does it address that need?

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

P14 What is the primary security need associated with this project and how does it address that need?

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

Evaluation

Safety and Security Evaluation Scoring (29 total points possible):

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

 

Design affects ability to respond to extreme conditions (up to 6 points)

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

+1 Project addresses facility that serves as a route out of a hurricane zone

+1 Project brings facility up to current seismic design standards

+1 Project improves access to an emergency support location

+1 Project addresses critical transportation infrastructure

 

EPDO/Injury Value Using the Commonwealth’s listing for Estimated Property Damage Only (EPCO) or Injury Value information (up to 3 points)

+3 If the value is in the top 20% of most assessed value

+2 If the value is in the top 49 to 21% of most assessed value

+1 If the value is in the top 50 to 1% of the most assessed value

  0  If there is no loss

 

Design addresses proponent identified primary safety need (Project design will address the primary safety need identified by the proponent in the question P4) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  1  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Design addresses MPO-identified primary safety need (Project design will address the primary MPO-identified safety need) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Improves freight related safety issue (Project design will be effective at improving freight related safety issues including truck crashes) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Improves bicycle safety (Project design will be effective at improving bicycle related safety issues including crashes) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Improves pedestrian safety (Project design will be effective at improving pedestrian related safety issues including crashes) (up to 3 points)

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Improves safety or removes an at grade railroad crossing (up to 3 points)

+3 Project removes an at grade railroad crossing

+2 Project significantly improves safety at an at grade railroad crossing

+1 Project improves safety at an at grade railroad crossing

  0  Project does not include a railroad crossing

Other Tab

Cost per Unit

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

56   $ per User

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

57   $ per Lane Mile

Cost divided by proposed total lane miles

 

Appendix C

Greenhouse Gas Monitoring & Evaluation



MassDOT coordinated with MPOs and regional planning agencies (RPAs) on the implementation of greenhouse gas (GHG) tracking and evaluation in the development of the MPOs’ 2035 long-range transportation plans (LRTPs), which were adopted in September 2011. The list of GHGs is made up of multiple pollutants, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. CO2 and methane are the most predominant GHGs. CO2 comprises approximately 84 percent of all GHG emissions and enters the atmosphere primarily through the burning of fossil fuels. Methane comprises approximately 10 percent of GHGs and is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. GHG emissions from the transportation sector are primarily through the burning of fossil fuels; therefore, reductions of GHG were measured by calculating reductions in emissions of CO2 associated with projects listed in the LRTP.

Working together, MassDOT and the MPOs have attained the following milestones:

In addition to monitoring the GHG impacts of capacity-adding projects in the LRTP, it is also important to monitor and evaluate the GHG impacts of all transportation projects that are programmed in the TIP. The TIP includes both the larger, capacity-adding projects from the LRTP and smaller projects, which are not included in the LRTP, that may have impacts on 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 a criterion for prioritizing and programming 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 the anticipated GHG emission impacts of different project types. All TIP projects have been sorted into two main categories for analysis: projects with quantified impacts and projects with assumed impacts. Projects with quantified impacts consist of capacity-adding projects from the LRTP and projects from the TIP that underwent a CMAQ spreadsheet analysis. Projects with assumed impacts include projects that would be expected to produce a minor decrease or increase in emissions and projects that would be assumed to have no CO2 impact.

Projects with Quantified Impacts

Travel Demand Model Set

Capacity-adding projects included in the long-range transportation plan and analyzed using the travel demand model set. No independent TIP calculations were done for these projects.

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

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

Traffic Operational Improvement

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

Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure

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

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

New and Additional Transit Service

 A new bus or shuttle service that reduces automobile trips.

Park-and-Ride Lot

A facility that reduces automobile trips by encouraging HOV travel through carpooling or transit

Bus Replacement

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

Projects with Assumed Impacts

Assumed Nominal Decrease or Increase in CO2 Emissions

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

No CO2 Impact

Projects that do not change the capacity or use of a facility (for example, a resurfacing project that restores a roadway to its previous condition, and a bridge rehabilitation/replacement that restores the bridge to its previous condition) would be assumed to have no CO2 impact.

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

 

TABLE C-1

Projects Expected to be Advertised in FFY 2014

MassDOT Project ID  Municipality(ies) MassDOT Project Description Analysis of GHG Impact
029492 Bedford, Billerica, and Burlington Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, from Crosby Drive North to Manning Road (Phase III) Model
606134 Boston Traffic Signal Improvements on Blue Hill Avenue and Warren Street To Be Determined
606284 Boston Improvements to Commonwealth Avenue, from Amory Street to Alcorn Street 57 Tons of CO2 Reduced
605789 Boston Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard To Be Determined
605110 Brookline Intersection & Signal Improvements at Route 9 & Village Square (Gateway East) 22 Tons of CO2 Reduced
604810 Marlborough Reconstruction of Route 85 (Maple Street) 325 Tons of CO2 Reduced
605657 Medway Reconstruction on Route 109, from Holliston Street to 100 Feet West of Highland Street 352 Tons of CO2 Reduced
1571 Regionwide Intersection Improvement Program  
605146 Salem Reconstruction on Canal Street, from Washington Street & Mill Street to Loring Avenue & Jefferson Avenue 18 Tons of CO2 Reduced
604989 Southborough Reconstruction of Main Street (Route 30), from Sears Road to Park Street 101 Tons of CO2 Reduced
601630 Weymouth Reconstruction & Widening on Route 18 (Main Street), from Highland Place to Route 139 Model
604935 Woburn Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue, from I-93 Interchange to Central Street 46 Tons of CO2 Reduced
1630 Bedford Safe Routes to School (John Glenn Middle) Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
1595 Everett Safe Routes to School (Madelaine English) Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
607920 Milton Safe Routes to School (Glover Elementary School) Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
1596 Revere Safe Routes to School (Garfield Elementary & Middle School) Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
1529 Saugus Safe Routes to School (Veterans Memorial) Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
607892 Somerville Safe Routes to School (Healey School) Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
1594 Watertown Safe Routes to School (Hosmer Elementary) Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
1631 Weymouth Safe Routes to School (Pingree Elementary) Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
604652 Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn Tri-Community Bikeway 435 Tons of CO2 Reduced
600867 Boston Bridge Replacement, Massachusetts Avenue (Route 2A) over Commonwealth Avenue No CO2 Impact
604173 Boston Bridge Rehabilitation, North Washington Street over the Charles River Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Bicycle Infrastructure
607685 Braintree Bridge Rehabilitation, B-21-060 and B-21-061, St 3 (SB) And St 3 (NB) over Ramp C (Quincy Adams) No CO2 Impact
607345 Cohasset Superstructure Replacement & Substructure Rehabilitation, Atlantic Avenue over Little Harbor Inlet Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
1626 Danvers Bridge Replacement, D-03-018, Route 128 over Waters River No CO2 Impact
604796 Dedham Bridge Replacement, Providence Highway over Mother Brook No CO2 Impact
605883 Dedham Bridge Replacement, Needham Street over Great Ditch No CO2 Impact
607273 Franklin Bridge Demolition, F-08-005, Old State Route 140 over MBTA/CSX & New Pedestrian Bridge Construction Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
607338 Gloucester Bridge Preservation, Route 128 over Annisquam River (Phase II) No CO2 Impact
606553 Hanover and Norwell Superstructure Replacement, H-06-010, St 3 Over St 123 (Webster Street) & N-24-003, St 3 Over St 123 (High Street) Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
606632 Hopkinton and Westborough Bridge Replacement, Fruit Street Over CSX & Sudbury River No CO2 Impact
600703 Lexington Bridge Replacement, Route 2 (EB & WB) over Route I-95 (Route 128) No CO2 Impact
604952 Lynn and Saugus Bridge Replacement, Route 107 over the Saugus River (AKA Belden G. Bly Bridge) Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
604655 Marshfield Bridge Replacement, Beach Street over the Cut River Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
607915 Newton and Wellesley Bridge Maintenance of N-12-063, N-12-054, N-12-055 & N-12-056 on I-95/Route 128 No CO2 Impact
607133 Quincy Bridge Replacement, Robertson Street over I-93/US 1/SR 3 No CO2 Impact
1565 Statewide Accelerated Bridge Program - Bridge No CO2 Impact
607507 Wakefield Bridge Deck Replacement, W-01-021 (2MF) Hopkins Street over I-95 / ST 128 Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Pedestrian Infrastructure
607533 Waltham Woerd Avenue over the Charles River No CO2 Impact
603008 Woburn Bridge Replacement, Salem Street over MBTA No CO2 Impact
456661 Regionwide Clean Air and Mobility To Be Determined
606381 Arlington and Belmont Highway Lighting Repair & Maintenance on Route 2 No CO2 Impact
1621 Beverly Resurfacing & Related Work on Route 128 No CO2 Impact
605733 Boston Highway Lighting System Replacement on I-93, from Southhampton Street to Neponset Avenue No CO2 Impact
087790 Canton, Dedham, and Norwood Interchange Improvements at I-95/I-93/University Avenue/I-95 Widening Model
606146 Canton, Norwood, and Westwood Ramp Construction on I-95 (NB) & Improvements on Dedham Street, Includes Replacement of 4 Signalized Intersections Model
607174 Chelsea Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 No CO2 Impact
606176 Foxborough, Plainville and Wrentham Interstate Maintenance & Related Work on I-495 (NB & SB) No CO2 Impact
606546 Franklin Interstate Maintenance & Related Work on I-495 No CO2 Impact
607700 Lexington, Burlington, and Woburn Highway Lighting Branch Circuit Re-Cabling From Six (6) Lighting Load Centers along Route I-95 (128) Lexington-Woburn No CO2 Impact
607477 Lynnfield and Peabody Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 No CO2 Impact
1624 Marshfield Resurfacing & Related Work on Route 3 No CO2 Impact
1623 Marshfield, Duxbury, and Plymouth Resurfacing & Related Work on Route 3 No CO2 Impact
603917 Medford, Stoneham, Woburn, and Reading Highway Lighting Rehabilitation on I-93 (Phase II) No CO2 Impact
603711 Needham and Wellesley Rehab/Replacement of 6 Bridges on I-95/Route 128 (Add-a-Lane Contract 5) Model
607481 Randolph, Quincy, and Braintree Resurfacing and Related Work on I-93 No CO2 Impact
1622 Saugus Resurfacing & Related Work on Route 1 No CO2 Impact
1568 Boston Fairmount Improvements Model
1570 Cambridge and Somerville Green Line Extension Project - Extension to College Avenue with the Union Square Spur Model
1569 Medford and Somerville Green Line Extension Project (Phase II), Medford Hillside (College Avenue) to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 Model
1572 Boston Red Line-Blue Line Connector Design Model

 

 

TABLE C-2

Projects Expected to be Advertised in FFY 2014

 

Regional Transit Authority  Project Description Analysis of GHG Impact
MBTA STATIONS & FACILITIES Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Transit Infrastructure
MBTA ELEVATORS & ESCALATORS Assumed Nominal Reduction in CO2 from Transit Infrastructure
MBTA BRIDGES & TUNNELS No CO2 Impact
MBTA PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE No CO2 Impact
MBTA SYSTEM UPGRADES To Be Determined
MBTA REVENUE VEHICLES (RED AND ORANGE LINE - NEW VEHICLE PROCUREMENT) To Be Determined
CATA PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE To Be Determined
CATA EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES No CO2 Impact
MWRTA ADA PARATRANSIT  To Be Determined
MWRTA EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES No CO2 Impact

 

 

Appendix D

FFY 2014 Highway Projects Status

This appendix lists information about the status of roadway projects in the federal fiscal year 2014 element of the FFYs 2014–17 TIP.

 

 

TABLE D-1

Advanced Construction Projects

 

Project Number

Project Description

District

Funding Source(s)

602984

Concord- Lincoln- Limited Access Highway Improvements at Route 2 & 2A, between Crosby's Corner & Bedford Road, includes C-19-024

4

HSIP

600703

Lexington- Bridge Replacement, L-10-009, Route 2 (EB & WB) over Route I-95 (Route 128)

4

BR-AC

603711

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 & W-13-023 (Add-A-Lane - Contract V)

6

BR-AC

 


TABLE D-2

Projects Advertised in FFY 2014

 

Project Number

Project Description

District

Funding Source(s)

607472

Burlington- Tyngsborough- Pavement Preservation At Various Locations on Route 3

4

NHSPP

603462

Duxbury- Intersection Improvements at Kingstown Way (Route 53) & Winter Street

5

CMAQ

604660

Everett- Medford- Bridge Replacements, Revere Beach Parkway (Route 16), E-12-004=M-12-018 Over The Malden River (Woods Memorial Bridge) & M-12-017 Over MBTA And Rivers Edge Drive

4

ABP-GANS

607338

Gloucester- Bridge Preservation, G-05-017, Route 128 Over Annisquam River (Phase II)

4

BR-AC

601553

Melrose- Intersection & Signal Improvement to Lebanon Street, From Lynde Street to Main Street

4

CMAQ

605729

Quincy- Intersection & Signal Improvements at Hancock Street & East/West Squantum Streets

6

CMAQ

601705

Reading- Reconstruction of West Street, from Woburn City Line to Summer Ave/Willow Street

4

STP

Regionwide- Intersection Improvement Program

CMAQ

606171

Sharon- Interstate Maintenance & Related Work on I-95

5

IM

606639

Weymouth- Braintree- Resurfacing & Related Work on Route 3

6

NHSPP

 

 

 

 

TABLE D-3

Projects Expected to be Advertised in FFY 2014

 

Project Number

Project Description

District

Funding Source(s)

604532

Acton- Carlisle- Westford- Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Extension, Including 6 Railroad Bridges & 1 New Bridge Over Route 2A/119 (Phase II-A)

3

CMAQ, TE

606885

Arlington- Bikeway Connection at Intersection Route 3 and Route 60

4

CMAQ

605895

Bellingham- Bridge Demolition, B-06-011, Route 126 over CSX Railroad (Abandoned) & Installation Of Bike Path Culvert

3

BR

600220

Beverly- Reconstruction & Signal Improvements on Rantoul Street (Route 1A) From Cabot Street (South) to Cabot Street (North)

4

CMAQ, STP

606889

Boston- Improvements Along Gainsborough and St. Botolph Streets

6

HPP & TI

604761

Boston- Multi-use Trail Construction (South Bay Harbor) From Ruggles Station to Fort Point Channel

6

TAP, CMAQ

604796

Dedham- Bridge Replacement, D-05-033, Providence Highway over Mother Brook

6

BR-AC

602602

Hanover- Reconstruction of Washington Street (Route 53) and Related Work From the Route 3 Northbound Ramp to Webster Street (Route 123)

5

STP

607447

Malden- Safe Routes To School (Beebe School)

4

SRTS

607441

Manchester By The Sea- Safe Routes To School (Memorial Elementary)

4

SRTS

607209

Somerville- Reconstruction Of Beacon Street, From Oxford Street To Cambridge C.L.

4

STP-Flex

607449

Westwood- Safe Routes To School (Downey School)

6

SRTS

601019

Winchester- Signal & Improvements At 4 Locations On Church Street & Route 3 (Cambridge Street)

4

CMAQ

 

 

TABLE D-4

Projects That Will Be Advertised in a Future TIP Element

 

Project Number

Project Description

District

Funding Source(s)

605146

Salem- Reconstruction on Canal Street, From Washington Street & Mill Street to Loring Avenue & Jefferson Avenue

4

CMAQ, STP

 

 

TABLE D-5

Projects That Were Removed From the TIP

 

Project Number

Project Description

District

Funding Source(s)

604428

Chelsea- Bridge Replacement, C-09-001, Washington Avenue over the MBTA and B&M Railroad

6

BR

 

 

 

Appendix E

Transit Projects Status



This appendix lists information about the status of transit projects programmed on previous elements of the TIP.

 

Funds Programmed:  Total funds programmed in the TIP

Pending:  Application being prepared to be submitted to FTA

Completed:  Application submitted to FTA

Approved:  Funds executed

TABLE E-1

FFY 2013 Transit Projects – Section 5307

 

Section 5307

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Mode

Type

Detail

Funds

Programmed

Pending

Completed

Approved

Subway

Red Line Signal Upgrade

Upgrades to Red Line Signal System

$8,000,000

$8,000,000

N/A

N/A

Subway

Government Center Station

Reconstruction of Government Center Station

$53,492,698

N/A

N/A

$53,492,698

Subway

State Street Station

Improvements to State Street Station

$17,197,512

$17,197,512

N/A

N/A

Subway

Red Line Leak Repairs

Repairs to tunnel system

$20,317,216

N/A

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Bridge Program

Improvements to bridge infrastructure

$16,000,000

$16,000,000

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Systems Upgrades

TBD

$6,198,310

N/A

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Preventive Maintenance

Preventive Maintenance

$12,000,000

N/A

N/A

$12,000,000

N/A

Section 5307 MBTA Total

N/A

$133,205,736

$41,197,512

$0

$65,492,698

 

 

TABLE E-2

FFY 2013 Transit Projects Section 5337

 

Section 5337

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Mode

Type

Detail

Funds Programmed

Pending

Completed

Approved

Green Line

Green Line Car #8 Upgrades

Vehicle improvements

$9,400,000

N/A

N/A

$9,400,000

Red Line

Red Line Floating Slab

Improvements to slab between Harvard - Alewife

$7,599,443

$7,599,443

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Parking System

Alewife and South Shore parking garages

$8,500,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Stations & Facilities

Improvements to multiple station and facilities

$41,954,867

N/A

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Bridge Program

Improvements to bridge infrastructure

$48,000,000

N/A

$48,000,000

N/A

Systemwide

AFC Upgrades

Relational database/operational system

$4,080,000

N/A

$4,080,000

N/A

N/A

Section 5337 MBTA Total

N/A

$119,534,310

$7,599,443

$52,080,000

$9,400,000

 

 

TABLE E-3

FFY 2013 Transit Projects – Section 5339

 

Section 5339

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Mode

Type

Detail

Funds Programmed

Pending

Completed

Approved

Systemwide

Systems Upgrades

TBD

$5,202,388

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Section 5339 MBTA Total

N/A

$5,202,388

$0

$0

$0

 

 

TABLE E-4

FFY 2014 Transit Projects – Section 5307

 

Section 5307

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Mode

Type

Detail

Funds Programmed

Pending

Completed

Approved

Subway

Revenue Vehicles

Procurement of new Red and Orange Line Vehicles

$24,000,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

Subway

Revenue Vehicles

Procurement of Option Locomotives

$52,647,920

N/A

N/A

N/A

Subway

Red Line Signal Upgrade

Upgrade signals on Red Line

$15,200,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

Subway

Power Program

Improvements to power infrastructure

$28,513,462

N/A

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Systems Upgrades

TBD

$2,324,134

N/A

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Preventive Maintenance

Preventive Maintenance

$12,000,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Section 5307 MBTA Total

N/A

$134,685,516

$0

$0

$0

 

TABLE E-5

FFY 2014 Transit Projects – Section 5337

 

Section 5337

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Mode

Type

Detail

Funds Programmed

Pending

Completed

Approved

Red Line

Red Line Floating Slab

Improvements to slab between Harvard - Alewife

$19,600,557

N/A

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Stations & Facilities

Improvements to multiple station and facilities

$40,000,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Bridge Program

Improvements to bridge infrastructure

$60,000,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Systems Upgrades

TBD

$1,589,989

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Section 5337 MBTA Total

N/A

$121,190,546

$0

$0

$0

 

 

 

TABLE E-6

FFY 2014 Transit Projects – Section 5339

 

Section 5339

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Mode

Type

Detail

Funds Programmed

Pending

Completed

Approved

Systemwide

Systems Upgrades

TBD

$5,287,027

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Section 5339 MBTA Total

N/A

$5,287,027

$0

$0

$0

 

 

Appendix F

Public Comments on the Draft FFYs 2015 - 18 TIP

This appendix will contain a table of summarized public comments on the draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP received during the public comment period.

 

 

APPENDIX F: Summary of Public Comments on the Draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP
PROJECT(S) / ISSUE(S) AFFILIATION NAME REQUEST/
SUPPORT/
OPPOSE
COMMENT
Assabet River Rail Trail Resident Kelly Richards  Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the bike path will improve quality of life for me and my family.
Assabet River Rail Trail
Member, MABPAB, RTAC, TAC, WalkBoston, and LivableStreets John McQueen Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that this project is consistent with the GreenDOT policies, Green Communities, and Healthy Transportation Compact directives. Notes that this project will provide nonmotorized connections between multiple communities, and links to the South Acton Rail Station.
Assabet River Rail Trail
Resident, Town of Acton Jennifer Cracknell Chen Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. Awaits the construction of this portion of the rail trail to be able to use it soon.
Assabet River Rail Trail
Resident, Town of Acton Kevin Feehily Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the rail trail will provide a safe way for cyclists and pedestrians to exercise and connect residents to the South Acton train station.
Assabet River Rail Trail
Resident, Town of Acton Joe Martineau Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. Awaits construction of the trail so that his family and the community may enjoy safe access to the train station and enhanced opportunities for exercise.
Assabet River Rail Trail
Town of Acton, Board of Selectmen Mike Gowing, Chair Support Support inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2015-2018 TIP. State that the project provides a significant transportation connection that will strengthen regional economic and environmental sustainability. The project will connect the South Acton Commuter Rail Station to downtown Maynard, an important regional employment center. Note that the Town of Acton is committed to bringing the project design to 100% completion for construction in FFY 2015.
Assabet River Rail Trail
Town of Maynard, Board of Selectmen Brendon Chetwynd, Chair Support Support inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State that the project provides a significant transportation connection that will strengthen regional economic and environmental sustainability. The project will connect the South Acton Commuter Rail Station to downtown Maynard, an important regional employment center. Note that the Town of Acton is committed to bringing the project design to 100% completion for construction in FFY 2015.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Natalie Bacon Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Michael Brady Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the project would bring a safe bicycle corridor through downtown Maynard and Acton.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Brendon Chetwynd Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that Acton and Maynard have been working together for many years to realize their vision, and notes that Maynard, Stow, and Acton would greatly benefit from this transportation facility.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Timothy Davies Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the rail trail is a significant resource for the communities and surround areas. Notes that the trail will serve as a recreational asset and provide commuters bicycle access to the South Acton Commuter Rail Station.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Amanda Fabrizio Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Katrina Fulton Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the project will allow her young family to utilize outdoor spaces and eagerly await its completion.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Maro Hogan Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Richard Keefe Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Will Kirkpatrick Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that trails are a large quality of life asset for the communities they serve and contribute to the health and well being of the people in the communities. Notes that he is 74 years old and bicycles on the ARRT for fitness amongst a diversity of other users of the trail.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  William Latimer Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. Notes that the trail will connect with the MBTA and the Mass Central Rail Trail.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  C. Leary Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that this portion of the trail will provide a valuable bicycle and pedestrian connection for commuters going to/from Maynard and the South Acton train station. Also states that the trail will provide economic benefits to downtown Maynard by bringing recreational trail users into town where they can eat in restaurants and shop in stores.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Mary Ann Lippert Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that she would appreciate a safe and beautiful trail for bicycling in Maynard and Acton instead of bicycling on the roads with traffic.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  David Mark Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. Notes that he has helped clear vegetation on sections of the ARRT in Acton and Maynard for runners, walkers, and cyclists as a ARRT volunteer. States that an improved path is necessary so that nonmotorized commuters to/from the Acton Train Station have a safe, all-season means of avoiding traveling on Route 27.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  John E. McNamara Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that many of his friends and their families already enjoy completed sections of the ARRT and awaits using the Maynard-Acton section. Also states that will be a wonderful addition to the new South Acton station and produce a true inter-modal hub.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Kelly Nadeau Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that this project will provide a safe alternative for daily bicycle commuters during rush hour traffic.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Amy Riddle Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that this project will provide valuable transportation and recreational options.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Joseph Russo Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. Notes that work is underway on the Maynard section.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Priscilla Ryder Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the ARRT in Hudson and Marlborough is well used, and believes that the section of the trail in Maynard and Acton will provide a great commuter connection to the train station.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Suzanne Selig Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Jenn Siegel Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the project will be a tremendous asset to the community.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Chris Spear Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. Notes that he is a frequent user of the ARRT to commute from Stow to Marlborough, and states that he would like access to more places in the local area. 
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Krishna Vasudevan Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. Believes that the trail will encourage people to use the transit system from around the area.
Assabet River Rail Trail
  Charles Wilson Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in FFY 2015 of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. Notes that he has volunteered with the ARRT group to clear the trail and that his family frequently uses sections of the ARRT.
Assabet River Rail Trail; Bruce Freeman Rail Trail; Minuteman Bikeway Connection (Arlington)   David Black Support Supports inclusion of the Assabet River Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the extending the trail into Acton will enhance the investment in the new South Acton station and other improvements to the Fitchburg Commuter Rail line.

Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.

Supports inclusion of the Minuteman Bikeway Connection in Arlington in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States this missing link is an inconvenience to cyclists.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Investments Resident, City of Somerville Joel N. Weber, II Request Requests inclusion of funding for the following projects in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP: a complete off-road Mystic River bicycle and pedestrian path connecting the Alewife Greenway Bike Path to the Route 99 bridge; improvements to the Paul Dudley White path along the Charles River and extension of the path upstream; path extension along the Neponset River; completion of the section of the Central Massachusetts Rail Trail within the Boston region; close gaps in the path system near Fenway and Park Drive in the vicinity of Brookline Avenue and in the vicinity of the River Road/ Huntington Avenue intersection; and a road diet providing dedicated bicycle facilities on the Arborway between Pond Street and Centre Street.
Bicycle Sharing Stations Resident, City of Somerville Joel N. Weber, II Request Requests inclusion of funding for bicycle sharing stations in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP at the following locations: intersection of Cedar Street and the Somerville Community Path; Alewife Station; Grove Street in Somerville north of the Somerville Community Path; intersection of Somerville Community Path and Willow Avenue; along the Northern Strand Community Trail; along the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway in Arlington.
Bike Path Connection, Fresh Pond to Charles River Resident, City of Somerville Joel N. Weber, II Request Requests inclusion of the construction of a bicycle path along the Watertown Branch Railroad to interconnect the Minuteman Bicycle Path and Fitchburg Cutoff Path with the Paul Dudley White path system along the Charles River in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. Also requests that potentially necessary studies for this project be included in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).
Bike Path, Paul Revere Park to Northern Strand Community Path Resident, City of Somerville Joel N. Weber, II Request Requests inclusion of the construction of a bicycle path connecting Paul Revere Park and Northern Strand Community Path in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. Expresses concern that the road diet proposal for Rutherford Avenue would not include a separated path along the Charlestown section of the project. Requests that potentially necessary studies of this project be included in the UPWP.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Resident, Town of Sudbury Carole Wolfe Oppose Opposes funding of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the asphalt trail and human activity would negatively impact the surrounding wildlife. Adds that the cost/benefit of the trail has not been objectively explored. Notes that most trail users drive to suburban trails, and believes that rail trails are better suited for heavily populated, youth-oriented areas.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Resident, Town of Sudbury Daniel A. DePompei Oppose Opposes inclusion of funding for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. Expresses concern that the project does not comply with local environmental bylaws and storm water regulations. Raises questions whether the project triggers Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) thresholds and whether MassDOT design requirements take precedence over local environmental bylaws and storm water regulations. Notes that the project right-of-way is located in a wetland, and proposes that MassDOT consider alternative alignments or alternate design standards for the trail.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Tom Michelman, President Support Support inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State the trail will bring benefits to its host communities by providing a safe transportation corridor and a recreational resource. The trail will connect commercial districts and other destinations, and grant commuters from the north safe, car-free passage to the West Concord MBTA station.

Note that the Town of Sudbury has voted to conduct a 25% design of Phase 2D of the BFRT.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Resident, Town of Acton Nancy Savage Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that Route 2A in Acton is not hospitable to bicyclists, and the trail will provide bicycle access to municipalities both east and west of Acton.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Resident, Town of Belmont John Dieckmann  Support Supports the continued inclusion of Phases 2A, 2B, and 2C of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the TIP. States that this trail is part of a critical regional network of off-road shared use paths for non-motorized modes of transportation that also includes the Mass Central Rail Trail, Assabet River Rail Trail, Minuteman Trail, Charles River paths, Northern Strand Trail, and Alewife Greenway. Hopes that most of these paths will eventually be linked together in a seamless network. States that the project will provide a safe alternative to automobile transportation, enhance economic development, stimulate tourism, serve as a recreational resource and a place for healthy exercise.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Resident, Town of Concord Dean Sullender Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that this trail will be a vital resource for all local communities nearby and will provide a desperately needed safe route for non-automobile transportation. Believes that the BFRT will open an important corridor for people of all ages who want to ride, skate, run, or walk.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Resident, Town of Concord Brian Crounse Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will provide children with a safe area for transportation.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Resident, Town of Framingham Susan Haney Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail has spawned tourism projects in Chelmsford, and extending it will increase access for a larger group of potential users and enhance its use for commuting purposes.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Resident, Town of Sudbury Chris Menge Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will encourage bicycling as a healthy and sustainable means of transportation, and provide safe transportation and recreational opportunities for cyclists and pedestrians.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Resident, Town of Westford Donald Galya Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will create opportunities for recreation, commuting, and transportation to commercial and cultural locations.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Kimber Lynn Drake Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that her family will use this trail because it will provide a safe alternative to the streets and provide a place to bicycle, run, and walk.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Ram Narayan  Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the constructed portion between Chelmsford and Westford continues to see more users. Believes that the path is a low-cost way to keep the general population healthy and offers alternatives for commuters.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   J. Jeremiah Breen  Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that he is a frequent user of the BFRT and notes that the trail is much safer than cycling on the street.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Bettina Abe Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail is important for alternative transportation and recreation.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Anne Anderson Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the completed section of the trail is well utilized, and the additional phases will further support  self-propelled transportation and recreation while providing support for local businesses.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Kathryn Angell Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will benefit the regions along the trail and the Commonwealth overall, and will support transportation, health, and the economy.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Chris Barrett Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail is used by thousands of individuals throughout the year, and the extension will connect the trail to transportation hubs in West Concord and provide safe access to recreational facilities.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Martin Burke Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will provide nearby transportation and recreational opportunities that can be accessed without a car.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Mark Childs Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will be an excellent asset for surrounding communities, their residents, and nearby businesses.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   David B. Clarke Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the trail will support both recreational and commuter transportation.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Barbara Dowds Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the trail will provide a safe venue for non-vehicle transportation and recreation, and will support local business along the trail.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   David Hutcheson Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will benefit physical health and the environment.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Stuart Johnstone Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will be a valuable, long-term resource for the region.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Susan Tordella-Williams Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the trail's potential use for recreation and bicycle commuting will enhance health and reduce the number of vehicles on the road. Notes that many commuters who are reluctant to bike on roads are attracted to bike trails, and most bicyclists of all ages feel safer on bike trails.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Robert Schneider Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will provide health benefits and safe transportation.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Rob Riggert Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will provide seniors with a safe area for cycling and access to local stores, and will fill a void in recreation and transportation options for groups of all ages.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Barbara Pike Support Supports inclusion the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail has received overwhelming support on several occasions at Concord Town Meetings, most recently in the spring of 2014.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Pat Goldstein Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail provide access to commercial locations, schools, and municipalities along the trail.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Henry T. Keutmann Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will provide access to commercial locations and public transportation in addition to providing a safe, dedicated crossing for the Fitchburg railroad right-of-way and a separation from Commonwealth Avenue.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Suzanne Knight Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the roads in the communities along the trail are unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians. Notes that the trail will provide a safe route for non-vehicle transportation and benefit local business.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Mykola Konrad Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the existing portion of the trail has improved quality of life.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Bob Macauley Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will offer opportunities for exercise, reduce the need for vehicle travel, and provide access to merchants.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   David Martin Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will better connect Acton and Concord for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Rick Conti Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the existing portion of the trail is an asset to every community it runs through, and concerns about parking, safety, and trespassing are unfounded. The trail provides individuals with disabilties a safe area to access grocery stores and pharmacies, and allows for therapeutic exercise.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail   Ken Leonard Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States existing bike/ped facilities provide recreation, health, and a safe state-wide transportation network for non-vehicular travel. The BFRT will be a valuable economic and transportation asset, proving personal, community, and economic benfits to the Commonwealth.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail  Massachusetts Senate Mike Barrett, State Senator Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will promote healthy activities and help the environment by encouraging bicycling and walking.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail  Resident, Town of Concord Mary Ann Lippert Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will allow for exercised and recreation.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail  Resident, Town of Concord Alan Whitney Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that Acton and Concord are prepared and ready to begin the project when funding becomes available.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail    Nathaniel Bates Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will be a necessary recreational facility as the population of Acton increases, and must be preserved for the use of future generations.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail    Peter Cramer Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will provide a safe bicycling area for families.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail    Jim Snyder-Grant Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will provide bicyclists and pedestrians with safe access to commercial areas in Acton and West Concord by offering an alternative to vehicular use of the Concord Rotary.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail    Bill Smith Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail will benefit recreation and commuters in the area.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail    Robert White Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the trail is a significant alternative transportation mode for commuters in the Lowell to Sudbury corridor. The trail will serve a vital function in the promotion of exercise and as a venue for exposure to nature in highly developed quarters.

Notes that the Concord Trails Committee is considering opportunities for linking conservation foot paths with the BFRT. States that trail will be a significant amenity for the abutting commercial and private property owners.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail    Dianna Watters & Jim Watters Support Support inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State that the existing portion of the trail is an asset to the communities it touches will have the same benefits for the communities included in Phases 2A, 2B, and 2C. The trail will increase quality of life and reduce healthcare costs by giving individuals and families increased opportunities for exercise.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
Town of Acton, Resident Jennifer Brown Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
  Tom Bailey Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
  Carol Engel Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
  Marc Hetzberg Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
  Janet Rothrock Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
  David Fried Support Supports inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.
GHG emission reduction determination for multi-use path projects; Greater Emphasis on Freight Movement and Economic Vitality in the TIP Evaluation Criteria; Reporting of Bike/Ped Investments Resident, Town of Sudbury Pat Brown Request Expresses concern that predicted GHG emission reductions by MPO staff overestimate actual GHG emission reductions. Notes the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail calculations as an example (calculations attached). Suggests that the methodology be updated to consider factors such as connection to transit, recreational trail use, and seasonal fluctuations in mode.

Expresses concern with the TIP project evaluation criteria. States that new multi-use paths should not be eligible for points under the Maintenance, Modernization, and Efficiency category. Also states that the TIP project evaluation criteria do not adequately value the importance of freight mobility. Notes that freight movement and economic vitality are national goals under MAP-21 and urges the MPO to make freight a greater priority in the transportation planning process through revisions to the TIP evaluation criteria. Requests that detailed project evaluation results be made available to the public.

Requests that the MPO expand reporting on bicycle an pedestrian investments as components of "complete street" projects. States that enhanced reporting will better capture the level of investment for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and help determine the most cost-effective means of increasing bicycle and pedestrian mode share.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases) City of Medford Michael J. McGlynn, Mayor Support Regarding the Green Line Extension, Phase 1, requests that the MBTA name the station at Tufts the Tufts/Medford Station. Regarding the Green Line Extension, Phase 2, does not want to see funding for the project removed from the TIP, but has serious concerns about the potential for taking of commercial properties at and adjacent to 200 Boston Avenue in Medford.  
Green Line Extension Project (both phases) City of Medford, Office of Community Development Lauren DiLorenzo Support Support continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State that the project is essential to continued economic vitality in Medford, and that access to public transportation for increased residential densities and mixed use development will allow for reduced parking requirements.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Medford Bob FitzPatrick Support Supports continued inclusion for both phases of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP:  Extension to College Avenue with the Union Square Spur and Phase 2 from College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16. States the economic opportunities that will be created by the project and the expansion to underserved communities will be of tremendous value to the region.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Medford Elisabeth Bayle Support Supports continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP, especially the College Avenue to Route 16 segment of the project in FFYs 2015-18. State the project is legally mandated to serve Medford Hillside will offer opportunities for transit-oriented development and extend frequent, affordable, non-polluting public transportation to a greater population.

Expresses concern that the project names conflate Medford Hillside and College Avenue, though these locations are geographically distinct. References documentation regarding the location of Medford Hillside.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Medford Mike Korcynski Support Supports continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP, especially the College Avenue to Route 16 segment of the project. States that the project will serve Medford Hillside and avoid violation of the spirit and legal requirements of the project. Notes that the proposed Route 16 terminus will be located near existing bus connections and provide Green Line access to thousands of individuals within a ten-minute walk of the station.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Medford Jeanine Farley Support Supports continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP, especially the extension to College Avenue with the Union Square Spur. States that the project is important to both residents and workers in the region.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Medford Roberta Cameron Support Supports continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the Route 16 area currently has poor transit access, and a College Avenue terminus would be difficult to access for residences and places of employment. A Route 16 station would serve residents of Somerville, Medford, and Arlington - including families, seniors, and veterans residing in public housing - and serve a destination for employment, shopping, and recreation. The connecting regional bike paths will allow more options for bicyclists in the surrounding communities without adding to road congestion.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Medford Laurel Ruma Support Supports continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the project is increasingly important in creating economic opportunities such as transit-oriented development at Route 16, and will help the Commonwealth fulfill its mandate to provide public transportation as part of its environmental mitigation for the Big Dig. The project will benefit residents of Medford, Somerville, Arlington, and beyond.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Medford Margaret Weigel Support Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that access to public transportation will benefit individuals with disabilities, the City of Medford, and surrounding neighborhoods.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Somerville Ellin Reisner Support Supports continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the funding of Phase 1 is critical to receiving New Starts funding for the project.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Tufts University Mary R. Jeka, Senior Vice President and General Counsel Support Support continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State that the project will provide valuable connections for the Tufts community by providing direct access to their local communities, facilitating more cross-school activities and linking their Medford/Somerville Campus to their Health Sciences Campus in Boston. State they are currently examining transportation demand issues for their three Massachusetts campuses, noting that public transportation - particularly the subway system - figures significantly in their deliberations as they search for means to reduce use of personal vehicles on their campuses.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases)  Resident, City of Medford John Roland Elliott Support/
Request
Supports continued inclusion for both phases of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP:  Extension to College Avenue with the Union Square Spur and Phase 2 from College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16.

Expresses ongoing concern that the project names conflate Medford Hillside and College Avenue, though these locations are geographically distinct. References documentation regarding the location of Medford Hillside.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases)
Resident, City of Medford Douglas P. Carr Support Supports continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that both phases should be considered one project.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases); GHG Modeling; Red Line-Blue Line Connector Conservation Law Foundation Rafael Mares, Staff Attorney Support/
Request
Support continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP, in particular, for the use of flexed highway funds for the College Avenue to Route 16 segment of the project in FFYs 2016-18. State the project will provide public transportation to a densely populated and underserved part of the region. Note that the project will produce a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and help meet the Commonwealth's obligations pursuant to the Global Warmings Solutions Act (GWSA) and GreenDOT. Also note that the project will help MassDOT comply with the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Applaud the MPO for providing information on the GHG emission impacts of most TIP projects, but request that the MPO evaluate emission impacts for each project in order to compare projects under consideration, make appropriate choices, assess the total GHG emissions profile of the TIP, and assure it is decreasing over time.

Request that MPO maintain sufficient funding for the design of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector by increasing the amount programmed to reflect inflation from delaying work on the project.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases); Somerville Community Path
Resident, City of Medford Susan Schmidt Support Supports inclusion of the Somerville Community Path and the Green Line Extension to College Avenue with the Union Square Spur in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the Green Line Extension will positively impact the neighborhood and increase ridership of public transportation.
Green Line Extension Project (both phases); Tri- Community Bikeway; Bruce Freeman Rail Trail; Montvale Avenue Reconstruction (Woburn); Safe Routes to School; MBTA Infrastructure Resident, City of Medford Ken Krause Support Supports continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP, especially the use of flexed highway funds for the College Avenue to Route 16 segment of the project in FFYs 2016-18. States that in addition to providing light rail to a transit-underserved area, the GLX will complete the design and construction of the Community Path extension from Somerville to Cambridge. Adds that the new Green Line maintenance and storage facility in Somerville will improve operational efficiency for the entire Green Line.

Supports inclusion of the following projects in the Highway Program of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP:  Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn; Phase 2B of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail; Montvale Avenue Reconstruction in Woburn; Safe Routes to School programs in Bedford, Everett, Milton, Revere, Saugus, Somerville, Watertown, and Weymouth.

Supports inclusion of the following projects in the Transit Program of the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP:  Government Center Station Renovation, the acquisition of new buses, and the acquisition of new Red and Orange Line cars.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 Green Line Advisory Group for Medford (GLAM) Carolyn Rosen, Chairperson and Dr. William Wood Oppose Opposes funding for the Green Line Extension, Phase 2 (to Route 16) and asks that the MPO instead use the funds to remove the MBTA car barn from Haines Square in Medford. States that removing this car barn, and eliminating the diesel impacts from the well inhabited neighborhood should be a priority to benefit air quality, reduce climate change, and reduce exposure of people in environmental justice neighborhoods. 

States that there is a legal mandate that the terminus for the GLX project is College and Boston Avenues. References a court decision of August 2, 2013, and says that since that decision, extending the GLX to Route 16 is extending it to a terminus that is no longer reasonable or legal.

Describes GLAM’s views on what it sees as various legal aspects of the August 2, 2013 court decision. Proposes what GLAM sees as possible implications of the MPO’s continuing to propose the GLX to Route 16.

States that the African American and disability community in the vicinity of the project will be negatively affected.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 NAACP, Mystic Valley Area Neil Osborne, Esq., President Oppose Opposes the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. Expresses concern that that families will get priced out of the historically African-American community of West Medford. States that economically forcing away families of color far outweighs any proposed gains of the project. Adds that the College Avenue terminus will provide all of the transportation benefits of the Green Line extension to the West Medford community.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 Resident, City of Medford Anita Nagem Oppose Opposes the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that abutters had not been notified of plans to allocate funding for the design of a Route 16 station. States that Medford Hillside is a largely residential neighborhood that is currently well-served by public transportation, and the proposed station would negatively impact the neighborhood. States that the project would increase traffic, noise, and create health concerns.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 Resident, City of Medford Robert F. Wyatt Oppose Opposes the continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that commuters from outlying communities have many viable options to travel into Boston, including the commuter rail, the Red Line via Alewife Station, and buses. Believes that the project will create noise, parking problems, and the reduce diversity in the community.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 Resident, City of Medford Raymond J. Nagem, Sr. Oppose Opposes the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that College Avenue had previously been the designated terminus for the Green Line Extension. States that environmental and societal impact studies for a Route 16 station have not been completed, and notes that there is significant neighborhood opposition to the station. Suggests that design of the station be put off until a new round of public hearings and the release of impact studies.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 Residents, City of Medford David Peters, Joseph Bianco, and Carol Bianco Oppose Oppose the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. State that the Green Line mandated terminus is College Avenue. Express concern that extending the Green Line to Route 16 will have environmental and quality of life impacts, and displace existing residents.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 Residents, City of Medford Mary Anne Adduci, Agnes McCarvill, Max Charles, John Harrington, Ana de Pina, Helen Matthews and Barbara Monagle Oppose Oppose the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. State that the Route 16 station would negatively impact residents in the neighborhood by increased exposure to diesel particulates, added unattractive barrier walls, and loss of mature trees and vegetation. Also express concern that the project would result in increased traffic to an already congested Route 16 corridor, commercialization of the Medford area, and gentrification around the Route 16 station. Note that several public transportation options already exist in the area, and feels that MassDOT maintenance projects are of higher priority than the Green Line Extension. 
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 Workers and Residents within the Route 16 Medford area David Kilpatrick, Whitfield Jeffers, Terry Carter, Gwen Lee, Arles Parry, Joseph Jones, Jill Tanner, Dorothy Tucker, Elna Gavin, Cortland Dugger, Robert Shinereck and Rachel Tanner  Oppose Oppose the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. State that the Green Line mandated terminus is College Avenue. Express concern that extending the Green Line to Route 16 will have environmental and quality of life impacts, and displace existing residents.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 Resident, City of Somerville Lee Auspitz Request Requests CTPS to research the following questions:

1) Will OMB Circular A‐16 ("Coordination of Geographic Information, and Related Spatial Data Activities") apply to agency Master Agreements for the release of federal matching funds for GLX Phases I and II?

2) With respect to Medford Hillside, were current maps for GLX developed in coordination or conformity to pre‐existing federal geospatial guidance?

3) With respect to Medford Hillside are GLX digital geospatial data consistent with or validated by other usage by a) local or statewide public bodies (MassGIS, MBTA bus route maps, City of Medford maps) b) public and private digital services (Google, Mapquest, Microsoft, USGS, etc)?
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 Resident, City of Somerville Lee Auspitz Support/
Request
Supports continued inclusion of the Green Line Extension to Route 16/Mystic Valley Parkway in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP.

Requests changing the designation of "Medford Hillside" to "Tufts University" because the station is surrounded by Tufts-owned land, the designation would align GLX with MBTA practice both system‐wide and locally, there is community objection to the use of Medford Hillside, and the issue has implications for federal funding. Notes that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has the discretion to independently review geospatial compliance and an instance of geospatial non‐compliance thus puts at unnecessary risk for penalty, forfeiture or delay more than $650 million in federal funds.

References a congressional letter sign by Congressmen Capuano and Petri that requests that the GLX New Starts application use maps that are in compliance with federal geospatial standards.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Paul Morrissey Oppose Opposes the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that the Green Line mandated terminus is College Avenue. Express concern that extending the Green Line to Route 16 will have environmental and quality of life impacts, and displace existing residents.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Mary Kangas Oppose Opposes the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. Expresses concern that the project will displace residents, eliminate businesses, and disrupt traffic in Medford. Notes that alternate public transportation options exist in the area. 
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Rosemary Portrait Oppose Opposes the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. Expresses concern that the project will displace residents, eliminate businesses, and disrupt traffic in Medford. Notes that alternate public transportation options exist in the area. 
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Residents, City of Medford Dara Glass, Adam Dean, & Mary Glass Oppose Oppose the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. State that the Green Line mandated terminus is College Avenue. Express concern that extending the Green Line to Route 16 will have environmental and quality of life impacts, and displace existing residents.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
  John Recinito Oppose Opposes the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that the Green Line mandated terminus is College Avenue. Expresses concern that extending the Green Line to Route 16 will have environmental and quality of life impacts, and displace existing residents.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Elliot Jokelson Support Supports the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that a Route 16 station would benefit Medford by connecting the city to Somerville, Cambridge, and Boston.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Lina C. Palmacci Support Supports the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that the extension would be beneficial to herself and her family.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Norma M. B. Thompson Support Supports the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that the extension would be beneficial to herself and her family.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Debra Agliano Support Supports the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that they are very excited for the Green Line to be extended to Medford.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Janice D'Amore Support Supports the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that the Green Line allows for the best access to key area of Boston, and that access to public transportation will relieve the overburdened roadways in Medford.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Matthew Alford Support Supports the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that the project will  be good for the community. 
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Peter Brenton Support Supports the inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that the project will  accommodate the high demand of transit users in the area, may eliminate the need for commuter rail stops at West Medford station, and help reduce local traffic congestion. 
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Stephen McManus Support Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that the extension will improve their commute and reduce their need to drive.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Christopher McCarthy Support Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that the proposed terminus is currently neighbored by residences and public facilities with limited transportation options. The station could alleviate significant commuter traffic on Route 16 and the vicinity by encouraging walking and bicycling.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Mary Mangan Support Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States the project will reduce pollution through decreased vehicle travel and benefit the community.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Peter Micheli Support Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that the project will positively affect thousands of individuals in the area.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Colin Roald Support Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Anna-Laura Silva Support Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Jana Spencer Support Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Ward Vandewege Support Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Jeanine F. Support Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16
Resident, City of Medford Joshua Kilgore Support Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. States that the project is vital to the ongoing growth of the area and will benefit the entire region. The project will relieve congestion and offer an alternative to automobile traffic into and out of the city.
Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16; Restoration of Winthrop Street station
Resident, City of Medford Damien (no surname given) Support Supports inclusion of the Green Line Extension beyond College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 and the restoration of the Winthrop Street station in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP.
Improvements to Green Line and MBTA bus routes Resident, City of Somerville Joel N. Weber, II Request Requests inclusion of funding in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP for the following projects: upgrade of the B and C Branches of the Green Line to accommodate low-floor Type 8 Breda cars; installation of transit signal priority technology at every traffic signal along the B and C Branches; and lengthening of the B and C Branch platforms to accommodate 3-car trains.

Requests modification to the ROW of the B, C, and E Branches to accommodate buses with rubber tires. States that this modification will eliminate potentially dangerous interactions between buses and bicyclists.

Requests the MBTA explore the feasibility of a new bus route that would begin at Cleveland Circle along the 86 bus route, stopping at Kendall Square, New Lechmere, Community College Station, Chelsea Station, and continuing along the 117 bus route.
Intersection and Signal Improvements, Route 9 and Village Square/Gateway East (Brookline)
Boston Children's Hospital Charles Weinstein, Vice President of Real Estate, Planning and Development Support Support inclusion of funding for the Gateway East project in Brookline in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. State the project will increase regional mobility by providing on-street bicycle accommodations and enhanced crossing opportunities at busy sections of Route 9 and Brookline Village. Development of Brookline Place is largely dependent on these improvements in pedestrian and vehicular access. This project represents a significant step forward in making the area more livable and walkable for residents. Note that the town's 25% design plans are under review by MassDOT. 
Intersection and Signal Improvements, Route 9 and Village Square/Gateway East (Brookline)
Massachusetts House of Representatives Frank I. Smizik, State Representative Support Supports inclusion of funding for the Gateway East project in Brookline in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. The project addresses the need for greater regional mobility, and will benefit residents of Brookline and the region. This project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility, and will provide improved access to public transportation, places of employment, and cultural locations. Notes that Brookline's design team is working with MassDOT to advance 25% design plans.
Intersection and Signal Improvements, Route 9 and Village Square/Gateway East (Brookline)
Massachusetts Senate Cynthia Stone Creem, State Senator Support Supports inclusion of funding for the Gateway East project in Brookline in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. The project addresses the need for greater regional mobility, and will benefit residents of Brookline and the region. This project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility, and will provide improved access to public transportation, places of employment, and cultural locations. Notes that Brookline's design team is working with MassDOT to advance 25% design plans.
MBTA Accessibility Resident, City of Somerville Joel N. Weber, II Request Requests that the TIP and the MBTA's Capital Improvement Program be revised to include a complete list of all MBTA stations which are not currently accessible for wheelchair users, and the estimated date when they are expected to become accessible.

Requests that the following stations be made accessible for Type 8 low-floor cars within the next three years:  Boylston, Hynes, Symphony, Riverway, Mission Park, Wollaston Station, all stations on the B, C, and D branches of the Green Line, and all commuter rail stations with over 500 daily boardings.

Expresses concern about the continued use of mini-high platforms utilized by wheelchair users to board the Type 7 high-floor cars on the Green Line.
Middlesex Turnpike Improvements (Phase 3),
Crosby Drive North to Manning Road
Middlesex 3 Coalition, Board of Directors Stephanie J. Cronin, Executive Director Support Support inclusion of Middlesex Turnpike Improvements from Crosby Drive North to Manning Road in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State that there have been real estate improvements, and job creation and retention along the corridor, and Phase 3 infrastructure improvements are critical to meet growing transportation demands, as well as to reduce congestion and improve safety. The upgrades will alleviate a substandard arterial road network, promote economic growth, and encourage investment in the area.
Policy Guidance MassDOT Clinton Bench, Deputy Executive Director, Office of Transportation Planning   Encourage the MPOs to review the current Notices of Proposed Rulemaking for the Safety Performance Measures and Highway Safety Improvement Program and integrate the anticipated performance metrics into the TIP process.

Reiterate the importance of ensuring that the MPO process is accessible to all individuals, including members of the Title VI, Environmental Justice, and Limited English Proficiency communities, and encourage a continued emphasis on engaging these populations.

Commend the MPO for its efforts in holding MPO meetings to present the TIP development process, and urge the MPO to ensure that the TIP is fully accessible to members of the public.

Urge the MPO to continue to seek ways to incorporate goals of reducing GHG emissions, promoting healthy transportation options, and promoting smart growth development in the planning process.

Note proposed updates to the draft FFYs 2015-18 TIP.
Prioritization of Projects   Jonas Linden Request Requests that transportation funding be focused on public transportation rather than road projects. States improving rail communications should be a priority, such as electrifying the Commuter Rail system.

Requests the following improvements to existing infrastructure: removing tolls on the Mass Pike to offload Route 9, installing HOV lanes, and implementing traffic management systems.

States improvements to roads such as Route 30 would negatively affect downtown areas.
Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard (Boston); Replacement of Massachusetts Avenue/Commonwealth Avenue Bridge (Boston); Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 9 and Village Square/Gateway East (Brookline); Rehabilitation of Carlton Street Footbridge (Brookline) Medical Academic and Scientific Community Organization, Inc. (MASCO) Sarah Hamilton, Vice President of Area Planning and Development Support Support inclusion of the Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. The project will create safer and more pleasant pedestrian crossings and conditions while positioning the corridor for improved bus transportation between neighborhoods and employment centers within the larger region.

Support inclusion of the Replacement of the Massachusetts Avenue/Commonwealth Avenue Bridge in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State that MASCO shuttles carry 855,000 passenger trips per year across the bridge and there are over 2,600 Longwood Medical Area employees residing in Cambridge and Somerville who rely on safe and efficient roadways.

Support inclusion of the Intersection and Signal Improvements at Route 9 and Village Square/Gateway East in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the project will improve park crossings within the Emerald Necklace system and enhance access and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Support inclusion of the Rehabilitation of the Carlton Street Footbridge in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State that the project will create a safer alternative for pedestrians who are currently crossing the MBTA right-of-way at Longwood Station.
Reconstruction of Route 109/Main Street (Medway) Massachusetts House of Representatives Jeffrey N. Roy & John V. Fernandes Support Support inclusion of funding for the Reconstruction of Route 109/Main Street in Medway in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. State that Route 109 represents a high-volume regional roadway operating in a fast growing residential, commercial, and manufacturing hub. The project will facilitate regional traffic, ensure ADA compliance, improve signal timing, avoid street flooding, encourage greater business development along Main Street, and improve bike pathways and pedestrian sidewalks.
Reconstruction of Route 109/Main Street (Medway) Town of Medway Suzanne Kennedy, Town Administrator Support Support inclusion of funding for the Reconstruction of Route 109/Main Street in Medway in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. The project will reconstruct two miles of Main Street through the town's primary business district and provide sidewalks, streetlights, pedestrian amenities, traffic flow and safety improvements. State that this project combined with some municipal zoning initiatives presently under development are stimulating discussion among property owners about new options for additional investment in the community.
Reconstruction of Route 85/Maple Street and Reconstruction of Farm Road, Cook Lane to Route 20 (Marlborough) City of Marlborough Arthur G. Vigeant, Mayor Support/ Request Supports inclusion of the Reconstruction of Route 85/Maple Street in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the corridor is extremely important, and the proposed roadway and pedestrian safety improvements are critical to the area.

Requests inclusion of the Reconstruction of Farm Road, from Cook Lane to Route 20 in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the road is narrow and winding and has inconsistent bicycle and pedestrian facilities. There are approximately ten reported crashes along Farm Road in this area annually, several involving bicycles and pedestrians. The Assabet River Rail Trail Communities Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Plan has identified this section of Farm Road as being an important corridor where a bike lane should be installed. Wider shoulders and new sidewalks will increase the connectivity of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the area, improving access to recreational, educational, commercial, and residential areas. 
Rehabilitation of the Carlton Street Footbridge (Brookline) Town of Brookline, Department of Public Works Andrew M. Pappastergion, Commissioner of Public Works Support Supports inclusion of the Rehabilitation of the Carlton Street Footbridge in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States local funding is programmed fully through final design and that the 25% design submission is currently under review. Notes that the Town of Brookline anticipate submitting the 75% design submission in fall 2014.
Somerville Community Path; Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Melrose Pedestrian & Bicycle Committee Tom Buske & Steve Leibman, Co-Chairs Support/ Request Support inclusion of the Somerville Community Path and the Green Line Extension Project in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State the Community Path extension will confer to the GLX full multi-modality, emergency egress, ADA-compliant access to MBTA stations, in addition to a utility corridor and a maintenance route.

Request the MPO ensure that the Cedar Street to Lowell Street phase of the Community Path is completed by September 2014.

Request that the MPO focus less on highway expansion projects and focus more on biking, pedestrian, and transit projects. State this would be consistent with Commonwealth's Mode Shift 2030 goal.
Somerville Community Path; Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Somerville Karen Molloy Support/ Request Supports inclusion of the Somerville Community Path and the Green Line Extension Project in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the Community Path extension will confer to the GLX full multi-modality, emergency egress, ADA-compliant access to MBTA stations, in addition to a utility corridor and a maintenance route.

Requests the MPO ensure that the Cedar Street to Lowell Street phase of the Community Path is completed by September 2014.

Requests that the MPO focus less on highway expansion projects and focus more on biking, pedestrian, and transit projects. States this would be consistent with Commonwealth's Mode Shift 2030 goal.
Somerville Community Path; Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Somerville Marjorie Gere Support/ Request Supports inclusion of the Somerville Community Path and the Green Line Extension Project in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the Community Path extension will confer to the GLX full multi-modality, emergency egress, ADA-compliant access to MBTA stations, in addition to a utility corridor and a maintenance route.

Requests the MPO ensure that the Cedar Street to Lowell Street phase of the Community Path is completed by September 2014.

Requests that the MPO focus less on highway expansion projects and focus more on biking, pedestrian, and transit projects. States this would be consistent with Commonwealth's Mode Shift 2030 goal.
Somerville Community Path; Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Somerville Sonia Lipson Support/ Request Supports inclusion of the Somerville Community Path and the Green Line Extension Project in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the Community Path extension will confer to the GLX full multi-modality, emergency egress, ADA-compliant access to MBTA stations, in addition to a utility corridor and a maintenance route.

Requests the MPO ensure that the Cedar Street to Lowell Street phase of the Community Path is completed by September 2014.

Requests that the MPO focus less on highway expansion projects and focus more on biking, pedestrian, and transit projects. States this would be consistent with Commonwealth's Mode Shift 2030 goal.
Somerville Community Path; Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Somerville Jeffrey A. Leclair Support/ Request Supports inclusion of the Somerville Community Path and the Green Line Extension Project in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the Community Path extension will confer to the GLX full multi-modality, emergency egress, ADA-compliant access to MBTA stations, in addition to a utility corridor and a maintenance route.

Requests the MPO ensure that the Cedar Street to Lowell Street phase of the Community Path is completed by September 2014.

Requests that the MPO focus less on highway expansion projects and focus more on biking, pedestrian, and transit projects. States this would be consistent with Commonwealth's Mode Shift 2030 goal.
Somerville Community Path; Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Somerville Janet Campbell Support/ Request Supports inclusion of the Somerville Community Path and the Green Line Extension Project in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the Community Path extension will confer to the GLX full multi-modality, emergency egress, ADA-compliant access to MBTA stations, in addition to a utility corridor and a maintenance route.

Requests the MPO ensure that the Cedar Street to Lowell Street phase of the Community Path is completed by September 2014.

Requests that the MPO focus less on highway expansion projects and focus more on biking, pedestrian, and transit projects. States this would be consistent with Commonwealth's Mode Shift 2030 goal.
Somerville Community Path; Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Resident, City of Somerville Cynthia Snow Support/ Request Supports inclusion of the Somerville Community Path and the Green Line Extension Project in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the Community Path extension will confer to the GLX full multi-modality, emergency egress, ADA-compliant access to MBTA stations, in addition to a utility corridor and a maintenance route.

Requests the MPO ensure that the Cedar Street to Lowell Street phase of the Community Path is completed by September 2014.

Requests that the MPO focus less on highway expansion projects and focus more on biking, pedestrian, and transit projects. States this would be consistent with Commonwealth's Mode Shift 2030 goal.
Somerville Community Path; Green Line Extension Project (both phases) Residents, City of Somerville Resa Blatman & Stefan Cooke Support/ Request Support inclusion of the Somerville Community Path and the Green Line Extension Project in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State the Community Path extension will confer to the GLX full multi-modality, emergency egress, ADA-compliant access to MBTA stations, in addition to a utility corridor and a maintenance route.

Request that the MPO ensure that the Cedar Street to Lowell Street phase of the Community Path is completed by September 2014.

Request that the MPO focus less on highway expansion projects and focus more on biking, pedestrian, and transit projects. State this would be consistent with Commonwealth's Mode Shift 2030 goal.
Somerville Community Path; Green Line Extension Project (both phases); I-95/I-93 Canton Interchange; Bruce Freeman Rail Trail; Assabet River Rail Trail; Tri Community Bikeway; Wakefield-Lynnfield Rail Trail; Safe Routes to Schools; Bicycle/Pedestrian and Transit Allocation;  Minuteman crossing of Mass Ave. Improvements (Arlington)  Friends of the Community Path Lynn Weissman & Alan Moore, Co-Presidents Support/ Oppose/ Request Request the MPO ensure that the Cedar Street to Lowell Street phase of the Community Path is completed by September 2014.

Support inclusion of the Somerville Community Path and the Green Line Extension Project (Phases 1 and 2) in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State that the Community Path extension will provide an efficient, elegant, and creative use of public space within the rail corridor. The Community Path will also provide an off-road bike/ped path connecting the Minuteman Bikeway network to the Charles River path network.

Support inclusion of the following bike/ped projects in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP: Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Assabet River Rail Trail, Tri-Community Bikeway, Wakefield-Lynnfield Rail Trail, and Safe Routes to School programs in Milton, Saugus, and Somerville.

Oppose inclusion of the I-95/I-93 Canton Interchange Improvement Project in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State the project is inconsistent with the Commonwealth's Mode Shift 2030 goal, and believe that the money could be better spent on bike/ped projects and/or flexed to transit.

Request that funding be withheld for the Minuteman Bikeway Connection in Arlington until the design includes a short section of cycletrack.
Support for projects in the Inner Core  A Better City Richard A. Dimino, President & CEO Support/ Request Support investments in transit maintenance, roadway modernization, bridge preservation, and transit expansion in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP.

Request that the following projects in Boston be considered for inclusion in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP: Reconstruction of Causeway Street, Improvements to Boylston Street, and Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue. State that these projects are critical components of the arterial network in Boston, and the improvements will support planned and ongoing development in the North Station, Fenway, and Sullivan Square neighborhoods.

Urge the MPO to consider the following projects:  Transportation Improvements in the Urban Ring Corridor, Silver Line Phase 3, and Design of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector. State that these projects support ongoing economic development and transportation efficiency in growth corridors of Boston.
TIP Evaluation Criteria; Support for approximately 50 projects in the MetroWest subregion  495/MetroWest Partnership Paul F. Matthews, Executive Director and Jessica Strunkin, Deputy Director Support/
Request
Express continued concern that the project scoring system favors dense urban communities and urge the MPO to consider regional equity when scoring projects. Encourage the MPO to consider the "economic benefit" of projects and recommend that the scoring system be based on a percentage of possible points. State that this may allow for communities without existing transit infrastructure to compare fairly with urban communities.

Express ongoing support for MetroWest projects to be advertised in the FFYs 2014-17 TIP and programmed in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP. Reiterate support for approximately 35 MetroWest projects that are listed in the MPO's Universe of Projects due to limited transportation funding. Note that five of those projects in the MPO's Universe of Projects are also identified in the 495/MetroWest Region's 2014 Top Ten Transportation Nightmares (attachment to letter).

Commend the MPO for providing a reliable funding stream to the MetroWest RTA and support the capital projects included in the TIP for the MWRTA to continue and expand their service.
TIP Programming Regional Transportation Advisory Council David Montgomery, Chair Support/
Request
Urge the MPO to commit to an equitable balance between small and large projects in the TIP. Encourage the MPO to urge MassDOT - when considering funding projects using non-federal aid (NFA) - to select projects that have already scored highly on the MPO’s project evaluation list.

Express concern about the impact of project cost increases that routinely occur as projects move through the design process and closer to construction, and urge MassDOT to prioritize containing such cost increases. Request the MPO initiate a discussion about the cost of police details including if and how such costs might be reduced over time. Also express concern that Green Line Extension Phase 2 project could well have cost increases that could ultimately make the project unaffordable for the MPO.

Support more projects programmed that improve freight mobility within and through the region, and encourage the MPO to consider how such criteria could be sensibly added to existing TIP project evaluation ratings.
TIP Programming; Support for projects in the MAGIC subregion
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (MAGIC) Keith A. Bergman, Chair  Support/
Request
Express concern about the impact of project cost increases that routinely occur as projects move through the design process and closer to construction. State that cost increases significantly disrupt TIP scheduling, cause delays for other projects, and prevent yet others from being programmed. Urge the MPO and MassDOT to better estimate 100% design costs when projects are initially programmed (even if they may only be at 25% design at the time of their programming) and whenever scope changes are considered for approval to give serious consideration to the rippling effects that associated cost increases could have on TIP funding and scheduling.

Support for the following MAGIC priority projects in the FFYs 2015-18 TIP: Phases 2A, 2B, and 2C of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in Acton, Carlisle, Westford, and Concord; Assabet River Rail Trail in Acton and Maynard; Middlesex Turnpike/Crosby Drive Phase 3 in Bedford, Burlington, and Billerica; and Crosby's Corner (Route 2) in Concord and Lincoln. Urge the MPO to include the Reconstruction on Massachusetts Avenue in Lexington in the TIP if sufficient funds become available. 
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn) Resident, Town of Stoneham Julie Shulman Support Supports inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the project is a valuable resource for the three communities for recreational and transportation purposes. The project will provide a valuable path for safe exercise and family entertainment, along with an environmentally-conscious means to connect areas across Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn) Residents, Town of Stoneham Jeremy Doyle & Faye Doyle Support Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State that the project is a valuable resource for the three communities for recreational and transportation purposes. The project will provide a valuable path for safe exercise and family entertainment, along with an environmentally-conscious means to connect areas across Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn) Residents, Town of Stoneham Sharon Brown & Allen Brown Support Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State that the project is a valuable resource for the three communities for recreational and transportation purposes. The project will provide a valuable path for safe exercise and family entertainment, along with an environmentally-conscious means to connect areas across Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn. State the project will enhance lives and property values, especially in Woburn and Stoneham.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn) Residents, Town of Stoneham William Previdi & Edith Previdi Support Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State the project is a valuable resource for the three communities for recreational and transportation purposes. The project will provide a valuable path for safe exercise and family entertainment, along with an environmentally-conscious means to connect areas across Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn) Town of Winchester, Board of Selectmen Jennifer N.S. Wilson, Chair Support Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State that the safe, multi-modal trail will improve access to cultural and commercial locations, offer environmental and economic benefits. The project will also offer opportunities for future linkage with the Minuteman Bikeway and the proposed Green Line extension to Medford. Note that Winchester's engineering consultant submitted 75% design plans to MassDOT in 2012, and is currently working to complete the 100% design plans and required right-of-way documents.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn)
Resident, Town of Winchester Ann Sera, Winchester Town Meeting Member (Precinct 1) Request Expresses concern with certain details in the Preliminary ROW Plans for the project and requests revision of the Preliminary ROW Plans before the project is advertised for construction. Notes that the revisions could impact the budget and/or completion date of the project. Provides a 50-page report that contains the concerns identified and revisions proposed.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn)
  Eric Pariseau Request Requests that the alignment of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn be modified from Montvale Avenue to the Gould Street Boys & Girls Club/Recreation Department Fields. States that the planned route is unsafe and would be disruptive to traffic flow.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn)
Resident, Town of Stoneham Geraldine M. Whalen Support Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the project will reduce the need to drive to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn)
Resident, Town of Stoneham Laura Pruett, Ph.D. Support Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the project will provide a safe, nature-rich environment for families.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn)
Resident, Town of Woburn Michael McGee Support Supports inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the project will minimize the need to drive to facilities in other communities for exercise or recreational activities.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn)
Town of Stoneham, Bikeway/
Greenway Committee
Anthony Wilson, Chair Support Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. The creation of the trail will connect schools, bus routes, and commuter rail stations. State the project will provide safe alternate transportation, reduce congestion, and support local businesses.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn)
Town of Stoneham, Board of Selectmen Thomas Boussy, Chair Support Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. The creation of the trail will connect schools, bus routes, and commuter rail stations. State the project will provide safe alternate transportation, reduce congestion, and support local businesses.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn)
Town of Stoneham, Historical Commission Marcia M. Wengen, Co-Chair Support Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. Note they are exploring transportation signage that could be placed on historic markers along the facility.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn)
Town of Winchester, Winchester Greenway Committee Jamie Fosburgh, Chair Support Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State the project is extremely important and meaningful for the three communities, and that it will save gas, alleviate roadway congestion, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. 
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn)
  Vitaly Napadow Support Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States that the project will enhance recreation and expand biking options within the three communities.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn)
  Jeff Dearman Support / Request Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. States the project will provide safe routes to school and many recreational opportunities in its host communities, and will eventually link with existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Proposes the development of a path connecting Wedgemere Station and Medford Square via Mystic Valley Parkway/Mystic Lakes, noting that smart traffic lights may be needed for safety.
Tri-Community Bikeway, (Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn); Wakefield-Lynnfield Rail Trail Melrose Pedestrian & Bicycle Committee Steve Leibman Support Support inclusion of the Tri-Community Bikeway in Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn and the Wakefield-Lynnfield Rail Trail in the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP. State that the projects will improve Melrose's access to multi-use paths and fill in transportation network gaps relevant to the area. Note that Melrose is underserved by the MPO Bicycle Network Evaluation, and the projects will help mitigate this. State that bicycle and pedestrian mode share in the region lags behind much of the Metro-Boston area. The densely populated neighborhoods in the region have access to public transportation, which will help sustain active lifestyles, and advocacy bike/ped advocacy groups in the area suggest that bicycle and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure investments will have high returns.
Trolleybus Investments Resident, City of Somerville Joel N. Weber, II Request Requests that the MPO consider the cost-effectiveness of $40 million in overhead power infrastructure (overhead wire and related infrastructure) for the MBTA's trolleybuses. Expresses concern that the overhead power infrastructure may become obsolete as vehicles could be replaced with newer technology. Proposes that the MBTA consider possible alternatives like battery-powered buses.

 

1   Section 134 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act and Section 5303 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended.

2   MetroFuture is MAPC's 30-year plan for our region, and serves as a guide for work in all areas of the agency. The MetroFuture plan supports a vision of smart growth and regional collaboration through the promotion of efficient transportation systems, conservation of land and natural resources, improvement of residents’ health and education, and an increase in equitable economic-development opportunities for prosperity.

3 From the 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 450.324(e).