FFY 2019: Evaluation Criteria and Approach for FFYs 2019-23 TIP Development

 

1          SAFETY: Transportation by all modes will be safe

 

            Objectives

 

            Criteria and Subcriteria/Scoring (30 possible points)

For each project type, a measure of crash severity and a measure of crash rate is calculated and a score is assigned based on the point scales detailed below.

 

Crash severity is measured using the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index. The crash rate is calculated based on the total number of crashes and the level of traffic. This measure is calculated differently for corridor (Complete Streets) versus intersection projects with a measure of million annual vehicle miles traveled used for corridor projects and a measure of million annual entering vehicles used for intersection projects. Points are assigned based on a comparison with the state’s average crash rates.

 

If there is a corridor project that addresses intersection safety issues, the project is only assigned points under the corridor project scoring system. If there is an intersection project that addresses safety at more than one intersection, only the main intersection addressed by the proposed improvements is assigned points under the intersection project scoring system.

 

1a. Crash Severity Value: Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index (up to 5 points) [USED FOR ALL PROJECTS]

+5   EPDO value of 300 or more

+4   EPDO value between 200-299

+3   EPDO value between 100-199

+2   EPDO value between 50-99

+1   EPDO value less than 50

+0   No EPDO value

 

Description

EPDO is a weighted index that captures the severity of crashes by assigning a value to each crash based on whether the accident resulted in a fatality, injuries, or property damage. The number of crashes in the dataset is a total for the three-year period of the data.

 

A crash involving a fatality receives the most points (10), followed by a crash involving injuries (5), then a crash involving only property damage (1). Higher values indicate greater crash severity.

 

Methodology

The methodology is as follows:

 

Example Calculations:

 

Data Source

 

Crash data can be viewed in MassDOT’s Crash Data Portal: https://services.massdot.state.ma.us/crashportal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1b. Crash Rate: Intersections and Corridors (up to 5 points)

 

Table 1
Roadway Segment
Crash Rates (per Million Vehicle-Miles Traveled)

Evaluation Score

Interstate and Principal Arterial—Other Freeways and Expressways

Principal Arterial—Other, Minor Arterial and Major-Minor Collector

0

0–0.40

0–2.05

1

0.40–0.59

2.05–3.15

2

0.59–1.00

3.15–4.25

3

1.00–1.40

4.25–5.35

4

1.40–1.81

5.35–6.45

5

> 1.81

>  6.45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2
Signalized and Unsignalized
Intersection Crash Rate (per Million Entering Vehicles)

Evaluation Score

Signalized

Unsignalized

0

0–0.36

0–0.21

1

0.36–0.55

0.21–0.37

2

0.55–0.93

0.37–0.70

3

0.93–1.31

0.70–1.03

4

1.31–1.69

1.03–1.36

5

> 1.69

> 1.36

 

Description

A crash rate analysis is performed to compare the crash experience of similar locations in the jurisdiction, region, and state. This method compares intersections or roadway segments within a jurisdiction by developing an average crash rate. The baseline average is developed by calculating crash rates at a number of locations (intersections and roadway segments) in the region. MassDOT provides crash rate averages both statewide and by MassDOT district.

 

Methodology

MassDOT’s average crash rates for both intersections and roadway segments are used as a starting point to create crash rate evaluation scales. The scales address the roadway intersection/segment inequities by creating separate scoring criteria for each. The evaluation scales range from 0 to 5, providing a normalized score for intersections and roadway segments.

 

Average crash rates for intersections in the Boston region are based on the crash experience in approximately 200 intersections in the region and the type of traffic control (signalized/unsignalized) present. Average roadway segment crash rates are developed according to urban federal functional classification, the first group consisting of  interstates, freeways and expressways, and the second consisting of principal arterials other than expressways, minor arterials, and major and minor collectors.

 

Data Source

Same as EPDO index scoring

 

1c. Truck Safety: Improves truck-related safety issue (up to 5 points)

+3   High total effectiveness of truck safety countermeasures

+2   Medium total effectiveness of truck safety countermeasures

+1   Low total effectiveness of truck safety countermeasures

+0   Does not implement truck safety countermeasures

 

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

+2   Improves truck safety at HSIP cluster

 

Description

This criterion examines the existing truck safety issues in the project area and assigns points based on whether truck safety countermeasures are included as part of the proposed project and, if so, how effective they are at addressing truck safety issues. Additional points are added if the project is located in an HSIP cluster.

 

The basic truck safety countermeasure is the reconstruction of a roadway to current design standards. The effectiveness of a modern reconstruction in improving safety is directly related to the deficiencies of the system being rebuilt. If the existing conditions are very deficient with respect to safety, the safety benefit can be high. If the existing conditions are not particularly unsafe, the safety benefit will be lower.

 

The overall benefit, in turn, depends on the quantity of trucks benefiting from the improved road. The determination of a high, medium, or low level of benefit is based upon comparing the significance of the safety improvement realized through reconstruction with the volumes of trucks expected to travel through the project area.

 

Methodology

The key to assigning a meaningful score is a thorough understanding of the proposed improvements. The functional design report describes the proposed improvements at an approximately 25 percent level of design. When reviewing these reports, however, it is important to be cognizant of any significant project features that might only be under consideration as options.

 

By reviewing the information in a project’s functional design report and specialized data developed by MPO staff, it is possible to estimate the effectiveness of truck safety measures.

 

High effectiveness:

 

Medium effectiveness:

 

Low effectiveness:

 

Projects that provide negligible safety improvements or serve an inconsequential number of trucks may be given no points at all.

 

HSIP clusters are identified independently of the TIP process, and the extra two points are applied automatically.

 

Data Sources

Functional design reports

Land use patterns from town records or Google Earth

 

1d. Bicycle Safety: Improves bicycle safety (up to 5 points)

+3   High total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures

+2   Medium total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures

+1   Low total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures

+0   Does not implement bicycle safety countermeasures

 

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

+2   Improves bicycle safety at HSIP bicycle cluster

+1   Improves bicycle safety at HSIP cluster

 

Description

This criterion examines the existing bicycle safety issues in the project area and assigns points based on whether bicycle safety countermeasures are included as part of the proposed project and, if so, how effective they are. Additional points are added if the project is located in either a bicycle HSIP cluster or a vehicle HSIP cluster.

 

Methodology

Determining this score is dependent on an understanding of the following:

 

 

 

 

 

An overall score of the effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures is based on professional judgement considering the existing facilities, safety issues, current use, desired/anticipated future use, and the proposed bicycle safety countermeasures planned to be implemented as part of the project. The following factors are considered when determining the effectiveness of countermeasures:

 

High total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures:

 

Medium total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures:

 

Low total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures:

 

Data Sources

Functional design reports

MassDOT Registry of Motor Vehicles crash data

 

1e. Pedestrian Safety: Improves pedestrian safety (up to 5 points)

+3   High total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures

+2   Medium total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures

+1   Low total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures

+0   Does not implement pedestrian safety countermeasures

 

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

+2   Improves pedestrian safety at HSIP pedestrian cluster

+1   Improves pedestrian safety at HSIP cluster

 

Description

This criterion examines the existing pedestrian safety issues in the project area and assigns points based on whether pedestrian safety countermeasures are included as part of the proposed project and, if so, how effective they are. Additional points are added if the project is located in either a pedestrian HSIP cluster or a vehicle HSIP cluster.

 

Methodology

Determining this score is dependent on an understanding of the following:

 

 

 

 

 

An overall score of the effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures is based on professional judgement considering the existing facilities, safety issues, current use, and desired/anticipated use compared to the proposed pedestrian safety countermeasures planned to be implemented as part of the project. Points are assigned in the following way:

 

High total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures:

 

Medium total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures:

 

Low total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures:

 

Data Sources

 

 

1f. At-grade railroad crossing: Improves safety or removes an at-grade railroad crossing (up to 5 points)

+5   Removes an at-grade railroad crossing

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

+1   Improves safety at an at-grade railroad crossing

+0   Does not include a railroad crossing

 

Description

This criterion assigns points to projects that address safety at at-grade railroad crossings. Railroad grade crossings are some of the most dangerous elements of the surface transportation system. If a proposed project completely removes a grade crossing, it receives the maximum score for this criterion (5 points). If there is no grade crossing in the project area, no points are assigned. Between these extreme cases, safety improvement scores of 1 or 3 points can be granted.

 

Methodology

The key to assigning a meaningful score is a thorough understanding of the proposed improvements. The functional design report describes the proposed improvements at an approximately 25 percent level of design. When reviewing these reports, it is important to be cognizant of any significant project features which might only be under consideration as options.

 

Short of complete elimination of an at-grade crossing, work at or near a grade crossing can improve safety in a number of respects. Aspects of possible improvement may include the following:

 

The safety improvement score will depend upon the deficiencies in the existing grade crossing. Any reconstructed grade crossing will need to meet modern standards, but some of the underlying deficiencies may not be fully corrected because of constraints such as the existing railroad alignment. Some judgement is necessary in these situations to appropriately characterize the degree of improvement.

 

Data Sources

Functional design reports

 

2          SYSTEM PRESERVATION:  Maintain the transportation system

            Objectives

 

            Criteria and Subcriteria/Scoring (29 possible points)

 

2a. Roadway Bridge: Improves substandard roadway bridge(s) (up to 3 points)

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

+2   Condition is structurally deficient (no weight restriction) and improvements are included in the project

+2   Condition is functionally obsolete and weight restricted, and improvements are included in the project

+1   Condition is functionally obsolete (no weight restriction) and improvements are included in the project

+1   Condition is weight restricted (not otherwise deficient) and improvements are included in the project

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

 

Description

This criterion assesses the bridge condition in the project area and assigns points based on the presence of a bridge, the existing condition of the bridge, and planned improvements to the bridge.

 

Of the 2,866 bridges located within the Boston Region MPO’s boundaries, 559 (19 percent) are considered functionally obsolete (the configuration or design does not meet current traffic demands or highway standards) and 154 (5 percent) are considered structurally deficient (one or more structural components–deck, superstructure, or substructure–is in poor condition or deterioration has reduced the load-carrying capacity of the bridge).2

 

Methodology

If bridge improvements are planned as part of the proposed project, points are assigned based on the current condition of the bridge. The bridge is identified by the BDEPT and/or BIN identification numbers, which are usually enumerated in the TIP Project Description. The bridge deficiencies are based on the MassDOT Bridge Inventory.

 

Data Sources

MassDOT Bridge Inventory and Accelerated Bridge Program database

 

2b. Pavement: Improves substandard pavement (up to 6 points)

+6   IRI3 rating greater than 320: Current roadway condition is poor and pavement improvements are included in the project

+4   IRI rating between 191 and 320: Current roadway condition is fair and pavement improvements are included in the project

+0   IRI rating less than 190: Current roadway condition is good

 

Description

This criterion assesses current pavement condition and assigns points based on the existing pavement condition and planned improvements to the roadway surface.

 

Pavement condition is measured using the International Roughness Index (IRI), a rating that reflects the calibrated value in inches of roughness per mile. IRI ratings are classified as follows:

 

Methodology

If pavement improvements are planned as part of the proposed project, points are assigned based on the current condition of the pavement.

 

The calculation is based on the IRI within the last five measured years in MassDOT’s Roadway Inventory. Pavement condition is not measured annually for all roads. Pavement conditions on Interstate Highways are recorded annually, while numbered routes and/or arterials are measured every three years. Additionally, functional design reports may include IRI values for project segments.

 

Data Sources

MassDOT Roadway Inventory

Functional design reports

 

2c. Traffic Signals: Improves substandard traffic signal equipment (up to 6 points)

+6   Existing signals are in poor condition and improvements are included in the project

+4   Existing signals are in fair condition and improvements are included in the project

+0   Does not meet or address criteria

 

Description

This criterion assesses the existing condition of traffic signal equipment within the proposed project area and assigns points for improvements planned to substandard signal equipment as a part of the project.

 

Methodology

If traffic signal improvements are planned as part of the proposed project, points are assigned based on the current condition of existing traffic signal equipment and the nature of planned improvements.

 

Bringing substandard signal equipment up to modern operations is considered an improvement.

 

Data Sources

Functional design reports

 

2d. Transit Asset(s): Improves transit asset(s) (up to 3 points)

+2   Brings transit asset into state of good repair   

+1   Meets an identified-need in an asset management plan

+0   Does not meet or address criteria

 

Description

This criterion assigns points based on improvements made to transit assets. Points are assigned for bringing an asset into a state of good repair or for addressing a need identified in an asset management plan.

 

Methodology

If transit improvements are part of the proposed project, points are assigned based on bringing a transit asset into a state of good repair or addressing an identified need in an asset management plan.

 

Data Sources

Project proponent

Functional design reports

Municipal planning documents

 

2e. Sidewalks: Improves substandard sidewalk(s) (up to 3 points)

+3   Existing sidewalks are in poor condition and sidewalk improvements are included in the project

+2   Existing sidewalks are in fair condition and sidewalk improvements are included in the project 

+0   Existing sidewalk condition is good

 

Description

This criterion assesses the existing condition of sidewalks in the area of the proposed project and assigns points for improvements planned to substandard sidewalks.

 

Methodology

 

Data Sources

Google Maps

Functional design reports

Project proponent

 

2f. Emergency Response: 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 is in proximity to an emergency

        support location

 

Description

This criterion assesses the presence of an emergency response route or emergency support location in the project area and assigns points if the project proposes improvements to an emergency response route or improves access to an emergency support location.

 

Methodology

 

Data Sources

Functional design report

Project proponent

Boston Region MPO’s All-Hazards Planning Application

State or local mapping of evacuation routes and emergency support locations

Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency Evacuation Zones: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agencies/mema/emergencies/hurricanes/hurricane-evacuation-zones.html

 

2g. Improves ability to respond to extreme conditions (up to 6 points)

+2   Addresses flooding problem and/or sea level rise and enables facility to

        function in such a condition

+1   Brings facility up to current seismic design standards

+1   Addresses critical transportation infrastructure

+1   Protects freight network elements

+1   Implements hazard mitigation or climate adaptation plans

 

Description

This criterion assesses the presence of natural hazard zones and assigns points based on making improvements to locations that are vulnerable to natural hazards or for protecting certain critical elements of the transportation system.

 

Methodology

 

 

Data Sources

Project proponent

Functional design reports

Municipal planning documents

Boston Region MPO’s All-Hazards Planning Application

 


 

3          CAPACITY MANAGEMENT/MOBILITY:  USE EXISTING FACILITY CAPACITY MORE EFFICIENTLY AND INCREASE HEALTHY TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS

 

            Objectives

 

            Criteria and Subcriteria/Scoring (29 possible points)

 

3a. Transit Vehicle Delay: Reduces transit vehicle delay (up to 4 points)

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

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

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

+0   Does not reduce transit vehicle delay

 

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

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

 

Description

The goal for this scoring criterion is to determine if a project reduces transit vehicle delay. This measure focuses solely on transit vehicle delay, not transit passenger delay.

 

Methodology

  1. Functional design reports are referenced for the data needed for each project. Data needs to be obtained for the through street on which the project is located, not the intersecting streets.
  2. The number of daily transit runs for bus routes or rail lines that traverse through the project location are totaled. The number of transit runs are provided by the MBTA.
  3. Current and future vehicle delay is calculated using the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality analysis spreadsheets. The difference in transit vehicle delay is computed from future build versus no-build conditions using the values for either AM peak hour delay or PM peak hour delay, whichever is greater.
  4. The difference in transit vehicle delay is multiplied by the total number of daily bus runs, which results in the total change in vehicle delay. The final metric is converted to hours of delay.
  5. The number of daily hours of delay that the project is projected to eliminate is compared to the thresholds listed above. Projects are scored accordingly.
  6. Key bus routes are the 15 busiest MBTA bus routes in the system by passenger volume (Routes 1, 15, 22, 23, 28, 32, 39, 57, 66, 71, 73, 77, 111, 116, and 117). Bonus points are awarded if congestion is reduced on a key bus route.

 

Examples:

 

Data Sources

Functional design reports

MBTA bus schedules

 

3b. Pedestrian Network: Improves pedestrian network and ADA accessibility (up to 5 points)

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

+2   Improves ADA accessibility 4

+1   Closes a gap in the pedestrian network

+0   Does not improve pedestrian network

 

Description

This criterion assesses the existing pedestrian network in a project area and assigns points for improvements related to adding sidewalks (expanding the network) or making sidewalks more accessible.

 

Methodology

 

Data Sources

Functional design reports

Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s Trailmap (https://trailmap.mapc.org/)

 

3c. Bicycle Network: Improves bicycle network (up to 4 points)

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

+2   Adds new buffered bicycle facility

+1   Adds new standard bicycle facility

+1   Closes a gap in the bicycle network

+0   Does not improve bicycle network

 

 

Description

This criterion assesses the existing bicycle network in the project area and assigns points for improvements related to adding new bicycle facilities (expanding the network) and increasing connections between existing facilities.

 

Methodology

  1. Projects are assigned one point if a new standard bicycle facility is added as part of the project. A “standard bicycle facility” is defined as a facility that offers no vertical or horizontal separation between motorists and bicyclists, but provides bicyclists with a designated travel zone such as a bike lane on a roadway.
  2. Projects are awarded one additional point for closing a gap in the bicycle network. A “gap” is defined as a lack of a physical connection between bicycle facilities or between a bicycle facility and a regional transit station.

 

Data Sources

Functional design reports

Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s Trailmap (https://trailmap.mapc.org/)

 

 

 

 

3d. Intermodal Connections: Improves intermodal accommodations/ connections to transit (up to 6 points)

+6   Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+4   Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+2   Meets or addresses criteria to a low degree

+0   Does not meet or address criteria

 

Description

This criterion is distinct from the evaluation of benefits associated with expanding or improving an individual mode. Transit services depend upon the ability of users to connect conveniently with other transportation modes including driving, walking, and biking. Improvements that are considered in developing a score for this criterion include the following:

 

Methodology

The key to assigning a meaningful score is a thorough understanding of the proposed improvements. A project’s functional design report describes the proposed improvements at an approximately 25 percent level of design. When reviewing these reports, however, it is important to be cognizant of any significant project features that might only be under consideration as options.

 

The functional design report may describe a group of improvements, and the total benefit that is expected from the combined improvements needs to be considered.

 

High degree of improvement:

 

Medium degree of improvement:

 

Low degree of improvement:

 

Projects that provide negligible improvements or serve an inconsequential number of users may be given no points at all.

 

 

High

 

Medium

 

Low

 

Data Sources

Functional design reports

National Transit Database

 

3e. Truck Movement: Improves truck movement (up to 4 points)

+3   Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2   Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1   Meets or addresses criteria to a low degree

+0   Does not meet or address criteria

 

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

+1   Addresses MPO-identified bottleneck location

 

Description

Extensive parts of the road system date from a time when the average truck size was smaller, as were the maximum allowable size and weight. The early limited-access highways built during the 1950s were designed for a lighter and smaller fleet of “heavy vehicles.” Decades of operating experience has also informed current roadway designs, and more generous turning radii, ramp shoulders, subsurface depth, and overpass clearances are required for new construction to better accommodate the number and size of heavy vehicles using the road system today. The arterial roadway subsystem is also subject to the requirements of the modern truck fleet.

 

For these reasons, any reconstruction of an older roadway to modern standards can be awarded points for improving truck movements. If the existing conditions are very deficient, the benefit can be high. If the existing conditions are relatively adequate, the expected benefit is lower.

 

Methodology

The key to assigning a meaningful score is a thorough understanding of the proposed improvements. The functional design report describes the proposed improvements at an approximately 25 percent level of design. When reviewing these reports, however, it is important to be cognizant of any significant project features that might only be under consideration as options.

 

By reviewing the information in a project’s functional design report and specialized data developed by the MPO staff, it is possible to estimate the level of improvement for truck movement.

 

High degree of improvement:

 

Medium degree of improvement:

 

Low degree of improvement

 

Projects that reconstruct a given roadway to only slightly higher standards than were originally present or serve an inconsequential number of trucks might be given no points at all.

 

MPO-identified bottleneck locations are identified independently of the TIP process, and the extra point is applied automatically.

 

Data Sources

Functional design report

Land use patterns from town records or Google Earth

 

3f. Reduces vehicle congestion (up to 6 points)

+6   400 hours or more of daily vehicle delay reduced

+4   100–400 hours of daily vehicle delay reduced

+2   Less than 100 hours of daily vehicle delay reduced

+0   Does not meet or address criteria

 

Description

This criterion assesses vehicle delay for intersections within the proposed project boundaries based on the estimated reduction in intersection delay that is projected to be achieved by the project.

 

MPO staff compiles data on vehicle delay from intersection analyses within the project’s functional design report and then assigns points based on the scale above. Delay is calculated exclusively from intersection delay. Functional design reports analyze future conditions to see if intersection delay increases or decreases.

 

Examples:

 

Methodology

  1. Functional design reports are analyzed for each project. Data needs to be obtained for the through street, not the intersecting streets.
  2. Traffic counts are obtained from the functional design reports to show traffic volumes.
  3. Current and future vehicle delay is provided by the functional design report. The difference in vehicle delay is computed by comparing future build versus no-build conditions.
  4. The difference in vehicle delay is multiplied by the annual average daily traffic (AADT), which results in the total change in vehicle delay. The final metric is converted to hours of vehicle delay.
  5. The number of daily hours of vehicle delay that the project will eliminate is compared to the thresholds listed above. Projects are scored accordingly.  

 

Data Sources

Functional design reports

 

CLEAN AIR/CLEAN COMMUNITIES: CREATE AN ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

 

            Objectives

 

            Criteria and Subcriteria/Scoring (16 possible points)

 

4a. Reduces CO25 (up to 5 points)

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

+4    500–999 annual tons of CO2 reduced

+3    250–499 annual tons of CO2 reduced

+2    100–249 annual tons of CO2 reduced

+1    Less than 100 annual tons of CO2 reduced

  0    No impact

-1     Less than 100 annual tons of CO2 increased

-2     100–249 annual tons of CO2 increased

-3     250–499 annual tons of CO2 increased

-4     500–999 annual tons of CO2 increased

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

 

Description

This criterion assigns points for reducing the emissions of CO2.

 

Methodology

MPO staff compiles data on CO2 impact for each project under consideration, and then assigns points based on the scale above.

 

Examples:

 

Data Sources

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality spreadsheets are used to calculate potential CO2 reductions for the following types of projects:

 

The inputs into the above projects are outlined in each of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality spreadsheets and also described in Appendix C of the TIP. In addition, air quality emission factors are input to these analyses. The factors are established using EPA’s MOVES model.

 

4b. Reduces other transportation-related emissions (VOC, NOx, CO) 6

(up to 5 points)

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

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

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

+2    250–499 total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced

+1    Less than 250 total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced

  0    No impact

-1     Less than 250 total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased

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

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

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

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

 

Description

This criterion assigns points for reducing emissions of other transportation-related pollutants.

 

Methodology

The evaluation for the other transportation-related emissions uses the same information as described above on CO2 reductions. The same air quality spreadsheets calculate all pollutants.

 

Data Sources

See above.

 

4c. Addresses environmental impacts (up to 4 points)

+1   Addresses water quality through stormwater best management practices that improve existing conditions

+1   Addresses cultural resources/open space

+1   Addresses wetlands/resource areas

+1   Addresses wildlife preservation/protected habitats

+0   Does not meet or address criteria

 

Description

This criterion assigns points to a project that improves the existing conditions of any of the following resources:

 

Methodology

Points are assigned to projects that go above and beyond permitting requirements and proactively enhance or improve these natural and cultural resources.

 

A point is assigned for addressing water quality if a project meets any of these criteria:

 

 

A point is assigned for addressing cultural resources/open space if a project meets any of these criteria:

 

A point is assigned for addressing wetlands/resource areas if a project meets any of these criteria:

 

A point is assigned for addressing wildlife preservation/protected habitats if a project meets any of these criteria:

 

Data Sources

Functional design reports

Project proponent

 

 

4d. Is in an Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA)-certified "Green Community" (up to 2 points)

+2   Project is located in a “Green Community”

+0   Project is not located in a "Green Community"

 

Description

This criterion assigns points if the proposed project is located in an EOEEA-certified “Green Community.”

 

Methodology

Points are assigned by looking at the map of EOEEA-certified “Green Communities” and assessing the status of the municipality(ies) in which the project is located.

 

Data Sources

http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/green-communities/


 

5          TRANSPORTATION EQUITY:  PROVIDE COMPARABLE ACCESS AND SERVICE QUALITY AMONG COMMUNITIES, REGARDLESS OF INCOME LEVEL OR MINORITY POPULATION

 

            Objectives

           

            Criteria and Subcriteria/Scoring (12 possible points)

 

5a. Serves Title VI/non-discrimination populations (up to 12 points)

+2   Serves minority (high concentration) population (>2,000 people)

+1   Serves minority (low concentration) population (≤ 2,000 people)

 

+2   Serves low-income (high concentration) population (>2,000 households)

+1   Serves low-income (low concentration) population (≤ 2,000 households)

 

+2   Serves limited English proficiency (high concentration) population (>1,000 people)

+1   Serves limited English proficiency (low concentration) population (≤ 1,000 people)

 

+2   Serves elderly (high concentration) population (>2,000 people)

+1   Serves elderly (low concentration) population (≤ 2,000 people)

 

+2   Serves zero-vehicle households (high concentration) population (>1,000 households)

+1   Serves zero-vehicle households (low concentration) population (≤ 1,000 households)

 

+2   Serves persons with disabilities (high concentration) population (>1,000 people)

+1   Serves persons with disabilities (low concentration) population (≤ 1,000 people)

 

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

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

 

Description

This criterion assesses whether a project serves—by virtue of it being located nearby—each of the six Title VI/non-discrimination populations. The criterion rewards those projects that serve the most people within these populations.

 

Methodology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3
Data Sources

 

 

Minority

Low-income

Limited English Proficiency

Elderly

Disability

Zero Vehicle Households

Data Source

Decennial census

American Community Survey

American Community Survey

Decennial census

American Community Survey

American Community Survey

Current Data Year

2010 Decennial Census

2010-14 ACS

2010-14 ACS

2010 Decennial Census

2010-14 ACS

2010-14 ACS

Current Threshold

27.8%

32.2%

10.4%

6.7%

10.0%

15.9%

Threshold Definition

Regional average

Percent of households that make 60% of regional median household income

Regional average

Regional average

Regional average

Regional average

Next MPO Threshold Update

2020 Decennial Census

2020-24 ACS

2020-24 ACS

2020 Decennial Census

2020-24 ACS

2020-24 ACS

Universe

Population

Households

Population  5 years and older

Population

Non-institutionalized population

Households

Geography

Blocks

Tracts

Tracts

Blocks

Block groups

Tracts

Definition

Black/ African American, Asian, Hispanic/ Latino of any race; American Indian or Alaskan Native; and/or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Annual household income is less than or equal to 60% of the regional median household income (60% of $76,040 is $45,624)

Person aged 5+ who speaks English well, not well, or not at all

Person aged 75 or older

Non-institutionalized person who has a physical and/or mental disability

Household without a car

6          ECONOMIC VITALITY: ENSURE OUR TRANSPORTATION NETWORK PROVIDES A STRONG FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC VITALITY

 

            Objectives

 

            Criteria and Subcriteria/Scoring (18 possible points)

 

6a. Serves targeted development site (up to 6 points)

+2, Provides new transit access to or within the site

+1, Improves existing transit access to or within the site

+1, Provides for bicycle access to or within the site

+1, Provides for pedestrian access to or within the site

+1: Provides new or improves existing road access to or within the site

+0: Does not serve a targeted development site

 

Description

A project is eligible to score points in this category if it is near a district or area that has been targeted for future development or redevelopment. Targeted development sites include Regionally Significant Priority Development Areas, 40R, 43D, 43E, and GDI districts, MBTA key bus routes, and existing or proposed subway, trolley, commuter rail, or ferry stations. For most targeted development sites, TIP projects are considered to serve those sites if they are within a quarter mile. Projects are considered to serve subway, trolley, commuter rail, or ferry stations if they are within a half mile. If the project is eligible to score points in this criterion due to proximity to targeted development sites, the project details must then be reviewed to determine the appropriate score.

 

More information about targeted development sites and programs are as follows:

 

Methodology

First, MAPC staff contact the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development to be sure they have the most up-to-date GIS data layers and request a line feature class of the prospective TIP projects to be evaluated from CTPS. Next, the area of concentrated development data layers and the project data layer are imported into one ArcGIS map document. MAPC then runs a script tool that determines the location of the projects in relation to the targeted development sites and areas of concentrated development. Below is the specific output that is generated for each project:

 

ACD_score: Areas of Concentrated Development score

RPDA: Project area is within a quarter mile of a Regional Priority Development Area (1 = yes)

FortyR: Project area is within a quarter mile of a 40R district

Forty3D: Project area is within a quarter mile of a 43D district

Forty3E: Project area is within a quarter mile of a 43E district

GDI: Project area is within a quarter mile of a Growth District Initiative area

Stations: Project intersects a half-mile buffer of a station area

Bus: Project intersects a quarter-mile buffer of a key bus route

Transit_Access: Project meets either station area or key bus route criteria

TargDev: Project meets any Targeted Development criteria

New: Project was not evaluated in previous year

DevSite_chg: Change in the Targeted Development score

AOCD_chg: Change in the Area of Concentrated Development score

 

If the project receives a “1” in TargDev, it is eligible for scoring points under this criteria. Receiving a “1” means that the TIP project is within the defined distances (either a quarter or half mile buffer) of a targeted development site. The specific points assigned to a project under this criterion, is dependent on the specific aspects of the project and what the project description includes.

 

Data Sources

Department of Housing and Community Development/Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (43D and 43E sites, 40R districts, and Growth District Initiative areas)

MAPC (Regionally Significant Priority Development Areas and MBTA station areas)

 

6b. Provides for development consistent with the compact growth strategies of MetroFuture (up to 5 points)

+2   Mostly serves an existing area of concentrated development

+1   Partly serves an existing area of concentrated development

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

        growth development

+2   Complements other local financial or regulatory support that fosters

        economic revitalization in a manner consistent with smart growth

        development principles 

+0    Does not provide any of the above measures

 

Description

A spatial analysis from the MAPC Data Services department determines whether a TIP project is considered to “partly” or “mostly” serve an area of concentrated development, based on how much that project area overlaps a qualifying area.

 

Existing areas of concentrated development are defined based on the combined 2010 population and 2011 employment, per acre, measured at the scale of 250 meter grid cells. Thresholds for concentrated development are higher in urban community types:

 

For purposes of this evaluation, “mostly serves” is defined as more than 50 percent of the quarter-mile buffer around the project area is in grid cells that meet the criteria for the community type and the project improves access to or within those areas of concentrated development.

 

For the purposes of evaluation, “local zoning or other regulations supportive of smart growth” can include the following:

 

For a project to receive credit because a 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).

 

Methodology

 

1) For Area of Concentrated Development:

The same methodology described above for targeted development sites is applicable for calculating whether or not a project serves an area of concentrated development. The field “ACD_score” noted above will yield a score between zero and two, which indicates the following:

 

 

2) For Local Zoning and Financial or Regulatory Support:

MAPC researches any local zoning changes or policies enacted within the past year that promote economic development and support smart growth within the same geography as the project being evaluated. Qualifying zoning changes and policies include the creation of a downtown business district, other zoning that promotes mixed-use development, and the adoption of a Complete Streets policy. 

 

A project may be eligible for points in this category if the municipality implements local financial or regulatory measures that support economic revitalization that are consistent with smart growth principles, including having a Main Streets organization, business improvement district, or a local business association within the same geography as the project in question. Citywide efforts are not included in this criterion.

 

Data Source

Area of Concentrated Development:

MAPC

 

Local Efforts & Financial or Regulatory Support:

 

6c. Provides multimodal access to an activity center (up to 4 points)

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

+1   Provides pedestrian access to an activity center

+1   Provides bicycle access to an activity center

+1   Provides truck access to an activity center

+0   Does not provide multimodal access

 

Description

Transportation system investments that improve access to locations with strong or expanding economic activity can support sustainable economic growth. For this criterion, points are awarded for improved transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access to activity centers, reflecting the importance of non-auto modes for sustainability. Points are not awarded for improved auto access, per se. However, all activity centers depend to varying degrees on practical truck access, and roadway improvements that meaningfully improve the ability of trucks to serve an activity center also receive a point.

 

Methodology

The key to assigning a meaningful score is a thorough understanding of the proposed improvements. The functional design report describes the proposed improvements at an approximately 25 percent level of design. When reviewing these reports, however, it is important to the cognizant of any significant project features that might only be under consideration as options.

 

New or improved transit access might include the following:

 

New or improved pedestrian access might include the following:

 

New or improved bicycle access might include the following:

 

Improved truck access might include the following:

 

Projects that provide only negligible improvement are given no points at all.

 

Data Sources

Functional design reports

 

6d. Leverages other investments (non-TIP funding) (up to 3 points)

+3   Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree (more than 30 percent of the project cost)

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

+1   Meets or addresses criteria to a low degree (less than 10 percent of the project cost)

+0   Does not meet or address criteria

 

 

 

Description

Projects are assigned points if funds are contributed by other public or private entities.

 

Methodology

Eligible investments consist of federal, state, local, or private sources, such as federal earmarks, state MassWorks grants, local funding (excluding design), and private contributions.

 

Data Sources

Project proponents

 


 

1 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

2 Data as of August 2018.

3International Roughness Index (IRI)

4Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)


5Carbon dioxide (CO2)

6 Volatile organic compounds (VOC)

   Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

   Carbon monoxide (CO)