Technical Memorandum

DATE:   November 7, 2019

TO:         Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization

FROM:   Seth Asante, MPO Staff

RE:         Selection of FFY 2020 LRTP Priority Corridor Study Location

1          background

During the development of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Destination 2040, the MPO staff identified the existing needs for all transportation modes in the region.1 The results were compiled in the LRTP Needs Assessment, which is used to guide the MPO’s decision-making process for selecting transportation projects to fund in future Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). The MPO goals that guided the development of the LRTP Needs Assessment include the following:

• Safety—make all modes safe
• Preservation—maintain and modernize the system
• Capacity Management and Mobility—use existing facility capacity more efficiently and increase healthy transportation capacity
• Clean Air/Clean Communities—create an environmentally friendly transportation system
• Transportation Equity—provide comparable transportation access and service quality among communities, regardless of income level or minority population
• Economic Vitality—ensure our transportation network serves as a strong foundation for economic vitality

Based on previous and ongoing transportation-planning work—including the MPO’s Congestion Management Process (CMP) and planning studies—MPO staff identified several priority arterial roadway segments that require maintenance, modernization, and safety and mobility improvements. These locations are documented in the LRTP Needs Assessment.

To address problems on some of these arterial segments, the Addressing Priority Corridors from the Long-Range Transportation Plan Needs Assessment study was included in the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2020 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).² This memorandum presents the results of the selection process and a recommendation for a location to study to the MPO board for discussion.³

By focusing on arterial segments rather than intersections, planners can evaluate multimodal transportation needs comprehensively (with the goal of creating Complete Streets). A holistic approach to analyzing problems and forming recommendations ensures that the needs of all transportation users are considered. Ultimately, this approach will result in roadways where it is safe to cross the street and walk or bicycle to shops, schools, train stations, and recreational facilities, and where buses can run on time. Typically, the recommended improvements are within a roadway’s right-of-way. When developing the recommendations, the needs of abutters and users are taken into account. The interests and support of stakeholders are also considered.

2          Selection Procedure

The process for selecting study locations consisted of three steps:

1. MPO staff gathered and assembled data about the arterial segments from the LRTP Needs Assessment and used the data to identify and prioritize the segments in need of improvements.
2. Staff examined the arterial segments more closely by applying specific criteria.
3. Staff scored each arterial segment and assigned a priority of low, medium, or high to each segment.

Details about each step in the process are provided below.

2.1      Gathering Data and Identifying Potential Arterial Segments

MPO staff identified 43 arterial segments in 33 municipalities in the Boston region based on the following data sources:

• The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) 2017 Road Inventory File and 2012–16 crash database were used to assemble the following information for each arterial segment: roadway jurisdiction, National Highway System status, average daily traffic (ADT), high-crash locations, and crash rates.
• The MPO’s CMP data on arterial congestion were used to determine average travel speeds, travel-time index (travel time in the peak period divided by travel time during free-flow conditions), and speed index (average travel speed divided by the speed limit) on each arterial segment.
• The MPO’s data on gaps in the bike network and data on the location of MassDOT’s bike facilities were used to identify bicyclists’ needs, including locations where connectivity between bicycle facilities and bicyclists’ accommodations could be improved.
• Data on Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) bus service performance and passenger loads were used to determine the percentage of bus trips that do not adhere to the schedule (in other words, that provide late service) or do not adhere to passenger load standards (resulting in crowding).
• Data on MBTA bus routes, subway lines, and commuter rail lines were used to identify which arterial segments serve MBTA buses or stations.
• Data on the MPO’s transportation equity analysis zones were used to identify areas of concern as relates to transportation equity.
• Data selected from MassDOT’s project-information database, the MPO’s FFY 2020–24 TIP project database, MPO planning studies and other studies, and municipal websites were used to obtain data on projects, studies, and TIP projects that are planned or programmed for each arterial segment.

Table 1 (attached) presents the data and information gathered about each of the arterial segments:

• Municipality
• Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) subregion
• Jurisdiction
• MassDOT district office
• Number of top-200 high-crash locations
• Number of crash clusters that are eligible for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding
• Travel-time index
• Transit service performance
• Proximity to a transportation equity analysis zone (within one-half mile distance)
• Relevant studies or projects within or near the segment

Table 1 also includes the score and priority rating that were determined by applying the selection criteria. The processes for scoring and assigning priority ratings to segments are described below.

2.2      Selection Criteria

MPO staff examined the arterial segments more closely by applying the following six criteria and assigning points based on the number of criteria that apply to each location.

1. Safety Conditions, 0–4 points (each of the four criteria is worth one point)

• Location has a higher-than-average crash rate for its functional class
• Location contains an HSIP-eligible crash cluster
• Location is identified in the Massachusetts Top High Crash Locations Report
• Location has a significant number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes per year (two or more per mile) or contains one or more HSIP-eligible bike-pedestrian crash cluster

2. Congested Conditions, 0–2 points (each of the two criteria is worth one point)

• Travel-time index is at least 1.3
• Travel-time index is at least 2.0

3. Multimodal Significance, 0–3 points (each of the three criteria is worth one point)

• Location currently supports transit, bicycle, or pedestrian activities
• Location needs to have improved transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities
• Location has a high volume of truck traffic serving regional commerce

4. Regional Significance, 0–4 points (each of the four criteria is worth one point)
• Location is in the National Highway System
• Location carries a significant portion of regional traffic (ADT is greater than 20,000)
• Location lies within 0.5 miles of a transportation equity analysis zone
• Location is essential for the region’s economic, cultural, or recreational development

5. Regional Equity, 0–2 points (each of the two criteria is worth one point)

• Location is in an MAPC subregion for which there has not been a Priority Corridors study
• Location is in an MAPC subregion for which there has not been a Priority Corridors study in the previous three years

6. Implementation Potential, 0–3 points (each of the three criteria is worth one point)

• Location is proposed or endorsed for study by the agency that administers the roadway
• Location is proposed or endorsed by its MAPC subregional group and is a priority for that subregional group
• Other stakeholders strongly support improvements for the location

2.3      Rating Potential Roadways

MPO staff rated arterial segments with a total score of 11 or fewer points as low priority; those with a score of 12 to 13 points as medium priority; and those with a total score of 14 or more points as high priority. Staff gave 12 arterial segments a high-priority rating based on safety and operational needs, multimodal and regional significance, regional equity, and support for improvements from agencies and municipalities. Staff then examined high-priority segments more closely and excluded arterials for which there were projects meeting any of the following criteria from further consideration for this cycle of the Priority Corridors study: recently completed, in construction, in design, under study, or programmed in the TIP with the 25 percent design completed.

Staff also evaluated the pedestrian accommodation and safety improvement needs for the segment with the highest score by applying the MPO’s Pedestrian Report Card Assessment and Bicycle Level-of-Service Metric (Bicycle Report Card).⁴ These locations highly qualify based on pedestrian and bicycle accommodation or safety improvement requirements. Appendix A contains detailed results of the assessments for Route 28 in Milton, the arterial segment with the highest score.

Based on this evaluation, staff recommends studying the segment on Route 28 in Milton. Figure 1 shows the study area with four HSIP intersection crash clusters.

3          Arterial Segment SELECTED for Study: Route 28 in Milton

The arterial segment on Route 28 in Milton received a total score of 15, based on five of the six selection criteria (safety, congestion, multimodal and regional significance, regional equity, and implementation potential). Route 28 runs north and south through Milton and it serves residential, educational, and recreational areas, and a medical center. Route 28 also carries commuter traffic to and from Boston. Staff’s evaluation indicates that there are safety, capacity management, and mobility problems in the segment. Four locations along the segment contain HSIP-eligible crash clusters, one of which is in the top 200 of intersection crash clusters in Massachusetts. Also, accommodation for bicyclists is poor and better bicycle connections are needed in the area.

The Town of Milton and the MassDOT Highway Division are looking for solutions to the problems in the corridor and have expressed support for and willingness to participate in a study of this arterial segment (see Appendix B). MPO staff would identify the problems and develop solutions that could be incorporated into MassDOT’s project #609396 for resurfacing and related work on Route 28. The improvements would be implemented by the Town of Milton and MassDOT. The recommended arterial segment meets the selection criteria of this study, especially by supporting the transportation improvement priorities of the MPO’s LRTP.

4          Next Steps

After the MPO board discusses this recommendation, staff will meet with officials from the Town of Milton and MassDOT and other stakeholders to discuss the study specifics, conduct field visits, collect data, identify needs, and develop solutions.

SA/sa

APPENDICES_Priorirty Corridors from LRTP