Image of report cover.

Unified Planning Work Program
Federal Fiscal Year 2023



Appendix A: Other Boston Region Transportation Planning Studies
Appendix B: Public Participation and Response to Public Comments
Appendix C: Universe of Proposed New Studies for Federal Fiscal Year 2022 UPWP
Appendix D: Geographic Distribution of UPWP Studies and Technical Analyses
Appendix E: Regulatory and Policy Framework
Appendix F: Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Membership





Appendix A: Other Boston Region Transportation Planning Studies


This appendix consists of brief descriptions of planning studies that will be conducted in the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area by individual agencies, such as the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), during federal fiscal year (FFY) 2023. These studies fall into one of two categories:



MPO discretionary funding will not be used for these studies, although in certain cases, an agency or one of its consultants may contract with MPO staff—the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS)—to prepare an environmental impact report or large-scale study. For these projects, support work that will be conducted by CTPS is described in Chapters 3 through 6. Likewise, the project listings in this appendix indicate whether components of the projects will be conducted by CTPS. The appendix is organized hierarchically: first by type of study, then by geography, then by the entity organizing or leading the study effort.


The projects in this appendix are not subject to the MPO’s public participation process. Rather, they follow their own public processes, parts of which may be required by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. They are included here to provide a more complete picture of the surface-transportation-planning projects occurring in the region. The listings contained in this appendix were provided to CTPS prior to June 23, 2022.


Multimodal or Roadway Studies

Statewide Studies


Beyond Mobility: Massachusetts 2050 Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan

Beyond Mobility, the Massachusetts 2050 Long-Range Transportation Plan, is a planning process that will result in a blueprint for guiding transportation decision-making and investments in Massachusetts in a way that advances MassDOT’s goals and maximizes the equity and resiliency of the transportation system. The Plan will serve as a strategic plan for MassDOT and document the most pressing transportation priorities for MassDOT to address between now and 2050, relying heavily on input from the public.


Impact of Teleworking

The Impact of Teleworking Study is developing plausible future scenarios for teleworking in Massachusetts and will use a modeling approach to understand the effects that teleworking changes may have on the Commonwealth’s transportation system. This study will examine how anticipated increases and/or decreases in teleworking could change household and aggregate travel behavior through measures that include overall vehicle-miles traveled, trip attributes, and mode share. The potential macroeconomics impact of these changes in travel behavior will also be analyzed. The modeled projections for each scenario could assist MassDOT in future decision-making by providing information about how the demands on the transportation system will change and how the mix of transportation investment may need to respond.


Understanding the Impacts of COVID-19 on the Massachusetts Freight Network and Freight Planning

Because of pandemic-related shifts in supply chains, consumer buying, e-commerce, and associated distribution networks—all of which have clear implications on freight transportation behaviors and travel patterns—and to prepare the state freight network for present and future disruptions, this study will evaluate the network in light of observed and anticipated effects of COVID-19.


MassDOT National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Plan

This planning process will develop an Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Deployment Plan for Massachusetts as required by the NEVI Program. Key activities include modeling EV charging demand on highway corridors in Massachusetts, analyzing economic factors associated with direct carbon fuel cell technology, prioritizing highway corridor segments for investment of NEVI funds, and seeking stakeholder input on key questions to be addressed by the plan. This Plan will enable MassDOT to use federal funds to install fast charging infrastructure on EV Alternative Fuel Corridors in Massachusetts, which may help to ease range anxiety for drivers on long-distance trips.



Regional or Subregional Studies


Wellington Circle Study

The Wellington Circle Study will evaluate the existing and future multimodal transportation conditions at Wellington Circle in the City of Medford, and develop and analyze alternatives that are intended to improve transportation conditions. The study will focus on the redesign of Wellington Circle intended to provide better connectivity and mitigate traffic throughout the area for the City of Medford and other communities in the surrounding region. The study will examine and evaluate the alternatives to the extent possible in the context of vehicular use, bicycle and pedestrian use, transit use, land use, cost, and the resulting economic, social, and cultural impacts.


MassDOT/Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs/Department of Conservation and Recreation/Boston Planning and Development Authority

Kosciuszko Circle and William T. Morrissey Boulevard Corridor Study

This is a conceptual planning study that will evaluate the existing and future multimodal transportation conditions at Kosciuszko Circle and William T. Morrissey Boulevard in the City of Boston, and develop and analyze alternatives for the corridor that are intended to improve the public realm, mobility, connectivity, safety, and climate resiliency throughout the area for the City and other communities in the surrounding region.


Gilmore Bridge Mobility Improvements Study

MassDOT’s Office of Transportation Planning is conducting a study regarding opportunities to implement and improve transit priority and multimodal travel over the Gilmore Bridge in Boston and Cambridge, as well as explore the feasibility of building a new bridge between Charlestown and Cambridge to serve transit, walking, and biking trips.


The Gilmore Bridge Mobility Improvements Study will establish existing mobility and other travel conditions within the study area and evaluate short, medium, and long-term recommendations intended to address the needs of current and anticipated future travelers along the corridor, with a particular emphasis on providing dedicated bus lanes. In addition to exploring opportunities for transit priority measures and active transportation improvements on the Gilmore Bridge, the study will assess the feasibility of constructing a new bridge between Charlestown and Cambridge to serve transit, walking, and biking trips.

Route 1A East Boston Corridor Study

The purpose of this study is to assess the potential uses of the MassDOT and MBTA rail parcels located between Route 1A and the Chelsea Creek in East Boston, and evaluate the Route 1A corridor between Bell Circle and Day Square. The study will identify opportunities to improve walking, biking, and transit conditions, address safety deficiencies for all users, accommodate freight needs and increasing demand on the corridor due to new development, and mitigate potential impacts of climate change.



Transit Studies

Statewide Studies


Northern Tier Passenger Rail Study

The Northern Tier Passenger Rail Study is a conceptual planning study assessing rail service alternatives along the North Adams-Greenfield-Boston corridor. The study will examine the benefits, costs, and investments necessary to implement passenger rail service from North Adams to Greenfield and Boston, with the speed, frequency, and reliability necessary to be a competitive option for travel along this corridor.


Regional or Subregional Studies


MBTA Bus Network Redesign

This work builds off of the Focus40 effort and the Better Bus Project to evaluate the overall MBTA bus network and propose an alternate vision for how the bus network can better reflect the travel needs of the region and create a more competitive bus service for current and future bus riders. The consultant team is responsible for conducting an in-depth analysis of the network using location-based systems data and the MBTA’s origin-destination-transfer model to better understand travel demand in the region. Given that more than 450,000 MBTA customers rely on the bus network every day, the Network Redesign features a major civic engagement effort to ensure that the feedback from current and potential bus customers is a major input into this process. Stakeholder engagement also involves meeting with a range of municipal, business, and advocacy representatives. The consultant has developed concepts for a redesigned MBTA bus network and recommended a final proposed network. The final network will be implemented in phases. The Redesign will develop a detailed phasing plan for rolling out changes based on vehicle availability, the scale of changes, work to be completed, and political will. Currently, the redesign study is in the public engagement phase to obtain feedback on the proposed network changes.


Silver Line Extension Alternatives Analysis

Building off of the work of the Everett Transit Action Plan and the Lower Mystic Regional Working Group, the purpose of the Silver Line Extension Alternatives Analysis is to assess the feasibility, utility, and cost of various alignment and service frequency options of an extension of the Silver Line, providing high-quality transit from Chelsea through Everett and on to Somerville, Cambridge, and/or Boston. The analysis will include the development of conceptual designs for alternatives, in addition to modeling how the alternatives would interact with other existing services, parking, and transportation demand management policies. The intended outcome of this effort is a report containing the information necessary for MassDOT/MBTA to select a preferred alternative to move into design.


Red Line TOD District Framework Study

In November 2022, the MBTA received a grant through the Federal Transit Administration’s Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning to study and plan for TOD along the Red Line subway. This study aims to explore how concentrated development areas along the Red Line could be leveraged through District Improvement Financing or other mechanisms to provide sustainable revenue support for capital improvements necessitated by the increased transit demand generated in these growth areas. The analysis will include a development-focused station area assessment, best practices and policy frameworks, and identification of potential districts. The intended outcome of this study is a report to provide the MBTA with tailored recommendations for each of the selected study locations.


Corridor, Area, or General Studies

Regional or Subregional Studies


Route 128 Land Use Study

This study will establish future land use, housing, and economic development assumptions of the segment of Route 128 between Newton and Lexington and make recommendations to improve access to destinations and mobility in the region.


Municipal Studies

City of Boston

Rutherford Avenue—Sullivan Square Design Project

The City of Boston is progressing with the redesign of the Rutherford Avenue corridor in Charlestown, which extends approximately 1.5 miles from the North Washington Street Bridge to Sullivan Square and provides a critical connection between Everett, Somerville, suburbs north and east of Boston, and Boston’s downtown business area. Reconstruction of this corridor is currently programmed in the Transportation Improvement Program beginning in 2022. The corridor’s highway-like design is inconsistent with present-day design preferences and local circumstances, and the function and design of the Sullivan Square rotary is problematic. Pedestrian mobility is limited, and bicycle travel is not compatible with the high-speed road. The corridor is eight- to 10-lanes wide (120 to 140 feet), presenting a significant barrier between areas on either side of the roadway, such as the Bunker Hill Community College, Paul Revere Park, the Hood Business Park employment area, and MBTA rapid transit stations.


There are significant transit-oriented development opportunities along the corridor, and public investment in new infrastructure will support development of commercial and residential uses, whose tenants otherwise probably would not, or could not, locate to the area. A number of major structural elements in the corridor were constructed more than 60 years ago; they are approaching the end of their life cycle and will need to be replaced. With the Central Artery/Tunnel project now complete, more traffic remains on facilities such as Interstate 93 and US Route 1; therefore, reduced traffic volumes along Rutherford Avenue present a unique opportunity to transform the corridor’s character from a 1950s-era, automobile-oriented facility to a twenty-first century, multimodal, urban boulevard corridor that will accommodate private development.


Miscellaneous Studies and Planning Activities

Statewide Studies


Climate Adaptation Vulnerability Assessment

The Climate Adaptation Vulnerability Assessment is a planning-level analysis of which transportation assets are at risk to flooding over the coming century. This study identifies flood exposure for in-state National Highway System roads, bridges, and large culverts; MassDOT- and MBTA-owned rail; MassDOT facilities; and many public-use airports. It assesses damage and repair costs, time estimates for repairs, and considers the consequences from loss of service. Specifically, this study will estimate “do nothing” costs and qualitative consequences of at-risk transportation assets under future conditions assuming no intervention. This information can be used during the capital planning process to prioritize investments that avoid or reduce long-term climatic impacts associated with flooding.


Shared Travel Network

This study will develop recommendations about where and how to leverage existing facilities and resources that could contribute to the development of a shared travel network, as well as where these existing facilities could be expanded and where new facilities and assets could be introduced.


Regional or Subregional Studies

Colleges and Universities

New England University Transportation Center (Region One)

The New England University Transportation Center (Region One) is a research consortium that includes the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (lead university), Harvard University, and the state universities of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine. It is funded by the US Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers (UTC) Program. The New England UTC conducts multiyear research programs that seek to assess and make improvements for transportation safety as well as develop a systems-level understanding of livable communities. For more information, visit the New England University Transportation Center’s website at


back to top


Appendix B: Public Participation and Response to Public Comments

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) staff followed the procedures set forth in the MPO’s adopted Public Participation Plan while developing the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). These procedures are designed to ensure early, active, and continuous public involvement in the transportation-planning process.

The Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2023 UPWP development process began in October 2021. Staff solicited topics for study through outreach at Metropolitan Area Planning Council subregional municipal group meetings. Staff also sought suggestions and public input from other sources:

The document development process, described in Chapter 2, culminated in the MPO UPWP Committee’s recommendation for the FFY 2022 UPWP, including a set of new discrete studies. On July 21, 2022, the MPO approved a draft document for public circulation.

After receiving the MPO’s approval to circulate the public-review draft FFY 2023 UPWP, staff posted the document on the MPO’s website ( and used the MPO’s contact list (MPOinfo) and social media accounts to notify the public of the document’s availability and the opening of the 21-day period for public review and comment.

During the review period, staff presented the draft UPWP and this set of new studies at digital open houses and made themselves available to interested parties who wanted to discuss the draft FFY 2023 UPWP.

The following pages contain the comments received about the UPWP during the public comment period. All correspondents have received a response from the UPWP Manager.



back to top


Appendix C: Universe of Proposed New Studies for Federal Fiscal Year 2022 UPWP

This appendix describes the Universe of Proposed New Studies, a key step in the evolution of the federal fiscal year (FFY) Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The Universe documents the study concepts that the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) staff collected or suggested for the development of the FFY 2023 UPWP. Each entry includes a summary of the purpose of the proposed study.

The FFY 2020 UPWP development process introduced the Transportation Equity and Resilience categories. Table C-2 tracks the breakdown of studies chosen for funding in the UPWP from FFY 2016 to the present by category.

Staff and the UPWP Committee evaluate each proposed study in the Universe based on the extent to which a study concept addresses each of the six Long-Range Transportation Plan goal areas:

The process of developing a final list of studies to be funded also includes consideration of staff capacity in relevant areas and work that is occurring in other agencies to avoid redundancy.

In addition to evaluating the proposed new studies in the Universe, MPO staff defines general scopes and estimated costs for the proposed studies and considers potential feasibility issues. These various factors, along with the availability of funds for new studies, were considered as staff identified a recommended set of new proposed planning studies for review by the UPWP Committee. For more information about the process of developing and evaluating the Universe, please see Chapter 2.


Table C-1
Universe of Proposed Studies for FFY 2023

Study Information   LRTP Goals
ID Project Name Project Purpose and Outcome Notes S SP/M CM/M TE CA/SC EV
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION n/a   Key: 5 = most relevant, 1 = least relevant
A-1 Shared-Use Path Guidebook Purpose: The purpose of the Shared-Use Path Guidebook project will be to provide municipalities and advocates with recommendations for bringing a shared-use path concept to reality. The UPWP project will entail interviewing municipal staff and advocates who have successfully brought shared-use paths to their communities, helping to inform future path-planning efforts using these effective experiences.

Anticipated Outcome: This study would result in a guidebook for municipalities to consult when considering a shared-use path project.

Estimated Budget: $60,000
blank 5 1 4 3 3 1
A-2 Impact of New Active Transportation Facilities in the Boston Region Purpose: The goal of this project is to analyze, in a before-and-after style (where possible), impacts of new bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (as documented at this link: constructed largely as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Variables to be considered could include speed data; accessibility to key destinations; economic impacts (potentially drawing from the recently released MassDOT research project on the economic impact of shared-use paths); and safety data before and after new facilities are constructed.

Anticipated Outcome: A memo or study reporting cost/benefit analyses of capital projects intended to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Estimated Budget: $40,000-$60,000
blank 5 1 4 2 3 1
A-3 Update Bicyclist/Pedestrian Count Database Purpose: The Bicyclist/Pedestrian Count Database that the MPO maintains ( has not added new counts since 2019. As we are asked to include pedestrian and cyclist counts during project initiation and scoping, and as traffic counts are encouraged to be no older than two years, it would be helpful for the District and member municipalities if the MPO resumed this counting program. Additionally, the previously counted locations are largely centered on portions of the inner core and along the Minuteman Greenway. Some extra attention to developing and restarting a robust program may be necessary to ensure that a broad range of geographies and future project locations are included.
Anticipated Outcomes: The anticipated outcome of this project would be an updated database of bicycle and pedestrian counts with a more expanded geography.
Estimated Budget: $80,000
blank 4 1 2 1 4 1
M-1 Multi-Municipality Parking Study Purpose: MAPC and CTPS propose collaborating on a research study to assess regional parking demand and utilization at commercial/mixed-use developments, with a particular focus on lab/life science facilities. As more lab facilities are proposed throughout the Greater Boston region, developers are suggesting that high amounts of parking are needed on-site, which is sparking concern from municipalities about the potential impacts on local and regional transportation systems. MAPC's Perfect Fit Parking research, which assessed regional parking demand and utilization at multifamily housing developments, can provide a potential model to help determine the appropriate amount of parking at lab facilities and to avoid overbuilding.

Anticipated Outcome: A database organizing parking rates, policies, permit programs of municipal and lab parking spaces in the Boston region, as well as a model determining the appropriate amount of parking needed at lab facilities given the surrounding community.

Estimated Budget: $125,000
blank 1 1 3 3 3 5
T-1 Flexible Fixed-Route Bus Service Purpose: This study would identify the costs and benefits of allowing on-demand stops (in between existing stops) on low ridership bus routes and/or during off-peak service to increase safety and convenience for riders. Conducted in collaboration with RTAs, this study also would aim to map RTA service areas and identify gaps in service.

 Anticipated Outcomes: Maps of RTA service routes.

Estimated Budget: $40,00060,000
blank 2 2 4 4 2 2
T-2 Transit Modernization Program, Phase 1 Purpose:  This study would dedicate staff time to develop materials and direction for the Transit Modernization Program that begins in FFY 2025. Beginning early would assist CATA, MWRTA, and the MBTA in identifying eligible needs and coordinating efforts with municipalities before the funding program solicits applications.

Anticipated Outcomes: Guidelines and materials to assist transportation agencies in coordinating with municipalities during the application process for the Transit Modernization Program.

Estimated Budget: $75,000 
blank 2 4 4 3 2 2
T-3 Opportunities for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the Boston Region Purpose: This study addresses four of the six MPO’s goals with Transportation Equity as the primary focus and Clean Air/Clean Communities, Capacity Management/Mobility, and Economic Vitality as secondary objectives. BRT addresses transportation equity by focusing on improving the frequency, speed, reliability, and quality of bus transit service, which is disproportionately used by low-income and minority riders. These bus service enhancements provide disadvantaged populations with greater accessibility to jobs and services and improve overall quality of life by allowing people to spend more time at origins and destinations and less time waiting for service. It can also extend the reach of rapid rail transit services by feeding terminal stations and providing line-to-line transfers outside downtown. BRT also addresses the other goals: Clean Air/Clean Communities, by inducing a mode shift away from private automobiles; Capacity Management/Mobility, by increasing capacity of bus routes with greater frequency and longer vehicles; and Economic Vitality, by promoting more sustainable transit-oriented development nearby stations.

In 2015, ITDP conducted a BRT analysis, Better Rapid Transit for Greater Boston, that identified five potential corridors for BRT in the Boston Region and provided the time savings estimates. This study will build on the ITDP study by measuring the accessibility benefits of BRT along these and five additional corridors. MPO staff will leverage innovative transit analysis tools such as Conveyal to estimate the number of additional jobs, services, and destinations BRT could provide to environmental justice communities throughout the Boston Region.

Anticipated Outcomes: A memo outlining potential new corridors for BRT and potential benefits and impacts of such an expansion on environmental justice communities and economic development.

Estimated Budget: $80,000
blank 1 5 4 3 4 4
T-4 Funding Free Fares: Possibilities of Eliminating Fares with Value Capture Purpose:  In recent years, transit providers in Massachusetts, including providers in Boston, Worcester, Brockton, and Lawrence, have piloted or are currently piloting fare elimination projects. Eliminating fares has the potential to improve transportation equity, reduce barriers to ridership, and eliminate the expense of operating a fare collection system. However, while eliminating fares has many potential benefits, what remains less clear is how transit providers could pay for it.

This study would estimate the feasibility of replacing fare revenue with value capture tools. In 2017, MAPC published Expanding the Use of Value Capture for Transportation and TOD in Massachusetts, which provides an overview of the value capture tools currently employed and available in the Commonwealth. This analysis will expand on the MAPC study by estimating the revenue potential of value capture tools to replace the loss of fare revenue. MPO staff will estimate the revenue potential of value capture tools through the implementation of property assessments and sales taxes at varying distances near MBTA transit services. Staff will create a memo that describes the feasibility of available value capture options to replace fare revenue. The memo will provide details on the amount and geographic extent of property assessments and sale taxes necessary to fully fund the MBTA transit system. Staff will also investigate the possibility of replacing fares with value capture along specific transit routes, modes, and stations.

There are many potential benefits of relying on value capture to fund a fare-free transit system. It is well established in the literature that high-quality transit services can have a positive effect on nearby property values and retail revenue. Value capture tools “capture” a portion of this value with property assessments and sales taxes on nearby properties and businesses to fund the operating and capital costs of the transit service. Funding transit with value capture also allows the transit provider to take advantage of positive feedback loops. Eliminating fares induces higher transit ridership which leads to greater retail sales at transit accessible businesses. Similarly, the improvements in accessibility offered by transit services lead to an uplift of nearby property value. These increases to property value and sales revenue lead to more funds to operate, improve, and expand the transit network. Greater funds allow the transit service provider to improve the accessibility benefits of the transit network with greater frequency, reliability, and coverage, which results in more revenue.

Anticipated Outcome: A dataset documenting survey responses and a memorandum or web page presenting the analysis. Data will be made available to agency partners and municipalities throughout the region.

Estimated Budget: $60,000
blank 2 2 5 5 5 4
TRANSIT EQUITY                  
TE-1 Analyzing the Environmental Justice Impacts of Congestion Pricing  Purpose: The transportation burden on EJ communities is one of the major reasons that MPOs were created. In the 20th century in particular, transportation innovations were deliberately created and implemented with a purpose to burden different population groups. Congestion pricing is a new proposal that is occurring in several places in the world. While there are surely benefits to congestion pricing, these strategies have not been previously imposed in the Boston region. Therefore, it is ideal to conduct due diligence to ensure that this these traffic mitigation strategies do not adversely impact disadvantaged population groups.

This study will analyze the benefits and burdens that congestion pricing strategies will have on EJ populations, including minorities and low-income populations. This study can also analyze the impact of congestion pricing with other vulnerable populations, such as seniors and disabled individuals, and carless households. Potential adverse impacts to congestion pricing include the increase of congestion in or leading to EJ communities, the disproportional increase of transportation costs to EJ populations relative to population, and the reduction of transportation options in EJ communities. This study will look at different impacts of different methods of congestion pricing, including cordon pricing, HOT lanes, tolling, and parking pricing. This study will also look at potential strategies to alleviate potential burdens, including variable pricing based on the income of the people using the transportation facility.

Anticipated Outcomes: Memo or paper outlining benefits and concerns of congestion pricing strategies as they relate to EJ communities.

Estimated Budget: $60,000-$80,000
blank 2 2 5 5 5 3
TE-2 Equity Analysis of Demand-Response Transit in the Boston Region Purpose: In line with the recent federal emphasis area to "target demand-response service towards communities with higher concentrations of older adults and those with poor access to essential services," this study will assess the existing conditions of demand-response transit in the region and evaluate whether it is meeting the needs of these traditionally underrepresented communities.

Anticipated Outcomes: Memo outlining where service to essential services is limited, along with maps of said corridors.

Estimated Budget: $20,000 
blank 1 1 3 5 3 2
TE-3 Assessing Mobility Options at Affordable Housing Developments Purpose: This project would conduct a site-specific assessment of mobility services for residents at a sample of affordable housing communities within the region. The task would evaluate mobility options for low-income residents from the perspective of accessing economic opportunities, medical facilities, schools, parks, grocery stores, and other daily needs. This study could fall under Transportation Equity Program as an "on-the-ground" counterpart to higher-level analyses from Conveyal and the travel demand model.

Anticipated Outcomes: Guidebook or similar manual for transit providers to take to housing authorities and develop more equitable transit options for people in affordable housing communities.

Estimated Budget: $100,000-$150,000
blank 2 1 2 5 4 4
TE-4 Chelsea Freight Electrification Survey
Purpose: The City of Chelsea has consistently demonstrated high levels of air pollution and associated health risks from transportation. Consequently, the City, through the North Suffolk Office of Resilience and Sustainability (Revere, Winthrop, Chelsea), is seeking to develop an actionable plan to advance the electrification of freight in key industry sectors, informed by a thorough analysis of freight patterns, technologies, economics, and policy impediments. The proposed project area encompasses a concentration of vital light industrial and industrial uses north of Boston, enveloping Chelsea, Everett, and Revere. The project area can be modified to right size the project, based upon the forecasted level of effort, availability of resources, and stakeholder feedback.

Anticipated Outcomes: Mapping freight patterns, memo outlining the advancement of freight electrification and impacts such a move would have on the area's economy, as well as potential policy implications.

Budget: $60,000-$80,000
blank 2 4 4 5 5 3

LRTP Goal Areas: S = Safety. SP/M = System Preservation and Modernization. CM/M = Capacity Management and Mobility. TE = Transportation Equity. CA/SC = Clean Air/Sustainable Communities. EV = Economic Vitality.





Table C-2
Studies Funded in the UPWP, by Category, FFYs 2016–23


  FFY 2016 FFY 2017 FFY 2018 FFY 2019 FFY 2020 FFY 2021 FFY 2022 FFY 2023
Active Transportation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
Land Use, Environment, and Economy blank 1 1 1 0 1 3 0
Roadway and Multimodal Mobility 3 4 5 6 4 5 5 1
Transit 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 4
Transportation Equity* 1 blank blank 0 1 0 1 4
Resilience*   blank blank blank 1 1 0 0
Other 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 0
Total 8 8 10 10 11 13 12 12


*New category in FFY 2020



back to top

Appendix D: Geographic Distribution of UPWP Studies and Technical Analyses


This appendix summarizes the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)-funded work products produced by MPO staff (the Central Transportation Planning Staff) and the staff of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) during federal fiscal years (FFY) 2010 through 2022, as well as work products expected to be completed by the end of FFY 2022. The narrative below describes the methodology used to compile this information, as well as some of the additional factors that could be used to further analyze and use these data to inform and guide public involvement and regional equity considerations.


Purpose and methodology


The purpose of this data collection is to better understand the geographic spread of Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) work products (that is, reports and technical memoranda) throughout the Boston region. This analysis provides an initial glimpse at which communities and areas of the metropolitan region have benefited from transportation studies and analyses (or have been recipients of technical support) conducted by the MPO staff with continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative (3C) planning funds.


In addition, this Appendix includes a preliminary analysis of the distribution of MPO work products to minority populations, low-income populations, and people with limited English proficiency based on their share of the population in each municipality. This is an initial approach to assessing the extent to which MPO studies may benefit these populations; further development of the UPWP Study Recommendations Tracking Database, including geocoding of studies and creation of an interactive online interface, will eventually allow a more precise analysis of where and how study and analysis funds are spent.


Table D-1 presents a summary of UPWP tasks completed from FFY 2010 through FFY 2022 that resulted in benefits to specific municipalities, aggregated to the subregional level. Table D-2 presents this information disaggregated by municipality. Studies that had a regional focus are presented in Table D-3.


Tracking the geographic distribution of UPWP studies (those benefiting specific communities and those benefiting a wider portion of the region) can serve as one important input into the UPWP funding decisions made each FFY. When considered in combination with other information, these data on geographic distribution of MPO-funded UPWP studies can help guide the MPO’s public outreach to ensure that, over time, we are meeting the needs of the region with the funds allocated through the UPWP.


Table D-1
Summary of Distribution of Work Products by FFY and Subregion


Subregion Number of Work Products Demographics
Name FFYs 2010–15 Total FFY 2016 FFY 2017 FFY 2018 FFY 2019 FFY 2020 FFY 2021 FFY 2022 FFYs 2010–22 Total Total Population Percent Minority Percentage of Residents in Poverty Percentage of Residents with LEP
ICC 155 19 21 32 26 17 14 20 304                  1,763,304 48.1% 26.1% 16.0%
MAGIC 78 2 5 16 16 9 6 4 136                       181,858 26.8% 8.7% 5.4%
MWRC 72 5 12 2 2 0 9 3 105                       250,783 33.8% 13.8% 9.2%
NSPC 50 10 10 2 3 1 1 1 78                       217,978 19.8% 10.5% 4.6%
NSTF 35 2 23 10 7 4 1 6 88                       293,734 17.0% 17.6% 5.5%
SSC 35 1 0 5 3 3 1 9 57                       224,764 17.5% 13.5% 3.9%
SWAP 37 0 0 2 0 0 3 1 43                       149,159 19.6% 10.7% 4.5%
TRIC 44 2 2 6 15 14 10 10 103                       275,614 29.1% 11.5% 7.0%
Regionwide Total 506 41 73 75 72 48 45 54 914                  3,357,194 36.5% 19.6% 11.2%





Minority population: U.S. Census Bureau; 2020 Decennial Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171), Table P2: Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race;; (2022-06-15); Low-income population: U.S. Census Bureau; 2016–20 American Community Survey, Table C17002: Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months;; (2022-06-15); People with LEP: U.S. Census Bureau; 2016–20 American Community Survey, Table B16004: Age by Language Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over;; (2022-06-15).



As noted above, this analysis examined FFYs 2010 through 2022. To generate information on the number of UPWP studies produced during these FFYs that benefitted specific cities and towns in the Boston region, MPO staff performed the following tasks:

Planning Studies and Technical Analyses by Community

Table D-2 shows the number of completed MPO-funded UPWP work products from FFY 2010 through FFY 2022 that are determined to provide benefits to specific municipalities. Studies and technical analyses are grouped by the year in which they were completed, rather than the year in which they were first programmed in the UPWP. Examples of the types of studies and work in the table include the following:



Table D-2
Number of UPWP Tasks by FFY and Municipality, Grouped by Subregion


Municipality Number of Work Products Demographics  
2010–15 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2010–22 Total Total Population Percent Minority Percentage of Residents in Poverty Percentage of Residents with LEP Median Income
Arlington 3 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 13                          46,308 24.8% 11.0% 6.0% $114,576
Belmont 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 9                          27,295 30.4% 9.3% 8.5% $140,500
Boston 22 3 2 5 9 3 5 11 60                       675,647 55.4% 32.0% 16.9% $76,298
Brookline 5 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 13                          63,191 34.7% 17.6% 9.2% $113,642
Cambridge 9 4 5 2 1 1 0 0 22                       118,403 44.6% 19.8% 8.3% $107,490
Chelsea 10 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 17                          40,787 79.8% 39.0% 40.2% $60,370
Everett 13 2 1 3 1 2 0 0 22                          49,075 65.9% 31.6% 29.9% $70,627
Lynn 7 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 12                       101,253 65.9% 35.2% 26.8% $61,329
Malden 10 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 16                          66,263 60.0% 32.0% 26.8% $73,399
Medford 6 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 11                          59,659 33.2% 18.5% 10.2% $101,168
Melrose 6 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 9                          29,817 20.4% 12.3% 4.3% $114,604
Nahant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0                             3,334 9.0% 14.5% 2.4% $94,243
Newton 12 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 15                          88,923 29.9% 9.6% 6.3% $154,398
Quincy 11 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 19                       101,636 45.8% 24.3% 20.7% $80,462
Revere 7 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 13                          62,186 55.1% 32.8% 28.4% $68,331
Saugus 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4                          28,619 24.9% 17.9% 6.8% $88,463
Somerville 13 1 1 1 3 0 2 0 21                          81,045 34.8% 21.9% 10.3% $102,311
Waltham 12 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 20                          65,218 39.6% 19.8% 11.2% $95,851
Watertown 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 4                          35,329 26.9% 13.6% 9.6% $100,434
Winthrop 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4                          19,316 21.1% 16.7% 6.5% $76,996
ICC Subtotals 155 19 21 32 26 17 14 20 304                  1,763,304 48.1% 26.1% 16.0% N/A
Acton 6 1 0 1 3 3 0 0 14                          24,021 36.9% 11.8% 7.7% $137,981
Bedford 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 12                          14,383 26.5% 7.5% 4.8% $133,824
Bolton 4 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 8                             5,665 13.5% 7.5% 1.3% $167,708
Boxborough 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 6                             5,506 32.9% 11.6% 4.3% $126,597
Carlisle 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4                             5,237 21.2% 6.9% 1.8% $197,530
Concord 6 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 16                          18,491 18.2% 7.5% 4.1% $160,392
Hudson 7 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 10                          20,092 21.4% 10.9% 9.7% $96,038
Lexington 10 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 15                          34,454 43.3% 6.6% 7.1% $185,686
Lincoln 9 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 13                             7,014 23.8% 15.5% 1.8% $140,888
Littleton 5 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 8                          10,141 16.9% 10.9% 2.9% $125,275
Maynard 7 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 12                          10,746 17.0% 10.0% 5.8% $107,891
Stow 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 6                             7,174 14.3% 5.7% 2.7% $143,711
Sudbury 7 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 12                          18,934 19.1% 4.4% 2.4% $195,073
MAGIC Subtotals 78 2 5 16 16 9 6 4 136                       181,858 26.8% 8.7% 5.4% N/A
Ashland 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 5                          18,832 31.5% 10.0% 8.1% $118,348
Framingham 14 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 22                          72,362 46.3% 20.0% 15.0% $86,322
Holliston 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 6                          14,996 15.8% 5.7% 2.9% $137,589
Marlborough 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 9                          41,793 40.9% 19.6% 12.1% $83,469
Natick 9 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 13                          37,006 24.4% 9.6% 7.0% $115,652
Southborough 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 10                          10,450 24.5% 9.1% 5.0% $156,845
Wayland 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 6                          13,943 23.2% 5.4% 3.7% $192,632
Wellesley 11 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 14                          29,550 26.7% 6.3% 4.4% $213,684
Weston 14 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 20                          11,851 26.0% 15.0% 3.1% $206,250
MWRC Subtotals 72 5 12 2 2 0 9 3 105                       250,783 33.8% 13.8% 9.2% N/A
Burlington 11 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 14                          26,377 30.0% 11.0% 6.1% $121,433
Lynnfield 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6                          13,000 13.5% 10.2% 3.1% $145,594
North Reading 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4                          15,554 11.5% 7.1% 2.4% $123,042
Reading 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 12                          25,518 12.8% 9.4% 2.6% $131,515
Stoneham 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6                          23,244 18.6% 11.5% 4.4% $103,104
Wakefield 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 7                          27,090 14.3% 11.0% 2.5% $103,696
Wilmington 5 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 9                          23,349 13.8% 9.8% 3.0% $133,873
Winchester 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 8                          22,970 25.4% 7.8% 4.7% $173,058
Woburn 7 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 12                          40,876 27.2% 13.1% 8.6% $92,084
NSPC Subtotals 50 10 10 2 3 1 1 1 78                       217,978 19.8% 10.5% 4.6% N/A
Beverly 5 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 10                          42,670 15.4% 20.5% 4.2% $84,354
Danvers 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 9                          28,087 12.7% 12.6% 3.6% $99,269
Essex 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2                             3,675 7.5% 18.8% 0.9% $109,323
Gloucester 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3                          29,729 11.7% 21.0% 3.5% $76,260
Hamilton 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3                             7,561 11.1% 14.5% 2.0% $115,203
Ipswich 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2                          13,785 9.0% 14.5% 2.2% $103,941
Manchester-by-the-Sea 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 5                             5,395 6.7% 4.5% 1.4% $178,250
Marblehead 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4                          20,441 9.2% 9.5% 2.9% $131,293
Middleton 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3                             9,779 15.7% 5.1% 3.7% $145,525
Peabody 4 0 2 2 1 1 0 1 11                          54,481 22.7% 18.1% 9.6% $80,681
Rockport 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 6                             6,992 6.9% 13.2% 0.6% $87,149
Salem 7 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 18                          44,480 31.5% 29.8% 9.2% $66,428
Swampscott 3 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 7                          15,111 14.2% 13.8% 9.5% $102,898
Topsfield 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2                             6,569 10.0% 6.9% 1.2% $144,258
Wenham 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3                             4,979 12.6% 7.4% 2.4% $142,734
NSTF Subtotals 35 2 23 10 7 4 1 6 88                       293,734 17.0% 17.6% 5.5% N/A
Braintree 9 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 12                          39,143 29.9% 12.6% 9.3% $101,544
Cohasset 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4                             8,381 7.2% 11.2% 0.2% $141,036
Hingham 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 9                          24,284 8.5% 9.1% 2.1% $147,520
Holbrook 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3                          11,405 34.4% 14.8% 3.8% $79,718
Hull 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2                          10,072 8.3% 11.1% 0.8% $105,403
Marshfield 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3                          25,825 6.8% 13.6% 0.2% $105,067
Norwell 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 7                          11,351 8.8% 5.6% 0.8% $162,091
Rockland 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2                          17,803 17.5% 18.6% 3.7% $80,783
Scituate 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5                          19,063 6.6% 8.9% 1.7% $122,241
Weymouth 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 8                          57,437 22.6% 17.9% 5.5% $85,536
SSC Subtotals 35 1 0 5 3 3 1 9 57                       224,764 17.5% 13.5% 3.9% N/A
Bellingham 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4                          16,945 14.6% 9.4% 1.1% $103,258
Franklin 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3                          33,261 14.9% 10.0% 2.8% $118,193
Hopkinton 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7                          18,758 26.8% 7.3% 2.0% $172,683
Medway 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5                          13,115 11.7% 9.7% 2.4% $139,688
Milford 8 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 10                          30,379 34.0% 19.0% 13.7% $86,203
Millis 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3                             8,460 12.0% 10.9% 6.9% $114,255
Norfolk 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2                          11,662 15.9% 2.8% 1.2% $159,914
Sherborn 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5                             4,401 18.3% 7.3% 1.5% $216,406
Wrentham 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4                          12,178 10.4% 7.8% 0.7% $136,563
SWAP Subtotals 37 0 0 2 0 0 3 1 43                       149,159 19.6% 10.7% 4.5% N/A
Canton 2 0 2 2 1 3 0 1 11                          24,370 27.1% 7.9% 6.1% $107,442
Dedham 5 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 11                          25,364 22.0% 13.9% 4.5% $101,780
Dover 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 6                             5,923 19.2% 2.6% 2.8% Greater than $250,000
Foxborough 4 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 8                          18,618 16.4% 16.0% 4.0% $92,978
Medfield 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3                          12,799 12.5% 7.6% 1.2% $174,417
Milton 5 0 0 2 2 1 3 2 15                          28,630 29.0% 14.0% 5.2% $141,050
Needham 7 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 12                          32,091 18.9% 6.4% 5.0% $174,707
Norwood 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 9                          31,611 27.5% 15.9% 9.4% $90,341
Randolph 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 6                          34,984 73.4% 19.9% 18.9% $87,803
Sharon 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1                          18,575 33.2% 3.4% 6.1% $144,142
Walpole 4 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 9                          26,383 17.1% 10.0% 3.9% $126,489
Westwood 6 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 12                          16,266 17.2% 6.9% 5.6% $159,646
TRIC Subtotals 44 2 2 6 15 14 10 10 103                       275,614 29.1% 11.5% 7.0% N/A
Grand Total 506 41 73 75 72 48 45 54 914                  3,357,194 36.5% 19.6% 11.2% #N/A





Minority population: U.S. Census Bureau; 2020 Decennial Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171), Table P2: Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race;; (2022-06-15);  Low-income population: U.S. Census Bureau; 2016–20 American Community Survey, Table C17002: Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months;; (2022-06-15); People with LEP: U.S. Census Bureau; 2016–20 American Community Survey, Table B16004: Age by Language Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over;; (2022-06-15).


Regionwide Planning Studies and Technical Analyses

In addition to work that benefits specific municipalities, many of the projects funded by the MPO through the UPWP have a regional focus. Table D-3 lists MPO-funded UPWP studies completed from 2010 through 2022 that were regional in focus. Some regionally focused studies may have work products that overlap with those analyzed in the tables above.


More information on these studies and other work can be found on the MPO’s website ( or by contacting Srilekha Murthy, UPWP Manager, at


Table D-3
Regionally Focused MPO-Funded UPWP Studies


FFY 2022
·       Trip Generation Follow-up ·       MetroCommon 2050: Greater Boston’s Next Regional Vision
·       Travel Demand Management Follow-up
·       The Future of the Curb Phase 3
·       Identifying Transportation Inequities in the Boston Region
·       Staff Generated Research Topics
FFY 2021
·       Improving Pedestrian Variables in the Travel Demand Model ·       Rideshare Electrification Working Group
·       Regional TDM Strategies ·       Impacts of E-commerce in Massachusetts
·       Trip Generation Rate Research ·       Planning Successful Bus Priority
·       Access to CBDs Phase 2 Projects in Greater Boston
·       The Future of the Curb Phase 2 ·       MetroCommon Regional Plan Development
·       Multimodal Resilience and Emergency Planning 
·       MPO Staff-Generated Research Topics
·       Mapping Major Transportation Infrastructure Projects in the Boston Region
·       Exploring Resilience in MPO-Funded Corridor and Intersection Studies
FFY 2020
·       Operating a Successful Shuttle Program ·       Participation in Rail Vision Study
·       Further Development of the MPOs Community Transportation Program ·       Participation in East-West Rail Study
·       Disparate Impact Metrics Analysis ·       MetroCommon Regional Plan Development
·       Pedestrian Report Card Assessment Dashboard ·       Review of Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Estimates
·       Innovations in Estimating Trip Generation Rates ·       Inventory of National TNC Fee Structures
·       Review of Vision Zero Strategies ·       Analysis of How Local and State Governments in North America Use TNC Data for Regulation
·       Literature Review of Initiatives to Incentivize Zero Emission TNC Vehicles
FFY 2019
·       Pedestrian Report Card Assessment Dashboard ·       Coordination and convening of municipalities to implement recommendations of water transportation study
·       New and Emerging Metrics for Roadway Usage ·       MetroCommon Regional Plan for smart growth and regional prosperity, including extensive stakeholder outreach and public engagement
·       The Future of the Curb ·       Support for Blue Bike bikeshare system, Lime dockless bikeshare system, and support for coordinated regulation of electric scooters
·       Updates to Express-Highway Volumes Charts ·       Analysis of Transportation Network Company trips from varying data sources
FFY 2018
·       Community Transportation Program Development ·       Participation in Water Transportation Advisory Council
·       Review of and Guide to Regional Transit Signal Priority ·       Regional Plan Update process
·       Crash Rates in Environmental Justice Communities (Staff-Generated Research) ·       Evaluation of Transit-Oriented Development Planning Studies
·       Long-Distance Commuting in the Boston MPO Region (Staff-Generated Research) ·       Ride hailing research, literature review, and survey of 900 Uber and Lyft riders in Boston region to indicate how TNCs are affecting travel behavior.
·       Exploring New Software for Transit Planning (Staff-Generated Research) ·       Participation in suburban mobility working group with MassDOT, MBTA, and CTPS staff to discuss opportunities to pilot dynamic ride dispatching.
·       Safety Effectiveness of Safe Routes to School Programs
·       Planning for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles
·       Study of Promising GHG Reduction Strategies
FFY 2017
·       Using GTFS Data to Find Shared Bus Route Segments with Excessively Irregular Headways ·       North Suburban Mobility Study
·       Pedestrian Level-of-Service Metric Development ·       North Shore Mobility Study
·       Exploring the 2011 Massachusetts Travel Survey: MPO Travel Profiles ·       Perfect Fit Parking Report and Website
·       Exploring the 2011 Massachusetts Travel Survey: Barriers and Opportunities Influencing Mode Shift ·       Hubway Bikeshare Coordination
·       Core Capacity Constraints ·       MetroWest LandLine Gaps Analyses
·       Barriers and Opportunities Influencing Mode Shift
·       Bicycle Network Gaps: Feasibility Evaluations
·       2016–17 Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts
·       Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Memo (summarizing counts 2014–17)
·       Memorandum documenting plans for future Boston Region MPO bicycle and pedestrian counting methodologies
FFY 2016
·       Modeling Capacity Constraints ·       Right-Size Parking Report
·       Identifying Opportunities to Alleviate Bus Delay ·       Transportation Demand Management—Case Studies and Regulations
·       Research Topics Generated by MPO Staff (FFY 2016): Transit dependence scoring system using driver license data ·       Hybrid Electric Vehicle Retrofit Procurement
·       Title VI Service Equity Analyses: Methodology Development ·       Autonomous Vehicles and Connected Cars research
·       EJ and Title VI Analysis Methodology Review ·       MetroFuture Implementation technical memorandums
·       Transportation Investments for Economic Development 
FFY 2015
·       Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Alternatives: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ·       Population and Housing Projections for Metro Boston
·       Roadway Network for Emergency Needs ·       Regional Employment Projections for Metro Boston
·       2012 Inventory of Bicycle Parking Spaces and Number of Parked Bicycles at MBTA Stations  ·       Right-size parking calculator
·       2012–13 Inventory of Park-and-Ride Lots at MBTA Facilities 
·       Title VI Service Equity Analyses: Methodology Development
FFY 2014
·       Bicycle Network Evaluation  ·       Transportation Demand Management Best Practices and Model Municipal Bylaw
·       Household Survey-Based Travel Profiles and Trends ·       Land Use Baseline for Bus Rapid Transit
·       Exploring the 2011 Massachusetts Travel Survey: Focus on Journeys to Work ·       MetroFuture community engagement
·       Methodology for Evaluating the Potential for Limited-Stop Service on Transit Routes
FFY 2013
·       Regional HOV-Lane Systems Planning Study, Phase II ·       Regional Trail Network Map and Greenway Planning
·       Roadway Network Inventory for Emergency Needs: A Pilot Study ·       MetroFuture engagement at the local level, updates to the Regional Indicators Reports, and Smart Growth Profiles
·       Carbon Dioxide, Climate Change, and the Boston Region MPO: 2012 Update
·       Massachusetts Regional Bus Study
·       Boston Region MPO Freight Program
FFY 2012
·       Analysis of JARC and New Freedom Projects ·       Snow Removal Policy Toolkit
·       Safety and Security Planning ·       MetroFuture implementation strategies—updated implementation strategies including focus on equity indicators
·       Emergency Mitigation and Hazard Mapping, Phase II
·       Impacts of Walking Radius, Transit Frequency, and Reliability
·       MBTA Systemwide Passenger Survey: Comparison of Results
·       Pavement Management System Development
·       Roundabout Installation Screening Tool
·       TIP Project Impacts Before/After Evaluation
·       Regional HOV System Planning Study
·       Freight Survey
FFY 2011
·       Charlie Card Trip Paths Pilot Study ·       MPO Pedestrian Plan
·       Early Morning Transit Service ·       MPO Regional Bike Parking Program 
·       Maintenance Cost of Municipally Controlled Roadways ·       Toolkit for Sustainable Mobility—focusing on local parking issues 
·       Analysis of Responses to the MBTA Systemwide Onboard Passenger Survey by Respondents in Environmental-Justice Areas 
·       MBTA Core Services Evaluation
·       MPO Freight Study, Phase I and Phase II
·       MPO Freight/Rail Study
FFY 2010
·       An Assessment of Regional Equity Outreach 2008–09 ·       Creation of a GIS coverage and related database of MAPC-reviewed projects and their mitigation commitments
·       Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan Update ·       Implementation of the regional and statewide bicycle and pedestrian plans, and work on bicycle/pedestrian-related issues, including coordination with relevant national, state, and regional organizations
·       Greenbush Commuter Rail Before and After Study
·       Mobility Assistance Program and Section 5310 Review
·       Safety Evaluation of TIP Projects
·       Red Line-Blue Line Connector Study Support  



USes for the Data

MPO staff intends to continue to collect these data annually to allow use in future analyses and, potentially, UPWP funding decisions. The MPO could potentially use this collected data in concert with other data that the MPO holds or collects to inform a number of the following future analyses.

Analyses such as these would provide the MPO with a clearer understanding of the influence of the work programmed through the UPWP.





back to top

Appendix E: Regulatory and Policy Framework

This appendix contains detailed background on the regulatory documents, legislation, and guidance that shape the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) transportation planning process.


The Boston Region MPO is charged with executing its planning activities in line with federal and state regulatory guidance. Maintaining compliance with these regulations allows the MPO to directly support the work of these critical partners and ensures its continued role in helping the region move closer to achieving federal, state, and regional transportation goals. This appendix describes all of the regulations, policies, and guidance taken into consideration by the MPO during development of the certification documents and other core work the MPO will undertake during federal fiscal year (FFY) 2023.


Federal Regulations and Guidance

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act: National Goals

The purpose of the national transportation goals, outlined in Title 23, section 150, of the United States Code (23 USC § 150), is to increase the accountability and transparency of the Federal-Aid Highway Program and to improve decision-making through performance-based planning and programming. The national transportation goals include the following:

The Boston Region MPO has incorporated these national goals, where practicable, into its vision, goals, and objectives, which provide a framework for the MPO’s planning processes. More information about the MPO’s vision, goals, and objectives is included in Chapter 1.


FAST Act: Planning Factors

The MPO gives specific consideration to the federal planning factors, described in Title 23, section 134, of the US Code (23 USC § 134), when developing all documents that program federal transportation funds. In accordance with the legislation, studies and strategies undertaken by the MPO shall 

The Boston Region MPO has also incorporated these federal planning factors into its vision, goals, and objectives. Table E-1 shows the relationships between FFY 2022 MPO studies and activities and these federal planning factors.



Table E-1

FFY 2023 3C-Funded UPWP Studies and Programs—Relationship to Federal Planning Factors


Federal Planning Factor 3C-funded Certification Activities 3C-funded Technical Analysis and Support New and Recurring 3C-funded Planning Studies* Administration and Resource Management MAPC Activities
3C Planning and MPO Support** General Graphics Professional Development Long-Range Transportation Plan Transportation Improvement Program Performance-Based Planning and Programming Air Quality Conformity and Support Activities Unified Planning Work Program Transportation Equity Program Congestion Management Process Freight Planning Support Data Program Transit Working Group Support MPO Resilience Program Roadway Safety Audits Community Transportation Technical Assistance
Bicycle and Pedestrian Support Activities Regional Transit Service Planning Technical Support Update Bicycle/Pedestrian Count Database Flexible Fixed-Route Bus Service Transit Modernization Program Lab and Municipal Parking Study Learning from Roadway Pricing Experiences Sustainability and Decarbonization in the Freight and Logistics Sector in the North Suffolk Area Safety and Operations at Selected Intersections, FFY 2022 Addressing Safety, Mobility, and Access on
 Subregional Priority Roadways, FFY 2022
Addressing Priority Corridors from the LRTP Needs Assessment, FFY 2022 Multimodal Mobility Infrastructure Program Computer Resource Management Corridor/Subarea Planning Studies Alternative Mode Planning and Coordination MetroCommon 2050 Land-Use Development Project Reviews MPO/MAPC Liaison Activities  UPWP Support Land-use Data and Forecasts
for Transportation Modeling 
Subregional Support Activities 
1 Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency. X   X X X X   X   X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X       X X X     X X
2 Increase the safety of the transportation system for all motorized and nonmotorized users. X     X X X   X X X       X X X X   X       X X X   X X   X X     X X   X
3 Increase the ability of the transportation system to support homeland security and to safeguard the personal security of all motorized and nonmotorized users. X     X X     X X         X                                         X    
4 Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight. X X   X X X   X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X   X X X   X X X X
5 Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns. X     X X X X X X X   X   X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X   X X X X X X X X
6 Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight. X X   X X     X X X X X X X X X X X X X X   X X X X X X   X X     X X   X
7 Promote efficient system management and operation. X     X X X X X   X X X X   X X   X X X X   X X X X X     X X     X X   X
8 Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. X     X X X   X     X     X X X X     X X       X             X   X X   X
9 Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate storm water impacts of surface transportation. X     X X X   X           X   X       X X X X X X         X   X X X X   X
10 Enhance travel and tourism. X     X X     X   X         X X X X               X   X       X     X   X


*For ongoing FFY 2022 3C-funded studies, see FFY 2022 UPWP

** Includes Support to the MPO and its Committees, Public Participation Process, and RTAC Support



FAST Act: Performance-Based Planning and Programming

The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), in consultation with states, MPOs, and other stakeholders, has established performance measures relevant to these national goals. These performance topic areas include roadway safety, transit system safety, National Highway System (NHS) bridge and pavement condition, transit asset condition, NHS reliability for both passenger and freight travel, traffic congestion, and on-road mobile source emissions. The FAST Act and related federal rulemakings require states, MPOs, and public transportation operators to follow performance-based planning and programming practices—such as setting targets—to ensure that transportation investments support progress towards these goals. See Chapter 3 for more information about how the MPO has and will continue to conduct performance-based planning and programming.


Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL): Planning Emphasis Areas

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), signed into law on November 15, 2021, replaces the FAST Act as the nation’s five-year surface transportation bill, covering FFYs 2022–26. On December 30, 2021, the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration jointly issued updated planning emphasis areas for use in MPOs’ transportation planning process. Those planning emphasis areas include the following:

  1. Tackling the Climate Crisis—Transition to a Clean Energy, Resilient Future: Ensure that transportation plans and infrastructure investments help achieve the national greenhouse gas reduction goals of 50–52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and net-zero emissions by 2050, and increase resilience to extreme weather events and other disasters resulting from the increasing effects of climate change.
  2. Equity and Justice40 in Transportation Planning: Ensure public involvement in the planning process and that plans and strategies reflect various perspectives, concerns, and priorities from impacted areas.
  3. Complete Streets: Review current policies, rules, and procedures to determine their impact on safety for all road users. This effort should work to include provisions for safety in future transportation infrastructure, particularly for those outside automobiles.
  4. Public Involvement: Increase meaningful public involvement in transportation planning by integrating virtual public involvement tools into the overall public involvement approach while ensuring continued public participation by individuals without access to computers and mobile devices.
  5. Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)/US Department of Defense (DOD) Coordination: Coordinate with representatives from DOD in the transportation planning and project programming process on infrastructure needs for STRAHNET routes and other public roads that connect to DOD facilities.
  6. Federal Land Management Agency (FMLA) Coordination: Coordinate with FMLAs in the transportation planning and project programming process on infrastructure and connectivity needs related to access routes and other public roads and transportation services that connect to Federal lands.
  7. Planning and Environment Linkages: Use a collaborative and integrated approach to transportation decision-making that considers environmental, community, and economic goals early in the transportation planning process, and use the information, analysis, and products developed during planning to inform the environmental review process.
  8. Data in Transportation Planning: Incorporate data sharing and consideration into the transportation planning process.

While federal guidance is still being developing regarding the implementation of the BIL, the FAST Act’s national goals and planning factors remain in effect. For this reason, these components of both bills are listed here as governing regulations for the MPO’s transportation planning process.


1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

The Clean Air Act, most recently amended in 1990, forms the basis of the United States’ air pollution control policy. The act identifies air quality standards, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designates geographic areas as attainment (in compliance) or nonattainment (not in compliance) areas with respect to these standards. If air quality in a nonattainment area improves such that it meets EPA standards, the EPA may redesignate that area as being a maintenance area for a 20-year period to ensure that the standard is maintained in that area.


The conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act “require that those areas that have poor air quality, or had it in the past, should examine the long-term air quality impacts of their transportation system and ensure its compatibility with the area’s clean air goals.” Agencies responsible for Clean Air Act requirements for nonattainment and maintenance areas must conduct air quality conformity determinations, which are demonstrations that transportation plans, programs, and projects addressing that area are consistent with a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining air quality standards.


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 projects in the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) will not cause or contribute to any new air quality violations; will not increase the frequency or severity of any existing air quality violations in any area; and will not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards in any area. The policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating air quality conformity in the Boston region were established in Title 40, parts 51 and 53, of the Code of Federal Regulations.


On April 1, 1996, the EPA classified the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville as in attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Subsequently, a CO maintenance plan was set up through the Massachusetts SIP to ensure that emission levels did not increase. While the maintenance plan was in effect, past TIPs and LRTPs included an air quality conformity analysis for these communities. As of April 1, 2016, however, the 20-year maintenance period for this CO maintenance area expired and transportation conformity is no longer required for this pollutant in these communities. This ruling is documented in a letter from the EPA dated May 12, 2016.


On April 22, 2002, the City of Waltham was redesignated as being in attainment for CO emissions with an EPA-approved limited-maintenance plan. In areas that have approved limited-maintenance plans, federal actions requiring conformity determinations under the EPA’s transportation conformity rule are considered to satisfy the conformity test.


On February 16, 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a decision in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, which struck down portions of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) SIP Requirements Rule concerning the ozone NAAQS. Those portions of the SIP Requirements Rule included transportation conformity requirements associated with the EPA’s revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Massachusetts was designated as an attainment area in accord with the 2008 ozone NAAQS but as a nonattainment or maintenance area as relates to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As a result of this court ruling, MPOs in Massachusetts must once again demonstrate conformity for ozone when developing LRTPs and TIPs.


MPOs must also perform conformity determinations if transportation control measures (TCM) are in effect in the region. TCMs are strategies that reduce transportation-related air pollution and fuel use by reducing vehicle-miles traveled and improving roadway operations. The Massachusetts SIP identifies TCMs in the Boston region. SIP-identified TCMs are federally enforceable and projects that address the identified air quality issues must be given first priority when federal transportation dollars are spent. Examples of TCMs that were programmed in previous TIPs include rapid-transit and commuter-rail extension programs (such as the Green Line Extension in Cambridge, Medford, and Somerville, and the Fairmount Line improvements in Boston), parking-freeze programs in Boston and Cambridge, statewide rideshare programs, park-and-ride facilities, residential parking-sticker programs, and the operation of high-occupancy-vehicle lanes.


In addition to reporting on the pollutants identified in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the MPOs in Massachusetts are also required to perform air quality analyses for carbon dioxide as part of the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) (see below). 


Nondiscrimination Mandates

The Boston Region MPO complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Executive Order 12898—Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations (EJ EO), and other federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities it conducts. Per federal and state law, the MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin (including limited English proficiency), religion, creed, gender, ancestry, ethnicity, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, veteran’s status, or background. The MPO strives to provide meaningful opportunities for participation of all persons in the region, including those protected by Title VI, the ADA, the EJ EO, and other nondiscrimination mandates.


The MPO also analyzes the likely benefits and adverse effects of transportation projects to equity populations (populations traditionally underserved by the transportation system, as identified in the MPO’s Transportation Equity program) when deciding which projects to fund. This analysis is conducted through the MPO’s project selection criteria, which were recently strengthened to prioritize projects that provide benefits to these populations. MPO staff also evaluate the projects that are selected for funding, in the aggregate, to determine their overall impacts and whether they improve transportation outcomes for equity populations. The major federal requirements pertaining to nondiscrimination are discussed below.


Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 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, or national origin, under any program or activity provided by an agency receiving federal financial assistance. Executive Order 13166—Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, dated August 11, 2000, extends Title VI protections to people who, as a result of their nationality, have limited English proficiency. Specifically, it calls for improved access to federally assisted programs and activities, and it requires MPOs to develop and implement a system through which people with limited English proficiency can meaningfully participate in the transportation planning process. This requirement includes the development of a Language Assistance Plan that documents the organization’s process for providing meaningful language access to people with limited English proficiency who access their services and programs.


Environmental Justice Executive Order

Executive Order 12898, dated February 11, 1994, requires each federal agency to advance environmental justice by identifying and addressing any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. 


On April 15, 1997, the USDOT 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 1997 Final Order was updated in 2012 with USDOT Order 5610.2(a), which provided clarification while maintaining the original framework and procedures.


Americans with Disabilities Act

Title III of the ADA “prohibits states, MPOs, and other public entities from discriminating on the basis of disability in the entities’ services, programs, or activities,” and requires all transportation projects, plans, and programs to be accessible to people with disabilities. Therefore, MPOs must consider the mobility needs of people with disabilities when programming federal funding for studies and capital projects. MPO-sponsored meetings must also be held in accessible venues and be conducted in a manner that provides for accessibility. Also, MPO materials must be made available in accessible formats. 


Other Nondiscrimination Mandates

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Additionally, the Rehabilitation Act of 1975, and Title 23, section 324, of the US Code (23 USC § 324) prohibit discrimination based on sex.


State Guidance and Priorities

Much of the MPO’s work focuses on encouraging mode shift and diminishing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through improving transit service, enhancing bicycle and pedestrian networks, and studying emerging transportation technologies. All of this work helps the Boston region contribute to statewide progress towards the priorities discussed in this section.


Choices for Stewardship: Recommendations to Meet the Transportation Future

The Commission on the Future of Transportation in the Commonwealth—established by Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s Executive Order 579—published Choices for Stewardship in 2019. This report makes 18 recommendations across the following five thematic categories to adapt the transportation system in the Commonwealth to emerging needs:

  1. Modernize existing transportation assets to move more people
  2. Create a mobility infrastructure to capitalize on emerging transportation technology and behavior trends
  3. Reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and improve the climate resiliency of the transportation network
  4. Coordinate land use, housing, economic development, and transportation policy
  5. Alter current governance structures to better manage emerging and anticipated transportation trends

The Boston Region MPO supports these statewide goals by conducting planning work and making investment decisions that complement MassDOT’s efforts and reflect the evolving needs of the transportation system in the region.


Massachusetts Strategic Highway Safety Plan

The Massachusetts 2018 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) identifies the state’s key safety needs and guides investment decisions to achieve significant reductions in highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The SHSP establishes statewide safety goals and objectives and key safety emphasis areas, and it draws on the strengths of all highway safety partners in the Commonwealth to align and leverage resources to address the state’s safety challenges collectively. The Boston Region MPO considers SHSP goals, emphasis areas, and strategies when developing its plans, programs, and activities.


MassDOT Modal Plans

In 2017, MassDOT finalized the Massachusetts Freight Plan, which defines the short- and long-term vision for the Commonwealth’s freight transportation system. In 2018, MassDOT released the related Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Rail Plan, which outlines short- and long-term investment strategies for Massachusetts’ freight and passenger rail systems (excluding the commuter rail system). In 2019, MassDOT released the Massachusetts Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Massachusetts Pedestrian Transportation Plan, both of which define roadmaps, initiatives, and action plans to improve bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the Commonwealth. The MPO considers the findings and strategies of MassDOT’s modal plans when conducting its planning, including through its Freight Planning Support and Bicycle/Pedestrian Support Activities programs.


Global Warming Solutions Act

The GWSA makes Massachusetts a leader in setting aggressive and enforceable 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 (EEA), in consultation with other state agencies and the public, developed the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. This implementation plan, released on December 29, 2010 (and updated in 2015), establishes the following targets for overall statewide GHG emission reductions:

In 2018, EEA published its GWSA 10-year Progress Report and the GHG Inventory estimated that 2018 GHG emissions were 22 percent below the 1990 baseline level.


MassDOT fulfills its responsibilities, defined in the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020, through a policy directive that sets three principal objectives:

In January 2015, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection amended Title 310, section 7.00, of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (310 CMR 60.05), Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, which was subsequently amended in August 2017. This regulation places a range of obligations on MassDOT and MPOs to support achievement of the Commonwealth’s climate change goals through the programming of transportation funds. For example, MPOs must use GHG impact as a selection criterion when they review projects to be programmed in their TIPs, and they must evaluate and report the GHG emissions impacts of transportation projects in LRTPs and TIPs.


The Commonwealth’s 10 MPOs (and three non-metropolitan planning regions) are integrally involved in supporting the GHG reductions mandated under the GWSA. The MPOs seek to realize these objectives by prioritizing projects in the LRTP and TIP that will help reduce emissions from the transportation sector. The Boston Region MPO uses its TIP project evaluation criteria to score projects based on their GHG emissions impacts, multimodal Complete Streets accommodations, and ability to support smart growth development. Tracking and evaluating GHG emissions by project will enable the MPOs to anticipate GHG impacts of planned and programmed projects. See Chapter 3 for more details related to how the MPO conducts GHG monitoring and evaluation.


Healthy Transportation Policy Initiatives

On September 9, 2013, MassDOT passed the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive to formalize its commitment to implementing and maintaining transportation networks that allow for various mode choices. This directive will ensure that all MassDOT projects are designed and implemented in ways that provide all customers with access to safe and comfortable walking, bicycling, and transit options.


In November 2015, MassDOT released the Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide. This guide represents the next—but not the last—step in MassDOT’s continuing commitment to Complete Streets, sustainable transportation, and the creation of more safe and convenient transportation options for Massachusetts’ residents. This guide may be used by project planners and designers as a resource for considering, evaluating, and designing separated bike lanes as part of a Complete Streets approach.


In the LRTP, Destination 2040, the Boston Region MPO has continued to use investment programs—particularly its Complete Streets and Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections programs—that support the implementation of Complete Streets projects. In the Unified Planning Work Program, the MPO budgets to support these projects, such as the MPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Support Activities program, corridor studies undertaken by MPO staff to make conceptual recommendations for Complete Streets treatments, and various discrete studies aimed at improving pedestrian and bicycle accommodations.


Congestion in the Commonwealth 2019

MassDOT developed the Congestion in the Commonwealth 2019 report to identify specific causes of and impacts from traffic congestion on the NHS. The report also made recommendations for reducing congestion, including addressing local and regional bottlenecks, redesigning bus networks within the systems operated by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the other regional transit authorities, increasing MBTA capacity, and investigating congestion pricing mechanisms such as managed lanes. These recommendations guide multiple new efforts within MassDOT and the MBTA and are actively considered by the Boston Region MPO when making planning and investment decisions.


Regional Guidance and Priorities

Focus40, The MBTA’s Program for Mass Transportation

On March 18, 2019, MassDOT and the MBTA released Focus40, the MBTA’s Program for Mass Transportation, which is the 25-year investment plan that aims to position the MBTA to meet the transit needs of the Greater Boston region through 2040. Complemented by the MBTA’s Strategic Plan and other internal and external policy and planning initiatives, Focus40 serves as a comprehensive plan guiding all capital planning initiatives at the MBTA. These initiatives include the Rail Vision plan, which will inform the vision for the future of the MBTA’s commuter rail system; the Better Bus Project, the plan to redesign and improve the MBTA’s bus network; and other plans. The Boston Region MPO continues to monitor the status of Focus40 and related MBTA modal plans to inform its decision-making about transit capital investments, which are incorporated to the TIP and LRTP.


MetroCommon 2050

MetroCommon 2050, which was developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and adopted in 2021, is Greater Boston’s regional land use and policy plan. MetroCommon 2050 builds off of MAPC’s previous plan, MetroFuture (adopted in 2008), and includes an updated set of strategies for achieving sustainable growth and equitable prosperity in the region. The MPO considers MetroCommon 2050’s goals, objectives, and strategies in its planning and activities. See Chapter 7 for more information about MetroCommon 2050 development activities.


MetroCommon 2050 will serve as the foundation for land use projections in the MPO’s next LRTP, Destination 2050. The MPO’s next LRTP is currently in the early stages of development and is anticipated to be adopted by the MPO board in the summer of 2023. 


The Boston Region MPO’s Congestion Management Process

The purpose of the Congestion Management Process (CMP) is to monitor and analyze performance of facilities and services, develop strategies for managing congestion based on the results of traffic monitoring, and move those strategies into the implementation stage by providing decision-makers in the region with information and recommendations for improving the transportation system’s performance. The CMP monitors roadways and park-and-ride facilities in the Boston region for safety, congestion, and mobility, and identifies problem locations. See Chapter 3 for more information about the MPO’s CMP.


Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan

Every four years, the Boston Region MPO completes a Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (CPT-HST), in coordination with the development of the LRTP. The CPT-HST supports improved coordination of transportation for seniors and people with disabilities in the Boston region. This plan also guides transportation providers in the Boston region who are developing proposals to request funding from the Federal Transit Administration’s Section 5310 Program. To be eligible for funding, a proposal must meet a need identified in the CPT-HST. The CPT-HST contains information about

State and Regional COVID-19 Adaptations

The COVID-19 pandemic has radically shifted the way many people in the Boston region interact with the regional transportation system. The pandemic’s effect on everyday life has had short-term impacts on the system and how people travel and it may have lasting impacts. State and regional partners have advanced immediate changes in the transportation network in response to the situation brought about by the pandemic. Some of the changes may become permanent, such as the expansion of bicycle, bus, sidewalk, and plaza networks, and a reduced emphasis on traditional work trips. As the region recovers from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the long-term effects become apparent, state and regional partners’ guidance and priorities are likely to be adjusted.


back to top


Appendix F: Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Membership


The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) includes both permanent members and municipal members who are elected for three-year terms. Details about the MPO’s members are listed below.


The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) was established under Chapter 25 (An Act Modernizing the Transportation Systems of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) of the Acts of 2009. MassDOT has four divisions: Highway, Rail and Transit, Aeronautics, and the Registry of Motor Vehicles. The MassDOT Board of Directors, comprised of 11 members appointed by the governor, oversees all four divisions and MassDOT operations and works closely with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Board of Directors. The MassDOT Board of Directors was expanded to 11 members by the legislature in 2015 based on a recommendation by Governor Baker’s Special Panel, a group of transportation leaders assembled to review structural problems with the MBTA and deliver recommendations for improvements. MassDOT has three seats on the MPO board, including seats for the Highway Division.


The MassDOT Highway Division has jurisdiction over the roadways, bridges, and tunnels that were overseen by the former Massachusetts Highway Department and Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. The Highway Division also has jurisdiction over many bridges and parkways that previously were under the authority of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The Highway Division is responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of the Commonwealth’s state highways and bridges. It is also responsible for overseeing traffic safety and engineering activities for the state highway system. These activities include operating the Highway Operations Control Center to ensure safe road and travel conditions.


The MBTA, created in 1964, is a body politic and corporate, and a political subdivision of the Commonwealth. Under the provisions of Chapter 161A of the Massachusetts General Laws, it has the statutory responsibility within its district of operating the public transportation system, preparing the engineering and architectural designs for transit development projects, and constructing and operating transit development projects. The MBTA district comprises 175 communities, including all of the 97 cities and towns of the Boston Region MPO area.


In April 2015, as a result of a plan of action to improve the MBTA, a five-member Fiscal and Management Control Board (FMCB) was created. The FMCB was created to oversee and improve the finances, management, and operations of the MBTA. The FMCB’s authorizing statute called for an initial three-year term, with the option for the board to request that the governor approve a single two-year extension. In 2017, the FMCB’s initial mandate, which would have expired in June 2018, was extended for two years, through June 30, 2020. In 2020, the FMCB’s mandate was extended a second time for an additional period of one year, through June 30, 2021.


Following the expiration of the FMCB’s extended mandate, the MBTA Board of Directors was formed as a permanent replacement to provide oversight for the agency. By statute, the board consists of seven members, including the Secretary of Transportation as an ex-officio member. The MBTA Advisory Board appoints one member who has municipal government experience in the MBTA’s service area and experience in transportation operations, transportation planning, housing policy, urban planning, or public or private finance. The Governor appoints the remaining five board members, which include an MBTA rider and member of an environmental justice population, and a person recommended by the President of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.


The MBTA Advisory Board was created by the Massachusetts Legislature in 1964 through the same legislation that created the MBTA. The Advisory Board consists of representatives of the 175 cities and towns that compose the MBTA’s service area. Cities are represented by either the city manager or mayor, and towns are represented by the chairperson of the board of selectmen. Specific responsibilities of the Advisory Board include reviewing and commenting on the MBTA’s long-range plan, the Program for Mass Transportation; proposed fare increases; the annual MBTA Capital Investment Program; the MBTA’s documentation of net operating investment per passenger; and the MBTA’s operating budget. The MBTA Advisory Board advocates for the transit needs of its member communities and the riding public.


The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) has the statutory responsibility under Chapter 465 of the Acts of 1956, as amended, for planning, constructing, owning, and operating such transportation and related facilities as may be necessary for developing and improving commerce in Boston and the surrounding metropolitan area. Massport owns and operates Boston Logan International Airport, the Port of Boston’s Conley Terminal, Flynn Cruiseport Boston, Hanscom Field, Worcester Regional Airport, and various maritime and waterfront properties, including parks in the Boston neighborhoods of East Boston, South Boston, and Charlestown.


The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) is the regional planning agency for the Boston region. It is composed of the chief executive officer (or a designee) of each of the cities and towns in the MAPC’s planning region, 21 gubernatorial appointees, and 12 ex-officio members. It has statutory responsibility for comprehensive regional planning in its region under Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws. It is the Boston Metropolitan Clearinghouse under Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and Title VI of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. Also, its region has been designated an economic development district under Title IV of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended. MAPC’s responsibilities for comprehensive planning encompass the areas of technical assistance to communities, transportation planning, and development of zoning, land use, demographic, and environmental studies. MAPC activities that are funded with federal metropolitan transportation planning dollars are documented in the Boston Region MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program.


The City of Boston, six elected cities (currently Beverly, Everett, Framingham, Newton, Somerville, and Burlington), and six elected towns (currently Acton, Arlington, Brookline, Medway, Norwood, and Rockland) represent the 97 municipalities in the Boston Region MPO area. The City of Boston is a permanent MPO member and has two seats. There is one elected municipal seat for each of the eight MAPC subregions and four seats for at-large elected municipalities (two cities and two towns). The elected at-large municipalities serve staggered three-year terms, as do the eight municipalities representing the MAPC subregions.


The Regional Transportation Advisory Council, the MPO’s citizen advisory group, provides the opportunity for transportation-related organizations, non-MPO member agencies, and municipal representatives to become actively involved in the decision-making processes of the MPO as it develops plans and prioritizes the implementation of transportation projects in the region. The Advisory Council reviews, comments on, and makes recommendations regarding certification documents. It also serves as a forum for providing information on transportation topics in the region, identifying issues, advocating for ways to address the region’s transportation needs, and generating interest among members of the general public in the work of the MPO.


The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) participate in the Boston Region MPO in an advisory (nonvoting) capacity, reviewing the Long-Range Transportation Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, and Unified Planning Work Program, and other facets of the MPO’s planning process to ensure compliance with federal planning and programming requirements. These two agencies oversee the highway and transit programs, respectively, of the United States Department of Transportation under pertinent legislation and the provisions of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.


back to top