Image of report cover.

Transportation Improvement Program
Federal Fiscal Year 2025-29

APPENDICES

DRAFT FOR THE MPO, April 18, 2024

Contents

Appendix A: Project Prioritization and Scoring
Appendix B: Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Evaluation
Appendix C: Public Engagement and Public Comments
Appendix D: Geographic Distribution of TIP Funding
Appendix E: Regulatory and Policy Framework
Appendix F: Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Membership
Appendix G: Operations and Maintenance Summary

2025-29 TIP

Abbreviations

 

 

 


 

Appendix A: Project Prioritization and Scoring

INTRODUCTION

As described in Chapter 2, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development and project prioritization and funding process consists of numerous phases and is supported by several different funding sources. This appendix includes information about transportation projects that the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) considered for funding through the Highway Discretionary (Regional Target) Program in the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2025–29 TIP.

 

To be considered for funding by the MPO, a project must fulfill certain basic criteria. Projects evaluated through the MPO’s Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections, Complete Streets, and Intersection Improvements investment programs must meet these criteria:

 

For projects evaluated through the MPO’s Transit Transformation Program, the following criteria apply:

 

For projects evaluated through the MPO’s Community Connections Program, the following criteria apply:

 

 

If a project meets the above criteria, it is presented to the MPO board in the Universe of Projects (Table A-1) to be considered for funding. This project list is presented to the MPO board in November and provides a snapshot of information available on projects at that stage in the TIP development. Some projects that get evaluated for funding may not appear in the Universe, as more project information may become available following the compilation of the Universe. In addition, some projects that appear on the Universe list may not be evaluated each year if these projects are not actively being advanced by municipal or state planners or if they are not at the minimum required level of design for evaluation. Community Connections projects are not typically included in the Universe because proponents of those projects apply for funding through a discrete application process, the submission deadline for which is after the presentation of the Universe to the MPO board.

 

Once a proponent provides sufficient design documentation for a project in the Universe and the municipality or state is actively prioritizing the project for funding, the project can be evaluated by MPO staff. The evaluation criteria used to score projects are based on the MPO’s goals and objectives. After the projects are evaluated, the scores are shared with project proponents, posted on the MPO’s website, and presented to the MPO board for review and discussion. The scores for projects evaluated during development of the FFYs 2025–29 TIP for programming in the MPO’s Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections, Complete Streets, and Intersection Improvements programs are summarized in Table A-3. No projects were evaluated for inclusion in the Major Infrastructure investment program during the development of the FFY 2025-29 TIP.  Scores for projects that applied for funding through the MPO’s Community Connections Program during the FFYs 2025–29 TIP cycle are summarized in Table A-4.

 

Following the adoption of Destination 2050 in July 2023, the MPO revised the TIP evaluation criteria to better align with the MPO’s updated goals, objectives, and investment programs, including a new resilience goal area. These new criteria were employed during the project selection process for the FFYs 2025-29 TIP. The final criteria were informed by robust public engagement conducted during the development of Destination 2050 and developed through an update process that engaged MPO members, staff, and external stakeholders. The most significant update to the criteria for the FFYs 2025-29 TIP was the development of new and broader resilience evaluation metrics to align with the resilience goal area in Destination 2050 and elevate resilience to equal consideration in project prioritization alongside other goal-focused TIP criteria. This update created separate criteria for different project types within the Community Connections program given the diverse array of first-and-last mile projects that can be funded through the program.

 

The project selection criteria for each investment program are shown in separate tables in this appendix as follows: Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections (Table A-5); Complete Streets (Table A-6); Intersection Improvements (Table A-7); and Transit Transformation (Table A-8).

 

Community Connections project selection criteria are shown in separate tables in this appendix as follows: Bicycle Lanes (A-9); Bicycle Racks (A-10); Bikeshare Support (A-11); Microtransit Pilots (A-12); and Wayfinding Signage (A-13).

 

Archived project evaluation criteria for all investment programs, which were discontinued in October 2023 after the FFYs 2024–28 TIP cycle, are shown in Tables A-14 and A-15.

 

In addition to project scores, several other factors are taken into consideration by the MPO when selecting projects for funding. Table A-2 describes many of these elements, including the relationships between the MPO’s FFYs 2025–29 Regional Target projects and the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), studies and technical assistance conducted by MPO staff through the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), the federally required performance measures discussed in Chapter 4, and Massachusetts’ modal plans. These projects are listed by MPO investment program. More details about each of these projects are available in the funding tables and project descriptions included in Chapter 3. Performance-related information for the FFYs 2025–29 Regional Target projects is included in Chapter 4, and information about greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for these projects is available in Appendix B.


 

 

 

Table A-1
FFYS 2025–29 TIP Universe of Projects

 

This table contains unprogrammed projects in the Boston region that may be considered for evaluation in the FFYs 2024-28 TIP cycle. Not all projects listed in this table will be evaluated for funding in the FFYs 2024-8 TIP, as projects must be PRC approved and submit sufficient project documentation prior to scoring. The MPO has also established a policy to prioritize projects that have reached the 25% design submission stage for funding. This list is subject to change as more project information is received.
Key
  Evaluated for FFYs 2023-27 TIP
  New project in TIP universe for FFYs 2024-28 TIP
  In 2023-27 universe, not evaluated
                           
Municipality Project Proponent Project Name PROJIS Design Status (as of 10/6/21) Year Added to Universe Cost Estimate MAPC Subregion Highway District MPO Investment Program Notes Limits MAPIT? Previous Evaluation Score
Inner Core                          
Complete Streets                        
Boston Boston Reconstruction of Albany Street N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   6   Pursuing 2022 PRC approval.     N/A
Boston MassDOT Reconstruction on Gallivan Boulevard (Route 203), from Neponset Circle to East of Morton Street Intersection 606896 PRC approved (2012)  2018 $11,500,000 ICC 6 Complete Streets Resulted from FFY 2012 Addressing Priority Corridors MPO Study     N/A
Boston MassDOT Improvements on Morton Street (Route 203), from West of Gallivan Boulevard to Shea Circle 606897 PRC approved (2012)   2018 $11,500,000 ICC 6 Complete Streets Resulted from FFY 2012 Addressing Priority Corridors MPO Study     N/A
Boston Boston Roadway Improvements along Commonwealth Avenue (Route 30), from Alcorn Street to Warren/Kelton Streets (Phase 3 & Phase 4) 608449 25% submitted (9/28/2017) 2017 or earlier $31,036,006 ICC 6 Major Infrastructure Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP.     56
Boston MassDOT Intersection & Signal Improvements at VFW Parkway and Spring Street 607759 25% Package Received - R1 (3/09/2022) 2022 $4,526,907   6         N/A
Boston MassDOT Boston - Gallivan Boulevard (Route 203) Safety Improvements, From Washing  610650 PRC approved (2019)   2019 $5,750,000 ICC 6 Complete Streets Priority for District 6. Road safety audit being initiated.     N/A
Brookline Brookline Boylston Street (High Street to Brington Road) Complete Streets Improvements N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $3,500,000   6   Ped crossings, bike lanes, street trees.  Design through Toole with some facilitation from MassDOT.  Three options were pushed through and endorsed by the Select Board.  Town met with District 6 to run through this.  Should be in PRC soon.     N/A
Brookline Brookline Davis Street Path Restoration and Reconstruction of the Davis Street Path Bridge over MBTA N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $12,000,000   6   Conceptual stage.  Brookline is investigating avenues to use federal discretionary grant funding to advance this project.  Potential for bundling with Boylston Street work above.     N/A
Chelsea Chelsea Reconstruction of Spruce Street, from Everett Avenue to Williams Street 610675 PRC approved (2019)   2019 $5,408,475 ICC 6 Complete Streets       N/A
Chelsea Chelsea Reconstruction of Everett Avenue and 3rd Street, from Broadway to Ash Street N/A Pre-PRC 2020 N/A   6         N/A
Chelsea Chelsea Reconstruction of Marginal Street N/A Pre-PRC 2019 N/A ICC 6 Complete Streets       N/A
Lynn, Salem MassDOT Reconstruction of Route 107 608927 PRC approved (2017) 2020 $38,155,000   4         N/A
Malden Malden Broadway Corridor Reconstruction N/A Pre-PRC 2022 N/A   4   Malden is currently holding community meetings to discuss this project, with the most recent one being held 10.25.2022.     N/A
Melrose Melrose Reconstruction of Lebanon Street, from Lynde Street to Malden City Line 612534 PRC approved (2/10/2022) 2020 $3,742,432   4         N/A
Newton Newton Reconstruction of Washington Street, from Church Street to Chestnut Street N/A Pre-PRC 2020 N/A   6         N/A
Revere Revere Reconstruction of Ocean Ave, Revere Street, and Revere Beach Boulevard N/A Pre-PRC 2020 N/A   4   Project at conceptual stage with schematics, needs full design - investigating roundabout.  Key East/West connection.       N/A
Winthrop Winthrop Reconstruction & Improvements on Route 145 N/A PRC approved (2019) 2019 $7,565,512 ICC 6 Complete Streets       N/A
Intersection Improvements                          
Boston, Brookline Boston, Brookline Mountfort St. & Commonwealth Ave. Connection 608956 PRC approved (2017) 2018 $916,883 ICC 6 Intersection Improvements Preliminary design.       N/A
Lynn Lynn Intersection Safety Improvements at Boston Street at Hesper & Hamilton Streets N/A Pre-PRC 2023 $3,000,000   4   Based on 3/3/2023 meeting with Lynn.      
Medford Medford Intersection Improvements at Main Street and South Street 611974 PRC approved (2021) 2019 $8,498,000 ICC 4 Intersection Improvements Project location studied by CTPS. Priority for municipality.  Design is in progress, and eventually the City will work with MassDOT to fund construction.     N/A
Newton MassDOT Route 16 at Quinobequin Road 612613 PRC approved (2/10/2022) 2022 $4,350,000   6   Reconfiguration of the interchange may result in consideration of this project for the LRTP.      
Quincy MassDOT Intersection Improvements at Route 3A (Southern Artery) and Broad Street 608569 PRC approved (2016) 2020 $2,900,000   6   Priority for District 6.     N/A
Quincy Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive 610823 25% Package Received - R1 (1/27/2023) 2020 $1,145,580   6   25% design complete.  PM is Kathy Dougherty.       N/A
Quincy Quincy Merrymount Parkway Phase II N/A Pre-PRC 2022 N/A   6   December PRC.  Intersection improvement at Merrymount Parkway and Furnace Brook Parkway.  Parks Department is leading the work - David Murphy (617-376-1251).  Will include bridge replacement.     N/A
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Belmont Belmont Belmont Community Path Phase 2 N/A Pre-PRC 2023 TBD   4   akoumoutsos@tooledesign.com reached out 3/16/2023 to discuss initiation and funding through MassDOT      
Boston Boston Fenway Multi-Use Path Phase III N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   6   Project at conceptual stage.     N/A
Brookline Brookline Beacon Street Bridle Pathway N/A Pre-PRC 2022 N/A   6   Project in conceptual design through Toole, receipt of a MassTrails grant in 2020 for feasibility study.  Limits would be Audubon Circle to Cleveland Circle.     N/A
Everett, Somerville DCR Mystic River Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing 612004 PRC approved (2021) 2021 $38,218,334   4         N/A
Malden Malden Spot Pond Brook Greenway 613088 Pre-PRC - 25% design 2022 $3,250,000   4   Application obtained for 2024-2028.      
Medford Medford Wellington Phase 4 Shared Use Path 613082 Pre-PRC 2022 $1,195,000   4   ID # is not yet in PINFO.  Initiated on 11/3/2022.  Includes an earmark and Gaming Commission money.     N/A
Medford Medford MacDonald Park Pedestrian Bridge N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $800,000   4   In DCR park, City is requesting expansion of bridge to 10-12feet in width to coordinate with shared use pathway.     N/A
Major Infrastructure                        
Boston, Chelsea Boston Bridge Rehabilitation and Fender Pier Replacement, Meridian Street Over Chelsea Creek (Andrew P. McArdle Bridge) 600637 PRC Approved (2/10/2022) 2021 $97,538,787   6         N/A
Cambridge DCR Intersection Improvements at Fresh Pond Parkway/Gerry's Landing Road, from Brattle Street to Memorial Drive 609290 PRC approved (2018) 2019 $7,000,000 ICC 6 Intersection Improvements Short-term improvements being initiated.      N/A
Revere, Malden MassDOT Improvements on Route 1 (NB) Add-A-Lane 610543 PRC approved (2019) 2019 $7,210,000 ICC 4 Major Infrastructure Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is located on a regionally significant roadway. If this work includes capacity-adding elements, and it is programmed in the TIP, it will need to be included in Destination 2050.     N/A
Newton MassDOT Traffic Signal and Safety Improvements at Interchange 127 (Newton Corner) 609288 PRC approved (2018) 2019 $14,000,000 ICC 6 Intersection Improvements       N/A
Medford Medford Roosevelt Circle Interchange Reconfiguration N/A Pre-PRC 2022 TBD   4   As discussed on 11.4.2022 with the City of Medford, the City is looking to reconfigure the ramps and adjacent local roadways to improve traffic safety following the results of a RSA along this corridor.  Includes improvements for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access.  Given the state of repair on the bridges, this may be coordinated with bridge rehabilitation work for these structures over I-93.     N/A
Boston Boston Cambridge Street Bridge Replacement - Charlestown 612989 PRC approved (12/21/2022) 2022 $15,400,000   6   City wants this programmed to advertise this before Rutherford Avenue enters construction.  This is a difficult bridge under I-93 and next to Sullivan Square.       N/A
Revere Revere Route 1A Improvement and Reconfiguration N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $9-12,000,000   4   Project is in conceptual design stage.  The priority is to reconfigure the loop ramps at the General Edwards Bridge to facilitate redevelopment of the area, for which there are already parcel developments planned.  The reconfiguration will entail construction of a new roundabout and improved pedestrian crossings to improve access to the riverfront and Point of Pines area along Revere.  Per the City, this reconfiguration is intended to work with the Lynnway Multimodal Corridor improvements, but will also not impact construction for the General Edwards Bridge replacement.     N/A
Revere, Saugus Revere, Saugus Roadway Widening on Route 1 North (Phase 2) 611999 PRC approved (2021) 2021 $2,397,600   4   Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It Is on a regionally-significant roadway and would add roadway capacity. If programmed in the TIP, this project will also need to be included in Destination 2050. Robins Road to Route 99 interchange are the limits.     N/A
Community Connections                        
Belmont Belmont Belmont BlueBikes Expansion N/A N/A 2022 $250,000   4   Belmont is currently evaluating potential revenue streams to cover operational costs and match prior to submitting an application for this project.       N/A
Lynn Lynn Transit Signal Priority - Bus Upgrades for Lynn Route 107 N/A N/A 2022 TBD   4   Indicated in November 8th email to Ethan from Aaron Clausen     N/A
Waltham Waltham Waltham BlueBikes/Bikeshare Expansion N/A N/A 2022 TBD   4   Indicated in November 8th email to Ethan from Catherine Cagle.     N/A
                           
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination                  
Complete Streets                          
Bedford Bedford Roadway Reconstruction of Route 4/225 (The Great Road) 612739 PRC approved (5/12/2022) 2022 $10,899,448   4     Limits appear to go from North Road to match line near Loomis Street.  SRTS project completed in the area under 608000.     N/A
Intersection Improvements                          
Littleton Littleton Intersection Improvements at Route 119/Beaver Brook Road 610702 PRC approved (2020) 2020 $3,120,110 ICC 3 Intersection Improvements MassDOT agreed to fund design after 25% design approved. As of October 2022, the project remains in preliminary design.     N/A
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Bedford Bedford Minuteman Bikeway Extension, From Loomis Street to Concord Road (Route 62) 607738 47 2022 $11,218,186 N/A 4 Cost increase to $11,218,186. Initial targeted advertisement date of 8/13/22. Local concerns about permitting.  Previously programmed in FY23-27, dropped due to public opposition.  Failed to achieve 2/3rds majority in town meeting on 11.14.2022.     N/A
Concord Concord Assabet River Multi-Use Trail and Bridge Construction 612870 PRC approved (8/29/2022) 2020 $8,280,000 MAGIC 4 Major Infrastructure Project was originally a new Pedestrian Bridge with a $2-3.6M price range.  Scope has increased to include improvements for a multi-use trail alongside the bridge.  Cost has increased accordingly, and is now in preliminary design. Project location runs between the West Concord MBTA Station and the Concord Meadows Corporate Center with a hookup to the Southern Terminus of the Bruce Freeman.     N/A
Stow Stow Stow - Assabet River Rail Trail Construction 613096 PRC approved, in design. 2022 TBD   3   Project Info # is being reserved for this project's construction.  Recent earmark recipient for design under FFY22 House THUD bill (Rep. Lori Trahan).  Design line item added to FFY23-27 in AM2 and is retaining a project ID # S12749.        
Major Infrastructure                        
Acton MassDOT Intersection Improvements at Route 2 and Route 27 Ramps 610553 PRC approved (2019) 2020 $3,480,000   3   Project not programmed in LRTP (meets MPO roadway classification requirement). Priority for District 3 and Town of Acton. Project has had surveying and MSA design contracts opened for it.  MassDOT appears to be tracking as a Traffic Safety improvement.     N/A
Concord Concord Reconstruction & Widening on Route 2, from Sandy Pond Road to Bridge over MBTA/B&M Railroad 608015 PRC approved (2014) 2019 $8,000,000 MAGIC 4 Major Infrastructure Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is on a regionally significant roadway and includes roadway widening elements. If programmed in the TIP, this project should also be included in Destination 2050.     N/A
Lexington Lexington Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue N/A Pre-PRC 2019 $30,557,000 MAGIC 4 Major Infrastructure Project is programmed in Destination 2040 (FFYs 2030-34). The project is expected to include work on the I-95 Interchange with Route 4/225. If this work includes capacity-adding elements, it will need to be included in Destination 2050.     N/A
Community Connections                        
Concord, Lexington, Lincoln Concord Battle Road Shuttle Pilot N/A N/A 2022 TBD   4   Erin Stevens in Concord indicated interest in two shuttle options, an extension of a 2022 Summer Pilot for local service and a more regional service that would involve operations in Lexington and Lincoln.  See email from 12/5/2022 to Ethan Lapointe.     N/A
Lexington Lexington Lexington Shuttle N/A N/A 2022 TBD   4   May be a component of the Concord project listed above.  Outreach from Lexington on 12/5/2022 was somewhat vague, but expressed an interest in service.  Lexington receives MBTA service.     N/A
                           
MetroWest Regional Collaborative                      
Complete Streets                        
Wellesley Wellesley Route 135 Reconstruction (Natick Town Line to Weston Road) N/A Pre-PRC N/A TBD TBD 6 PNF submitted.  Discussing 10.14.2022.     N/A
Holliston Holliston Reconstruction of Concord Street (Route 126) N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Added through subregional outreach. Project is municipal priority, as it's tied to necessary below-grade sewer work. 10/12/22: MaPIT is showing that a project was initiated back on 7.14.2020 for this stretch for resurfacing and related work, assuming $600K in total cost (likely lowball).       N/A
Intersection Improvements                          
Framingham MassDOT Roundabout Construction at Salem End Road, Badger Road and Gates Street 609280 PRC approved (2018) 2019 $2,520,000 MWRC 3 Intersection Improvements       N/A
Weston Weston Intersection Improvements - Signalization of Route 20 at Highland Street N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   6   Added through subregional outreach.     N/A
Holliston Holliston Route 16 Washington Street at Whitney Street N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $500,000   3   Result of 12/20/2022 phone call between Ethan Lapointe and Robert Walker (Highway Superintendent).  Looking for signal installation.      
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Weston MassDOT Weston - Shared Use Path Construction on Route 30 612602 PRC Approved (2/10/2022) 2022 $1,050,000   6   Meant to connect into Project 608954.  District 6 priority to ensure that the shared-use-path there ties in to the rest of the bicycle network and concludes at a logical terminus.     N/A
Natick Natick Cochituate Rail Trail Extension, from MBTA Station to Mechanic Street 610691 25% Design Received (11/21/2022) 2020 $6,690,043 NSPC 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Final section of Cochituate Rail Trail Extension. Imminent 25% design submittal.  Applicant applied for FFY2024-2028 TIP funding.     N/A
Major Infrastructure                        
Framingham Framingham Intersection Improvements at Route 126/135/MBTA and CSX Railroad 606109 PRC approved (2010) 2019 $115,000,000 MWRC 3 Major Infrastructure Project is programmed in Destination 2040 (FFYs 2030-34).  May need to be pushed back with LRTP rewrite.  Consultant said that depressing Route 135 may be the solution.     N/A
                           
North Suburban Planning Council                      
Complete Streets                          
Burlington Burlington Town Center Complete Streets Improvements N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   4   Complete Streets upgrades along Route 3A from Bedford Street to Arthur Woods Avenue. The scope of work would be additive to existing resurfacing planned under 610704, and would focus mostly on paint.  There is potential for widening if the town's design includes a multimodal path while maintaining the current number and width of vehicle lanes. Organized opposition to bike lanes under 610704.  Backlash against some public support.  In public hearing for 610704, appx 30 people came out against.  Likely to manifest in this project as well. D4 and MassDOT are aware of this project.  Town is working with Northeastern University to have grad students on project and review plans.  Ethan has contact info for students (one is in OPMI). Route 3A (Bedford Street to Arthur Woods Avenue)   N/A
Lynnfield Lynnfield Reconstruction of Summer Street 609381 PRC approved (2019) 2019 $21,521,921 NSPC 4 Complete Streets Not yet at 25% design.  Bayside Engineering handling design, Norman Brown (781-932-3201, nbrown@baysideengineering.com) is PM.  Culvert and turtle crossings.  Town may consider descoping and phasing the project due to cost, per 12/20/2022 conversation with PM. Summer Street (Lynnfield Town Hall to Route 129).   N/A
Reading Reading Reading Downtown Improvement Project N/A Pre-PRC 2020 $7-$8 million   4   Project at conceptual stage.     N/A
Stoneham Stoneham Reconstruction of South Main Street, from Town Center to South Street N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   4         N/A
Wakefield Wakefield Envision Wakefield - Main Street Improvements 610545 25% Design Complete 2020 $16,581,200   4   Main St (Nahant to Water) and Water Street (Main to Cyrus) removed from project and bundled in 607329. 25% design incorporates some retention of angled parking in order to appease older public, but focus is on bike parking.  Strong public input from youth during town meetings led to approval. Key sticking point in FFY 2023-2027 Scoring was project cost ~$26M.  Bundling of some bike improvements into other nearby state highway projects has reduced budget to $16.5M as of the FFY2024-2028 funding round. Main Street (Water Street to Salem Street) Yes 41.8
Winchester Winchester Town Center Complete Streets Improvements N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   4         N/A
Intersection Improvements                          
Stoneham Stoneham Intersection Improvements at Main Street (Route 28), Franklin Street, and Central Street N/A Pre-PRC 2020 N/A   4   Project at conceptual stage.     N/A
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Stoneham, Wakefield Stoneham, Wakefield Mystic Highlands Greenway Project N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   4         N/A
Community Connections                          
North Reading North Reading North Reading Human Services Transportation N/A N/A 2022     4   Significant paratransit consideration.  Losing Merrimack Valley interdistrict service as North Reading falls between the MBTA and MVRTA.       N/A
                           
North Shore Task Force                        
Complete Streets                          
Beverly, Manchester-by-the-Sea MassDOT Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 127 607707 PRC approved (2013) 2018 $2,300,000 NSTF 4 Complete Streets Still in preliminary design.       N/A
Danvers Danvers Reconstruction on Collins Street, from Sylvan Street to Centre and Holten Streets 602310 75% submitted (3/5/2010) 2017 or earlier $5,183,121 NSTF 4 Complete Streets Updated 75% design submission needed for project to move forward. Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. Collins Street (Sylvan Street to Centre Street/Holten Street) 0.7 miles.  42.5566, -70.9539 Yes 46
Ipswich Ipswich Reconstruction of County Road, from South Main Street to East Street 611975 PRC approved (2021) 2020 $5,653,500   4   On 10/7/2022, Frank Ventimiglia mentioned that a bridge within the project limits has had a lane closed by MassDOT.  Structure IDs are I01005, main concern is Ipswich - 2PN which is an 1861-built historic stone arch mill bridge.  Currently functioning as a one-way.  OFF SYSTEM BRIDGE.  MassDOT contact is Ryan Wilcox. Town had approached as a traffic safety project with the bridge as a focal point.  Pier degradation and cracking.  Structure is under evaluation for a statewide bridge preservation contract. County Road (South Main Street to East Street) Y 45.4
Ipswich Ipswich Argilla Roadway Reconstruction and Adaptation (Crane Estate to Crane Beach) 612738 PRC Approved (5/12/2022) 2021 $4,628,419   4   Municipal priority for funding.  On 10/7/2022, Frank Ventimiglia at Ipswich DPW expressed an interest in pursuing MDP funding to support this project.   Argilla Road (Crane Estate to Crane Beach) Y N/A
Marblehead Marblehead Bridge Replacement, M-04-001, Village Street over Marblehead Rail Trail (Harold B. Breare Bridge) 612947 PRC approved (9/15/2022) 2019 N/A NSTF 4 Major Infrastructure Per 10.11 email with C Quigley, the project received a PRC and a PROJIS ID in September 2022 after a PNF was submitted 8/2022.     N/A
Manchester-by-the-Sea Manchester-by-the-Sea Pine Street - Central Street (Route 127) to Rockwood Heights Road N/A Pre-PRC; PNF submitted (12/27/16) 2017 or earlier N/A NSTF 4 Complete Streets       N/A
Manchester-by-the-Sea Manchester-by-the-Sea Bridge Replacement, M-02-001 (8AM), Central Street (route 127) over Saw Mill Brook 610671 PRC approved (2019) 2019 $4,350,000 NSTF 4 Complete Streets       34.8
Rockport Rockport Roadway Reconstruction of Route 127A (Thatcher Road) 612737 PRC Approved (1/23/2023) 2023 $12,058,173   4   Added to Universe in January 2023 based on PRC results.  PM is Marie Rose.  Sea level rise risk, talk to Judy Route 127A, Thatcher Road (Red Fox Lane to Seaview Street)    
Salem MassDOT Reconstruction of Bridge Street (Route 107), from Flint Street to Washington Street 612990 PRC Approved (1/24/2023) 2017 or earlier $12,067,500   4   Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is on a regionally significant roadway and would add roadway capacity. If it is programmed in the TIP, it will need to be programmed in Destination 2050.     N/A
Wenham Wenham Safety Improvements on Route 1A 609388 25% Approved (9/10/2021) 2019 $3,629,036 NSTF 4 Complete Streets Dan Wilk (daniel.wilk@state.ma.us) is MassDOT PM.  Working with Bayside Engineering as design consultant. MassDOT may fund this for construction in full, and Wenham is paying for design.  Bayside currently responding to 25% comments.  Drainage for abutters is holding this up.     N/A
Wenham Wenham Roadway Reconstruction on Larch Row and Dodges Row N/A Pre-PRC 2019 $800,000 NSTF 4 Complete Streets Project at conceptual stage.     N/A
Intersection Improvements                          
Essex Essex Targeted Safety Improvements on Route 133 (John Wise Avenue) 609315 PRC approved (2019) 2019 $2,135,440 NSTF 4 Intersection Improvements       N/A
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Peabody, Salem Peabody, Salem Riverwalk Project N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   4   MVP grant issued for project design.      N/A
Marblehead Marblehead B2B Bikeway Design - Marblehead N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $140,000   4   Earmark.  May be added via amendment.      
Peabody, Salem Peabody, Salem B2B Bikeway Design - Peabody/Salem N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $600,000   4   Earmark.  May be added via amendment.      
Major Infrastructure                          
Beverly Beverly Interchange Reconstruction at Route 128/Exit 19 at Brimbal Avenue (Phase II) 607727 PRC Approved (2014) 2021 N/A NSPC 4 Intersection Improvements Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. Is on a regionally-significant roadway, and would expand the interchange. If this project is programmed in the TIP and adds roadway capacity, this project will need to be included in Destination 2050.     N/A
                           
South Shore Coalition                        
Complete Streets                          
Holbrook Holbrook Corridor Improvements and Related Work on South Franklin Street (Route 37) from Snell Street to King Road 608543 PRC approved (2017) 2018 $4,000,200 SSC 5 Complete Streets       N/A
Hull Hull Nantasket Avenue Redesign N/A Pre-PRC 2023 TBD   5   Includes redevelopment of existing gravel squares in front of Nantasket Beach for additional facilities/recreational zones/open space      
Rockland Rockland Corridor Improvements on VFW Drive/Weymouth Street 612605 PRC approved (2/10/2022) 2021 $13,047,281   5   PNF entered in Jan 2022     N/A
Weymouth MassDOT Reconstruction on Route 3A, Including Pedestrian and Traffic Signal Improvements 608231 PRC approved (2016) 2017 or earlier $10,780,100 SSC 6 Complete Streets Pre-25% package submitted in July 2021.     N/A
Weymouth MassDOT Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 3A 608483 PRC approved (2016) 2018 $2,400,000 SCC 6 Complete Streets       N/A
Intersection Improvements                        
Cohasset Cohasset Intersection Improvements at Route 3A and King Street N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   5   Added through subregional outreach.     N/A
Hull Hull Intersection Improvements at George Washington Boulevard and Barnstable Road/ Logan Avenue N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   5   Added through subregional outreach.     N/A
                           
South West Advisory Planning Committee                    
Complete Streets                        
Bellingham Bellingham South Main Street (Route 126) - Elm Street to Douglas Drive Reconstruction N/A Pre-PRC; PNF submitted (3/13/17) 2017 or earlier N/A SWAP 3 Complete Streets Project would dovetail ongoing project 608887, rehab on Route 126 from Douglas Drive to Route 140.     No N/A
Bellingham Bellingham Bellingham - Roadway Rehabilitation of Route 126 (Hartford Road), from 800 North of the I-495 NB off ramp to Medway T/L, including B-06-017 612963 PRC Approved (9/15/2022) 2022 $10,950,000   3   Applied for FFY2024-2028.  BRMPO issued a full corridor study in 2011.      
Franklin MassDOT Resurfacing and Intersection Improvements on Route 140, from Beaver Street to I-495 Ramps 607774 PRC approved (2014)   2018 $4,025,000 SWAP 3 Complete Streets     Yes N/A
Hopkinton Hopkinton West Main Street Reconstruction and Shared Use Path N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $15,000,000   3   Priority is a shared use path under I-495 along W Main Street EB to link into existing trail networks and SUP in downtown area and commercial campuses west of I-495.  Includes a large roundabout at Lumber Street/Parkwood Drive and West Main Street due to frequent crashes. West Main Street (South Street to Wood Street)  No N/A
Medway Medway Improvements on Route 109 West of Highland Street N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Project at conceptual stage. Ethan will verify.  There is a project from Richard Rd. heading WB to Highland Street, which conflicts with the name of this project.  It was initiated in Nov. 2021. TBD Maybe? N/A
Milford MassDOT Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 16 612091 PRC approved (2021) 2021 $4,192,500   3       No N/A
Millis Millis Town Center Improvements N/A Pre-PRC 2020 N/A   3   Project at conceptual stage.   No N/A
Wrentham Wrentham Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 608497 PRC approved (2016) 2020 N/A   5   25% design anticipated July 2022.   Yes N/A
Intersection Improvements                        
Medway Medway Traffic Signalization at Trotter Drive and Route 109 N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Project at conceptual stage.   No N/A
Sherborn Sherborn Intersection Improvements at Route 16 and Maple Street N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Project at conceptual stage.   No N/A
Wrentham Wrentham Intersection Improvements on Route 1A at North and Winter Street 610676 PRC Approved (12/19/2019) 2020 $2,649,000   5       No N/A
Wrentham Wrentham Intersection Improvements at Randall Road and Route 1A N/A Pre-PRC 2020 $2,649,000   5   Project at conceptual stage.   No N/A
Wrentham Wrentham Intersection Improvements at Route 1A and Route 140 N/A Pre-PRC 2020 N/A   5   Project at conceptual stage.   No N/A
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Franklin Franklin Southern New England Trunk Trail (SNETT) Extension, from Grove Street to Franklin Town Center N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Project at conceptual stage.   No  
Hopkinton Hopkinton Campus Trail Connector, Shared Use Trail Construction 611932 PRC approved (9/24/2020) 2020 $1,750,700 NSTF 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian     No N/A
Norfolk, Walpole, and Wrentham Norfolk Metacomet Greenway N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   5   Project at conceptual stage.  Feasibility analysis complete.  Pilot development will start with Hill to Pine Street through old rail bed ROW.  Includes bridge over Route 115 due to traffic concerns.   No N/A
Sherborn Sherborn Upper Charles River Trail Extension to Framingham City Line N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Project at conceptual stage.   No N/A
Major Infrastructure                          
Bellingham MassDOT Ramp Construction & Relocation, I-495 at Route 126 (Hartford Avenue) 604862 PRC approved (2006) 2017 or earlier $13,543,400 SWAP 3 Major Infrastructure High priority for District 3   No N/A
                           
Three Rivers Interlocal Council                      
Complete Streets                        
Canton, Milton MassDOT Roadway Improvements on Route 138 608484 PRC approved (2016) 2020 $18,467,500   6   Milton also in ICC subregion. Project a high priority for the TRIC subregion. District is working to refine scope.  Nine miles in length, may require phasing. York Street to Truman Highway. Appx 9 miles. Yes N/A
Canton Canton Lower Randolph Reconstruction (Route 138, Turnpike Avenue to Colts Crossing) N/A Pre-PRC 2023 TBD   6   Emerged in discussions following application of Randolph and York Street Signal Installation for FFY 2024-2028 STIP.  Sidewalk installation, bike lanes, crosswalks, roadway rehabilitation, signal improvements at the Route 138 and, potentially, York Street intersection.  Crosswalks near Ponkapoag Pond trailhead. Randolph Street from Route 138 to Colts Crossing. No N/A
Medfield Medfield Reconstruction of Route 109 (Millis T/L to Hartford Street) N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Added through subregional outreach.  Working with Ann Sullivan and Arthur Frost at D3, BETA is design consultant. MIllis T/L to Hartford St. Maybe? N/A
Milton MassDOT Reconstruction on Granite Avenue, from Neponset River to Squantum Street 608406 25% submitted (2/10/2017) 2017 or earlier $3,665,146 TRIC 6 Complete Streets Milton also in ICC subregion.    No N/A
Milton Milton Adams Street Improvements, from Randolph Avenue to Eliot Street 610820 PRC approved (4/30/2020) 2020 $1,799,330   6   Milton also in ICC subregion.  Preliminary design. Randolph Avenue to Eliot Street at Neponset River.  Appx. 0.10 miles. -42.2703, -71.0679  No N/A
Needham Needham Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, from Webster Street to Great Plains Avenue 612536 PRC approved (10/21/2021) 2021 $10,402,402   6   Needham also in ICC subregion.   No N/A
Dover, Needham Dover, Needham Centre Street Bridge Replacement N/A Pre-PRC 2022 N/A   6   Historic-eligible, needs replacement as it is 1850's era.   No N/A
Westwood Westwood Reconstruction of Canton Street (East Street Rotary and University Avenue) 608158 25% Package Received (2/18/2022) 2017 or earlier $19,047,306 TRIC 6 Complete Streets Priority for municipality.  MassDOT expresses concerns regarding project readiness due to scope fluctuations.  PINFO includes bridge rehab work. Application submitted for FFY2024-2028.   1.9 miles Yes N/A
Intersection Improvements                          
Canton Canton Signal Installation at Randolph Street and York Street N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $500,000   6   Application submitted for FFY 2024-2028 TIP.  Municipality requested $50,000 against a total estimate of $500,000.  Significant funding in local mitigation fund for match. Randolph Street at York Street Yes N/A
Foxborough Foxborough Intersection Signalization at Route 140/Walnut Street and Route 140/I-95 (SB Ramp) 612740 PRC Approved (5/12/2022) 2021 $11,902,600   5   Added through subregional outreach. Town has advanced design outside of TIP process. District supports project.  Budget has increased from original $5M estimate in 2021.   No N/A
Medfield Medfield Intersection Improvements at Route 27 and West Street 612807 PRC Approved (5/12/2022) 2021 $3,987,500   3   Added through subregional outreach.    No N/A
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Canton Canton Warner Trail Extension, from Sharon to Blue Hills Reservation N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   6   Added through subregional outreach. Feasibility study currently underway.   No N/A
Major Infrastructure                          
Canton, Westwood MassDOT Interchange Improvements at I-95 / I-93 / University Avenue / I-95 Widening 87790 25% submitted (7/25/14) 2017 or earlier $202,205,994 TRIC 6 Major Infrastructure Project not programmed in Destination 2040. IIt is on a regionally-significant roadway and adds roadway capacity. If programmed in the TIP, this project would also need to be included in Destination 2050. Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. Regional priority, potential discretionary grant project via MassDOT for State Highway funding.   No 47

 

 

Table A-2
FFYs 2025–29 Regional Target Projects and Their Relationships to Plans and Performance Measures

 

This table contains unprogrammed projects in the Boston region that may be considered for evaluation in the FFYs 2024-28 TIP cycle. Not all projects listed in this table will be evaluated for funding in the FFYs 2024-8 TIP, as projects must be PRC approved and submit sufficient project documentation prior to scoring. The MPO has also established a policy to prioritize projects that have reached the 25% design submission stage for funding. This list is subject to change as more project information is received.
Key
  Evaluated for FFYs 2023-27 TIP
  New project in TIP universe for FFYs 2024-28 TIP
  In 2023-27 universe, not evaluated
                           
Municipality Project Proponent Project Name PROJIS Design Status (as of 10/6/21) Year Added to Universe Cost Estimate MAPC Subregion Highway District MPO Investment Program Notes Limits MAPIT? Previous Evaluation Score
Inner Core                          
Complete Streets                        
Boston Boston Reconstruction of Albany Street N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   6   Pursuing 2022 PRC approval.     N/A
Boston MassDOT Reconstruction on Gallivan Boulevard (Route 203), from Neponset Circle to East of Morton Street Intersection 606896 PRC approved (2012)  2018 $11,500,000 ICC 6 Complete Streets Resulted from FFY 2012 Addressing Priority Corridors MPO Study     N/A
Boston MassDOT Improvements on Morton Street (Route 203), from West of Gallivan Boulevard to Shea Circle 606897 PRC approved (2012)   2018 $11,500,000 ICC 6 Complete Streets Resulted from FFY 2012 Addressing Priority Corridors MPO Study     N/A
Boston Boston Roadway Improvements along Commonwealth Avenue (Route 30), from Alcorn Street to Warren/Kelton Streets (Phase 3 & Phase 4) 608449 25% submitted (9/28/2017) 2017 or earlier $31,036,006 ICC 6 Major Infrastructure Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP.     56
Boston MassDOT Intersection & Signal Improvements at VFW Parkway and Spring Street 607759 25% Package Received - R1 (3/09/2022) 2022 $4,526,907   6         N/A
Boston MassDOT Boston - Gallivan Boulevard (Route 203) Safety Improvements, From Washing  610650 PRC approved (2019)   2019 $5,750,000 ICC 6 Complete Streets Priority for District 6. Road safety audit being initiated.     N/A
Brookline Brookline Boylston Street (High Street to Brington Road) Complete Streets Improvements N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $3,500,000   6   Ped crossings, bike lanes, street trees.  Design through Toole with some facilitation from MassDOT.  Three options were pushed through and endorsed by the Select Board.  Town met with District 6 to run through this.  Should be in PRC soon.     N/A
Brookline Brookline Davis Street Path Restoration and Reconstruction of the Davis Street Path Bridge over MBTA N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $12,000,000   6   Conceptual stage.  Brookline is investigating avenues to use federal discretionary grant funding to advance this project.  Potential for bundling with Boylston Street work above.     N/A
Chelsea Chelsea Reconstruction of Spruce Street, from Everett Avenue to Williams Street 610675 PRC approved (2019)   2019 $5,408,475 ICC 6 Complete Streets       N/A
Chelsea Chelsea Reconstruction of Everett Avenue and 3rd Street, from Broadway to Ash Street N/A Pre-PRC 2020 N/A   6         N/A
Chelsea Chelsea Reconstruction of Marginal Street N/A Pre-PRC 2019 N/A ICC 6 Complete Streets       N/A
Lynn, Salem MassDOT Reconstruction of Route 107 608927 PRC approved (2017) 2020 $38,155,000   4         N/A
Malden Malden Broadway Corridor Reconstruction N/A Pre-PRC 2022 N/A   4   Malden is currently holding community meetings to discuss this project, with the most recent one being held 10.25.2022.     N/A
Melrose Melrose Reconstruction of Lebanon Street, from Lynde Street to Malden City Line 612534 PRC approved (2/10/2022) 2020 $3,742,432   4         N/A
Newton Newton Reconstruction of Washington Street, from Church Street to Chestnut Street N/A Pre-PRC 2020 N/A   6         N/A
Revere Revere Reconstruction of Ocean Ave, Revere Street, and Revere Beach Boulevard N/A Pre-PRC 2020 N/A   4   Project at conceptual stage with schematics, needs full design - investigating roundabout.  Key East/West connection.       N/A
Winthrop Winthrop Reconstruction & Improvements on Route 145 N/A PRC approved (2019) 2019 $7,565,512 ICC 6 Complete Streets       N/A
Intersection Improvements                          
Boston, Brookline Boston, Brookline Mountfort St. & Commonwealth Ave. Connection 608956 PRC approved (2017) 2018 $916,883 ICC 6 Intersection Improvements Preliminary design.       N/A
Lynn Lynn Intersection Safety Improvements at Boston Street at Hesper & Hamilton Streets N/A Pre-PRC 2023 $3,000,000   4   Based on 3/3/2023 meeting with Lynn.      
Medford Medford Intersection Improvements at Main Street and South Street 611974 PRC approved (2021) 2019 $8,498,000 ICC 4 Intersection Improvements Project location studied by CTPS. Priority for municipality.  Design is in progress, and eventually the City will work with MassDOT to fund construction.     N/A
Newton MassDOT Route 16 at Quinobequin Road 612613 PRC approved (2/10/2022) 2022 $4,350,000   6   Reconfiguration of the interchange may result in consideration of this project for the LRTP.      
Quincy MassDOT Intersection Improvements at Route 3A (Southern Artery) and Broad Street 608569 PRC approved (2016) 2020 $2,900,000   6   Priority for District 6.     N/A
Quincy Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive 610823 25% Package Received - R1 (1/27/2023) 2020 $1,145,580   6   25% design complete.  PM is Kathy Dougherty.       N/A
Quincy Quincy Merrymount Parkway Phase II N/A Pre-PRC 2022 N/A   6   December PRC.  Intersection improvement at Merrymount Parkway and Furnace Brook Parkway.  Parks Department is leading the work - David Murphy (617-376-1251).  Will include bridge replacement.     N/A
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Belmont Belmont Belmont Community Path Phase 2 N/A Pre-PRC 2023 TBD   4   akoumoutsos@tooledesign.com reached out 3/16/2023 to discuss initiation and funding through MassDOT      
Boston Boston Fenway Multi-Use Path Phase III N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   6   Project at conceptual stage.     N/A
Brookline Brookline Beacon Street Bridle Pathway N/A Pre-PRC 2022 N/A   6   Project in conceptual design through Toole, receipt of a MassTrails grant in 2020 for feasibility study.  Limits would be Audubon Circle to Cleveland Circle.     N/A
Everett, Somerville DCR Mystic River Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing 612004 PRC approved (2021) 2021 $38,218,334   4         N/A
Malden Malden Spot Pond Brook Greenway 613088 Pre-PRC - 25% design 2022 $3,250,000   4   Application obtained for 2024-2028.      
Medford Medford Wellington Phase 4 Shared Use Path 613082 Pre-PRC 2022 $1,195,000   4   ID # is not yet in PINFO.  Initiated on 11/3/2022.  Includes an earmark and Gaming Commission money.     N/A
Medford Medford MacDonald Park Pedestrian Bridge N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $800,000   4   In DCR park, City is requesting expansion of bridge to 10-12feet in width to coordinate with shared use pathway.     N/A
Major Infrastructure                        
Boston, Chelsea Boston Bridge Rehabilitation and Fender Pier Replacement, Meridian Street Over Chelsea Creek (Andrew P. McArdle Bridge) 600637 PRC Approved (2/10/2022) 2021 $97,538,787   6         N/A
Cambridge DCR Intersection Improvements at Fresh Pond Parkway/Gerry's Landing Road, from Brattle Street to Memorial Drive 609290 PRC approved (2018) 2019 $7,000,000 ICC 6 Intersection Improvements Short-term improvements being initiated.      N/A
Revere, Malden MassDOT Improvements on Route 1 (NB) Add-A-Lane 610543 PRC approved (2019) 2019 $7,210,000 ICC 4 Major Infrastructure Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is located on a regionally significant roadway. If this work includes capacity-adding elements, and it is programmed in the TIP, it will need to be included in Destination 2050.     N/A
Newton MassDOT Traffic Signal and Safety Improvements at Interchange 127 (Newton Corner) 609288 PRC approved (2018) 2019 $14,000,000 ICC 6 Intersection Improvements       N/A
Medford Medford Roosevelt Circle Interchange Reconfiguration N/A Pre-PRC 2022 TBD   4   As discussed on 11.4.2022 with the City of Medford, the City is looking to reconfigure the ramps and adjacent local roadways to improve traffic safety following the results of a RSA along this corridor.  Includes improvements for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access.  Given the state of repair on the bridges, this may be coordinated with bridge rehabilitation work for these structures over I-93.     N/A
Boston Boston Cambridge Street Bridge Replacement - Charlestown 612989 PRC approved (12/21/2022) 2022 $15,400,000   6   City wants this programmed to advertise this before Rutherford Avenue enters construction.  This is a difficult bridge under I-93 and next to Sullivan Square.       N/A
Revere Revere Route 1A Improvement and Reconfiguration N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $9-12,000,000   4   Project is in conceptual design stage.  The priority is to reconfigure the loop ramps at the General Edwards Bridge to facilitate redevelopment of the area, for which there are already parcel developments planned.  The reconfiguration will entail construction of a new roundabout and improved pedestrian crossings to improve access to the riverfront and Point of Pines area along Revere.  Per the City, this reconfiguration is intended to work with the Lynnway Multimodal Corridor improvements, but will also not impact construction for the General Edwards Bridge replacement.     N/A
Revere, Saugus Revere, Saugus Roadway Widening on Route 1 North (Phase 2) 611999 PRC approved (2021) 2021 $2,397,600   4   Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It Is on a regionally-significant roadway and would add roadway capacity. If programmed in the TIP, this project will also need to be included in Destination 2050. Robins Road to Route 99 interchange are the limits.     N/A
Community Connections                        
Belmont Belmont Belmont BlueBikes Expansion N/A N/A 2022 $250,000   4   Belmont is currently evaluating potential revenue streams to cover operational costs and match prior to submitting an application for this project.       N/A
Lynn Lynn Transit Signal Priority - Bus Upgrades for Lynn Route 107 N/A N/A 2022 TBD   4   Indicated in November 8th email to Ethan from Aaron Clausen     N/A
Waltham Waltham Waltham BlueBikes/Bikeshare Expansion N/A N/A 2022 TBD   4   Indicated in November 8th email to Ethan from Catherine Cagle.     N/A
                           
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination                  
Complete Streets                          
Bedford Bedford Roadway Reconstruction of Route 4/225 (The Great Road) 612739 PRC approved (5/12/2022) 2022 $10,899,448   4     Limits appear to go from North Road to match line near Loomis Street.  SRTS project completed in the area under 608000.     N/A
Intersection Improvements                          
Littleton Littleton Intersection Improvements at Route 119/Beaver Brook Road 610702 PRC approved (2020) 2020 $3,120,110 ICC 3 Intersection Improvements MassDOT agreed to fund design after 25% design approved. As of October 2022, the project remains in preliminary design.     N/A
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Bedford Bedford Minuteman Bikeway Extension, From Loomis Street to Concord Road (Route 62) 607738 47 2022 $11,218,186 N/A 4 Cost increase to $11,218,186. Initial targeted advertisement date of 8/13/22. Local concerns about permitting.  Previously programmed in FY23-27, dropped due to public opposition.  Failed to achieve 2/3rds majority in town meeting on 11.14.2022.     N/A
Concord Concord Assabet River Multi-Use Trail and Bridge Construction 612870 PRC approved (8/29/2022) 2020 $8,280,000 MAGIC 4 Major Infrastructure Project was originally a new Pedestrian Bridge with a $2-3.6M price range.  Scope has increased to include improvements for a multi-use trail alongside the bridge.  Cost has increased accordingly, and is now in preliminary design. Project location runs between the West Concord MBTA Station and the Concord Meadows Corporate Center with a hookup to the Southern Terminus of the Bruce Freeman.     N/A
Stow Stow Stow - Assabet River Rail Trail Construction 613096 PRC approved, in design. 2022 TBD   3   Project Info # is being reserved for this project's construction.  Recent earmark recipient for design under FFY22 House THUD bill (Rep. Lori Trahan).  Design line item added to FFY23-27 in AM2 and is retaining a project ID # S12749.        
Major Infrastructure                        
Acton MassDOT Intersection Improvements at Route 2 and Route 27 Ramps 610553 PRC approved (2019) 2020 $3,480,000   3   Project not programmed in LRTP (meets MPO roadway classification requirement). Priority for District 3 and Town of Acton. Project has had surveying and MSA design contracts opened for it.  MassDOT appears to be tracking as a Traffic Safety improvement.     N/A
Concord Concord Reconstruction & Widening on Route 2, from Sandy Pond Road to Bridge over MBTA/B&M Railroad 608015 PRC approved (2014) 2019 $8,000,000 MAGIC 4 Major Infrastructure Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is on a regionally significant roadway and includes roadway widening elements. If programmed in the TIP, this project should also be included in Destination 2050.     N/A
Lexington Lexington Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue N/A Pre-PRC 2019 $30,557,000 MAGIC 4 Major Infrastructure Project is programmed in Destination 2040 (FFYs 2030-34). The project is expected to include work on the I-95 Interchange with Route 4/225. If this work includes capacity-adding elements, it will need to be included in Destination 2050.     N/A
Community Connections                        
Concord, Lexington, Lincoln Concord Battle Road Shuttle Pilot N/A N/A 2022 TBD   4   Erin Stevens in Concord indicated interest in two shuttle options, an extension of a 2022 Summer Pilot for local service and a more regional service that would involve operations in Lexington and Lincoln.  See email from 12/5/2022 to Ethan Lapointe.     N/A
Lexington Lexington Lexington Shuttle N/A N/A 2022 TBD   4   May be a component of the Concord project listed above.  Outreach from Lexington on 12/5/2022 was somewhat vague, but expressed an interest in service.  Lexington receives MBTA service.     N/A
                           
MetroWest Regional Collaborative                      
Complete Streets                        
Wellesley Wellesley Route 135 Reconstruction (Natick Town Line to Weston Road) N/A Pre-PRC N/A TBD TBD 6 PNF submitted.  Discussing 10.14.2022.     N/A
Holliston Holliston Reconstruction of Concord Street (Route 126) N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Added through subregional outreach. Project is municipal priority, as it's tied to necessary below-grade sewer work. 10/12/22: MaPIT is showing that a project was initiated back on 7.14.2020 for this stretch for resurfacing and related work, assuming $600K in total cost (likely lowball).       N/A
Intersection Improvements                          
Framingham MassDOT Roundabout Construction at Salem End Road, Badger Road and Gates Street 609280 PRC approved (2018) 2019 $2,520,000 MWRC 3 Intersection Improvements       N/A
Weston Weston Intersection Improvements - Signalization of Route 20 at Highland Street N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   6   Added through subregional outreach.     N/A
Holliston Holliston Route 16 Washington Street at Whitney Street N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $500,000   3   Result of 12/20/2022 phone call between Ethan Lapointe and Robert Walker (Highway Superintendent).  Looking for signal installation.      
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Weston MassDOT Weston - Shared Use Path Construction on Route 30 612602 PRC Approved (2/10/2022) 2022 $1,050,000   6   Meant to connect into Project 608954.  District 6 priority to ensure that the shared-use-path there ties in to the rest of the bicycle network and concludes at a logical terminus.     N/A
Natick Natick Cochituate Rail Trail Extension, from MBTA Station to Mechanic Street 610691 25% Design Received (11/21/2022) 2020 $6,690,043 NSPC 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Final section of Cochituate Rail Trail Extension. Imminent 25% design submittal.  Applicant applied for FFY2024-2028 TIP funding.     N/A
Major Infrastructure                        
Framingham Framingham Intersection Improvements at Route 126/135/MBTA and CSX Railroad 606109 PRC approved (2010) 2019 $115,000,000 MWRC 3 Major Infrastructure Project is programmed in Destination 2040 (FFYs 2030-34).  May need to be pushed back with LRTP rewrite.  Consultant said that depressing Route 135 may be the solution.     N/A
                           
North Suburban Planning Council                      
Complete Streets                          
Burlington Burlington Town Center Complete Streets Improvements N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   4   Complete Streets upgrades along Route 3A from Bedford Street to Arthur Woods Avenue. The scope of work would be additive to existing resurfacing planned under 610704, and would focus mostly on paint.  There is potential for widening if the town's design includes a multimodal path while maintaining the current number and width of vehicle lanes. Organized opposition to bike lanes under 610704.  Backlash against some public support.  In public hearing for 610704, appx 30 people came out against.  Likely to manifest in this project as well. D4 and MassDOT are aware of this project.  Town is working with Northeastern University to have grad students on project and review plans.  Ethan has contact info for students (one is in OPMI). Route 3A (Bedford Street to Arthur Woods Avenue)   N/A
Lynnfield Lynnfield Reconstruction of Summer Street 609381 PRC approved (2019) 2019 $21,521,921 NSPC 4 Complete Streets Not yet at 25% design.  Bayside Engineering handling design, Norman Brown (781-932-3201, nbrown@baysideengineering.com) is PM.  Culvert and turtle crossings.  Town may consider descoping and phasing the project due to cost, per 12/20/2022 conversation with PM. Summer Street (Lynnfield Town Hall to Route 129).   N/A
Reading Reading Reading Downtown Improvement Project N/A Pre-PRC 2020 $7-$8 million   4   Project at conceptual stage.     N/A
Stoneham Stoneham Reconstruction of South Main Street, from Town Center to South Street N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   4         N/A
Wakefield Wakefield Envision Wakefield - Main Street Improvements 610545 25% Design Complete 2020 $16,581,200   4   Main St (Nahant to Water) and Water Street (Main to Cyrus) removed from project and bundled in 607329. 25% design incorporates some retention of angled parking in order to appease older public, but focus is on bike parking.  Strong public input from youth during town meetings led to approval. Key sticking point in FFY 2023-2027 Scoring was project cost ~$26M.  Bundling of some bike improvements into other nearby state highway projects has reduced budget to $16.5M as of the FFY2024-2028 funding round. Main Street (Water Street to Salem Street) Yes 41.8
Winchester Winchester Town Center Complete Streets Improvements N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   4         N/A
Intersection Improvements                          
Stoneham Stoneham Intersection Improvements at Main Street (Route 28), Franklin Street, and Central Street N/A Pre-PRC 2020 N/A   4   Project at conceptual stage.     N/A
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Stoneham, Wakefield Stoneham, Wakefield Mystic Highlands Greenway Project N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   4         N/A
Community Connections                          
North Reading North Reading North Reading Human Services Transportation N/A N/A 2022     4   Significant paratransit consideration.  Losing Merrimack Valley interdistrict service as North Reading falls between the MBTA and MVRTA.       N/A
                           
North Shore Task Force                        
Complete Streets                          
Beverly, Manchester-by-the-Sea MassDOT Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 127 607707 PRC approved (2013) 2018 $2,300,000 NSTF 4 Complete Streets Still in preliminary design.       N/A
Danvers Danvers Reconstruction on Collins Street, from Sylvan Street to Centre and Holten Streets 602310 75% submitted (3/5/2010) 2017 or earlier $5,183,121 NSTF 4 Complete Streets Updated 75% design submission needed for project to move forward. Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. Collins Street (Sylvan Street to Centre Street/Holten Street) 0.7 miles.  42.5566, -70.9539 Yes 46
Ipswich Ipswich Reconstruction of County Road, from South Main Street to East Street 611975 PRC approved (2021) 2020 $5,653,500   4   On 10/7/2022, Frank Ventimiglia mentioned that a bridge within the project limits has had a lane closed by MassDOT.  Structure IDs are I01005, main concern is Ipswich - 2PN which is an 1861-built historic stone arch mill bridge.  Currently functioning as a one-way.  OFF SYSTEM BRIDGE.  MassDOT contact is Ryan Wilcox. Town had approached as a traffic safety project with the bridge as a focal point.  Pier degradation and cracking.  Structure is under evaluation for a statewide bridge preservation contract. County Road (South Main Street to East Street) Y 45.4
Ipswich Ipswich Argilla Roadway Reconstruction and Adaptation (Crane Estate to Crane Beach) 612738 PRC Approved (5/12/2022) 2021 $4,628,419   4   Municipal priority for funding.  On 10/7/2022, Frank Ventimiglia at Ipswich DPW expressed an interest in pursuing MDP funding to support this project.   Argilla Road (Crane Estate to Crane Beach) Y N/A
Marblehead Marblehead Bridge Replacement, M-04-001, Village Street over Marblehead Rail Trail (Harold B. Breare Bridge) 612947 PRC approved (9/15/2022) 2019 N/A NSTF 4 Major Infrastructure Per 10.11 email with C Quigley, the project received a PRC and a PROJIS ID in September 2022 after a PNF was submitted 8/2022.     N/A
Manchester-by-the-Sea Manchester-by-the-Sea Pine Street - Central Street (Route 127) to Rockwood Heights Road N/A Pre-PRC; PNF submitted (12/27/16) 2017 or earlier N/A NSTF 4 Complete Streets       N/A
Manchester-by-the-Sea Manchester-by-the-Sea Bridge Replacement, M-02-001 (8AM), Central Street (route 127) over Saw Mill Brook 610671 PRC approved (2019) 2019 $4,350,000 NSTF 4 Complete Streets       34.8
Rockport Rockport Roadway Reconstruction of Route 127A (Thatcher Road) 612737 PRC Approved (1/23/2023) 2023 $12,058,173   4   Added to Universe in January 2023 based on PRC results.  PM is Marie Rose.  Sea level rise risk, talk to Judy Route 127A, Thatcher Road (Red Fox Lane to Seaview Street)    
Salem MassDOT Reconstruction of Bridge Street (Route 107), from Flint Street to Washington Street 612990 PRC Approved (1/24/2023) 2017 or earlier $12,067,500   4   Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is on a regionally significant roadway and would add roadway capacity. If it is programmed in the TIP, it will need to be programmed in Destination 2050.     N/A
Wenham Wenham Safety Improvements on Route 1A 609388 25% Approved (9/10/2021) 2019 $3,629,036 NSTF 4 Complete Streets Dan Wilk (daniel.wilk@state.ma.us) is MassDOT PM.  Working with Bayside Engineering as design consultant. MassDOT may fund this for construction in full, and Wenham is paying for design.  Bayside currently responding to 25% comments.  Drainage for abutters is holding this up.     N/A
Wenham Wenham Roadway Reconstruction on Larch Row and Dodges Row N/A Pre-PRC 2019 $800,000 NSTF 4 Complete Streets Project at conceptual stage.     N/A
Intersection Improvements                          
Essex Essex Targeted Safety Improvements on Route 133 (John Wise Avenue) 609315 PRC approved (2019) 2019 $2,135,440 NSTF 4 Intersection Improvements       N/A
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Peabody, Salem Peabody, Salem Riverwalk Project N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   4   MVP grant issued for project design.      N/A
Marblehead Marblehead B2B Bikeway Design - Marblehead N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $140,000   4   Earmark.  May be added via amendment.      
Peabody, Salem Peabody, Salem B2B Bikeway Design - Peabody/Salem N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $600,000   4   Earmark.  May be added via amendment.      
Major Infrastructure                          
Beverly Beverly Interchange Reconstruction at Route 128/Exit 19 at Brimbal Avenue (Phase II) 607727 PRC Approved (2014) 2021 N/A NSPC 4 Intersection Improvements Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. Is on a regionally-significant roadway, and would expand the interchange. If this project is programmed in the TIP and adds roadway capacity, this project will need to be included in Destination 2050.     N/A
                           
South Shore Coalition                        
Complete Streets                          
Holbrook Holbrook Corridor Improvements and Related Work on South Franklin Street (Route 37) from Snell Street to King Road 608543 PRC approved (2017) 2018 $4,000,200 SSC 5 Complete Streets       N/A
Hull Hull Nantasket Avenue Redesign N/A Pre-PRC 2023 TBD   5   Includes redevelopment of existing gravel squares in front of Nantasket Beach for additional facilities/recreational zones/open space      
Rockland Rockland Corridor Improvements on VFW Drive/Weymouth Street 612605 PRC approved (2/10/2022) 2021 $13,047,281   5   PNF entered in Jan 2022     N/A
Weymouth MassDOT Reconstruction on Route 3A, Including Pedestrian and Traffic Signal Improvements 608231 PRC approved (2016) 2017 or earlier $10,780,100 SSC 6 Complete Streets Pre-25% package submitted in July 2021.     N/A
Weymouth MassDOT Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 3A 608483 PRC approved (2016) 2018 $2,400,000 SCC 6 Complete Streets       N/A
Intersection Improvements                        
Cohasset Cohasset Intersection Improvements at Route 3A and King Street N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   5   Added through subregional outreach.     N/A
Hull Hull Intersection Improvements at George Washington Boulevard and Barnstable Road/ Logan Avenue N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   5   Added through subregional outreach.     N/A
                           
South West Advisory Planning Committee                    
Complete Streets                        
Bellingham Bellingham South Main Street (Route 126) - Elm Street to Douglas Drive Reconstruction N/A Pre-PRC; PNF submitted (3/13/17) 2017 or earlier N/A SWAP 3 Complete Streets Project would dovetail ongoing project 608887, rehab on Route 126 from Douglas Drive to Route 140.     No N/A
Bellingham Bellingham Bellingham - Roadway Rehabilitation of Route 126 (Hartford Road), from 800 North of the I-495 NB off ramp to Medway T/L, including B-06-017 612963 PRC Approved (9/15/2022) 2022 $10,950,000   3   Applied for FFY2024-2028.  BRMPO issued a full corridor study in 2011.      
Franklin MassDOT Resurfacing and Intersection Improvements on Route 140, from Beaver Street to I-495 Ramps 607774 PRC approved (2014)   2018 $4,025,000 SWAP 3 Complete Streets     Yes N/A
Hopkinton Hopkinton West Main Street Reconstruction and Shared Use Path N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $15,000,000   3   Priority is a shared use path under I-495 along W Main Street EB to link into existing trail networks and SUP in downtown area and commercial campuses west of I-495.  Includes a large roundabout at Lumber Street/Parkwood Drive and West Main Street due to frequent crashes. West Main Street (South Street to Wood Street)  No N/A
Medway Medway Improvements on Route 109 West of Highland Street N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Project at conceptual stage. Ethan will verify.  There is a project from Richard Rd. heading WB to Highland Street, which conflicts with the name of this project.  It was initiated in Nov. 2021. TBD Maybe? N/A
Milford MassDOT Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 16 612091 PRC approved (2021) 2021 $4,192,500   3       No N/A
Millis Millis Town Center Improvements N/A Pre-PRC 2020 N/A   3   Project at conceptual stage.   No N/A
Wrentham Wrentham Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 608497 PRC approved (2016) 2020 N/A   5   25% design anticipated July 2022.   Yes N/A
Intersection Improvements                        
Medway Medway Traffic Signalization at Trotter Drive and Route 109 N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Project at conceptual stage.   No N/A
Sherborn Sherborn Intersection Improvements at Route 16 and Maple Street N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Project at conceptual stage.   No N/A
Wrentham Wrentham Intersection Improvements on Route 1A at North and Winter Street 610676 PRC Approved (12/19/2019) 2020 $2,649,000   5       No N/A
Wrentham Wrentham Intersection Improvements at Randall Road and Route 1A N/A Pre-PRC 2020 $2,649,000   5   Project at conceptual stage.   No N/A
Wrentham Wrentham Intersection Improvements at Route 1A and Route 140 N/A Pre-PRC 2020 N/A   5   Project at conceptual stage.   No N/A
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Franklin Franklin Southern New England Trunk Trail (SNETT) Extension, from Grove Street to Franklin Town Center N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Project at conceptual stage.   No  
Hopkinton Hopkinton Campus Trail Connector, Shared Use Trail Construction 611932 PRC approved (9/24/2020) 2020 $1,750,700 NSTF 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian     No N/A
Norfolk, Walpole, and Wrentham Norfolk Metacomet Greenway N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   5   Project at conceptual stage.  Feasibility analysis complete.  Pilot development will start with Hill to Pine Street through old rail bed ROW.  Includes bridge over Route 115 due to traffic concerns.   No N/A
Sherborn Sherborn Upper Charles River Trail Extension to Framingham City Line N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Project at conceptual stage.   No N/A
Major Infrastructure                          
Bellingham MassDOT Ramp Construction & Relocation, I-495 at Route 126 (Hartford Avenue) 604862 PRC approved (2006) 2017 or earlier $13,543,400 SWAP 3 Major Infrastructure High priority for District 3   No N/A
                           
Three Rivers Interlocal Council                      
Complete Streets                        
Canton, Milton MassDOT Roadway Improvements on Route 138 608484 PRC approved (2016) 2020 $18,467,500   6   Milton also in ICC subregion. Project a high priority for the TRIC subregion. District is working to refine scope.  Nine miles in length, may require phasing. York Street to Truman Highway. Appx 9 miles. Yes N/A
Canton Canton Lower Randolph Reconstruction (Route 138, Turnpike Avenue to Colts Crossing) N/A Pre-PRC 2023 TBD   6   Emerged in discussions following application of Randolph and York Street Signal Installation for FFY 2024-2028 STIP.  Sidewalk installation, bike lanes, crosswalks, roadway rehabilitation, signal improvements at the Route 138 and, potentially, York Street intersection.  Crosswalks near Ponkapoag Pond trailhead. Randolph Street from Route 138 to Colts Crossing. No N/A
Medfield Medfield Reconstruction of Route 109 (Millis T/L to Hartford Street) N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   3   Added through subregional outreach.  Working with Ann Sullivan and Arthur Frost at D3, BETA is design consultant. MIllis T/L to Hartford St. Maybe? N/A
Milton MassDOT Reconstruction on Granite Avenue, from Neponset River to Squantum Street 608406 25% submitted (2/10/2017) 2017 or earlier $3,665,146 TRIC 6 Complete Streets Milton also in ICC subregion.    No N/A
Milton Milton Adams Street Improvements, from Randolph Avenue to Eliot Street 610820 PRC approved (4/30/2020) 2020 $1,799,330   6   Milton also in ICC subregion.  Preliminary design. Randolph Avenue to Eliot Street at Neponset River.  Appx. 0.10 miles. -42.2703, -71.0679  No N/A
Needham Needham Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, from Webster Street to Great Plains Avenue 612536 PRC approved (10/21/2021) 2021 $10,402,402   6   Needham also in ICC subregion.   No N/A
Dover, Needham Dover, Needham Centre Street Bridge Replacement N/A Pre-PRC 2022 N/A   6   Historic-eligible, needs replacement as it is 1850's era.   No N/A
Westwood Westwood Reconstruction of Canton Street (East Street Rotary and University Avenue) 608158 25% Package Received (2/18/2022) 2017 or earlier $19,047,306 TRIC 6 Complete Streets Priority for municipality.  MassDOT expresses concerns regarding project readiness due to scope fluctuations.  PINFO includes bridge rehab work. Application submitted for FFY2024-2028.   1.9 miles Yes N/A
Intersection Improvements                          
Canton Canton Signal Installation at Randolph Street and York Street N/A Pre-PRC 2022 $500,000   6   Application submitted for FFY 2024-2028 TIP.  Municipality requested $50,000 against a total estimate of $500,000.  Significant funding in local mitigation fund for match. Randolph Street at York Street Yes N/A
Foxborough Foxborough Intersection Signalization at Route 140/Walnut Street and Route 140/I-95 (SB Ramp) 612740 PRC Approved (5/12/2022) 2021 $11,902,600   5   Added through subregional outreach. Town has advanced design outside of TIP process. District supports project.  Budget has increased from original $5M estimate in 2021.   No N/A
Medfield Medfield Intersection Improvements at Route 27 and West Street 612807 PRC Approved (5/12/2022) 2021 $3,987,500   3   Added through subregional outreach.    No N/A
Bicycle and Pedestrian                          
Canton Canton Warner Trail Extension, from Sharon to Blue Hills Reservation N/A Pre-PRC 2021 N/A   6   Added through subregional outreach. Feasibility study currently underway.   No N/A
Major Infrastructure                          
Canton, Westwood MassDOT Interchange Improvements at I-95 / I-93 / University Avenue / I-95 Widening 87790 25% submitted (7/25/14) 2017 or earlier $202,205,994 TRIC 6 Major Infrastructure Project not programmed in Destination 2040. IIt is on a regionally-significant roadway and adds roadway capacity. If programmed in the TIP, this project would also need to be included in Destination 2050. Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. Regional priority, potential discretionary grant project via MassDOT for State Highway funding.   No 47

 

 

 

Table A-3
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Project Evaluation Results: Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections, Complete Streets, Intersection Improvements, and the Transit Transformation Investment Programs

 

Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections Program
                                     
Proponent Project Number Project Name MAPC Subregion Project Status Project Cost Total Score Total Base Score Total Scaled Equity Score Safety  Safety Equity Score Mobility and Reliability Mobility and Reliability Equity Score Access and Connectivity Access and Connectivity Equity Score Resilience Resilience Equity Score Clean Air and Healthy Communities Clean Air and Healthy Communities Equity Score
Cambridge 613568 Cambridge-New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Construction over Fitchburg Line at Danehy Park Connector [DESIGN ONLY] ICC PRC Approved (12/19/2023) Design: $3,000,000 78.1 72.5 5.6 14 3.5 14 2.5 15.5 2.5 14 2 15 3.5
Framingham N/A Framingham- Chris Walsh Trail (Phase 2) [DESIGN ONLY] MWRC Preliminary Design Design: $850,000 Construction: $14,300,000 79.9 69.5 10.4 15 8 13.5 6 15 5 13 1 13 6
Hudson N/A Hudson- Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Construction [DESIGN ONLY] MAGIC Preliminary Design Design: $909,700 62.7 57.5 5.2 11.5 3.5 10.5 2 12.5 2 10 2 13 3.5
Norfolk, Wrentham, Walpole 613644 Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole- Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) [DESIGN ONLY] SWAP, TRIC Preliminary Design Design: $1,550,000 Construction: $19,754,350 65 59.5 5.5 11 3.5 12 2.5 13.5 1.75 10 2 13 4
Sudbury 613319 Sudbury-Framingham- Bike Path Construction of Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, from the Sudbury Diamond Railroad Crossing to Eaton Road West  MAGIC PRC Approved (6/01/2023) $8,820,000 50.5 47 3.5 12 3.5 8.5 1.75 10.5 0.5 7 1 9 2
            100 80 20 16   15   17   16   16  
Complete Streets Program
                                   
Proponent Project Number Project Name MAPC Subregion Project Status Project Cost Total Score Total Base Score Total Scaled Equity Score Safety  Safety Equity Score Mobility and Reliability Mobility and Reliability Equity Score Access and Connectivity Access and Connectivity Equity Score Resilience Resilience Equity Score Clean Air and Healthy Communities Clean Air and Healthy Communities Equity Score
Acton N/A Acton- Great Road, from Harris Street to Davis Road Intersections, Complete Streets Project [DESIGN ONLY] MAGIC Preliminary Design Design: $860,000 Construction: $8,600,000 45.4 41 4.4 10 4 14 3 8 1.5 1 0 8 2.5
Arlington N/A Arlington- Broadway Complete Streets [DESIGN ONLY] ICC Preliminary Design Design: $1,395,000 80.1 72.5 7.6 16 4 16 5 10.5 2.5 13 2 17 5.5
Boston N/A Boston- Reconstruction of Bennington Street, Porter Street to Wood Island Busway [DESIGN ONLY] ICC Preliminary Design Design: $1,500,000 Construction: $15,000,000 76.2 66 10.2 9.5 4.5 17.5 6.75 11 3.75 14 3 14 7.5
Bellingham 612963 Bellingham- Roadway Rehabilitation of Route 126 (Hartford Road) from 800 Feet North of the Interstate 495 Northbound Off-Ramp to Medway Town Line, including B-06-017.   SWAP PRC Approved (9/15/2022) $13,900,000 54.3 50 4.3 7.5 2 12.5 3.25 14 2.5 7 0.5 9 2.5
Malden N/A Malden- Route 60 Improvement Project  [DESIGN ONLY] ICC Preliminary Design Design: $2,600,000 Cosntruction: $21,201,687 71.15 62 9.15 14.5 6 17 6.375 12.5 3.75 10 3 8 3.75
Malden N/A Malden- Commercial Street Reconstruction [DESIGN ONLY] ICC Preliminary Design Design: $935,000 Construction: $7,250,000 62.25 54 8.25 13 5.25 15 5.625 10 2.25 5 3 11 4.5
Marlborough 612285 Marlborough- Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard [DESIGN ONLY] MWRC PRC Approved (6/24/2021) Design: $1,215,000 Construction: $12,145,000 79.9 70 9.9 14 6 17 6.75 13 3.75 13 3 13 5.25
Ipswich 612738 Ipswich- Argilla Road Ecological Tidal Restoration Project NSTF PRC Approved (5/12/2022) $6,600,000 37.9 35.5 2.4 2.5 0.5 7 0.5 7 1.5 11 1 8 2.5
Salem N/A Salem- Broad Street and Dalton Parkway Corridor Project [DESIGN ONLY] NSTF Preliminary Design Design: $1,068,780 Construction: $2,500,000 60.1 54.5 5.6 13.5 4 16 4 12 2.5 3 0.5 10 3
Southborough 612962 Southborough- Reclamation of Marlborough Road (Route 85) and Framingham Road from Marlborough C.L to Route 30 [DESIGN ONLY] MWRC Preliminary Design Design: $1,315,000 Construction: $13,153,146 52.5 52.5 4.7 8 2 11 3.5 8.5 0.75 11 2 14 3.5
            100 80 20 16   19   15   14   16  
Intersection Improvements Program
                                   
Proponent Project Number Project Name MAPC Subregion Project Status Project Cost Total Score Total Base Score Total Scaled Equity Score Safety  Safety Equity Score Mobility and Reliability Mobility and Reliability Equity Score Access and Connectivity Access and Connectivity Equity Score Resilience Resilience Equity Score Clean Air and Healthy Communities Clean Air and Healthy Communities Equity Score
Burlington 613641 Burlington- Intersection Improvements at Route 3A/Cambridge Street and Winn Street [DESIGN ONLY] NSPC PRC Approved (12/19/2023) Design: $1,700,000 Construction: $9,557,295 71 64.5 6.5 21.5 4.5 16.5 4.25 12.5 2.5 5 1.5 9 3.5
Holliston N/A Holliston- Intersection Improvements at Route 16 and Whitney Street [DESIGN ONLY] MWRC Preliminary Design Design: $250,000 Construction: $2,500,000 42.8 39.5 3.3 19 5 9 1.5 5.5 0.75 4 1 2 0
Sherborn N/A Sherborn- Reconstruction of Route 27 and Route 16 [DESIGN ONLY] SWAP Preliminary Design Design: $900,000 Construction: $9,000,000 81.8 75 6.8 22 5 16 4 15 2.5 13 2 9 3.5
Quincy 610823 Quincy- Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive ICC 75% Design $1,812,839 41.1 36 5.1 16.5 6 11 5.25 4.5 0.75 -1 -2.25 5 3
            100 80 20 25   18   14   12   11  
Transit Transformation Program
                                   
Proponent Project Number Project Name MAPC Subregion Project Status Project Cost Total Score Total Base Score Total Scaled Equity Score Safety  Safety Equity Score Mobility and Reliability Mobility and Reliability Equity Score Access and Connectivity Access and Connectivity Equity Score Resilience Resilience Equity Score Clean Air and Healthy Communities Clean Air and Healthy Communities Equity Score
CATA N/A CATA- Fare Upgrades for ADA and Dial-A-Ride Customers NSTF N/A $65,000 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
CATA N/A CATA- CATA Gloucester Facility Modernization NSTF N/A $1,293,000 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
CATA N/A CATA - Vehicle Replacement (4 Vehicles) NSTF N/A $2,460,000 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
MWRTA N/A MWRTA- Procurement of Three 29 Foot Buses MWRC N/A $1,980,000 52.2 47 5.2 9 2 14 4 12 4 6 0.5 6 2.5
MWRTA N/A MWRTA- Blandin Hub Equitable Redesign Initiative MWRC N/A $2,500,000 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
            100 79 21 16   16   16   16   15  
Community Connections Program
                         
Proponent Project Name MAPC Subregion Project Cost Cost/Point Total Score Connectivity Regional and Interlocal Coordination Plan Implementation Transportation Equity Climate Change Mitigation Performance Management
Arlington Arlington- Installation of 123 Bicycle Racks and Related Materials ICC $90,878 $1,220 74.5 15 9 18 9.5 13 10
Boston Boston- Bluebikes State-of-Good Repair, Twelve Stations ICC $590,348 $7,717 76.5 18 8 14 12.5 14 10
Boston Boston- Installation of 1600 Bicycle Racks ICC $379,470 $4,628 82 18 8 18 11 17 10
Brookline Brookline- Bluebikes State-of-Good Repair, Three Stations and 62 Pedal Bicycles ICC $200,000 $2,985 67 16 8 6 7 13 9
Cambridge Cambridge- Bluebikes State-of-Good Repair, Eight Stations and 65 Pedal Bicycles  ICC $385,456 $5,627 68.5 17 8 12 8.5 14 9
Chelsea, Revere Chelsea-Revere- Regional On-Demand Microtransit Pilot Project ICC $499,649 $9,296 53.75 13 11 N/A 11.25 11.5 7
Malden Malden- Canal Street Bicycle Lanes ICC $81,250 $1,585 51.25 9 7 12 8.25 8 7
Revere Revere- Bluebikes Expansion, Four Stations and 40 Pedal Bicycles ICC $169,000 $2,661 63.5 17 6 10 7.5 14 9
Scituate Scituate- Installation of 25 Bicycle Racks SSC $22,800 $501 45.5 9 8 16 4.5 2 6
Somerville Somerville- Bluebikes State-of-Good Repair, Thirteen Stations ICC $278,127 $4,120 67.5 14 8 16 7.5 13 9
                         
 
Abbreviations
ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act.  CATA = Cape Ann Transportation Authority.  MWRTA = MetroWest Regional Transit Authority. N/A = not applicable. PRC = MassDOT's Project Review Committee. 
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Subregions:  ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.

 

Table A-4
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Project Evaluation Results: Community Connections Program

 

Proponent Project Name MAPC Subregion Project Cost Cost/Monthly Passenger Trip Total Score Connectivity Coordination Plan Implementation Transportation Equity Mode Shift and Demand Projection Fiscal Sustainability
Concord Concord Workforce Shuttle** MAGIC $369,911 $155 71 13 15 6 6 21 10
MWRTA CatchConnect Microtransit Expansion Phase 2** MWRC $402,500 $93 90 17 15 15 9 24 10
North Reading North Reading Demand-Response Shuttle Pilot Program** NSPC $77,637 $348 77.25 16.25 15 9 9 18 10
Revere Revere On-Demand Shuttle Service** ICC $980,976 $30 57 17 0 3 12 15 10
Boston Boston Electric BlueBikes Adoption ICC $1,020,000 $21 84 17 15 6 12 24 10
Cambridge Cambridge Electric BlueBikes Adoption ICC $352,575 $13 81 17 15 6 9 24 10
Canton Canton Center Bicycle Racks TRIC $10,000 $12 72 14 9 12 6 21 10
Canton Canton Public Schools Bike Program TRIC $22,500 $4 38 13 0 6 6 3 10
Lynn Broad Street Corridor Transit Signal Priority ICC $297,800 $2 88 17.5 12 13.5 12 23 10
Medford Medford Bicycle Parking—Tier 1 ICC $29,600 $12 84 17 12 12 9 24 10
Medford Medford Bluebikes Expansion ICC $118,643 $53 78 17 15 3 9 24 10
Possible Points         Possible Points 100 18 15 15 18 24 10
*This project was not recommended for moving forward at TIP Readiness Days until the project is formally intiated through MassDOT's system and goes through the Project Review Committee. Staff are actively working with the project proponent and MassDOT District 6 to initiate this project.
**The proponents for these shuttle projects requested funding for FFY 2024 and additional years. Concord requested $139,749 in FFY 2024, $122,165 in FFY 2025, and $107,997 in FFY 2026. The MWRTA requested $140,000 in FFY 2024, $132,500 in FFY 2025, and $130,000 in FFY 2026. North Reading requested $41,787 in FFY 2024 and $35,850 in FFY 2025. Revere requested $356,825 in FFY 2024, $338,521 in FFY 2025, and $285,630 in FFY 2026. The figures in the Cost/Monthy Passenger Trip column only show the cost per monthly user for the first year of funding.

 

 

Table A-5
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Project Evaluation Criteria: Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections Program

 

 

 

Project Name PROJECT NAME
Municipality/Proponent PROJECT PROPONENT(S)
Project Type Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections
Scoring Criteria  Base Score Equity Multiplier?
Equity: Facilitate an inclusive and transparent transportation-planning process and make investments that eliminate transportation-related disparities borne by people in disadvantaged communities.
An equity multiplier (EM) is applied to criteria that the MPO has identified through public outreach and data analysis as critical transportation needs or where there exist disparities that negatively impact equity populations. These criteria are denoted by a check mark on the right side of this scorecard. Each project’s multiplier is based on the percent of the population in the project area that belongs to each of the MPO’s six equity populations in the project area relative to their region wide averages. The higher the share of equity populations in the project area, the higher the multiplier.  To calculate a final Transportation Equity score, a project's raw equity multiplier is scaled to 20 points and then added to the base score (out of 80 possible points) as shown at the bottom of this scorecard.
Safety: Achieve zero transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries and improve safety for all users of the transportation system.
The project design has a significant effect on improving safety for all users. Disqualifying - The project design does not improve safety for all users, or hinders user safety. 1 - The design of the project has a minor impact on improving safety for a limited number of potential facility users. 2 - The design of the project has a moderate effect on improving safety for all users of the facility, or improvements  are primarily directed towards either pedestrians or micromobility, not both. 3 - The design of the project has a high effect on improving safety for all potential users of the facility, including the creation of entirely new facilities.  3 Yes
The project addresses a statewide Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster or Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 0 - The project does not address a Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster or Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 2 - The project addresses a Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster and/or a Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 2 Yes
The proposed design provides for physical separation of facility users from other forms of traffic, and prevents obstruction. 0 - The proposed design either affords no physical separation for the facility, or the separation is horizontal and striped only. 1 - The proposed design has some physical separation for the facility in the form of a flexible barrier, but does not adequately prevent obstruction (ie: parking in bicycle lane). 2 - The proposed design affords full physical separation of the facility and its users from other forms of traffic, including vertical separation and fixed barriers. 2 Yes
Where vehicles and pedestrians or micromobility users share a facility, the project improves the safety of interactions between these users. 0 - The project does not take steps to reduce conflict and hazards between vulnerable users and vehicles. 1 - The project makes some steps towards reducing conflicts and hazards between vulnerable users and vehicles, such as flexible posts. 2 - The project reduces conflicts and hazards between vehicles and vulnerable users where they currently exist, or eliminates these hazards entirely. 2  
The project connects to existing pedestrian or micromobility facilities. 0 - The project does not connect to any current pedestrian or micromobility facilities, and the applicant does not provide any information as to how future connections may be made. 1 - The project does not connect to any current pedestrian or micromobility facilities, but the applicant describes how future connections will be made and any action to date towards those connections. 2 - The project connects to other micromobility or pedestrian facilities, including painted bike lanes or sidewalks.  3 - The project connects to safe micromobility and pedestrian facilities, or functions as an extension of an existing facility. 3  
The project improves safety and accessibility for people with disabilities. Disqualifying - The proposed project introduces potentially unsafe elements for people with disabilities.  Alternatively, the project does not address identifiable issues with Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance in the Project Area. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental enhancements to safety for people with disabilities. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for people with disabilities. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for people with disabilities. 2 Yes
The project effectively addresses safety for transit operations and users. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits to safety for transit operations or transit users. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for transit operations or transit users. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for transit operations or transit users. 2  
Mobility and Reliability: Support easy and reliable movement of people and freight.
The applicant thoroughly describes deficiencies in the current design of the corridor or intersection, and how the project addresses these deficiencies. 0 - The proposed project includes minor improvements to roadway mobility, or focuses primarily on the preservation of existing assets. 1 - The project primarily upgrades existing active transportation infrastructure within the current right of way and street footprint that addresses some of the deficiencies along the corridor. 2 - The project upgrades and modernizes infrastructure, including improvements that create active transportation connections where none currently exist. 3 - The project thoroughly addresses deficiencies in a corridor ofr network of assets to provide broader regional active transportation or intermodal connections. 3  
The project improves pedestrian safety near a high-utility corridor to promote walking. 0 - The project does not involve significant pedestrian safety improvements. 1 - The project improves pedestrian safety on a corridor with moderate utility. 2 - The project improves pedestrian safety on a high utility corridor. 2 Yes
The project improves safety near a high-utility corridor for other active transportation modes other than walking. 0 - The project does not involve significant safety improvements for other active transportation modes. 1 - The project improves active transportation safety for other active transportation modes on a corridor with moderate utility. 2 - The project improves active transportation safety for other active transportation modes on a high utility corridor. 2 Yes
The applicant details how the facility may be maintained and upgraded throughout its useful life, including plans to ensure accessibility of the facility year round by users (ex: snow plowing, root management). 0 - The applicant does not describe their approach towards maintaining and supporting the asset. 1 - The applicant describes the process by which the asset may be maintained, and access supported. 2 - The applicant describes the process by which the asset may be maintained and access supported, and includes a plan for future improvements to the asset or along the network. 2  
The project improves travel time reliability by investing in measures that reduce dependence on single-occupancy-vehicle trips. 0 - The project does not improve travel time reliability, or does not significantly invest in non-SOV transportation modes. 1 - The project has some impact on travel time reliability through minor investments in non-SOV transportation modes. 2 - The project has some impact on travel time reliability through moderate investments in non-SOV transportation modes. 3 - The project has a significant impact on travel time reliability through rigorous investments in non-SOV transportation modes. 3 Yes
The project invests in safe pedestrian facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in pedestrian facilities, or establishes facilities that are disconnected from other pedestrian infrastructure with no plans for connections. 1 - The project makes some investments in pedestrian facilities, such as beacons and sidewalks, but investments are limited to the immediate project area (ex: intersection). 2 - The project makes comprehensive investments in new and upgraded pedestrian facilities in the project area, and establishes safe connections to a greater pedestrian network. 2  
The project includes complementary investments from bikeshare facilities. 0 - No bikeshare facilities are present along the route or near the asset. 1 - Bikeshare facilities are present along the route or near the asset. 1  
Access and Connectivity: Provide transportation options and improve access to key destinations to support economic vitality and high quality of life.
The project serves sites targeted for future development (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project does not serve a site targeted for future development. 1 - The project serves a site for future development. 2 - The project serves a site targeted for future development that includes transit-supportive mixed-use or residential sites. 2  
The project serves sites included within a municipal Section 3A 'MBTA Communities' zoning district or other transit oriented development. (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project does not serve a TOD or MBTA Communities site. 1 - The project is near to or indirectly serves a TOD or MBTA Communities site. 2 - The project directly intersects with or serves a TOD or MBTA Communities site. 2 Yes
The project serves existing employment and population centers (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not serve an existing employment or population center. 1 - The project serves an existing employment or population center. 2 - The project serves an existing employment and population center. 3 - The project serves an existing employment and population center with significant affordable housing opportunities. 3 Yes
The project addresses safety concerns near to key public community assets. 0 - The project is not near to any key public community assets. 1 - The project addresses safety concerns near to one or more community assets. 2 - The project addresses safety concerns near key public community assets with a large population of vulnerable users, such as schools, libraries, or senior centers. 2  
The project is a product of or fulfills recommendations identified in a regional or statewide study. 0 - The project is not consistent with or the applicant does not cite a regional or statewide corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 1 - The project is thematically consistent with a regional or statewide study, such as a corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 2 - The project is explicitly called for in a regional or statewide study, such as a corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 2  
The project is listed in the Massachusetts Priority Trails Network. 0 - The project is not included in the MassDOT Priority Trails Network. 1 - The project is included in the MassDOT Priority Trails Network 2  
The project involves collaboration between multiple municipalities. 0 - Only one municipality is involved in the project. 1 - One or more municipalities are involved in the project. 1  
The asset can be safely accessed by non-SOV modes of transportation. 0 - Access to the asset is predominantly conducted by SOV modes. 1 - Access to the asset can be performed by walking, but facilities are either unsafe or are located in lower volume areas. 2 - Access to the asset can be performed by a variety of methods, including by transit. 2  
The project improves navigability at or along the work area through signage. 0 - No signage improvements are incorporated into the project. 1 - Signage improvements, which may include interpretive signage, are included in the proposed project. 1  
(Penalty) The project applicant is an MBTA Community not in compliance with Section 3A. 0 - The municipality is in compliance with or not subject to Section 3A. -5 - The municipality is not in compliance with Section 3A. 0  
Resilience: Provide transportation that supports sustainable environments and enables people to respond and adapt to climate change and other changing conditions.
The project reduces the risk of flooding in the project area through adaptation and resilience improvements. 0 - The project does not address flooding. 1 - The project reduces flood risk using structural adaptation/gray infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces flood risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. 2 Yes
The project reduces the risk of extreme temperatures by reducing pavement cover, planting shade trees, providing shade structures, increasing green space, etc. 0 - The project does not address extreme temperatures. 1 - The project reduces extreme temperature risk using structural adaptation/gray infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces extreme temperature risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. 2 Yes
The project implements recommendations or addresses needs identified in the respective municipality's Hazard Mitigation Plan, Municipal Vulnerability Plan, or Climate Adaptation Plan. 0 - The project does not address needs or recommendations. 2 - The project addresses needs or recommendations. 2  
The project improves stormwater infrastructure beyond MassDEP's MS4 standard. 0 - The project meets minimum standards. 1 - The project includes one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards (adopts stormwater BMPs, prepares pollution and/or erosion prevention plan, adopts environmentally sensitive site design practices, is expected to remove high amounts of TSS, etc.). 2 - Project adopts more than one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards. 2  
The project applicant demonstrates regional coordination or partnership on resilience improvements and project impacts with neighboring municipalities, environmental or EJ advocacy groups, local community organizations, regional or state agencies, etc. 0 - The applicant does not demonstrate regional coordination. 1 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities and/or regional or state agencies. 2 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities, regional or state agencies AND local community organizations/advocacy groups. 2  
The applicant details the expected useful life of the improvements, provides a plan for maintenance of resilience improvements, and/or references current and future climate conditions. 0 - Applicant does not reference current and future climate conditions and does not provide a plan for maintenance. 1 - Applicant references current and future climate conditions AND/OR provides a plan for maintenance. 2  
The project proposes improvements and reduces climate risk along evacuation routes and/or roadways that provide emergency access to critical facilities such as police stations, fire stations, and hospitals. 0 - The project does not propose improvements to an evacuation route or along roadways that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 1 - The project proposes improvements along an evacuation route OR along a roadway that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 2 - The project proposes improvements along an evacuation route AND along a roadway that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 2  
The project design is expected to address multiple hazards and/or provide multiple environmental benefits such as risk reduction, ecological restoration, aquatic connectivity, improved water quality, groundwater recharge, etc. 0 - Project design is not expected to address multiple hazards or provide multiple environmental benefits. 1 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards or provide multiple environmental benefits. 2 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards and provide multiple environmental benefits. 2  
(Penalty) The project is located in an existing or projected flood zone and/or the project site has flooded in the past and the applicant does not specify how the project will address flooding. 0 - Project is not located in an existing or projected flood zone and site has not flooded in the past OR project is located in a flood zone and the applicant specifies how the project will address flooding. -3 - Project is located in an existing or projected flood zone or site has flooded in the past and the project does not specify how it will address flooding. 0 Yes
(Penalty) The project is located in an area that is vulnerable to extreme heat and the applicant does not specify how the project will address heat. 0 - The project is not located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat OR project is located in a vulnerable area and the applicant specifies how the project will address heat. -3 - The project is located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat and the project does not specify how it will address heat. 0 Yes
Clean Air and Healthy Communities: Provide transportation free of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants and that supports good health.
The project includes design elements aimed at reducing the amount of Single-Occupancy-Vehicle (SOV) trips (Up to 3 points). Disqualifying - The project does not provide effective reductions in the amount of Single Occupancy Vehicle trips 1 - The project provides some reductions in Single Occupancy Vehicle trips, but the extent is unclear or the primary usage of the facility will be for recreation. 2 - The project reduces Single Occupancy Vehicle trips to a moderate or greater extent, and includes viable non-recreational uses for the facility. 3 - The project not only includes reductions in Single Occupancy Vehicle trips by improving facilities for pedestrians and micromobility users, but complementing connections for other non-car modes such as transit or other trails.. 3  
The project reduces greenhouse gas emissions (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 1 - The project supports a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions primarily by reducing travel time delay. 3 - The project includes a variety of elements aimed at reducing emissions such as low or no emission mobility improvements, innovative technologies or methods, and travel demand management. 3  
The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities and natural areas through low impact design, pavement reduction, nature-based adaptation, and other improvements that protect air/water/soil quality, provide ecological restoration and functioning, improve aquatic connectivity, etc. -1 - The project is expected to have a negative impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 0 - The project is not expected to impact adjacent communities or natural areas. 2 - The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 3 - The project specifies native species for any added vegetation or green space. 3 Yes
The proposed project incorporates or will incorporate a meaningful community outreach and engagement process (Up to 3 points). 0 - The proposed project will incorporate all legally required community outreach and engagement necessary for the use of federal funding. 1 - The proposed project will incorporate additional community outreach and engagement as necessary, including public meetings within the served municipality or municipalities. 2 - The proposed project has already been subject toutilized community outreach and engagement, and the applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the project process as it develops. 3 - The proposed project is the result of a rigorous community engagement process, and the proposed scope of work reflects the feedback or input received by the applicant from the community.  The applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the process, and the applicant has novel or innovative strategies to improve community engagement. 3  
The project effectively engages all community members in its outreach strategy and access for the service, specifically persons with disabilities or those with limited English proficiency (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project performs all legally required measures to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 1 - The applicant has identified a strategy to bring community members of all abilities and language proficiencies into the project outreach process and to ensure their access to services. 2 - The applicant has implemented an effective strategy to engage community members of all abilities and language proficiencies into the project engagement process and into offered services, while also identifying areas for potential improvement. 2 Yes
The project improves access to open space or sites for active recreation. 0 - The project does not improve access to open space or sites for active recreation. 2 - The project does improve access to open space or sites for active recreation. 2 Yes
BONUSES    
CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat carbon emissions, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve air quality/treatment. 1  
CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat contaminated water, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve water quality or treatment. 1  
Resilience: The project design is expected to address multiple hazards and/or provide multiple environmental benefits such as risk reduction, ecological restoration, aquatic connectivity, improved water quality, groundwater recharge, etc. 0 - Project design is not expected to address multiple hazards or provide multiple environmental benefits. 1 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards OR provide multiple environmental benefits. 2 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards AND provide multiple environmental benefits. 2  
Resilience: The project design includes provision of educational material for the public related to environmental improvements and aspects of the project/area. 0 - Project will not provide educational material. 1 - Project will provide educational material. 1  
Resilience: The primary purpose of the project is to improve resilience and reduce risk to climate hazards. 0 - The primary purpose of the project is not resilience. 1 - The primary purpose of the project is resilience. 1  
Resilience: The project proponents have used RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool to demonstrate the value of resilience improvements in the project area. 0 - Proponents have not shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. 1 - Proponents have shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. 1  

 

 

 

Table A-6
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation Criteria: Complete Streets Program

 

Project Name PROJECT NAME
Municipality/Proponent PROJECT PROPONENT(S)
Project Type Complete Streets
Scoring Criteria  Base Score Equity Score
Equity: Facilitate an inclusive and transparent transportation-planning process and make investments that eliminate transportation-related disparities borne by people in disadvantaged communities.
An equity multiplier (EM) is applied to criteria that the MPO has identified through public outreach and data analysis as critical transportation needs or where there exist disparities that negatively impact equity populations. These criteria are denoted by a check mark on the right side of this scorecard. Each project’s multiplier is based on the percent of the population in the project area that belongs to each of the MPO’s six equity populations in the project area relative to their region wide averages. The higher the share of equity populations in the project area, the higher the multiplier.  To calculate a final Transportation Equity score, a project's raw equity multiplier is scaled to 20 points and then added to the base score (out of 80 possible points) as shown at the bottom of this scorecard.
Safety: Achieve zero transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries and improve safety for all users of the transportation system.
The project addresses a location with severe crashes. +2   EPDO value of 100 or more +1   EPDO value of less than 100 +0   No EPDO value" 2 Yes
The project addresses a location with a high frequency of crashes. +2   Crash rate between 0.78 or greater +1   Crash rate between 0.20 and 0.78 +0   Crash rate below 0.20 2 Yes
The project addresses a statewide Top Crash Location. 0 - The project does not address a Top 200 Crash Cluster, Top 5% Intersection Crash Cluster, Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster, or Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 1 - The project addresses one of the following: a Top 5% Intersection Crash Cluster, a Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster, or Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 2 - The project addresses two of the following: a Top 5% Intersection Crash Cluster, a Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster, or a Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 3 - The project addresses three or more Intersection, Bicycle, and/or Pedestrian Crash Clusters, or contains a Statewide Top 200 Crash Location. 3  
The project addresses a truck-related safety issue. 0 - The project does not directly address truck safety in the project area. 1 - The project directly addresses truck safety in the project area, including improving the safety of vulnerable users navigating in mixed traffic with trucks. 1  
The project effectively addresses safety for micromobility users. -2 - The project introduces potentially unsafe elements for micromobility users. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits  to safety for micromobility users. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for micromobility users. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for micromobility users. 2  
The project effectively addresses safety for pedestrians. - 2 - The project introduces potentially unsafe elements for pedestrians. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits to safety for pedestrians. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for pedestrians. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for pedestrians. 2 Yes
The project effectively addresses safety for people with disabilities. - 5 - The proposed project introduces potentially unsafe elements for people with disabilities.  Alternatively, the project does not address identifiable issues with Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance in the Project Area. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental enhancements to safety for persons with disabilities. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for people with disabilities. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for people with disabilities. 2 Yes
The project effectively addresses safety for transit operations and users. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits to safety for transit operations or transit users. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for transit operations or transit users. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for transit operations or transit users. 2  
Mobility and Reliability: Support easy and reliable movement of people and freight.
The applicant thoroughly describes deficiencies in the current design of the corridor or intersection, and how the project addresses these deficiencies. 0 - The proposed project includes minor improvements to roadway mobility, or focuses primarily on the preservation of existing assets. 1 - The project primarily upgrades existing infrastructure within the current right of way and street footprint that addresses some of the deficiencies along the corridor. 2 - The project focuses on upgrades and modernization of infrastructure, including improvements to accessibility by non-SOV modes, both within the current street footprint or beyond existing right of way. 3 - The project thoroughly addresses deficiencies in the design of the corridor or intersection, and also addresses potential deficiencies elsewhere on a corridor. 3  
The project addresses an unreliable corridor with significant travel time delay. 0 - The project does not address an unreliable corridor.  1 - The project improves the safety along an unreliable corridor, but the benefits of the improvements are difficult to quantify. 2 - The project significantly improves the safety of travel along an unreliable corridor.  Travel time delay may be improved due to a reduced crash frequency. 3 - The project thoroughly improves the safety of travel along an unreliable corridor, and directly reduces travel time delay through the proposed street design. 3  
The project improves travel time reliability by investing in measures that reduce dependence on single-occupancy-vehicle trips. 0 - The project does not improve travel time reliability, or does not significantly invest in non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes. 1 - The project has some impact on travel time reliability through minor investments in non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes. 2 - The project has some impact on travel time reliability through moderate investments in non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes. 3 - The project has a significant impact on travel time reliability through rigorous investments in non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes. 3  
The project invests in safe pedestrian facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in pedestrian facilities, or establishes facilities that are disconnected from other pedestrian infrastructure with no plans for connections. 1 - The project makes some investments in pedestrian facilities, such as beacons and sidewalks, but investments are limited to the immediate project area (ex: intersection). 2 - The project makes comprehensive investments in new and upgraded pedestrian facilities in the project area, and establishes safe connections to a greater pedestrian network. 2 Yes
The project invests in safe micromobility facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in bicycle facilities, or proposed facilities do not offer significant levels of safety (ex: painted bicycle lanes with no separation). 2 - The project invests in safe bicycle facilities. 2 Yes
The project invests in safe transit facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in any transit facilities. 1 - The project makes some transit-supportive investments (ex: bumpouts near bus stops). 2 - The project directly invests in transit facilities (ex: transit signal priority). 2 Yes
The project improves pedestrian safety near a high-utility corridor to promote walking. 0 - The project does not involve significant pedestrian safety improvements. 1 - The project improves pedestrian safety on a corridor with moderate utility. 2 - The project improves pedestrian safety on a high utility corridor. 2 Yes
The project improves safety near a high-utility corridor for other active transportation modes other than walking. 0 - The project does not involve significant safety improvements for other active transportation modes. 1 - The project improves active transportation safety for other active transportation modes on a corridor with moderate utility. 2 - The project improves active transportation safety for other active transportation modes on a high utility corridor. 2 Yes
Access and Connectivity: Provide transportation options and improve access to key destinations to support economic vitality and high quality of life.
The project serves sites targeted for future development (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not serve a site targeted for future development. 1 - The project serves a site for future development. 2 - The project serves a site targeted for future development that includes transit-supportive mixed-use or residential sites. 3 - The project serves a site or sites targeted for future development that include transit-supportive mixed-use or residential sites, and are included as part of compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act from the community in which it is located. 3  
The project serves existing employment and population centers (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not serve an existing employment or population center. 1 - The project serves an existing employment or population center. 2 - The project serves an existing employment and population center. 3 - The project serves an existing employment and population center, or a population center that has significant affordable housing opportunities. 3 Yes
The project addresses safety concerns in multiple locations. 0 - Project improvements are concentrated at a specific site. 1 - The applicant details how the project is expected to have network improvements at other sites along the corridor. 2 - The project directly addresses multiple concerns at different locations. 2  
The project addresses safety concerns near to key public community assets. 0 - The project is not near to any key public community assets. 1 - The project is near to one or more community assets. 2 - The project addresses safety concerns near key public community assets with a large population of vulnerable users, such as schools, libraries, or senior centers. 2 Yes
The project is a product of or fulfills recommendations identified in a regional or statewide study. 0 - The project is not consistent with or the applicant does not cite a regional or statewide corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 1 - The project is thematically consistent with a regional or statewide study, such as a corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 2 - The project is explicitly called for in a regional or statewide study, such as a corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 2  
The project involves collaboration between multiple municipalities. 0 - Only one municipality is involved in the project. 1 - One or more municipalities are involved in the project. 1  
The project is near to or on a primary thoroughfare for regional freight travel. 0 - The project is not listed on a roadway with significant freight volumes. 1 - The project is on a roadway with significant freight volumes. 1  
The project improves navigability at or along the work area through signage. 0 - No signage improves are incorporated into the project. 1 - Signage improvements, which may include interpretive signage, are included in the proposed project. 1  
(Penalty) The project applicant is an MBTA Community not in compliance with Section 3A. 0 - The municipality is in compliance with or not subject to Section 3A. -5 - The municipality is not in compliance with Section 3A. 0  
Resilience: Provide transportation that supports sustainable environments and enables people to respond and adapt to climate change and other changing conditions.
The project reduces the risk of flooding in the project area through adaptation and resilience improvements. 0 - The project does not address flooding. 1 - The project reduces flood risk using structural adaptation/grey infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces flood risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. 2 Yes
The project reduces the risk of extreme temperatures by reducing pavement cover, planting shade trees, providing shade structures, increasing green space, etc. 0 - The project does not address extreme temperatures. 1 - The project reduces extreme temperature risk using structural adaptation/grey infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces extreme temperature risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. 2 Yes
The project implements recommendations or addresses needs identified in the respective municipality's Hazard Mitigation Plan, Municipal Vulnerability Plan, or Climate Adaptation Plan. 0 - The project does not address needs or recommendations. 2 - The project addresses needs or recommendations. 2  
The project improves stormwater infrastructure beyond MassDEP's MS4 standard. 0 - The project meets minimum standards. 1 - The project includes one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards (adopts stormwater BMPs, prepares pollution and/or erosion prevention plan, adopts environmentally sensitive site design practices, is expected to remove high amounts of TSS, etc.). 2 - Project adopts more than one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards. 2  
The project applicant demonstrates regional coordination or partnership on resilience improvements and project impacts with neighboring municipalities, environmental or EJ advocacy groups, local community organizations, regional or state agencies, etc. 0 - The applicant does not demonstrate regional coordination. 1 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities and/or regional or state agencies. 2 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities, regional or state agencies AND local community organizations/advocacy groups. 2  
The applicant details the expected useful life of the improvements, provides a plan for maintenance of resilience improvements, and/or references current and future climate conditions. 0 - Applicant does not reference current and future climate conditions and does not provide a plan for maintenance. 1 - Applicant references current and future climate conditions OR provides a plan for maintenance. 2 - Applicant references current and future climate conditions AND provides a plan for maintenance. 2  
The project proposes improvements and reduces climate risk along evacuation routes and/or roadways that provide emergency access to critical facilities such as police stations, fire stations, and hospitals. 0 - The project does not propose improvements to an evacuation route or along roadways that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 1 - The project proposes improvements along an evacuation route OR along a roadway that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 2 - The project proposes improvements along an evacuation route AND along a roadway that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 2  
(Penalty) The project is located in an existing or projected flood zone and/or the project site has flooded in the past and the applicant does not specify how the project will address flooding. 0 - Project is not located in an existing or projected flood zone and site has not flooded in the past OR project is located in a flood zone and the applicant specifies how the project will address flooding. -3 - Project is located in an existing or projected flood zone or site has flooded in the past and the project does not specify how it will address flooding. 0 Yes
(Penalty) The project is located in an area that is vulnerable to extreme heat and the applicant does not specify how the project will address heat. 0 - The project is not located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat OR project is located in a vulnerable area and the applicant specifies how the project will address heat. -3 - The project is located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat and the project does not specify how it will address heat. 0 Yes
Clean Air and Healthy Communities: Provide transportation free of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants and that supports good health.
The project includes design elements aimed at reducing the amount of Single-Occupancy-Vehicle (SOV) trips (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in single occupancy vehicle trips. 1 - The project provides indirect support to reductions in single occupancy vehicle trips through supportive infrastructure for transit or active transportation, such as signage, web applications, educational campaigns, or personnel improvements. 3 - The project supports a reduction in the amount of single occupancy vehicle trips by improving the condition or accessibility of existing transit or active transportation assets. 3 Yes
The project reduces greenhouse gas emissions (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 1 - The project supports a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions primarily by reducing travel time delay. 3 - The project includes a variety of elements aimed at reducing emissions such as low or no emission mobility improvements, innovative technologies or methods, and travel demand management. 3  
The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities and natural areas through low impact design, pavement reduction, nature-based adaptation, and other improvements that protect air/water/soil quality, provide ecological restoration and functioning, improve aquatic connectivity, etc. -3 - The project is expected to have a negative impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 0 - The project is not expected to impact adjacent communities or natural areas. 2 - The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 3 - The project is expected to have a positive impact AND specifies appropriate plant species for any added vegetation or green space (native species, flood/drought tolerant, diverse range of species, etc.). 3 Yes
The proposed project incorporates or will incorporate a meaningful community outreach and engagement process (Up to 3 points). 0 - The proposed project will incorporate all legally required community outreach and engagement necessary for the use of federal funding. 1 - The proposed project will incorporate additional community outreach and engagement as necessary, including public meetings within the served municipality or municipalities. 2 - The proposed project has already been subject to community outreach and engagement, and the applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the project process as it develops. 3 - The proposed project is the result of a rigorous community engagement process, and the proposed scope of work reflects the feedback or input received by the applicant from the community.  The applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the process, and the applicant has novel or innovative strategies to improve community engagement. 3  
The project effectively engages all community members in its outreach strategy and access for the service, specifically people with disabilities or those with limited English proficiency (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project performs all legally required measures to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 1 - The applicant has identified a strategy to bring community members of all abilities and language proficiencies into the project outreach process and to ensure their access to services. 2 - The applicant has implemented an effective strategy to engage community members of all abilities and language proficiencies into the project outreach process and into offered services, while also identifying areas for potential improvement. 2 Yes
The project improves access to open space or sites for active recreation. 0 - The project does not improve access to open space or sites for active recreation. 2 - The project does improve access to open space or sites for active recreation. 2  
BONUSES    
CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat carbon emissions, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve air quality/treatment. 1  
CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat contaminated water, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve water quality or treatment. 1  
Resilience: The project design is expected to address multiple hazards and/or provide multiple environmental benefits such as risk reduction, ecological restoration, aquatic connectivity, improved water quality, groundwater recharge, etc. 0 - Project design is not expected to address multiple hazards or provide multiple environmental benefits. 1 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards OR provide multiple environmental benefits. 2 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards AND provide multiple environmental benefits. 2  
Resilience: The project design includes provision of educational material for the public related to environmental improvements and aspects of the project/area. 0 - Project will not provide educational material. 1 - Project will provide educational material. 1  
Resilience: The primary purpose of the project is to improve resilience and reduce risk to climate hazards. 0 - The primary purpose of the project is not resilience. 1 - The primary purpose of the project is resilience. 1  
Resilience: The project proponents have used RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool to demonstrate the value of resilience improvements in the project area. 0 - Proponents have not shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. 1 - Proponents have shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. 1  

 

Table A-7
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Intersection Improvements Program

 

Project Name PROJECT NAME
Municipality/Proponent PROJECT PROPONENT(S)
Project Type Intersection Improvements
Scoring Criteria  Base Score Equity Score
Equity: Facilitate an inclusive and transparent transportation-planning process and make investments that eliminate transportation-related disparities borne by people in disadvantaged communities.
An equity multiplier (EM) is applied to criteria that the MPO has identified through public outreach and data analysis as critical transportation needs or where there exist disparities that negatively impact equity populations. These criteria are denoted by a check mark on the right side of this scorecard. Each project’s multiplier is based on the percent of the population in the project area that belongs to each of the MPO’s six equity populations in the project area relative to their region wide averages. The higher the share of equity populations in the project area, the higher the multiplier.  To calculate a final Transportation Equity score, a project's raw equity multiplier is scaled to 20 points and then added to the base score (out of 80 possible points) as shown at the bottom of this scorecard.
Safety: Achieve zero transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries and improve safety for all users of the transportation system.
The project addresses a location with severe crashes. +3   EPDO value of 300 or more +2   EPDO value of 100 to 299 +1   EPDO value of less than 100 +0   No EPDO value" 3 Yes
The project addresses a location with a high frequency of crashes. +3   Crash rate of 1.36 or greater +2   Crash rate between 0.78 and 1.36 +1   Crash rate between 0.20 and 0.78 +0   Crash rate below 0.20 3 Yes
The project addresses a statewide Top Crash Location. 0 - The project does not address a Top 200 Crash Cluster, Top 5% Intersection Crash Cluster, Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster, or Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 1 - The project addresses one of the following: a Top 5% Intersection Crash Cluster, a Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster, or Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 2 - The project addresses two of the following: a Top 5% Intersection Crash Cluster, a Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster, or a Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 3 - The project addresses three or more Intersection, Bicycle, and/or Pedestrian Crash Clusters, or contains a Statewide Top 200 Crash Location. 3  
The project addresses a location identified in the Boston Region MPO Regional Safety Action Plan. 0 - The project does not address locations in the Regional Safety Action Plan. 1 - The project is located on the high injury network (HIN), but is not directly identified in the Regional Safety Action Plan. 2 - The project is located on the high injury network (HIN) and is identified in the Regional Safety Action Plan. 2  
The project addresses a truck-related safety issue. 0 - The project does not directly address truck safety in the project area. 1 - The project directly addresses truck safety in the project area, including improving the safety of vulnerable users navigating in mixed traffic with trucks. 1  
The project makes comprehensive safety improvements for all road users. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements to safety for all road users. 1 - The project makes some minor improvements to safety for automobiles. 2 - The project makes some moderate improvements to safety, but these improvements are primarily directed for automobiles. 3 - The project makes some minor improvements to the safety of vulnerable roadway users and automobiles. 4 - The project makes some moderate improvements to the safety of vulnerable roadway users, but improvements are primarily directed at automobiles. 5 - The project makes comprehensive improvements for all roadway users, such that all users may navigate through the corridor safely, including the elimination of mixed traffic between vulnerable users and automobiles where practicable.   5  
The project effectively addresses safety for micromobility users. -2 - The project introduces potentially unsafe elements for micromobility users. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits  to safety for micromobility users. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for micromobility users. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for micromobility users. 2  
The project effectively addresses safety for pedestrians. - 2 - The project introduces potentially unsafe elements for pedestrians. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits to safety for pedestrians. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for pedestrians. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for pedestrians. 2 Yes
The project effectively addresses safety for persons with disabilities. - 5 - The proposed project introduces potentially unsafe elements for persons with disabilities.  Alternatively, the project does not address identifiable issues with Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance in the Project Area. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental enhancements to safety for persons with disabilities. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for persons with disabilities. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for persons with disabilities. 2 Yes
The project effectively addresses safety for transit operations and users. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits to safety for transit operations or transit users. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for transit operations or transit users. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for transit operations or transit users. 2  
Mobility and Reliability: Support easy and reliable movement of people and freight.
The applicant thoroughly describes deficiencies in the current design of the corridor or intersection with regard to safety, and how the project addresses these deficiencies. 0 - The proposed project has minor improvements to roadway safety, or focuses primarily on the preservation of existing assets. 1 - The project primarily upgrades existing infrastructure within the current right of way and street footprint that addresses some of the deficiencies along the corridor. 2 - The project focuses on upgrades and modernization of infrastructure, including improvements to accessibility by non-SOV modes, both within the current street footprint or beyond existing right of way. 3 - The project thoroughly addresses deficiencies in the design of the corridor or intersection, and also addresses potential deficiencies elsewhere on a corridor. 3  
The project addresses an unreliable corridor with significant travel time delay. 0 - The project does not address an unreliable corridor.  1 - The project improves the safety along an unreliable corridor, but the benefits of the improvements are difficult to quantify. 2 - The project significantly improves the safety of travel along an unreliable corridor.  Travel time delay may be improved due to a reduced crash frequency. 3 - The project thoroughly improves the safety of travel along an unreliable corridor, and directly reduces travel time delay through the proposed street design. 3  
The project improves travel time reliability by investing in measures that reduce dependence on single-occupancy-vehicle trips. 0 - The project does not improve travel time reliability, or does not significantly invest in non-SOV transportation modes. 1 - The project has some impact on travel time reliability through minor investments in non-SOV transportation modes. 2 - The project has a significant impact on travel time reliability through rigorous investments in non-SOV transportation modes. 2  
The project invests in safe pedestrian facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in pedestrian facilities, or establishes facilities that are disconnected from other pedestrian infrastructure with no plans for connections. 1 - The project makes some investments in pedestrian facilities, such as beacons and sidewalks, but investments are limited to the immediate project area (ex: intersection). 2 - The project makes comprehensive investments in new and upgraded pedestrian facilities in the project area, and establishes safe connections to a greater pedestrian network. 2 Yes
The project invests in safe micromobility facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in bicycle facilities, or proposed facilities do not offer significant levels of safety (ex: painted bicycle lanes with no separation). 2 - The project invests in safe bicycle facilities. 2 Yes
The project invests in safe transit facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in any transit facilities. 1 - The project makes some transit-supportive investments (ex: bumpouts near bus stops). 2 - The project directly invests in transit facilities (ex: transit signal priority). 2 Yes
The project improves pedestrian safety near a high-utility corridor to promote walking over single occupancy vehicle trips. 0 - The project does not involve significant pedestrian safety improvements. 1 - The project improves pedestrian safety on a corridor with moderate utility. 2 - The project improves pedestrian safety on a high utility corridor. 2 Yes
The project improves safety near a high-utility corridor for other active transportation modes. 0 - The project does not involve significant safety improvements for other active transportation modes. 1 - The project improves active transportation safety on a corridor with moderate utility. 2 - The project improves active transportation safety on a high utility corridor. 2 Yes
Access and Connectivity: Provide transportation options and improve access to key destinations to support economic vitality and high quality of life.
The project serves sites targeted for future development (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not serve a site targeted for future development. 1 - The project serves a site for future development. 2 - The project serves a site targeted for future development that includes mixed-use or residential sites. 3 - The project serves a site or sites targeted for future development that includes mixed-use or residential sites, and are included as part of compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act from the community in which it is located. 3  
The project serves existing employment and population centers (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not serve an existing employment or population center. 1 - The project serves an existing employment or population center. 2 - The project serves an existing employment and population center. 3 - The project serves an existing employment and population center, or a population center that has significant affordable housing opportunities. 3 Yes
The project addresses safety concerns in multiple locations. 0 - Project improvements are concentrated at a specific site. 1 - The applicant details how the project is expected to have network improvements at other sites along the corridor. 2 - The project directly addresses multiple concerns at different locations. 2  
The project addresses safety concerns near to key public community assets. 0 - The project is not near to any key public community assets. 1 - The project addresses safety concerns near key public community assets with a large population of vulnerable users, such as schools, libraries, or senior centers. 1 Yes
The project is a product of or fulfills recommendations identified in a regional or statewide study. 0 - The project is not consistent with or the applicant does not cite a regional or statewide corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 1 - The project is thematically consistent with a regional or statewide study, such as a corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 2 - The project is explicitly called for in a regional or statewide study, such as a corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 2  
The project involves collaboration between multiple municipalities. 0 - Only one municipality is involved in the project. 1 - One or more municipalities are involved in the project. 1  
The project is near to or on a primary thoroughfare for regional freight travel. 0 - The project is not listed on a roadway with significant freight volumes. 1 - The project is on a roadway with significant freight volumes. 1  
The project improves navigability at or along the work area. 0 - No signage improves are incorporated into the project. 1 - Signage improvements, which may include interpretive signage, are included in the proposed project. 1  
Resilience: Provide transportation that supports sustainable environments and enables people to respond and adapt to climate change and other changing conditions.
The project reduces the risk of flooding in the project area through adaptation and resilience improvements. 0 - The project does not address flooding. 1 - The project reduces flood risk using structural adaptation/grey infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces flood risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. 2 Yes
The project reduces the risk of extreme heat by reducing pavement cover, planting shade trees, providing shade structures, increasing green space, etc. 0 - The project does not address extreme heat. 1 - The project reduces extreme heat risk using structural adaptation/grey infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces extreme heat risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. 2 Yes
The project implements recommendations or addresses needs identified in the respective municipality's Hazard Mitigation Plan, Municipal Vulnerability Plan, or Climate Adaptation Plan. 0 - The project does not address needs or recommendations. 2 - The project addresses needs or recommendations. 2  
The project improves stormwater infrastructure beyond MassDEP's MS4 standard. 0 - The project meets minimum standards. 1 - The project includes one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards (adopts stormwater BMPs, prepares pollution and/or erosion prevention plan, adopts environmentally sensitive site design practices, is expected to remove high amounts of TSS, etc.). 2 - Project adopts more than one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards. 2  
The project applicant demonstrates regional coordination or partnership on resilience improvements and project impacts with neighboring municipalities, environmental or EJ advocacy groups, local community organizations, regional or state agencies, etc. 0 - The applicant does not demonstrate regional coordination. 1 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities and/or regional or state agencies. 2 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities, regional or state agencies AND local community organizations/advocacy groups. 2  
The applicant details the expected useful life of the improvements, provides a plan for maintenance of resilience improvements, and/or references current and future climate conditions. 0 - Applicant does not reference current and future climate conditions and does not provide a plan for maintenance. 1 - Applicant references current and future climate conditions AND/OR provides a plan for maintenance. 1  
The project proposes improvements and reduces climate risk along evacuation routes and/or roadways that provide emergency access to critical facilities such as police stations, fire stations, and hospitals. 0 - The project does not propose improvements to an evacuation route or along roadways that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 1 - The project proposes improvements along an evacuation route OR along a roadway that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 1  
(Penalty) The project is located in an existing or projected flood zone and/or the project site has flooded in the past and the applicant does not specify how the project will address flooding. 0 - Project is not located in an existing or projected flood zone and site has not flooded in the past OR project is located in a flood zone and the applicant specifies how the project will address flooding. -3 - Project is located in an existing or projected flood zone or site has flooded in the past and the project does not specify how it will address flooding. 0 Yes
(Penalty) The project is located in an area that is vulnerable to extreme heat and the applicant does not specify how the project will address heat. 0 - The project is not located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat OR project is located in a vulnerable area and the applicant specifies how the project will address heat. -3 - The project is located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat and the project does not specify how it will address heat. 0 Yes
Clean Air and Healthy Communities: Provide transportation free of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants and that supports good health.
The project includes design elements aimed at reducing the amount of Single-Occupancy-Vehicle (SOV) trips (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in SOV trips. 1 - The project provides indirect support to reductions in SOV trips through supportive infrastructure for transit or active transportation, such as signage, web applications, educational campaigns, or personnel improvements. 2 - The project supports a reduction in the amount of SOV trips by improving the condition or accessibility of existing transit or active transportation assets. 2 Yes
The project includes design elements aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 1 - The project supports a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions primarily by reducing travel time delay. 2 - The project includes a variety of elements aimed at reducing emissions such as low or no emission mobility improvements, innovative technologies or methods, and travel demand management. 2  
The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities and natural areas through low impact design, pavement reduction, nature-based adaptation, and other improvements that protect air/water/soil quality, provide ecological restoration and functioning, improve aquatic connectivity, etc. -3 - The project is expected to have a negative impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 0 - The project is not expected to impact adjacent communities or natural areas. 2 - The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 3 - The project is expected to have a positive impact AND specifies appropriate plant species for any added vegetation or green space (native species, flood/drought tolerant, diverse range of species, etc.). 3 Yes
The proposed project incorporates or will incorporate a meaningful community outreach and engagement process (Up to 3 points). 0 - The proposed project will incorporate all legally required community outreach and engagement necessary for the use of federal funding. 1 - The proposed project will incorporate additional community outreach and engagement as necessary, including public meetings within the served municipality or municipalities. 2 - The proposed project has already been subject to community outreach and engagement, and the applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the project process as it develops. 3 - The proposed project is the result of a rigorous community engagement process, and the proposed scope of work reflects the feedback or input received by the applicant from the community.  The applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the process, and the applicant has novel or innovative strategies to improve community engagement. 3  
The project proposes design elements aimed at improving water quality and reducing pollutant runoff to adjacent water resources. (Up to 1 point). 0 - The project does not propose any measures that address water quality, or contaminants generated by the facility or along the transit route. 1 - The project directly improves water quality through technologies or strategies that improve treatment capacity or limit contamination, including investment in expanded stormwater treatment facilities or reductions in impervious surfaces. 1 Yes
BONUSES    
CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat carbon emissions, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve air quality/treatment. 1  
CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat contaminated water, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve water quality or treatment. 1  
Resilience: The project design is expected to address multiple hazards and/or provide multiple environmental benefits such as risk reduction, ecological restoration, aquatic connectivity, improved water quality, groundwater recharge, etc. 0 - Project design is not expected to address multiple hazards or provide multiple environmental benefits. 1 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards OR provide multiple environmental benefits. 2 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards AND provide multiple environmental benefits. 2  
Resilience: The project design includes provision of educational material for the public related to environmental improvements and aspects of the project/area. 0 - Project will not provide educational material. 1 - Project will provide educational material. 1  
Resilience: The primary purpose of the project is to improve resilience and reduce risk to climate hazards. 0 - The primary purpose of the project is not resilience. 1 - The primary purpose of the project is resilience. 1  
Resilience: The project proponents have used RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool to demonstrate the value of resilience improvements in the project area. 0 - Proponents have not shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. 1 - Proponents have shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. 1  

 

 

Table A-8
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Transit Transformation Program

 

Project Name PROJECT NAME
Municipality/Proponent PROJECT PROPONENT(S)
Project Type Transit Transformation
Scoring Criteria  Base Score Equity Score
Equity: Facilitate an inclusive and transparent transportation-planning process and make investments that eliminate transportation-related disparities borne by people in disadvantaged communities.
An equity multiplier (EM) is applied to criteria that the MPO has identified through public outreach and data analysis as critical transportation needs or where there exist disparities that negatively impact equity populations. These criteria are denoted by a check mark on the right side of this scorecard. Each project’s multiplier is based on the percent of the population in the project area that belongs to each of the MPO’s six equity populations in the project area relative to their region wide averages. The higher the share of equity populations in the project area, the higher the multiplier.  To calculate a final Transportation Equity score, a project's raw equity multiplier is scaled to 20 points and then added to the base score (out of 80 possible points) as shown at the bottom of this scorecard.
Safety: Achieve zero transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries and improve safety for all users of the transportation system.
The proposed project addresses a documented operational safety issue (Up to 4 Points). -2 - The project does not incorporate improvements to operational safety at a facility with documented safety incidents. 0 - The project does not incorporate improvements to operational safety, and the involved facility or facilities do not have documented safety issues or risks. 2 - The project performs preventative maintenance on a facility to mitigate the emergence of safety hazards at the facility. 4 - The project directly addresses documented safety hazards that are already present at the facility, in addition to preventative maintenance. 5  
The proposed project improves the safety of users within the transit facility (Up to 2 Points). 0 - The project does not incorporate safety improvements for users in the design, or does not involve a rider-facing facility. 1 - In maintaining a state of good repair for the facility, the project mitigates the future emergence of safety hazards for users. 2 - The project directly addresses known user safety issues at stations through capital investment. 4 Yes
The proposed project improves the safety of users traveling to and from transit facilities (Up to 2 Points). 0 - The proposed project does not impact safety for users traveling to and from transit facilities. 1 - The proposed project makes minor safety improvements for users traveling to and from transit facilities, or improvements are not primarily directed towards vulnerable users. 2 - The proposed project makes significant improvements for users traveling to and from transit facilities, including improvements for vulnerable users. 3  
The proposed project supports dedicated rights of way for transit, or mitigates interference from other facility users (Up to 2 Points). 0 - The project does not address any shared right of way 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety on existing rights of way used by transit operators. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety on existing rights of way used by transit operators, or creates new dedicated right of way for transit vehicles. 2  
The proposed project improves system responsiveness during emergency events (Up to 2 Points). 0 - The proposed project does not improve emergency response times. 1 - The proposed project makes improvements to emergency response times within the facility 2 - The proposed project makes improvements to emergency response times within and beyond the facility 2  
Mobility and Reliability: Support easy and reliable movement of people and freight.
The project reduces transit passenger delay (Up to 5 points) 5 Yes
The project invests in new transit assets or expanded service (Up to 5 points) 5 Yes
The project performs state of good repair improvements that extend the useful life of the facility (Up to 2 points) 0 - The project does not incorporate state of good repair improvements for existing facilities. 1 - The project incorporates state of good repair improvements for existing facilities. 2 - The project incorporates state of good repair improvements for existing facilities, and the proposed mobilization and construction strategy avoids closures to transit facilities or disruptions to transit operations. 2  
The project improves intermodal connections, and the ability of users to navigate those connections. 2  
The project improves conditions for personnel that support transit operations (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project does not directly incorporate improvements for personnel involved in transit operations. 1 - The project incorporates improvements for non-customer-facing transit operations personnel. 2 - The project incorporates improvements for customer-facing transit personnel. 2  
Access and Connectivity: Provide transportation options and improve access to key destinations to support economic vitality and high quality of life.
The project serves sites targeted for future development (Up to 3 points). -3 - The project does not serve a site targeted for future development due to noncompliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act from the community in which it is located. 0 - The project does not serve a site targeted for future development. 1 - The project serves a site for future development. 2 - The project serves a site targeted for future development that includes transit-supportive mixed-use or residential sites. 3 - The project serves a site or sites targeted for future development that include transit-supportive mixed-use or residential sites, and are included as part of compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act from the community in which it is located. 3  
The project serves existing employment and population centers (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not serve an existing employment or population center. 1 - The project serves an existing employment or population center. 2 - The project serves an existing employment and population center. 3 - The project serves an existing employment and population center, or a population center that has significant affordable housing opportunities. 3 Yes
The project invests in pedestrian connections to transit facilities or routes (Up to 4 points). -1 - The project does not invest in pedestrian connections to transit facilities, and no pedestrian connections are present.  The applicant has sufficient jurisdiction or authority to provide such improvements. 0 - The project does not invest in pedestrian connections to transit facilities or routes, but connections to the facilities and routes exist and are in fair or better condition.  Or, if a lack of connectivity exists, it is due to a lack of jurisdiction on the behalf of the applicant to improve. 1 - The project improves the condition of an existing pedestrian facility in the project area. 3 - The project adds a new, safe pedestrian connection for transit access in the project area. 3 Yes
The project invests in bicycle connections to transit facilities or routes (Up to 4 points). -1 - The project does not invest in bicycle connections to transit facilities, and no pedestrian connections are present.  The applicant has sufficient jurisdiction or authority to provide such improvements. 0 - The project does not invest in bicycle connections to transit facilities or routes, but connections to the facilities and routes exist and are in fair or better condition.  Or, if a lack of connectivity exists, it is due to a lack of jurisdiction on the behalf of the applicant to improve. 2 - The project improves the condition of an existing bicycle facility in the project area. 3 - The project improves the condition and user safety of an existing bicycle facility in the project area. 4 - The project adds a new, safe bicycle connection for transit access in the project area. 3  
The project improves ADA accessibility for transit facilities or routes (Up to 4 points). -2 - The project does not invest in ADA accessibility upgrades for a facility where deficiencies can be identified. 0 - The project does not invest in ADA accessibility upgrades for a facility or route. 2 - The project invests in ADA accessibility upgrades for a transit facility. 4 - The project invests in ADA accessibility upgrades for a transit facility or routes and improves ADA accessibility for connecting features (ie: sidewalks). 4 Yes
Resilience: Provide transportation that supports sustainable environments and enables people to respond and adapt to climate change and other changing conditions.
The project reduces the risk of flooding in the project area through adaptation and resilience improvements. 0 - The project does not address flooding. 1 - The project reduces flood risk using structural adaptation/grey infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces flood risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. 3 - The project adopts green infrastructure and specifies appropriate plant types for any added vegetation (native species, flood/drought tolerant, diverse range of species, etc.) 3 Yes
The project reduces the risk of extreme heat by reducing pavement cover, planting shade trees, providing shade structures, increasing green space, etc. 0 - The project does not address extreme heat. 1 - The project reduces extreme heat risk using structural adaptation/grey infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces extreme heat risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. 3 - The project adopts green infrastructure and specifies appropriate plant types for any added vegetation (native species, flood/drought tolerant, diverse range of species, etc.) 3 Yes
The project implements recommendations or addresses needs identified in the respective municipality's Hazard Mitigation Plan, Municipal Vulnerability Plan, or Climate Adaptation Plan. 0 - The project does not address needs or recommendations. 2 - The project addresses needs or recommendations. 2  
The project improves stormwater infrastructure beyond MassDEP's MS4 standard. 0 - The project meets minimum standards. 1 - The project includes one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards (adopts stormwater BMPs, prepares pollution and/or erosion prevention plan, adopts environmentally sensitive site design practices, is expected to remove high amounts of TSS, etc.). 2 - Project adopts more than one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards. 2  
The project applicant demonstrates regional coordination or partnership on resilience improvements and project impacts with neighboring municipalities, environmental or EJ advocacy groups, local community organizations, regional or state agencies, etc. 0 - The applicant does not demonstrate regional coordination. 1 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities and/or regional or state agencies. 2 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities, regional or state agencies AND local community organizations/advocacy groups. 2  
The project addresses risk to rider health and safety posed by climate hazards. 0 - The project does not address risk to rider health and safety posed by climate hazards. 3 - The project proposes improvements that will reduce risk to rider health and safety posed by climate hazards. 3  
The applicant details the expected useful life of the improvements and provides a plan for maintenance of resilience improvements beyond the construction phase. 0 - The applicant does not provide a maintenance plan and/or clear information as to the expected useful life of the asset. 1 - The applicant does provide a maintenance plan and/or clear information as to the expected useful life of the asset. 1 Yes
(Penalty) The project is located in an existing or projected flood zone and/or the project site has flooded in the past and the applicant does not specify how the project will address flooding. 0 - Project is not located in an existing or projected flood zone and site has not flooded in the past OR project is located in a flood zone and the applicant specifies how the project will address flooding. -3 - Project is located in an existing or projected flood zone or site has flooded in the past and the project does not specify how it will address flooding. 0 Yes
(Penalty) The project is located in an area that is vulnerable to extreme heat and the applicant does not specify how the project will address heat. 0 - The project is not located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat OR project is located in a vulnerable area and the applicant specifies how the project will address heat. -3 - The project is located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat and the project does not specify how it will address heat. 0 Yes
Clean Air and Healthy Communities: Provide transportation free of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants and that supports good health.
The project supports a reduction in the amount of Single-Occupancy-Vehicle (SOV) trips for a given area (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in SOV trips. 1 - The project provides indirect support to reductions in SOV trips through the implementation of transit-supportive infrastructure, such as signage, web applications, education campaigns, or personnel improvements. 2 - The project supports a reduction in the amount of SOV trips by improving the condition or accessibility of existing transit assets, or reliability of existing service. 3 - The project supports a reduction in the amount of SOV trips by improving the accessibility or capacity of existing transit assets, making investments that improve the frequency or capacity of service, or expand service area or hours of operation for transit. 3 Yes
The project directly supports a reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from transit operations or facilities (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from transit operations or facilities, or the support is indirect. 1 - The project supports reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from transit operations or facilities through an investment in low emission technologies. 2 - The project supports reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from transit operations or facilities through investments in both low emission technologies and no emission technologies. 3 - The project invests exclusively in the adoption and installation of zero-emission technologies or facility electrification. 3 Yes
The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities and natural areas through low impact design, pavement reduction, nature-based adaptation, and other improvements that protect air/water/soil quality, provide ecological restoration and functioning, improve aquatic connectivity, etc. -1 - The project is expected to have a negative impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 0 - The project is not expected to impact adjacent communities or natural areas. 1.5 - The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 3 - The project specifies native species for any added vegetation or green space. 3  
The project proposes design elements aimed at removing air pollutants and improving air quality. (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project does not propose any measures that address air quality. 2 - The project proposes design elements that remove air pollutants and improve air quality. 2  
The project proposes design elements aimed at improving water quality and reducing pollutant runoff to adjacent water resources. (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project does not propose any measures that address water quality, or contaminants generated by the facility or along the transit route. 2 - The project directly improves water quality through technologies or strategies that improve treatment capacity or limit contamination, including investment in expanded stormwater treatment facilities or reductions in impervious surfaces. 2  
The proposed project incorporates or will incorporate a meaningful community outreach and engagement process (Up to 3 points). 0 - The proposed project will incorporate all legally required community outreach and engagement necessary for the use of federal funding. 1 - The proposed project will incorporate additional community outreach and engagement as necessary, including public meetings within the served municipality or municipalities. 2 - The proposed project has already been subject to community outreach and engagement, and the applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the project process as it develops. 3 - The proposed project is the result of a rigorous community engagement process, and the proposed scope of work reflects the feedback or input received by the applicant from the community.  The applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the process, and the applicant has novel or innovative strategies to improve community engagement. 3 Yes
BONUSES    
CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat carbon emissions, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve air quality/treatment. 1  
CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat contaminated water, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve water quality or treatment. 1  
Resilience: The project design is expected to address multiple hazards and/or provide multiple environmental benefits such as risk reduction, ecological restoration, aquatic connectivity, improved water quality, groundwater recharge, etc. 0 - Project design is not expected to address multiple hazards or provide multiple environmental benefits. 1 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards OR provide multiple environmental benefits. 2 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards AND provide multiple environmental benefits. 2  
Resilience: The project design includes provision of educational material for the public related to environmental improvements and aspects of the project/area. 0 - Project will not provide educational material. 1 - Project will provide educational material. 1  
Resilience: The primary purpose of the project is to improve resilience and reduce risk to climate hazards. 0 - The primary purpose of the project is not resilience. 1 - The primary purpose of the project is resilience. 1  
Resilience: The project proponents have used RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool to demonstrate the value of resilience improvements in the project area. 0 - Proponents have not shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. 1 - Proponents have shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. 1  

 

 

Table A-9
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Community Connections Program Project Evaluation Criteria: Bicycle Lanes

 

Evaluation Criteria for the FFYs 2025 Community Connections Program: Bicycle Racks Applications
Scoring Criteria   Max Points
Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations.
Work locations are near to existing areas of concentrated development or public spaces. 0 - The proposed work locations are not near to a moderate density of residential housing, commercial businesses, or public facilities. 1 - The proposed work locations are near to some mid-density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 2 - The proposed work locations are near to mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 3 - The proposed work locations are near to a combination of mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments and public facilities and open space. 3
Work locations are near to planned developments or public spaces. 0 - No planned developments or public realm improvements are sited near the work locations. 1 - Proposed developments in the project area are limited. 2 - Numerous developments are proposed at or near work locations for the project, and include enabling land uses. 3 - All work locations are near to areas of planned development, and the types of development are supportive to demand for cycling.  Alternatively, full credit may also be earned if some of the work locations are near designated areas for Transit Oriented Development, including zones for compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act. 3
Work locations for the project are situated near to transit facilities. 0 - Proposed work locations are not located near transit stations. 1 - At least one of the proposed work locations is within 300 feet of a transit facility. 2 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility.  3 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility, and the RTA/owner of the facility has provided written support for the project. 3
Work locations for the project complement transit operating routes. 0 - Proposed work locations are not near transit routes. 1 - Only one work location in the project is located near a transit route with limited accessibility or utility to and from that point. 2 - One work location in the project is located near a major transit route, but the location provides some utility to and from that point.  Or, more than one work location is near a transit route, but the locations are not well connected to one another. 3 - The proposed work locations effectively mirror one or more transit routes, and improve accessibility to and from that route. 3
The work location or locations are safely accessible by walking. 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks and crosswalks. 1 - Less than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 2 - More than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 3 - All work locations are near safe, pedestrian-accessible sites that include signalized crosswalks and continuous sidewalks. 3
The work location or locations are near to safe bicycle-supportive infrastructure. 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe bicycle infrastructure. 1 - Most proposed work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that does not provide physical separation for users. 2 - Most proposed work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that provides some on-road separation for users. 3 - Most or all work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that provides full physical separation, including vertical or horizontal separation, for users. 3
Connectivity Score   18
Regional and Interlocal Coordination    
The project includes a substantial public engagement process. 0 - The municipality or municipalities applying for the project are the primary stakeholders in the project development process. 1 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged their communities for the purpose of implementing the proposed improvements, specifically entities responsible for ensuring the continuing operations of the project (ROW, local operating costs, etc.) 2 - The municipality or municipalities have held public meetings on the proposed project, in addition to the above. 3 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged stakeholders in their communities for the purpose of soliciting feedback to improve the planning and prioritization of the project, in addition to the above. 4 - The project involves a rigorous public engagement process that addresses multiple public and private groups at the local level.  The public engagement process specifically led to the identification of sites included in the project. 4
The project demonstrates collaboration between different components of the municipality for site prioritization. 0 - The applicant is not working with other business units within the municipality as part of the project. 1 - The applicant has received support from elected officials within the municipality for the project beyond the budget process. 2 - In addition to the above, the selection of sites as part of the project was performed in consultation with other municipal units, including for example school committees, Councils on Aging, Parks Departments, etc. 2
The project demonstrates collaboration between multiple municipalities. 0 - No direct support from other municipalities is provided. 1 - The applicant is a regional organization providing bicycle parking for one or more municipalities. 2 - The project involves collaboration between one or more municipalities. 2
The project demonstrates collaboration with other state or federal agencies. 0 - The project does not involve any direct coordination with state or federal agencies in a manner unrelated to the TIP process. 1 - The project involves a state or federal facility, and support for the applicant to improve that facility has been provided by the facility owner.  The owner is not otherwise involved in the project. 2 - The project is a direct partnership between a municipality and a state or federal agency, which may be demonstrated through providing bicycle racks at State/National Parks, publicly-accessible state/federal buildings (including universities), or other facilities. 2
Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors 0 - No direct support from private entities is listed. 2 - The project proponent coordinated with the private sector in the development of the project as part of selecting site areas. 4 - The project includes extensive support between the public and private sectors, including private funding contributions. 4
Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO 0 - The applicant has not attached letters of support. 2 - Letters of support are attached to demonstrate fulfillment of the above criteria. 2
Coordination Score   16
Plan Implementation: Support local, regional, and statewide planning efforts.  
Project is included in local plans or studies 0 - The project is not included in any local plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, and those documents are cited by the applicant. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a local plan or study. 6
Project is included in regional plans or studies, including those created by the Boston Region MPO and Metropolitan Area Planning Council 0 - The project is not included in any regional plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, and the applicant cites those documents.  Alternatively, the applicant developed this project or identified the need being addressed by the project through direct consultation with MAPC or a similar body. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a regional plan or study, or is located at a regionally significant junction for the Bluebikes network as identified by MAPC or a similar entity. 6
Project is included in statewide plans or studies 0 - The project is not included in any statewide plans or studies. 2 - The project is included in a statewide planning document, but is not cited by the applicant. 4 - The project is included in a statewide planning document cited by the applicant. 4
Project acts as an 'anchor' for development of a sustainable bicycle network. 0 - The project does not add racks to an area of at least low-moderate utility. 1 - The project expands into an area of low-moderate utility, or add racks where none currently exist to an area of low utility. 2 - The project expands into an area of moderate or greater utility. 2
Plan Implementation Score   18
Transportation Equity: Ensure that all people receive comparable benefits from, and are not disproportionately burdened by, MPO investments, regardless of race, color, national origin, age, income, ability, or sex.
Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index.                                                             Equity Score Look-up Table                 If the sum of the Indices Greater than…        …And Less Than…        The Project Score is… 0                                                                          1                                        0 0.99                                                                     6                                        3 5.99                                                                    11                                       6 10.99                                                                  16                                       9 15.99                                                                  21                                      12 20.99                                                                  27                                      18 18
The project expands or maintains direct access to a safe bicycle facility.   0 - Work locations for the project are not near to a safe bicycle facility. 1 - Work locations for the project are near to a safe bicycle facility. 1
The project serves a community with a low rate of automobile ownership. 0 - The project does not install bicycle racks in an area with low rates of automobile ownership. 1 - The project installs bicycle racks in an area with a low rate of automobile ownership. 1
Transportation Equity Score   20
Climate Change Mitigation    
For new racks, does the project further promote mode shift? For repair/replacement projects, how many users utilize the facility? 0 - The extent to which the project creates new trips is unclear or lacks sufficient supporting information.  For rack repair/replacement projects, the applicant does not provide data for existing ridership at the involved stations. 2 - The project creates a moderate number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile.  For rack repair/replacement projects, the stations being replaced are of moderate utility and consistent ridership levels. 3 - The project creates a large number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile, or increases the accessibility of an alternative transportation mode/route (ex: existing trails, routes parallel to transit operations).  For rack repair/replacement projects, the stations being replaced are of significant utility with strong ridership levels, and are first priority investments. 4 - Pursuant to 3 above, but does so in area with disproportionate air quality burden. 4
Estimates for project demand are realistic and grounded in thorough analysis. 0 - Future demand projections do not seem realistic, or the methodology as to how they were calculated is not explained. 2 - Future demand projections seem reasonable and support the above argument for substituting single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The applicant has provided realistic demand projections and accounted for possible variations in demand (seasonal variation, new enabling infrastructure, etc.) in their estimate. 4
The rack investment is complementary to an ongoing or planned surface transportation investment. 0 - The investment does not complement any planned or nearby projects.  2 - The investment is somewhat related to a planned or nearby project, but the connection between the two is limited. 4 - The investment is related to a planned or nearby project that offers some bike-supportive infrastructure. 6 - The investment is directly and deliberately related to a planned or nearby project that offers safe and accessible bike-supportive infrastructure, such as a shared-use-path. 6
The rack investment reinforces access to an existing surface transportation facility. 0 - The investment does not complement any nearby bicycle facilities. 2 - The investment complements an existing low to moderate utility link for biking. 4 - The investment complements an existing moderate to high utility link for biking, or a physically separated and safe pathway for all users (ex: shared use path, rail trail). 4
Climate Change Mitigation   18
Performance Management    
The project application includes a budget worksheet that outlines the sources and uses of the project. Disqualifying - No budget worksheet is attached. 0 - A budget sheet is included, but the costs associated are unrealistic. 3 - The budget sheet is attached, and the applicant describes the expenses, including the rationale behind the selected unit type. 3
The project proponent broadly outlines expected activities necessary for asset maintenance. 0 - No description of maintenance activities are provided. 3 - An anticipated maintenance schedule is provided. 3
The estimates for the usage rates on the bicycle racks are sound. 0 - The applicant does not describe how demand was estimated. 2 - The process for estimating demand for the bicycle racks is vague. 4 - The demand estimates for the bicycle racks are sound. 4
Performance Management   10
 
Total Score   100

 

Table A-10
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Community Connections Program Project Evaluation Criteria: Bicycle Racks

 

Evaluation Criteria for the FFYs 2025 Community Connections Program: Bicycle Lanes Applications
Scoring Criteria   Max Points
Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations.
Work locations are near to existing areas of concentrated development or public spaces. 0 - The proposed work locations are not near to a moderate density of residential housing, commercial businesses, or public facilities. 1 - The proposed work locations are near to some mid-density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 2 - The proposed work locations are near to mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 3 - The proposed work locations are near to a combination of mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments and public facilities and open space. 3
Work locations are near to planned developments or public spaces. 0 - No planned developments or public realm improvements are sited near the work locations. 1 - Proposed developments in the project area are limited. 2 - Numerous developments are proposed at or near work locations for the project, and include enabling land uses. 3 - All work locations are near to areas of planned development, and the types of development are supportive to demand for micromobility.  Alternatively, full credit may also be earned if some of the work locations are near designated areas for Transit Oriented Development, including zones for compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act. 3
Work locations for the project are situated near to transit facilities. 0 - Proposed work locations are not located near transit stations. 1 - At least one of the proposed work locations is within 300 feet of a transit facility. 2 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility.  3 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility, and the RTA/owner of the facility has provided written support for the project. 3
Work locations for the project complement transit operating routes. 0 - The proposed project is not near transit routes. 1 - A transit route is located in the project area, but with limited accessibility or utility to and from that point. 2 - A major transit route is present, and the proposed facility provides some utility to and from that point.  3 - The proposed facility effectively mirrors or complements transit routes, and improves accessibility to and from that route. 3
The work location or locations are safely accessible by walking. 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks and crosswalks. 1 - Less than half of the project area contains safe pedestrian infrastructure. 2 - Most of the project limits are near to safe, pedestrian-accessible facilities that include signalized crosswalks and continuous sidewalks. 2
The proposed lanes are not placed in areas that could be potentially hazardous to users. -5  - Proposed work locations could be hazardous to users due to high speeds along the roadway, and additional mitigations besides lane striping are not planned for implementation. 0 - The proposed lanes are placed in areas that lack connectivity with other bicycle facilities, leading to 'drop offs' at the ends of the lanes. 1 - The lanes are located in areas with no current bicycle facilities and create a safer outcome, but speeds for vehicles along the roadway are high. 2 - The bicycle lanes create safe connections between other network assets, and the proposed implementation of the lanes is not hazardous to users. 2
The proposed lanes are near to other bicycle-supportive assets, such as racks, signage, or other trails and paths. 0 - No other bicycle supportive assets are near to the facility. 1 - A low amount of bicycle supportive assets are near to the facility, such as occasional bicycle lanes or signs. 2 - The bicycle lanes connect into other micromobility facilities, and/or the lanes are near to both current and planned supportive assets such as racks or signs. 2
Connectivity Score   18
Regional and Interlocal Coordination    
The project includes a substantial public engagement process. 0 - The municipality or municipalities applying for the project are the primary stakeholders in the project development process. 1 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged their communities for the purpose of implementing the proposed improvements, specifically entities responsible for ensuring the continuing operations of the project (ROW, local operating costs, etc.) 2 - The municipality or municipalities have held public meetings on the proposed project, in addition to the above. 3 - The project involves a rigorous public engagement process that addresses multiple public and private groups at the local level.  The public engagement process specifically led to the identification of sites included in the project. 4
The project demonstrates collaboration between different components of the municipality for site prioritization. 0 - The applicant is not working with other business units within the municipality as part of the project. 1 - The applicant has received support from elected officials within the municipality for the project beyond the budget process. 2 - In addition to the above, the selection of sites as part of the project was performed in consultation with other municipal units, including for example school committees, Councils on Aging, Parks Departments, etc. 2
The project demonstrates collaboration between multiple municipalities. 0 - No direct support from other municipalities is provided. 1 - The applicant is a regional organization providing a bicycle network for one or more municipalities. 2 - The project involves collaboration between one or more municipalities. 2
The project demonstrates collaboration with other state or federal agencies. 0 - The project does not involve any direct coordination with state or federal agencies beyond that related to the TIP process. 1 - The project involves a state or federal facility, and support for the applicant to improve that facility has been provided by the facility owner.  The owner is not otherwise involved in the project. 2 - The project is a direct partnership between a municipality and a state or federal agency, which may be demonstrated through providing lanes near to State/National Parks, publicly-accessible state/federal buildings (including universities), or other facilities. 2
Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors 0 - No direct support from private entities is listed. 2 - The project proponent coordinated with the private sector in the development of the project as part of selecting site areas. 2
Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO 0 - The applicant has not attached letters of support. 2 - Letters of support are attached to demonstrate fulfillment of the above criteria. 2
Coordination Score   14
Plan Implementation: Support local, regional, and statewide planning efforts.  
Project is included in local plans or studies 0 - The project is not included in any local plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, and those documents are cited by the applicant. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a local plan or study. 6
Project is included in regional plans or studies, including those created by the Boston Region MPO and Metropolitan Area Planning Council 0 - The project is not included in any regional plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, and the applicant cites those documents.  Alternatively, the applicant developed this project or identified the need being addressed by the project through direct consultation with MAPC or a similar body. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a regional plan or study, or is located at a regionally significant junction for the Bluebikes network as identified by MAPC or a similar entity. 6
Project is included in statewide plans or studies 0 - The project is not included in any statewide plans or studies. 2 - The project is included in a statewide planning document, but is not cited by the applicant. 4 - The project is included in a statewide planning document cited by the applicant. 4
Project acts as an 'anchor' for development of a sustainable bicycle network. 0 - The project does not add lanes to an area of at least low-moderate utility. 1 - The project expands into an area of low-moderate utility, or adds lanes where none currently exist to an area of low utility. 2 - The project expands into an area of moderate or greater utility. 2
Plan Implementation Score   18
Transportation Equity: Ensure that all people receive comparable benefits from, and are not disproportionately burdened by, MPO investments, regardless of race, color, national origin, age, income, ability, or sex.
Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index.                                                             Equity Score Look-up Table                 If the sum of the Indices Greater than…        …And Less Than…        The Project Score is… 0                                                                          1                                        0 0.99                                                                     6                                        3 5.99                                                                    11                                       6 10.99                                                                  16                                       9 15.99                                                                  21                                      12 20.99                                                                  27                                      18 19
The project serves a community with a low rate of automobile ownership. 0 - The project does not install bicycle lanes in an area with low rates of automobile ownership. 1 - The project installs bicycle lanes in an area with a low rate of automobile ownership. 1
Transportation Equity Score   20
Climate Change Mitigation    
To what extent do these lanes encourage new trips, or shift existing trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile? 0 - The extent to which the project creates new trips is unclear or lacks sufficient supporting information.  2 - The project creates a moderate number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile.  3 - The project creates a large number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile, or increases the accessibility of an alternative transportation mode/route (ex: existing trails, routes parallel to transit operations).  4 - Pursuant to 3 above, but does so in area with disproportionate air quality burden. 4
Estimates for project demand are realistic and grounded in thorough analysis. 0 - Future demand projections do not seem realistic, or the methodology as to how they were calculated is not explained. 2 - Future demand projections seem reasonable and support the above argument for substituting single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The applicant has provided realistic demand projections and accounted for possible variations in demand (seasonal variation, new enabling infrastructure, etc.) in their estimate. 4
The lanes are near to planned or underway bike supportive capital projects. 0 - The investment does not complement any planned or nearby projects.  2 - The investment is somewhat related to a planned or nearby project, but the connection between the two is limited. 4 - The investment is related to a planned or nearby project that offers some bike-supportive infrastructure. 6 - The investment is directly and deliberately related to a planned or nearby project that offers safe and accessible bike-supportive infrastructure, such as a shared-use-path. 6
The planned bike lanes reinforce connections to existing micromobility facilities. 0 - The investment does not complement any nearby bicycle facilities. 2 - The investment complements an existing low to moderate utility link for biking. 4 - The investment complements an existing moderate to high utility link for biking, or a physically separated and safe pathway for all users (ex: shared use path, rail trail). 4
Climate Change Mitigation   18
Performance Management    
The project application includes a budget worksheet that outlines the sources and uses of the project. Disqualifying - No budget worksheet is attached. 0 - A budget sheet is included, but the costs associated are unrealistic. 3 - The budget sheet is attached, and the applicant describes the sources of expenses. 3
The project proponent broadly outlines expected activities necessary for asset maintenance, including year round use of the facility. 0 - No description of maintenance activities are provided. 1 - The applicant describes how the facility may be maintained over time. 2 - The applicant describes how the facility may be maintained, and may remain accessible during times of inclement weather (ie: snow removal). 2
The project proponent describes interest in or the potential for future upgrades to the bicycle facility 0 - No further upgrades are planned for the bike lanes after installation. 1 - The applicant describes an interest in future upgrades to the bicycle lanes. 2 - The applicant describes interest in and a plan for implementing upgrades to bicycle lanes in the future. 3 - The applicant provides a descriptive plan for implementing further upgrades to the facility, including additional actions to date. 3
The projected volumes for the bicycle lanes are sound. 0 - The applicant does not describe how demand was estimated. 2 - The process for estimating demand for the bicycle lanes is vague. 4 - The demand estimates for the bicycle lanes are sound. 4
Performance Management   12
 
Total Score   100

 

 

Table A-11
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Community Connections Program Project Evaluation Criteria: Bikeshare Support

 

Evaluation Criteria for the FFYs 2025 Community Connections Program: Bikeshare Support and Expansion Applications
Scoring Criteria   Max Points
Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations.
Work locations are near to existing areas of concentrated development or public spaces. 0 - The proposed work locations are not near to a moderate density of residential housing, commercial businesses, or public facilities. 1 - The proposed work locations are near to some mid-density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 2 - The proposed work locations are near to mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 3 - The proposed work locations are near to a combination of mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments and public facilities and open space. 3
Work locations are near to planned developments or public spaces. 0 - No planned developments or public realm improvements are sited near the work locations. 1 - Proposed developments in the project area are limited. 2 - Numerous developments are proposed at or near work locations for the project, and include enabling land uses. 3 - All work locations are near to areas of planned development, and the types of development are supportive to demand for bikeshare.  Alternatively, full credit may also be earned if some of the work locations are near designated areas for Transit Oriented Development, including zones for compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act. 3
Work locations for the project are situated near to transit facilities. 0 - Proposed work locations are not located near transit stations. 1 - At least one of the proposed work locations is within 300 feet of a transit facility. 2 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility.  3 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility, and the RTA/owner of the facility has provided written support for the project. 3
Work locations for the project complement transit operating routes. 0 - Proposed work locations are not near transit routes. 1 - Only one work location in the project is located near a transit route with limited accessibility or utility to and from that point. 2 - One work location in the project is located near a major transit route, but the location provides some utility to and from that point.  Or, more than one work location is near a transit route, but the locations are not well connected to one another. 3 - The proposed work locations effectively mirror one or more transit routes, and improve accessibility to and from that route. 3
The work location or locations are safely accessible by walking. 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks and crosswalks. 1 - Less than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 2 - More than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 3 - All work locations are near safe, pedestrian-accessible sites that include signalized crosswalks and continuous sidewalks. 3
The work location or locations are near to safe bicycle-supportive infrastructure. 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe bicycle infrastructure. 1 - Most proposed work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that does not provide physical separation for users. 2 - Most proposed work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that provides some on-road separation for users. 3 - Most or all work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that provides full physical separation, including vertical or horizontal separation, for users. 3
Connectivity Score   18
Regional and Interlocal Coordination      
Project demonstrates collaboration between multiple entities within the municipality or municipalities. 0 - The municipality or municipalities applying for the project are the primary stakeholders in the project development process. 2 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged entities within their communities for the purpose of implementing the proposed improvements, specifically entities responsible for ensuring the continuing operations of the project (ROW, local operating costs, etc.) 3 - The project is a joint effort between one or more municipalities (minimum score for joint applications). 4 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged stakeholders in their communities for the purpose of soliciting feedback to improve the planning and prioritization of the project, in addition to securing any local support for ROW. 6 - The project involves a rigorous public engagement process that addresses multiple public and private groups at the local level, including direct involvement from community based organizations to help shape the scope of the project. 6
Project demonstrates collaboration between multiple municipalities. 0 - No direct support from other municipalities is provided. 2 - The application refers to the Bluebikes Council as providing support, but there is no written documentation. 4 - The project has the written approval of the Bluebikes Council, or letters of support from neighboring communities, or involves work spread across multiple municipalities. 4
Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors 0 - No direct support from private entities is listed, or the applicant refers to private collaboration that is within the existing scope of the Bluebikes contract (ex: vendor, sponsorships) 2 - The project proponent coordinated with the private sector in the development of the project beyond the private stakeholders already involved in the Bluebikes contract. 4 - The project includes extensive cooperation with the private sector, including the direct contribution of local, private funding from local businesses, fundraising, etc. 4
Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO 0 - The applicant has not attached letters of support. 2 - Letters of support are attached to demonstrate fulfillment of the above criteria. 2
Coordination Score   16
Plan Implementation: Support local, regional, and statewide planning efforts.  
Project is included in local plans or studies 0 - The project is not included in any local plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, and those documents are cited by the applicant. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a local plan or study. 6
Project is included in regional plans or studies, including those created by the Boston Region MPO and Metropolitan Area Planning Council 0 - The project is not included in any regional plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, and the applicant cites those documents.  Alternatively, the applicant developed this project or identified the need being addressed by the project through direct consultation with MAPC or a similar body. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a regional plan or study, or is located at a regionally significant junction for the Bluebikes network as identified by MAPC or a similar entity. 6
Project is included in statewide plans or studies 0 - The project is not included in any statewide plans or studies. 2 - The project is included in a statewide planning document, but is not cited by the applicant. 4 - The project is included in a statewide planning document cited by the applicant. 4
Project acts as an 'anchor' for development of a sustainable bikeshare network. 0 - For expansion projects, the project does not expand into an area of at least low-moderate utility, or is located in an area saturated with bikeshare.  For repair projects, the project does not address an asset nearing the end of its useful life in a priority location, or in a location of at least moderate utility. 1 - For expansion projects, the project expands into an area of low-moderate utility.  For repair projects, the project addresses an asset nearing the end of its useful life in a location of at least moderate utility. 2 - For expansion projects, the project expands into an entirely new part of the Boston Region, or expands into an area ranging from moderate to high utility.  Alternatively, the proposed expansion seeks to link together more 'disconnected' nexuses of stations back into the larger regional system  For repair projects, the project addresses an asset nearing the end of its useful life in a high utility or critical area. 2
Plan Implementation Score   18
Transportation Equity: Ensure that all people receive comparable benefits from, and are not disproportionately burdened by, MPO investments, regardless of race, color, national origin, age, income, ability, or sex.
Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index.                                                             Equity Score Look-up Table                 If the sum of the Indices Greater than…        …And Less Than…        The Project Score is… 0                                                                          1                                        0 0.99                                                                     6                                        3 5.99                                                                    11                                       6 10.99                                                                  16                                       9 15.99                                                                  21                                      12 20.99                                                                  27                                      18 18
The project expands or maintains direct access to a safe bicycle facility.  The bikeshare model supports access to these facilities for individuals who do not own a private bicycle. 0 - Work locations for the project are not near to a safe bicycle facility. 1 - Work locations for the project are near to a safe bicycle facility. 1
The project incorporates pedal-assist or fully electric bikes in an area with a high share of older adults. 0 - The project does not incorporate any pedal-assist or fully electric bikes. 1 - The project incorporates pedal-assist or fully electric bikes. 1
Transportation Equity Score   20
Climate Change Mitigation      
For expansion projects, to what extent does the expanded service encourage new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile? For repair/replacement projects, how many trips does the existing service support? 0 - The extent to which the project creates new trips is unclear or lacks sufficient supporting information.  For station repair/replacement projects, the applicant does not provide data for existing ridership at the involved stations. 2 - The project creates a moderate number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile.  For station repair/replacement projects, the stations being replaced are of moderate utility and consistent ridership levels. 3 - The project creates a large number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile, or increases the accessibility of an alternative transportation mode/route (ex: existing trails, routes parallel to transit operations).  For station repair/replacement projects, the stations being replaced are of significant utility with strong ridership levels, and are first priority investments. 4 - The project performs all work necessary for 3 above, and does so in an area with disproportionate air quality burden. 4
Estimates for project demand are realistic and grounded in thorough analysis. 0 - Future demand projections do not seem realistic, or the methodology as to how they were calculated is not explained. 2 - Future demand projections seem reasonable and support the above argument for substituting single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The applicant has provided realistic demand projections and accounted for possible variations in demand (seasonal variation, new enabling infrastructure, etc.) in their estimate. 4
The bikeshare investment is complementary to an ongoing or planned surface transportation investment. 0 - The investment does not complement any planned or nearby projects.  2 - The investment is somewhat related to a planned or nearby project, but the connection between the two is limited. 4 - The investment is related to a planned or nearby project that offers some bike-supportive infrastructure. 6 - The investment is directly and deliberately related to a planned or nearby project that offers safe and accessible bike-supportive infrastructure, such as a shared-use-path. 6
The bikeshare investment expands access to an existing surface transportation facility. 0 - The investment does not complement any nearby bicycle facilities. 1 - The investment complements an existing low to moderate utility link for biking. 2 - The investment complements an existing moderate to high utility link for biking, or a physically separated and safe pathway for all users (ex: shared use path, rail trail). 2
The investment incorporates improvements for bikeshare electrification. 0 - The investment does not incorporate or support current and future electrification of the bikeshare facility (or facilities). 1 - The investment incorporates electrification of the bikeshare fleet, but not for the facility itself. 2 - The investment incorporates electrification for the bikeshare facility.   2
Climate Change Mitigation   18
Performance Management      
The project proponent outlines expected sources of funding to support the costs of operation associated with the project. -3 - No sources of potential operating costs are provided. 0 - Sources of funding for operating costs are indicated, but are vague. 2 - Sources of funding for operating costs are indicated and seem secure. 3 - The proponent identifies sources of funding for operating costs that are secure and innovative in some manner. 3
The project proponent outlines expected sources of funding to support the maintenance or replacement of the asset. In the case of Bikeshare projects seeking capital support for station repair or replacement, the project proponent outlines their plan for keeping the asset in a state of good repair. 0 - The applicant does not describe the sources of funding necessary for long term maintenance of the asset, or describe any plan to maintain the asset. 1 - The applicant describes how they intend to maintain the asset, but does not indicate sources of funding for maintenance.  Alternatively, the source of maintenance funding described is from other state or Boston Region MPO programs that have a local match requirement (which is not indicated). 2 - The applicant describes a plan to maintain the asset and identifies sources of funding to do so to some detail. 3 - The applicant thoroughly details a plan to maintain and continue to fund the maintenance of assets included in the proposed project. 3
Project application includes completed budget worksheet that demonstrates financial viability of project Disqualifying - No budget worksheet is attached. 0 - The project application includes a budget worksheet, but it is missing information or does not demonstrate the financial viability of the project. 2 - The project application includes a complete budget worksheet, but some concerns around the financial viability and sustainability of the project remain. 4 - Pursuant to the above criteria, the budget worksheet demonstrates the near term and long term fiscal viability and sustainability of the project. 4
Performance Management   10
 
Total Score   100

 

 

Table A-12
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Community Connections Program Project Evaluation Criteria: Microtransit Pilots

 

Evaluation Criteria for the FFYs 2025 Community Connections Program: Microtransit Pilot Applications
Scoring Criteria   Max Points
Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations.  
The project connects to existing residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 0 - The project does not connect to any current residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 1 - The project primarily connects to low to medium density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 2 - The project primarily connects to high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 3 - The project primarily connects to high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, and better integrates those developments into other non-SOV infrastructure options such as commuter rail stations, bike paths, etc. 3
The project connects to planned residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 0 - The project does not connect to any planned or permitted residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 1 - The project connects to some planned or permitted commercial or residential development, but the developments are limited in scope or low density. 2 - The project connects to numerous planned or permitted high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 3 - The project connects to numerous planned or permitted high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, including zones included as part of compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act or 40B developments. 3
The project provides a connection to other transit facilities or routes, including but not limited to train stations, bus hubs and stops, or other shuttle services. 0 - The project does not primarily provide connections to other transit facilities or routes. 1 - The project provides some connections to low-frequency transit facilities or routes. 2 - The project provides some connections to moderate or high frequency transit facilities or routes. 3 - The project provides significant connections to moderate or high frequent transit facilities or routes, and the design or schedule of the project complements the schedules of those alternate transit services.  The project proponent is directly collaborating with other transit providers as part of this effort. 3
The project deliberately creates connections to safe and accessible facilities for walking and biking. 0 - The project does not provide for connections to safe and accessible facilities for walking and biking. 1 - The project provides for connections to facilities for walking and biking, but these connections are either incidental (included in the service area for a demand-response service) or are not high-utility corridors. 2 - The project deliberately provides for connections to facilities for walking and biking, and some of the included facilities are on high-utility corridors. 3 - The project deliberately provides for numerous connections to safe and accessible walking and biking facilities, many of which are on high utility corridors.  Recreational trails may also be included in the project area. 3
The project increases access to open space or other natural / recreation sites. 0 - The project does not provide for any access to open space or natural sites. 1 - The project is a demand response service that provides for access to open space or natural sites within the service area. 2 - The project is a fixed route service with connections near to open space or other recreation / natural sites. 3 - The project is a demand response or fixed route service with deliberate, priority connections to and from open space and other natural or recreation sites, with the service model intentionally aiming to increase access to those areas. 3
The proposed hours of and times of service support a variety of potential use cases.  0 - The applicant does not provide an explanation as to why their times of service were selected. 1 - The applicant provides hours and times of service, but their explanation regarding why these times were selected are vague or largely relate to fiscal and personnel constraints. 2 - The applicant provides hours and times of service with an explanation as to how the model suits the needs of a diverse array of potential users. 3 - The applicant provides an explanation of why the hours and times of service were selected, how its operations supports the needs of a diverse array of potential users, and explains the conditions under which they may expand service offerings. 3
The project expands upon an existing service or service delivery model within the Commonwealth. 0 - The project is entirely novel, and does not build upon an existing service or leverage a service delivery model implemented within the Commonwealth. 1 - The project expands the hours of service or area of service within a single municipality. 2 - The project expands the hours of service or area of service across multiple municipalities, including adding a new municipality to the service area. 2
Connectivity Score   20
Regional and Interlocal Coordination    
Project demonstrates collaboration between multiple entities 0 - The project applicant is the sole entity involved in the project. 1 - The project applicant and the operator are the only entities involved in the project. 2 - The project applicant and operator are the only entities involved in the project, but the project includes robust public outreach. 3 - The project applicant is partnering with one or more municipalities in administering the service, including providing service to adjacent municipalities, but the applicant performs most of the work. 4 - Multiple municipalities are involved in overseeing the project in tandem with the operator. 5 - The project has multiple municipalities taking an active role in administering the service in addition to a diverse array of other project partners. 5
Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors 0 - The project does not demonstrate collaboration across multiple sectors. 1 - The project demonstrates some collaboration between the public and private sector in the form of letters of support, or connections to private employers. 2 - The project demonstrates moderate collaboration between the public and private sector, with private sector stakeholders involved in some supporting functions. 3 - The project demonstrates significant collaboration between the public and private sector, with private sector stakeholders making a significant financial or in-kind contribution to support the financial sustainability of the project. 3
Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO 0 - No letters of support have been provided by the applicant. 1 - The applicant provides letters of support, but the letters only include support from municipal entities. 2 - The applicant provides letters of support, including letters from a variety of non-governmental and/or community based organizations. 2
The Regional Transit Authority (RTA), including the MBTA, that provides service to or near the municipality or municipalities involved in the proposed service has been made aware of the application by the applicant. 0 - The applicant has not discussed their proposed service with their local RTA or RTAs. 1 - The applicant has discussed their proposed service with their local RTA or RTAs.  If the applicant is an RTA, it has discussed the proposed service with MassDOT's Rail and Transit Division (RTD). 2 - The applicant has discussed their proposed service with their local RTA or RTAs, and the RTA has provided written support for the project.  If the applicant is an RTA, MassDOT Rail and Transit Division (RTD) is aware of and has provided written support for the project. 2
The project is included in statewide or regional plans and/or studies, including the Boston Region MPO's Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (CPTHST) 0 - The applicant does not cite, or the project is not consistent with the themes or explicit needs identified in any statewide or regional planning documents or studies. 3 - The project is consistent with the broad themes or recommendations laid out for the municipality or region in the CPTHST. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in a statewide, regional, or municipal planning document, or is the direct result of a study conducted by an independent federal, state, or regional entity. 6
Coordination Score   18
Transportation Equity: Ensure that all people receive comparable benefits from, and are not disproportionately burdened by, MPO investments, regardless of race, color, national origin, age, income, ability, or sex.    
Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index.                                                             Equity Score Look-up Table                 If the sum of the Indices Greater than…        …And Less Than…        The Project Score is… 0                                                                          1                                        0 0.99                                                                     6                                        3 5.99                                                                    11                                       6 10.99                                                                  16                                       9 15.99                                                                  21                                      12 20.99                                                                  27                                      18 20
The project supports a fare structure that does not hinder access from disadvantaged groups. 0 - The proposed service operates on a uniform fare structure. 1 - The proposed service subsidizes fares for disadvantaged groups, including means-based fares and fare-free service for seniors and persons with disabilities. 2 - The proposed service is entirely fare-free. 1
The project prioritizes service to disadvantaged groups or areas. 0 - The project does not prioritize service to disadvantaged groups or areas, and the applicant does not offer any information as to how they would provide services to a person with disabilities. 1 - The project serves all individuals regardless of ability, but there are restrictions in terms of eligibility (ex: residence) 2 - The project effectively prioritizes service for disadvantaged groups or areas and balances the needs of other users as well.  The service is accessible to and may be used by all. 1
Transportation Equity Score   24
Climate Change Mitigation    
Is the proposed service an effective substitute for current trips conducted by private single occupancy vehicles? Disqualifying: The project is not anticipated to have any significant impact on encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicles to the proposed service. 1 - According to the figures provided by the applicant, the project is anticipated to have a small impact on encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicles. 2- The project is anticipated to have a small impact on directly encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicle, but is also complementary to other alternative modes of transportation (transit facilities, active transportation, etc.) 3 - The project is expected to have an at least moderate impact in encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The project is expected to have a moderate impact in encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicles, and reinforces or expands access to additional alternative modes of transportation (transit facilities, active transportation, etc.) 4
Does the proposed service create new connections or trips that could not otherwise be fulfilled without an automobile? 0 - The project is redundant to existing transit services in the project area, and the applicant has not sufficiently detailed how their service is meant to be complementary to it. 1 - The service creates new connections, but the efficacy of the service in substituting automobile trips is unclear. 2 - The project is complementary to existing transit services in the project area, specifically services that may have gaps in times of service, capacity to serve, or headways. 3 - The project creates entirely new connections in areas not otherwise served by a regional transit authority or other transit operator with a moderate likelihood of substitution. 4 - The project creates entirely new connections in areas not otherwise directly served by a regional transit authority or other transit operator, and these connections include other intermodal facilities (Commuter Rail stations, trails, etc.) 4
Does the proposed service operate with low or no emission vehicles? 0 - The project utilizes standard internal combustion engine vehicles for its fleet. 4 - The project utilizes low emission fuel source vehicles, including diesel electric hybrids or compressed natural gas (CNG). 5 - The project utilizes fully electric vehicles. 6 - The project utilizes fully electric vehicles, and planned or existing charging facilities utilize renewable energy sources. 6
What is the expected amount of time spent operating the vehicle for non-revenue hours, or "dead-heading" between trips in the case of demand response service? 0 - The applicant does not estimate the amount of non-revenue hours of operation for the service or provide dead-head estimates.  Dead-head estimates, if provided, represent a sizable component of operating time and the vehicles used are not low/no emission vehicles. 2 - The proposed project has minimal dead-head zones.  For fixed-route service, minimal time is spent moving vehicles between motor pools or staging areas towards the route.  For demand response services, ridership levels and operating strategies or technologies minimize downtime between trips. 4 - The proposed project has minimal dead-head zones.  For fixed-route service, minimal time is spent moving vehicles between motor pools or staging areas towards the route, and the vehicles involved are low/no emission.  For demand response services, ridership levels and operating strategies or technologies minimize downtime between trips while also operating electric vehicles. 4
Is the average driving miles per passenger trip significantly different than if the trip was conducted with a single-occupancy vehicle?   Disqualifying - The average driving miles per passenger trip with a non low/zero emission vehicle are equal to or greater than the mileage for a typical SOV trip.  0 - The average driving miles per passenger trip  are not significantly different from conducting the trip with a SOV, but the vehicle used is a low/no emissions vehicle. 2 - The average driving miles per passenger trip are significantly different from conducting the trip with an SOV. 2
Climate Change Mitigation   20
Performance Management    
The project application includes a budget sheet that lays out the anticipated sources and uses of operating funding for at least the first three years of the project.   Disqualifying: no budget sheet is provided. 0: A budget sheet is provided, but the funding requests are not broken out by year or the estimates provided are unrealistic/flawed. 2: A budget sheet is provided with funding sources and uses laid out for each year in the period of performance.  The expected expenditures and revenues are reasonable. 4: A budget sheet is provided with funding sources and uses laid out for each year in the period of performance, in addition to potential alternative sources of funding.  The applicant has identified how they may pursue funding to continue the operations of the shuttle(s), if successful, following the three-year pilot period.  The expected revenues and expenditures laid out in the sheet are thoroughly defensible. 4
Project demand estimate is realistic and grounded in thorough analysis Disqualified: The applicant does not provide a project demand estimate, or an estimate is provided but lacks any explanation of the methodology used to achieve that estimate. 0: The applicant provides a demand estimate and means of estimation, but the estimate lacks sufficient supporting information to justify the estimate. If the applicant does not provide a follow-up response with sufficient information, they may be disqualified. 5: The applicant provides a demand estimate, a means of estimation, and supporting information that justifies the estimate to an acceptable extent. 10: The applicant provides a comprehensive analysis of their estimated demand, explains their methodology, and/or has utilized technical assistance from the Boston Region MPO, MassDOT, or a similar third-party to set their ridership targets. 10
The applicant lists their performance measures and the intervals at which they evaluate their success against those metrics. 0 - The applicant does not provide any performance measures, or is vague in their description of how those measures are to be evaluated. 2 - The performance of the proposed shuttle is evaluated against the minimum necessary parameters for the shuttle service, including average daily passenger trips, number of unique riders, total number of trips, and spending to date at monthly intervals.  The monthly reporting also includes the aforementioned information at a total level for the month.  Demand response services provide passenger trip time for a given month.  4 - The monthly reporting listed above will be utilized to evaluate, in a qualitative fashion, whether or not the data gathered is expected to remain steady or change in the future.  The project proponent also  intends to survey riders with questions including how riders would have made their trip without the service, the number of times a given rider uses the service at a weekly or monthly interval, the number of passengers that have a private vehicle available, and the purposes of that passenger trip. 6 -  The project proponent exceeds the minimum requirements set in the previous thresholds for performance evaluation, reporting, and passenger surveys, and is proposing the employment of innovative strategies or technologies to gather and analyze this data.  The proponent may also achieve this parameter if they are pursuing a robust community engagement strategy that emphasizes regional connections, including engaging adjacent municipalities. 6
Performance Management Score   20