Transportation Improvement Program
and Air Quality Conformity Determination:
Federal Fiscal Years
2016–20

Endorsed by the Boston Region
Metropolitan Planning Organization
on July 30, 2015

Table of Contents

Executive summary 

Chapter One – The 3C Process

Chapter Two – The TIP Process

Chapter Three – Project Information

Chapter Four – Tracking and Demonstrating Progress using Performance Measures

Chapter Five – Determination of Air Quality Conformity

Chapter Six – Financial Constraint

Chapter Seven – Operations and Maintenance

Appendices                

            A   Universe of Projects

            B   Project Information Forms and Evaluations

            C   Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Evaluation

            D   FFY 2015 Highway Projects Status

            E   Transit Projects Status

            F   Public Comments on the Draft FFYs 2016 – 20 TIP

 

 

 

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Staff

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

MassDOT Office of Planning and Programming       

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority         

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Advisory Board      

MassDOT Highway Department     

Massachusetts Port Authority

Metropolitan Area Planning Council 

Regional Transportation Advisory Council  

City of Boston           

City of Beverly  (North Shore Task Force)  

City of Everett  (At-Large City)       

City of Newton  (At-Large City)      

City of Somerville  (Inner Core Committee)

City of Woburn  (North Suburban Planning Council)

Town of Arlington  (At-Large Town)

Town of Bedford  (Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination)

Town of Braintree  (South Shore Coalition)

Town of Framingham  (MetroWest Regional Collaborative)

Town of Lexington  (At-Large Town)

Town of Medway  (South West Advisory Planning Committee)

Town of Norwood  (Three Rivers Interlocal Council)

Federal Highway Administration (nonvoting)

Federal Transit Administration (nonvoting)

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. The MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, English proficiency, income, religious creed, ancestry, disability, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or military service. Any person who believes herself/himself or any specific class of persons has been subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI, ADA, or other non-discrimination statute or regulation may, herself/himself or via a representative, file a written complaint with the MPO. A complaint must be filed no later than 180 calendar days after the date on which the person believes the discrimination occurred. A complaint form and additional information can be obtained by contacting the MPO (see below) or at www.bostonmpo.org.

 

Please visit www.ctps.org to view the full TIP. To request a copy of the TIP in CD or accessible formats, please contact us by any of the following means:

 

Mail                      Boston Region MPO
                             Certification Activities Group
                             10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150
                             Boston, MA 02116-3968
Telephone:          857.702.3700
TTY:                     617.973.7089
Fax:                     617.570.9192
Email:                  publicinformation@ctps.org

 

 

This document was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Its contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. DOT.

 

 

 

 SELF CERTIFICATION DOCUMENTS OF THE BOSTON REGION MPO

 

Back to top

 

Executive Summary

Federal Fiscal Years 2016–20 Transportation Improvement Program


introduction

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) five-year, nearly $2 billion transportation capital plan, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), is the near-term investment program for the region’s transportation system. Guided by the MPO’s visions and policies, the TIP prioritizes investments that preserve the current transportation system in a state of good repair, provide safe transportation for all modes, enhance livability, and improve mobility throughout the region. These investments fund major highway reconstruction, arterial and intersection improvements, maintenance and expansion of the public transit system, bicycle path construction, and improvements for pedestrians.

The Boston Region MPO is a 22-member board with representatives of state agencies, regional organizations, and municipalities; its jurisdiction extends from Boston north to Ipswich, south to Duxbury, and west to Interstate 495. Each year, the MPO conducts a process to decide how to spend federal transportation funds for capital projects. The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS), which is the staff to the MPO, manages the TIP-development process.

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

 

Federal fiscal years 2016–20 Tip overview

The federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2016–20 TIP consists of approximately $940 million worth of transportation investments in the Highway Program and more than $1 billion in the Transit Program. These investments reflect the MPO’s goal of targeting a majority of transportation resources to preserve and modernize the existing roadway and transit system and maintain it in a state of good repair.

This TIP devotes a more significant portion of funding for the targeted expansion of the rapid transit system and new shared-use paths than previous TIPs. In addition, a number of the infrastructure investments in this TIP address needs identified in the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Charting Progress to 2040, or implement recommendations from past studies and reports that were funded through the MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program.

 

FFYs 2016–20 TIP investments

Transit Program

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

Over the next four fiscal years, the MBTA will invest heavily in its bus fleets.

The MBTA will also invest in the MBTA’s bridges and tunnels. Funds will also be dedicated to improving accessibility at MBTA subway stations and other light rail, commuter rail, and bus stations throughout the system, as well as the Silver Line. Transit expansion will be funded in the Highway Program as discussed below.

 

Photo of an MBTA bus picking up passengers at a bus stop.

 

Highway Program

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

Over the next five years, more than $230 million (25 percent) of funds in the Highway Program will be used to resurface interstate and state routes, replace highway lighting and signage, and add travel lanes and shoulders to more than three miles of Route 128. Approximately $260 million (27 percent) will be spent to modernize roadways in order to balance the needs of all users—motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Multimodal projects, such as the improvements to Route 9 in Brookline, will improve safety and enhance access for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and automobiles. In total, roadway modernization projects will improve nearly 50 lane miles of substandard pavement traveled by nearly 500,000 vehicles. These corridor investments will also add 24 miles of new on-road bicycle accommodations.


Nearly $260 million (27 percent) of the Highway Program will be used to address functionally obsolete and structurally deficient bridges. These improvements will benefit the more than 600,000 vehicles that cross these substandard bridges on a typical weekday.

The program also invests in the targeted expansion of transit service and bicycle and pedestrian facilities to grow the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. In the draft TIP, $158 million (17 percent) of the Highway Program funds are allocated to transit to extend the Green Line beyond College Avenue to Route 16/Mystic Valley Parkway in Medford. Lastly, the MPO will invest nearly $35 million (4 percent) to extend rail trails, construct shared-use paths, and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities around schools. A majority of these facilities will also provide direct access to MBTA stations: the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail will link to the West Concord Station, the Cochituate Rail Trail will connect to the Natick Station, and the New Fenway Multi-use Path will improve access to the Fenway Station and the Yawkey Station.

 

Map of the Gateway East project in Brookline, which includes signal and intersection improvements on Route 9, between Washington Street and Brookline Avenue.

 

financing the ffys 2016–20 tip

Transit Program

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

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

Highway Program

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

First, MassDOT allocates federal funding to Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) payments. Over the four years of this TIP, approximately $245 million of the Highway Program is dedicated to GANs payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program. MassDOT matches the remaining amount of federal funding with an 80 percent (federal) and 20 percent (state) split.

Next, MassDOT allocates funding across the following funding categories:

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

 

the tip development process

Overview

In order to determine which projects to fund through the Regional Target funding process, MPO members collaborate with municipalities, state agencies, members of the public, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders. The MPO’s project selection process uses evaluation criteria to help identify and prioritize projects that advance the MPO’s goals. The criteria are based on the MPO’s visions and policies, which were adopted for its current LRTP, Paths to a Sustainable Region. These criteria closely align with the draft LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040, and MPO staff plan to update the evaluation criteria to guide future TIP investments after Charting Progress to 2040 is finalized.  

Outreach and Data Collection

The outreach process begins early in the fiscal year when MPO staff begin to brief local officials and members of the public on the upcoming year’s development process. Each November, MPO staff ask the staffs of cities and towns in the region to identify their priority projects for consideration for federal funding. MPO staff compile the project requests and relevant information into a Universe of Projects list for the MPO. The Universe of Projects list includes projects in varied stages of development, from projects in the conceptual stage to those that are fully designed and ready to be advertised for construction. MPO staff also collect data on each project in the universe so that the projects can be evaluated.

Project Evaluation

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

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

Staff Recommendation and Draft TIP

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

The staff recommendation is always financially constrained. This year, there was approximately $440 million available for MPO Regional Target projects in FFYs 2016–20. In April 2015, the staff recommendation was submitted to the MPO and was discussed.

approving the tip

The MPO considers the evaluation results, First-Tier List of Projects, and staff recommendation when prioritizing which projects should receive Regional Target funding. In addition to prioritizing the Regional Target funding, the MPO also reviews the Statewide Infrastructure Items and Bridge Programs, as well as the capital programs for the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA before voting to release a draft TIP for public review.

In mid-June of 2015, the MPO voted to release the draft FFYs 2016–20 TIP for a 30-day public comment period. The MPO invites members of the public, regional and local officials, and other stakeholders in the Boston region to review the proposed program during this period. In addition, several outreach sessions are held during the public comment period to solicit comments on the draft TIP.

After the comment period, the MPO reviewed all of the comments and endorsed the FFYs 2016–20 TIP on July 30, 2015. The MPO-endorsed TIP will be incorporated into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is a compilation of TIPs from all of the MPOs in Massachusetts, and sent to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration to enable the document to be approved by the federal agencies by September 30, 2015 before the start of FFY 2016.

 

Updates to the TIP

Even after the TIP has been finalized, administrative modifications and amendments often must be introduced because of changes in project status, project cost, or available revenues. This may necessitate reprogramming a project to a later funding year or programming additional funds for a project.

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

 

stay involved with the Tip

Public input is an important aspect of the transportation-planning process. Please visitwww.bostonmpo.org for more information about the MPO, to view the full TIP, and to submit your comments. You may also want to sign up for our email news updates by contacting us at publicinformation@ctps.org.

To request a copy of the TIP in CD or accessible formats, please contact us by any of the following means:

Mail:                Boston Region MPO

                        Certification Activities Group

                        10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150

                        Boston, MA 02116-3968

Telephone:   857.702.3700

TTY:                617.973.7089

Fax:                 617.570.9192

Email:            publicinformation@ctps.org



Back to top

 

 

1 Chapter One

The 3C Process


introduction to the 3C process

Decisions about how to spend transportation funds in a metropolitan area are guided by information and ideas from a broad group of people, including elected officials, municipal planners and engineers, transportation advocates, other advocates, and other interested persons. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are the bodies responsible for providing a forum for this decision-making process. Each metropolitan area in the United States with a population of 50,000 or more has an MPO, which decides how to spend federal transportation funds for capital projects and planning studies.

In order to be eligible for federal funds, metropolitan areas are required to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3C) transportation-planning process that results in plans and programs consistent with the planning objectives of the metropolitan area.1 The 3C transportation-planning process in the Boston region is the responsibility of the Boston Region MPO, which has established the following objectives for the process:

The Boston Region MPO

The Boston Region MPO is a 22-member board consisting of state agencies, regional organizations, and municipalities; its jurisdiction extends from Boston north to Ipswich, south to Duxbury, and west to Interstate 495. There are 101 cities and towns that make up this area (as shown in Figure 1-1).

As part of its 3C process, the Boston Region MPO annually produces the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). These documents, along with the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), are required for the MPO’s process to be certified as meeting federal requirements; this certification is a prerequisite for receiving federal transportation funds.

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

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

In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) participate in the MPO as advisory (nonvoting) members. Figure 1-2 shows the organization chart of the MPO membership and the MPO’s staff, the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS).

 

Figure 1-1: Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Subregional Groups: This figure shows the boundaries of the MAPC subregional groups within the Boston region. There are eight subregional groups: North Shore Task Force, North Suburban Planning Council, Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination, MetroWest Regional Collaborative, SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee, Three Rivers Interlocal Council, South Shore Coalition, and Inner Core Committee.

 

 

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

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

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

 

Figure 1-2 Boston Region MPO Organizational chart: This figure shows the membership of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization and the groups that fall within the Central Transportation Planning Staff.

 

 

Certification Documents

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

Consistency with Federal Planning Regulations

MAP-21 Legislation

MAP-21 legislation requires all MPOs to carry out the 3C process. To meet this requirement, MPOs must perform the following activities:

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

  1. Safety: Achieve significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

  2. Infrastructure condition: Maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair.

  3. Congestion reduction: Achieve significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System.

  4. System reliability: Improve efficiency of the surface transportation system.

  5. Freight movement and economic vitality: Improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development.

  6. Environmental sustainability: Enhance performance of the transportation system while protecting and enriching the natural environment.

  7. Reduced project delivery delays: Reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion while eliminating delays in the development and delivery process, lessening regulatory burdens, and improving work practices of the agencies.

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

 

Consistency with Other Federal Legislative Requirements

The Clean Air Act of 1990

Air-quality conformity determinations must be performed for capital improvement projects that receive federal funding and for those that are considered regionally significant, regardless of the funding source. These determinations must show that the MPO’s LRTP and TIP will not cause or contribute to any new air-quality violations, will not increase the frequency or severity of any existing air-quality violations in any area, and will not delay the timely attainment of the air-quality standards in any area.

Transportation control measures identified in the State Implementation Plan for the attainment of air-quality standards are federally enforceable and must be given first priority when using federal funds. Such projects include parking-freeze programs in Boston and Cambridge, statewide rideshare programs, rapid-transit and commuter-rail extension programs, park-and-ride facilities, residential parking-sticker programs, and the operation of high-occupancy-vehicle lanes.

Nondiscrimination Mandates

The Boston Region MPO complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA, and other federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all of its programs and activities. The MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, English proficiency, income, religious creed, ancestry, disability, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or military service. The major federal requirements are discussed below.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

This statute requires that no person be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity provided by an agency receiving federal financial assistance.

Executive Order 13166, dated August 11, 2000, extends Title VI protections to persons who, as a result of national origin, have limited English-language proficiency (LEP). Specifically, it calls for improved access to federally conducted and assisted programs and activities and requires MPOs to develop and implement a system by which LEP persons can meaningfully participate in the transportation-planning process.

Environmental Justice Executive Orders

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

On April 15, 1997, the US Department of Transportation issued its Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Among other provisions, this order requires programming and planning activities to:

The ADA

Title III of the ADA requires all transportation projects, plans, and programs to be accessible to people with disabilities. At the MPO level, this means that public meetings must be held in accessible buildings and MPO materials must be made available in accessible formats.

Executive Order 13330

This executive order, dated February 26, 2004, calls for the establishment of the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility under the aegis of the Secretary of Transportation. This executive order reinforces both environmental justice and ADA requirements by charging the Council with developing policies and methods for improving access for people with disabilities, low-income persons, and older adults. 

 

CONSISTENCY WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS

Global Warming Solutions Act

The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) makes Massachusetts a leader in setting aggressive and enforceable greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets and implementing policies and initiatives to achieve these targets. In keeping with this law, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, in consultation with other state agencies and the public, developed the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. This implementation plan, released on December 29, 2010, establishes the following targets for overall statewide GHG emissions:

GreenDOT Policy

The transportation sector is the single largest contributor of GHGs, accounting for more than one-third of GHG emissions, and therefore is a major focus of the Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. MassDOT’s approach to supporting implementation of the plan is presented in its GreenDOT Policy Directive, a comprehensive sustainability initiative that sets three principal objectives:

The Commonwealth’s 13 MPOs are integrally involved in helping to achieve the GreenDOT objectives and supporting the GHG reductions mandated under the GWSA. The MPOs seek to realize these objectives by prioritizing projects in the LRTP and TIP. The Boston Region MPO’s TIP project evaluation criteria are used to score projects based on GHG emissions impacts, multimodal Complete Streets accommodations, and their ability to support smart-growth development. Tracking and evaluating GHG emissions by project will enable the MPOs to identify anticipated GHG impacts of the planned and programmed projects and also to use GHG impacts as a criterion to prioritize transportation investments.

Coordination with Other Planning Activities

LRTP

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

UPWP

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

Congestion Management Process

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

The MBTA’s PMT

In 2009, the MBTA adopted its current PMT, which is the MBTA’s long-range capital plan. The PMT was developed with extensive public involvement and was approved by the MBTA Advisory Board. The next PMT development process will begin in 2015 and identify a set of achievable investments that will help the MBTA and MassDOT advance towards a future transit system that meets our statewide mobility goals and objectives.

MetroFuture

MetroFuture, which was developed by MAPC and adopted in 2008, is the long-range plan for land use, housing, economic development, and environmental preservation in the Boston region. It includes a vision for the region’s future and a set of strategies for achieving that future, and it was adopted as the future land-use scenario for the MPO’s LRTP, Paths to a Sustainable Region. MetroFuture’s goals, objectives, and strategies were considered in the development of this TIP.

youMove Massachusetts and weMove Massachusetts

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

MassDOT’s statewide strategic multimodal plan, weMove Massachusetts (WMM) is a product of the transportation reform legislation of 2009 and the YMM civic engagement process. In May 2014, MassDOT released WMM: Planning for Performance, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ 2040 LRTP. WMM identifies high-level policy priorities that were considered in the development of this TIP. WMM also incorporates performance management into investment decision-making to calculate the differences in performance outcomes resulting from different funding levels available to MassDOT. In the future, MassDOT will use this scenario tool to update and refine investment priorities. The TIP builds on this data-driven method to prioritize transportation investments.

Healthy Transportation Compact

The Healthy Transportation Compact (HTC) is a major requirement of the Massachusetts landmark transportation reform legislation that took effect on November 1, 2009. It is an interagency initiative that will help ensure that the transportation decisions made by the Commonwealth balance the needs of all transportation users, expand mobility, improve public health, support a cleaner environment, and create stronger communities.

The agencies work together to achieve positive health outcomes by coordinating land use, transportation, and public health policy. HTC membership is made up of the Secretary of Transportation or designee (co-chair), the Secretary of Health and Human Services or designee (co-chair), the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs or designee, the Administrator of Transportation for Highways or designee, the Administrator of Transportation for Mass Transit or designee, and the Commissioner of Public Health or designee.

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

Accelerated Bridge Program

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

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

Since 2008, the number of former structurally deficient bridges has dropped from 543 to 416, a decline of more than 23 percent. As of May 1, 2015, the ABP has completed 167 bridge projects, with another 26 bridge projects in construction and an additional 6 bridge projects scheduled to start construction within the next calendar year. Over the course of the eight-year ABP program, more than 250 bridges will be replaced or repaired.

MassDOT Mode Shift Goal

In the fall of 2012, MassDOT announced a statewide mode shift goal: to triple the share of travel in Massachusetts that uses bicycling, transit, and walking. The mode shift goal aims to foster improved quality of life by enhancing our environment and preserving the capacity of our highway network. In addition, positive public health outcomes will be achieved by providing more healthy transportation options. On September 9, 2013, MassDOT passed the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive to formalize its commitment to implementing and maintaining transportation networks that serve all mode choices. This directive will ensure that all MassDOT projects are designed and implemented in ways that would provide all customers with access to safe and comfortable walking, bicycling, and transit options.

Consistency with MPO Policies

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

System Preservation, Modernization, and Efficiency

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

Livability

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

Mobility

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

Environment

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

Transportation Equity

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

Climate Change

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

Safety and Security

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

In the development of the LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040 (scheduled to be endorsed in July 2015), the Boston Region MPO updated its vision, goals, and objectives. These updated goals and objectives, listed on the following pages, will guide future investment decisions through the LRTP, TIP, and UPWP. Following the MPO’s endorsement of Charting Progress to 2040, MPO staff will update the TIP evaluation criteria to align future investment decisions with the new goals and objectives.

CENTRAL VISION STATEMENT

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization envisions a modern transportation system that is safe, uses new technologies, provides equitable access, excellent mobility, and varied transportation options—in support of a sustainable, healthy, livable, and economically vibrant region.

Safety Goals

Transportation by all modes will be safe

Safety Objectives

System Preservation Goals

Maintain the transportation system

System Preservation Objectives

Capacity Management/Mobility Goals

Use existing facility capacity more efficiently and increase healthy transportation capacity

Capacity Management/Mobility Objectives

Clean Air/Clean Communities Goals

Create an environmentally friendly transportation system

Clean Air/Clean Communities Objectives

Transportation Equity Goals

Provide comparable transportation access and service quality among communities, regardless of income level or minority population

Transportation Equity Objectives

Economic Vitality Goals

Ensure our transportation network provides a strong foundation for economic vitality

Economic Vitality Objectives

 

Back to top

 

2 Chapter Two

The TIP Process

 


Introduction to the TIP Process

How to allocate scarce funds while realizing the best possible transportation system is one of the most important decisions an MPO faces in planning for its region’s future. Transportation improvements form part of the solution to many critical regional, state, national, and even global problems, such as traffic congestion, air pollution, traffic fatalities and injuries, climate change, and environmental justice. Because there is not nearly enough funding available to build all of the necessary and worthy projects that would address these problems, MPOs’ investments choices must be guided by policies that help identify the most viable solutions.

Thus, each year, the Boston Region MPO conducts a TIP development process that prioritizes transportation investments and helps the MPO decide how to spend federal transportation funds for capital projects. The Central Transportation Planning Staff to the Boston Region MPO manages the annual development process for the TIP. MPO staff help evaluate project requests, propose programming of new and current projects based on anticipated funding levels, support the MPO by creating a draft TIP document, and facilitate a public review of the draft before the MPO endorses the final document.

Financing the program

Federal Framework

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

Once the authorization level has been established, the United States Department of Transportation annually allocates funding among the states, based on various federal formulas. This allocation is referred to as an apportionment. The annual apportionment rarely represents the actual amount of federal funds that are committed to a state because of federally imposed funding limitations on spending in a given fiscal year, referred to as the obligation authority.

Obligation authority may be imposed in a multiyear authorization act, in the annual appropriations act, or in both. Obligation authority is typically less than a state’s apportionment. In Massachusetts, TIPs are developed based on the estimated obligation authority.

Two of the most important distinctions between apportionment and obligation authority are: 1) apportionment is allocated on a per-program basis, while obligation authority is generally allocated as a lump sum; and 2) unused apportionment carries forward into successive federal fiscal years (FFYs), but unused obligation authority does not. Unused apportionment that is carried forward is referred to as an unobligated balance. Although a state’s unobligated balance can be used to increase the amount of federal aid programmed within a particular funding category in a given FFY, it cannot be used to increase the total amount of the state’s highway apportionment.

Federal Highway Program

Federal regulations require states to “provide MPOs with estimates of Federal and State funds which the MPOs shall utilize in developing financial plans” for TIPs.3 The FFYs 2016–20 TIP was developed with the assumption that the Statewide Federal Highway Program funding would be $600 million annually for the next four years. In Massachusetts, federal highway program funding is allocated to several major funding categories. First, MassDOT allocates federal funding to repay Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) used to fund the Accelerated Bridge Program. During the four years of this TIP, approximately $245 million of the Highway Program is dedicated to GANs payments for the Accelerated Bridge Program. MassDOT matches the remaining amount of federal funding with an 80 percent (federal) and 20 percent (state) split. Next, MassDOT allocates funding based on the following categories:

In FFY 2017, MassDOT will end funding for the Regional Major Infrastructure Program after reconstruction of the I-91 Viaduct in Springfield has been completed. These funds will be reallocated to the Regional Target program for prioritization by MPOs across the state.

After these needs have been satisfied, the remaining federal funding is allocated to the state’s MPOs for programming. This discretionary funding for MPOs is suballocated by formula to determine “regional target” amounts, which are developed in consultation with the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies. Each MPO decides how its Regional Target funding is prioritized. During the next five years, the Boston Region MPO’s total Regional Target Program funding is approximately $440 million, an average of $88 million annually. To decide how to spend its Regional Target funding, the Boston Region MPO engages its 101 cities and towns in an annual development process.

Federal Transit Program

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

Funding Programs

Many federal-aid transportation programs support transportation activities in metropolitan areas, each area having different requirements and program characteristics. Non-federal aid (state funds) for the statewide infrastructure items, the bridge program, and the regional targets is derived from various sources, including the Commonwealth’s Transportation Bond Bill. Under MAP-21, federal programs that fund projects in the FFYs 2016–20 TIP are listed in the following two tables.

 

TABLE 2-1

Federal Transit Administration Programs

MAP-21 Program

Eligible Uses

Examples

Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307)

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

Preventive Maintenance – FFYs 2016–19

Fixed Guideway/Bus (Section 5337)

 

 

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

MBTA Bridge and Tunnel Program – FFYs 2016–19

Bus and Bus Facilities (Section 5339)

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

MBTA Systems Upgrades Program – FFYs 2016–19

Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities

(Section 5310)

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

 

 

 

TABLE 2-2

Federal Highway Administration Programs

MAP-21 Program

Eligible Uses

Examples

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)

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

Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16– FFYs 2016–20

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

Implementation of infrastructure-related highway safety improvements

Reconstruction of Route 85/ Maple Street (Marlborough) – FFY 2017

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)

 

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

Route 128 Improvement Program (Needham and Wellesley) – FFYs 2016–18

 

Surface Transportation Program (STP)

 

A broad range of surface transportation capital needs, including roads; transit, sea, and airport access; and vanpool, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Reconstruction and Widening on Route 18 (Weymouth and Abington) – FFYs 2016–19

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)

 

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

Veterans Memorial School (Saugus) – FFY 2016

High-Priority Projects (HPP)

[Carried over from SAFETEA-LU]

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

Traffic Signal Improvements on Blue Hill Avenue and Warren Street (Boston) – FFY 2018

Discretionary Funding

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

 

developing the tip

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

Overview

The MPO’s project selection process for highway discretionary (“regional target”) funding uses evaluation criteria to help identify and prioritize projects that advance the MPO’s goals. The criteria are based on the MPO’s visions and policies, which were adopted for its current Long-Range Transportation Plan, Paths to a Sustainable Region. These criteria closely align with the draft LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040, and MPO staff plan to update the evaluation criteria to guide future TIP investments after Charting Progress to 2040 is finalized. 

All projects are required to show consistency with the Long-Range Transportation Plan and other statewide and regional plans.

The MPO staff evaluates each project that is considered for inclusion in the TIP based on the specific criteria that were developed by the MPO. Other criteria include project readiness and municipal support. Background information about the TIP project evaluation process is presented in Appendix B and on the MPO’s website, www.bostonmpo.org. The MPO reviews the effectiveness of this evaluation method and alters the process as appropriate.

Outreach and Data Collection (November 2014–February 2015)

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

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

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

Evaluation of Projects (February–March 2015)

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

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

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

The summary of evaluation results for projects being considered for the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2016–20 TIP is available in Table A-1, Appendix A. The table contains the total project rating for each project. For more details about the evaluation criteria used to score projects, see Appendix B.

Staff Recommendation (April 2015)

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

Bridge Program—Project Selection Process

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


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

Statewide Infrastructure Items—Project Selection Process

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

Transit—Project Selection Process

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

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

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

approving the tip

Approval of the Draft TIP for Public Review

The MPO considers the evaluation results, first-tier list of projects, and staff recommendation in prioritizing projects for regional target funding. They also consider public input, regional importance, and other factors in developing the draft TIP. In addition to prioritizing the regional target funding, the MPO reviews statewide infrastructure items, the bridge program, and the capital programs for the MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA, before voting to release a draft TIP for public review.

In early-June 2015, the MPO voted to release the draft FFYs 2016–20 TIP for a 30-day public review and comment period. The MPO invites members of the public, regional and local officials, and other stakeholders in the Boston region to review the proposed program. Several TIP outreach sessions are held during the public comment period to solicit comments on the draft TIP; summaries of these are listed in Appendix F.

Approval of the Draft TIP

After the comment period, the MPO reviewed all of the comments it received and endorsed the FFYs 2016–20 TIP on July 30, 2015. The MPO-endorsed TIP will be incorporated into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and sent to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration so that the document may be approved by the federal agencies by September 30, 2015 before the start of FFY 2016.

Updating the TIP

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

Consistent with federal guidelines, if a project is valued at $5 million or less, the threshold for defining an amendment is a change of $500,000 or more. The threshold for projects valued at greater than $5 million is 10 percent or more of the project value. Changes that are less than these thresholds may be considered administrative modifications. The MPO acts on administrative modifications, and, although a public review period is not required, one may be provided at the MPO’s discretion.

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

Because the print version of the TIP is prepared prior to the start of each federal fiscal year, it may not reflect all of the changes to the program and projects that occur during the course of the year. The MPO’s website is the best place to find current information about the TIP.

All changes to the draft TIP that have been approved by the MPO, and changes to the endorsed TIP, such as amendments and modifications, that have been approved by the MPO, are available on the TIP webpage on the MPO’s website, www.bostonmpo.org. Comments or questions about the draft materials may be submitted directly through the website, voiced at MPO meetings, or via US mail.


Back to top

 

 

3 Chapter Three

Project Information

This chapter begins with tables listing, by year, the projects and programs funded in FFYs 2016–20.

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

 

Highway Program - project information key

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

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

 

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

 

Project Name: The location or name of the project.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Evaluation Rating: The number of points scored by the project based on the evaluation criteria, if it has been evaluated.

 

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

 

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

 

Project Length: The length of the project in miles.

 

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

 

Year: The programming year(s) of the project.

 

Funding Program: The funding program(s) of the project. See Chapter 2 for more details on funding programs.

 

Total Funding Programmed: The total funding programmed for the project based on the year of expenditure.


Information regarding TIP projects changes periodically. For more information on all projects please visit the Interactive TIP Database at www.bostonmpo.org.

 

Transit Program - Project information key

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Funding Program: The funding program(s) of the project. See Chapter 2 for more details on funding programs.

 

Total Funding Programmed: The total funding programmed for the program or project based on the year of expenditure.

 

 

TABLE 3-1
Highway Funding

 

MassDOT                                                                                                              Project Description MassDOT Project ID Year Funding Source Total Programmed                Funds Federal Funds Non-Federal Funds Additional                                                                        Information ▼                                 TIP Document
 ARLINGTON- BELMONT- HIGHWAY LIGHTING REPAIR & MAINTENANCE ON ROUTE 2  606381 2018 STP  $5,750,000  $4,600,000  $1,150,000 AC Year 1 of 2; Total Cost = $9,450,000 FFYS 2016-20
 ARLINGTON- BELMONT- HIGHWAY LIGHTING REPAIR & MAINTENANCE ON ROUTE 2  606381 2019 STP  $3,700,000  $2,960,000  $740,000 AC Year 2 of 2; Total Cost = $9,450,000 FFYS 2016-20
 DISTRICT 6- HIGHWAY LIGHTING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ON I-93, FROM SOUTHAMPTON STREET TO NEPONSET AVENUE IN BOSTON 605733 2016 STP  $2,500,000  $2,000,000  $500,000 AC Year 1 of 3; Total Cost = $8,250,000 FFYS 2016-20
 DISTRICT 6- HIGHWAY LIGHTING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ON I-93, FROM SOUTHAMPTON STREET TO NEPONSET AVENUE IN BOSTON 605733 2017 STP  $4,500,000  $3,600,000  $900,000 AC Year 2 of 3; Total Cost = $8,250,000 FFYS 2016-20
 DISTRICT 6- HIGHWAY LIGHTING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ON I-93, FROM SOUTHAMPTON STREET TO NEPONSET AVENUE IN BOSTON 605733 2018 STP  $1,250,000  $1,000,000  $250,000 AC Year 3 of 3; Total Cost = $8,250,000 FFYS 2016-20
 MARLBORO RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20 608221 2019 NHPP  $6,126,938  $4,901,550  $1,225,388   FFYS 2016-20
 MEDFORD- STONEHAM- WOBURN- READING- HIGHWAY LIGHTING REHABILITATION ON I-93 (PHASE II) 603917 2016 STP  $15,000,000  $12,000,000  $3,000,000 AC Year 1 of 2; Total Cost = $17,500,000 FFYS 2016-20
 MEDFORD- STONEHAM- WOBURN- READING- HIGHWAY LIGHTING REHABILITATION ON I-93 (PHASE II) 603917 2017 STP  $2,500,000  $2,000,000  $500,000 AC Year 2 of 2; Total Cost = $17,500,000 FFYS 2016-20
ACTON- CONCORD- BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION (PHASE II-B) 606223 2018 CMAQ  $6,230,016  $4,984,013  $1,246,003   FFYS 2016-20
ACTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON SR 2 & SR 111 (MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE) AT PIPER ROAD & TAYLOR ROAD 607748 2018 HSIP  $1,500,000  $1,350,000  $150,000   FFYS 2016-20
ASHLAND- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 126 (POND STREET), FROM THE FRAMINGHAM T.L. TO THE HOLLISTON T.L. 604123 2020 STP  $10,983,686  $8,786,949  $2,196,737  STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $15,532,405  FFYS 2016-20
ASHLAND- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 126 (POND STREET), FROM THE FRAMINGHAM T.L. TO THE HOLLISTON T.L. 604123 2020 CMAQ  $2,000,000  $1,600,000  $400,000  STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $15,532,405  FFYS 2016-20
ASHLAND- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 126 (POND STREET), FROM THE FRAMINGHAM T.L. TO THE HOLLISTON T.L. 604123 2020 TAP  $2,548,719  $2,038,975  $509,744  STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $15,532,405  FFYS 2016-20
BEDFORD - SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (JOHN GLENN MIDDLE) 608000 2016 TAP  $780,000  $624,000  $156,000   FFYS 2016-20
BEDFORD- BILLERICA- BURLINGTON- MIDDLESEX TURNPIKE IMPROVEMENTS, FROM CROSBY DRIVE NORTH TO MANNING ROAD, INCLUDES RECONSTRUCTION OF B-04-006 (PHASE III) 29492 2017 STP  $6,604,906  $5,283,925  $1,320,981  AC Yr 2 of 2; STP+Northern Middlesex Council of Governments contribution ($1,000,000) Total Cost = $29,296,348  FFYS 2016-20
BEDFORD- BILLERICA- BURLINGTON- MIDDLESEX TURNPIKE IMPROVEMENTS, FROM CROSBY DRIVE NORTH TO MANNING ROAD, INCLUDES RECONSTRUCTION OF B-04-006 (PHASE III) 29492 2016 STP  $21,691,442  $17,353,154  $4,338,288  AC Yr 1 of 2; STP+Northern Middlesex Council of Governments contribution ($1,000,000) Total Cost = $29,296,348  FFYS 2016-20
BEDFORD- BILLERICA- BURLINGTON- MIDDLESEX TURNPIKE IMPROVEMENTS, FROM CROSBY DRIVE NORTH TO MANNING ROAD, INCLUDES RECONSTRUCTION OF B-04-006 (PHASE III) 29492 2016 OTHER  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000  AC Yr 2 of 2; STP+Northern Middlesex Council of Governments contribution ($1,000,000) Total Cost = $29,296,348  FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON - TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT 10 LOCATIONS 606117 2016 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000  CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $4,654,920  FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON - TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT 10 LOCATIONS 606117 2016 STP  $3,654,920  $2,923,936  $730,984  CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $4,654,920  FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE CHARLES RIVER 604173 2017 NHPP
 $12,984,000  $10,387,200  $2,596,800 AC Yr 1 of 4; Total Cost = $117,208,000 FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE CHARLES RIVER 604173 2018 NHPP
 $36,000,000  $28,800,000  $7,200,000 AC Yr 2 of 4; Total Cost = $112,700,000 FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-16-016, NORTH WASHINGTON STREET OVER THE CHARLES RIVER 604173 2019 NHPP
 $34,504,000  $27,603,200  $6,900,800 AC Yr 3 of 4; Total Cost = $112,700,000 FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-16-237, MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE (ROUTE 2A) OVER COMMONWEALTH AVENUE 600867 2016 NHPP
 $9,074,000  $7,259,200  $1,814,800 AC Yr 1 of 2; Total Cost = $16,183,795 FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-16-237, MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE (ROUTE 2A) OVER COMMONWEALTH AVENUE 600867 2017 NHPP
 $7,109,795  $5,687,836  $1,421,959 AC Yr 2 of 2; Total Cost = $16,183,795 FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- BROOKLINE- MULTI-USE PATH CONSTRUCTION ON NEW FENWAY  607888 2019 CMAQ  $1,915,213  $1,532,170  $383,043   FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON BOYLSTON STREET, FROM INTERSECTION OF BROOKLINE AVENUE & PARK DRIVE TO IPSWICH STREET 606453 2019 STP  $3,000,000  $2,400,000  $600,000  STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $7,373,484  FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON BOYLSTON STREET, FROM INTERSECTION OF BROOKLINE AVENUE & PARK DRIVE TO IPSWICH STREET 606453 2019 CMAQ  $1,824,765  $1,459,812  $364,953  STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $7,373,484  FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON BOYLSTON STREET, FROM INTERSECTION OF BROOKLINE AVENUE & PARK DRIVE TO IPSWICH STREET 606453 2019 TAP  $2,548,719  $2,038,975  $509,744  STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $7,373,484  FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE VFW PARKWAY & SPRING STREET 607759 2019 HSIP  $550,000  $495,000  $55,000   FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD  605789 2018 HPP (2005)  $2,429,730  $1,943,784  $485,946 Construction; HPP 756 (MA126); SAFETEA-LU Earmark (HPP 756)+ SAFETEA-LU Earmark (HPP 4284) =Total Cost $7,437,105 FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD  605789 2018 HPP (2005)  $5,007,375  $4,005,900  $1,001,475 Construction; HPP 4284 (MA203); SAFETEA-LU Earmark (HPP 756)+ SAFETEA-LU Earmark (HPP 4284) =Total Cost $7,437,105 FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE 606226 2020 STP  $7,000,000  $5,600,000  $1,400,000   FFYS 2016-20
BOSTON- TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON BLUE HILL AVENUE AND WARREN STREET 606134 2018 HPP (2005)  $2,377,900  $1,902,320  $475,580 Construction; HPP 2129 (MA155) FFYS 2016-20
BRAINTREE- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-21-060 AND B-21-061, ST 3 (SB) AND ST 3 (nb) OVER RAMP C (QUINCY ADAMS) 607685 2016 NHPP
 $11,908,000  $9,526,400  $2,381,600   FFYS 2016-20
BROOKLINE- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 9 & VILLAGE SQUARE (GATEWAY EAST) 605110 2017 CMAQ  $471,811  $377,449  $94,362  STP+TAP+CMAQ+Private Sector Contribution ($1,000,000) Total Cost = $5,818,649   FFYS 2016-20
BROOKLINE- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 9 & VILLAGE SQUARE (GATEWAY EAST) 605110 2017 TAP  $2,346,838  $1,877,470  $469,368  STP+TAP+CMAQ+Private Sector Contribution ($1,000,000) Total Cost = $5,818,649   FFYS 2016-20
BROOKLINE- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 9 & VILLAGE SQUARE (GATEWAY EAST) 605110 2017 STP  $2,000,000  $1,600,000  $400,000  STP+TAP+CMAQ+Private Sector Contribution ($1,000,000) Total Cost = $5,818,649   FFYS 2016-20
BROOKLINE- PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-27-016, OVER MBTA OFF CARLTON STREET 606316 2016 CMAQ  $2,846,700  $2,277,360  $569,340   FFYS 2016-20
CHELSEA TO DANVERS - GUIDE AND TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON A SECTION OF US ROUTE 1 608206 2019 HSIP  $5,900,000  $5,310,000  $590,000   FFYS 2016-20
COHASSET- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT & SUBSTRUCTURE REHABILITATION, C-17-002, ATLANTIC AVENUE OVER LITTLE HARBOR INLET 607345 2016 STP-BR-OFF  $4,336,600  $3,469,280  $867,320   FFYS 2016-20
CONCORD - RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 2 608220 2018 NHPP  $1,784,160  $1,427,328  $356,832   FFYS 2016-20
CONCORD- BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION, FROM COMMONWEALTH AVENUE TO POWDER MILL ROAD, INCLUDES 2 RAILROAD BRIDGES & 1 CULVERT (PHASE II-C) 605189 2016 CMAQ  $5,532,584  $4,426,067  $1,106,517   FFYS 2016-20
DANVERS - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, D-03-018, ROUTE 128 OVER WATERS RIVER 607954 2017 NHPP
 $10,513,973  $8,411,178  $2,102,795   FFYS 2016-20
DEDHAM - RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 109 605608 2018 NHPP  $2,523,312  $2,018,650  $504,662  NHSPP+Stormwater Total Cost = $2,739,312  FFYS 2016-20
DEDHAM - RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 109 605608 2018 STP-TE  $216,000  $172,800  $43,200  NHSPP+Stormwater Total Cost = $2,739,312  FFYS 2016-20
EVERETT - SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (MADELAINE ENGLISH) 607998 2016 TAP  $602,608  $482,086  $120,522   FFYS 2016-20
EVERETT- RECONSTRUCTION OF FERRY STREET, SOUTH FERRY STREET AND A PORTION OF ELM STREET 607652 2019 STP  $5,244,124  $4,195,299  $1,048,825  STP+HSIP Total Cost = $7,244,124  FFYS 2016-20
EVERETT- RECONSTRUCTION OF FERRY STREET, SOUTH FERRY STREET AND A PORTION OF ELM STREET 607652 2019 HSIP  $2,000,000  $1,600,000  $400,000  STP+HSIP Total Cost = $7,244,124  FFYS 2016-20
FAIRMOUNT IMPROVEMENTS 1568 2016 NFA  $447,000  $-    $447,000   FFYS 2016-20
FAIRMOUNT IMPROVEMENTS 1568 2017 NFA  $11,574,800  $-    $11,574,800   FFYS 2016-20
FOXBOROUGH-PLAINVILLE-WRENTHAM-FRANKLIN- INTERSTAE MAINTENANCE AND RELATED WORK ON I-495 608210 2019 NHPP  $29,392,384  $26,453,146  $2,939,238   FFYS 2016-20
FOXBOROUGH-PLAINVILLE-WRENTHAM-INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE AND RELATED WORK ON I-495 606176 2016 NHPP  $1,604,800  $1,444,320  $160,480  IM+Stormwater Total Cost = $3,344,800  FFYS 2016-20
FOXBOROUGH-PLAINVILLE-WRENTHAM-INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE AND RELATED WORK ON I-495 606176 2016 STP-TE  $1,740,000  $1,392,000  $348,000  IM+Stormwater Total Cost = $3,344,800  FFYS 2016-20
FRAMINGHAM- NATICK- COCHITUATE RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, N-03-014, OVER ROUTE 9 & BRIDGE OVER ROUTE 30 607732 2018 CMAQ  $5,859,926  $4,687,941  $1,171,985   FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE 2), COLLEGE AVENUE TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2016 CMAQ  $8,100,000  $6,480,000  $1,620,000  Yr 1 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($158,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2016-20 TIP)  FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE 2), COLLEGE AVENUE TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2017 CMAQ  $13,427,220  $10,741,776  $2,685,444  Yr 2 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($158,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2016-20 TIP)  FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE 2), COLLEGE AVENUE TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2017 STP  $16,472,780  $13,178,224  $3,294,556  Yr 2 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($158,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2016-20 TIP)  FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE 2), COLLEGE AVENUE TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2018 CMAQ  $13,427,220  $10,741,776  $2,685,444  Yr 3 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($158,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2016-20 TIP)  FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE 2), COLLEGE AVENUE TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2018 STP  $26,572,780  $21,258,224  $5,314,556  Yr 3 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($158,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2016-20 TIP)  FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE 2), COLLEGE AVENUE TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2019 CMAQ  $13,427,220  $10,741,776  $2,685,444  Yr 4 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($158,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2016-20 TIP)  FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE 2), COLLEGE AVENUE TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2019 STP  $26,572,780  $21,258,224  $5,314,556  Yr 4 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($158,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2016-20 TIP)  FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE 2), COLLEGE AVENUE TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2020 CMAQ  $13,427,220  $10,741,776  $2,685,444  Yr 5 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($158,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2016-20 TIP)  FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT (PHASE 2), COLLEGE AVENUE TO MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY/ROUTE 16 1569 2020 STP  $26,572,780  $21,258,224  $5,314,556  Yr 5 of 6; CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $190,100,000 ($158,000,000 programmed within FFYs 2016-20 TIP)  FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR  1570 2016 NFA  $367,838,000  $150,000,000  $217,838,000   FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR  1570 2017 NFA  $380,670,000  $150,000,000  $230,670,000   FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR  1570 2018 NFA  $345,558,000  $150,000,000  $195,558,000   FFYS 2016-20
GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT- EXTENSION TO COLLEGE AVENUE WITH THE UNION SQUARE SPUR  1570 2019 NFA  $176,196,000  $150,000,000  $26,196,000   FFYS 2016-20
HANOVER- NORWELL- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, H-06-010, ST 3 OVER ST 123 (WEBSTER STREET) & N-24-003, ST 3 OVER ST 123 (HIGH STREET) 606553 2016 NHPP
 $29,000,000  $23,200,000  $5,800,000 AC Yr 1 of 2: Total Cost =$41,955,600 FFYS 2016-20
HANOVER- NORWELL- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, H-06-010, ST 3 OVER ST 123 (WEBSTER STREET) & N-24-003, ST 3 OVER ST 123 (HIGH STREET) 606553 2017 NHPP
 $12,955,600  $10,364,480  $2,591,120 AC Yr 2 of 2; Total Cost = $41,955,600 FFYS 2016-20
HINGHAM - BROCKTON - STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ROUTE 3A/ROUTE 28 608134 2016 STP-TE  $479,100  $383,280  $95,820   FFYS 2016-20
HINGHAM- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT DERBY STREET, WHITING STREET (ROUTE 53) AND GARDNER STREET 600518 2018 HSIP  $611,547  $550,392  $61,155  STP+HSIP Total Cost = $3,057,735  FFYS 2016-20
HINGHAM- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT DERBY STREET, WHITING STREET (ROUTE 53) AND GARDNER STREET 600518 2018 STP  $2,446,188  $1,956,950  $489,238  STP+HSIP Total Cost = $3,057,735  FFYS 2016-20
HINGHAM- RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ON DERBY STREET, FROM POND PARK ROAD TO CUSHING STREET 607309 2017 CMAQ  $3,195,430  $2,556,344  $639,086  HSIP+CMAQ Total Cost = $3,994,287   FFYS 2016-20
HINGHAM- RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ON DERBY STREET, FROM POND PARK ROAD TO CUSHING STREET 607309 2017 HSIP  $798,857  $718,972  $79,886  HSIP+CMAQ Total Cost = $3,994,287   FFYS 2016-20
HOPEDALE- MILFORD- RESURFACING & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 16 (MAIN STREET), FROM WATER STREET WEST TO APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET WEST OF THE MILFORD/HOPEDALE T.L AND THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 140 607428 2019 CMAQ  $787,405  $629,924  $157,481  CMAQ+HSIP Total Cost = $3,149,619  FFYS 2016-20
HOPEDALE- MILFORD- RESURFACING & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 16 (MAIN STREET), FROM WATER STREET WEST TO APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET WEST OF THE MILFORD/HOPEDALE T.L AND THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 140 607428 2019 HSIP  $2,362,214  $2,125,993  $236,221  CMAQ+HSIP Total Cost = $3,149,619  FFYS 2016-20
HOPKINTON- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 135 606043 2019 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000  CMAQ+HSIP+STP Total Cost = $8,138,816  FFYS 2016-20
HOPKINTON- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 135 606043 2019 STP  $5,917,993  $4,734,395  $1,183,599  CMAQ+HSIP+STP Total Cost = $8,138,816  FFYS 2016-20
HOPKINTON- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 135 606043 2019 HSIP  $1,220,822  $1,098,740  $122,082  CMAQ+HSIP+STP Total Cost = $8,138,816  FFYS 2016-20
HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, H-23-006=W-24-016, FRUIT STREET OVER CSX & SUDBURY RIVER 606632 2018 STP-BR-OFF  $11,727,339  $9,381,871  $2,345,468   FFYS 2016-20
LEXINGTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-10-009, ROUTE 2 (EB & WB) OVER ROUTE I-95 (ROUTE 128) 600703 2016 NHPP
 $5,108,000  $4,086,400  $1,021,600 AC Yr 4 of 4; Total Cost = $36,794.555 FFYS 2016-20
LEXINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION ON MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, FROM MARRETT ROAD TO PLEASANT STREET 607409 2016 TAP  $2,600,000  $2,080,000  $520,000  TAP+HSIP Total Cost = $5,200,000  FFYS 2016-20
LEXINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION ON MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, FROM MARRETT ROAD TO PLEASANT STREET 607409 2016 HSIP  $2,600,000  $2,340,000  $260,000  TAP+HSIP Total Cost = $5,200,000  FFYS 2016-20
LYNN- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 129 (LYNNFIELD STREET), FROM GREAT WOODS ROAD TO WYOMA SQUARE 602077 2019 STP  $3,889,305  $3,111,444  $777,861   FFYS 2016-20
LYNN- SAUGUS- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-18-016=S-05-008, ROUTE 107 OVER THE SAUGUS RIVER (AKA - BELDEN G. BLY BRIDGE) 604952 2017 NHPP
 $6,800,000  $5,440,000  $1,360,000 AC Yr 1 of 4; Total Cost = $45,000,000 FFYS 2016-20
LYNN- SAUGUS- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-18-016=S-05-008, ROUTE 107 OVER THE SAUGUS RIVER (AKA - BELDEN G. BLY BRIDGE) 604952 2018 NHPP
 $18,800,000  $15,040,000  $3,760,000 AC Yr 2 of 4; Total Cost = $45,000,000 FFYS 2016-20
LYNN- SAUGUS- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-18-016=S-05-008, ROUTE 107 OVER THE SAUGUS RIVER (AKA - BELDEN G. BLY BRIDGE) 604952 2019 NHPP
 $12,800,000  $10,240,000  $2,560,000 AC Yr 3 of 4; Total Cost = $45,000,000 FFYS 2016-20
LYNNFIELD- PEABODY- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1  607477 2017 NHPP  $7,721,542  $6,177,234  $1,544,308   FFYS 2016-20
MARLBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 85 (MAPLE STREET) 604810 2017 CMAQ  $2,000,000  $1,600,000  $400,000  HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $5,613,636  FFYS 2016-20
MARLBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 85 (MAPLE STREET) 604810 2017 HSIP  $3,397,727  $3,057,954  $339,773  HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $5,613,636  FFYS 2016-20
MARLBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 85 (MAPLE STREET) 604810 2017 STP  $215,909  $172,727  $43,182  HSIP+CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $5,613,636  FFYS 2016-20
MARSHFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-07-007, BEACH STREET OVER THE CUT RIVER 604655 2018 STP-BR-OFF  $4,822,854  $3,858,283  $964,571   FFYS 2016-20
MARSHFIELD PEMBROKE NORWELL HANOVER ROCKLAND HINGHAM RESURFACING ON RT 3 608069 2018 NHPP  $17,586,720  $14,069,376  $3,517,344   FFYS 2016-20
MILTON - STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS ALONG I-93  608213 2019 STP-TE  $560,000  $448,000  $112,000   FFYS 2016-20
MILTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT 2 LOCATIONS: SR 138 (BLUE HILL AVENUE) AT ATHERTON STREET & BRADLEE ROAD AND SR 138 (BLUE HILL AVENUE) AT MILTON STREET & DOLLAR LANE 607763 2019 HSIP  $1,100,000  $990,000  $110,000   FFYS 2016-20
MILTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT GRANITE AVENUE & SQUANTUM STREET 607754 2017 HSIP  $350,000  $315,000  $35,000   FFYS 2016-20
NATICK- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 27 (NORTH MAIN STREET), FROM NORTH AVENUE TO THE WAYLAND T.L. 605034 2019 CMAQ  $1,000,000  $800,000  $200,000  CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $14,725,286  FFYS 2016-20
NATICK- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 27 (NORTH MAIN STREET), FROM NORTH AVENUE TO THE WAYLAND T.L. 605034 2019 STP  $13,725,286  $10,980,229  $2,745,057  CMAQ+STP Total Cost = $14,725,286  FFYS 2016-20
NEEDHAM- NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO ROUTE 9 (NEWTON) 606635 2018 CMAQ  $3,687,911  $2,950,329  $737,582  CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = 15,464,292  FFYS 2016-20
NEEDHAM- NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO ROUTE 9 (NEWTON) 606635 2018 STP  $6,144,648  $4,915,718  $1,228,930  CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = 15,464,292  FFYS 2016-20
NEEDHAM- NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO ROUTE 9 (NEWTON) 606635 2018 HSIP  $2,319,644  $2,087,679  $231,964  CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = 15,464,292  FFYS 2016-20
NEEDHAM- NEWTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, NEEDHAM STREET & CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, N-04-002, FROM WEBSTER STREET (NEEDHAM) TO ROUTE 9 (NEWTON) 606635 2018 TAP  $3,312,089  $2,649,671  $662,418  CMAQ+HSIP+TAP+STP Total Cost = 15,464,292  FFYS 2016-20
NEEDHAM- WELLESLEY- REHAB/REPLACEMENT OF 6 BRIDGES ON I-95/ROUTE 128: N-04-020, N-04-021, N-04-022, N-04-026, N-04-027, N-04-037 & W-13-023 (ADD-A-LANE - CONTRACT V) 603711 2017 NHPP  $13,360,000  $10,688,000  $2,672,000  AC Yr 4 of 5; NHPP+BR+Statewide Infrastructure Total Cost = $164,919,140 ($56,154,316 programmed within FFYs 2016-20 TIP)                                        FFYS 2016-20
NEEDHAM- WELLESLEY- REHAB/REPLACEMENT OF 6 BRIDGES ON I-95/ROUTE 128: N-04-020, N-04-021, N-04-022, N-04-026, N-04-027, N-04-037 & W-13-023 (ADD-A-LANE - CONTRACT V) 603711 2018 NHPP  $13,168,183  $10,534,546  $2,633,637  AC Yr 5 of 5; NHPP+BR+Statewide Infrastructure Total Cost = $164,919,140 ($56,154,316 programmed within FFYs 2016-20 TIP)                                        FFYS 2016-20
NEEDHAM- WELLESLEY- REHAB/REPLACEMENT OF 6 BRIDGES ON I-95/ROUTE 128: N-04-020, N-04-021, N-04-022, N-04-026, N-04-027, N-04-037 & W-13-023 (ADD-A-LANE - CONTRACT V) 603711 2016 NHPP  $29,626,133  $23,700,906  $5,925,227  AC Yr 3 of 5; NHPP+BR+Statewide Infrastructure Total Cost = $164,919,140 ($56,154,316 programmed within FFYs 2016-20 TIP)                                        FFYS 2016-20
NEWTON- WELLESLEY- WESTON- BRIDGE MAINTENANCE OF N-12-063, N-12-054, N-12-055 & N-12-056 ON I-95/ROUTE 128 607915 2018 NHPP  $1,724,400  $1,379,520  $344,880   FFYS 2016-20
NORWOOD- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT US 1 (PROVIDENCE HIGHWAY) & MORSE STREET 608052 2019 HSIP  $550,000  $495,000  $55,000   FFYS 2016-20
QUINCY - MILTON - BOSTON - INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE AND RELATED WORK ON I-93 608208 2019 NHPP  $22,287,462  $20,058,716  $2,228,746   FFYS 2016-20
QUINCY- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, ROBERTSON STREET OVER I-93/US 1/SR 3 607133 2018 STP-BR-OFF  $6,435,763  $5,148,610  $1,287,153   FFYS 2016-20
RANDOLPH- QUINCY- BRAINTREE- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON I-93 607481 2017 NHPP  $12,137,008  $10,923,307  $1,213,701   FFYS 2016-20
READING TO LYNNFIELD - GUIDE AND TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON A SECTION OF INTERSTATE 95 (STATE ROUTE 128) 608205 2019 HSIP  $3,500,000  $3,150,000  $350,000   FFYS 2016-20
READING-WAKEFIELD- INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 608219 2018 NHPP  $4,638,816  $4,174,934  $463,882   FFYS 2016-20
RED LINE-BLUE LINE CONNECTOR DESIGN 1572 2016 NFA  $29,000,000  $-    $29,000,000   FFYS 2016-20
RED LINE-BLUE LINE CONNECTOR DESIGN 1572 2017 NFA  $10,000,000  $-    $10,000,000   FFYS 2016-20
REVERE - SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (GARFIELD ELEMENTARY & MIDDLE SCHOOL) 607999 2016 TAP  $874,113  $699,290  $174,823   FFYS 2016-20
SALEM - STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ROUTE 107 (SALEM BYPASS ROAD) 608059 2016 STP-TE  $125,000  $100,000  $25,000   FFYS 2016-20
SAUGUS - SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (VETERANS MEMORIAL) 607997 2016 TAP  $662,612  $530,090  $132,522   FFYS 2016-20
SAUGUS-RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 1 608008 2018 NHPP  $10,597,910  $8,478,328  $2,119,582 FFYS 2016-20
SHARON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-09-003 (40N), MASKWONICUT STREET OVER AMTRAK/MBTA 608079 2019 STP-BR-OFF  $4,755,240  $3,804,192  $951,048 FFYS 2016-20
SOUTHBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 30), FROM SEARS ROAD TO PARK STREET 604989 2017 STP  $3,000,000  $2,400,000  $600,000  STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $6,862,752  FFYS 2016-20
SOUTHBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 30), FROM SEARS ROAD TO PARK STREET 604989 2017 CMAQ  $1,038,370  $830,696  $207,674  STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $6,862,752  FFYS 2016-20
SOUTHBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET (ROUTE 30), FROM SEARS ROAD TO PARK STREET 604989 2017 TAP  $2,824,382  $2,259,506  $564,876  STP+CMAQ+TAP Total Cost = $6,862,752  FFYS 2016-20
SOUTHBOROUGH- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 9, FROM THE FRAMINGHAM T.L TO WHITE BAGLEY ROAD 607488 2016 NHPP  $3,791,340  $3,033,072  $758,268   FFYS 2016-20
STONEHAM- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 28/NORTH STREET 602165 2017 CMAQ  $1,532,550  $1,226,040  $306,510   FFYS 2016-20
STOW, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-29-11, BOX MILL ROAD OVER ELIZABETH BROOK BR1901 2019 STP-BR-OFF  $3,612,224  $2,889,779  $722,445   FFYS 2016-20
SWAMPSCOTT- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT SR 1A (PARADISE ROAD) AT SWAMPSCOTT MALL 607761 2018 HSIP  $550,000  $495,000  $55,000   FFYS 2016-20
WAKEFIELD - BRIDGE DECK REPLACEMENT BRIDGE NO. W-01-021 (2MF), HOPKINS STREET OVER I-95 / ST 128 607507 2017 NHPP  $2,469,936  $1,975,949  $493,987   FFYS 2016-20
WAKEFIELD- LYNNFIELD- RAIL TRAIL EXTENSION, FROM THE GALVIN MIDDLE SCHOOL TO LYNNFIELD/PEABODY T.L. 607329 2018 CMAQ  $7,662,854  $6,130,283  $1,532,571 Wakefield-Lynnfield is not on the BSG but offers connectivity to the Peabody shared use path which is already constructed, (thence the N Shore corridor).  FFYS 2016-20
WALPOLE- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 1A (MAIN STREET) FROM THE NORWOOD T.L. TO ROUTE 27, INCLUDES W-03-024 OVER THE NEPONSET RIVER 602261 2020 STP  $16,584,373  $13,267,498  $3,316,875  STP+CMAQ Total Cost = $18,584,373  FFYS 2016-20
WALPOLE- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 1A (MAIN STREET) FROM THE NORWOOD T.L. TO ROUTE 27, INCLUDES W-03-024 OVER THE NEPONSET RIVER 602261 2020 CMAQ  $2,000,000  $1,600,000  $400,000  STP+CMAQ Total Cost = $18,584,373  FFYS 2016-20
WALTHAM- WOERD AVENUE OVER THE CHARLES RIVER 607533 2018 STP-BR-OFF  $3,873,360  $3,098,688  $774,672   FFYS 2016-20
WATERTOWN - SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (HOSMER ELEMENTARY) 608004 2017 TAP  $903,500  $722,800  $180,700   FFYS 2016-20
WAYLAND- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 27 (MAIN STREET) AND ROUTE 30 (COMMONWEALTH ROAD) 601579 2016 CMAQ  $2,425,710  $1,940,568  $485,142   FFYS 2016-20
WELLESLEY- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 9 607340 2016 NHPP  $7,327,800  $5,862,240  $1,465,560   FFYS 2016-20
WEYMOUTH - SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (PINGREE ELEMENTARY) 608003 2017 TAP  $754,000  $603,200  $150,800   FFYS 2016-20
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REPLACING W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2016 HPP (1998)  $8,600,000  $6,880,000  $1,720,000  AC Yr 1 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518  FFYS 2016-20
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REPLACING W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2017 STP  $12,850,000  $10,280,000  $2,570,000  AC Yr 2 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518  FFYS 2016-20
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REPLACING W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2018 STP  $21,031,758  $16,825,406  $4,206,352  AC Yr 3 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518  FFYS 2016-20
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REPLACING W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2019 STP  $6,600,000  $5,280,000  $1,320,000  AC Yr 4 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518  FFYS 2016-20
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REPLACING W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2016 HSIP  $1,000,000  $900,000  $100,000  AC Yr 1 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518  FFYS 2016-20
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REPLACING W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2017 HPP (1998)  $6,171,760  $4,937,408  $1,234,352  AC Yr 2 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518  FFYS 2016-20
WEYMOUTH- ABINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & WIDENING ON ROUTE 18 (MAIN STREET) FROM HIGHLAND PLACE TO ROUTE 139 (4.0 MILES) INCLUDES REPLACING W-32-013, ROUTE 18 OVER THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD (MBTA) 601630 2016 STP  $3,800,000  $3,040,000  $760,000  AC Yr 1 of 4; STP+HSIP+TEA-21 Earmark Total Cost = $60,053,518  FFYS 2016-20
WEYMOUTH- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT 2 LOCATIONS: SR 53 (WASHINGTON STREET) AT MUTTON LANE & PLEASANT STREET 607755 2016 HSIP  $550,000  $495,000  $55,000   FFYS 2016-20
WEYMOUTH- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ MIDDLE STREET, LIBBEY INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY AND TARA DRIVE 605721 2016 CMAQ  $937,326  $749,861  $187,465   FFYS 2016-20
WINCHESTER - UPPER MYSTIC RIVER ROUTE 3 608214 2019 STP-TE  $224,000  $179,200  $44,800   FFYS 2016-20
WOBURN- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-43-003, SALEM STREET OVER MBTA 603008 2016 NHPP
 $7,089,200  $5,671,360  $1,417,840   FFYS 2016-20
WOBURN- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-43-017, NEW BOSTON STREET OVER MBTA 604996 2020 STP  $11,355,289  $9,084,231  $2,271,058   FFYS 2016-20
WOBURN- RECONSTRUCTION OF MONTVALE AVENUE, FROM I-93 INTERCHANGE TO CENTRAL STREET (APPROX. 1,850 FT) 604935 2017 HSIP  $3,564,629  $3,208,166  $356,463  STP+HSIP Total Cost = $4,752,838  FFYS 2016-20
WOBURN- RECONSTRUCTION OF MONTVALE AVENUE, FROM I-93 INTERCHANGE TO CENTRAL STREET (APPROX. 1,850 FT) 604935 2017 STP  $1,188,210  $950,568  $237,642  STP+HSIP Total Cost = $4,752,838  FFYS 2016-20

 

 

Image of an escalator.

 

Transit Agency: MBTA

Program/Project Name:

Stations

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

Assumed Nominal Reduction

Project Description:

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

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2016

Section 5337

$16,000,000

$4,000,000

$20,000,000

 

Total Funding Programmed

$16,000,000

$4,000,000

$20,000,000

 

 

 

Image of a tunnel.

 

Transit Agency: MBTA

Program/Project Name:

Bridge & Tunnel Program

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

No CO2 Impact

Project Description:

Upgrades and maintains the 476 systemwide bridges owned by the MBTA.

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2016

Section 5337

$85,000,000

$21,250,000

$106,250,000

2017

Section 5337

$100,000,000

$25,000,000

$125,000,000

2018

Section 5337

$60,000,000

$15,000,000

$75,000,000

2019

Section 5337

$60,000,000

$15,000,000

$75,000,000

 

Total Funding Programmed

$305,000,000

$76,250,000

$381,250,000

 

 

 

Images of a stairway in a greenline station.

 

Transit Agency: MBTA

Program/Project Name:

Systems Upgrades

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

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

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2016

Section 5307

$58,685,516

$14,671,379

$73,356,895

2016

Section 5337

$20,190,546

$5,047,637

$25,238,183

2016

Section 5339

$5,287,027

$1,321,757

$6,608,784

2017

Section 5307

$58,685,516

$14,671,379

$73,356,895

2017

Section 5337

$21,190,546

$5,297,637

$26,488,183

2017

Section 5339

$5,287,027

$1,321,757

$6,608,784

2018

Section 5307

$58,685,516

$14,671,379

$73,356,895

2018

Section 5337

$61,190,546

$15,297,637

$76,488,183

2018

Section 5339

$5,287,027

$1,321,757

$6,608,784

2019

Section 5307

$58,685,516

$14,671,379

$73,356,895

2019

Section 5337

$61,190,546

$15,297,637

$76,488,183

2019

Section 5339

$5,287,027

$1,321,757

$6,608,784

 

Total Funding Programmed

$419,652,356

$104,913,092

$524,565,448

 

 

 

Image of a bus.

 

Transit Agency: MBTA

Program/Project Name:

Preventative Maintenance

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

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

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2016

Section 5307

$12,000,000

$3,000,000

$15,000,000

2017

Section 5307

$12,000,000

$3,000,000

$15,000,000

2018

Section 5307

$12,000,000

$3,000,000

$15,000,000

2019

Section 5307

$12,000,000

$3,000,000

$15,000,000

 

Total Funding Programmed

$48,000,000

$12,000,000

$60,000,000

 

 

 

Image of a CATA bus.

 

Transit Agency: CATA

Program/Project Name:

Preventative Maintenance

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

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

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2017

Section 5307

$400,000

$100,000

$500,000

2018

Section 5307

$400,000

$100,000

$500,000

2019

Section 5307

$400,000

$100,000

$500,000

 

Total Funding Programmed

$1,200,000

$300,000

$1,500,000

 

 

Transit Agency: CATA

Program/Project Name:

Equipment and Facilities

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

Funds bus replacement and acquisition of support equipment.

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2016

Section 5307

$0

$29,776

$29,776

2017

Section 5307

$135,390

$33,848

$169,238

2018

Section 5307

$140,744

$35,186

$175,930

2019

Section 5307

$146,152

$36,538

$182,690

 

Total Funding Programmed

$422,286

$135,348

$557,634

 

 

 

Image of a MWRTA bus.

 

Transit Agency: MWRTA

Program/Project Name:

ADA Paratransit

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

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

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2016

Section 5307

$1,300,000

$325,000

$1,625,000

2017

Section 5307

$1,300,000

$325,000

$1,625,000

2018

Section 5307

$1,300,000

$325,000

$1,625,000

2019

Section 5307

$130,000

$325,000

$455,000

 

Total Funding Programmed

$4,030,000

$1,300,000

$5,330,000

 

 

Transit Agency: MWRTA

Program/Project Name:

Equipment and Facilities

Air Quality Status:

Exempt

CO2 Impact:

To Be Determined

Project Description:

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

 

Year

Funding Program

Federal Funds

Non-Federal Funds

Total Funds

2016

Section 5307

$458,056

$114,515

$572,571

2017

Section 5307

$423,415

$105,854

$529,269

2018

Section 5307

$423,415

$105,854

$529,269

2019

Section 5307

$423,415

$105,854

$529,269

 

Total Funding Programmed

$1,728,301

$432,077

$2,160,378

 

Back to top

 

4 Chapter four

Tracking and Demonstrating Progress Using Performance Measures

 

overview of Performance-based planning

Increasingly, over the past two decades, transportation agencies have been applying “performance management”—a strategic approach that uses performance data to support decisions that would help achieve desired outcomes. Performance management is credited with improving project and program delivery, informing investment decision making, focusing staff on leadership priorities, and providing greater transparency and accountability to the public.

Performance-based planning and programming (PBPP) refers to transportation agencies’ application of performance management in their planning and programming processes to achieve desired performance outcomes for the multimodal transportation system. For MPOs, this includes a range of activities and products undertaken by a transportation agency together with other agencies, stakeholders, and the public as part of the 3C Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process. This includes developing:

The goal of PBPP is to ensure that transportation investment decisions—both long-term planning and short-term programming—are based on their ability to meet established goals.

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

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

requirements of Performance-based planning

The US Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with states, MPOs, and other stakeholders, have established performance measures for fatalities and serious injuries to fulfill the Highway Safety Improvement Program; proposed performance measures for pavement conditions for the Interstate and National Highway System (NHS), bridge conditions, and general performance of the Interstate and NHS; and drafted performance measures to assess traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions. States and MPOs will set performance targets to support these measures; and state and metropolitan plans will describe how program and project selection would help to achieve the targets.

 

status of Performance-based planning

The Boston Region MPO’s transition to performance-based planning is underway in anticipation of MAP-21 performance-measure requirements. The MPO has:

TABLE 4-1 National and MPO Performance Goals

National Goal

Proposed MPO Goal

Safety

Safety

Infrastructure Condition, System Reliability

System Preservation

Congestion Reduction

Capacity Management/Mobility

Environmental Sustainability

Clean Air/Clean Communities

Freight Movement/ Economic Vitality

Economic Vitality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following sections of this chapter track performance measures and demonstrate how transportation investments for the next five years would advance the MPO’s goals and objectives.

 

tracking performance measures and demonstrating progress toward goals and objectives

Safety—Tracking Performance Measures

Safety for all transportation modes continues to be a top priority for the MPO. The MPO goals commit to investing in projects and programs that reduce the severity of crashes and improve safety for all modes.

The MPO tracks traffic fatalities and serious injuries in the Boston region to examine past trends, identify regional safety issues, and set future targets for preferred performance. Tracking these measures help gauge the effectiveness of MPO transportation investments on reducing fatalities and serious injuries.

Overall, safety is improving in the region. Between 2006 and 2012, traffic fatalities (based on a rolling five-year average) decreased from 145 fatalities in 2006 to 129 in 2012. Figure 4-1 shows the change in traffic fatalities by mode during this time period and indicates that the 11 percent decline in fatalities included fewer automobile, truck, pedestrian, and bicycle fatalities. Similarly, total traffic crashes and injuries declined by 21 percent and 27 percent, respectively between 2006 and 2012.

 

FIGURE 4-1

Traffic Fatalities in the Boston Region by Mode, 2006–12

This figure shows the change in traffic fatalities by mode during this time period and indicates that the 11 percent decline in fatalities included fewer automobile, truck, pedestrian, and bicycle fatalities.

Sources: MassDOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Reporting System, and the MassDOT Crash Data System.

 

Despite these overall gains, crashes and injuries for pedestrians and bicyclists rose during this same period, as shown in Figure 4-2. Between 2006 and 2012, roughly two-thirds of pedestrian and bicycle crashes resulted in an injury. For pedestrians, the number of crashes increased by 18 percent and injuries grew by 31 percent. For bicycles, the number of crashes increased by 36 percent and injuries jumped by 46 percent. In addition, there are still a number of high-crash locations throughout the Boston MPO region, including nearly 80 of the Top-200 Crash Locations statewide.

 

FIGURE 4-2

Traffic Injuries in the Boston Region by Mode, 2006–12

This figure shows the change in traffic injuries by mode during this time period and indicates that injuries for pedestrians and bicyclists rose between 2006 and 2012.

Sources: MassDOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Reporting System, and the MassDOT Crash Data System.

 

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

Safety—Demonstrating Progress Using Performance Measures

The projects programmed in the draft FFYs 2016-20 TIP Target Program propose safety improvements at 35 high-crash locations, and multiple truck, bicycle, and pedestrian high-crash locations to reduce fatalities and serious injuries in the region.

Intersection Improvements

The FFYs 2016-20 TIP Target Program proposes three projects at 12 intersection locations. These intersection investments will provide safety improvements for automobiles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians by implementing safety countermeasures at two high crash locations: Derby Street, Whiting Street (Route 53) and Gardner Street in Hingham and Middle Street, Libbey Industrial Parkway and Tara Drive in Weymouth.

Major Infrastructure

The TIP Target Program proposes eight major infrastructure projects that would implement safety improvements at 19 high-crash locations, including seven truck high-crash locations.

The Route 128 Add-a-Lane project will widen 3.25 miles of I-95 in Needham and Wellesley to install an additional 12-foot travel lane and 10-foot shoulder in each direction will address serious safety issues. The addition of a fourth full-time travel lane will eliminate the usage of the breakdown lane during the peak periods and adding collector roads between Highland Avenue and Kendrick Streets will provide safer weaving movements between the interchanges.

Complete Streets

The FFYs 2016-20 TIP Target Program proposes nine Complete Streets projects along corridors across the region. These corridor investments will provide safety improvements for automobiles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Nine of the 13 Complete Streets projects would improve safety at one or more high-crash locations. In addition, improvements at these 13 corridors would provide safe and continuous accommodations for non-motorized users by adding 24 miles of new bicycle facilities and more than six miles of new sidewalk. For example, reconstructing Massachusetts Avenue in Lexington will add new bicycle lanes throughout this 0.7-mile section of the corridor, enhancing safe access to the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway. The Gateway East project along Route 9 in Brookline will provide added safety for bicyclists by implementing cycle tracks that physically separate the bicycle lane from the travel lane to reduce conflicts between motorists and bicyclists.

System Preservation—Tracking Performance Measures

System preservation is a priority for the MPO because the transportation infrastructure in the region is aging. The demands placed on highway and transit facilities have been taxing to the point that routine maintenance is insufficient to keep up with the need. As a result, there is a significant backlog of maintenance and state-of-good repair work to be done on the highway and transit system, including bridges, roadway pavement, transit rolling stock, and traffic and transit control equipment.

MassDOT’s program monitors approximately 4,150 lane miles of interstate, arterial, and access-controlled arterial roadways in the Boston Region MPO area. It has been the policy of the MPO not to fund resurfacing-only projects in the TIP. However, the MPO does make funding decisions for roadway reconstruction projects that include resurfacing, usually deep reconstruction, in addition to other design elements.

An analysis of the pavement on MassDOT-maintained roadways in the Boston Region MPO area indicates that pavement condition has remained fairly constant between 2009 and 2013. Figure 4-3 displays the number of lane miles in good or better condition in the Boston Region MPO by roadway classification between 2009 and 2013. Figure 4-3 indicates that the lane miles of interstates, access-controlled arterials, and arterials in good or better condition has remained constant since 2009.

  

FIGURE 4-3

Lane Miles of Pavement in Good or Better Condition in the Boston Region MPO by Roadway Classification

This figure displays the number of lane miles in good or better condition in the Boston Region MPO by roadway classification between 2009 and 2013. It indicates that the lane miles of interstates, access-controlled arterials, and arterials in good or better condition has remained constant since 2009.

Source: MassDOT Pavement Management Program.

 

Approximately 70 percent of roadway lane miles are in good condition, 25 percent in fair condition, and five percent in poor condition—, which meets MassDOT’s performance, measure of at least 65 percent of the pavement in good condition. However, MassDOT-maintained arterial roadways continue to account for a disproportionate share of substandard roadway lane miles. Arterials accounted for 62 percent of the monitored roadways, but nearly 90 percent of the roadways that are in substandard condition (see Figure 4-4).

 

FIGURE 4-4

Pavement Condition in the Boston Region MPO by Roadway Classification

This figure displays the pavement condition in the Boston Region MPO by roadway classification.

Source: MassDOT Pavement Management Program.

 

MassDOT also monitors the condition of its bridges across the state. There are 2,877 bridges located within the Boston Region MPO area. Of those bridges, some are in substandard condition because they have been deemed by MassDOT bridge inspectors as structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, or posted.

Figure 4-5 displays the number of substandard bridges in the Boston Region MPO by condition between 2007 and 2014. Figure 4-5 indicates that between 2007 and 2014, the percentage of structurally deficient bridges decreased slightly from six to five percent, functionally obsolete bridges remained constant at 19 percent, and posted bridges declined from seven to four percent.

 

FIGURE 4-5

Number of Substandard Bridges in the Boston Region MPO by Condition

This figure displays the number of substandard bridges in the Boston Region MPO by condition between 2007 and 2014. Figure 4-5 indicates that between 2007 and 2014, the percentage of structurally deficient bridges increased from six to nine percent, functionally obsolete bridges remained constant at 19 percent, and posted bridges declined from seven to four percent.

Source: MassDOT Bridge Inventory.

 

In prioritizing its capital investments, the MPO uses TIP project-evaluation criteria to assess how well each project improves pavement and signal condition to advance the MPO’s goal of maintaining a state of good repair.

System Preservation—Demonstrating Progress Using Performance Measures

Virtually all TIP Target Program investments advance the MPO’s system preservation goal to maintain the transportation system by improving pavement condition, or sidewalk infrastructure, or by prioritizing projects that improve emergency response or ability to respond to extreme conditions. In addition, the Target Program investments contribute modestly to bridge preservation by addressing 11 substandard bridges. Yet, the MassDOT Bridge Program remains the primary funding source for replacement or rehabilitation of substandard bridges,

The FFYs 2016-20 TIP Target Program investments propose to improve 67 miles of substandard pavement, 43 miles of sidewalk infrastructure, and 11 substandard bridges (10 functionally obsolete and one structurally deficient). In addition, there are 14 projects that will improve emergency response or ability to respond to extreme conditions, thus aiming to make significant progress toward maintaining the region’s transportation system.

Intersection Improvements

The FFYs 2016-20 TIP Target Program proposes to improve substandard pavement at multiple intersections and modernizes signal equipment at 12 intersections. These investments will also improve emergency response by updating intersections along an evacuation route and in close proximity to emergency support locations.

Complete Streets

The FFYs 2016-20 TIP Target Program proposes to resurface or reconstruct more than 30 miles of substandard pavement, more than 20 miles of sidewalk infrastructure, and one substandard bridge on arterial roadways. In addition, there are eight projects that will improve emergency response or ability to respond to extreme conditions, thus aiming to make significant progress toward maintaining the region’s transportation system.

The reconstruction of Ferry Street in Everett will resurface more than three miles of substandard pavement while bringing traffic signals, street lighting, signs and pavement markings into a state of good repair.

Major Infrastructure

The FFYs 2016-20 TIP Target Program proposes to resurface or reconstruct 30 miles of substandard pavement, more than 20 miles of sidewalk infrastructure, and 10 substandard bridges. In addition, there are four projects that will improve emergency response or ability to respond to extreme conditions, thus aiming to make significant progress toward maintaining the region’s transportation system.

In addition, the reconstruction of Highland Avenue and Needham Street in Newton and Needham will resurface nine miles of substandard pavement, six miles of sidewalk infrastructure, and one substandard bridge, while bringing traffic signals, street lighting, signs, and pavement markings into a state of good repair.

The Route 128 Add-a-Lane project will replace one structurally deficient and three functionally obsolete bridges as part of the widening of I-95 in Needham and Wellesley.

Capacity Management/Mobility—Tracking Performance Measures

Through its capacity management and mobility goal and objectives, the MPO seeks to maximize the region’s existing transportation system so that both people and goods can move reliably and connect to key destinations. The Boston region is mature, which creates challenges to making major infrastructure changes to its transportation system.

In order to determine how well the region’s roadways are performing, the MPO applies performance measures that gauge the duration, extent, intensity, and reliability of congestion. MPO staff analyzed congestion in the region using the CMP Express Highway and Arterial Performance Dashboards to establish a baseline for future comparison. Figure 4-6 displays the percentage of lane miles of congestion as measured by travel time index on the CMP expressway network. In the Boston Region MPO area, 22 percent of all expressway lane miles in the AM peak period and 20 percent of all expressway lane miles in PM peak period experience moderate-to-severe congestion.

The measure of lane miles of congestion was significantly less for the arterial network. Figure 4-7 displays the percentage of lane miles of congestion as measured by travel time index on the CMP arterial network. For the arterial network, only seven percent of arterials in the AM peak period and four percent of arterials in the PM peak period experience moderate to severe congestion.

 

FIGURE 4-6

Lane Miles of Congestion in the Boston Region MPO:

CMP Monitored Expressways

This figure displays the percentage of lane miles of congestion as measured by travel time index on the CMP expressway network. In the Boston Region MPO area, 22 percent of all expressway lane miles in the AM peak period and 20 percent of all expressway lane miles in PM peak period experience moderate-to-severe congestion.

Source: Boston Region MPO Congestion Management Process.

 

Moving forward, the MPO will continue to monitor congestion data of the roadway network to track performance of the system. This annual analysis will depend on routinely updated data sources, which may require the purchase of INRIX data or other comparable data. 

In prioritizing its capital investments, the MPO uses TIP project-evaluation criteria to assess how well each project expands transportation options to advance the MPO’s goal of managing capacity and improving mobility.  

 FIGURE 4-7

Lane Miles of Congestion in the Boston Region MPO:

CMP Monitored Arterials

This figure displays the percentage of lane miles of congestion as measured by travel time index on the CMP arterial network. For the arterial network, only seven percent of arterials in the AM peak period and four percent of arterials in the PM peak period experience moderate to severe congestion.

Source: Boston Region MPO Congestion Management Process.

 

Capacity Management/Mobility—Demonstrating Progress Using Performance Measures

The MPO seeks to manage capacity on the transportation and improve mobility for its users by extending transit service to support non-SOV travel options, adding roadway capacity at select MPO-identified bottleneck locations, and implementing traffic and operational improvements along congested corridors.

Complete Streets

The FFYs 2016-20 TIP Target Program proposes to add 24 miles of bicycle lanes (including almost a mile of cycle tracks), more than six miles of new sidewalk infrastructure, and improve access to transit along 10 corridors. These investments also would improve corridors that serve 18 bus routes, operating nearly 1,000 bus trips on a typical weekday. For example, the reconstruction of Route 126 (Pond Street) in Ashland will transform the corridor by adding sidewalks and bicycle lanes where no facilities currently exist. These improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians will provide the necessary facilities to support existing MWRTA bus services in the corridor.

Major Infrastructure

The FFYs 2016-20 TIP Target Program proposes to add 24 miles of bicycle lanes, more than three miles of sidewalk infrastructure, and improve access to transit along five corridors. These investments also would improve corridors that serve multiple bus routes, operating more than 300 bus trips on a typical weekday.

Middlesex Turnpike Improvements (Phase III) in Bedford, Billerica, and Burlington will continue improvements to the corridor by adding three miles of sidewalks and bicycle lanes where no facilities currently exist. These improvements will support new LRTA bus service along the Middlesex Turnpike.

Reconstruction of Route 18 (Main Street) in Weymouth will improve one moderate MPO-identified arterial bottleneck location by widening a four-mile section of the corridor from two to four lanes. In addition, the project will expand transportation options by adding eight miles of bicycle lanes.

The Route 128 Add-a-Lane project will improve one severe MPO-identified express highway bottleneck location by widening 3.25 miles of I-95 in Needham and Wellesley.

Economic Vitality—Tracking Performance Measures

Through its economic vitality goal, the MPO seeks to ensure that the transportation network provides a strong foundation for an economically vibrant region.

One of MetroFuture’s implementation strategies is to focus on economic growth, and coordinate transportation investments to guide economic growth in the region. MAPC worked with EOHED and the EOEEA to develop a process to identify local, regional, and state-level priority development and preservation areas in municipalities within the MPO area. MAPC staff worked with municipalities and state partners to identify locations throughout the region that are principal supporters of additional housing, employment growth, creation and preservation of open space, and the infrastructure improvements required to support these outcomes for each location.

This process identified locations that are best suited to support the type of continued economic vitality and future growth that the market demands, and which communities desire. Identifying these key growth and preservation locations also helps MAPC, the Boston Region MPO, and state agencies to understand both the infrastructure and technical assistance needs better, in order to help them prioritize the limited regional and state funding.

The MPO has not yet established performance measures to track the coordination of land-use development and transportation investments; however, the MPO uses TIP project-evaluation criteria to assess how well each project advances MetroFuture land-use planning. This means supporting investments in already-developed locations of residential or commercial/industrial activity, locations with adequate sewer and water infrastructure, areas identified for economic development by state, regional, and local planning, and areas with a relatively high density of development.

Economic Vitality—Demonstrating Progress Using Performance Measures

The MPO’s transportation investments advance economic vitality by prioritizing projects that support access to targeted development areas for multiple modes.

Complete Streets

The FFYs 2016–20 TIP Target Program proposes nine projects that provide multimodal access to targeted development areas that are well suited to support continued economic vitality and future growth. For example, reconstruction of Route 85 (Maple Street) will provide access to a 43D site located at the former Lucent site in Marlborough and reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main Street) will provide access to a 40R site located at the former Paperboard site at 182 North Main Street in Natick.

Major Infrastructure

The FFYs 2016-20 TIP Target Program proposes five projects that provide multimodal access to a targeted development areas well suited to support continued economic vitality and future growth.

The reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue in Boston, Route 18 (Main Street) in Weymouth, and Highland Avenue and Needham Street in Newton and Needham will expand transportation options and enhance access to transit to support future growth and facilitate new development.

Next Steps in Advancing Performance Measures

Performance-based planning is an ongoing process and will continue to evolve as the MPO monitors and evaluates its progress using performance measures. The MPO will advance performance-based planning through its core planning documents by:

In FFY 2016, the MPO will continue to monitor system-level trends and propose performance targets to guide investment decisions. If, in its annual monitoring, the MPO sees it is not making progress toward its targets, then the organization would need to consider modifying investment or policy priorities, and weigh the tradeoffs involved. For example, allocating a greater share of funding to intersection improvements at high-crash locations may make significant progress toward reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries; however, it also may impact the MPO’s ability to meet system-preservation targets for pavement or bridge conditions. By continuously monitoring and evaluating its progress, the MPO will be able to make these difficult decisions across competing goals and objectives in a more informed manner, resulting in greater outcomes for all concerned.

 

Back to top

 

5 Chapter Five

Determination of Air Quality Conformity



Background

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is classified as unclassifiable/attainment for the ozone standard with the exception of Dukes County. Therefore, the Boston Region MPO does not have to perform a conformity determination for ozone for its Long-Range Transportation Plan or Transportation Improvement Program.

The Boston area carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance area4, however, must maintain reduced emission levels of CO. With this maintenance classification, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require the Boston Region MPO to conduct an air quality conformity analysis for the nine communities, as they have a carbon monoxide maintenance plan approved and included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

In April 2002, Waltham was redesignated as in attainment for carbon monoxide with a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved limited maintenance plan (see the Boston Region MPO’s Charting Progress to 2040 LRTP for more details).

 

The Boston Region MPO certifies that no activity outlined in its LRTP and TIP will:

Key elements of this FFYs 2016–2020 TIP related to air quality conformity are as follows:

Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures

Transportation control measures (TCMs) were required in the SIP in revisions submitted to the EPA in 1979 and 1982 and in those submitted as part of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project. The TCMs included in the 1979 and 1982 submissions were accomplished through construction or implementation of ongoing programs.

The TCMs submitted as part of the CA/T project mitigation have been included in the conformity of the LRTP as recommended or completed projects with the exception of the following three projects:

MassDOT worked with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to address these projects and continues to keep the Boston Region MPO informed of their status through monthly reports at the MPO’s regularly scheduled meetings. The Boston Region MPO will continue to include these projects in the LRTP and TIP until the process has been completed, assuming that any interim projects or programs will provide equal or better emissions benefits. When the process has been completed, the MPO will amend the LRTP and future TIPs and their conformity determinations to include any changes (including any interim projects or programs).

 

A Status Report of the Uncompleted SIP Projects

The status of these projects has been updated using the SIP Transit Commitments Status Report, which was submitted by MassDOT to DEP in May 2015. Highlights of the report are presented below. For a detailed description of the status of these projects, please visit MassDOT’s website at the following link:

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/PlanningProcess/StateImplementationPlan/SIPTransitCommitmentSubmissions.aspx.

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

Project Status

MassDOT initiated a process to amend the SIP to permanently and completely remove the obligation to perform final design of the Red Line-Blue Line Connector. To that end, MassDOT officially sought approval from DEP to support a SIP amendment process. MassDOT is not proposing to substitute any new projects in place of the Red Line-Blue Line Connector commitment, given the absence of any air-quality benefits associated with the current Red Line-Blue Line commitment (final design only). Correspondence from MassDOT to the DEP formally initiating the amendment process was submitted on July 27, 2011, and is posted on the MassDOT website.

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

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

On October 8, 2013, the DEP approved a request made by MassDOT in July 2011 to revise 310 CMR 7.36 to remove the requirement for MassDOT to complete the design of the Red Line-Blue Line Connector. This revision to the State Implementation Plan must now also be approved by EPA. The text of the revision is available on the MassDOT website at: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/sip/October13UpdatedSIPReg.pdf.

On December 1, 2014, the EPA published a proposed rule to approve a SIP revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Federal Register on November 6, 2013. This proposal, if finalized, would remove the design of the Red Line- Blue Line Connector as a requirement in the SIP.

 

Funding Source

MassDOT is proposing to nullify this commitment

 

Fairmount Line Improvements Project – SIP Required Completion by December 2011

Project Status

The Four Corners and NewMarket Stations opened for service on July 1, 2013. One remaining claim must be processed for the Four Corners station and then the contract will be closed out. Final closeout is expected in July 2015. The Talbot Avenue Station opened in November 2012.

A station at Blue Hill Avenue has been the subject of significant community controversy during the past-five years. The redesign of the station is now moving forward, and is 60 percent complete. The 90 percent design plans are expected in July 2015 and 100 percent plans in September 2015. Construction is scheduled to begin in spring 2016, and the station to open in summer 2018.

MassDOT and the MBTA prepared a Petition to Delay and an Interim Emission Offset Plan to be implemented for the duration of the delay of the Fairmount Line Improvements project. MassDOT estimated the reduced emissions that are expected to be generated by implementing the new Fairmount Line station and, with input from Fairmount Line stakeholders, proposed offset measures. MassDOT estimated that the potential offset measures would meet emissions-reduction targets. The measures include shuttle bus service from Andrew Square to Boston Medical Center and increased service on bus Route 31, which serves Dorchester and Mattapan. These measures were implemented on January 2, 2012, and currently are in place.

 

Funding Source

The Commonwealth

Green Line Extension to Somerville and Medford Project − SIP Required Completion by December 2014

Project Status

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

 

On January 5, 2015, the US Secretary of Transportation and the MBTA signed the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the Green Line Extension project, approving $996,121,000 of FTA New Starts funding to support design and construction of the project. The execution of the FFGA was the result of many years of planning, design and pre-construction efforts by MassDOT and the MBTA, in collaboration with the FTA and its Project Management Oversight Consultant. The federal funding is scheduled to be paid between FFY 2015 and FFY 2022. As noted in the current MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (released January 2014), MassDOT and the MBTA will use Commonwealth funds in addition to federal funding to support the design and construction activities.

To tailor the project-delivery method to best mitigate the larger project risks, MassDOT and MBTA are implementing a four-phased project-delivery plan:

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

The MBTA has also added some retaining wall construction to the Phase 1 contract that had previously been programmed for Phase 4 in that area. By constructing this work under the Phase 1 contract, this retaining/noise wall should be completed in time to better support and facilitate track relocation as part of the construction of Phase 4. The addition of this work has extended the end date of the Phase 1 contract by six months to October 2015, and as of this writing, the contractor is on track to complete it by then.

In Medford at Harvard Street, the new T2 track installation is almost complete and the track throw to the new T2 bridge alignment was competed on May 10, 2015. Road closure and demolition of the old T2 bridge structure was scheduled for the weekend of May 16 and 17. Once this demolition is complete, abutment modifications will commence for installation of the new Green Line outbound and inbound bridges. Noise barrier column and panel installation above the new cast-in-place retaining wall south of Winchester Court is also anticipated to begin in summer 2015.

Phase 2/2A will extend service from the (new) Lechmere Station to the Washington Street and Union Square Stations and relocate the bus facility and vehicle storage at Lechmere Station. The projected completion date for Phase 2/2A initial Green Line service is likely mid-2018. 

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

Phase 4 will provide service from Washington Street Station (completed as part of Phase 2, above) to College Avenue Station, which was targeted to be completed in June 2020, roughly a year ahead of the FFGA completion date. Although enabling construction is already underway in this segment, the design of this package is being revised to incorporate value engineering scope changes. This reworking will extend the period to complete the 100% final design for pricing and may extend the bidding and award into early 2016, as opposed to the planned November 2015 Notice to Proceed (NTP) date.

New Green Line Vehicles: The MBTA Vehicle Procurement contract to purchase 24 Type 9 Vehicles was awarded to CAF USA Inc. in the amount not to exceed $118,159,822 at the MassDOT Board Meeting held on May 14, 2014. The NTP for this contract was issued on September 4, 2014.

CAF is in the process of developing drawing packages for the Preliminary Design, and the MBTA Project Team and the Contractor CAF continue to hold technical working sessions and project meetings. In addition, weekly project management meetings are held between MBTA and CAF to discuss project status, short-term schedules and priorities as well as monthly project status meetings where all project issues, schedules, deliverables and milestones are reviewed and discussed.     

The first vehicle is to be delivered no later than 36 months from NTP. The pilot car delivery is scheduled for September 2017. The pilot car will receive comprehensive testing for six months followed by delivery of the remaining 22 vehicles, with the last car to be delivered by July 2018. All vehicles are expected to be in service in early 2019.

Somerville Community Path: Originally the Green Line Extension project included just the design of the extension of the Somerville Community Path from south of Lowell Street to the Inner Belt area of Somerville. In May 2014, MassDOT and the City of Somerville announced an agreement to add construction of the Community Path, including a connection to the Cambridge/Northpoint area, to the scope of the program. The Path Extension is not part of the SIP commitment.

Potential Challenges

MassDOT has met the first four interim milestones associated with the Green Line Extension project: 1) filing an Expanded Environmental Notification Form, 2) procuring multiple design consultants, 3) publishing Draft Environmental Impact Report, and 4) publishing Final Environmental Impact Report. The project has transitioned from planning and environmental review phases to design, engineering, and construction. 

In the 2011 SIP Status Report, MassDOT reported that the Green Line Extension project would not meet the legal deadline of December 31, 2014. At that time, MassDOT projected a period for introducing passenger service on the Green Line Extension. The points within the period are associated with different probabilities, as shown below:

FTA’s projected completion date is June 2021, which includes one year of schedule contingency beyond the MBTA’s target date. Presently, the Green Line Extension team anticipates that the completion date of Phase 4 will be extended from June 2020 to late summer/early fall 2020. 

MassDOT and the MBTA continue to seek measures to accelerate the project timeline wherever possible. The receipt of the FFGA was a key milestone, as it allowed completion of the bidding process and the start of construction for the bulk of the Phase 2/2A and Phase 4 work.

Although the goal of the phased project delivery approach is to complete components in an incremental way, the timeline for overall project completion listed above represents a substantial delay beyond the current SIP deadline of December 31, 2014. Consequently, this schedule triggers the need to provide interim emission reduction offset projects and measures for the period of the delay (beginning January 1, 2015). Working with the Central Transportation Planning Staff, MassDOT and the MBTA calculated the reductions of volatile organic compounds, CO, and nitrogen oxides—reductions equal to or greater than the reductions projected for the Green Line Extension itself, as specified in the SIP regulation—that will be required for the period of the delay. 

In June 2012, MassDOT released a list of potential mitigation ideas received from the public that could be used as offset measures. In summer and fall of 2012, MassDOT solicited public comments on these potential measures. The MBTA created an internal working group to determine a final portfolio of interim mitigation measures to implement by December 31, 2014, the legal deadline for the implementation of the Green Line Extension. 

This work resulted in a recommendation to implement the following three interim mitigation measures, which collectively would meet the emissions reduction target for the project:

The Petition to Delay, submitted to DEP on July 22, 2014, which expands further on the analysis and determination of the interim offset measures, is available on MassDOT’s website. These measures went into effect in the beginning of 2015.

 

Funding Source

The Commonwealth

 

Russia Wharf Ferry Terminal

Project Status

Former MassDOT Secretary of Transportation, Richard Davey, approved construction of the permitted ferry facility and a $460,000 ferry-service startup subsidy in October 2012. The 2005 facility plans and specifications were revised to meet the latest MassDOT Highway Division standards. The bid package was issued in fall 2013. A contractor was selected and the Notice to Proceed was issued in April 2014. Pre-construction activities progressed, but contractual issues have led MassDOT to decide to rebid the contract and complete the facility in 2015. There is no regularly scheduled passenger water transportation service in this area, nor are there any plans to provide such a service. The City of Boston, however, is undertaking design and engineering work to address the Old Northern Avenue Bridge's vessel-clearance constraint, and is purchasing two ferry vessels for Inner Harbor use, which could include this ferry terminal as a destination.

 

Funding Source

The Commonwealth

 

Air Quality Conformity Analysis

 

The primary conformity test is to show consistency with emissions budgets set forth in the SIP. Specific information regarding analysis methods, latest planning assumptions, and consultation procedures are detailed in the LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040.

A list of all of the regionally significant projects from the Boston Region MPO included in the air quality conformity determination for this TIP is shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2.

 

 

Table 5-1

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

Analysis Year

Community

Project Descriptions

2020

Needham and Wellesley

Route 128 Additional Lanes

 

 

 

 

Table 5-2

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

Analysis Year

Community

Project Descriptions

2020

Bedford and Billerica

Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, Phase 3 – from Crosby Drive north to Manning Road

2020

Newton and Needham

Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and Charles River Bridge, from Webster Street to Route 9

2020

Somerville and Medford

Green Line Extension Project (Phase 2) from College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16

2020

Weymouth and Abington

Reconstruction and Widening of Route 18 (Main Street) From Highland Place to Route 139

2020

Woburn

Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue from I-93 to Central Street

2020

Woburn

Bridge Replacement, New Boston Street Bridge over MBTA Tracks

2020

Boston

Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue, from City Square to Sullivan Square

2030

Framingham

Intersection Improvements at Route 126 and Route 135/MBTA and CSX Railroad

2030

Lexington

Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue

2030

Natick

Bridge Replacement, Route 27 (North Main Street) over Route 9 (Worcester Street) and Interchange Improvements

2030

Somerville

McGrath Boulevard Project

 

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

 

Table 5-3

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

Year

Boston Region Action Emission

 

Emission Budget

Difference (Action Minus Budget)

2020

34.56

228.33

-193.77

2030

23.32

228.33

-205.01

2040

18.90

228.33

-209.43

 

In summary, this TIP is derived from a conforming LRTP, and the conformity determination has been prepared in accordance with EPA’s final conformity regulations. The Boston Region MPO has found that the emission levels from this FFYs 2016–20 TIP demonstrate conformity with the SIP. Therefore, the implementation of the FFYs 2016–20 TIP is consistent with the air quality goals in the Massachusetts SIP.

 

Back to top

 

6 Chapter Six

Financial Constraint


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

As shown in the tables below, the federal fiscal years 2016–20 TIP complies with financial constraint.

 

TABLE 6-1

The Federal-Aid Transit Program

Transit Program

FFY 2016

FFY 2017

FFY 2018

FFY 2019

FFYs 2016–19

MBTA Section 5307 Authorization

$142,258,223

$144,392,097

$146,557,978

$148,756,348

$581,964,646

MBTA Section 5307 Program

$70,685,516

$70,685,516

$70,685,516

$70,685,516

$282,742,064

CATA Section 5307 Authorization

$538,041

$546,111

$554,303

$562,618

$2,201,073

CATA Section 5307 Program

$0

$535,390

$540,744

$546,152

$1,622,286

MWRTA Section 5307 Authorization

$1,766,759

$1,793,260

$1,820,159

$1,847,462

$7,227,640

MWRTA Section 5307 Program

$1,758,056

$1,723,415

$1,723,415

$1,723,415

$5,758,301

MBTA Section 5337 Authorization

$122,065,594

$123,896,578

$125,755,026

$127,641,352

$499,358,550

MBTA Section 5337 Program

$121,190,546

$121,190,546

$121,190,546

$121,190,546

$484,762,184

MBTA Section 5339 Authorization

$5,818,872

$5,906,155

$5,994,748

$6,084,669

$23,804,444

MBTA Section 5339 Program

$5,287,027

$5,287,027

$5,287,027

$5,287,027

$21,148,108

 

 

TABLE 6-2

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

Regional Target

FFY 2016

FFY 2017

FFY 2018

FFY 2019

FFYs 2016–19

Regional Target Obligation Authority

$75,009,821

$88,759,294

$92,626,333

$92,626,333

$349,021,781

Regional Target Programmed

$75,009,821

$88,757,069

$92,721,968

$91,120,634

$347,609,492

STP Target

$52,188,452

$67,723,275

$71,590,315

$72,353,684

$263,855,726

      STP Programmed

$29,146,362

$45,527,235

$56,195,374

$64,949,489

$195,818,460

NHPP Target

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

      NHPP Programmed*

$ 29,626,133

$13,360,000

$13,168,183

$0

$56,154,316

HSIP Target

$4,296,710

$4,296,710

$4,296,710

$4,296,710

$17,186,840

      HSIP Programmed

$3,600,000

$7,761,213

$2,931,191

$5,583,037

$19,875,440

CMAQ Target

$13,427,220

$13,427,220

$13,427,220

$13,427,220

$53,708,880

      CMAQ Programmed

$10,037,326

$16,937,401

$17,115,131

$18,039,390

$62,129,248

TAP Target

$5,097,438

$3,312,089

$3,312,089

$2,548,719

$14,270,335

      TAP Programmed

$2,600,000

$5,171,220

$3,312,089

$2,548,719

$15,632,028

 

 

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

 

 

TABLE 6-3

The Federal-Aid Bridge Program

Bridge Program

FFY 2016

FFY 2017

FFY 2018

FFY 2019

FFYs 2016–19

Federal-Aid Bridges*

$66,515,800

$52,833,304

$83,383,716

$55,383,716

$258,404,284

 

 

 

Back to top

 

7 Chapter Seven

Operation and Maintenance


One requirement of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) is the assessment of the operation and maintenance of the transportation system in the Boston region. State and regional agencies develop estimates of transit and highway operating and maintenance costs through their budgeting process. The information on projects and funding sources presented in Chapter 3 represents operations and maintenance estimates from the implementing agencies: the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA), the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), and the MassDOT Highway Division. The tables on pages 7-2 and 7 -3 present the operations and maintenance expenditures for state fiscal years (SFYs) 2013 through 2015 for MassDOT projects. The tables on pages 7-4 through 7-6 present operations and maintenance expenditures for SFYs 2014 through 2017 for the MBTA, CATA, and the MWRTA.

 

 

 

 

 

MassDOT – Highway Division Summary of Operating and Maintenance Expenditures, Boston Region – Part 2: Federal Aid: This table summarizes MassDOT’s operating and maintenance expenditures for state fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015. The following totals include federal aid maintenance projects and federal aid highway operations: $131.3 million in 2013, $186.8 million in 2014, and $117.9 million as of March 30, 2015.

 

 MassDOT – Highway Division Summary of Operating and Maintenance Expenditures, Boston Region – Part 1: Non-Federal Aid: This table summarizes MassDOT’s operating and maintenance expenditures for state fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015. The following totals include state bond funds and state operating budget funding: $29.9 million in 2013, $21.5 million in 2014, and $6.4 million as of March 30, 2015.

-	Table 7-3 Boston MPO, Operations and Maintenance Summary Table for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority State Fiscal Year 2015:  This table summarizes the operations and maintenance for state fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.

 

Back to top

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

4  The Boston area carbon monoxide maintenance area includes Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville.

 

 

 Appendices

Appendix A

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


 


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

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

The MPO’s project selection process uses evaluation criteria to make the process of selecting projects for programming in the TIP both more logical and more transparent. The criteria are based on the MPO’s visions and policies that were adopted for its Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Paths to a Sustainable Region. 

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

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

Table A-1 contains a summary of the evaluated projects in this year’s TIP development process. Projects that are programmed in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP are in bold type.
A full list of the Universe of Projects (including those project that were evaluated and those projects that were not evaluated) is contained in Table A-2. Projects in bold type are programmed in the FFYs 2016–20 TIP.

 

TABLE A-1: FFYs 2016-20 TIP - Summary of Evaluated Highway Projects

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

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

(36 Points Possible):
Livability
and
Economic Benefit
Rating

(29 Points Possible):
Mobility
Rating

(25 Points Possible):
Environment
and Climate Change
Rating

(25 Points Possible):
Environmental Justice
Rating

(10 Points Possible):
Safety and Security
Rating

(29 Points Possible):
606635 Newton and Needham (MassDOT) Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street & Charles River Bridge, from Webster Street to Route 9 2018 104 30 17 13 18 6 20
606284 Boston Improvements to Commonwealth Avenue, from Amory Street to Alcorn Street 2015 96 28 16 15 9 8 20
607981 Somerville (MassDOT) McGrath Boulevard Project LRTP
2026-30
96 30 18 13 12 9 14
607652 Everett Reconstruction of Ferry Street 2019 90 30 12 14 11 5 18
605034 Natick Reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main Street), from North Avenue to the Wayland town line 2019 88 32 16 14 9 0 17
607409 Lexington Reconstruction on Massachusetts Avenue, from Marrett Road to Pleasant Street 2016 87 30 10 15 8 6 18
29492 Bedford, Billerica, and Burlington Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, from Crosby Drive North to Manning Road (Phase III) 2016-17 86 28 11 18 13 3 13
605146 Salem Reconstruction on Canal Street, from Washington Street and Mill Street to Loring Avenue and Jefferson Avenue 2015 85 22 16 12 10 6 19
605110 Brookline Intersection and signal improvements at Route 9 and Village Square (Gateway East) 2017 85 30 19 14 10 0 12
606043 Hopkinton Signal and intersection improvements on Route 135 2019 85 24 14 14 16 0 17
604810 Marlborough Reconstruction of Route 85 (Maple Street) 2017 84 16 15 10 18 6 19
605313 Natick (MassDOT) Bridge replacement, Route 27 (North Main St.) over Route 9 (Worcester St.) and interchange improvements LRTP
2021-25
84 34 12 15 8 0 15
606453 Boston Improvements on Boylston Street, from intersection of Brookline Avenue and Park Drive to Ipswich Street 2019 83 16 18 14 16 5 14
605657 Medway Reconstruction on Route 109, from Holliston Street to 100 feet west of Highland Street 2015 82 28 13 10 16 0 15
604123 Ashland Reconstruction on Route 126 (Pond Street), from the Framingham town line to the Holliston town line 2020 77 20 16 9 11 6 15
602261 Walpole (MassDOT) Reconstruction on Route 1A (Main Street), from the Norwood town line to Route 27 2020 76 28 14 10 6 6 12
604652 Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn Tri-Community Bikeway 2015 75 20 15 9 17 0 14
604935 Woburn Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue, from I-93 Interchange to Central Street 2017 75 30 10 9 8 0 18
605189 Concord Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2C 2016 73 24 14 10 10 2 13
604989 Southborough Reconstruction of Main Street (Route 30), from Sears Road to Park Street 2017 73 22 13 12 11 0 15
602077 Lynn Reconstruction on Route 129 (Lynnfield Street), from Great Woods Road to Wyoma Square 2019 73 20 8 14 9 5 17
607428 Milford Resurfacing and intersection improvements on Route 16 (Main Street), from Water Street to the Hopedale town line 2019 73 22 12 13 4 6 16
607309 Hingham  Reconstruction and related work on Derby Street from Pond Park Road to Cushing Street 2017 71 22 9 15 8 0 17
606117 Boston Traffic signal improvements at 11 locations 2016 71 20 13 12 7 5 14
601579 Wayland Signal and intersection improvements at Route 27 (Main Street) and Route 30 (Commonwealth Road) 2016 70 24 10 10 12 0 14
601704 Newton Reconstruction and signal improvements on Walnut Street, from Homer Street to Route 9 N/A 70 24 16 8 7 0 15
601513 Saugus (MassDOT) Interchange reconstruction at Walnut Street and Route 1 (Phase II) N/A 69 22 12 15 7 0 13
1671 Everett Rehabilitation of Beacham Street N/A 69 20 10 8 9 4 18
604531 Acton and Maynard Assabet River Rail Trail 2015 68 16 14 10 13 2 13
602310 Danvers Reconstruction on Collins Street, from Sylvan Street to Centre and Holten Streets N/A 68 20 13 14 6 2 13
605721 Weymouth Intersection improvements at Middle Street, Libbey Industrial Parkway and Tara Drive 2016 68 20 12 16 5 0 15
604231 Marlborough Intersection and signal improvements on Route 20 (East Main Street/Boston Post Road) at Concord Road N/A 67 24 7 16 7 3 10
607255 Holbrook Intersection improvements and related work at Weymouth Street/Pine Street/Sycamore Street N/A 66 24 6 13 7 0 16
604377 Gloucester Washington Street and Railroad Avenue N/A 65 12 15 9 8 4 17
607888 Boston Multi-use path construction on New Fenway 2019 65 6 17 11 13 5 13
604996 Woburn Bridge replacement, New Boston Street over MBTA 2020 62 12 19 11 13 0 7
606002 Duxbury Signal installation at Route 3 (NB and SB) ramps and Route 3A (Tremont Street) N/A 61 24 4 17 3 0 13
607732 Natick Cochituate Rail Trail, Phase Two 2018 60 6 14 10 12 3 15
600518 Hingham (MassDOT) Intersection improvements at Derby Street, Whiting Street (Route 53) and Gardner Street 2018 59 22 10 13 2 0 12
606316 Brookline Pedestrian bridge rehabilitation over MBTA off Carlton Street 2016 59 10 13 8 11 5 12
605857 Norwood Intersection improvements at Route 1 and University Avenue/Everett Street N/A 58 24 8 14 3 0 9
603739 Wrentham Construction of I-495/Route 1A ramps N/A 55 18 1 15 10 0 11
606130 Norwood Intersection improvements at Route 1A and Upland Road/Washington Street and Prospect Street/Fulton Street N/A 55 20 7 10 5 0 13
605743 Ipswich Resurfacing and related work on Central and South Main Streets N/A 51 10 13 8 6 0 14
604811 Marlborough Reconstruction of Route 20 (East Main Street), from Main Street easterly to Lincoln Street N/A 51 10 9 11 7 3 11
604638 Danvers and Peabody (MassDOT) Mainline improvements on Route 128 (Phase II) N/A 49 12 3 18 3 0 13
606501 Holbrook Reconstruction of Union Street (Route 139), from Linfield Street to Centre Street/Water Street N/A 48 10 13 7 5 0 13
601359 Franklin Reconstruction of Pleasant Street, from Main Street to Chestnut Street N/A 45 12 11 6 4 0 12
601607 Hull Reconstruction of Atlantic Avenue and related work, from Nantasket Avenue to Cohasset town line N/A 43 6 11 2 8 0 16
604745 Wrentham Reconstruction of Taunton Street (Route 152) N/A 36 6 10 2 4 0 14

TABLE A-2: FFYs 2016-20 TIP - Universe of Projects

Proponent(s) TIP ID Project Name TIP/LRTP Funding Status 
Acton 604531 Assabet River Rail Trail 2015
Acton 1656 Intersection Improvements at Massachusetts Avenue (Route 111) and Main Street (Route 27) (Kelly's Corner)
Ashland 604123 Reconstruction on Route 126 (Pond Street), from the Framingham T.L. to the Holliston T.L. 2020
Bedford 607738 Minuteman Bikeway Extension, from Loomis Street to the Concord T.L.
Bedford, Billerica, and Burlington 029492 Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, from Crosby Drive North to Manning Road (Phase III) 2016-17
Beverly 604369 Reconstruction & Improvements on Route 128 (Interchange 19) at Brimbal Avenue, Sohier Road, Dunham Road, Otis Road
Beverly 607727 Interchange Reconstruction at Route 128/Exit 19 at Brimbal Avenue (Phase II)  
Boston 606284 Improvements to Commonwealth Avenue, from Amory Street to Alcorn Street 2015
Boston 604761 Multi-Use Trail Construction (South Bay Harbor) From Ruggles Station to Fort Point Channel  
Boston 606117 Traffic Signal Improvements at 11 Locations 2016
Boston 606226 Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue, from City Square to Sullivan Square 2020
Boston 606453 Improvements on Boylston Street, from Intersection of Brookline Avenue & Park Drive to Ipswich Street 2019
Boston 607888 Multi-use Path Construction on New Fenway 2019
Boston 606134 Traffic Signal Improvements on Blue Hill Avenue and Warren Street 2018
Boston 605789 Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard 2018
Boston 601274 Reconstruction of Tremont Street, from Court Street to Boylston Street
Brookline 605110 Intersection & Signal Improvements at Route 9 & Village Square (Gateway East) 2017
Brookline 606316 Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation over MBTA off Carlton Street 2016
Brookline 1659 Emerald Necklace Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossings  
Burlington 949 Route 62 (Wilmington Road)
Burlington 950 South Bedford Street  
Cambridge 604993 Innovation Boulevard Streetscape & Pedestrian Improvements, Between Main Street & Binney Street (Phase I)
Canton 900 East-West Connector, between Pleasant St. & Route 138  
Canton 603883 Reconstruction on Route 138, from I-93 to Dan Road
Canton, Dedham, and Norwood (MassDOT) 087790 Interchange Improvements at I-95/I-93/University Avenue/I-95 Widening  
Canton, Dedham, and Westwood (MassDOT) 606146 Ramp Construction on I-95 (NB) & Improvements on Dedham Street, Includes Replacement of 4 Signalized Intersections
Chelsea 1443 Reconstruction of Broadway, from City Hall Ave to the Revere City Line  
Chelsea 1063 Reconstruction of Beacham and Williams Streets, from Spruce Street to Everett City Line
Chelsea 953 Reconstruction and Widening of Spruce Street, between Everett Avenue and Sixth Street  
Chelsea 1615 Spruce Street/Second Street/Carter Street Improvements
Cohasset 608007 Corridor Improvements and Related Work on Justice Cushing Highway (Route 3A), from Beechwood Street to the Scituate Town Line  
Cohasset, Marshfield, and Scituate (MassDOT) 605664 Resurfacing & Related Work on Route 3A
Concord 605189 Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2C 2016
Concord and Acton 606223 Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Construction (Phase II-B) 2018
Concord 1441 Route 62 (Main St) Phase 3  
Concord 1450 Route 117 (Fitchburg Turnpike)
Concord 602091 Improvements & Upgrades to Concord Rotary (Routes 2/2A/119)  
Danvers 602310 Reconstruction on Collins Street, from Sylvan Street to Centre & Holten Streets
Dedham 607899 Pedestrian Improvements along Bussey Street  
Dedham 607901 Pedestrian Improvements along Elm Street & Rustcraft Road Corridors
Duxbury 942 Intersection Improvements at Route 3A & Route 139  
Duxbury 600650 Route 3A (Tremont Street) Bridge
Duxbury 606002 Signal Installation at Route 3 (NB & SB) Ramps & Route 3A (Tremont St)  
Everett 607652 Reconstruction of Ferry Street, South Ferry Street and a Portion of Elm Street 2019
Everett 1671 Rehabilitation of Beacham Street, from Route 99 to the Chelsea City Line  
Everett and Malden 649 TeleCom Boulevard, Phase 2
Framingham 356 Reconstruct Route 126 (Hollis Street), from Irving Street to the Ashland town line  
Framingham 955 Reconstruction of Route 126, from Route 9 to Lincoln Street
Framingham 602038 Edgell Road Corridor Project  
Framingham 606109 Intersection Improvements at Route 126/135/MBTA & CSX Railroad LRTP
2026-30
Framingham 608006 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Installation at Route 9 and Maynard Road  
Franklin 601359 Reconstruction of Pleasant Street, from Main Street to Chestnut Street
Franklin 607774 Resurfacing & Intersection Improvements on Route 140, from Beaver Street to I-495 Ramps  
Gloucester 604377 Washington Street And Railroad Avenue
Hingham 607309 Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby Street from Pond Park Road to Cushing Street 2017
Hingham (MassDOT) 600518 Intersection Improvements at Derby Street, Whiting Street (Route 53) and Gardner Street 2018
Holbrook 606501 Reconstruction of Union Street (Route 139), from Linfield Street to Centre Street/Water Street  
Holbrook 607255 Intersection Improvements and Related Work at Weymouth Street/Pine Street/Sycamore Street
Holbrook 602260 Intersection Improvements at Abington Avenue and Plymouth Street  
Holliston 602462 Signal Installation at Route 16/126 and Oak Street
Hopkinton 606043 Signal & Intersection Improvements on Route 135 2019
Hudson 1047 South Street
Hudson 1488 Lincoln St. at Cox St. and Packard St.  
Hudson 1617 Route 85/ Route 62 Rotary Improvements
Hudson (MassDOT) 601906 Bridge Replacement, Cox Street over the Assabet River  
Hudson and Marlborough (MassDOT) 603345 Reconstruction on Routes I-290 & 495 and Bridge Replacement
Hull 601607 Reconstruction of Atlantic Avenue and Related Work, from Nantasket Avenue to Cohasset Town Line  
Ipswich 605743 Resurfacing & Related Work on Central & South Main Streets
Lexington 607409 Reconstruction on Massachusetts Avenue, from Marrett Road to Pleasant Street 2016
Lexington 604619 Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue LRTP 2021-25
Lexington 1141 West Lexington Greenway  
Littleton 1460 Harvard Street
Lynn 602077 Reconstruction on Route 129 (Lynnfield Street), from Great Woods Road to Wyoma Square 2019
Lynn 601138 Traffic Signals at 4 Locations (Contract E)
Lynn 943 Broad Street/Lewis Street /Route 129  
Lynn 944 Boston Street -Hamilton Street
Lynn 1319 Route 129 (Boston St./Washington St.)  
Lynn 1320 Route 1 (Copeland Circle, Fox Hill Bridge)
Lynn 1321 Route 1A Lynnway at Blossom Street  
Lynn 1322 Route 1A Lynnway intersection at Market St.
Lynn 1323 Route 1A Lynn (GE Bridge  Nahant Rotary)  
Lynn 1324 Blue Line Extension (Wonderland connection)
Lynn 1454 Route 1 South (Jug handle lights at Goodwin Circle)  
Lynn 602081 Route 107 (Western Avenue)/Eastern Avenue
Lynn 602093 Route 107 (Western Avenue)  
Lynn 1672 Blossom Street Ferry Terminal
Lynn (MBTA) 374 Lynn Garage  
Lynn, Malden, Revere, and Saugus 351 Bike to the Sea, Phase 2
Lynnfield and Wakefield 607329 Rail Trail Extension, from the Galvin Middle School to Lynnfield/Peabody Town Line 2018
Malden, Revere, and Saugus (MassDOT) 605012 Reconstruction & Widening on Route 1, from Route 60 to Route 99
Marblehead 1657 Intersection Improvements to Pleasant Street at Village/Vine/Cross Streets  
Marlborough 604810 Reconstruction of Route 85 (Maple Street) 2017
Marlborough 604811 Reconstruction of Route 20 (East Main Street), from Main Street Easterly to Lincoln Street  
Marlborough 604231 Intersection & Signal Improvements on Route 20 (East Main Street/Boston Post Road) at Concord Road
Marshfield (MassDOT) 604655 Bridge Replacement, Beach Street over the Cut River 2018
Medford 1146 Medford Square Parking
Medford 1455 Medford Square Phase 2 Improvements  
Medford 1456 Medford Square Water Taxi Landing and Related Park Improvements
Medford 1457 Medford Square Transit Center  
Medford 1458 Mystic River Linear Park
Medway 605657 Reconstruction on Route 109, from Holliston Street to 100 Feet West of Highland Street 2015
Medway 1167 Route 109 (Milford Street)
Medway 602134 Resurfacing & Related Work on a Section of Village Street  
Melrose 601551 Intersection & Signal Improvements at Main Street & Essex Street
Milford 607428 Resurfacing & Intersection Improvements on Route 16 (Main Street), from Water Street  to the Hopedale T.L. 2019
Milford 967 Veteran's Memorial Drive/Alternate Route
Milford 608045 Rehabilitation on Route 16, from Route 109 to Beaver Street  
Millis 602364 Reconstruction of Village Street, from Main Street (Route 109) to the Medway Town Line
Natick 605034 Reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main Street), from North Avenue to the Wayland Town Line 2019
Natick 607732 Cochituate Rail Trail, Phase Two 2018
Natick 605313 Bridge Replacement, Route 27 (North Main Street) over Route 9 (Worcester Street) and Interchange Improvements LRTP 2021-25
Needham and Wellesley (MassDOT) 603711 Rehab/Replacement of 6 Bridges on I-95/Route 128 (Add-a-Lane Contract 5) 2015-18
Newton and Needham 606635 Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street & Charles River Bridge, from Webster Street to Route 9 2018
Newton 601704 Reconstruction & Signal Improvements on Walnut Street, from Homer Street to Route 9
Newton 1067 Washington Street, Phase 2  
Newton 600932 Reconstruction on Route 30 (Commonwealth Avenue), from Weston Town Line to Auburn Street
North Reading 1673 Reconstruction of Route 28 (Main Street), from Larch Road to Route 62 (Lowell Road)  
North Reading 1674 Reconstruction of Route 62, from Route 28 (Main Street) to I-93 
Norwood 605857 Intersection Improvements at Route 1 & University Avenue/Everett Street  
Norwood 606130 Intersection Improvements at Route 1A & Upland Road/Washington Street & Prospect Street/Fulton Street
Norwood 608052 Intersection and Traffic Signal Improvements at Providence Highway (Route 1) and Morse Street 2019
Peabody (MassDOT) 604638 Mainline Improvements on Route 128 (Phase II)
Peabody and Salem 1655 Riverwalk/Greenway from Peabody Square to Salem Train Depot  
Quincy 1451 Quincy Center Multimodal MBTA Station
Salem 605146 Reconstruction on Canal Street, from Washington Street & Mill Street to Loring Avenue & Jefferson Avenue 2015
Salem 1311 Canal Street Bikeway
Salem 005399 Reconstruction of Bridge Street, from Flint Street to Washington Street  
Salem 600986 Boston Street
Saugus 601513 Interchange Reconstruction at Walnut Street & Route 1 (Phase II)  
Somerville (MassDOT) 607981 McCarthy Boulevard Construction LRTP 2026-30
Somerville (MassDOT) 600831 I-93 Mystic Avenue Interchange (Design and Study)  
Somerville and Medford (MBTA) 1569 Green Line Extension Project (Phase II), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 2016-20
Southborough 604989 Reconstruction of Main Street (Route 30), from Sears Road to Park Street 2017
Southborough 1064 Cordaville Road/Route 85 Rehabilitation
Southborough and Westborough (MassDOT) 607701 Improvements at I-495 & Route 9  
Stow and Hudson 1139 Assabet River Rail Trail
Sudbury (MassDOT) 607249 Intersection Improvements at Route 20 & Landham Road  
Sudbury 1037 Route 20/Horsepond Road
Sudbury 1069 Route 20/Wayside Inn Road  
Sudbury 1164 Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D
Sudbury 1305 Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2E  
Walpole 602261 Reconstruction on Route 1A (Main Street), from the Norwood Town Line to Route 27 2020
Walpole 600671 Reconstruction of Route 1A, from Common Street to the Norfolk Town Line  
Walpole 1151 Walpole Central Business District
Walpole 1152 Elm St Improvements  
Walpole (MassDOT) 997 Coney Street Interchange with Route 95
Watertown 607777 Rehabilitation of Mount Auburn Street (Route 16)  
Wayland 601579 Signal & Intersection Improvements at Route 27 (Main Street) and Route 30 (Commonwealth Road) 2016
Weymouth 601630 Reconstruction & Widening on Route 18 (Main Street), from Highland Place to Route 139 2016-19
Weymouth 605721 Intersection Improvements at Middle Street, Libbey Industrial Parkway and Tara Drive 2016
Weymouth 607755 Intersection & Signal Improvements at 2 Locations: SR 53 (Washington Street) at Mutton Lane & Pleasant Street 2016
Wilmington 608051 Reconstruction on Route 38 (Main Street), from Route 62 to the Woburn C.L.
Winchester, Stoneham, and Woburn 604652 Tri-Community Bikeway 2015
Winthrop 607244 Reconstruction & Related Work along Winthrop Street & Revere Street Corridor
Woburn 604935 Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue, from I-93 Interchange to Central Street 2017
Woburn 604996 Bridge Replacement, New Boston Street over MBTA 2020
Woburn 1153 Woburn Loop Bikeway Project  
Woburn 1449 Route 38 (Main St.) Traffic Lights
Woburn 608067 Intersection Reconstruction at Route 3 (Cambridge Road) & Bedford Road and South Bedford Street  
Woburn 608097 Bridge Replacement & Related Work, W-43-028, Washington Street over I-95
Woburn (MassDOT) 605605 Interchange Improvements to I-93/I-95  
Wrentham (MassDOT) 603739 Construction of I-495/Route 1A Ramps
Wrentham 604745 Reconstruction of Taunton Street (Route 152)  

 

Appendix B

Roadway Project Funding Application Forms & Evaluations


 


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

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

Roadway Project funding application Forms

Overview Tab

Project Background Information

1    ID Number  

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

2    Municipality(ies)

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

3    Project Name

The name of the project. (Source: MassDOT)

4    Project Category

(determined by MPO staff):

5    MassDOT Highway District

The MassDOT Highway District in which the project is located.

6    MAPC Subregion

The MAPC subregion in which the project is located.

7    MAPC Community Type

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

8    Estimated Cost

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

9    Evaluation Rating

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

10   Description

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

11   Project Length (Miles)

Total length of project in miles.

12   Project Lane Miles

Total lane miles of project.

Project Background Information

P1  Community Priority

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

Additional Status

13   MPO/CTPS Study

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

14   Air Quality Status

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

Readiness Tab

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

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

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

Project Background Information

15   Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Status

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

16   Functional Design Report (FDR) Status

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

17   Design Status

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

18   Right-of-Way (ROW) Requirement

(Source: MassDOT Project Info):

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

19   Right-of-Way (ROW) Responsibility

(Source: MassDOT Project Info):

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

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

20   Right-of-Way (ROW) Certification

(Source: MassDOT Project Info):

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

21   Required Permits

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

System Preservation, Modernization, and Efficiency Tab

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

Project Background Information

22   Existing Pavement Condition

(Source: MassDOT Roadway Inventory File)

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

23   Equipment Condition

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

24   CMP Congested Area

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

Proponent Provided Information

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

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

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

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

Evaluation

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

Improves substandard pavement (up to 6 points)

+6 IRI rating greater than 320: Poor and pavement improvements are included in the project

+4 IRI rating between 320 and 191: Fair and pavement improvements are included in the project

  0  IRI rating less than 190: Good or better

 

Improves substandard signal equipment condition (up to 6 points)

+6 Poor condition and all equipment will be replaced

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

+2 Fair condition, partial replacement will occur

  0  All other values

 

Improves traffic signal operations (signal equipment upgrades, including for adaptive signal controls and coordination with adjacent signals (ITS) (up to 6 points)

+6 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+2 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Improves intermodal accommodations/connections to transit (up to 6 points)

+6 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+2 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Implements ITS strategies other than traffic signal operations (improve traffic flow as identified by an ITS strategy for the municipality or state (e.g. variable message signs) (up to 6 points)

+6 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+2 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

0  Does not meet or address criteria

Livability and Economic Benefit Tab

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

 

Project Background Information

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

25   Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

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

Pedestrian Facilities:

        Bicycle Facilities:

26   TDM Program Required for All New
Developments

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

 

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

27   Targeted Development Areas

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

28   Municipality Provides Financial or Regulatory
Support for Targeted Development

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

29   Local Efforts to improve Design and Access:

Proponent Provided Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation

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

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

+1 Project is a “complete street”

+1 Project provides for transit service

+1 Project provides for bicycle facilities

+1 Project provides for pedestrian facilities

  0  Does not provide any complete streets components

 

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

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

+1 Project provides bicycle access to an activity center

+1 Project provides pedestrian access to an activity center

  0  Does not provide multimodal access

 

Reduces auto dependency (up to 8 points)

+3 Project provides for a new transit service

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

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

+1 Project provides for a new bicycle facility

+1 Project provides for a new pedestrian facility

+1 Project implements a transportation demand management strategy

  0  Does not provide for any of the above measures

 

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

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

+1 Project improves transit access to or within a site

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

  0  Does not provide for any of the above measures

Project improves Quality of Life (up to 3 points)

+1 Reduces cut through within the project area

+1 Implements traffic calming measures

+1 Improves the character of the project area

Mobility Tab

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

Project Background Information

29   Transit Vehicles Use of Roadway

Identifies the fixed route transit vehicles using the roadway

30   Usage

31   A.M./P.M. Travel Time Index**

Travel Time Index directly compares peak-period travel time conditions with free-flow travel time conditions. Travel time Index indicates how much contingency time should be considered to ensure an on-time arrival during the peak period versus optimum travel times.

Travel time index = average peak-period travel time / free-flow travel time

Information provided is determined by the Boston Region MPO’s CMP Arterial Performance Dashboard. If a Project Funding Application Form does not have any CMP data listed, this does not necessarily mean that the roadway or intersection does not experience congestion problems; this simply means that data from the CMP are not available.

32   A.M./P.M. Speed Index**

Speed index is equal to the average speed divided by the posted speed limit of a Traffic Message Channel (TMC). Speed index indicates congestion more accurately than travel speeds alone because low travel speeds may be a result of low speed limits on certain facilities.

Speed Index = average speed / posted speed limit

Information provided is determined by the Boston Region MPO’s CMP Arterial Performance Dashboard. If a Project Funding Application Form does not have any CMP data listed, this does not necessarily mean that the roadway or intersection does not experience congestion problems; this simply means that data from the CMP are not available.

33   Supports Regional Freight Infrastructure

 

**Please refer to the CMP Arterial Performance Dashboard (hyperlink to http://www.ctps.org/map/www/apps/arterialHighwayPerformanceDashboard/index.html) for data on roadway congestion in the MPO region.

Proponent Provided Information

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

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

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

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

Evaluation

Mobility Evaluation Scoring (25 total points possible):

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

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

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

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

  0  All other values

 

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

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

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

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

  0  All other results

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

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

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

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Project reduces congestion (up to 6 points)

+6 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+2 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

Improves transit reliability (up to 7 points)

+2 Implements queue jumping ability for transit

+2 Project prioritizes signals for transit vehicles (ITS)

+2 Project provides for a dedicated busway

+1 Project provides for a bus bump out

Environment and Climate Change Tab

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

Project Background Information

34   CO2 Impact

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

35   Located in a Green Community

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

36   Located in an Area of Critical Environmental
      Concern

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

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

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

Proponent Provided Information

P10 How does the project relate to community
      character?

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

P11 What are the environmental impacts of the
      project?

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

Evaluation

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

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

+5 Project significant improves air quality

+3 Project includes major elements improving air quality

+1 Project includes minor elements improving air quality

  0  Project has no significant air quality impacts

 

CO2 reduction (up to 5 points)

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

     Global Warming Solutions act

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

     Warming Solutions Act

+1 Project will provide a minor air quality benefit

  0  Project will no additional benefit to air quality

 

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

+4 Project is in a “Green Community”

  0  Project is not in a “Green Community”

 

Project reduces VMT/VHT (up to 7 points)

+3 Project provides for a new transit service

+1 Project provides for improved transit access

+1 Project provides for a new bicycle facility

+1 Project provides for a new pedestrian facility

+1 Project implements a transportation demand management strategy

  0  Does not provide for any of the above measures

 

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

+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

Environmental Justice Tab

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

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

Project Background Information

38   Located within ½ mile of an Environmental
      Justice Area

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

39   Located within ½ mile of an Environmental
      Justice Population Zone***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***Please refer to a map of the Environmental Justice (E J) population zones (hyperlink to http://www.ctps.org/Drupal/data/pdf/programs/equity/EJ_Figure_1_Low_Income_Minority.pdf) in the

Boston Region M P O for more information on E J population zones.

Proponent Provided Information

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

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

Evaluation

Environmental Justice Evaluation Scoring (10 total points possible):

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

  0  Does not provide any complete streets components

 

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

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

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

 

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

 –10 Creates a burden in an EJ area

Safety and Security Tab

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

Project Background Information

44   Top 200 Rank

Ranks of highest crash intersection clusters in the project area listed within MassDOT’s top 200 high crash intersection locations. The crash rankings are weighted by crash severity as indicated by Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) values. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division 2010-2012 Top Crash Locations Report)

45   EPDO/Injury Value

An estimated value of property damage. Fatal crashes are weighted by 10, injury crashes are weighted by 5 and property damage only or nonreported is weighted by 1. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2010-2012)

46   Crash Rate/Crashes per Mile

Intersection projects list the crash rate as total crashes per million vehicle entering the intersection. Arterial projects list the crash rate as total crashes per mile. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2010-2012)

47   Bicycle-Involved Crashes (Total EPDO)

Total EPDO value of bicycle-involved crashes in the project area. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2010-2012)

48   Pedestrian-Involved Crashes (Total EPDO)

Total EPDO value of pedestrian-involved crashes in the project area. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2010-2012)

49   Truck-Involved Crashes (Total EPDO)

Total EPDO value of truck-involved crashes in the project area. (Source: MassDOT Highway Division, 2010-2012)

50   Natural Hazard Zones***

****Please refer to the All-hazards Planning Application (hyperlink to http://www.ctps.org/map/www/apps/eehmApp/pub_eehm_index.html) for more information on natural hazard zones.

Proponent Provided Information

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

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

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

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

Evaluation

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

Improves emergency response (up to 2 points)

+1 Project improves an evacuation route, diversion route, or alternate diversion route

+1 Project improves an access route to or in proximity to an emergency support location

 

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

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

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

+1 Project brings facility up to current seismic design standards

+1 Project improves access to an emergency support location

+1 Project addresses critical transportation infrastructure

 

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

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

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

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

  0  If there is no loss

 

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

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  1  Does not meet or address criteria

 

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

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

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

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

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

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

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

+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree

+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree

+1 Meets or address criteria to a low degree

  0  Does not meet or address criteria

 

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

+3 Project removes an at grade railroad crossing

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

+1 Project improves safety at an at grade railroad crossing

  0  Project does not include a railroad crossing

Other Tab

Cost per Unit

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

56   $ per User

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

57   $ per Lane Mile

Cost divided by proposed total lane miles

 

Appendix C

Greenhouse Gas Monitoring & Evaluation


 


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

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

In addition to monitoring the GHG impacts of capacity-adding projects in the LRTP, it is also important to monitor and evaluate the GHG impacts of all transportation projects that are programmed in the TIP. The TIP includes both the larger, capacity-adding projects from the LRTP and smaller projects, which are not included in the LRTP, that may have impacts on GHG emissions. The principal objective of this tracking is to enable the MPOs to evaluate the expected GHG impacts of different projects and to use this information as a criterion for prioritizing and programming projects in future TIPs.

In order to monitor and evaluate the GHG impacts of TIP projects, MassDOT and the MPOs have developed approaches for identifying the anticipated GHG emission impacts of different project types. All TIP projects have been sorted into two main categories for analysis: projects with quantified impacts and projects with assumed impacts. Projects with quantified impacts consist of capacity-adding projects from the LRTP and projects from the TIP that underwent a CMAQ spreadsheet analysis. Projects with assumed impacts include projects that would be expected to produce a minor decrease or increase in emissions and projects that would be assumed to have no CO2 impact.

Projects with Quantified Impacts

Travel Demand Model Set

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

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

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

Traffic Operational Improvement

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

Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure

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

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

New and Additional Transit Service

 A new bus or shuttle service that reduces automobile trips.

Park-and-Ride Lot

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

Bus Replacement

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

Projects with Assumed Impacts

Assumed Nominal Decrease or Increase in CO2 Emissions

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

No CO2 Impact

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

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

 

TABLE C-1: Greenhouse Gas Regional Highway Project Tracking
MassDOT Project ID  Municipality(ies) MassDOT Project Description Analysis of GHG Impact
607748 Acton Intersection & Signal Improvements on SR 2 & SR 111 (Massachusetts Avenue) at Piper Road & Taylor Road To be determined
604123 Ashland Reconstruction on Route 126 (Pond Street), from the Framingham T.L. to the Holliston T.L. 61 tons of CO2 reduced
29492 Bedford, Billerica, and Burlington Middlesex Turnpike Improvements, from Crosby Drive North to Manning Road (Phase III) Model
606117 Boston Traffic Signal Improvements at 10 Locations 13 tons of CO2 reduced
606453 Boston Improvements on Boylston Street, from Intersection of Brookline Avenue & Park Drive to Ipswich Street 806 tons of CO2 reduced
605789 Boston Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard To be determined
606226 Boston Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue, from City Square to Sullivan Square Model
606134 Boston Traffic Signal Improvements on Blue Hill Avenue and Warren Street To be determined
605110 Brookline Intersection & Signal Improvements at Route 9 & Village Square (Gateway East) 22 tons of CO2 reduced
607652 Everett Reconstruction of Ferry Street, South Ferry Street and a Portion of Elm Street 159 tons of CO2 reduced
607309 Hingham Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby Street from Pond Park Road to Cushing Street 166 tons of CO2 reduced
606043 Hopkinton Signal & Intersection Improvements on Route 135 566 tons of CO2 reduced
607409 Lexington Reconstruction on Massachusetts Avenue, from Marrett Road to Pleasant Street 80 tons of CO2 reduced
602077 Lynn Reconstruction on Route 129 (Lynnfield Street), from Great Woods Road to Wyoma Square To be determined
604810 Marlborough Reconstruction of Route 85 (Maple Street) 325 tons of CO2 reduced
605608 Dedham Resurfacing & Related Work on Route 109 No CO2 impact
600518 Hingham Intersection Improvements at Derby Street, Whiting Street (Route 53) and Gardner Street 325 tons of CO2 reduced
607488 Southborough Resurfacing & Related Work on Route 9, from the Framingham Townline to White Bagley Road No CO2 impact
607340 Wellesley Resurfacing on Route 9, from (approx.) Dearborn Street to the Natick T.L. No CO2 impact
608059 Salem Stormwater Improvements along Route 107 (Salem Bypass Road) No CO2 impact
608134 Hingham Stormwater Improvements along Route 3A/Route 28 No CO2 impact
608221 Marlborough Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 20 No CO2 impact
607759 Boston Intersection and Signal Improvements at the VFW Parkway and Spring Street To be determined
608214 Winchester Stormwater Improvements along Route 3 No CO2 impact
607428 Milford Resurfacing & Intersection Improvements on Route 16 (Main Street), from Water Street  to the Hopedale T.L. 84 tons of CO2 reduced
607754 Milton Intersection & Signal Improvements at Granite Avenue & Squantum Street To be determined
607763 Milton Intersection & Signal Improvements at 2 Locations: SR 138 (Blue Hill Avenue) at Atherton Street & Bradlee Road and SR 138 (Blue Hill Avenue) at Milton Street & Dollar Lane To be determined
605034 Natick Reconstruction of Route 27 (North Main Street), from North Avenue to the Wayland Town Line 74 tons of CO2 reduced
606635 Newton & Needham Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street & Charles River Bridge, from Webster Street to Route 9 312 tons of CO2 reduced
608052 Norwood Intersection and Traffic Signal Improvements at Providence Highway (Route 1) and Morse Street To be determined
604989 Southborough Reconstruction of Main Street (Route 30), from Sears Road to Park Street 101 tons of CO2 reduced
602165 Stoneham Signal & Intersection Improvements at Route 28/North Street 154 tons of CO2 reduced
607761 Swampscott Intersection & Signal Improvements at SR 1A (Paradise Road) at Swampscott Mall To be determined
602261 Walpole Reconstruction on Route 1A (Main Street), from the Norwood Town Line to Route 27 94 tons of CO2 reduced
601579 Wayland Signal & Intersection Improvements at Route 27 (Main Street) and Route 30 (Commonwealth Road) 115 tons of CO2 reduced
605721 Weymouth Intersection Improvements at Middle Street, Libbey Industrial Parkway and Tara Drive 6 tons of CO2 reduced
601630 Weymouth Reconstruction & Widening on Route 18 (Main Street), from Highland Place to Route 139 Model
607755 Weymouth Intersection & Signal Improvements at 2 Locations: SR 53 (Washington Street) at Mutton Lane & Pleasant Street To be determined
604935 Woburn Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue, from I-93 Interchange to Central Street 46 tons of CO2 reduced
608000 Bedford Safe Routes to School (John Glenn Middle) Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
607888 Boston Multi-use Path Construction on New Fenway 106 tons of CO2 reduced
606316 Brookline Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation over MBTA off Carlton Street Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
605189 Concord Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2C 79 tons of CO2 reduced
606223 Concord, Acton Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Construction (Phase II-B) To be determined
607998 Everett Safe Routes to School (Madelaine English) Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
607329 Lynnfield, Wakefield Rail Trail Extension, from the Galvin Middle School to Lynnfield/Peabody Town Line To be determined
607732 Natick Cochituate Rail Trail, Phase Two 126 tons of CO2 reduced
607999 Revere Safe Routes to School (Garfield Elementary & Middle School) Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
607997 Saugus Safe Routes to School (Veterans Memorial) Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
608004 Watertown Safe Routes to School (Hosmer Elementary) Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
608003 Weymouth Safe Routes to School (Pingree Elementary) Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
600867 Boston Bridge Replacement, Massachusetts Avenue (Route 2A) over Commonwealth Avenue No CO2 impact
604173 Boston Bridge Rehabilitation, North Washington Street over the Charles River Assumed nominal reduction from bicycle infrastructure 
607685 Braintree Bridge Rehabilitation, B-21-060 and B-21-061, St 3 (SB) And St 3 (NB) over Ramp C (Quincy Adams) No CO2 impact
607345 Cohasset Superstructure Replacement & Substructure Rehabilitation, Atlantic Avenue over Little Harbor Inlet Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
607954 Danvers Bridge Replacement, D-03-018, Route 128 over Waters River No CO2 impact
606553 Hanover and Norwell Superstructure Replacement, H-06-010, St 3 Over St 123 (Webster Street) & N-24-003, St 3 Over St 123 (High Street) Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
606632 Hopkinton Bridge Replacement, Fruit Street Over CSX & Sudbury River No CO2 impact
600703 Lexington Bridge Replacement, Route 2 (EB & WB) over Route I-95 (Route 128) No CO2 impact
604952 Lynn and Saugus Bridge Replacement, Route 107 over the Saugus River (AKA Belden G. Bly Bridge) Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
604655 Marshfield Bridge Replacement, Beach Street over the Cut River Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
607915 Newton, Wellesley, and Weston Bridge Maintenance of N-12-063, N-12-054, N-12-055 & N-12-056 on I-95/Route 128 No CO2 impact
607133 Quincy Bridge Replacement, Robertson Street over I-93/US 1/SR 3 No CO2 impact
608079 Sharon Bridge Replacement, Maskwonicut Street over Amtrak/MBTA Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
BR1901 Stow Bridge Replacement, S-29-11, Box Mill Road over Elizabeth Brook No CO2 impact
607507 Wakefield Bridge Deck Replacement, W-01-021 (2MF) Hopkins Street over I-95 / ST 128 Assumed nominal reduction from pedestrian infrastructure 
607533 Waltham Woerd Avenue over the Charles River No CO2 impact
603008 Woburn Bridge Replacement, Salem Street over MBTA No CO2 impact
604996 Woburn Bridge Replacement, New Boston Street over MBTA Model (1501 tons of CO2 reduced)
606381 Arlington and Belmont Highway Lighting Repair & Maintenance on Route 2 No CO2 impact
605733 Boston Highway Lighting System Replacement on I-93, from Southhampton Street to Neponset Avenue No CO2 impact
608206 Chelsea to Danvers Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on a Section of Route 1 No CO2 impact
608220 Concord Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 2 No CO2 impact
606176 Foxborough to Wrentham Interstate Maintenance & Related Work on I-495 (NB & SB) No CO2 impact
608210 Foxborough to Wrentham Interstate Maintenance Resurfacing and Related Work on I-495 No CO2 impact
607477 Lynnfield and Peabody Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 No CO2 impact
608069 Marshfield to Hingham Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 3 No CO2 impact
603917 Medford to Reading Highway Lighting Rehabilitation on I-93 (Phase II) No CO2 impact
608213 Milton Stormwater Improvements along I-93 No CO2 impact
603711 Needham and Wellesley Rehab/Replacement of 6 Bridges on I-95/Route 128 (Add-a-Lane Contract 5) Model
608208 Quincy, Milton, and Boston Interstate Maintenance Resurfacing and Related Work on I-93 No CO2 Impact
607481 Randolph, Quincy, and Braintree Resurfacing and Related Work on I-93 No CO2 impact
608219 Reading and Wakefield Interstate Maintenance Resurfacing and Related Work on I-95 No CO2 Impact
608205 Reading to Lynnfield Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on a Section of Interstate 95 No CO2 impact
608008 Saugus Resurfacing & Related Work on Route 1 No CO2 Impact
1572 MBTA Red Line-Blue Line Connector Design No CO2 impact
1570 Somerville and Cambridge Green Line Extension Project - Extension to College Avenue with the Union Square Spur Model
1569 Somerville and Medford Green Line Extension Project (Phase II), College Avenue to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 Model

 

 

TABLE C-2: Greenhouse Gas Regional Transit Project Tracking
Regional Transit Authority  Project Description Analysis of GHG Impact
MBTA STATIONS & FACILITIES Assumed nominal reduction in CO2 from transit infrastructure
MBTA BRIDGES & TUNNELS No CO2 impact
MBTA PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE No CO2 impact
MBTA SYSTEM UPGRADES To be determined
CATA PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE To be determined
CATA EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES No CO2 impact
MWRTA ADA PARATRANSIT  To be determined
MWRTA EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES No CO2 impact

 

Appendix D

FFY 2015 Highway Projects Status


 


This appendix lists information about the status of roadway projects in the federal fiscal year 2015 element of the FFYs 2015–18 TIP.

 

TABLE D-1

Advanced Construction Projects

 

Project Number

Project Description

District

Funding Source(s)

607338

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

4

BR-AC

600703

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

4

BR-AC

603711

Needham- Wellesley- Rehab/Replacement of 6 Bridges on I-95/Route 128: N-04-020, N-04-021, N-04-022, N-04-026, N-04-027 & W-13-023 (Add-A-Lane - Contract V)

6

BR-AC

 

TABLE D-2

Projects Advertised in FFY 2015

 

Project Number

Project Description

District

Funding Source(s)

607174

Chelsea- Revere – Resurfacing &Related Work on Route 1

6

NHPP

607700

Lexington- Woburn – District 4 Highway Lighting Branch Circuit Re-Cabling from Six Lighting Load Centers Along Route I-95 (128)

4

STP

607891

Beverly – Resurfacing & Related Work on Route 128

4

NHPP

TABLE D-2 (CONTINUED)

Projects Advertised in FFY 2015

 

Project Number

Project Description

District

Funding Source(s)

605883

Dedham – Bridge Replacement, D-05-003 (33K), Needham Street over Great Ditch

6

NHPP

604796

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

6

NHPP

606997

Braintree-Mansfield-Milton-Weymouth- Stormwater Retrofits on I-93, I-495, I-195, Route 3/18

6

STP-TE

607839

Medford- Medford Clippership Drive Park Construction

4

Sec 125

606889

Boston- Improvements Along Gainsborough and St. Botolph Streets

6

TI

 

 

TABLE D-3

Projects Expected to be Advertised in FFY 2015

 

Project Number

Project Description

District

Funding Source(s)

608019

Boston- Advanced Utility Relocations for Bridge B-16-237, Massachusetts Avenue (Route 2A) over Commonwealth Avenue

6

NHPP

604531

Acton & Maynard- Assabet River Rail Trail

3

CMAQ, TAP

605657

Medway- Reconstruction on Route 109, from Holliston Street to 100 Feet West of Highland Street

3

CMAQ, HSIP, TAP

607273

Franklin- Bridge Demolition, F-08-005, Old State Route 140 over MBTA/CSX & New Pedestrian Bridge Construction

3

NHPP

604652

Winchester, Stoneham- Tri-Community Bikeway

4

CMAQ, TAP

 

TABLE D-3 (CONTINUED)

Projects Expected to be Advertised in FFY 2015

 

Project Number

Project Description

District

Funding Source(s)

605146

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

4

CMAQ, HSIP

606284

Boston- Improvements to Commonwealth Avenue, from Amory Street to Alcorn Street

6

CMAQ, TAP

607920

Milton- Safe Routes to School (Grover Elementary School)

6

TAP

607892

Somerville- Safe Routes to School (Healey School)

4

TAP

606146

Canton- Norwood- Westwood- Ramp Construction On I-95 (NB) & Improvements on Canton Street/Dedham Street, includes Replacement of C-02-034, Rehab of C-02-024, C-02-002=N-25-016=W-31-002 & 5 Signalized Intersections

5

NFA

607209

Somerville- Reconstruction of Beacon Street, from Oxford Street to Cambridge C.L.

4

HPP

600867

Boston- Bridge Replacement, B-16-237, Massachusetts Avenue (Route 2A) over Commonwealth Avenue

6

NHPP

 

 

TABLE D-4

Projects That Will Be Advertised in a Future TIP Element

 

Project Number

Project Description

District

Funding Source(s)

603008

Woburn- Bridge Replacement, W-43-003, Salem Street over MBTA

4

NHPP

606134

Boston- Traffic Signal Improvements on Blue Hill Avenue and Warren Street

6

HPP

 

 

 

 

TABLE D-5

Projects That Were Removed From the TIP

 

Project Number

Project Description

District

Funding Source(s)

604428

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

6

BR

 

 

Appendix E

Transit Projects Status


 


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

 

Funds Programmed:  Total funds programmed in the TIP

Pending:  Application being prepared to be submitted to FTA

Completed:  Application submitted to FTA

Approved:  Funds executed

TABLE E-1

FFY 2014 Transit Projects – Section 5307

 

Mode

Type

Detail

Funds Programmed

Pending

Completed

Approved

Green Line

Green Line Signal Upgrades

Upgrade signals on Green Line

$24,000,000

N/A

$24,000,000N/A

N/A

Commuter Rail

Revenue Vehicles

Procurement of Option Locomotives

$39,838,048

N/A

N/A

$39,838,048

Red Line

Red Line Signal Upgrade

Upgrade signals on Red Line

$15,200,000

N/A

$15,200,000N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Power Program

Improvements to power infrastructure

$28,513,462

N/A

$28,513,462N/A

N/A

Bus

Systems Upgrades

Bus Procurement Program

$19,216,693

/A

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Preventive Maintenance

Preventive Maintenance

$12,000,000

N/A

$12,000,000N/A

N/A

Section 5307 MBTA Total

N/A

$138,768,203

$0

$67,713,462

$51,838,048

 

TABLE E-2

FFY 2014 Transit Projects – Section 5337

 

Mode

Type

Detail

Funds Programmed

Pending

Completed

Approved

Red Line

Red Line Floating Slab

Improvements to slab between Harvard - Alewife

$17,439,172

$17,439,172

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Stations & Facilities

Improvements to multiple station and facilities

$40,000,000

$40,000,000

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Bridge Program

Improvements to bridge infrastructure

$60,000,000

$60,000,000

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Systems Upgrades

TBD

$1,589,989

N/A

N/A

N/A

Section 5337 MBTA Total

N/A

$119,029,161

$117,439,172

$0

$0

 

 

 

 

TABLE E-3

FFY 2014 Transit Projects – Section 5339

 

Mode

Type

Detail

Funds Programmed

Pending

Completed

Approved

Bus

Systems Upgrades

Bus Procurement Program

$5,776,637

N/A

N/A

N/A

Section 5339 MBTA Total

N/A

$5,776,637

$0

$0

$0

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE E-4

FFY 2015 Transit Projects – Section 5307

 

Mode

Type

Detail

Funds Programmed

Pending

Completed

Approved

Bus

Revenue Vehicles

Bus Procurement

$64,000,000

$64,000,000

N/A

A

Systemwide

Stations & Facilities

Improvements to elevators and escalators

$25,924,448

$25,924,448

/A

N/A

Blue Line

Stations & Facilities

Government Center (Blue Line Modernization)

$32,761,068

/A

$32,761,068N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Preventive Maintenance

Preventive Maintenance

$12,000,000

$12,000,000 N/A

N/A

N/A

Section 5307 MBTA Total

N/A

$134,685,516

$101,924,448

$32,761,068

$0

 

 

 

TABLE E-5

FFY 2015 Transit Projects – Section 5337

 

Mode

Type

Detail

Funds Programmed

Pending

Completed

Approved

Systemwide

Stations & Facilities

Improvements to multiple station and facilities

$40,000,000

$40,000,000

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Bridge Program

Improvements to bridge infrastructure

$60,000,000

$60,000,000

N/A

N/A

Systemwide

Systems Upgrades

Columbia Junction

$21,190,546

$21,190,546N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Section 5337 MBTA Total

N/A

$121,190,546

$121,190,546

$0

$0

 

 

 

 

TABLE E-6

FFY 2015 Transit Projects – Section 5339

 

Mode

Type

Detail

Funds Programmed

Pending

Completed

Approved

Systemwide

Systems Upgrades

Bus Procurement

$5,287,027

$5,287,027

N/A

N/A

N/A

Section 5339 MBTA Total

N/A

$5,287,027

$5,287,027

$0

$0

 

 

Appendix F

Public Comments on the Draft FFYs 2016 – 20 TIP


 


This appendix contains a table of summarized public comments on the draft FFYs 2016-20 TIP received during the public comment period.

 

PROJECT(S) / ISSUE(S) REQUEST/ SUPPORT/ OPPOSE COMMENTERS COMMENT
Bike Racks on MBTA Buses Request Somerville resident: Joel N. Weber, II Requests funding and installation of bike racks on MBTA buses in the near future.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Oppose Sudbury resident: Daniel A. DePompei Opposes inclusion of funding for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail in the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2016-20 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Expresses concern that the project does not comply with local environmental bylaws and storm water regulations. Raises questions whether the project triggers Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) thresholds and whether MassDOT design requirements supersede local environmental bylaws and storm water regulations. Notes that the project right-of-way is located in a wetland, and proposes that MassDOT consider alternative alignments or alternate design standards for the trail.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2B (Acton and Concord) Support Municipal: Acton Board of Selectmen, Concord Board of Selectmen
Organizations: Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, CrossTown Connect Transportation Management Association (TMA)
Acton resident: Robert Sekuler
Concord resident: Robert Armstrong
Medford resident: Ken Krause
Framingham residents: William Hanson, Michaela Hardimon
Westford resident: Katie Sawrey
Others: Nathaniel Bates, Louis Hills, David Hutcheson, Nancy Savage, Anne Anderson, Kevin Neijstrom, Barbara Pike, Joe Robb, Peggy Wagelin, Brad Wargelin, Alan Whitney
Support inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2B in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State that Phase 2B is a critical link in connecting Acton and Concord, providing safe crossing over Route 2 for pedestrians and cyclists. 
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2B (Acton and Concord) Request Municipal: Acton Board of Selectmen, Concord Board of Selectmen
Organization: Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail
Acton resident: Robert Sekuler
Concord resident: Robert Armstrong
Framingham resident: Michaela Hardimon
Others: Louis Hill, Anne Anderson, Kevin Neijstrom, Barbara Pike, Joe Robb, Peggy Wagelin, Brad Wargelin, Alan Whitney
Request that the MPO move Phase 2B from FFY 2018 back to FFY 2017. Issues raised include prior delays, readiness of the design, and the importance of connecting commuters to the West Concord MBTA station.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2C (Concord) Support Organization: Friends of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, CrossTown Connect TMA
Acton resident: Robert Sekuler
Concord resident: Robert Armstrong
Medford resident: Ken Krause
Framingham residents: William Hanson, Michaela Hardimon
Westford resident: Katie Sawrey
Others: Nathaniel Bates, Louis Hills, David Hutcheson, Nancy Savage, Anne Anderson, Kevin Neijstrom, Barbara Pike, Joe Robb, Peggy Wagelin, Brad Wargelin, Alan Whitney
Support inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2C in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP.
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D (Sudbury) Support Leonard Simon, Sudbury Board of Selectmen member Support inclusion of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, Phase 2D in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State that the Sudbury Town Meeting, Board of Selectmen, Community Preservation Committee, and the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee have voted in support of the BFRT. Note that the 25% design study began in November 2014, and should be completed by February 2016.
Cochituate Rail Trail (Framingham and Natick) Support Framingham resident: William Hanson
Town of Natick: Board of Selectmen
Support inclusion of the Cochituate Rail Trail in Framingham and Natick in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP.

Benefits addressed include the support of economic development and quality of life initiatives.
Community Path Extension Support Organizations: Friends of the Community Path, GLX Design Working and Construction Group, Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership, Mystic Valley Task Force
Medford residents:
Diane Andronica, Patrick Bibbins
Somerville residents: Chris Gunadi, Karen Molloy, Julia Petipas, Alan Moore, Patrick Smith
Belmont resident: William Messenger
Cambridge resident: John MacDougall
Others: Kevin Donovan, Linda Lintz, Michelle Moon, Ellin Reisner, Matthew Danish
Support inclusion of the Community Path Extension in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP.
Environmental Impacts Request Organizations: Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership (STEP) and Mystic Valley Task Force (MVTF) Express hope that the MPO will soon be able to more fully recognize the serious health impacts of transportation air pollution and noise on nearby residents, workers and students. Suggest including black carbon from diesel in climate pollutant inventories, as California already does, and in transportation conformity analyses.

Gateway East (Brookline) Support Framingham resident: William Hanson
Other: Matthew Danish
Support inclusion of the Gateway East project in Brookline in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. 
Green Line Extension
(Phase I & II)
Support Legislative: State Senator Patricia D. Jehlen; State Representatives Christine P. Barber, Sean Garballey, Denise Provost, and Timothy J. Toomey. Jr.
Municipal: Michael McGlynn, Mayor of Medford
Organization: Conservation Law Foundation
Medford resident and Mayoral Candidate: Stephanie Muccini Burke
Support inclusion of the Green Line Extension, Phases I & II, in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP.

Benefits raised by commenters include fostering mixed-use development, reducing VMT and GHG emissions, contributing to economic development, and reaching populations underserved by public transit.
Green Line Extension
(Phase I)
Support Organizations: Sierra Club, Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership, Mystic Valley Task Force, Tufts University, GLX Design Working and Construction Group, Friends of the Community Path
Somerville residents: Andrew Wiley, Julia Petipas, Alan Moore, Greg Brodsky, Karen Molloy, Chris Gunadi, Patrick Smith
Boston resident: David Van Stone
Medford residents: Elisabeth Bayle, Kevin Cuddeback, Ken Krause, Debra Agliano, Lisa Hodsdon, Peter Micheli, Dina Jacobs, Patrick Bibbins, John Roland Elliott, Diane Andronica
Belmont resident: William Messenger
Newton resident: Jeremy Freudberg
Cambridge residents: John MacDougall, Mark Jaquith
Arlington resident: Lenny Goldstein
Flagstaff, AZ resident: Joanne Auskern
West Hartford, CT resident: Fran Altvater
Others: Kevin Donovan, Linda Lintz, Michelle Moon, Jonah Petri, Ellin Reisner, Matthew Danish, Richard A. Andre, M.A. Jensen, Maura McEnaney
Support inclusion of the Green Line Extension, Phase I, in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State that the project will provide thousands of residents with better access to work, education, and health care, and social activities, in addition to improving air quality.
Green Line Extension
(Phase II)
Support Cambridge residents: Rob Chapman, Joshua Goldman, Reetika Joshi, Tami Kaplan, Kevin Buckley, Daniel Cooney, Tony Yang, John MacDougall, Mark Jaquith
Arlington residents: Lisa McCarty, Hank VanZile, Jessica Rosehill, Pete Gast, Amy Swift, Rachel Hamilton, Lenny Goldstein
Brookline residents: Jose Roman, Adam Shipley
Woburn resident: Heidi Carrell
Newton residents: Anne Michelle Lowe, Jeremy Freudberg
Quincy residents: Deborah M. Cooper, Chadderton Odwazny
Boston residents: Andrew MacKay, Adam Nichols, Chris Schwartz, Rachel Bennett, David Van Stone
Revere resident: August P. Blake
Chelsea resident: Socheath Toda
Stoneham resident: Brian S. Arsenault
Malden resident: Sean Conrad
Everett resident: Miles Blackwood Robinson
Lynn resident: Donald Jaynes
Belmont resident: William Messenger
Support inclusion of the Green Line Extension, Phase II, in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State that the Route 16 station will provide thousands of residents with better access to work, education, and health care, and social activities, in addition to improving air quality.
Green Line Extension
(Phase II)
Support Medford residents: Michael Bernstein, Roberta Cameron, Doug Carr, Joanna Chipman, Erin Dalbec, Marietta DeFini, James DeFini, Anna Ferrentino, Douglas Grey, Elliot Jokelson, Merri Jones, Theresa Kelliher, Mike Korcynski, Bruce Kulik, Sara Landry, Elizabeth Langosy, Miriam Leigh, Matthew Mahowald, Hank Peirce, Katrin Peterson, Elijah Plymesser, Stephanie Rossi, Laurel Siegel, Michael Silvia, Amy Haas, Karl Haas, Ashlee Haslett, Gracelaw Simmons, Gauri Bhide, Jason Cluggish, Patricia Michelle Holcomb, Laurel Ruma, Elizabeth Bolton, Ikuko Otsuka, Noah Williams, Matthew Alford, Kristopher Hahn, Ben Refah, Jeff Kaufman, Thomas W. Lincoln, William Cunningham, Maria Daniels, Galya Traub, Robert Breznak, Bruce Pennypacker, Amy Castonguay, Evan Sullivan, Lijian Zhou, Jinesh Bhed, Elisabeth Bayle, Kevin Cuddeback, Ken Krause, Debra Agliano, Lisa Hodsdon, Peter Micheli, Dina Jacobs, Patrick Bibbins, John Roland Elliott, Neil Silverman, Diane Andronica Support inclusion of the Green Line Extension, Phase II, in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State that the Route 16 station will provide thousands of residents with better access to work, education, and health care, and social activities, in addition to improving air quality.
Green Line Extension
(Phase II)
Support Somerville residents: Kaitlynn Anderson, Elliot Borenstein, Leah Bloom, Kassidy Helfant, Colin Roald, Ry Strohm-Herman, John Teixeira, John Kraemer, David Churella, Antoine Vo, Chris McCarthy, John Wiesemann, Andrew Kiritsy, Tori Cook, Jared Razzano, Brandon Hanks, Benjamin Tucker, Andrew Wiley, Julia Petipas, Pratham Joshi, Alan Moore, Greg Brodsky, Karen Molloy, Chris Gunadi
Support inclusion of the Green Line Extension, Phase II, in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State that the Route 16 station will provide thousands of residents with better access to work, education, and health care, and social activities, in addition to improving air quality.
Green Line Extension
(Phase II)
Support Flagstaff, AZ resident: Joanne Auskern
West Hartford, CT resident: Fran Alvater
Swarthmore, PA resident: Jim Moskowitz
Others:
James Scheffler, Alexander Cox, Patrick Knight, Edward Pyne, John Pellegrino, Sean Kerins, Alex Measures, Andrew Hannon, Kevin Donovan, Linda Lintz, Michelle Moon, Jonah Petri, Ellin Reisner, Matthew Danish, Richard A. Andre, M.A. Jensen, Maura McEnaney
Support inclusion of the Green Line Extension, Phase II, in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State that the Route 16 station will provide thousands of residents with better access to work, education, and health care, and social activities, in addition to improving air quality.
Green Line Extension
(Phase II)
Support Organizations: Sierra Club, Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership, Mystic Valley Task Force, Tufts University, GLX Design Working and Construction Group, Friends of the Community Path Support inclusion of the Green Line Extension, Phase II, in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State that the Route 16 station will provide thousands of residents with better access to work, education, and health care, and social activities, in addition to improving air quality
GreenDOT Policy Goals Support Medford resident: Lois Grossman Supports the GreenDOT policy goals to reduce GHG emissions, promote the healthy transportation modes of walking, bicycling, and taking public transit, and support smart-growth development in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Methodology Request Sudbury resident: Pat Brown Requests that the methodology for estimating the CO2 impact of projects be included in the TIP, including data, assumptions, and supporting measures. States that the CO2 impacts do not distinguish between transportation and recreation usage, which makes it difficult to know if the project is removing traffic from the roadways. 
Intersection Improvements at Derby Street, Whiting Street, and Gardner Street (Hingham)   Legislative: State Representative Garrett J. Bradley Supports inclusion of Intersection Improvements at Derby Street, Whiting Street, and Gardner Street in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. States improved signalization will allow for emergency vehicle pre-emption and improved safety measures for vehicles and pedestrians. Notes that 34 accidents occurred at the intersection between 2007-2009, and a pedestrian phase traffic signal is not present despite the presence of sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, and crosswalks. Adds that Hingham officials consider the intersection to be the most dangerous within town limits.
Intersection Improvements at Middle Street, Libbey Industrial Parkway, and Tara Drive (Weymouth) Support Organization: Foxrock Properties Support inclusion of Intersection Improvements at Middle Street, Libbey Industrial Parkway, and Tara Drive in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State that Libbey Industrial Park has medical and office uses, and the intersection of Libbey Industrial Parkway and Middle Street is difficult to navigate for both patients and workers. State this is a critical project for Weymouth which will help spur development in the area.
Intersection Improvements at Route 111 and Route 27/ Kelly's Corner (Acton) Request CrossTown Connect TMA Support future TIP funding for Intersection Improvements at Route 111 and Route 27/ Kelly's Corner in Acton.
Intersection Improvements at Route 20 and Landham Road (Sudbury) Request CrossTown Connect TMA Support future TIP funding for Intersection Improvements at Route 20 & Landham Road in Sudbury.
MBTA Infrastructure Support Medford resident: Ken Krause
Other: Matthew Danish
Support funding MBTA systems upgrades, bridge and tunnel upgrades, and preventive maintenance, accessibility improvements, and state-of-good repair.
Medford Clippership Linear Park and Bikeway Support Medford resident: Kevin Cuddeback Supports inclusion of the Medford Clippership Linear Park and Bikeway in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP.
MetroWest area priority projects  Support/
Request
Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership Express ongoing support for MetroWest projects programmed in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. Reiterate support for approximately 35 MetroWest projects that are listed in the MPO's Universe of Projects due to limited transportation funding. Note that four of those projects in the MPO's Universe of Projects are also identified in the 495/MetroWest Region's 2014 Top Ten Transportation Nightmares.

Commend the MPO for providing a reliable funding stream to the MetroWest RTA and support the capital projects included in the TIP for the MWRTA to continue and expand their service.
Multi-use Path Construction on New Fenway (Boston) Support Matthew Danish Supports inclusion of Multi-use Path Construction on New Fenway in Boston in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. 
Performance-based Planning Request Susan Ringler, Matthew Danish Request that the MPO use performance metrics that are based around the experience of people more so than machines. Recommend using "people-hours" rather than "vehicle-hours" as an example.  
Project Prioritization - Economic Benefit Request Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership Encourage the MPO to consider the economic benefit of projects and recommend that the scoring system be based on a percentage of possible points. State that this may allow for communities without existing transit infrastructure to compare fairly with urban communities.

Project Prioritization - New Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Request Sudbury resident: Pat Brown Expresses concern with the TIP project evaluation criteria for new bicycle and pedestrian projects. States that new multi-use paths should not be eligible for points under the Maintenance, Modernization, and Efficiency category given that they are new construction.
Project Prioritization - Regional Equity Request Organization: 495/MetroWest Partnership Express concern that the project scoring system favors dense urban communities and urge the MPO to consider regional equity when scoring projects.
Project Prioritization Support / Request Regional Transportation Advisory Council Support the MPO's project selection process, and finds the recommended set of projects reasonable.

State that the number of deserving projects far outweighs the available funding. Suggest that the MPO undertake a sensitivity analysis of its criteria rating point systems to see how changes in the weighting and scoring system change the outcome of project selection.

Suggest that the MPO continue to improve its data and analytical methods to assign ratings based on quantitative measures of impact and benefit as much as possible.
Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby Street (Hingham) Support Legislative: State Representative Garrett J. Bradley Supports inclusion of the Reconstruction of Derby Street in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. States that Derby Street is heavily travelled, congested, and in critical need of repair. Adds that the installation of new traffic signals, increasing the roadway width, and adding a contiguous sidewalk will increase bicycle and pedestrian access in the area. New traffic signals will also allow for emergency vehicle pre-emption, and queue detectors will be installed at the Route 3 off-ramps to assist with traffic flow.
Reconstruction and Related Work on Derby Street (Hingham) Oppose Hingham residents: T.J. Jennings, Paul Burke
Weymouth resident: Francis D. Simmons
Others:
Susan Camenker, David DeGiorgi, Eric Dresser, Jeanne Duffy, Hugh Duffy, Jon Whiting, Sandi Gilardi, Ruth Nace, Marlaena Auriemma, Louise Birtwell, Ambrose Birtwell, Kevin Bliss, Deborah Caplice, Lisa Haapaoja, D. O'Donnell, Jean Zaleski, Barbara Levy, Edward Walter, Jane Tondorf, Sharon Wreston, Daniel Barbuto, Patrick Green, Meredith Holbrook, Susan McCarthy, Janet Stone, Delia Strohm, Faith Ramstroom, Ashley Robinson, Edmund D. Henley, Christinie Jordan, Gail Otis, Unidentified (2)
Oppose inclusion of the Reconstruction of Derby Street in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State that Derby Street has been under some form of construction for several years, causing disruption to residents. Add that the current capacity of the roadway is underutilized, and further reconstruction would continue to disrupt residents of Hingham and surrounding neighborhoods while not guaranteeing any significant improvements. Other issues raised include safety concerns, over-signalization, and frequent congestion.
Reconstruction of Boylston Street (Boston) Support Matthew Danish Supports inclusion of Reconstruction of Boylston Street in Boston in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. 
Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) Support Legislative: State Senators Michael F. Rush and Richard J. Ross; State Representative Denise C. Garlick
Needham residents: Ruth M. Aaron, Yana Brodskiy, David Kaplan
Wellesley resident: Mark Fraga
Others:
Ethel Sinofksy, Claudia Eden, Ed Gardner, Catharine Kelley, Martin Waters, Mitch Coddington, Michele W. Blair, David Buck, Deb Jacob, Roy Barr, Susana Brown, Seymour Salett, John Patrick Foley, Peter Yaffe, Peter H. Smith, James Curtin, Paul Glynn, Michael Baker, Mary R. Baker, Jared Becker, Jim Costa, Chris Cwynar, Jeremy Freid, David A. Gillies, Carol Hughes, Phyllis Kaplowitz, Stanley K. Rogalinski, Carol Russo, Davood Shahin, Donna Stein, Michael Cope, Dave Lawson, Warren Brown, Arnold Zaff, Dale Zaff
Support inclusion of the Highland Avenue/Needham Street Corridor Project in FFY 2018 of the TIP. State that Needham and Newton have been hampered by inadequate infrastructure. The project will benefit economic development in the region, including the N2 Innovation Corridor.

Benefits raised by commenters include safety improvements and congestion relief.
Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) Support Newton residents: Matt Yospin, Jack Hulburd, Ed Hauben, Candy Gold, Cheryl O'Neil, Frances Godine, Evan Ross, David A. Bunis, Bunny M. Aronson, Carol Schauer, Amy Tierce, Howard Sholkin, David Goodtree, Doug Borg, David G. O'Neil, Lynne D. Sweet, Steffi Aronson Karp, Vanik Petrossian, Sona Petrossian, Stephen Clairmont, Bruce Rogovin, Mark Shuster, Irena Panduku, Dhimitraq Panduku, Sallee Lipshutz, Anne C.S. Kalis, David Kalis, Julia Jenkins, Jennifer Bornstein, Ross G. Hoviig, Esra Akbulut, Bette Gosule, B. David Stollar, Faye Vitale, Mary-Caryl Ferdenzi, Katelyn Lansing, Shatara Mooltrey, Timothy Murphy, Sang Le, David Sonner, Judith Sonner
Support inclusion of the Highland Avenue/Needham Street Corridor Project in FFY 2018 of the TIP. State that Needham and Newton have been hampered by inadequate infrastructure. The project will benefit economic development in the region, including the N2 Innovation Corridor.

Benefits raised by commenters include safety improvements and congestion relief.
Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham) Support Municipal: Newton Economic Development Commission
Organizations:
Arthritis Founation, Blue Ribbon Barbecue, Boston College, Braver Wealth Management, William James College, The Bulfinch Group, The Bulfinch Companies, SocialMadeSimple, Needham Housing Authority, Normandy Real Estate Partners, Pinnacle HR Solutions, Realty Consultants, National Lumber, Brier & Ganz LLP, BizTech Coaching, Building 36 Technologies, Needham Children's Center, Wingate Companies, Penzo Consulting, Construction Coordinators, Fresh City/Souper Salad, Law Firm of Schlossberg, Architectural Electronics, Inc. Audio Video Design & Security Design Consultants, Golden Law Center, TripAdvisor, Trefler's, The CCS Companies, FASTSIGNS, Hoye Dentistry, Mentell Retirement Consulting, Needham Business Associates, Newton Upper Falls Area Council, Lizzy's Ice Cream, Bakers' Best Catering, Intrum Corp., Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce, The Village Bank, Tyrogenex, Chapman Construction/Design, Karyopharm, Paragon Group, Crosspoint Associates
Support inclusion of the Highland Avenue/Needham Street Corridor Project in FFY 2018 of the TIP. State that Needham and Newton have been hampered by inadequate infrastructure. Many commenters state they avoid the area during peak hours due to congestion, and that congestion causes harm to business that rely on the corridor. The project will benefit economic development in the region, including the N2 Innovation Corridor.
Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, Needham Street and the Charles River Bridge (Newton and Needham)
Request Newton resident: Steffi Aronson Karp Requests that overhead pedestrian crossing ramps be constructed, asking for a minimum of two ramps between Book Fair and TJ Maxx. States that individuals could be hurt attempting to cross Needham Street, and overhead pedestrian crossing ramps would increase safety. Requests that the ramps be aesthetically pleasing.
Reconstruction of Massachusetts Avenue (Lexington) Support Town of Lexington: Carl F. Valente, Town Manager; John A. Wilson, Chief of the Lexington Fire Department; Lexington Planning Board, Mark J. Corr, Chief of the Lexington Police Department Support inclusion of the Reconstruction of Massachusetts Avenue in the FFYs 2016-2020 TIP.

Benefits of the project raised by commenters include better accommodation of traffic flow, improved safety for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, and signalization allowing for improved emergency response.
Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard (Boston) Support Matthew Danish Supports inclusion of Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard in Boston in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. 
Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard (Boston) Request Friends of Melnea Cass Boulevard Request an update to the project description for Reconstruction of Melnea Cass Boulevard in Boston in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP to eliminate reference to a bus rapid transit (BRT) system within existing right-of-way. State that BRT lanes have been eliminated from the design.
Reconstruction of Montvale Avenue (Woburn) Support Medford resident: Ken Krause Supports funding to reconstruct and widen Montvale Avenue in Woburn from the I-93 interchange to Central Street, including new sidewalks and wheelchair ramps.
Reconstruction of Route 27/North Main Street (Natick) Support Town of Natick: Board of Selectmen Support inclusion of the Reconstruction of Route 27 in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State the project will support economic development and quality of life initiatives, and the ability to safely move people through Natick is essential to the Town and Region's continued success. Add that the project will benefit both Natick residents and those who visit the region.
Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue (Boston) Support Organizations: Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership (STEP) and Mystic Valley Task Force (MVTF) Support inclusion of the Reconstruction of Rutherford Avenue in Boston in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP.
Reconstruction of the I-95/I-93 Interchange (Canton)  Request Three Rivers Interlocal Council (TRIC) Request inclusion of Reconstruction of the I-95/I-93 Interchange in Canton in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State that if the interchange does not provide an acceptable level of service to businesses, they will move to another location. State that the interchange project has been repeatedly promised over the years by senior public officials acting for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. State that nullifying these commitments without complete explanation or compelling reasons jeopardizes good faith efforts between communities and private developers. 
Reconstruction on Route 1A/Main Street (Walpole) Support Organization: TRIC
Town of Walpole:
James A. Johnson, Town Administrator
Support inclusion of the Reconstruction of Route 1A in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP.

Benefits addressed include congestion relief, safety improvements for vehicles and pedestrians, and the support of planned development activities.
Red Line-Blue Line Connector Design Support Matthew Danish Supports inclusion of design for the Red Line-Blue Line Connector in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. 
Rehabilitation of the North Washington Street Bridge (Boston)
Support Matthew Danish Supports inclusion of Rehabilitation of the North Washington Street Bridge in Boston in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. 
Resurfacing and Intersection Improvements on Route 16 (Milford)
Support SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee (SWAP) Support inclusion of Resurfacing and Intersection Improvements on Route 16 in Milford in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. 
Route 1 Improvement Project (Malden, Saugus and Revere) Request Legislative: State Representative RoseLee Vincent
Municipal:
City of Malden (Mayor Christenson), City of Revere (Mayor Rizzo), and Town of Saugus (Scott Crabtree, Town Manager)
Request that the Commonwealth address the dangerously outmoded and inadequate section of Route 1 from Copeland Circle to Route 99. State virtually all of the northeast section of the state remains in a chokehold with the constriction on this section of Route 1 on a twice daily basis. The communities from the Boston city line to the New Hampshire border are impacted by long commute times and wasted economic opportunity. 

Propose a three-phase plan to be implemented in sub-steps over a multi-year period: Segment A - Copeland Circle/Route 60 Interchange; Segment B - Lynn Street/Overlook Ridge Boulevard Interchange; Segment C - Route 1/Route 99 Interchange.

Request that CTPS and the MPO make this a priority in the TIP and ask that MassDOT Project Selection Advisory Committee meet with chief executives of the three communities and with other key stakeholders to discuss a resolution to this transportation problem, and that their respective legislative delegations be part of this process. Ask that this take place before the next STIP is adopted. Attached previous correspondence to the MPO from the Cities of Malden and Revere and the Town of Saugus detailing the longstanding issues and concerns along the Route 1 corridor.
Route 1 Improvement Project (Malden, Saugus and Revere) Request North Shore Alliance for Economic Development (Cities of Salem, Revere, Gloucester, Beverly, Newburyport, Peabody, and Lynn; Towns of Danvers, Essex, Georgetown, Hamilton, Ipswich, Lynnfield, Middleton, Newbury, Salisbury, Saugus, Swampscott, Wenham, Winthop, Rockport, Marblehead, Manchester and Nahant) Request that MassDOT and MPO reevaluate the Route 1 Improvement project to identify "specific phases" of the project that will address some of the immediate traffic, safety, and environmental concerns that affect communities along the Route 1 corridor and secure funding for the appropriate phase in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. State that the dangerously outmoded and inadequate section of Route 1 from Copeland Circle to Route 99 causes unbearable traffic back-ups in both directions during rush hour commutes. The communities from the Boston city line to the New Hampshire border are impacted by traffic impacts, and its negative effects on economic opportunities.  
Route 85/ Route 62 Rotary Improvements (Hudson) Request CrossTown Connect TMA Support future TIP funding for Route 85/ Route 62 Rotary Improvements in Hudson.
Safe Routes to School Support Medford resident: Ken Krause Supports funding for Safe Routes to School programs in Bedford, Everett, Saugus, Watertown and Weymouth. States that the program helps children safely walk to and from school, improving their health and readiness to learn, and reversing trends in childhood inactivity and obesity.
Signal and Intersection Improvements on Route 135 (Hopkinton)
Support SWAP Support inclusion of Signal and Intersection Improvements on Route 135 in Hopkinton in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. 
Traffic Signal Improvements at 10 Locations (Boston) Support Boston residents: Jim Brennan, Chris Lengard, Don Vechione
Others: Sara LeBlanc, Jared Sulcliff
Support inclusion of the Signal Improvements at 10 Locations in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. Specific locations supported include Dudley Street at Shirley Street, intersections along Cummins Highway, and Bennington Street intersections.
Traffic Signal Improvements on Blue Hill Avenue (Boston) Support Matthew Danish Supports inclusion of Traffic Signal Improvements on Blue Hill Avenue in Boston in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP. 
Transportation Equity Request Organizations: STEP and MVTF Suggest using the disaggregated TAZ level data to investigate the disparities in transportation neighborhood facilities and in transportation exposures.
Water Taxi Feasibility Study Support City of Medford: Michael McGlynn, Mayor Supports inclusion of the Water Taxi Feasibility Study in Medford in the FFYs 2016-20 TIP to encourage alternative modes of transportation in the City.