Home About APT Meetings Move Mass. meetings Policy Papers Car-Free in Boston Links

Move Massachusetts

Membership Meeting
4 June 2004

Meeting Notes and Comment
by Barry M. Steinberg
Association for Public Transportation

The Romney Administration’s Proposed Criteria for Evaluating Transportation Projects

Astrid Glynn, Deputy Secretary for Planning, Executive Office of Transportation and Construction

Reference: Letter from Secretary of transportation with link to draft evaluation criteria

One of the things the Administration has been trying to do over the past 1½ years is to put a little bit of sunshine into our thought process. They are to a degree objective, but it is not and will not be that neat. It still is a process involved in discussion. This harks back to the Federal 3-C Transportation Planning Process.   [To quote from the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Regional Transportation Plan, "Federal law establishes requirements and guidelines for transportation planning in urbanized areas. In order to be eligible for federal transportation funding, an area must maintain a continuing, coöperative and comprehensive (3C) transportation planning process. Section 134 of the Federal Aid Highway Act and Section 5303 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended, establish these planning requirements. The Boston Region MPO is responsible for carrying out the 3C process in its area."--BMS]

The meeting began with an illustrated lecture. Text in italics is quoted from the visual presentation.

Why Are We Proposing This Now?

We cannot afford to pursue dumb projects.

Think of this as what we do with our house: We pay attention to what we have.

Make highway and transit projects sensitive to their communities. Do they benefit their community? Does the community welcome the project?

which means "smart growth". It is obvious but important: Distribute the resources as well as the burdens. We have spent a lot of money on one very important project and on many transit projects.

A lot of work is based on what the Boston MPO has done. Also, on a thoughtful study by the Boston Foundation. And a study by Cambridge Systematics. To a process that is a little more systematic. These have resulted in very, very thoughtful recommendations.

How Can We Improve Decision-making?

Transportation Evaluation Criteria Defined

Performance-based and policy-driven information to evaluate transportation projects applied in an objective, systematic, and transparent process. This informs decisions, but does not substitute for decisions.

Policy Driven Decisions

Policies: Fix it First, Communities First, Sustainable Development

ò

Transportation Evaluation Criteria

ò

Decision

How Will the Criteria Be Used?

Near-Term Steps

The next step is to apply them

Additional Steps

USAGE: But even here, closing the street in front of your house, as opposed to closing Route 93.

Two Criteria Types
  1. Transportation Criteria
    • Condition
    • Mobility/Usage
    • Safety
    • Cost-effectiveness

    Cost-effectiveness is probably the most difficult item. Between rural and urban locations. We look to cost-effectiveness compared to other factors. So a bridge in Boston does not automatically become more important than a bridge in Chelmsford simply on the basis of extent of use. We should tear up a bridge that is in need using other criteria as well.

  2. Other Effects Criteria
    3.

Air and water quality effects. We should be aware of this, and not sweep it aside.

Project Types

1. Preservation: Projects that maintain and preserve existing infrastructure.

2. Improvement: Projects that optimize and improve the quality of the current transportation system.

3. Expansion: Projects that extend or add significant new capacity to the transportation system.

Criteria Tables

  1. Preservation—Highway Program
  2. Preservation—Transit
  3. Improvement—Highway Program
  4. Improvement—Transit
  5. Expansion—Highway Program
  6. Expansion—Transit

1. Highway Preservation

2. Transit Preservation

3. Highway Improvements

4. Transit Improvements

5. Highway Expansion

6. Transit Expansion

Highway Improvement Projects

ROADWAYS

CONDITION

MOBILITY

SAFETY

COST EFFECTIVENESS

Pavement Condition

Duration and Magnitude

Crash Rate

Cost/Unit Change in

Improvement

of Congestion

Condition

Improvement of

Travel Times and

Bike/Pedestrian

Cost/Linear Mile

Other Infrastructure

Connectivity

Effect on Other Modes

Cost/AADT

Regional and Local Traffic


Other Effects Criteria for Highway Improvement Projects

COMMUNITY EFFECTS

LAND-USE AND

ENVIRONMENTAL

AND SUPPORT

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

EFFECTS

Residential Effects (Noise,

Business Effects (ROW,

Air Quality/Climate Effects

ROW, aesthetics, etc.)

parking, freight, etc.)

Environmental Justice

Sustainable Development

Water Quality/Wetlands

Public, Local Government,

Consistent with Land Use and

Historical/Cultural Resources

Legislative, and Regional

Economic Development Plans

Support

Effect on Housing

Job Creation

Criteria Matrices

1. Highway

2. Transit

3. Highway

4. Transit

5. Highway

6. Transit

Can we fill in all boxes in the form? Absolutely NOT, but we have to know what information is necessary. Would this project make transportation more convenient for bicycles or would it become more difficult? What would be the effect on housing location? Would there be an effect on climate change?

Summary

This is an iterative process, not a ‘black box’.

* * * * * *

Curtis Davis, Moderator:

Q. How has this question evolved on the basis of what others have done?

A. The answer is difficult at every MPO. Some are generic across the board, others are specific. Actually, there is not as much variation from MPO to MPO as we though there would be. On the other hand, the comparison from mode to mode is more a subject of discussion.

A. These are a work in progress. Cross-modal was a huge issue.

Q. 1. Pedestrian and bicycle mobility. How will they be judged?

2. Transit, especially MBTA: They care for you when they are on their facilities, but once you get on the sidewalk, they ignore you.

A. This is becoming a factor. A highway project was evaluated on the basis of effect on accessibility to the T station.

Q. But it has to be automatically considered, not just a matter of someone thinking of us.

A. Bus this has to become part of the culture. More detail or less detail? This has become an issue. Some MPOs consider this more important, other less.

Shame on anyone at 10 Park Plaza who does not consider interconnectivity among modes.

Q. (Carol Blair, Onward Via): Moving between modes is important. There is a bias towards mobility in terms of vehicles. Can we more explicitly consider intermodal questions? Consider ‘impediments to travel’ rather than impediments to vehicles.

A. For example, the T has been termed excellent in moving vehicles, but less efficient in moving customers.

Q. Time and trends: What rôle will where we live play in thirty years? How do we factor this in?

A. The policies should reflect where we want to be thirty years from now. This cannot be a fantasy document. If the project is not in the plan, it cannot get funded federally.

Q. These are not ‘objective’ criteria.

A. I agree.

Q, A. On the transit side, we do a better study of the transit experience than we do in other study areas.

Q. (Barry Steinberg, Association for Public Transportation): We have processes that are in the pipeline; suddenly a new project comes in from nowhere and has ‘legs’.

A. If a project has ‘legs’, this process will tell if it has 1, 2, 3 or 4. On the downside, it evaluates projects proposed as opposed to problems. These are based on someone’s perception of their solution to a problem.

Someone has to propose a project. If an agency only is proposing it, this is not a MEPA process. I would not rely on this, because inevitably there are going to be more data for some projects than others. It is a constant balancing act. It should work together with the MEPA process.

A. Sometimes these projects come from planning studies.

Q. Do we have truck data?

A. We do make studies of truck volumes at specific places as needed.

Q. One of the slides focused on project initiation. If you want to reduce vehicular traffic by 20%, what process is involved?

A. All of the above. They establish a vision for the region. The other thing to remember is that this is based on what people want. The MetroFutures study program [See the notes of the May Move Mass. meeting—ed.]. If everyone says we want a universe with fewer cars, then the transportation plan would look at how to do that.

Q. Have you tested this model on recent existing transportation decisions? To evaluate the system.

A. The Boston MPO has recently taken the first shot at such an evaluation. There were some surprises.

A. (Barbara, EOTC): The TIP [Transportation Improvement Program] criteria studied 15 years of projects, if we froze all proposals. Re the long-range transportation plan. When we last took the plan and looked at it was the 2000 year plan. It is indeed true that we will be able to look at visions for the future. The next milestone is 2006.

Q. Could we indeed evaluate the existing projects using these processes?

A. This is a low-risk analysis. But now people will be able to know how the decisions are made.

Q. (John Businger): There is concern these are going to validate decisions made for other reasons. But a lot of these things cost money. But we are talking about cutting taxes.

There is a lack of intercity rail in these studies. Ditto with RTAC [Regional Transportation Advisory Council].

A. We have NOT forgotten intercity rail. But we have to start with something and evaluate it.

Q. What about freight rail—As opposed to trucks?

A. Fantastic.

Q. This criterion is targeted to federal funds. Freight rail is not funded by the feds. Fortunately, this IS in the State budget. The Legislature has authorized $50 million for freight rail. In Deerfield, I think, there is the problem of access to an industrial park. We made rail more convenient at the expense of truck access. We hope to acquire more lines as they become available.

Q. (Franklyn Salimbene, Washington St. Corridor Coalition): This is about ‘transparency’. Sometimes the intent to make the process more transparent becomes more complex by the number of meetings.

A. Unfortunately, not only is this complex, but it is dull. We are trying to assemble a citizens’ guide. But the whole thing involves a lot of time, acronyms as well as an arcane process.

The processes for each agency are different. A question is whether the whole structure has to be so complex.

Q. How much road and bridge money would be saved if rail was improved? Any thought to charging tolls on roads to cause people to move closer in, minimizing travel distances?

A. As we look at both mobility and cost-effectiveness, there is still the question whether there is another way of doing this. We are the most truck-dependent state in the country.

The answer will be across many modes. The notion there is a lot of land use work. You cannot induce land use changes simply by tolls.


Notes on Move Massachusetts meetings are provided as a public service and do not represent an official statement of Move Massachusetts.  The Association for Public Transportation is a member of Move Massachusetts.