For each project type, a measure of crash severity and a measure of crash rate is calculated and a score is assigned based on the point scales detailed below.
Crash severity is measured using the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index. The crash rate is calculated based on the total number of crashes and the level of traffic. This measure is calculated differently for corridor (Complete Streets) versus intersection projects with a measure of million annual vehicle miles traveled used for corridor projects and a measure of million annual entering vehicles used for intersection projects. Points are assigned based on a comparison with the state’s average crash rates.
If there is a corridor project that addresses intersection safety issues, the project is only assigned points under the corridor project scoring system. If there is an intersection project that addresses safety at more than one intersection, only the main intersection addressed by the proposed improvements is assigned points under the intersection project scoring system.
+5 EPDO value of 300 or more
+4 EPDO value between 200-299
+3 EPDO value between 100-199
+2 EPDO value between 50-99
+1 EPDO value less than 50
+0 No EPDO value
EPDO is a weighted index that captures the severity of crashes by assigning a value to each crash based on whether the accident resulted in a fatality, injuries, or property damage. The number of crashes in the dataset is a total for the three-year period of the data.
A crash involving a fatality receives the most points (10), followed by a crash involving injuries (5), then a crash involving only property damage (1). Higher values indicate greater crash severity.
The methodology is as follows:
Example Calculations:
Crash data can be viewed in MassDOT’s Crash Data Portal: https://services.massdot.state.ma.us/crashportal.
Table 1
Roadway Segment
Crash Rates (per Million Vehicle-Miles Traveled)
Evaluation Score |
Interstate and Principal Arterial—Other Freeways and Expressways |
Principal Arterial—Other, Minor Arterial and Major-Minor Collector |
0 |
0–0.40 |
0–2.05 |
1 |
0.40–0.59 |
2.05–3.15 |
2 |
0.59–1.00 |
3.15–4.25 |
3 |
1.00–1.40 |
4.25–5.35 |
4 |
1.40–1.81 |
5.35–6.45 |
5 |
> 1.81 |
> 6.45 |
Table 2
Signalized and Unsignalized
Intersection Crash Rate (per Million Entering Vehicles)
Evaluation Score |
Signalized |
Unsignalized |
0 |
0–0.36 |
0–0.21 |
1 |
0.36–0.55 |
0.21–0.37 |
2 |
0.55–0.93 |
0.37–0.70 |
3 |
0.93–1.31 |
0.70–1.03 |
4 |
1.31–1.69 |
1.03–1.36 |
5 |
> 1.69 |
> 1.36 |
A crash rate analysis is performed to compare the crash experience of similar locations in the jurisdiction, region, and state. This method compares intersections or roadway segments within a jurisdiction by developing an average crash rate. The baseline average is developed by calculating crash rates at a number of locations (intersections and roadway segments) in the region. MassDOT provides crash rate averages both statewide and by MassDOT district.
MassDOT’s average crash rates for both intersections and roadway segments are used as a starting point to create crash rate evaluation scales. The scales address the roadway intersection/segment inequities by creating separate scoring criteria for each. The evaluation scales range from 0 to 5, providing a normalized score for intersections and roadway segments.
Average crash rates for intersections in the Boston region are based on the crash experience in approximately 200 intersections in the region and the type of traffic control (signalized/unsignalized) present. Average roadway segment crash rates are developed according to urban federal functional classification, the first group consisting of interstates, freeways and expressways, and the second consisting of principal arterials other than expressways, minor arterials, and major and minor collectors.
Same as EPDO index scoring
+3 High total effectiveness of truck safety countermeasures
+2 Medium total effectiveness of truck safety countermeasures
+1 Low total effectiveness of truck safety countermeasures
+0 Does not implement truck safety countermeasures
If project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points below:
+2 Improves truck safety at HSIP cluster
This criterion examines the existing truck safety issues in the project area and assigns points based on whether truck safety countermeasures are included as part of the proposed project and, if so, how effective they are at addressing truck safety issues. Additional points are added if the project is located in an HSIP cluster.
The basic truck safety countermeasure is the reconstruction of a roadway to current design standards. The effectiveness of a modern reconstruction in improving safety is directly related to the deficiencies of the system being rebuilt. If the existing conditions are very deficient with respect to safety, the safety benefit can be high. If the existing conditions are not particularly unsafe, the safety benefit will be lower.
The overall benefit, in turn, depends on the quantity of trucks benefiting from the improved road. The determination of a high, medium, or low level of benefit is based upon comparing the significance of the safety improvement realized through reconstruction with the volumes of trucks expected to travel through the project area.
The key to assigning a meaningful score is a thorough understanding of the proposed improvements. The functional design report describes the proposed improvements at an approximately 25 percent level of design. When reviewing these reports, however, it is important to be cognizant of any significant project features that might only be under consideration as options.
By reviewing the information in a project’s functional design report and specialized data developed by MPO staff, it is possible to estimate the effectiveness of truck safety measures.
High effectiveness:
Medium effectiveness:
Low effectiveness:
Projects that provide negligible safety improvements or serve an inconsequential number of trucks may be given no points at all.
HSIP clusters are identified independently of the TIP process, and the extra two points are applied automatically.
Functional design reports
Land use patterns from town records or Google Earth
+3 High total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures
+2 Medium total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures
+1 Low total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures
+0 Does not implement bicycle safety countermeasures
If a project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points below:
+2 Improves bicycle safety at HSIP bicycle cluster
+1 Improves bicycle safety at HSIP cluster
This criterion examines the existing bicycle safety issues in the project area and assigns points based on whether bicycle safety countermeasures are included as part of the proposed project and, if so, how effective they are. Additional points are added if the project is located in either a bicycle HSIP cluster or a vehicle HSIP cluster.
Determining this score is dependent on an understanding of the following:
An overall score of the effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures is based on professional judgement considering the existing facilities, safety issues, current use, desired/anticipated future use, and the proposed bicycle safety countermeasures planned to be implemented as part of the project. The following factors are considered when determining the effectiveness of countermeasures:
High total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures:
Medium total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures:
Low total effectiveness of bicycle safety countermeasures:
Functional design reports
MassDOT Registry of Motor Vehicles crash data
+3 High total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures
+2 Medium total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures
+1 Low total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures
+0 Does not implement pedestrian safety countermeasures
If project scores points above, then it is eligible for additional points:
+2 Improves pedestrian safety at HSIP pedestrian cluster
+1 Improves pedestrian safety at HSIP cluster
This criterion examines the existing pedestrian safety issues in the project area and assigns points based on whether pedestrian safety countermeasures are included as part of the proposed project and, if so, how effective they are. Additional points are added if the project is located in either a pedestrian HSIP cluster or a vehicle HSIP cluster.
Determining this score is dependent on an understanding of the following:
An overall score of the effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures is based on professional judgement considering the existing facilities, safety issues, current use, and desired/anticipated use compared to the proposed pedestrian safety countermeasures planned to be implemented as part of the project. Points are assigned in the following way:
High total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures:
Medium total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures:
Low total effectiveness of pedestrian safety countermeasures:
+5 Removes an at-grade railroad crossing
+3 Significantly improves safety at an at-grade railroad crossing
+1 Improves safety at an at-grade railroad crossing
+0 Does not include a railroad crossing
This criterion assigns points to projects that address safety at at-grade railroad crossings. Railroad grade crossings are some of the most dangerous elements of the surface transportation system. If a proposed project completely removes a grade crossing, it receives the maximum score for this criterion (5 points). If there is no grade crossing in the project area, no points are assigned. Between these extreme cases, safety improvement scores of 1 or 3 points can be granted.
The key to assigning a meaningful score is a thorough understanding of the proposed improvements. The functional design report describes the proposed improvements at an approximately 25 percent level of design. When reviewing these reports, it is important to be cognizant of any significant project features which might only be under consideration as options.
Short of complete elimination of an at-grade crossing, work at or near a grade crossing can improve safety in a number of respects. Aspects of possible improvement may include the following:
The safety improvement score will depend upon the deficiencies in the existing grade crossing. Any reconstructed grade crossing will need to meet modern standards, but some of the underlying deficiencies may not be fully corrected because of constraints such as the existing railroad alignment. Some judgement is necessary in these situations to appropriately characterize the degree of improvement.
Functional design reports
+3 Condition is structurally deficient and weight restricted, and improvements are included in the project
+2 Condition is structurally deficient (no weight restriction) and improvements are included in the project
+2 Condition is functionally obsolete and weight restricted, and improvements are included in the project
+1 Condition is functionally obsolete (no weight restriction) and improvements are included in the project
+1 Condition is weight restricted (not otherwise deficient) and improvements are included in the project
+0 Project does not improve a substandard bridge or does not include a bridge
This criterion assesses the bridge condition in the project area and assigns points based on the presence of a bridge, the existing condition of the bridge, and planned improvements to the bridge.
Of the 2,866 bridges located within the Boston Region MPO’s boundaries, 559 (19 percent) are considered functionally obsolete (the configuration or design does not meet current traffic demands or highway standards) and 154 (5 percent) are considered structurally deficient (one or more structural components–deck, superstructure, or substructure–is in poor condition or deterioration has reduced the load-carrying capacity of the bridge).2
If bridge improvements are planned as part of the proposed project, points are assigned based on the current condition of the bridge. The bridge is identified by the BDEPT and/or BIN identification numbers, which are usually enumerated in the TIP Project Description. The bridge deficiencies are based on the MassDOT Bridge Inventory.
MassDOT Bridge Inventory and Accelerated Bridge Program database
+6 IRI3 rating greater than 320: Current roadway condition is poor and pavement improvements are included in the project
+4 IRI rating between 191 and 320: Current roadway condition is fair and pavement improvements are included in the project
+0 IRI rating less than 190: Current roadway condition is good
This criterion assesses current pavement condition and assigns points based on the existing pavement condition and planned improvements to the roadway surface.
Pavement condition is measured using the International Roughness Index (IRI), a rating that reflects the calibrated value in inches of roughness per mile. IRI ratings are classified as follows:
If pavement improvements are planned as part of the proposed project, points are assigned based on the current condition of the pavement.
The calculation is based on the IRI within the last five measured years in MassDOT’s Roadway Inventory. Pavement condition is not measured annually for all roads. Pavement conditions on Interstate Highways are recorded annually, while numbered routes and/or arterials are measured every three years. Additionally, functional design reports may include IRI values for project segments.
MassDOT Roadway Inventory
Functional design reports
+6 Existing signals are in poor condition and improvements are included in the project
+4 Existing signals are in fair condition and improvements are included in the project
+0 Does not meet or address criteria
This criterion assesses the existing condition of traffic signal equipment within the proposed project area and assigns points for improvements planned to substandard signal equipment as a part of the project.
If traffic signal improvements are planned as part of the proposed project, points are assigned based on the current condition of existing traffic signal equipment and the nature of planned improvements.
Bringing substandard signal equipment up to modern operations is considered an improvement.
Functional design reports
+2 Brings transit asset into state of good repair
+1 Meets an identified-need in an asset management plan
+0 Does not meet or address criteria
This criterion assigns points based on improvements made to transit assets. Points are assigned for bringing an asset into a state of good repair or for addressing a need identified in an asset management plan.
If transit improvements are part of the proposed project, points are assigned based on bringing a transit asset into a state of good repair or addressing an identified need in an asset management plan.
Project proponent
Functional design reports
Municipal planning documents
+3 Existing sidewalks are in poor condition and sidewalk improvements are included in the project
+2 Existing sidewalks are in fair condition and sidewalk improvements are included in the project
+0 Existing sidewalk condition is good
This criterion assesses the existing condition of sidewalks in the area of the proposed project and assigns points for improvements planned to substandard sidewalks.
Google Maps
Functional design reports
Project proponent
+1 Project improves an evacuation route, diversion route, or alternate
diversion route
+1 Project improves an access route to or is in proximity to an emergency
support location
This criterion assesses the presence of an emergency response route or emergency support location in the project area and assigns points if the project proposes improvements to an emergency response route or improves access to an emergency support location.
Functional design report
Project proponent
Boston Region MPO’s All-Hazards Planning Application
State or local mapping of evacuation routes and emergency support locations
Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency Evacuation Zones: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agencies/mema/emergencies/hurricanes/hurricane-evacuation-zones.html
+2 Addresses flooding problem and/or sea level rise and enables facility to
function in such a condition
+1 Brings facility up to current seismic design standards
+1 Addresses critical transportation infrastructure
+1 Protects freight network elements
+1 Implements hazard mitigation or climate adaptation plans
This criterion assesses the presence of natural hazard zones and assigns points based on making improvements to locations that are vulnerable to natural hazards or for protecting certain critical elements of the transportation system.
Project proponent
Functional design reports
Municipal planning documents
Boston Region MPO’s All-Hazards Planning Application
+3 5 hours or more of daily transit vehicle delay reduced
+2 1–5 hours of daily transit vehicle delay reduced
+1 Less than one hour of daily transit vehicle delay reduced
+0 Does not reduce transit vehicle delay
If project scores points above, then it is eligible for one additional point:
+1 Improves one or more key bus route(s)
The goal for this scoring criterion is to determine if a project reduces transit vehicle delay. This measure focuses solely on transit vehicle delay, not transit passenger delay.
Examples:
Functional design reports
MBTA bus schedules
+2 Adds new sidewalk(s) (including shared-use paths)
+2 Improves ADA accessibility 4
+1 Closes a gap in the pedestrian network
+0 Does not improve pedestrian network
This criterion assesses the existing pedestrian network in a project area and assigns points for improvements related to adding sidewalks (expanding the network) or making sidewalks more accessible.
Functional design reports
Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s Trailmap (https://trailmap.mapc.org/)
+3 Adds new physically separated bicycle facility (including shared-use paths)
+2 Adds new buffered bicycle facility
+1 Adds new standard bicycle facility
+1 Closes a gap in the bicycle network
+0 Does not improve bicycle network
This criterion assesses the existing bicycle network in the project area and assigns points for improvements related to adding new bicycle facilities (expanding the network) and increasing connections between existing facilities.
Functional design reports
Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s Trailmap (https://trailmap.mapc.org/)
+6 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree
+4 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree
+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a low degree
+0 Does not meet or address criteria
This criterion is distinct from the evaluation of benefits associated with expanding or improving an individual mode. Transit services depend upon the ability of users to connect conveniently with other transportation modes including driving, walking, and biking. Improvements that are considered in developing a score for this criterion include the following:
The key to assigning a meaningful score is a thorough understanding of the proposed improvements. A project’s functional design report describes the proposed improvements at an approximately 25 percent level of design. When reviewing these reports, however, it is important to be cognizant of any significant project features that might only be under consideration as options.
The functional design report may describe a group of improvements, and the total benefit that is expected from the combined improvements needs to be considered.
High degree of improvement:
Medium degree of improvement:
Low degree of improvement:
Projects that provide negligible improvements or serve an inconsequential number of users may be given no points at all.
High
Medium
Low
Functional design reports
National Transit Database
+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree
+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree
+1 Meets or addresses criteria to a low degree
+0 Does not meet or address criteria
If project scores points above, then it is eligible for one additional point:
+1 Addresses MPO-identified bottleneck location
Extensive parts of the road system date from a time when the average truck size was smaller, as were the maximum allowable size and weight. The early limited-access highways built during the 1950s were designed for a lighter and smaller fleet of “heavy vehicles.” Decades of operating experience has also informed current roadway designs, and more generous turning radii, ramp shoulders, subsurface depth, and overpass clearances are required for new construction to better accommodate the number and size of heavy vehicles using the road system today. The arterial roadway subsystem is also subject to the requirements of the modern truck fleet.
For these reasons, any reconstruction of an older roadway to modern standards can be awarded points for improving truck movements. If the existing conditions are very deficient, the benefit can be high. If the existing conditions are relatively adequate, the expected benefit is lower.
The key to assigning a meaningful score is a thorough understanding of the proposed improvements. The functional design report describes the proposed improvements at an approximately 25 percent level of design. When reviewing these reports, however, it is important to be cognizant of any significant project features that might only be under consideration as options.
By reviewing the information in a project’s functional design report and specialized data developed by the MPO staff, it is possible to estimate the level of improvement for truck movement.
High degree of improvement:
Medium degree of improvement:
Low degree of improvement
Projects that reconstruct a given roadway to only slightly higher standards than were originally present or serve an inconsequential number of trucks might be given no points at all.
MPO-identified bottleneck locations are identified independently of the TIP process, and the extra point is applied automatically.
Functional design report
Land use patterns from town records or Google Earth
+6 400 hours or more of daily vehicle delay reduced
+4 100–400 hours of daily vehicle delay reduced
+2 Less than 100 hours of daily vehicle delay reduced
+0 Does not meet or address criteria
This criterion assesses vehicle delay for intersections within the proposed project boundaries based on the estimated reduction in intersection delay that is projected to be achieved by the project.
MPO staff compiles data on vehicle delay from intersection analyses within the project’s functional design report and then assigns points based on the scale above. Delay is calculated exclusively from intersection delay. Functional design reports analyze future conditions to see if intersection delay increases or decreases.
Examples:
Functional design reports
+5 1,000 or more annual tons of CO2 reduced
+4 500–999 annual tons of CO2 reduced
+3 250–499 annual tons of CO2 reduced
+2 100–249 annual tons of CO2 reduced
+1 Less than 100 annual tons of CO2 reduced
0 No impact
-1 Less than 100 annual tons of CO2 increased
-2 100–249 annual tons of CO2 increased
-3 250–499 annual tons of CO2 increased
-4 500–999 annual tons of CO2 increased
-5 1,000 or more annual tons of CO2 increased
This criterion assigns points for reducing the emissions of CO2.
MPO staff compiles data on CO2 impact for each project under consideration, and then assigns points based on the scale above.
Examples:
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality spreadsheets are used to calculate potential CO2 reductions for the following types of projects:
The inputs into the above projects are outlined in each of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality spreadsheets and also described in Appendix C of the TIP. In addition, air quality emission factors are input to these analyses. The factors are established using EPA’s MOVES model.
+5 2,000 or more total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced
+4 1,000–1999 total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced
+3 500–999 total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced
+2 250–499 total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced
+1 Less than 250 total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO reduced
0 No impact
-1 Less than 250 total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased
-2 250–499 total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased
-3 500–999 total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased
-4 1,000–1999 total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased
-5 2,000 or more total annual kilograms of VOC, NOx, CO increased
This criterion assigns points for reducing emissions of other transportation-related pollutants.
The evaluation for the other transportation-related emissions uses the same information as described above on CO2 reductions. The same air quality spreadsheets calculate all pollutants.
See above.
+1 Addresses water quality through stormwater best management practices that improve existing conditions
+1 Addresses cultural resources/open space
+1 Addresses wetlands/resource areas
+1 Addresses wildlife preservation/protected habitats
+0 Does not meet or address criteria
This criterion assigns points to a project that improves the existing conditions of any of the following resources:
Points are assigned to projects that go above and beyond permitting requirements and proactively enhance or improve these natural and cultural resources.
A point is assigned for addressing water quality if a project meets any of these criteria:
A point is assigned for addressing cultural resources/open space if a project meets any of these criteria:
A point is assigned for addressing wetlands/resource areas if a project meets any of these criteria:
A point is assigned for addressing wildlife preservation/protected habitats if a project meets any of these criteria:
Functional design reports
Project proponent
+2 Project is located in a “Green Community”
+0 Project is not located in a "Green Community"
This criterion assigns points if the proposed project is located in an EOEEA-certified “Green Community.”
Points are assigned by looking at the map of EOEEA-certified “Green Communities” and assessing the status of the municipality(ies) in which the project is located.
http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/green-communities/
+2 Serves minority (high concentration) population (>2,000 people)
+1 Serves minority (low concentration) population (≤ 2,000 people)
+2 Serves low-income (high concentration) population (>2,000 households)
+1 Serves low-income (low concentration) population (≤ 2,000 households)
+2 Serves limited English proficiency (high concentration) population (>1,000 people)
+1 Serves limited English proficiency (low concentration) population (≤ 1,000 people)
+2 Serves elderly (high concentration) population (>2,000 people)
+1 Serves elderly (low concentration) population (≤ 2,000 people)
+2 Serves zero-vehicle households (high concentration) population (>1,000 households)
+1 Serves zero-vehicle households (low concentration) population (≤ 1,000 households)
+2 Serves persons with disabilities (high concentration) population (>1,000 people)
+1 Serves persons with disabilities (low concentration) population (≤ 1,000 people)
+0 Does not serve Title VI or non-discrimination populations
-10 Creates a burden for Title VI/non-discrimination populations
This criterion assesses whether a project serves—by virtue of it being located nearby—each of the six Title VI/non-discrimination populations. The criterion rewards those projects that serve the most people within these populations.
|
|
Minority |
Low-income |
Limited English Proficiency |
Elderly |
Disability |
Zero Vehicle Households |
Data Source |
Decennial census |
American Community Survey |
American Community Survey |
Decennial census |
American Community Survey |
American Community Survey |
|
Current Data Year |
2010 Decennial Census |
2010-14 ACS |
2010-14 ACS |
2010 Decennial Census |
2010-14 ACS |
2010-14 ACS |
|
Current Threshold |
27.8% |
32.2% |
10.4% |
6.7% |
10.0% |
15.9% |
|
Threshold Definition |
Regional average |
Percent of households that make 60% of regional median household income |
Regional average |
Regional average |
Regional average |
Regional average |
|
Next MPO Threshold Update |
2020 Decennial Census |
2020-24 ACS |
2020-24 ACS |
2020 Decennial Census |
2020-24 ACS |
2020-24 ACS |
|
Universe |
Population |
Households |
Population 5 years and older |
Population |
Non-institutionalized population |
Households |
|
Geography |
Blocks |
Tracts |
Tracts |
Blocks |
Block groups |
Tracts |
|
Definition |
Black/ African American, Asian, Hispanic/ Latino of any race; American Indian or Alaskan Native; and/or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
Annual household income is less than or equal to 60% of the regional median household income (60% of $76,040 is $45,624) |
Person aged 5+ who speaks English well, not well, or not at all |
Person aged 75 or older |
Non-institutionalized person who has a physical and/or mental disability |
Household without a car |
|
+2, Provides new transit access to or within the site
+1, Improves existing transit access to or within the site
+1, Provides for bicycle access to or within the site
+1, Provides for pedestrian access to or within the site
+1: Provides new or improves existing road access to or within the site
+0: Does not serve a targeted development site
A project is eligible to score points in this category if it is near a district or area that has been targeted for future development or redevelopment. Targeted development sites include Regionally Significant Priority Development Areas, 40R, 43D, 43E, and GDI districts, MBTA key bus routes, and existing or proposed subway, trolley, commuter rail, or ferry stations. For most targeted development sites, TIP projects are considered to serve those sites if they are within a quarter mile. Projects are considered to serve subway, trolley, commuter rail, or ferry stations if they are within a half mile. If the project is eligible to score points in this criterion due to proximity to targeted development sites, the project details must then be reviewed to determine the appropriate score.
More information about targeted development sites and programs are as follows:
First, MAPC staff contact the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development to be sure they have the most up-to-date GIS data layers and request a line feature class of the prospective TIP projects to be evaluated from CTPS. Next, the area of concentrated development data layers and the project data layer are imported into one ArcGIS map document. MAPC then runs a script tool that determines the location of the projects in relation to the targeted development sites and areas of concentrated development. Below is the specific output that is generated for each project:
ACD_score: Areas of Concentrated Development score
RPDA: Project area is within a quarter mile of a Regional Priority Development Area (1 = yes)
FortyR: Project area is within a quarter mile of a 40R district
Forty3D: Project area is within a quarter mile of a 43D district
Forty3E: Project area is within a quarter mile of a 43E district
GDI: Project area is within a quarter mile of a Growth District Initiative area
Stations: Project intersects a half-mile buffer of a station area
Bus: Project intersects a quarter-mile buffer of a key bus route
Transit_Access: Project meets either station area or key bus route criteria
TargDev: Project meets any Targeted Development criteria
New: Project was not evaluated in previous year
DevSite_chg: Change in the Targeted Development score
AOCD_chg: Change in the Area of Concentrated Development score
If the project receives a “1” in TargDev, it is eligible for scoring points under this criteria. Receiving a “1” means that the TIP project is within the defined distances (either a quarter or half mile buffer) of a targeted development site. The specific points assigned to a project under this criterion, is dependent on the specific aspects of the project and what the project description includes.
Department of Housing and Community Development/Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (43D and 43E sites, 40R districts, and Growth District Initiative areas)
MAPC (Regionally Significant Priority Development Areas and MBTA station areas)
+2 Mostly serves an existing area of concentrated development
+1 Partly serves an existing area of concentrated development
+1 Supports local zoning or other regulations that are supportive of smart
growth development
+2 Complements other local financial or regulatory support that fosters
economic revitalization in a manner consistent with smart growth
development principles
+0 Does not provide any of the above measures
A spatial analysis from the MAPC Data Services department determines whether a TIP project is considered to “partly” or “mostly” serve an area of concentrated development, based on how much that project area overlaps a qualifying area.
Existing areas of concentrated development are defined based on the combined 2010 population and 2011 employment, per acre, measured at the scale of 250 meter grid cells. Thresholds for concentrated development are higher in urban community types:
For purposes of this evaluation, “mostly serves” is defined as more than 50 percent of the quarter-mile buffer around the project area is in grid cells that meet the criteria for the community type and the project improves access to or within those areas of concentrated development.
For the purposes of evaluation, “local zoning or other regulations supportive of smart growth” can include the following:
For a project to receive credit because a 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).
1) For Area of Concentrated Development:
The same methodology described above for targeted development sites is applicable for calculating whether or not a project serves an area of concentrated development. The field “ACD_score” noted above will yield a score between zero and two, which indicates the following:
2) For Local Zoning and Financial or Regulatory Support:
MAPC researches any local zoning changes or policies enacted within the past year that promote economic development and support smart growth within the same geography as the project being evaluated. Qualifying zoning changes and policies include the creation of a downtown business district, other zoning that promotes mixed-use development, and the adoption of a Complete Streets policy.
A project may be eligible for points in this category if the municipality implements local financial or regulatory measures that support economic revitalization that are consistent with smart growth principles, including having a Main Streets organization, business improvement district, or a local business association within the same geography as the project in question. Citywide efforts are not included in this criterion.
Area of Concentrated Development:
MAPC
Local Efforts & Financial or Regulatory Support:
+1 Provides transit access (within a quarter mile) to an activity center
+1 Provides pedestrian access to an activity center
+1 Provides bicycle access to an activity center
+1 Provides truck access to an activity center
+0 Does not provide multimodal access
Transportation system investments that improve access to locations with strong or expanding economic activity can support sustainable economic growth. For this criterion, points are awarded for improved transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access to activity centers, reflecting the importance of non-auto modes for sustainability. Points are not awarded for improved auto access, per se. However, all activity centers depend to varying degrees on practical truck access, and roadway improvements that meaningfully improve the ability of trucks to serve an activity center also receive a point.
The key to assigning a meaningful score is a thorough understanding of the proposed improvements. The functional design report describes the proposed improvements at an approximately 25 percent level of design. When reviewing these reports, however, it is important to the cognizant of any significant project features that might only be under consideration as options.
New or improved transit access might include the following:
New or improved pedestrian access might include the following:
New or improved bicycle access might include the following:
Improved truck access might include the following:
Projects that provide only negligible improvement are given no points at all.
Functional design reports
+3 Meets or addresses criteria to a high degree (more than 30 percent of the project cost)
+2 Meets or addresses criteria to a medium degree (10-30 percent of the project cost)
+1 Meets or addresses criteria to a low degree (less than 10 percent of the project cost)
+0 Does not meet or address criteria
Projects are assigned points if funds are contributed by other public or private entities.
Eligible investments consist of federal, state, local, or private sources, such as federal earmarks, state MassWorks grants, local funding (excluding design), and private contributions.
Project proponents
1 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
2 Data as of August 2018.
3International Roughness Index (IRI)
4Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
5Carbon dioxide (CO2)