Technical Memorandum

DATE:   December 17, 2020

TO:         Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization

FROM:   Chen-Yuan Wang, MPO Staff

RE: Selection of FFY 2021 Subregional Priority Roadway Study Location

1          Background

During the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) outreach to develop the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) subregional groups and other entities submit comments and identify transportation issues that concern them. Often, these issues are related to bottlenecks, safety, or lack of safe or convenient access to abutters along roadway corridors. They can affect not only mobility and safety along a roadway and its side streets, but also livability, quality of life, economic development, and air quality.

To address these concerns, MPO staff developed a work program titled Addressing Safety, Mobility, and Access on Subregional Priority Roadways. The program adheres to the following MPO goals.

• Safety—make all modes safe
• Preservation—maintain the system
• Capacity Management and Mobility—use existing facility capacity more efficiently and increase healthy transportation capacity
• Clean Air/Clean Communities—create an environmentally friendly transportation system
• Transportation Equity—provide comparable transportation access and service quality among communities, regardless of income level or minority population
• Economic Vitality—ensure our transportation network serves as a strong foundation for economic vitality

The program has been well received by municipalities and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) district offices and has been included in the UPWP since 2013, including this federal fiscal year (FFY) 2021.1 Another purpose of the study is to identify roadway segments in the MPO region that are of concern to subregional groups but have not been cited in the LRTP regional needs assessment.2

The study emphasizes issues identified by the relevant subregional groups, along with recommendations to address the identified issues. In addition to topics about mobility, safety, and access, it includes bicycle, pedestrian, and freight transportation, transit feasibility, and other subjects raised by subregional groups.

This memorandum presents the procedure used to select roadways for the study, including data gathering; selection criteria; roadway rating; the roadway corridor chosen for study; and a summary.

2          Selection Procedure

Selecting the study location comprised three steps:

• Gathering data and identifying potential roadways
• Developing selection criteria
• Rating potential roadways

2.1      Gathering Data and Identifying Potential Roadways

MPO staff identified potential study roadways through various means:

• Soliciting suggestions for study locations during recent outreach for developing the MPO’s FFY 2021 UPWP
• Reviewing meeting records from the UPWP outreach process for the past nine years (2012 to present) to identify roadways that had been proposed for study by subregions
• Reviewing the roadways that are being monitored as part of the MPO’s Congestion Management Process program, and identifying those with delay or safety concerns
• Contacting subregions, the MassDOT Highway Division district offices, and municipalities for further information about some of the potential study roadways

MPO staff then assembled the following detailed data for these roadways:

• MassDOT 2014 Road Inventory File—used to assemble roadway jurisdiction, average daily traffic, sidewalk width, shoulders, and other geometric information
• MassDOT 2013–17 crash database—used to assemble high-crash locations, pedestrian and bicycle crashes, and crash rates
• MPO bike network gap data and MassDOT bike facilities—used to identify bicycle needs, connectivity, and accommodation
• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) bus route, subway line, and commuter data—used to identify segments serving MBTA bus routes and transit stations
• Data from MassDOT’s project-information database, the MPO’s 2021–25 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) projects, MPO planning and other studies, and municipal websites—used to identify projects, studies, and TIP projects planned or programmed for each roadway

Locations with projects that currently are under construction, in design, under study, or programmed in the TIP were excluded from further consideration. After the exclusion, MPO staff identified 21 potential roadway segments in the region. Table 1 presents data assembled for each roadway segment and indicates municipality, MAPC subregion, MassDOT district office, jurisdiction, length, functional class, average daily traffic, overall crash rates, bicycle/pedestrian crashes per mile, Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)-eligible crash clusters, 3 and any relevant studies or projects. It also cites results of applying the selection criteria, and priority rating. Roadway segments are sorted by score, MassDOT District, and roadway name.

2.2      Selection Criteria

MPO staff examined roadway locations more closely and prioritized locations by applying a score based on safety conditions, multimodal significance, subregional priority, implementation potential, and regional equity.

• Safety Conditions, 0–2 points (each bullet counts as 1 point)
• Location has higher-than-average crash rate for its functional class or contains two or more HSIP-eligible intersections
• Location has significant number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes (two or more per mile) or lacks sufficient pedestrian or bicycle accommodations4
• Multimodal Significance, 0–2 points (each bullet counts as 1 point)
• Location currently supports transit, bicycle, pedestrian, or heavy vehicle activities or needs to support these activities
• Location has significant potential to improve transit, bicycle, pedestrian, or heavy vehicle activities
• Subregional Priority, 0–2 points (each bullet counts as 1 point)
• Location is essential for subregion’s economic, cultural, or recreational development
• Location carries significant portion of subregional vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic
• Implementation Potential, 0–3 points (each bullet counts as 1 point)
• Location is proposed or endorsed by its subregion and is a priority for that subregion
• Location is proposed or endorsed by its roadway administrative agency (agencies)
• Location has strong support from all of its stakeholders
• Regional Equity, 0–1 points (each bullet counts as 1 point)
• Location is situated in a subregion that has not been selected for this study in the past two years

2.3      Rating Potential Roadways

Roadway segments with a score of five points or fewer were rated as low priority. Roadway segments with a score of six to seven points were rated medium priority. Roadway segments with a score of eight or more points were rated high priority. Among the 21 potential locations, MPO staff identified four as high priority:

• Plain Street, Grove Street, and Columbian Street in Braintree
• Route 135 in Ashland
• Route 1 in Wrentham
• Washington Street in Canton

Staff also evaluated the pedestrian accommodation and safety improvement needs for the four locations by applying the MPO’s Pedestrian Report Card Assessment.5 All four locations qualify highly for pedestrian accommodation or safety improvement requirements. Appendix A contains detailed results of the assessments.

3          Selected study Location: plain street, grove street, and columbian street in braintree

MPO staff recommends Plain Street, Grove Street, and Columbian Street in Braintree for this study cycle, based on the following considerations:

• The study site has strong support from all stakeholders, including representatives from Braintree and MassDOT District 6.
• The corridor has a crash rate much higher than the state average of the same functional class and a high pedestrian and bicycle crash rate. Based on the recent five-year (2013–17) MassDOT crash data, a total of 171 crashes occurred in the corridor. Among them, 70 crashes caused personal injuries, five are identified as crashes involving a person who walked, and two are identified involving a person who biked.
• The corridor is essential for the subregion’s economic development. It contains mixed land uses, including commercial and multi-unit residential, with a number of ongoing and planned developments.
• The corridor lacks accommodation for people who bike and has insufficient accommodation for people who walk. There are many sidewalk gaps, especially on the south side.
• The corridor is located in an area with a high proportion of senior and young population.
• The roadway has potential for Complete Streets improvements.  

Figure 1 shows the locations of this study and the previously studied corridors in the region. The selected corridor is approximately 1.8 miles in total length. All the segments in the corridor are classified as Urban Minor Arterial and are under MassDOT jurisdiction.

The selected roadways belonged to the “Old Route 128” corridor, which runs parallel to Interstate 93 and Route 3 and carries regional and local traffic. The corridor contains various land uses, including large-scale shopping plazas and street-front commercial developments, senior living residential developments, multi-unit condos and apartments, and single-family residences. Meanwhile, there are a number of ongoing and planned developments in the corridor.

MassDOT Highway Division District 6 recommended this roadway for study to explore Complete Streets needs and safety improvements for all users of the roadway, especially for those who walk. The Town of Braintree expressed that residents and locals have been concerned about this corridor because of the high crash rate and crashes caused by high vehicle travel speeds. Support letters for this study from the Town’s representatives and the mayor are included in Appendix B.

4          Summary

The selection of this corridor meets the objectives of this study. Meanwhile, it will support the MPO goals by improving subregional transportation safety and mobility and promoting regional economic vitality.

MPO staff will submit this proposal to the MPO for discussion and approval. If the MPO approves this selection, staff will meet with officials from Braintree, MassDOT, and MAPC to discuss the study specifics, conduct field visits, collect data, and perform various analyses.

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) operates its programs, services, and activities in compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, and related statutes and regulations. Title VI prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs and requires that no person in the United States of America shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin (including limited English proficiency), be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives federal assistance. Related federal nondiscrimination laws administered by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, or both, prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, sex, and disability. The Boston Region MPO considers these protected populations in its Title VI Programs, consistent with federal interpretation and administration. In addition, the Boston Region MPO provides meaningful access to its programs, services, and activities to individuals with limited English proficiency, in compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation policy and guidance on federal Executive Order 13166.

A complaint form and additional information can be obtained by contacting the MPO or at http://www.bostonmpo.org/mpo_non_discrimination.

To request this information in a different language or in an accessible format, please contact

Title VI Specialist
Boston Region MPO
10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150
Boston, MA 02116

civilrights@ctps.org

857.702.3700 (voice)
617.570.9193 (TTY)

Appendix