Transportation Improvement Program
Federal Fiscal Year 2025-29
APPENDICES
DRAFT FOR THE MPO, April 18, 2024
DRAFT FOR THE MPO, April 18, 2024
Appendix A: Project Prioritization and Scoring
Appendix B: Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Evaluation
Appendix C: Public Engagement and Public Comments
Appendix D: Geographic Distribution of TIP Funding
Appendix E: Regulatory and Policy Framework
Appendix F: Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Membership
Appendix G: Operations and Maintenance Summary
As described in Chapter 2, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development and project prioritization and funding process consists of numerous phases and is supported by several different funding sources. This appendix includes information about transportation projects that the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) considered for funding through the Highway Discretionary (Regional Target) Program in the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2025–29 TIP.
To be considered for funding by the MPO, a project must fulfill certain basic criteria. Projects evaluated through the MPO’s Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections, Complete Streets, and Intersection Improvements investment programs must meet these criteria:
For projects evaluated through the MPO’s Transit Transformation Program, the following criteria apply:
For projects evaluated through the MPO’s Community Connections Program, the following criteria apply:
If a project meets the above criteria, it is presented to the MPO board in the Universe of Projects (Table A-1) to be considered for funding. This project list is presented to the MPO board in November and provides a snapshot of information available on projects at that stage in the TIP development. Some projects that get evaluated for funding may not appear in the Universe, as more project information may become available following the compilation of the Universe. In addition, some projects that appear on the Universe list may not be evaluated each year if these projects are not actively being advanced by municipal or state planners or if they are not at the minimum required level of design for evaluation. Community Connections projects are not typically included in the Universe because proponents of those projects apply for funding through a discrete application process, the submission deadline for which is after the presentation of the Universe to the MPO board.
Once a proponent provides sufficient design documentation for a project in the Universe and the municipality or state is actively prioritizing the project for funding, the project can be evaluated by MPO staff. The evaluation criteria used to score projects are based on the MPO’s goals and objectives. After the projects are evaluated, the scores are shared with project proponents, posted on the MPO’s website, and presented to the MPO board for review and discussion. The scores for projects evaluated during development of the FFYs 2025–29 TIP for programming in the MPO’s Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections, Complete Streets, and Intersection Improvements programs are summarized in Table A-3. No projects were evaluated for inclusion in the Major Infrastructure investment program during the development of the FFY 2025-29 TIP. Scores for projects that applied for funding through the MPO’s Community Connections Program during the FFYs 2025–29 TIP cycle are summarized in Table A-4.
Following the adoption of Destination 2050 in July 2023, the MPO revised the TIP evaluation criteria to better align with the MPO’s updated goals, objectives, and investment programs, including a new resilience goal area. These new criteria were employed during the project selection process for the FFYs 2025-29 TIP. The final criteria were informed by robust public engagement conducted during the development of Destination 2050 and developed through an update process that engaged MPO members, staff, and external stakeholders. The most significant update to the criteria for the FFYs 2025-29 TIP was the development of new and broader resilience evaluation metrics to align with the resilience goal area in Destination 2050 and elevate resilience to equal consideration in project prioritization alongside other goal-focused TIP criteria. This update created separate criteria for different project types within the Community Connections program given the diverse array of first-and-last mile projects that can be funded through the program.
The project selection criteria for each investment program are shown in separate tables in this appendix as follows: Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections (Table A-5); Complete Streets (Table A-6); Intersection Improvements (Table A-7); and Transit Transformation (Table A-8).
Community Connections project selection criteria are shown in separate tables in this appendix as follows: Bicycle Lanes (A-9); Bicycle Racks (A-10); Bikeshare Support (A-11); Microtransit Pilots (A-12); and Wayfinding Signage (A-13).
Archived project evaluation criteria for all investment programs, which were discontinued in October 2023 after the FFYs 2024–28 TIP cycle, are shown in Tables A-14 and A-15.
In addition to project scores, several other factors are taken into consideration by the MPO when selecting projects for funding. Table A-2 describes many of these elements, including the relationships between the MPO’s FFYs 2025–29 Regional Target projects and the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), studies and technical assistance conducted by MPO staff through the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), the federally required performance measures discussed in Chapter 4, and Massachusetts’ modal plans. These projects are listed by MPO investment program. More details about each of these projects are available in the funding tables and project descriptions included in Chapter 3. Performance-related information for the FFYs 2025–29 Regional Target projects is included in Chapter 4, and information about greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for these projects is available in Appendix B.
Table A-1
FFYS 2025–29 TIP Universe of Projects
| This table contains unprogrammed projects in the Boston region that may be considered for evaluation in the FFYs 2024-28 TIP cycle. Not all projects listed in this table will be evaluated for funding in the FFYs 2024-8 TIP, as projects must be PRC approved and submit sufficient project documentation prior to scoring. The MPO has also established a policy to prioritize projects that have reached the 25% design submission stage for funding. This list is subject to change as more project information is received. | |||||||||||||
| Key | |||||||||||||
| Evaluated for FFYs 2023-27 TIP | |||||||||||||
| New project in TIP universe for FFYs 2024-28 TIP | |||||||||||||
| In 2023-27 universe, not evaluated | |||||||||||||
| Municipality | Project Proponent | Project Name | PROJIS | Design Status (as of 10/6/21) | Year Added to Universe | Cost Estimate | MAPC Subregion | Highway District | MPO Investment Program | Notes | Limits | MAPIT? | Previous Evaluation Score |
| Inner Core | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Boston | Boston | Reconstruction of Albany Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 6 | Pursuing 2022 PRC approval. | N/A | ||||
| Boston | MassDOT | Reconstruction on Gallivan Boulevard (Route 203), from Neponset Circle to East of Morton Street Intersection | 606896 | PRC approved (2012) | 2018 | $11,500,000 | ICC | 6 | Complete Streets | Resulted from FFY 2012 Addressing Priority Corridors MPO Study | N/A | ||
| Boston | MassDOT | Improvements on Morton Street (Route 203), from West of Gallivan Boulevard to Shea Circle | 606897 | PRC approved (2012) | 2018 | $11,500,000 | ICC | 6 | Complete Streets | Resulted from FFY 2012 Addressing Priority Corridors MPO Study | N/A | ||
| Boston | Boston | Roadway Improvements along Commonwealth Avenue (Route 30), from Alcorn Street to Warren/Kelton Streets (Phase 3 & Phase 4) | 608449 | 25% submitted (9/28/2017) | 2017 or earlier | $31,036,006 | ICC | 6 | Major Infrastructure | Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. | 56 | ||
| Boston | MassDOT | Intersection & Signal Improvements at VFW Parkway and Spring Street | 607759 | 25% Package Received - R1 (3/09/2022) | 2022 | $4,526,907 | 6 | N/A | |||||
| Boston | MassDOT | Boston - Gallivan Boulevard (Route 203) Safety Improvements, From Washing | 610650 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $5,750,000 | ICC | 6 | Complete Streets | Priority for District 6. Road safety audit being initiated. | N/A | ||
| Brookline | Brookline | Boylston Street (High Street to Brington Road) Complete Streets Improvements | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $3,500,000 | 6 | Ped crossings, bike lanes, street trees. Design through Toole with some facilitation from MassDOT. Three options were pushed through and endorsed by the Select Board. Town met with District 6 to run through this. Should be in PRC soon. | N/A | ||||
| Brookline | Brookline | Davis Street Path Restoration and Reconstruction of the Davis Street Path Bridge over MBTA | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $12,000,000 | 6 | Conceptual stage. Brookline is investigating avenues to use federal discretionary grant funding to advance this project. Potential for bundling with Boylston Street work above. | N/A | ||||
| Chelsea | Chelsea | Reconstruction of Spruce Street, from Everett Avenue to Williams Street | 610675 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $5,408,475 | ICC | 6 | Complete Streets | N/A | |||
| Chelsea | Chelsea | Reconstruction of Everett Avenue and 3rd Street, from Broadway to Ash Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | N/A | 6 | N/A | |||||
| Chelsea | Chelsea | Reconstruction of Marginal Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2019 | N/A | ICC | 6 | Complete Streets | N/A | |||
| Lynn, Salem | MassDOT | Reconstruction of Route 107 | 608927 | PRC approved (2017) | 2020 | $38,155,000 | 4 | N/A | |||||
| Malden | Malden | Broadway Corridor Reconstruction | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | N/A | 4 | Malden is currently holding community meetings to discuss this project, with the most recent one being held 10.25.2022. | N/A | ||||
| Melrose | Melrose | Reconstruction of Lebanon Street, from Lynde Street to Malden City Line | 612534 | PRC approved (2/10/2022) | 2020 | $3,742,432 | 4 | N/A | |||||
| Newton | Newton | Reconstruction of Washington Street, from Church Street to Chestnut Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | N/A | 6 | N/A | |||||
| Revere | Revere | Reconstruction of Ocean Ave, Revere Street, and Revere Beach Boulevard | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | N/A | 4 | Project at conceptual stage with schematics, needs full design - investigating roundabout. Key East/West connection. | N/A | ||||
| Winthrop | Winthrop | Reconstruction & Improvements on Route 145 | N/A | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $7,565,512 | ICC | 6 | Complete Streets | N/A | |||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Boston, Brookline | Boston, Brookline | Mountfort St. & Commonwealth Ave. Connection | 608956 | PRC approved (2017) | 2018 | $916,883 | ICC | 6 | Intersection Improvements | Preliminary design. | N/A | ||
| Lynn | Lynn | Intersection Safety Improvements at Boston Street at Hesper & Hamilton Streets | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2023 | $3,000,000 | 4 | Based on 3/3/2023 meeting with Lynn. | |||||
| Medford | Medford | Intersection Improvements at Main Street and South Street | 611974 | PRC approved (2021) | 2019 | $8,498,000 | ICC | 4 | Intersection Improvements | Project location studied by CTPS. Priority for municipality. Design is in progress, and eventually the City will work with MassDOT to fund construction. | N/A | ||
| Newton | MassDOT | Route 16 at Quinobequin Road | 612613 | PRC approved (2/10/2022) | 2022 | $4,350,000 | 6 | Reconfiguration of the interchange may result in consideration of this project for the LRTP. | |||||
| Quincy | MassDOT | Intersection Improvements at Route 3A (Southern Artery) and Broad Street | 608569 | PRC approved (2016) | 2020 | $2,900,000 | 6 | Priority for District 6. | N/A | ||||
| Quincy | Quincy | Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive | 610823 | 25% Package Received - R1 (1/27/2023) | 2020 | $1,145,580 | 6 | 25% design complete. PM is Kathy Dougherty. | N/A | ||||
| Quincy | Quincy | Merrymount Parkway Phase II | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | N/A | 6 | December PRC. Intersection improvement at Merrymount Parkway and Furnace Brook Parkway. Parks Department is leading the work - David Murphy (617-376-1251). Will include bridge replacement. | N/A | ||||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Belmont | Belmont | Belmont Community Path Phase 2 | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2023 | TBD | 4 | akoumoutsos@tooledesign.com reached out 3/16/2023 to discuss initiation and funding through MassDOT | |||||
| Boston | Boston | Fenway Multi-Use Path Phase III | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 6 | Project at conceptual stage. | N/A | ||||
| Brookline | Brookline | Beacon Street Bridle Pathway | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | N/A | 6 | Project in conceptual design through Toole, receipt of a MassTrails grant in 2020 for feasibility study. Limits would be Audubon Circle to Cleveland Circle. | N/A | ||||
| Everett, Somerville | DCR | Mystic River Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing | 612004 | PRC approved (2021) | 2021 | $38,218,334 | 4 | N/A | |||||
| Malden | Malden | Spot Pond Brook Greenway | 613088 | Pre-PRC - 25% design | 2022 | $3,250,000 | 4 | Application obtained for 2024-2028. | |||||
| Medford | Medford | Wellington Phase 4 Shared Use Path | 613082 | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $1,195,000 | 4 | ID # is not yet in PINFO. Initiated on 11/3/2022. Includes an earmark and Gaming Commission money. | N/A | ||||
| Medford | Medford | MacDonald Park Pedestrian Bridge | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $800,000 | 4 | In DCR park, City is requesting expansion of bridge to 10-12feet in width to coordinate with shared use pathway. | N/A | ||||
| Major Infrastructure | |||||||||||||
| Boston, Chelsea | Boston | Bridge Rehabilitation and Fender Pier Replacement, Meridian Street Over Chelsea Creek (Andrew P. McArdle Bridge) | 600637 | PRC Approved (2/10/2022) | 2021 | $97,538,787 | 6 | N/A | |||||
| Cambridge | DCR | Intersection Improvements at Fresh Pond Parkway/Gerry's Landing Road, from Brattle Street to Memorial Drive | 609290 | PRC approved (2018) | 2019 | $7,000,000 | ICC | 6 | Intersection Improvements | Short-term improvements being initiated. | N/A | ||
| Revere, Malden | MassDOT | Improvements on Route 1 (NB) Add-A-Lane | 610543 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $7,210,000 | ICC | 4 | Major Infrastructure | Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is located on a regionally significant roadway. If this work includes capacity-adding elements, and it is programmed in the TIP, it will need to be included in Destination 2050. | N/A | ||
| Newton | MassDOT | Traffic Signal and Safety Improvements at Interchange 127 (Newton Corner) | 609288 | PRC approved (2018) | 2019 | $14,000,000 | ICC | 6 | Intersection Improvements | N/A | |||
| Medford | Medford | Roosevelt Circle Interchange Reconfiguration | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | TBD | 4 | As discussed on 11.4.2022 with the City of Medford, the City is looking to reconfigure the ramps and adjacent local roadways to improve traffic safety following the results of a RSA along this corridor. Includes improvements for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access. Given the state of repair on the bridges, this may be coordinated with bridge rehabilitation work for these structures over I-93. | N/A | ||||
| Boston | Boston | Cambridge Street Bridge Replacement - Charlestown | 612989 | PRC approved (12/21/2022) | 2022 | $15,400,000 | 6 | City wants this programmed to advertise this before Rutherford Avenue enters construction. This is a difficult bridge under I-93 and next to Sullivan Square. | N/A | ||||
| Revere | Revere | Route 1A Improvement and Reconfiguration | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $9-12,000,000 | 4 | Project is in conceptual design stage. The priority is to reconfigure the loop ramps at the General Edwards Bridge to facilitate redevelopment of the area, for which there are already parcel developments planned. The reconfiguration will entail construction of a new roundabout and improved pedestrian crossings to improve access to the riverfront and Point of Pines area along Revere. Per the City, this reconfiguration is intended to work with the Lynnway Multimodal Corridor improvements, but will also not impact construction for the General Edwards Bridge replacement. | N/A | ||||
| Revere, Saugus | Revere, Saugus | Roadway Widening on Route 1 North (Phase 2) | 611999 | PRC approved (2021) | 2021 | $2,397,600 | 4 | Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It Is on a regionally-significant roadway and would add roadway capacity. If programmed in the TIP, this project will also need to be included in Destination 2050. Robins Road to Route 99 interchange are the limits. | N/A | ||||
| Community Connections | |||||||||||||
| Belmont | Belmont | Belmont BlueBikes Expansion | N/A | N/A | 2022 | $250,000 | 4 | Belmont is currently evaluating potential revenue streams to cover operational costs and match prior to submitting an application for this project. | N/A | ||||
| Lynn | Lynn | Transit Signal Priority - Bus Upgrades for Lynn Route 107 | N/A | N/A | 2022 | TBD | 4 | Indicated in November 8th email to Ethan from Aaron Clausen | N/A | ||||
| Waltham | Waltham | Waltham BlueBikes/Bikeshare Expansion | N/A | N/A | 2022 | TBD | 4 | Indicated in November 8th email to Ethan from Catherine Cagle. | N/A | ||||
| Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Bedford | Bedford | Roadway Reconstruction of Route 4/225 (The Great Road) | 612739 | PRC approved (5/12/2022) | 2022 | $10,899,448 | 4 | Limits appear to go from North Road to match line near Loomis Street. SRTS project completed in the area under 608000. | N/A | ||||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Littleton | Littleton | Intersection Improvements at Route 119/Beaver Brook Road | 610702 | PRC approved (2020) | 2020 | $3,120,110 | ICC | 3 | Intersection Improvements | MassDOT agreed to fund design after 25% design approved. As of October 2022, the project remains in preliminary design. | N/A | ||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Bedford | Bedford | Minuteman Bikeway Extension, From Loomis Street to Concord Road (Route 62) | 607738 | 47 | 2022 | $11,218,186 | N/A | 4 | Cost increase to $11,218,186. Initial targeted advertisement date of 8/13/22. | Local concerns about permitting. Previously programmed in FY23-27, dropped due to public opposition. Failed to achieve 2/3rds majority in town meeting on 11.14.2022. | N/A | ||
| Concord | Concord | Assabet River Multi-Use Trail and Bridge Construction | 612870 | PRC approved (8/29/2022) | 2020 | $8,280,000 | MAGIC | 4 | Major Infrastructure | Project was originally a new Pedestrian Bridge with a $2-3.6M price range. Scope has increased to include improvements for a multi-use trail alongside the bridge. Cost has increased accordingly, and is now in preliminary design. Project location runs between the West Concord MBTA Station and the Concord Meadows Corporate Center with a hookup to the Southern Terminus of the Bruce Freeman. | N/A | ||
| Stow | Stow | Stow - Assabet River Rail Trail Construction | 613096 | PRC approved, in design. | 2022 | TBD | 3 | Project Info # is being reserved for this project's construction. Recent earmark recipient for design under FFY22 House THUD bill (Rep. Lori Trahan). Design line item added to FFY23-27 in AM2 and is retaining a project ID # S12749. | |||||
| Major Infrastructure | |||||||||||||
| Acton | MassDOT | Intersection Improvements at Route 2 and Route 27 Ramps | 610553 | PRC approved (2019) | 2020 | $3,480,000 | 3 | Project not programmed in LRTP (meets MPO roadway classification requirement). Priority for District 3 and Town of Acton. Project has had surveying and MSA design contracts opened for it. MassDOT appears to be tracking as a Traffic Safety improvement. | N/A | ||||
| Concord | Concord | Reconstruction & Widening on Route 2, from Sandy Pond Road to Bridge over MBTA/B&M Railroad | 608015 | PRC approved (2014) | 2019 | $8,000,000 | MAGIC | 4 | Major Infrastructure | Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is on a regionally significant roadway and includes roadway widening elements. If programmed in the TIP, this project should also be included in Destination 2050. | N/A | ||
| Lexington | Lexington | Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2019 | $30,557,000 | MAGIC | 4 | Major Infrastructure | Project is programmed in Destination 2040 (FFYs 2030-34). The project is expected to include work on the I-95 Interchange with Route 4/225. If this work includes capacity-adding elements, it will need to be included in Destination 2050. | N/A | ||
| Community Connections | |||||||||||||
| Concord, Lexington, Lincoln | Concord | Battle Road Shuttle Pilot | N/A | N/A | 2022 | TBD | 4 | Erin Stevens in Concord indicated interest in two shuttle options, an extension of a 2022 Summer Pilot for local service and a more regional service that would involve operations in Lexington and Lincoln. See email from 12/5/2022 to Ethan Lapointe. | N/A | ||||
| Lexington | Lexington | Lexington Shuttle | N/A | N/A | 2022 | TBD | 4 | May be a component of the Concord project listed above. Outreach from Lexington on 12/5/2022 was somewhat vague, but expressed an interest in service. Lexington receives MBTA service. | N/A | ||||
| MetroWest Regional Collaborative | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Wellesley | Wellesley | Route 135 Reconstruction (Natick Town Line to Weston Road) | N/A | Pre-PRC | N/A | TBD | TBD | 6 | PNF submitted. Discussing 10.14.2022. | N/A | |||
| Holliston | Holliston | Reconstruction of Concord Street (Route 126) | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Added through subregional outreach. Project is municipal priority, as it's tied to necessary below-grade sewer work. 10/12/22: MaPIT is showing that a project was initiated back on 7.14.2020 for this stretch for resurfacing and related work, assuming $600K in total cost (likely lowball). | N/A | ||||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Framingham | MassDOT | Roundabout Construction at Salem End Road, Badger Road and Gates Street | 609280 | PRC approved (2018) | 2019 | $2,520,000 | MWRC | 3 | Intersection Improvements | N/A | |||
| Weston | Weston | Intersection Improvements - Signalization of Route 20 at Highland Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 6 | Added through subregional outreach. | N/A | ||||
| Holliston | Holliston | Route 16 Washington Street at Whitney Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $500,000 | 3 | Result of 12/20/2022 phone call between Ethan Lapointe and Robert Walker (Highway Superintendent). Looking for signal installation. | |||||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Weston | MassDOT | Weston - Shared Use Path Construction on Route 30 | 612602 | PRC Approved (2/10/2022) | 2022 | $1,050,000 | 6 | Meant to connect into Project 608954. District 6 priority to ensure that the shared-use-path there ties in to the rest of the bicycle network and concludes at a logical terminus. | N/A | ||||
| Natick | Natick | Cochituate Rail Trail Extension, from MBTA Station to Mechanic Street | 610691 | 25% Design Received (11/21/2022) | 2020 | $6,690,043 | NSPC | 3 | Bicycle and Pedestrian | Final section of Cochituate Rail Trail Extension. Imminent 25% design submittal. Applicant applied for FFY2024-2028 TIP funding. | N/A | ||
| Major Infrastructure | |||||||||||||
| Framingham | Framingham | Intersection Improvements at Route 126/135/MBTA and CSX Railroad | 606109 | PRC approved (2010) | 2019 | $115,000,000 | MWRC | 3 | Major Infrastructure | Project is programmed in Destination 2040 (FFYs 2030-34). May need to be pushed back with LRTP rewrite. Consultant said that depressing Route 135 may be the solution. | N/A | ||
| North Suburban Planning Council | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Burlington | Burlington | Town Center Complete Streets Improvements | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 4 | Complete Streets upgrades along Route 3A from Bedford Street to Arthur Woods Avenue. The scope of work would be additive to existing resurfacing planned under 610704, and would focus mostly on paint. There is potential for widening if the town's design includes a multimodal path while maintaining the current number and width of vehicle lanes. Organized opposition to bike lanes under 610704. Backlash against some public support. In public hearing for 610704, appx 30 people came out against. Likely to manifest in this project as well. D4 and MassDOT are aware of this project. Town is working with Northeastern University to have grad students on project and review plans. Ethan has contact info for students (one is in OPMI). | Route 3A (Bedford Street to Arthur Woods Avenue) | N/A | |||
| Lynnfield | Lynnfield | Reconstruction of Summer Street | 609381 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $21,521,921 | NSPC | 4 | Complete Streets | Not yet at 25% design. Bayside Engineering handling design, Norman Brown (781-932-3201, nbrown@baysideengineering.com) is PM. Culvert and turtle crossings. Town may consider descoping and phasing the project due to cost, per 12/20/2022 conversation with PM. | Summer Street (Lynnfield Town Hall to Route 129). | N/A | |
| Reading | Reading | Reading Downtown Improvement Project | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | $7-$8 million | 4 | Project at conceptual stage. | N/A | ||||
| Stoneham | Stoneham | Reconstruction of South Main Street, from Town Center to South Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 4 | N/A | |||||
| Wakefield | Wakefield | Envision Wakefield - Main Street Improvements | 610545 | 25% Design Complete | 2020 | $16,581,200 | 4 | Main St (Nahant to Water) and Water Street (Main to Cyrus) removed from project and bundled in 607329. 25% design incorporates some retention of angled parking in order to appease older public, but focus is on bike parking. Strong public input from youth during town meetings led to approval. Key sticking point in FFY 2023-2027 Scoring was project cost ~$26M. Bundling of some bike improvements into other nearby state highway projects has reduced budget to $16.5M as of the FFY2024-2028 funding round. | Main Street (Water Street to Salem Street) | Yes | 41.8 | ||
| Winchester | Winchester | Town Center Complete Streets Improvements | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 4 | N/A | |||||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Stoneham | Stoneham | Intersection Improvements at Main Street (Route 28), Franklin Street, and Central Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | N/A | 4 | Project at conceptual stage. | N/A | ||||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Stoneham, Wakefield | Stoneham, Wakefield | Mystic Highlands Greenway Project | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 4 | N/A | |||||
| Community Connections | |||||||||||||
| North Reading | North Reading | North Reading Human Services Transportation | N/A | N/A | 2022 | 4 | Significant paratransit consideration. Losing Merrimack Valley interdistrict service as North Reading falls between the MBTA and MVRTA. | N/A | |||||
| North Shore Task Force | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Beverly, Manchester-by-the-Sea | MassDOT | Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 127 | 607707 | PRC approved (2013) | 2018 | $2,300,000 | NSTF | 4 | Complete Streets | Still in preliminary design. | N/A | ||
| Danvers | Danvers | Reconstruction on Collins Street, from Sylvan Street to Centre and Holten Streets | 602310 | 75% submitted (3/5/2010) | 2017 or earlier | $5,183,121 | NSTF | 4 | Complete Streets | Updated 75% design submission needed for project to move forward. Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. | Collins Street (Sylvan Street to Centre Street/Holten Street) 0.7 miles. 42.5566, -70.9539 | Yes | 46 |
| Ipswich | Ipswich | Reconstruction of County Road, from South Main Street to East Street | 611975 | PRC approved (2021) | 2020 | $5,653,500 | 4 | On 10/7/2022, Frank Ventimiglia mentioned that a bridge within the project limits has had a lane closed by MassDOT. Structure IDs are I01005, main concern is Ipswich - 2PN which is an 1861-built historic stone arch mill bridge. Currently functioning as a one-way. OFF SYSTEM BRIDGE. MassDOT contact is Ryan Wilcox. Town had approached as a traffic safety project with the bridge as a focal point. Pier degradation and cracking. Structure is under evaluation for a statewide bridge preservation contract. | County Road (South Main Street to East Street) | Y | 45.4 | ||
| Ipswich | Ipswich | Argilla Roadway Reconstruction and Adaptation (Crane Estate to Crane Beach) | 612738 | PRC Approved (5/12/2022) | 2021 | $4,628,419 | 4 | Municipal priority for funding. On 10/7/2022, Frank Ventimiglia at Ipswich DPW expressed an interest in pursuing MDP funding to support this project. | Argilla Road (Crane Estate to Crane Beach) | Y | N/A | ||
| Marblehead | Marblehead | Bridge Replacement, M-04-001, Village Street over Marblehead Rail Trail (Harold B. Breare Bridge) | 612947 | PRC approved (9/15/2022) | 2019 | N/A | NSTF | 4 | Major Infrastructure | Per 10.11 email with C Quigley, the project received a PRC and a PROJIS ID in September 2022 after a PNF was submitted 8/2022. | N/A | ||
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | Manchester-by-the-Sea | Pine Street - Central Street (Route 127) to Rockwood Heights Road | N/A | Pre-PRC; PNF submitted (12/27/16) | 2017 or earlier | N/A | NSTF | 4 | Complete Streets | N/A | |||
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | Manchester-by-the-Sea | Bridge Replacement, M-02-001 (8AM), Central Street (route 127) over Saw Mill Brook | 610671 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $4,350,000 | NSTF | 4 | Complete Streets | 34.8 | |||
| Rockport | Rockport | Roadway Reconstruction of Route 127A (Thatcher Road) | 612737 | PRC Approved (1/23/2023) | 2023 | $12,058,173 | 4 | Added to Universe in January 2023 based on PRC results. PM is Marie Rose. Sea level rise risk, talk to Judy | Route 127A, Thatcher Road (Red Fox Lane to Seaview Street) | ||||
| Salem | MassDOT | Reconstruction of Bridge Street (Route 107), from Flint Street to Washington Street | 612990 | PRC Approved (1/24/2023) | 2017 or earlier | $12,067,500 | 4 | Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is on a regionally significant roadway and would add roadway capacity. If it is programmed in the TIP, it will need to be programmed in Destination 2050. | N/A | ||||
| Wenham | Wenham | Safety Improvements on Route 1A | 609388 | 25% Approved (9/10/2021) | 2019 | $3,629,036 | NSTF | 4 | Complete Streets | Dan Wilk (daniel.wilk@state.ma.us) is MassDOT PM. Working with Bayside Engineering as design consultant. MassDOT may fund this for construction in full, and Wenham is paying for design. Bayside currently responding to 25% comments. Drainage for abutters is holding this up. | N/A | ||
| Wenham | Wenham | Roadway Reconstruction on Larch Row and Dodges Row | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2019 | $800,000 | NSTF | 4 | Complete Streets | Project at conceptual stage. | N/A | ||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Essex | Essex | Targeted Safety Improvements on Route 133 (John Wise Avenue) | 609315 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $2,135,440 | NSTF | 4 | Intersection Improvements | N/A | |||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Peabody, Salem | Peabody, Salem | Riverwalk Project | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 4 | MVP grant issued for project design. | N/A | ||||
| Marblehead | Marblehead | B2B Bikeway Design - Marblehead | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $140,000 | 4 | Earmark. May be added via amendment. | |||||
| Peabody, Salem | Peabody, Salem | B2B Bikeway Design - Peabody/Salem | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $600,000 | 4 | Earmark. May be added via amendment. | |||||
| Major Infrastructure | |||||||||||||
| Beverly | Beverly | Interchange Reconstruction at Route 128/Exit 19 at Brimbal Avenue (Phase II) | 607727 | PRC Approved (2014) | 2021 | N/A | NSPC | 4 | Intersection Improvements | Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. Is on a regionally-significant roadway, and would expand the interchange. If this project is programmed in the TIP and adds roadway capacity, this project will need to be included in Destination 2050. | N/A | ||
| South Shore Coalition | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Holbrook | Holbrook | Corridor Improvements and Related Work on South Franklin Street (Route 37) from Snell Street to King Road | 608543 | PRC approved (2017) | 2018 | $4,000,200 | SSC | 5 | Complete Streets | N/A | |||
| Hull | Hull | Nantasket Avenue Redesign | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2023 | TBD | 5 | Includes redevelopment of existing gravel squares in front of Nantasket Beach for additional facilities/recreational zones/open space | |||||
| Rockland | Rockland | Corridor Improvements on VFW Drive/Weymouth Street | 612605 | PRC approved (2/10/2022) | 2021 | $13,047,281 | 5 | PNF entered in Jan 2022 | N/A | ||||
| Weymouth | MassDOT | Reconstruction on Route 3A, Including Pedestrian and Traffic Signal Improvements | 608231 | PRC approved (2016) | 2017 or earlier | $10,780,100 | SSC | 6 | Complete Streets | Pre-25% package submitted in July 2021. | N/A | ||
| Weymouth | MassDOT | Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 3A | 608483 | PRC approved (2016) | 2018 | $2,400,000 | SCC | 6 | Complete Streets | N/A | |||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Cohasset | Cohasset | Intersection Improvements at Route 3A and King Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 5 | Added through subregional outreach. | N/A | ||||
| Hull | Hull | Intersection Improvements at George Washington Boulevard and Barnstable Road/ Logan Avenue | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 5 | Added through subregional outreach. | N/A | ||||
| South West Advisory Planning Committee | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Bellingham | Bellingham | South Main Street (Route 126) - Elm Street to Douglas Drive Reconstruction | N/A | Pre-PRC; PNF submitted (3/13/17) | 2017 or earlier | N/A | SWAP | 3 | Complete Streets | Project would dovetail ongoing project 608887, rehab on Route 126 from Douglas Drive to Route 140. | No | N/A | |
| Bellingham | Bellingham | Bellingham - Roadway Rehabilitation of Route 126 (Hartford Road), from 800 North of the I-495 NB off ramp to Medway T/L, including B-06-017 | 612963 | PRC Approved (9/15/2022) | 2022 | $10,950,000 | 3 | Applied for FFY2024-2028. BRMPO issued a full corridor study in 2011. | |||||
| Franklin | MassDOT | Resurfacing and Intersection Improvements on Route 140, from Beaver Street to I-495 Ramps | 607774 | PRC approved (2014) | 2018 | $4,025,000 | SWAP | 3 | Complete Streets | Yes | N/A | ||
| Hopkinton | Hopkinton | West Main Street Reconstruction and Shared Use Path | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $15,000,000 | 3 | Priority is a shared use path under I-495 along W Main Street EB to link into existing trail networks and SUP in downtown area and commercial campuses west of I-495. Includes a large roundabout at Lumber Street/Parkwood Drive and West Main Street due to frequent crashes. | West Main Street (South Street to Wood Street) | No | N/A | ||
| Medway | Medway | Improvements on Route 109 West of Highland Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. Ethan will verify. There is a project from Richard Rd. heading WB to Highland Street, which conflicts with the name of this project. It was initiated in Nov. 2021. | TBD | Maybe? | N/A | ||
| Milford | MassDOT | Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 16 | 612091 | PRC approved (2021) | 2021 | $4,192,500 | 3 | No | N/A | ||||
| Millis | Millis | Town Center Improvements | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | N/A | |||
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 | 608497 | PRC approved (2016) | 2020 | N/A | 5 | 25% design anticipated July 2022. | Yes | N/A | |||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Medway | Medway | Traffic Signalization at Trotter Drive and Route 109 | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | N/A | |||
| Sherborn | Sherborn | Intersection Improvements at Route 16 and Maple Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | N/A | |||
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Intersection Improvements on Route 1A at North and Winter Street | 610676 | PRC Approved (12/19/2019) | 2020 | $2,649,000 | 5 | No | N/A | ||||
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Intersection Improvements at Randall Road and Route 1A | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | $2,649,000 | 5 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | N/A | |||
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Intersection Improvements at Route 1A and Route 140 | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | N/A | 5 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | N/A | |||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Franklin | Franklin | Southern New England Trunk Trail (SNETT) Extension, from Grove Street to Franklin Town Center | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | ||||
| Hopkinton | Hopkinton | Campus Trail Connector, Shared Use Trail Construction | 611932 | PRC approved (9/24/2020) | 2020 | $1,750,700 | NSTF | 3 | Bicycle and Pedestrian | No | N/A | ||
| Norfolk, Walpole, and Wrentham | Norfolk | Metacomet Greenway | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 5 | Project at conceptual stage. Feasibility analysis complete. Pilot development will start with Hill to Pine Street through old rail bed ROW. Includes bridge over Route 115 due to traffic concerns. | No | N/A | |||
| Sherborn | Sherborn | Upper Charles River Trail Extension to Framingham City Line | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | N/A | |||
| Major Infrastructure | |||||||||||||
| Bellingham | MassDOT | Ramp Construction & Relocation, I-495 at Route 126 (Hartford Avenue) | 604862 | PRC approved (2006) | 2017 or earlier | $13,543,400 | SWAP | 3 | Major Infrastructure | High priority for District 3 | No | N/A | |
| Three Rivers Interlocal Council | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Canton, Milton | MassDOT | Roadway Improvements on Route 138 | 608484 | PRC approved (2016) | 2020 | $18,467,500 | 6 | Milton also in ICC subregion. Project a high priority for the TRIC subregion. District is working to refine scope. Nine miles in length, may require phasing. | York Street to Truman Highway. Appx 9 miles. | Yes | N/A | ||
| Canton | Canton | Lower Randolph Reconstruction (Route 138, Turnpike Avenue to Colts Crossing) | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2023 | TBD | 6 | Emerged in discussions following application of Randolph and York Street Signal Installation for FFY 2024-2028 STIP. Sidewalk installation, bike lanes, crosswalks, roadway rehabilitation, signal improvements at the Route 138 and, potentially, York Street intersection. Crosswalks near Ponkapoag Pond trailhead. | Randolph Street from Route 138 to Colts Crossing. | No | N/A | ||
| Medfield | Medfield | Reconstruction of Route 109 (Millis T/L to Hartford Street) | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Added through subregional outreach. Working with Ann Sullivan and Arthur Frost at D3, BETA is design consultant. | MIllis T/L to Hartford St. | Maybe? | N/A | ||
| Milton | MassDOT | Reconstruction on Granite Avenue, from Neponset River to Squantum Street | 608406 | 25% submitted (2/10/2017) | 2017 or earlier | $3,665,146 | TRIC | 6 | Complete Streets | Milton also in ICC subregion. | No | N/A | |
| Milton | Milton | Adams Street Improvements, from Randolph Avenue to Eliot Street | 610820 | PRC approved (4/30/2020) | 2020 | $1,799,330 | 6 | Milton also in ICC subregion. Preliminary design. | Randolph Avenue to Eliot Street at Neponset River. Appx. 0.10 miles. -42.2703, -71.0679 | No | N/A | ||
| Needham | Needham | Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, from Webster Street to Great Plains Avenue | 612536 | PRC approved (10/21/2021) | 2021 | $10,402,402 | 6 | Needham also in ICC subregion. | No | N/A | |||
| Dover, Needham | Dover, Needham | Centre Street Bridge Replacement | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | N/A | 6 | Historic-eligible, needs replacement as it is 1850's era. | No | N/A | |||
| Westwood | Westwood | Reconstruction of Canton Street (East Street Rotary and University Avenue) | 608158 | 25% Package Received (2/18/2022) | 2017 or earlier | $19,047,306 | TRIC | 6 | Complete Streets | Priority for municipality. MassDOT expresses concerns regarding project readiness due to scope fluctuations. PINFO includes bridge rehab work. Application submitted for FFY2024-2028. | 1.9 miles | Yes | N/A |
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Canton | Canton | Signal Installation at Randolph Street and York Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $500,000 | 6 | Application submitted for FFY 2024-2028 TIP. Municipality requested $50,000 against a total estimate of $500,000. Significant funding in local mitigation fund for match. | Randolph Street at York Street | Yes | N/A | ||
| Foxborough | Foxborough | Intersection Signalization at Route 140/Walnut Street and Route 140/I-95 (SB Ramp) | 612740 | PRC Approved (5/12/2022) | 2021 | $11,902,600 | 5 | Added through subregional outreach. Town has advanced design outside of TIP process. District supports project. Budget has increased from original $5M estimate in 2021. | No | N/A | |||
| Medfield | Medfield | Intersection Improvements at Route 27 and West Street | 612807 | PRC Approved (5/12/2022) | 2021 | $3,987,500 | 3 | Added through subregional outreach. | No | N/A | |||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Canton | Canton | Warner Trail Extension, from Sharon to Blue Hills Reservation | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 6 | Added through subregional outreach. Feasibility study currently underway. | No | N/A | |||
| Major Infrastructure | |||||||||||||
| Canton, Westwood | MassDOT | Interchange Improvements at I-95 / I-93 / University Avenue / I-95 Widening | 87790 | 25% submitted (7/25/14) | 2017 or earlier | $202,205,994 | TRIC | 6 | Major Infrastructure | Project not programmed in Destination 2040. IIt is on a regionally-significant roadway and adds roadway capacity. If programmed in the TIP, this project would also need to be included in Destination 2050. Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. Regional priority, potential discretionary grant project via MassDOT for State Highway funding. | No | 47 | |
Table A-2
FFYs 2025–29 Regional Target Projects and Their Relationships to Plans and Performance Measures
| This table contains unprogrammed projects in the Boston region that may be considered for evaluation in the FFYs 2024-28 TIP cycle. Not all projects listed in this table will be evaluated for funding in the FFYs 2024-8 TIP, as projects must be PRC approved and submit sufficient project documentation prior to scoring. The MPO has also established a policy to prioritize projects that have reached the 25% design submission stage for funding. This list is subject to change as more project information is received. | |||||||||||||
| Key | |||||||||||||
| Evaluated for FFYs 2023-27 TIP | |||||||||||||
| New project in TIP universe for FFYs 2024-28 TIP | |||||||||||||
| In 2023-27 universe, not evaluated | |||||||||||||
| Municipality | Project Proponent | Project Name | PROJIS | Design Status (as of 10/6/21) | Year Added to Universe | Cost Estimate | MAPC Subregion | Highway District | MPO Investment Program | Notes | Limits | MAPIT? | Previous Evaluation Score |
| Inner Core | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Boston | Boston | Reconstruction of Albany Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 6 | Pursuing 2022 PRC approval. | N/A | ||||
| Boston | MassDOT | Reconstruction on Gallivan Boulevard (Route 203), from Neponset Circle to East of Morton Street Intersection | 606896 | PRC approved (2012) | 2018 | $11,500,000 | ICC | 6 | Complete Streets | Resulted from FFY 2012 Addressing Priority Corridors MPO Study | N/A | ||
| Boston | MassDOT | Improvements on Morton Street (Route 203), from West of Gallivan Boulevard to Shea Circle | 606897 | PRC approved (2012) | 2018 | $11,500,000 | ICC | 6 | Complete Streets | Resulted from FFY 2012 Addressing Priority Corridors MPO Study | N/A | ||
| Boston | Boston | Roadway Improvements along Commonwealth Avenue (Route 30), from Alcorn Street to Warren/Kelton Streets (Phase 3 & Phase 4) | 608449 | 25% submitted (9/28/2017) | 2017 or earlier | $31,036,006 | ICC | 6 | Major Infrastructure | Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. | 56 | ||
| Boston | MassDOT | Intersection & Signal Improvements at VFW Parkway and Spring Street | 607759 | 25% Package Received - R1 (3/09/2022) | 2022 | $4,526,907 | 6 | N/A | |||||
| Boston | MassDOT | Boston - Gallivan Boulevard (Route 203) Safety Improvements, From Washing | 610650 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $5,750,000 | ICC | 6 | Complete Streets | Priority for District 6. Road safety audit being initiated. | N/A | ||
| Brookline | Brookline | Boylston Street (High Street to Brington Road) Complete Streets Improvements | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $3,500,000 | 6 | Ped crossings, bike lanes, street trees. Design through Toole with some facilitation from MassDOT. Three options were pushed through and endorsed by the Select Board. Town met with District 6 to run through this. Should be in PRC soon. | N/A | ||||
| Brookline | Brookline | Davis Street Path Restoration and Reconstruction of the Davis Street Path Bridge over MBTA | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $12,000,000 | 6 | Conceptual stage. Brookline is investigating avenues to use federal discretionary grant funding to advance this project. Potential for bundling with Boylston Street work above. | N/A | ||||
| Chelsea | Chelsea | Reconstruction of Spruce Street, from Everett Avenue to Williams Street | 610675 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $5,408,475 | ICC | 6 | Complete Streets | N/A | |||
| Chelsea | Chelsea | Reconstruction of Everett Avenue and 3rd Street, from Broadway to Ash Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | N/A | 6 | N/A | |||||
| Chelsea | Chelsea | Reconstruction of Marginal Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2019 | N/A | ICC | 6 | Complete Streets | N/A | |||
| Lynn, Salem | MassDOT | Reconstruction of Route 107 | 608927 | PRC approved (2017) | 2020 | $38,155,000 | 4 | N/A | |||||
| Malden | Malden | Broadway Corridor Reconstruction | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | N/A | 4 | Malden is currently holding community meetings to discuss this project, with the most recent one being held 10.25.2022. | N/A | ||||
| Melrose | Melrose | Reconstruction of Lebanon Street, from Lynde Street to Malden City Line | 612534 | PRC approved (2/10/2022) | 2020 | $3,742,432 | 4 | N/A | |||||
| Newton | Newton | Reconstruction of Washington Street, from Church Street to Chestnut Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | N/A | 6 | N/A | |||||
| Revere | Revere | Reconstruction of Ocean Ave, Revere Street, and Revere Beach Boulevard | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | N/A | 4 | Project at conceptual stage with schematics, needs full design - investigating roundabout. Key East/West connection. | N/A | ||||
| Winthrop | Winthrop | Reconstruction & Improvements on Route 145 | N/A | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $7,565,512 | ICC | 6 | Complete Streets | N/A | |||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Boston, Brookline | Boston, Brookline | Mountfort St. & Commonwealth Ave. Connection | 608956 | PRC approved (2017) | 2018 | $916,883 | ICC | 6 | Intersection Improvements | Preliminary design. | N/A | ||
| Lynn | Lynn | Intersection Safety Improvements at Boston Street at Hesper & Hamilton Streets | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2023 | $3,000,000 | 4 | Based on 3/3/2023 meeting with Lynn. | |||||
| Medford | Medford | Intersection Improvements at Main Street and South Street | 611974 | PRC approved (2021) | 2019 | $8,498,000 | ICC | 4 | Intersection Improvements | Project location studied by CTPS. Priority for municipality. Design is in progress, and eventually the City will work with MassDOT to fund construction. | N/A | ||
| Newton | MassDOT | Route 16 at Quinobequin Road | 612613 | PRC approved (2/10/2022) | 2022 | $4,350,000 | 6 | Reconfiguration of the interchange may result in consideration of this project for the LRTP. | |||||
| Quincy | MassDOT | Intersection Improvements at Route 3A (Southern Artery) and Broad Street | 608569 | PRC approved (2016) | 2020 | $2,900,000 | 6 | Priority for District 6. | N/A | ||||
| Quincy | Quincy | Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive | 610823 | 25% Package Received - R1 (1/27/2023) | 2020 | $1,145,580 | 6 | 25% design complete. PM is Kathy Dougherty. | N/A | ||||
| Quincy | Quincy | Merrymount Parkway Phase II | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | N/A | 6 | December PRC. Intersection improvement at Merrymount Parkway and Furnace Brook Parkway. Parks Department is leading the work - David Murphy (617-376-1251). Will include bridge replacement. | N/A | ||||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Belmont | Belmont | Belmont Community Path Phase 2 | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2023 | TBD | 4 | akoumoutsos@tooledesign.com reached out 3/16/2023 to discuss initiation and funding through MassDOT | |||||
| Boston | Boston | Fenway Multi-Use Path Phase III | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 6 | Project at conceptual stage. | N/A | ||||
| Brookline | Brookline | Beacon Street Bridle Pathway | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | N/A | 6 | Project in conceptual design through Toole, receipt of a MassTrails grant in 2020 for feasibility study. Limits would be Audubon Circle to Cleveland Circle. | N/A | ||||
| Everett, Somerville | DCR | Mystic River Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing | 612004 | PRC approved (2021) | 2021 | $38,218,334 | 4 | N/A | |||||
| Malden | Malden | Spot Pond Brook Greenway | 613088 | Pre-PRC - 25% design | 2022 | $3,250,000 | 4 | Application obtained for 2024-2028. | |||||
| Medford | Medford | Wellington Phase 4 Shared Use Path | 613082 | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $1,195,000 | 4 | ID # is not yet in PINFO. Initiated on 11/3/2022. Includes an earmark and Gaming Commission money. | N/A | ||||
| Medford | Medford | MacDonald Park Pedestrian Bridge | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $800,000 | 4 | In DCR park, City is requesting expansion of bridge to 10-12feet in width to coordinate with shared use pathway. | N/A | ||||
| Major Infrastructure | |||||||||||||
| Boston, Chelsea | Boston | Bridge Rehabilitation and Fender Pier Replacement, Meridian Street Over Chelsea Creek (Andrew P. McArdle Bridge) | 600637 | PRC Approved (2/10/2022) | 2021 | $97,538,787 | 6 | N/A | |||||
| Cambridge | DCR | Intersection Improvements at Fresh Pond Parkway/Gerry's Landing Road, from Brattle Street to Memorial Drive | 609290 | PRC approved (2018) | 2019 | $7,000,000 | ICC | 6 | Intersection Improvements | Short-term improvements being initiated. | N/A | ||
| Revere, Malden | MassDOT | Improvements on Route 1 (NB) Add-A-Lane | 610543 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $7,210,000 | ICC | 4 | Major Infrastructure | Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is located on a regionally significant roadway. If this work includes capacity-adding elements, and it is programmed in the TIP, it will need to be included in Destination 2050. | N/A | ||
| Newton | MassDOT | Traffic Signal and Safety Improvements at Interchange 127 (Newton Corner) | 609288 | PRC approved (2018) | 2019 | $14,000,000 | ICC | 6 | Intersection Improvements | N/A | |||
| Medford | Medford | Roosevelt Circle Interchange Reconfiguration | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | TBD | 4 | As discussed on 11.4.2022 with the City of Medford, the City is looking to reconfigure the ramps and adjacent local roadways to improve traffic safety following the results of a RSA along this corridor. Includes improvements for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access. Given the state of repair on the bridges, this may be coordinated with bridge rehabilitation work for these structures over I-93. | N/A | ||||
| Boston | Boston | Cambridge Street Bridge Replacement - Charlestown | 612989 | PRC approved (12/21/2022) | 2022 | $15,400,000 | 6 | City wants this programmed to advertise this before Rutherford Avenue enters construction. This is a difficult bridge under I-93 and next to Sullivan Square. | N/A | ||||
| Revere | Revere | Route 1A Improvement and Reconfiguration | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $9-12,000,000 | 4 | Project is in conceptual design stage. The priority is to reconfigure the loop ramps at the General Edwards Bridge to facilitate redevelopment of the area, for which there are already parcel developments planned. The reconfiguration will entail construction of a new roundabout and improved pedestrian crossings to improve access to the riverfront and Point of Pines area along Revere. Per the City, this reconfiguration is intended to work with the Lynnway Multimodal Corridor improvements, but will also not impact construction for the General Edwards Bridge replacement. | N/A | ||||
| Revere, Saugus | Revere, Saugus | Roadway Widening on Route 1 North (Phase 2) | 611999 | PRC approved (2021) | 2021 | $2,397,600 | 4 | Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It Is on a regionally-significant roadway and would add roadway capacity. If programmed in the TIP, this project will also need to be included in Destination 2050. Robins Road to Route 99 interchange are the limits. | N/A | ||||
| Community Connections | |||||||||||||
| Belmont | Belmont | Belmont BlueBikes Expansion | N/A | N/A | 2022 | $250,000 | 4 | Belmont is currently evaluating potential revenue streams to cover operational costs and match prior to submitting an application for this project. | N/A | ||||
| Lynn | Lynn | Transit Signal Priority - Bus Upgrades for Lynn Route 107 | N/A | N/A | 2022 | TBD | 4 | Indicated in November 8th email to Ethan from Aaron Clausen | N/A | ||||
| Waltham | Waltham | Waltham BlueBikes/Bikeshare Expansion | N/A | N/A | 2022 | TBD | 4 | Indicated in November 8th email to Ethan from Catherine Cagle. | N/A | ||||
| Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Bedford | Bedford | Roadway Reconstruction of Route 4/225 (The Great Road) | 612739 | PRC approved (5/12/2022) | 2022 | $10,899,448 | 4 | Limits appear to go from North Road to match line near Loomis Street. SRTS project completed in the area under 608000. | N/A | ||||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Littleton | Littleton | Intersection Improvements at Route 119/Beaver Brook Road | 610702 | PRC approved (2020) | 2020 | $3,120,110 | ICC | 3 | Intersection Improvements | MassDOT agreed to fund design after 25% design approved. As of October 2022, the project remains in preliminary design. | N/A | ||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Bedford | Bedford | Minuteman Bikeway Extension, From Loomis Street to Concord Road (Route 62) | 607738 | 47 | 2022 | $11,218,186 | N/A | 4 | Cost increase to $11,218,186. Initial targeted advertisement date of 8/13/22. | Local concerns about permitting. Previously programmed in FY23-27, dropped due to public opposition. Failed to achieve 2/3rds majority in town meeting on 11.14.2022. | N/A | ||
| Concord | Concord | Assabet River Multi-Use Trail and Bridge Construction | 612870 | PRC approved (8/29/2022) | 2020 | $8,280,000 | MAGIC | 4 | Major Infrastructure | Project was originally a new Pedestrian Bridge with a $2-3.6M price range. Scope has increased to include improvements for a multi-use trail alongside the bridge. Cost has increased accordingly, and is now in preliminary design. Project location runs between the West Concord MBTA Station and the Concord Meadows Corporate Center with a hookup to the Southern Terminus of the Bruce Freeman. | N/A | ||
| Stow | Stow | Stow - Assabet River Rail Trail Construction | 613096 | PRC approved, in design. | 2022 | TBD | 3 | Project Info # is being reserved for this project's construction. Recent earmark recipient for design under FFY22 House THUD bill (Rep. Lori Trahan). Design line item added to FFY23-27 in AM2 and is retaining a project ID # S12749. | |||||
| Major Infrastructure | |||||||||||||
| Acton | MassDOT | Intersection Improvements at Route 2 and Route 27 Ramps | 610553 | PRC approved (2019) | 2020 | $3,480,000 | 3 | Project not programmed in LRTP (meets MPO roadway classification requirement). Priority for District 3 and Town of Acton. Project has had surveying and MSA design contracts opened for it. MassDOT appears to be tracking as a Traffic Safety improvement. | N/A | ||||
| Concord | Concord | Reconstruction & Widening on Route 2, from Sandy Pond Road to Bridge over MBTA/B&M Railroad | 608015 | PRC approved (2014) | 2019 | $8,000,000 | MAGIC | 4 | Major Infrastructure | Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is on a regionally significant roadway and includes roadway widening elements. If programmed in the TIP, this project should also be included in Destination 2050. | N/A | ||
| Lexington | Lexington | Route 4/225 (Bedford Street) and Hartwell Avenue | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2019 | $30,557,000 | MAGIC | 4 | Major Infrastructure | Project is programmed in Destination 2040 (FFYs 2030-34). The project is expected to include work on the I-95 Interchange with Route 4/225. If this work includes capacity-adding elements, it will need to be included in Destination 2050. | N/A | ||
| Community Connections | |||||||||||||
| Concord, Lexington, Lincoln | Concord | Battle Road Shuttle Pilot | N/A | N/A | 2022 | TBD | 4 | Erin Stevens in Concord indicated interest in two shuttle options, an extension of a 2022 Summer Pilot for local service and a more regional service that would involve operations in Lexington and Lincoln. See email from 12/5/2022 to Ethan Lapointe. | N/A | ||||
| Lexington | Lexington | Lexington Shuttle | N/A | N/A | 2022 | TBD | 4 | May be a component of the Concord project listed above. Outreach from Lexington on 12/5/2022 was somewhat vague, but expressed an interest in service. Lexington receives MBTA service. | N/A | ||||
| MetroWest Regional Collaborative | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Wellesley | Wellesley | Route 135 Reconstruction (Natick Town Line to Weston Road) | N/A | Pre-PRC | N/A | TBD | TBD | 6 | PNF submitted. Discussing 10.14.2022. | N/A | |||
| Holliston | Holliston | Reconstruction of Concord Street (Route 126) | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Added through subregional outreach. Project is municipal priority, as it's tied to necessary below-grade sewer work. 10/12/22: MaPIT is showing that a project was initiated back on 7.14.2020 for this stretch for resurfacing and related work, assuming $600K in total cost (likely lowball). | N/A | ||||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Framingham | MassDOT | Roundabout Construction at Salem End Road, Badger Road and Gates Street | 609280 | PRC approved (2018) | 2019 | $2,520,000 | MWRC | 3 | Intersection Improvements | N/A | |||
| Weston | Weston | Intersection Improvements - Signalization of Route 20 at Highland Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 6 | Added through subregional outreach. | N/A | ||||
| Holliston | Holliston | Route 16 Washington Street at Whitney Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $500,000 | 3 | Result of 12/20/2022 phone call between Ethan Lapointe and Robert Walker (Highway Superintendent). Looking for signal installation. | |||||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Weston | MassDOT | Weston - Shared Use Path Construction on Route 30 | 612602 | PRC Approved (2/10/2022) | 2022 | $1,050,000 | 6 | Meant to connect into Project 608954. District 6 priority to ensure that the shared-use-path there ties in to the rest of the bicycle network and concludes at a logical terminus. | N/A | ||||
| Natick | Natick | Cochituate Rail Trail Extension, from MBTA Station to Mechanic Street | 610691 | 25% Design Received (11/21/2022) | 2020 | $6,690,043 | NSPC | 3 | Bicycle and Pedestrian | Final section of Cochituate Rail Trail Extension. Imminent 25% design submittal. Applicant applied for FFY2024-2028 TIP funding. | N/A | ||
| Major Infrastructure | |||||||||||||
| Framingham | Framingham | Intersection Improvements at Route 126/135/MBTA and CSX Railroad | 606109 | PRC approved (2010) | 2019 | $115,000,000 | MWRC | 3 | Major Infrastructure | Project is programmed in Destination 2040 (FFYs 2030-34). May need to be pushed back with LRTP rewrite. Consultant said that depressing Route 135 may be the solution. | N/A | ||
| North Suburban Planning Council | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Burlington | Burlington | Town Center Complete Streets Improvements | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 4 | Complete Streets upgrades along Route 3A from Bedford Street to Arthur Woods Avenue. The scope of work would be additive to existing resurfacing planned under 610704, and would focus mostly on paint. There is potential for widening if the town's design includes a multimodal path while maintaining the current number and width of vehicle lanes. Organized opposition to bike lanes under 610704. Backlash against some public support. In public hearing for 610704, appx 30 people came out against. Likely to manifest in this project as well. D4 and MassDOT are aware of this project. Town is working with Northeastern University to have grad students on project and review plans. Ethan has contact info for students (one is in OPMI). | Route 3A (Bedford Street to Arthur Woods Avenue) | N/A | |||
| Lynnfield | Lynnfield | Reconstruction of Summer Street | 609381 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $21,521,921 | NSPC | 4 | Complete Streets | Not yet at 25% design. Bayside Engineering handling design, Norman Brown (781-932-3201, nbrown@baysideengineering.com) is PM. Culvert and turtle crossings. Town may consider descoping and phasing the project due to cost, per 12/20/2022 conversation with PM. | Summer Street (Lynnfield Town Hall to Route 129). | N/A | |
| Reading | Reading | Reading Downtown Improvement Project | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | $7-$8 million | 4 | Project at conceptual stage. | N/A | ||||
| Stoneham | Stoneham | Reconstruction of South Main Street, from Town Center to South Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 4 | N/A | |||||
| Wakefield | Wakefield | Envision Wakefield - Main Street Improvements | 610545 | 25% Design Complete | 2020 | $16,581,200 | 4 | Main St (Nahant to Water) and Water Street (Main to Cyrus) removed from project and bundled in 607329. 25% design incorporates some retention of angled parking in order to appease older public, but focus is on bike parking. Strong public input from youth during town meetings led to approval. Key sticking point in FFY 2023-2027 Scoring was project cost ~$26M. Bundling of some bike improvements into other nearby state highway projects has reduced budget to $16.5M as of the FFY2024-2028 funding round. | Main Street (Water Street to Salem Street) | Yes | 41.8 | ||
| Winchester | Winchester | Town Center Complete Streets Improvements | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 4 | N/A | |||||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Stoneham | Stoneham | Intersection Improvements at Main Street (Route 28), Franklin Street, and Central Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | N/A | 4 | Project at conceptual stage. | N/A | ||||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Stoneham, Wakefield | Stoneham, Wakefield | Mystic Highlands Greenway Project | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 4 | N/A | |||||
| Community Connections | |||||||||||||
| North Reading | North Reading | North Reading Human Services Transportation | N/A | N/A | 2022 | 4 | Significant paratransit consideration. Losing Merrimack Valley interdistrict service as North Reading falls between the MBTA and MVRTA. | N/A | |||||
| North Shore Task Force | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Beverly, Manchester-by-the-Sea | MassDOT | Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 127 | 607707 | PRC approved (2013) | 2018 | $2,300,000 | NSTF | 4 | Complete Streets | Still in preliminary design. | N/A | ||
| Danvers | Danvers | Reconstruction on Collins Street, from Sylvan Street to Centre and Holten Streets | 602310 | 75% submitted (3/5/2010) | 2017 or earlier | $5,183,121 | NSTF | 4 | Complete Streets | Updated 75% design submission needed for project to move forward. Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. | Collins Street (Sylvan Street to Centre Street/Holten Street) 0.7 miles. 42.5566, -70.9539 | Yes | 46 |
| Ipswich | Ipswich | Reconstruction of County Road, from South Main Street to East Street | 611975 | PRC approved (2021) | 2020 | $5,653,500 | 4 | On 10/7/2022, Frank Ventimiglia mentioned that a bridge within the project limits has had a lane closed by MassDOT. Structure IDs are I01005, main concern is Ipswich - 2PN which is an 1861-built historic stone arch mill bridge. Currently functioning as a one-way. OFF SYSTEM BRIDGE. MassDOT contact is Ryan Wilcox. Town had approached as a traffic safety project with the bridge as a focal point. Pier degradation and cracking. Structure is under evaluation for a statewide bridge preservation contract. | County Road (South Main Street to East Street) | Y | 45.4 | ||
| Ipswich | Ipswich | Argilla Roadway Reconstruction and Adaptation (Crane Estate to Crane Beach) | 612738 | PRC Approved (5/12/2022) | 2021 | $4,628,419 | 4 | Municipal priority for funding. On 10/7/2022, Frank Ventimiglia at Ipswich DPW expressed an interest in pursuing MDP funding to support this project. | Argilla Road (Crane Estate to Crane Beach) | Y | N/A | ||
| Marblehead | Marblehead | Bridge Replacement, M-04-001, Village Street over Marblehead Rail Trail (Harold B. Breare Bridge) | 612947 | PRC approved (9/15/2022) | 2019 | N/A | NSTF | 4 | Major Infrastructure | Per 10.11 email with C Quigley, the project received a PRC and a PROJIS ID in September 2022 after a PNF was submitted 8/2022. | N/A | ||
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | Manchester-by-the-Sea | Pine Street - Central Street (Route 127) to Rockwood Heights Road | N/A | Pre-PRC; PNF submitted (12/27/16) | 2017 or earlier | N/A | NSTF | 4 | Complete Streets | N/A | |||
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | Manchester-by-the-Sea | Bridge Replacement, M-02-001 (8AM), Central Street (route 127) over Saw Mill Brook | 610671 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $4,350,000 | NSTF | 4 | Complete Streets | 34.8 | |||
| Rockport | Rockport | Roadway Reconstruction of Route 127A (Thatcher Road) | 612737 | PRC Approved (1/23/2023) | 2023 | $12,058,173 | 4 | Added to Universe in January 2023 based on PRC results. PM is Marie Rose. Sea level rise risk, talk to Judy | Route 127A, Thatcher Road (Red Fox Lane to Seaview Street) | ||||
| Salem | MassDOT | Reconstruction of Bridge Street (Route 107), from Flint Street to Washington Street | 612990 | PRC Approved (1/24/2023) | 2017 or earlier | $12,067,500 | 4 | Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. It is on a regionally significant roadway and would add roadway capacity. If it is programmed in the TIP, it will need to be programmed in Destination 2050. | N/A | ||||
| Wenham | Wenham | Safety Improvements on Route 1A | 609388 | 25% Approved (9/10/2021) | 2019 | $3,629,036 | NSTF | 4 | Complete Streets | Dan Wilk (daniel.wilk@state.ma.us) is MassDOT PM. Working with Bayside Engineering as design consultant. MassDOT may fund this for construction in full, and Wenham is paying for design. Bayside currently responding to 25% comments. Drainage for abutters is holding this up. | N/A | ||
| Wenham | Wenham | Roadway Reconstruction on Larch Row and Dodges Row | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2019 | $800,000 | NSTF | 4 | Complete Streets | Project at conceptual stage. | N/A | ||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Essex | Essex | Targeted Safety Improvements on Route 133 (John Wise Avenue) | 609315 | PRC approved (2019) | 2019 | $2,135,440 | NSTF | 4 | Intersection Improvements | N/A | |||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Peabody, Salem | Peabody, Salem | Riverwalk Project | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 4 | MVP grant issued for project design. | N/A | ||||
| Marblehead | Marblehead | B2B Bikeway Design - Marblehead | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $140,000 | 4 | Earmark. May be added via amendment. | |||||
| Peabody, Salem | Peabody, Salem | B2B Bikeway Design - Peabody/Salem | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $600,000 | 4 | Earmark. May be added via amendment. | |||||
| Major Infrastructure | |||||||||||||
| Beverly | Beverly | Interchange Reconstruction at Route 128/Exit 19 at Brimbal Avenue (Phase II) | 607727 | PRC Approved (2014) | 2021 | N/A | NSPC | 4 | Intersection Improvements | Project is not programmed in Destination 2040. Is on a regionally-significant roadway, and would expand the interchange. If this project is programmed in the TIP and adds roadway capacity, this project will need to be included in Destination 2050. | N/A | ||
| South Shore Coalition | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Holbrook | Holbrook | Corridor Improvements and Related Work on South Franklin Street (Route 37) from Snell Street to King Road | 608543 | PRC approved (2017) | 2018 | $4,000,200 | SSC | 5 | Complete Streets | N/A | |||
| Hull | Hull | Nantasket Avenue Redesign | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2023 | TBD | 5 | Includes redevelopment of existing gravel squares in front of Nantasket Beach for additional facilities/recreational zones/open space | |||||
| Rockland | Rockland | Corridor Improvements on VFW Drive/Weymouth Street | 612605 | PRC approved (2/10/2022) | 2021 | $13,047,281 | 5 | PNF entered in Jan 2022 | N/A | ||||
| Weymouth | MassDOT | Reconstruction on Route 3A, Including Pedestrian and Traffic Signal Improvements | 608231 | PRC approved (2016) | 2017 or earlier | $10,780,100 | SSC | 6 | Complete Streets | Pre-25% package submitted in July 2021. | N/A | ||
| Weymouth | MassDOT | Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 3A | 608483 | PRC approved (2016) | 2018 | $2,400,000 | SCC | 6 | Complete Streets | N/A | |||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Cohasset | Cohasset | Intersection Improvements at Route 3A and King Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 5 | Added through subregional outreach. | N/A | ||||
| Hull | Hull | Intersection Improvements at George Washington Boulevard and Barnstable Road/ Logan Avenue | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 5 | Added through subregional outreach. | N/A | ||||
| South West Advisory Planning Committee | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Bellingham | Bellingham | South Main Street (Route 126) - Elm Street to Douglas Drive Reconstruction | N/A | Pre-PRC; PNF submitted (3/13/17) | 2017 or earlier | N/A | SWAP | 3 | Complete Streets | Project would dovetail ongoing project 608887, rehab on Route 126 from Douglas Drive to Route 140. | No | N/A | |
| Bellingham | Bellingham | Bellingham - Roadway Rehabilitation of Route 126 (Hartford Road), from 800 North of the I-495 NB off ramp to Medway T/L, including B-06-017 | 612963 | PRC Approved (9/15/2022) | 2022 | $10,950,000 | 3 | Applied for FFY2024-2028. BRMPO issued a full corridor study in 2011. | |||||
| Franklin | MassDOT | Resurfacing and Intersection Improvements on Route 140, from Beaver Street to I-495 Ramps | 607774 | PRC approved (2014) | 2018 | $4,025,000 | SWAP | 3 | Complete Streets | Yes | N/A | ||
| Hopkinton | Hopkinton | West Main Street Reconstruction and Shared Use Path | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $15,000,000 | 3 | Priority is a shared use path under I-495 along W Main Street EB to link into existing trail networks and SUP in downtown area and commercial campuses west of I-495. Includes a large roundabout at Lumber Street/Parkwood Drive and West Main Street due to frequent crashes. | West Main Street (South Street to Wood Street) | No | N/A | ||
| Medway | Medway | Improvements on Route 109 West of Highland Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. Ethan will verify. There is a project from Richard Rd. heading WB to Highland Street, which conflicts with the name of this project. It was initiated in Nov. 2021. | TBD | Maybe? | N/A | ||
| Milford | MassDOT | Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 16 | 612091 | PRC approved (2021) | 2021 | $4,192,500 | 3 | No | N/A | ||||
| Millis | Millis | Town Center Improvements | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | N/A | |||
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Resurfacing and Related Work on Route 1 | 608497 | PRC approved (2016) | 2020 | N/A | 5 | 25% design anticipated July 2022. | Yes | N/A | |||
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Medway | Medway | Traffic Signalization at Trotter Drive and Route 109 | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | N/A | |||
| Sherborn | Sherborn | Intersection Improvements at Route 16 and Maple Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | N/A | |||
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Intersection Improvements on Route 1A at North and Winter Street | 610676 | PRC Approved (12/19/2019) | 2020 | $2,649,000 | 5 | No | N/A | ||||
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Intersection Improvements at Randall Road and Route 1A | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | $2,649,000 | 5 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | N/A | |||
| Wrentham | Wrentham | Intersection Improvements at Route 1A and Route 140 | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2020 | N/A | 5 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | N/A | |||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Franklin | Franklin | Southern New England Trunk Trail (SNETT) Extension, from Grove Street to Franklin Town Center | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | ||||
| Hopkinton | Hopkinton | Campus Trail Connector, Shared Use Trail Construction | 611932 | PRC approved (9/24/2020) | 2020 | $1,750,700 | NSTF | 3 | Bicycle and Pedestrian | No | N/A | ||
| Norfolk, Walpole, and Wrentham | Norfolk | Metacomet Greenway | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 5 | Project at conceptual stage. Feasibility analysis complete. Pilot development will start with Hill to Pine Street through old rail bed ROW. Includes bridge over Route 115 due to traffic concerns. | No | N/A | |||
| Sherborn | Sherborn | Upper Charles River Trail Extension to Framingham City Line | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Project at conceptual stage. | No | N/A | |||
| Major Infrastructure | |||||||||||||
| Bellingham | MassDOT | Ramp Construction & Relocation, I-495 at Route 126 (Hartford Avenue) | 604862 | PRC approved (2006) | 2017 or earlier | $13,543,400 | SWAP | 3 | Major Infrastructure | High priority for District 3 | No | N/A | |
| Three Rivers Interlocal Council | |||||||||||||
| Complete Streets | |||||||||||||
| Canton, Milton | MassDOT | Roadway Improvements on Route 138 | 608484 | PRC approved (2016) | 2020 | $18,467,500 | 6 | Milton also in ICC subregion. Project a high priority for the TRIC subregion. District is working to refine scope. Nine miles in length, may require phasing. | York Street to Truman Highway. Appx 9 miles. | Yes | N/A | ||
| Canton | Canton | Lower Randolph Reconstruction (Route 138, Turnpike Avenue to Colts Crossing) | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2023 | TBD | 6 | Emerged in discussions following application of Randolph and York Street Signal Installation for FFY 2024-2028 STIP. Sidewalk installation, bike lanes, crosswalks, roadway rehabilitation, signal improvements at the Route 138 and, potentially, York Street intersection. Crosswalks near Ponkapoag Pond trailhead. | Randolph Street from Route 138 to Colts Crossing. | No | N/A | ||
| Medfield | Medfield | Reconstruction of Route 109 (Millis T/L to Hartford Street) | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 3 | Added through subregional outreach. Working with Ann Sullivan and Arthur Frost at D3, BETA is design consultant. | MIllis T/L to Hartford St. | Maybe? | N/A | ||
| Milton | MassDOT | Reconstruction on Granite Avenue, from Neponset River to Squantum Street | 608406 | 25% submitted (2/10/2017) | 2017 or earlier | $3,665,146 | TRIC | 6 | Complete Streets | Milton also in ICC subregion. | No | N/A | |
| Milton | Milton | Adams Street Improvements, from Randolph Avenue to Eliot Street | 610820 | PRC approved (4/30/2020) | 2020 | $1,799,330 | 6 | Milton also in ICC subregion. Preliminary design. | Randolph Avenue to Eliot Street at Neponset River. Appx. 0.10 miles. -42.2703, -71.0679 | No | N/A | ||
| Needham | Needham | Reconstruction of Highland Avenue, from Webster Street to Great Plains Avenue | 612536 | PRC approved (10/21/2021) | 2021 | $10,402,402 | 6 | Needham also in ICC subregion. | No | N/A | |||
| Dover, Needham | Dover, Needham | Centre Street Bridge Replacement | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | N/A | 6 | Historic-eligible, needs replacement as it is 1850's era. | No | N/A | |||
| Westwood | Westwood | Reconstruction of Canton Street (East Street Rotary and University Avenue) | 608158 | 25% Package Received (2/18/2022) | 2017 or earlier | $19,047,306 | TRIC | 6 | Complete Streets | Priority for municipality. MassDOT expresses concerns regarding project readiness due to scope fluctuations. PINFO includes bridge rehab work. Application submitted for FFY2024-2028. | 1.9 miles | Yes | N/A |
| Intersection Improvements | |||||||||||||
| Canton | Canton | Signal Installation at Randolph Street and York Street | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2022 | $500,000 | 6 | Application submitted for FFY 2024-2028 TIP. Municipality requested $50,000 against a total estimate of $500,000. Significant funding in local mitigation fund for match. | Randolph Street at York Street | Yes | N/A | ||
| Foxborough | Foxborough | Intersection Signalization at Route 140/Walnut Street and Route 140/I-95 (SB Ramp) | 612740 | PRC Approved (5/12/2022) | 2021 | $11,902,600 | 5 | Added through subregional outreach. Town has advanced design outside of TIP process. District supports project. Budget has increased from original $5M estimate in 2021. | No | N/A | |||
| Medfield | Medfield | Intersection Improvements at Route 27 and West Street | 612807 | PRC Approved (5/12/2022) | 2021 | $3,987,500 | 3 | Added through subregional outreach. | No | N/A | |||
| Bicycle and Pedestrian | |||||||||||||
| Canton | Canton | Warner Trail Extension, from Sharon to Blue Hills Reservation | N/A | Pre-PRC | 2021 | N/A | 6 | Added through subregional outreach. Feasibility study currently underway. | No | N/A | |||
| Major Infrastructure | |||||||||||||
| Canton, Westwood | MassDOT | Interchange Improvements at I-95 / I-93 / University Avenue / I-95 Widening | 87790 | 25% submitted (7/25/14) | 2017 or earlier | $202,205,994 | TRIC | 6 | Major Infrastructure | Project not programmed in Destination 2040. IIt is on a regionally-significant roadway and adds roadway capacity. If programmed in the TIP, this project would also need to be included in Destination 2050. Last scored for FFYs 2020-24 TIP. Regional priority, potential discretionary grant project via MassDOT for State Highway funding. | No | 47 | |
Table A-3
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Project Evaluation Results: Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections, Complete Streets, Intersection Improvements, and the Transit Transformation Investment Programs
| Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections Program | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Proponent | Project Number | Project Name | MAPC Subregion | Project Status | Project Cost | Total Score | Total Base Score | Total Scaled Equity Score | Safety | Safety Equity Score | Mobility and Reliability | Mobility and Reliability Equity Score | Access and Connectivity | Access and Connectivity Equity Score | Resilience | Resilience Equity Score | Clean Air and Healthy Communities | Clean Air and Healthy Communities Equity Score | |||
| Cambridge | 613568 | Cambridge-New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Construction over Fitchburg Line at Danehy Park Connector [DESIGN ONLY] | ICC | PRC Approved (12/19/2023) | Design: $3,000,000 | 78.1 | 72.5 | 5.6 | 14 | 3.5 | 14 | 2.5 | 15.5 | 2.5 | 14 | 2 | 15 | 3.5 | |||
| Framingham | N/A | Framingham- Chris Walsh Trail (Phase 2) [DESIGN ONLY] | MWRC | Preliminary Design | Design: $850,000 Construction: $14,300,000 | 79.9 | 69.5 | 10.4 | 15 | 8 | 13.5 | 6 | 15 | 5 | 13 | 1 | 13 | 6 | |||
| Hudson | N/A | Hudson- Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Construction [DESIGN ONLY] | MAGIC | Preliminary Design | Design: $909,700 | 62.7 | 57.5 | 5.2 | 11.5 | 3.5 | 10.5 | 2 | 12.5 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 13 | 3.5 | |||
| Norfolk, Wrentham, Walpole | 613644 | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole- Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) [DESIGN ONLY] | SWAP, TRIC | Preliminary Design | Design: $1,550,000 Construction: $19,754,350 | 65 | 59.5 | 5.5 | 11 | 3.5 | 12 | 2.5 | 13.5 | 1.75 | 10 | 2 | 13 | 4 | |||
| Sudbury | 613319 | Sudbury-Framingham- Bike Path Construction of Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, from the Sudbury Diamond Railroad Crossing to Eaton Road West | MAGIC | PRC Approved (6/01/2023) | $8,820,000 | 50.5 | 47 | 3.5 | 12 | 3.5 | 8.5 | 1.75 | 10.5 | 0.5 | 7 | 1 | 9 | 2 | |||
| 100 | 80 | 20 | 16 | 15 | 17 | 16 | 16 | ||||||||||||||
| Complete Streets Program | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Proponent | Project Number | Project Name | MAPC Subregion | Project Status | Project Cost | Total Score | Total Base Score | Total Scaled Equity Score | Safety | Safety Equity Score | Mobility and Reliability | Mobility and Reliability Equity Score | Access and Connectivity | Access and Connectivity Equity Score | Resilience | Resilience Equity Score | Clean Air and Healthy Communities | Clean Air and Healthy Communities Equity Score | |||
| Acton | N/A | Acton- Great Road, from Harris Street to Davis Road Intersections, Complete Streets Project [DESIGN ONLY] | MAGIC | Preliminary Design | Design: $860,000 Construction: $8,600,000 | 45.4 | 41 | 4.4 | 10 | 4 | 14 | 3 | 8 | 1.5 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 2.5 | |||
| Arlington | N/A | Arlington- Broadway Complete Streets [DESIGN ONLY] | ICC | Preliminary Design | Design: $1,395,000 | 80.1 | 72.5 | 7.6 | 16 | 4 | 16 | 5 | 10.5 | 2.5 | 13 | 2 | 17 | 5.5 | |||
| Boston | N/A | Boston- Reconstruction of Bennington Street, Porter Street to Wood Island Busway [DESIGN ONLY] | ICC | Preliminary Design | Design: $1,500,000 Construction: $15,000,000 | 76.2 | 66 | 10.2 | 9.5 | 4.5 | 17.5 | 6.75 | 11 | 3.75 | 14 | 3 | 14 | 7.5 | |||
| Bellingham | 612963 | Bellingham- Roadway Rehabilitation of Route 126 (Hartford Road) from 800 Feet North of the Interstate 495 Northbound Off-Ramp to Medway Town Line, including B-06-017. | SWAP | PRC Approved (9/15/2022) | $13,900,000 | 54.3 | 50 | 4.3 | 7.5 | 2 | 12.5 | 3.25 | 14 | 2.5 | 7 | 0.5 | 9 | 2.5 | |||
| Malden | N/A | Malden- Route 60 Improvement Project [DESIGN ONLY] | ICC | Preliminary Design | Design: $2,600,000 Cosntruction: $21,201,687 | 71.15 | 62 | 9.15 | 14.5 | 6 | 17 | 6.375 | 12.5 | 3.75 | 10 | 3 | 8 | 3.75 | |||
| Malden | N/A | Malden- Commercial Street Reconstruction [DESIGN ONLY] | ICC | Preliminary Design | Design: $935,000 Construction: $7,250,000 | 62.25 | 54 | 8.25 | 13 | 5.25 | 15 | 5.625 | 10 | 2.25 | 5 | 3 | 11 | 4.5 | |||
| Marlborough | 612285 | Marlborough- Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard [DESIGN ONLY] | MWRC | PRC Approved (6/24/2021) | Design: $1,215,000 Construction: $12,145,000 | 79.9 | 70 | 9.9 | 14 | 6 | 17 | 6.75 | 13 | 3.75 | 13 | 3 | 13 | 5.25 | |||
| Ipswich | 612738 | Ipswich- Argilla Road Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | NSTF | PRC Approved (5/12/2022) | $6,600,000 | 37.9 | 35.5 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 7 | 0.5 | 7 | 1.5 | 11 | 1 | 8 | 2.5 | |||
| Salem | N/A | Salem- Broad Street and Dalton Parkway Corridor Project [DESIGN ONLY] | NSTF | Preliminary Design | Design: $1,068,780 Construction: $2,500,000 | 60.1 | 54.5 | 5.6 | 13.5 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 12 | 2.5 | 3 | 0.5 | 10 | 3 | |||
| Southborough | 612962 | Southborough- Reclamation of Marlborough Road (Route 85) and Framingham Road from Marlborough C.L to Route 30 [DESIGN ONLY] | MWRC | Preliminary Design | Design: $1,315,000 Construction: $13,153,146 | 52.5 | 52.5 | 4.7 | 8 | 2 | 11 | 3.5 | 8.5 | 0.75 | 11 | 2 | 14 | 3.5 | |||
| 100 | 80 | 20 | 16 | 19 | 15 | 14 | 16 | ||||||||||||||
| Intersection Improvements Program | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Proponent | Project Number | Project Name | MAPC Subregion | Project Status | Project Cost | Total Score | Total Base Score | Total Scaled Equity Score | Safety | Safety Equity Score | Mobility and Reliability | Mobility and Reliability Equity Score | Access and Connectivity | Access and Connectivity Equity Score | Resilience | Resilience Equity Score | Clean Air and Healthy Communities | Clean Air and Healthy Communities Equity Score | |||
| Burlington | 613641 | Burlington- Intersection Improvements at Route 3A/Cambridge Street and Winn Street [DESIGN ONLY] | NSPC | PRC Approved (12/19/2023) | Design: $1,700,000 Construction: $9,557,295 | 71 | 64.5 | 6.5 | 21.5 | 4.5 | 16.5 | 4.25 | 12.5 | 2.5 | 5 | 1.5 | 9 | 3.5 | |||
| Holliston | N/A | Holliston- Intersection Improvements at Route 16 and Whitney Street [DESIGN ONLY] | MWRC | Preliminary Design | Design: $250,000 Construction: $2,500,000 | 42.8 | 39.5 | 3.3 | 19 | 5 | 9 | 1.5 | 5.5 | 0.75 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Sherborn | N/A | Sherborn- Reconstruction of Route 27 and Route 16 [DESIGN ONLY] | SWAP | Preliminary Design | Design: $900,000 Construction: $9,000,000 | 81.8 | 75 | 6.8 | 22 | 5 | 16 | 4 | 15 | 2.5 | 13 | 2 | 9 | 3.5 | |||
| Quincy | 610823 | Quincy- Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive | ICC | 75% Design | $1,812,839 | 41.1 | 36 | 5.1 | 16.5 | 6 | 11 | 5.25 | 4.5 | 0.75 | -1 | -2.25 | 5 | 3 | |||
| 100 | 80 | 20 | 25 | 18 | 14 | 12 | 11 | ||||||||||||||
| Transit Transformation Program | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Proponent | Project Number | Project Name | MAPC Subregion | Project Status | Project Cost | Total Score | Total Base Score | Total Scaled Equity Score | Safety | Safety Equity Score | Mobility and Reliability | Mobility and Reliability Equity Score | Access and Connectivity | Access and Connectivity Equity Score | Resilience | Resilience Equity Score | Clean Air and Healthy Communities | Clean Air and Healthy Communities Equity Score | |||
| CATA | N/A | CATA- Fare Upgrades for ADA and Dial-A-Ride Customers | NSTF | N/A | $65,000 | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | |||
| CATA | N/A | CATA- CATA Gloucester Facility Modernization | NSTF | N/A | $1,293,000 | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | |||
| CATA | N/A | CATA - Vehicle Replacement (4 Vehicles) | NSTF | N/A | $2,460,000 | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | |||
| MWRTA | N/A | MWRTA- Procurement of Three 29 Foot Buses | MWRC | N/A | $1,980,000 | 52.2 | 47 | 5.2 | 9 | 2 | 14 | 4 | 12 | 4 | 6 | 0.5 | 6 | 2.5 | |||
| MWRTA | N/A | MWRTA- Blandin Hub Equitable Redesign Initiative | MWRC | N/A | $2,500,000 | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | |||
| 100 | 79 | 21 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 15 | ||||||||||||||
| Community Connections Program | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Proponent | Project Name | MAPC Subregion | Project Cost | Cost/Point | Total Score | Connectivity | Regional and Interlocal Coordination | Plan Implementation | Transportation Equity | Climate Change Mitigation | Performance Management | ||||||||||
| Arlington | Arlington- Installation of 123 Bicycle Racks and Related Materials | ICC | $90,878 | $1,220 | 74.5 | 15 | 9 | 18 | 9.5 | 13 | 10 | ||||||||||
| Boston | Boston- Bluebikes State-of-Good Repair, Twelve Stations | ICC | $590,348 | $7,717 | 76.5 | 18 | 8 | 14 | 12.5 | 14 | 10 | ||||||||||
| Boston | Boston- Installation of 1600 Bicycle Racks | ICC | $379,470 | $4,628 | 82 | 18 | 8 | 18 | 11 | 17 | 10 | ||||||||||
| Brookline | Brookline- Bluebikes State-of-Good Repair, Three Stations and 62 Pedal Bicycles | ICC | $200,000 | $2,985 | 67 | 16 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 9 | ||||||||||
| Cambridge | Cambridge- Bluebikes State-of-Good Repair, Eight Stations and 65 Pedal Bicycles | ICC | $385,456 | $5,627 | 68.5 | 17 | 8 | 12 | 8.5 | 14 | 9 | ||||||||||
| Chelsea, Revere | Chelsea-Revere- Regional On-Demand Microtransit Pilot Project | ICC | $499,649 | $9,296 | 53.75 | 13 | 11 | N/A | 11.25 | 11.5 | 7 | ||||||||||
| Malden | Malden- Canal Street Bicycle Lanes | ICC | $81,250 | $1,585 | 51.25 | 9 | 7 | 12 | 8.25 | 8 | 7 | ||||||||||
| Revere | Revere- Bluebikes Expansion, Four Stations and 40 Pedal Bicycles | ICC | $169,000 | $2,661 | 63.5 | 17 | 6 | 10 | 7.5 | 14 | 9 | ||||||||||
| Scituate | Scituate- Installation of 25 Bicycle Racks | SSC | $22,800 | $501 | 45.5 | 9 | 8 | 16 | 4.5 | 2 | 6 | ||||||||||
| Somerville | Somerville- Bluebikes State-of-Good Repair, Thirteen Stations | ICC | $278,127 | $4,120 | 67.5 | 14 | 8 | 16 | 7.5 | 13 | 9 | ||||||||||
| Abbreviations | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act. CATA = Cape Ann Transportation Authority. MWRTA = MetroWest Regional Transit Authority. N/A = not applicable. PRC = MassDOT's Project Review Committee. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Table A-4
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Project Evaluation Results: Community Connections Program
| Proponent | Project Name | MAPC Subregion | Project Cost | Cost/Monthly Passenger Trip | Total Score | Connectivity | Coordination | Plan Implementation | Transportation Equity | Mode Shift and Demand Projection | Fiscal Sustainability | |||
| Concord | Concord Workforce Shuttle** | MAGIC | $369,911 | $155 | 71 | 13 | 15 | 6 | 6 | 21 | 10 | |||
| MWRTA | CatchConnect Microtransit Expansion Phase 2** | MWRC | $402,500 | $93 | 90 | 17 | 15 | 15 | 9 | 24 | 10 | |||
| North Reading | North Reading Demand-Response Shuttle Pilot Program** | NSPC | $77,637 | $348 | 77.25 | 16.25 | 15 | 9 | 9 | 18 | 10 | |||
| Revere | Revere On-Demand Shuttle Service** | ICC | $980,976 | $30 | 57 | 17 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 15 | 10 | |||
| Boston | Boston Electric BlueBikes Adoption | ICC | $1,020,000 | $21 | 84 | 17 | 15 | 6 | 12 | 24 | 10 | |||
| Cambridge | Cambridge Electric BlueBikes Adoption | ICC | $352,575 | $13 | 81 | 17 | 15 | 6 | 9 | 24 | 10 | |||
| Canton | Canton Center Bicycle Racks | TRIC | $10,000 | $12 | 72 | 14 | 9 | 12 | 6 | 21 | 10 | |||
| Canton | Canton Public Schools Bike Program | TRIC | $22,500 | $4 | 38 | 13 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 10 | |||
| Lynn | Broad Street Corridor Transit Signal Priority | ICC | $297,800 | $2 | 88 | 17.5 | 12 | 13.5 | 12 | 23 | 10 | |||
| Medford | Medford Bicycle Parking—Tier 1 | ICC | $29,600 | $12 | 84 | 17 | 12 | 12 | 9 | 24 | 10 | |||
| Medford | Medford Bluebikes Expansion | ICC | $118,643 | $53 | 78 | 17 | 15 | 3 | 9 | 24 | 10 | |||
| Possible Points | Possible Points | 100 | 18 | 15 | 15 | 18 | 24 | 10 | ||||||
| *This project was not recommended for moving forward at TIP Readiness Days until the project is formally intiated through MassDOT's system and goes through the Project Review Committee. Staff are actively working with the project proponent and MassDOT District 6 to initiate this project. | ||||||||||||||
| **The proponents for these shuttle projects requested funding for FFY 2024 and additional years. Concord requested $139,749 in FFY 2024, $122,165 in FFY 2025, and $107,997 in FFY 2026. The MWRTA requested $140,000 in FFY 2024, $132,500 in FFY 2025, and $130,000 in FFY 2026. North Reading requested $41,787 in FFY 2024 and $35,850 in FFY 2025. Revere requested $356,825 in FFY 2024, $338,521 in FFY 2025, and $285,630 in FFY 2026. The figures in the Cost/Monthy Passenger Trip column only show the cost per monthly user for the first year of funding. | ||||||||||||||
Table A-5
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Project Evaluation Criteria: Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections Program
| Project Name | PROJECT NAME | |
| Municipality/Proponent | PROJECT PROPONENT(S) | |
| Project Type | Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections | |
| Scoring Criteria | Base Score | Equity Multiplier? |
| Equity: Facilitate an inclusive and transparent transportation-planning process and make investments that eliminate transportation-related disparities borne by people in disadvantaged communities. | ||
| An equity multiplier (EM) is applied to criteria that the MPO has identified through public outreach and data analysis as critical transportation needs or where there exist disparities that negatively impact equity populations. These criteria are denoted by a check mark on the right side of this scorecard. Each project’s multiplier is based on the percent of the population in the project area that belongs to each of the MPO’s six equity populations in the project area relative to their region wide averages. The higher the share of equity populations in the project area, the higher the multiplier. To calculate a final Transportation Equity score, a project's raw equity multiplier is scaled to 20 points and then added to the base score (out of 80 possible points) as shown at the bottom of this scorecard. | ||
| Safety: Achieve zero transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries and improve safety for all users of the transportation system. | ||
| The project design has a significant effect on improving safety for all users. Disqualifying - The project design does not improve safety for all users, or hinders user safety. 1 - The design of the project has a minor impact on improving safety for a limited number of potential facility users. 2 - The design of the project has a moderate effect on improving safety for all users of the facility, or improvements are primarily directed towards either pedestrians or micromobility, not both. 3 - The design of the project has a high effect on improving safety for all potential users of the facility, including the creation of entirely new facilities. | 3 | Yes |
| The project addresses a statewide Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster or Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 0 - The project does not address a Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster or Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 2 - The project addresses a Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster and/or a Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. | 2 | Yes |
| The proposed design provides for physical separation of facility users from other forms of traffic, and prevents obstruction. 0 - The proposed design either affords no physical separation for the facility, or the separation is horizontal and striped only. 1 - The proposed design has some physical separation for the facility in the form of a flexible barrier, but does not adequately prevent obstruction (ie: parking in bicycle lane). 2 - The proposed design affords full physical separation of the facility and its users from other forms of traffic, including vertical separation and fixed barriers. | 2 | Yes |
| Where vehicles and pedestrians or micromobility users share a facility, the project improves the safety of interactions between these users. 0 - The project does not take steps to reduce conflict and hazards between vulnerable users and vehicles. 1 - The project makes some steps towards reducing conflicts and hazards between vulnerable users and vehicles, such as flexible posts. 2 - The project reduces conflicts and hazards between vehicles and vulnerable users where they currently exist, or eliminates these hazards entirely. | 2 | |
| The project connects to existing pedestrian or micromobility facilities. 0 - The project does not connect to any current pedestrian or micromobility facilities, and the applicant does not provide any information as to how future connections may be made. 1 - The project does not connect to any current pedestrian or micromobility facilities, but the applicant describes how future connections will be made and any action to date towards those connections. 2 - The project connects to other micromobility or pedestrian facilities, including painted bike lanes or sidewalks. 3 - The project connects to safe micromobility and pedestrian facilities, or functions as an extension of an existing facility. | 3 | |
| The project improves safety and accessibility for people with disabilities. Disqualifying - The proposed project introduces potentially unsafe elements for people with disabilities. Alternatively, the project does not address identifiable issues with Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance in the Project Area. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental enhancements to safety for people with disabilities. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for people with disabilities. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for people with disabilities. | 2 | Yes |
| The project effectively addresses safety for transit operations and users. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits to safety for transit operations or transit users. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for transit operations or transit users. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for transit operations or transit users. | 2 | |
| Mobility and Reliability: Support easy and reliable movement of people and freight. | ||
| The applicant thoroughly describes deficiencies in the current design of the corridor or intersection, and how the project addresses these deficiencies. 0 - The proposed project includes minor improvements to roadway mobility, or focuses primarily on the preservation of existing assets. 1 - The project primarily upgrades existing active transportation infrastructure within the current right of way and street footprint that addresses some of the deficiencies along the corridor. 2 - The project upgrades and modernizes infrastructure, including improvements that create active transportation connections where none currently exist. 3 - The project thoroughly addresses deficiencies in a corridor o |
3 | |
| The project improves pedestrian safety near a high-utility corridor to promote walking. 0 - The project does not involve significant pedestrian safety improvements. 1 - The project improves pedestrian safety on a corridor with moderate utility. 2 - The project improves pedestrian safety on a high utility corridor. | 2 | Yes |
| The project improves safety near a high-utility corridor for other active transportation modes other than walking. 0 - The project does not involve significant safety improvements for other active transportation modes. 1 - The project improves active transportation safety for other active transportation modes on a corridor with moderate utility. 2 - The project improves active transportation safety for other active transportation modes on a high utility corridor. | 2 | Yes |
| The applicant details how the facility may be maintained and upgraded throughout its useful life, including plans to ensure accessibility of the facility year round by users (ex: snow plowing, root management). 0 - The applicant does not describe their approach towards maintaining and supporting the asset. 1 - The applicant describes the process by which the asset may be maintained, and access supported. 2 - The applicant describes the process by which the asset may be maintained and access supported, and includes a plan for future improvements to the asset or along the network. | 2 | |
| The project improves travel time reliability by investing in measures that reduce dependence on single-occupancy-vehicle trips. 0 - The project does not improve travel time reliability, or does not significantly invest in non-SOV transportation modes. 1 - The project has some impact on travel time reliability through minor investments in non-SOV transportation modes. 2 - The project has some impact on travel time reliability through moderate investments in non-SOV transportation modes. 3 - The project has a significant impact on travel time reliability through rigorous investments in non-SOV transportation modes. | 3 | Yes |
| The project invests in safe pedestrian facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in pedestrian facilities, or establishes facilities that are disconnected from other pedestrian infrastructure with no plans for connections. 1 - The project makes some investments in pedestrian facilities, such as beacons and sidewalks, but investments are limited to the immediate project area (ex: intersection). 2 - The project makes comprehensive investments in new and upgraded pedestrian facilities in the project area, and establishes safe connections to a greater pedestrian network. | 2 | |
| The project includes complementary investments from bikeshare facilities. 0 - No bikeshare facilities are present along the route or near the asset. 1 - Bikeshare facilities are present along the route or near the asset. | 1 | |
| Access and Connectivity: Provide transportation options and improve access to key destinations to support economic vitality and high quality of life. | ||
| The project serves sites targeted for future development (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project does not serve a site targeted for future development. 1 - The project serves a site for future development. 2 - The project serves a site targeted for future development that includes transit-supportive mixed-use or residential sites. | 2 | |
| The project serves sites included within a municipal Section 3A 'MBTA Communities' zoning district or other transit oriented development. (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project does not serve a TOD or MBTA Communities site. 1 - The project is near to or indirectly serves a TOD or MBTA Communities site. 2 - The project directly intersects with or serves a TOD or MBTA Communities site. | 2 | Yes |
| The project serves existing employment and population centers (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not serve an existing employment or population center. 1 - The project serves an existing employment or population center. 2 - The project serves an existing employment and population center. 3 - The project serves an existing employment and population center with significant affordable housing opportunities. | 3 | Yes |
| The project addresses safety concerns near to key public community assets. 0 - The project is not near to any key public community assets. 1 - The project addresses safety concerns near to one or more community assets. 2 - The project addresses safety concerns near key public community assets with a large population of vulnerable users, such as schools, libraries, or senior centers. | 2 | |
| The project is a product of or fulfills recommendations identified in a regional or statewide study. 0 - The project is not consistent with or the applicant does not cite a regional or statewide corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 1 - The project is thematically consistent with a regional or statewide study, such as a corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 2 - The project is explicitly called for in a regional or statewide study, such as a corridor study or Road Safety Audit. | 2 | |
| The project is listed in the Massachusetts Priority Trails Network. 0 - The project is not included in the MassDOT Priority Trails Network. 1 - The project is included in the MassDOT Priority Trails Network | 2 | |
| The project involves collaboration between multiple municipalities. 0 - Only one municipality is involved in the project. 1 - One or more municipalities are involved in the project. | 1 | |
| The asset can be safely accessed by non-SOV modes of transportation. 0 - Access to the asset is predominantly conducted by SOV modes. 1 - Access to the asset can be performed by walking, but facilities are either unsafe or are located in lower volume areas. 2 - Access to the asset can be performed by a variety of methods, including by transit. | 2 | |
| The project improves navigability at or along the work area through signage. 0 - No signage improvements are incorporated into the project. 1 - Signage improvements, which may include interpretive signage, are included in the proposed project. | 1 | |
| (Penalty) The project applicant is an MBTA Community not in compliance with Section 3A. 0 - The municipality is in compliance with or not subject to Section 3A. -5 - The municipality is not in compliance with Section 3A. | 0 | |
| Resilience: Provide transportation that supports sustainable environments and enables people to respond and adapt to climate change and other changing conditions. | ||
| The project reduces the risk of flooding in the project area through adaptation and resilience improvements. 0 - The project does not address flooding. 1 - The project reduces flood risk using structural adaptation/gray infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces flood risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. | 2 | Yes |
| The project reduces the risk of extreme temperatures by reducing pavement cover, planting shade trees, providing shade structures, increasing green space, etc. 0 - The project does not address extreme temperatures. 1 - The project reduces extreme temperature risk using structural adaptation/gray infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces extreme temperature risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. | 2 | Yes |
| The project implements recommendations or addresses needs identified in the respective municipality's Hazard Mitigation Plan, Municipal Vulnerability Plan, or Climate Adaptation Plan. 0 - The project does not address needs or recommendations. 2 - The project addresses needs or recommendations. | 2 | |
| The project improves stormwater infrastructure beyond MassDEP's MS4 standard. 0 - The project meets minimum standards. 1 - The project includes one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards (adopts stormwater BMPs, prepares pollution and/or erosion prevention plan, adopts environmentally sensitive site design practices, is expected to remove high amounts of TSS, etc.). 2 - Project adopts more than one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards. | 2 | |
| The project applicant demonstrates regional coordination or partnership on resilience improvements and project impacts with neighboring municipalities, environmental or EJ advocacy groups, local community organizations, regional or state agencies, etc. 0 - The applicant does not demonstrate regional coordination. 1 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities and/or regional or state agencies. 2 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities, regional or state agencies AND local community organizations/advocacy groups. | 2 | |
| The applicant details the expected useful life of the improvements, provides a plan for maintenance of resilience improvements, and/or references current and future climate conditions. 0 - Applicant does not reference current and future climate conditions and does not provide a plan for maintenance. 1 - Applicant references current and future climate conditions AND/OR provides a plan for maintenance. | 2 | |
| The project proposes improvements and reduces climate risk along evacuation routes and/or roadways that provide emergency access to critical facilities such as police stations, fire stations, and hospitals. 0 - The project does not propose improvements to an evacuation route or along roadways that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 1 - The project proposes improvements along an evacuation route OR along a roadway that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 2 - The project proposes improvements along an evacuation route AND along a roadway that provide emergency access to critical facilities. | 2 | |
| The project design is expected to address multiple hazards and/or provide multiple environmental benefits such as risk reduction, ecological restoration, aquatic connectivity, improved water quality, groundwater recharge, etc. 0 - Project design is not expected to address multiple hazards or provide multiple environmental benefits. 1 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards or provide multiple environmental benefits. 2 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards and provide multiple environmental benefits. | 2 | |
| (Penalty) The project is located in an existing or projected flood zone and/or the project site has flooded in the past and the applicant does not specify how the project will address flooding. 0 - Project is not located in an existing or projected flood zone and site has not flooded in the past OR project is located in a flood zone and the applicant specifies how the project will address flooding. -3 - Project is located in an existing or projected flood zone or site has flooded in the past and the project does not specify how it will address flooding. | 0 | Yes |
| (Penalty) The project is located in an area that is vulnerable to extreme heat and the applicant does not specify how the project will address heat. 0 - The project is not located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat OR project is located in a vulnerable area and the applicant specifies how the project will address heat. -3 - The project is located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat and the project does not specify how it will address heat. | 0 | Yes |
| Clean Air and Healthy Communities: Provide transportation free of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants and that supports good health. | ||
| The project includes design elements aimed at reducing the amount of Single-Occupancy-Vehicle (SOV) trips (Up to 3 points). Disqualifying - The project does not provide effective reductions in the amount of Single Occupancy Vehicle trips 1 - The project provides some reductions in Single Occupancy Vehicle trips, but the extent is unclear or the primary usage of the facility will be for recreation. 2 - The project reduces Single Occupancy Vehicle trips to a moderate or greater extent, and includes viable non-recreational uses for the facility. 3 - The project not only includes reductions in Single Occupancy Vehicle trips by improving facilities for pedestrians and micromobility users, but complementing connections for other non-car modes such as transit or other trails.. | 3 | |
| The project reduces greenhouse gas emissions (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 1 - The project supports a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions primarily by reducing travel time delay. 3 - The project includes a variety of elements aimed at reducing emissions such as low or no emission mobility improvements, innovative technologies or methods, and travel demand management. | 3 | |
| The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities and natural areas through low impact design, pavement reduction, nature-based adaptation, and other improvements that protect air/water/soil quality, provide ecological restoration and functioning, improve aquatic connectivity, etc. -1 - The project is expected to have a negative impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 0 - The project is not expected to impact adjacent communities or natural areas. 2 - The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 3 - The project specifies native species for any added vegetation or green space. | 3 | Yes |
| The proposed project incorporates or will incorporate a meaningful community outreach and engagement process (Up to 3 points). 0 - The proposed project will incorporate all legally required community outreach and engagement necessary for the use of federal funding. 1 - The proposed project will incorporate additional community outreach and engagement as necessary, including public meetings within the served municipality or municipalities. 2 - The proposed project has already |
3 | |
| The project effectively engages all community members in its outreach strategy and access for the service, specifically persons with disabilities or those with limited English proficiency (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project performs all legally required measures to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 1 - The applicant has identified a strategy to bring community members of all abilities and language proficiencies into the project outreach process and to ensure their access to services. 2 - The applicant has implemented an effective strategy to engage community members of all abilities and language proficiencies into the project engagement process and into offered services, while also identifying areas for potential improvement. | 2 | Yes |
| The project improves access to open space or sites for active recreation. 0 - The project does not improve access to open space or sites for active recreation. 2 - The project does improve access to open space or sites for active recreation. | 2 | Yes |
| BONUSES | ||
| CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat carbon emissions, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve air quality/treatment. | 1 | |
| CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat contaminated water, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve water quality or treatment. | 1 | |
| Resilience: The project design is expected to address multiple hazards and/or provide multiple environmental benefits such as risk reduction, ecological restoration, aquatic connectivity, improved water quality, groundwater recharge, etc. 0 - Project design is not expected to address multiple hazards or provide multiple environmental benefits. 1 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards OR provide multiple environmental benefits. 2 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards AND provide multiple environmental benefits. | 2 | |
| Resilience: The project design includes provision of educational material for the public related to environmental improvements and aspects of the project/area. 0 - Project will not provide educational material. 1 - Project will provide educational material. | 1 | |
| Resilience: The primary purpose of the project is to improve resilience and reduce risk to climate hazards. 0 - The primary purpose of the project is not resilience. 1 - The primary purpose of the project is resilience. | 1 | |
| Resilience: The project proponents have used RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool to demonstrate the value of resilience improvements in the project area. 0 - Proponents have not shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. 1 - Proponents have shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. | 1 | |
Table A-6
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation Criteria: Complete Streets Program
| Project Name | PROJECT NAME | |
| Municipality/Proponent | PROJECT PROPONENT(S) | |
| Project Type | Complete Streets | |
| Scoring Criteria | Base Score | Equity Score |
| Equity: Facilitate an inclusive and transparent transportation-planning process and make investments that eliminate transportation-related disparities borne by people in disadvantaged communities. | ||
| An equity multiplier (EM) is applied to criteria that the MPO has identified through public outreach and data analysis as critical transportation needs or where there exist disparities that negatively impact equity populations. These criteria are denoted by a check mark on the right side of this scorecard. Each project’s multiplier is based on the percent of the population in the project area that belongs to each of the MPO’s six equity populations in the project area relative to their region wide averages. The higher the share of equity populations in the project area, the higher the multiplier. To calculate a final Transportation Equity score, a project's raw equity multiplier is scaled to 20 points and then added to the base score (out of 80 possible points) as shown at the bottom of this scorecard. | ||
| Safety: Achieve zero transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries and improve safety for all users of the transportation system. | ||
| The project addresses a location with severe crashes. +2 EPDO value of 100 or more +1 EPDO value of less than 100 +0 No EPDO value" | 2 | Yes |
| The project addresses a location with a high frequency of crashes. +2 Crash rate between 0.78 or greater +1 Crash rate between 0.20 and 0.78 +0 Crash rate below 0.20 | 2 | Yes |
| The project addresses a statewide Top Crash Location. 0 - The project does not address a Top 200 Crash Cluster, Top 5% Intersection Crash Cluster, Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster, or Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 1 - The project addresses one of the following: a Top 5% Intersection Crash Cluster, a Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster, or Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 2 - The project addresses two of the following: a Top 5% Intersection Crash Cluster, a Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster, or a Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 3 - The project addresses three or more Intersection, Bicycle, and/or Pedestrian Crash Clusters, or contains a Statewide Top 200 Crash Location. | 3 | |
| The project addresses a truck-related safety issue. 0 - The project does not directly address truck safety in the project area. 1 - The project directly addresses truck safety in the project area, including improving the safety of vulnerable users navigating in mixed traffic with trucks. | 1 | |
| The project effectively addresses safety for micromobility users. -2 - The project introduces potentially unsafe elements for micromobility users. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits to safety for micromobility users. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for micromobility users. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for micromobility users. | 2 | |
| The project effectively addresses safety for pedestrians. - 2 - The project introduces potentially unsafe elements for pedestrians. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits to safety for pedestrians. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for pedestrians. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for pedestrians. | 2 | Yes |
| The project effectively addresses safety for people with disabilities. - 5 - The proposed project introduces potentially unsafe elements for people with disabilities. Alternatively, the project does not address identifiable issues with Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance in the Project Area. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental enhancements to safety for persons with disabilities. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for people with disabilities. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for people with disabilities. | 2 | Yes |
| The project effectively addresses safety for transit operations and users. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits to safety for transit operations or transit users. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for transit operations or transit users. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for transit operations or transit users. | 2 | |
| Mobility and Reliability: Support easy and reliable movement of people and freight. | ||
| The applicant thoroughly describes deficiencies in the current design of the corridor or intersection, and how the project addresses these deficiencies. 0 - The proposed project includes minor improvements to roadway mobility, or focuses primarily on the preservation of existing assets. 1 - The project primarily upgrades existing infrastructure within the current right of way and street footprint that addresses some of the deficiencies along the corridor. 2 - The project focuses on upgrades and modernization of infrastructure, including improvements to accessibility by non-SOV modes, both within the current street footprint or beyond existing right of way. 3 - The project thoroughly addresses deficiencies in the design of the corridor or intersection, and also addresses potential deficiencies elsewhere on a corridor. | 3 | |
| The project addresses an unreliable corridor with significant travel time delay. 0 - The project does not address an unreliable corridor. 1 - The project improves the safety along an unreliable corridor, but the benefits of the improvements are difficult to quantify. 2 - The project significantly improves the safety of travel along an unreliable corridor. Travel time delay may be improved due to a reduced crash frequency. 3 - The project thoroughly improves the safety of travel along an unreliable corridor, and directly reduces travel time delay through the proposed street design. | 3 | |
| The project improves travel time reliability by investing in measures that reduce dependence on single-occupancy-vehicle trips. 0 - The project does not improve travel time reliability, or does not significantly invest in non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes. 1 - The project has some impact on travel time reliability through minor investments in non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes. 2 - The project has some impact on travel time reliability through moderate investments in non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes. 3 - The project has a significant impact on travel time reliability through rigorous investments in non-single occupancy vehicle transportation modes. | 3 | |
| The project invests in safe pedestrian facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in pedestrian facilities, or establishes facilities that are disconnected from other pedestrian infrastructure with no plans for connections. 1 - The project makes some investments in pedestrian facilities, such as beacons and sidewalks, but investments are limited to the immediate project area (ex: intersection). 2 - The project makes comprehensive investments in new and upgraded pedestrian facilities in the project area, and establishes safe connections to a greater pedestrian network. | 2 | Yes |
| The project invests in safe micromobility facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in bicycle facilities, or proposed facilities do not offer significant levels of safety (ex: painted bicycle lanes with no separation). 2 - The project invests in safe bicycle facilities. | 2 | Yes |
| The project invests in safe transit facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in any transit facilities. 1 - The project makes some transit-supportive investments (ex: bumpouts near bus stops). 2 - The project directly invests in transit facilities (ex: transit signal priority). | 2 | Yes |
| The project improves pedestrian safety near a high-utility corridor to promote walking. 0 - The project does not involve significant pedestrian safety improvements. 1 - The project improves pedestrian safety on a corridor with moderate utility. 2 - The project improves pedestrian safety on a high utility corridor. | 2 | Yes |
| The project improves safety near a high-utility corridor for other active transportation modes other than walking. 0 - The project does not involve significant safety improvements for other active transportation modes. 1 - The project improves active transportation safety for other active transportation modes on a corridor with moderate utility. 2 - The project improves active transportation safety for other active transportation modes on a high utility corridor. | 2 | Yes |
| Access and Connectivity: Provide transportation options and improve access to key destinations to support economic vitality and high quality of life. | ||
| The project serves sites targeted for future development (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not serve a site targeted for future development. 1 - The project serves a site for future development. 2 - The project serves a site targeted for future development that includes transit-supportive mixed-use or residential sites. 3 - The project serves a site or sites targeted for future development that include transit-supportive mixed-use or residential sites, and are included as part of compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act from the community in which it is located. | 3 | |
| The project serves existing employment and population centers (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not serve an existing employment or population center. 1 - The project serves an existing employment or population center. 2 - The project serves an existing employment and population center. 3 - The project serves an existing employment and population center, or a population center that has significant affordable housing opportunities. | 3 | Yes |
| The project addresses safety concerns in multiple locations. 0 - Project improvements are concentrated at a specific site. 1 - The applicant details how the project is expected to have network improvements at other sites along the corridor. 2 - The project directly addresses multiple concerns at different locations. | 2 | |
| The project addresses safety concerns near to key public community assets. 0 - The project is not near to any key public community assets. 1 - The project is near to one or more community assets. 2 - The project addresses safety concerns near key public community assets with a large population of vulnerable users, such as schools, libraries, or senior centers. | 2 | Yes |
| The project is a product of or fulfills recommendations identified in a regional or statewide study. 0 - The project is not consistent with or the applicant does not cite a regional or statewide corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 1 - The project is thematically consistent with a regional or statewide study, such as a corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 2 - The project is explicitly called for in a regional or statewide study, such as a corridor study or Road Safety Audit. | 2 | |
| The project involves collaboration between multiple municipalities. 0 - Only one municipality is involved in the project. 1 - One or more municipalities are involved in the project. | 1 | |
| The project is near to or on a primary thoroughfare for regional freight travel. 0 - The project is not listed on a roadway with significant freight volumes. 1 - The project is on a roadway with significant freight volumes. | 1 | |
| The project improves navigability at or along the work area through signage. 0 - No signage improves are incorporated into the project. 1 - Signage improvements, which may include interpretive signage, are included in the proposed project. | 1 | |
| (Penalty) The project applicant is an MBTA Community not in compliance with Section 3A. 0 - The municipality is in compliance with or not subject to Section 3A. -5 - The municipality is not in compliance with Section 3A. | 0 | |
| Resilience: Provide transportation that supports sustainable environments and enables people to respond and adapt to climate change and other changing conditions. | ||
| The project reduces the risk of flooding in the project area through adaptation and resilience improvements. 0 - The project does not address flooding. 1 - The project reduces flood risk using structural adaptation/grey infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces flood risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. | 2 | Yes |
| The project reduces the risk of extreme temperatures by reducing pavement cover, planting shade trees, providing shade structures, increasing green space, etc. 0 - The project does not address extreme temperatures. 1 - The project reduces extreme temperature risk using structural adaptation/grey infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces extreme temperature risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. | 2 | Yes |
| The project implements recommendations or addresses needs identified in the respective municipality's Hazard Mitigation Plan, Municipal Vulnerability Plan, or Climate Adaptation Plan. 0 - The project does not address needs or recommendations. 2 - The project addresses needs or recommendations. | 2 | |
| The project improves stormwater infrastructure beyond MassDEP's MS4 standard. 0 - The project meets minimum standards. 1 - The project includes one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards (adopts stormwater BMPs, prepares pollution and/or erosion prevention plan, adopts environmentally sensitive site design practices, is expected to remove high amounts of TSS, etc.). 2 - Project adopts more than one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards. | 2 | |
| The project applicant demonstrates regional coordination or partnership on resilience improvements and project impacts with neighboring municipalities, environmental or EJ advocacy groups, local community organizations, regional or state agencies, etc. 0 - The applicant does not demonstrate regional coordination. 1 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities and/or regional or state agencies. 2 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities, regional or state agencies AND local community organizations/advocacy groups. | 2 | |
| The applicant details the expected useful life of the improvements, provides a plan for maintenance of resilience improvements, and/or references current and future climate conditions. 0 - Applicant does not reference current and future climate conditions and does not provide a plan for maintenance. 1 - Applicant references current and future climate conditions OR provides a plan for maintenance. 2 - Applicant references current and future climate conditions AND provides a plan for maintenance. | 2 | |
| The project proposes improvements and reduces climate risk along evacuation routes and/or roadways that provide emergency access to critical facilities such as police stations, fire stations, and hospitals. 0 - The project does not propose improvements to an evacuation route or along roadways that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 1 - The project proposes improvements along an evacuation route OR along a roadway that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 2 - The project proposes improvements along an evacuation route AND along a roadway that provide emergency access to critical facilities. | 2 | |
| (Penalty) The project is located in an existing or projected flood zone and/or the project site has flooded in the past and the applicant does not specify how the project will address flooding. 0 - Project is not located in an existing or projected flood zone and site has not flooded in the past OR project is located in a flood zone and the applicant specifies how the project will address flooding. -3 - Project is located in an existing or projected flood zone or site has flooded in the past and the project does not specify how it will address flooding. | 0 | Yes |
| (Penalty) The project is located in an area that is vulnerable to extreme heat and the applicant does not specify how the project will address heat. 0 - The project is not located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat OR project is located in a vulnerable area and the applicant specifies how the project will address heat. -3 - The project is located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat and the project does not specify how it will address heat. | 0 | Yes |
| Clean Air and Healthy Communities: Provide transportation free of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants and that supports good health. | ||
| The project includes design elements aimed at reducing the amount of Single-Occupancy-Vehicle (SOV) trips (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in single occupancy vehicle trips. 1 - The project provides indirect support to reductions in single occupancy vehicle trips through supportive infrastructure for transit or active transportation, such as signage, web applications, educational campaigns, or personnel improvements. 3 - The project supports a reduction in the amount of single occupancy vehicle trips by improving the condition or accessibility of existing transit or active transportation assets. | 3 | Yes |
| The project reduces greenhouse gas emissions (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 1 - The project supports a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions primarily by reducing travel time delay. 3 - The project includes a variety of elements aimed at reducing emissions such as low or no emission mobility improvements, innovative technologies or methods, and travel demand management. | 3 | |
| The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities and natural areas through low impact design, pavement reduction, nature-based adaptation, and other improvements that protect air/water/soil quality, provide ecological restoration and functioning, improve aquatic connectivity, etc. -3 - The project is expected to have a negative impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 0 - The project is not expected to impact adjacent communities or natural areas. 2 - The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 3 - The project is expected to have a positive impact AND specifies appropriate plant species for any added vegetation or green space (native species, flood/drought tolerant, diverse range of species, etc.). | 3 | Yes |
| The proposed project incorporates or will incorporate a meaningful community outreach and engagement process (Up to 3 points). 0 - The proposed project will incorporate all legally required community outreach and engagement necessary for the use of federal funding. 1 - The proposed project will incorporate additional community outreach and engagement as necessary, including public meetings within the served municipality or municipalities. 2 - The proposed project has already been subject to community outreach and engagement, and the applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the project process as it develops. 3 - The proposed project is the result of a rigorous community engagement process, and the proposed scope of work reflects the feedback or input received by the applicant from the community. The applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the process, and the applicant has novel or innovative strategies to improve community engagement. | 3 | |
| The project effectively engages all community members in its outreach strategy and access for the service, specifically people with disabilities or those with limited English proficiency (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project performs all legally required measures to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 1 - The applicant has identified a strategy to bring community members of all abilities and language proficiencies into the project outreach process and to ensure their access to services. 2 - The applicant has implemented an effective strategy to engage community members of all abilities and language proficiencies into the project outreach process and into offered services, while also identifying areas for potential improvement. | 2 | Yes |
| The project improves access to open space or sites for active recreation. 0 - The project does not improve access to open space or sites for active recreation. 2 - The project does improve access to open space or sites for active recreation. | 2 | |
| BONUSES | ||
| CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat carbon emissions, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve air quality/treatment. | 1 | |
| CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat contaminated water, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve water quality or treatment. | 1 | |
| Resilience: The project design is expected to address multiple hazards and/or provide multiple environmental benefits such as risk reduction, ecological restoration, aquatic connectivity, improved water quality, groundwater recharge, etc. 0 - Project design is not expected to address multiple hazards or provide multiple environmental benefits. 1 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards OR provide multiple environmental benefits. 2 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards AND provide multiple environmental benefits. | 2 | |
| Resilience: The project design includes provision of educational material for the public related to environmental improvements and aspects of the project/area. 0 - Project will not provide educational material. 1 - Project will provide educational material. | 1 | |
| Resilience: The primary purpose of the project is to improve resilience and reduce risk to climate hazards. 0 - The primary purpose of the project is not resilience. 1 - The primary purpose of the project is resilience. | 1 | |
| Resilience: The project proponents have used RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool to demonstrate the value of resilience improvements in the project area. 0 - Proponents have not shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. 1 - Proponents have shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. | 1 | |
Table A-7
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Intersection Improvements Program
| Project Name | PROJECT NAME | |
| Municipality/Proponent | PROJECT PROPONENT(S) | |
| Project Type | Intersection Improvements | |
| Scoring Criteria | Base Score | Equity Score |
| Equity: Facilitate an inclusive and transparent transportation-planning process and make investments that eliminate transportation-related disparities borne by people in disadvantaged communities. | ||
| An equity multiplier (EM) is applied to criteria that the MPO has identified through public outreach and data analysis as critical transportation needs or where there exist disparities that negatively impact equity populations. These criteria are denoted by a check mark on the right side of this scorecard. Each project’s multiplier is based on the percent of the population in the project area that belongs to each of the MPO’s six equity populations in the project area relative to their region wide averages. The higher the share of equity populations in the project area, the higher the multiplier. To calculate a final Transportation Equity score, a project's raw equity multiplier is scaled to 20 points and then added to the base score (out of 80 possible points) as shown at the bottom of this scorecard. | ||
| Safety: Achieve zero transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries and improve safety for all users of the transportation system. | ||
| The project addresses a location with severe crashes. +3 EPDO value of 300 or more +2 EPDO value of 100 to 299 +1 EPDO value of less than 100 +0 No EPDO value" | 3 | Yes |
| The project addresses a location with a high frequency of crashes. +3 Crash rate of 1.36 or greater +2 Crash rate between 0.78 and 1.36 +1 Crash rate between 0.20 and 0.78 +0 Crash rate below 0.20 | 3 | Yes |
| The project addresses a statewide Top Crash Location. 0 - The project does not address a Top 200 Crash Cluster, Top 5% Intersection Crash Cluster, Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster, or Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 1 - The project addresses one of the following: a Top 5% Intersection Crash Cluster, a Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster, or Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 2 - The project addresses two of the following: a Top 5% Intersection Crash Cluster, a Top 5% Bicycle Crash Cluster, or a Top 5% Pedestrian Crash Cluster. 3 - The project addresses three or more Intersection, Bicycle, and/or Pedestrian Crash Clusters, or contains a Statewide Top 200 Crash Location. | 3 | |
| The project addresses a location identified in the Boston Region MPO Regional Safety Action Plan. 0 - The project does not address locations in the Regional Safety Action Plan. 1 - The project is located on the high injury network (HIN), but is not directly identified in the Regional Safety Action Plan. 2 - The project is located on the high injury network (HIN) and is identified in the Regional Safety Action Plan. | 2 | |
| The project addresses a truck-related safety issue. 0 - The project does not directly address truck safety in the project area. 1 - The project directly addresses truck safety in the project area, including improving the safety of vulnerable users navigating in mixed traffic with trucks. | 1 | |
| The project makes comprehensive safety improvements for all road users. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements to safety for all road users. 1 - The project makes some minor improvements to safety for automobiles. 2 - The project makes some moderate improvements to safety, but these improvements are primarily directed for automobiles. 3 - The project makes some minor improvements to the safety of vulnerable roadway users and automobiles. 4 - The project makes some moderate improvements to the safety of vulnerable roadway users, but improvements are primarily directed at automobiles. 5 - The project makes comprehensive improvements for all roadway users, such that all users may navigate through the corridor safely, including the elimination of mixed traffic between vulnerable users and automobiles where practicable. | 5 | |
| The project effectively addresses safety for micromobility users. -2 - The project introduces potentially unsafe elements for micromobility users. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits to safety for micromobility users. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for micromobility users. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for micromobility users. | 2 | |
| The project effectively addresses safety for pedestrians. - 2 - The project introduces potentially unsafe elements for pedestrians. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits to safety for pedestrians. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for pedestrians. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for pedestrians. | 2 | Yes |
| The project effectively addresses safety for persons with disabilities. - 5 - The proposed project introduces potentially unsafe elements for persons with disabilities. Alternatively, the project does not address identifiable issues with Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance in the Project Area. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental enhancements to safety for persons with disabilities. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for persons with disabilities. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for persons with disabilities. | 2 | Yes |
| The project effectively addresses safety for transit operations and users. 0 - The project makes no significant improvements or creates incidental benefits to safety for transit operations or transit users. 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety for transit operations or transit users. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety for transit operations or transit users. | 2 | |
| Mobility and Reliability: Support easy and reliable movement of people and freight. | ||
| The applicant thoroughly describes deficiencies in the current design of the corridor or intersection with regard to safety, and how the project addresses these deficiencies. 0 - The proposed project has minor improvements to roadway safety, or focuses primarily on the preservation of existing assets. 1 - The project primarily upgrades existing infrastructure within the current right of way and street footprint that addresses some of the deficiencies along the corridor. 2 - The project focuses on upgrades and modernization of infrastructure, including improvements to accessibility by non-SOV modes, both within the current street footprint or beyond existing right of way. 3 - The project thoroughly addresses deficiencies in the design of the corridor or intersection, and also addresses potential deficiencies elsewhere on a corridor. | 3 | |
| The project addresses an unreliable corridor with significant travel time delay. 0 - The project does not address an unreliable corridor. 1 - The project improves the safety along an unreliable corridor, but the benefits of the improvements are difficult to quantify. 2 - The project significantly improves the safety of travel along an unreliable corridor. Travel time delay may be improved due to a reduced crash frequency. 3 - The project thoroughly improves the safety of travel along an unreliable corridor, and directly reduces travel time delay through the proposed street design. | 3 | |
| The project improves travel time reliability by investing in measures that reduce dependence on single-occupancy-vehicle trips. 0 - The project does not improve travel time reliability, or does not significantly invest in non-SOV transportation modes. 1 - The project has some impact on travel time reliability through minor investments in non-SOV transportation modes. 2 - The project has a significant impact on travel time reliability through rigorous investments in non-SOV transportation modes. | 2 | |
| The project invests in safe pedestrian facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in pedestrian facilities, or establishes facilities that are disconnected from other pedestrian infrastructure with no plans for connections. 1 - The project makes some investments in pedestrian facilities, such as beacons and sidewalks, but investments are limited to the immediate project area (ex: intersection). 2 - The project makes comprehensive investments in new and upgraded pedestrian facilities in the project area, and establishes safe connections to a greater pedestrian network. | 2 | Yes |
| The project invests in safe micromobility facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in bicycle facilities, or proposed facilities do not offer significant levels of safety (ex: painted bicycle lanes with no separation). 2 - The project invests in safe bicycle facilities. | 2 | Yes |
| The project invests in safe transit facilities. 0 - The project does not invest in any transit facilities. 1 - The project makes some transit-supportive investments (ex: bumpouts near bus stops). 2 - The project directly invests in transit facilities (ex: transit signal priority). | 2 | Yes |
| The project improves pedestrian safety near a high-utility corridor to promote walking over single occupancy vehicle trips. 0 - The project does not involve significant pedestrian safety improvements. 1 - The project improves pedestrian safety on a corridor with moderate utility. 2 - The project improves pedestrian safety on a high utility corridor. | 2 | Yes |
| The project improves safety near a high-utility corridor for other active transportation modes. 0 - The project does not involve significant safety improvements for other active transportation modes. 1 - The project improves active transportation safety on a corridor with moderate utility. 2 - The project improves active transportation safety on a high utility corridor. | 2 | Yes |
| Access and Connectivity: Provide transportation options and improve access to key destinations to support economic vitality and high quality of life. | ||
| The project serves sites targeted for future development (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not serve a site targeted for future development. 1 - The project serves a site for future development. 2 - The project serves a site targeted for future development that includes mixed-use or residential sites. 3 - The project serves a site or sites targeted for future development that includes mixed-use or residential sites, and are included as part of compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act from the community in which it is located. | 3 | |
| The project serves existing employment and population centers (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not serve an existing employment or population center. 1 - The project serves an existing employment or population center. 2 - The project serves an existing employment and population center. 3 - The project serves an existing employment and population center, or a population center that has significant affordable housing opportunities. | 3 | Yes |
| The project addresses safety concerns in multiple locations. 0 - Project improvements are concentrated at a specific site. 1 - The applicant details how the project is expected to have network improvements at other sites along the corridor. 2 - The project directly addresses multiple concerns at different locations. | 2 | |
| The project addresses safety concerns near to key public community assets. 0 - The project is not near to any key public community assets. 1 - The project addresses safety concerns near key public community assets with a large population of vulnerable users, such as schools, libraries, or senior centers. | 1 | Yes |
| The project is a product of or fulfills recommendations identified in a regional or statewide study. 0 - The project is not consistent with or the applicant does not cite a regional or statewide corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 1 - The project is thematically consistent with a regional or statewide study, such as a corridor study or Road Safety Audit. 2 - The project is explicitly called for in a regional or statewide study, such as a corridor study or Road Safety Audit. | 2 | |
| The project involves collaboration between multiple municipalities. 0 - Only one municipality is involved in the project. 1 - One or more municipalities are involved in the project. | 1 | |
| The project is near to or on a primary thoroughfare for regional freight travel. 0 - The project is not listed on a roadway with significant freight volumes. 1 - The project is on a roadway with significant freight volumes. | 1 | |
| The project improves navigability at or along the work area. 0 - No signage improves are incorporated into the project. 1 - Signage improvements, which may include interpretive signage, are included in the proposed project. | 1 | |
| Resilience: Provide transportation that supports sustainable environments and enables people to respond and adapt to climate change and other changing conditions. | ||
| The project reduces the risk of flooding in the project area through adaptation and resilience improvements. 0 - The project does not address flooding. 1 - The project reduces flood risk using structural adaptation/grey infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces flood risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. | 2 | Yes |
| The project reduces the risk of extreme heat by reducing pavement cover, planting shade trees, providing shade structures, increasing green space, etc. 0 - The project does not address extreme heat. 1 - The project reduces extreme heat risk using structural adaptation/grey infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces extreme heat risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. | 2 | Yes |
| The project implements recommendations or addresses needs identified in the respective municipality's Hazard Mitigation Plan, Municipal Vulnerability Plan, or Climate Adaptation Plan. 0 - The project does not address needs or recommendations. 2 - The project addresses needs or recommendations. | 2 | |
| The project improves stormwater infrastructure beyond MassDEP's MS4 standard. 0 - The project meets minimum standards. 1 - The project includes one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards (adopts stormwater BMPs, prepares pollution and/or erosion prevention plan, adopts environmentally sensitive site design practices, is expected to remove high amounts of TSS, etc.). 2 - Project adopts more than one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards. | 2 | |
| The project applicant demonstrates regional coordination or partnership on resilience improvements and project impacts with neighboring municipalities, environmental or EJ advocacy groups, local community organizations, regional or state agencies, etc. 0 - The applicant does not demonstrate regional coordination. 1 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities and/or regional or state agencies. 2 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities, regional or state agencies AND local community organizations/advocacy groups. | 2 | |
| The applicant details the expected useful life of the improvements, provides a plan for maintenance of resilience improvements, and/or references current and future climate conditions. 0 - Applicant does not reference current and future climate conditions and does not provide a plan for maintenance. 1 - Applicant references current and future climate conditions AND/OR provides a plan for maintenance. | 1 | |
| The project proposes improvements and reduces climate risk along evacuation routes and/or roadways that provide emergency access to critical facilities such as police stations, fire stations, and hospitals. 0 - The project does not propose improvements to an evacuation route or along roadways that provide emergency access to critical facilities. 1 - The project proposes improvements along an evacuation route OR along a roadway that provide emergency access to critical facilities. | 1 | |
| (Penalty) The project is located in an existing or projected flood zone and/or the project site has flooded in the past and the applicant does not specify how the project will address flooding. 0 - Project is not located in an existing or projected flood zone and site has not flooded in the past OR project is located in a flood zone and the applicant specifies how the project will address flooding. -3 - Project is located in an existing or projected flood zone or site has flooded in the past and the project does not specify how it will address flooding. | 0 | Yes |
| (Penalty) The project is located in an area that is vulnerable to extreme heat and the applicant does not specify how the project will address heat. 0 - The project is not located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat OR project is located in a vulnerable area and the applicant specifies how the project will address heat. -3 - The project is located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat and the project does not specify how it will address heat. | 0 | Yes |
| Clean Air and Healthy Communities: Provide transportation free of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants and that supports good health. | ||
| The project includes design elements aimed at reducing the amount of Single-Occupancy-Vehicle (SOV) trips (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in SOV trips. 1 - The project provides indirect support to reductions in SOV trips through supportive infrastructure for transit or active transportation, such as signage, web applications, educational campaigns, or personnel improvements. 2 - The project supports a reduction in the amount of SOV trips by improving the condition or accessibility of existing transit or active transportation assets. | 2 | Yes |
| The project includes design elements aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 1 - The project supports a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions primarily by reducing travel time delay. 2 - The project includes a variety of elements aimed at reducing emissions such as low or no emission mobility improvements, innovative technologies or methods, and travel demand management. | 2 | |
| The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities and natural areas through low impact design, pavement reduction, nature-based adaptation, and other improvements that protect air/water/soil quality, provide ecological restoration and functioning, improve aquatic connectivity, etc. -3 - The project is expected to have a negative impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 0 - The project is not expected to impact adjacent communities or natural areas. 2 - The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 3 - The project is expected to have a positive impact AND specifies appropriate plant species for any added vegetation or green space (native species, flood/drought tolerant, diverse range of species, etc.). | 3 | Yes |
| The proposed project incorporates or will incorporate a meaningful community outreach and engagement process (Up to 3 points). 0 - The proposed project will incorporate all legally required community outreach and engagement necessary for the use of federal funding. 1 - The proposed project will incorporate additional community outreach and engagement as necessary, including public meetings within the served municipality or municipalities. 2 - The proposed project has already been subject to community outreach and engagement, and the applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the project process as it develops. 3 - The proposed project is the result of a rigorous community engagement process, and the proposed scope of work reflects the feedback or input received by the applicant from the community. The applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the process, and the applicant has novel or innovative strategies to improve community engagement. | 3 | |
| The project proposes design elements aimed at improving water quality and reducing pollutant runoff to adjacent water resources. (Up to 1 point). 0 - The project does not propose any measures that address water quality, or contaminants generated by the facility or along the transit route. 1 - The project directly improves water quality through technologies or strategies that improve treatment capacity or limit contamination, including investment in expanded stormwater treatment facilities or reductions in impervious surfaces. | 1 | Yes |
| BONUSES | ||
| CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat carbon emissions, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve air quality/treatment. | 1 | |
| CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat contaminated water, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve water quality or treatment. | 1 | |
| Resilience: The project design is expected to address multiple hazards and/or provide multiple environmental benefits such as risk reduction, ecological restoration, aquatic connectivity, improved water quality, groundwater recharge, etc. 0 - Project design is not expected to address multiple hazards or provide multiple environmental benefits. 1 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards OR provide multiple environmental benefits. 2 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards AND provide multiple environmental benefits. | 2 | |
| Resilience: The project design includes provision of educational material for the public related to environmental improvements and aspects of the project/area. 0 - Project will not provide educational material. 1 - Project will provide educational material. | 1 | |
| Resilience: The primary purpose of the project is to improve resilience and reduce risk to climate hazards. 0 - The primary purpose of the project is not resilience. 1 - The primary purpose of the project is resilience. | 1 | |
| Resilience: The project proponents have used RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool to demonstrate the value of resilience improvements in the project area. 0 - Proponents have not shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. 1 - Proponents have shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. | 1 | |
Table A-8
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Evaluation Criteria: Transit Transformation Program
| Project Name | PROJECT NAME | |
| Municipality/Proponent | PROJECT PROPONENT(S) | |
| Project Type | Transit Transformation | |
| Scoring Criteria | Base Score | Equity Score |
| Equity: Facilitate an inclusive and transparent transportation-planning process and make investments that eliminate transportation-related disparities borne by people in disadvantaged communities. | ||
| An equity multiplier (EM) is applied to criteria that the MPO has identified through public outreach and data analysis as critical transportation needs or where there exist disparities that negatively impact equity populations. These criteria are denoted by a check mark on the right side of this scorecard. Each project’s multiplier is based on the percent of the population in the project area that belongs to each of the MPO’s six equity populations in the project area relative to their region wide averages. The higher the share of equity populations in the project area, the higher the multiplier. To calculate a final Transportation Equity score, a project's raw equity multiplier is scaled to 20 points and then added to the base score (out of 80 possible points) as shown at the bottom of this scorecard. | ||
| Safety: Achieve zero transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries and improve safety for all users of the transportation system. | ||
| The proposed project addresses a documented operational safety issue (Up to 4 Points). -2 - The project does not incorporate improvements to operational safety at a facility with documented safety incidents. 0 - The project does not incorporate improvements to operational safety, and the involved facility or facilities do not have documented safety issues or risks. 2 - The project performs preventative maintenance on a facility to mitigate the emergence of safety hazards at the facility. 4 - The project directly addresses documented safety hazards that are already present at the facility, in addition to preventative maintenance. | 5 | |
| The proposed project improves the safety of users within the transit facility (Up to 2 Points). 0 - The project does not incorporate safety improvements for users in the design, or does not involve a rider-facing facility. 1 - In maintaining a state of good repair for the facility, the project mitigates the future emergence of safety hazards for users. 2 - The project directly addresses known user safety issues at stations through capital investment. | 4 | Yes |
| The proposed project improves the safety of users traveling to and from transit facilities (Up to 2 Points). 0 - The proposed project does not impact safety for users traveling to and from transit facilities. 1 - The proposed project makes minor safety improvements for users traveling to and from transit facilities, or improvements are not primarily directed towards vulnerable users. 2 - The proposed project makes significant improvements for users traveling to and from transit facilities, including improvements for vulnerable users. | 3 | |
| The proposed project supports dedicated rights of way for transit, or mitigates interference from other facility users (Up to 2 Points). 0 - The project does not address any shared right of way 1 - The project makes minor improvements to safety on existing rights of way used by transit operators. 2 - The project makes significant improvements to safety on existing rights of way used by transit operators, or creates new dedicated right of way for transit vehicles. | 2 | |
| The proposed project improves system responsiveness during emergency events (Up to 2 Points). 0 - The proposed project does not improve emergency response times. 1 - The proposed project makes improvements to emergency response times within the facility 2 - The proposed project makes improvements to emergency response times within and beyond the facility | 2 | |
| Mobility and Reliability: Support easy and reliable movement of people and freight. | ||
| The project reduces transit passenger delay (Up to 5 points) | 5 | Yes |
| The project invests in new transit assets or expanded service (Up to 5 points) | 5 | Yes |
| The project performs state of good repair improvements that extend the useful life of the facility (Up to 2 points) 0 - The project does not incorporate state of good repair improvements for existing facilities. 1 - The project incorporates state of good repair improvements for existing facilities. 2 - The project incorporates state of good repair improvements for existing facilities, and the proposed mobilization and construction strategy avoids closures to transit facilities or disruptions to transit operations. | 2 | |
| The project improves intermodal connections, and the ability of users to navigate those connections. | 2 | |
| The project improves conditions for personnel that support transit operations (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project does not directly incorporate improvements for personnel involved in transit operations. 1 - The project incorporates improvements for non-customer-facing transit operations personnel. 2 - The project incorporates improvements for customer-facing transit personnel. | 2 | |
| Access and Connectivity: Provide transportation options and improve access to key destinations to support economic vitality and high quality of life. | ||
| The project serves sites targeted for future development (Up to 3 points). -3 - The project does not serve a site targeted for future development due to noncompliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act from the community in which it is located. 0 - The project does not serve a site targeted for future development. 1 - The project serves a site for future development. 2 - The project serves a site targeted for future development that includes transit-supportive mixed-use or residential sites. 3 - The project serves a site or sites targeted for future development that include transit-supportive mixed-use or residential sites, and are included as part of compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act from the community in which it is located. | 3 | |
| The project serves existing employment and population centers (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not serve an existing employment or population center. 1 - The project serves an existing employment or population center. 2 - The project serves an existing employment and population center. 3 - The project serves an existing employment and population center, or a population center that has significant affordable housing opportunities. | 3 | Yes |
| The project invests in pedestrian connections to transit facilities or routes (Up to 4 points). -1 - The project does not invest in pedestrian connections to transit facilities, and no pedestrian connections are present. The applicant has sufficient jurisdiction or authority to provide such improvements. 0 - The project does not invest in pedestrian connections to transit facilities or routes, but connections to the facilities and routes exist and are in fair or better condition. Or, if a lack of connectivity exists, it is due to a lack of jurisdiction on the behalf of the applicant to improve. 1 - The project improves the condition of an existing pedestrian facility in the project area. 3 - The project adds a new, safe pedestrian connection for transit access in the project area. | 3 | Yes |
| The project invests in bicycle connections to transit facilities or routes (Up to 4 points). -1 - The project does not invest in bicycle connections to transit facilities, and no pedestrian connections are present. The applicant has sufficient jurisdiction or authority to provide such improvements. 0 - The project does not invest in bicycle connections to transit facilities or routes, but connections to the facilities and routes exist and are in fair or better condition. Or, if a lack of connectivity exists, it is due to a lack of jurisdiction on the behalf of the applicant to improve. 2 - The project improves the condition of an existing bicycle facility in the project area. 3 - The project improves the condition and user safety of an existing bicycle facility in the project area. 4 - The project adds a new, safe bicycle connection for transit access in the project area. | 3 | |
| The project improves ADA accessibility for transit facilities or routes (Up to 4 points). -2 - The project does not invest in ADA accessibility upgrades for a facility where deficiencies can be identified. 0 - The project does not invest in ADA accessibility upgrades for a facility or route. 2 - The project invests in ADA accessibility upgrades for a transit facility. 4 - The project invests in ADA accessibility upgrades for a transit facility or routes and improves ADA accessibility for connecting features (ie: sidewalks). | 4 | Yes |
| Resilience: Provide transportation that supports sustainable environments and enables people to respond and adapt to climate change and other changing conditions. | ||
| The project reduces the risk of flooding in the project area through adaptation and resilience improvements. 0 - The project does not address flooding. 1 - The project reduces flood risk using structural adaptation/grey infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces flood risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. 3 - The project adopts green infrastructure and specifies appropriate plant types for any added vegetation (native species, flood/drought tolerant, diverse range of species, etc.) | 3 | Yes |
| The project reduces the risk of extreme heat by reducing pavement cover, planting shade trees, providing shade structures, increasing green space, etc. 0 - The project does not address extreme heat. 1 - The project reduces extreme heat risk using structural adaptation/grey infrastructure. 2 - The project reduces extreme heat risk using nature-based adaptation/green infrastructure, or a combination of green and gray infrastructure. 3 - The project adopts green infrastructure and specifies appropriate plant types for any added vegetation (native species, flood/drought tolerant, diverse range of species, etc.) | 3 | Yes |
| The project implements recommendations or addresses needs identified in the respective municipality's Hazard Mitigation Plan, Municipal Vulnerability Plan, or Climate Adaptation Plan. 0 - The project does not address needs or recommendations. 2 - The project addresses needs or recommendations. | 2 | |
| The project improves stormwater infrastructure beyond MassDEP's MS4 standard. 0 - The project meets minimum standards. 1 - The project includes one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards (adopts stormwater BMPs, prepares pollution and/or erosion prevention plan, adopts environmentally sensitive site design practices, is expected to remove high amounts of TSS, etc.). 2 - Project adopts more than one design element to go above minimum stormwater improvement standards. | 2 | |
| The project applicant demonstrates regional coordination or partnership on resilience improvements and project impacts with neighboring municipalities, environmental or EJ advocacy groups, local community organizations, regional or state agencies, etc. 0 - The applicant does not demonstrate regional coordination. 1 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities and/or regional or state agencies. 2 - The applicant demonstrates regional coordination with neighboring municipalities, regional or state agencies AND local community organizations/advocacy groups. | 2 | |
| The project addresses risk to rider health and safety posed by climate hazards. 0 - The project does not address risk to rider health and safety posed by climate hazards. 3 - The project proposes improvements that will reduce risk to rider health and safety posed by climate hazards. | 3 | |
| The applicant details the expected useful life of the improvements and provides a plan for maintenance of resilience improvements beyond the construction phase. 0 - The applicant does not provide a maintenance plan and/or clear information as to the expected useful life of the asset. 1 - The applicant does provide a maintenance plan and/or clear information as to the expected useful life of the asset. | 1 | Yes |
| (Penalty) The project is located in an existing or projected flood zone and/or the project site has flooded in the past and the applicant does not specify how the project will address flooding. 0 - Project is not located in an existing or projected flood zone and site has not flooded in the past OR project is located in a flood zone and the applicant specifies how the project will address flooding. -3 - Project is located in an existing or projected flood zone or site has flooded in the past and the project does not specify how it will address flooding. | 0 | Yes |
| (Penalty) The project is located in an area that is vulnerable to extreme heat and the applicant does not specify how the project will address heat. 0 - The project is not located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat OR project is located in a vulnerable area and the applicant specifies how the project will address heat. -3 - The project is located in an area vulnerable to extreme heat and the project does not specify how it will address heat. | 0 | Yes |
| Clean Air and Healthy Communities: Provide transportation free of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants and that supports good health. | ||
| The project supports a reduction in the amount of Single-Occupancy-Vehicle (SOV) trips for a given area (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in SOV trips. 1 - The project provides indirect support to reductions in SOV trips through the implementation of transit-supportive infrastructure, such as signage, web applications, education campaigns, or personnel improvements. 2 - The project supports a reduction in the amount of SOV trips by improving the condition or accessibility of existing transit assets, or reliability of existing service. 3 - The project supports a reduction in the amount of SOV trips by improving the accessibility or capacity of existing transit assets, making investments that improve the frequency or capacity of service, or expand service area or hours of operation for transit. | 3 | Yes |
| The project directly supports a reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from transit operations or facilities (Up to 3 points). 0 - The project does not support a reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from transit operations or facilities, or the support is indirect. 1 - The project supports reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from transit operations or facilities through an investment in low emission technologies. 2 - The project supports reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from transit operations or facilities through investments in both low emission technologies and no emission technologies. 3 - The project invests exclusively in the adoption and installation of zero-emission technologies or facility electrification. | 3 | Yes |
| The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities and natural areas through low impact design, pavement reduction, nature-based adaptation, and other improvements that protect air/water/soil quality, provide ecological restoration and functioning, improve aquatic connectivity, etc. -1 - The project is expected to have a negative impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 0 - The project is not expected to impact adjacent communities or natural areas. 1.5 - The project is expected to have a positive impact on adjacent communities or natural areas. 3 - The project specifies native species for any added vegetation or green space. | 3 | |
| The project proposes design elements aimed at removing air pollutants and improving air quality. (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project does not propose any measures that address air quality. 2 - The project proposes design elements that remove air pollutants and improve air quality. | 2 | |
| The project proposes design elements aimed at improving water quality and reducing pollutant runoff to adjacent water resources. (Up to 2 points). 0 - The project does not propose any measures that address water quality, or contaminants generated by the facility or along the transit route. 2 - The project directly improves water quality through technologies or strategies that improve treatment capacity or limit contamination, including investment in expanded stormwater treatment facilities or reductions in impervious surfaces. | 2 | |
| The proposed project incorporates or will incorporate a meaningful community outreach and engagement process (Up to 3 points). 0 - The proposed project will incorporate all legally required community outreach and engagement necessary for the use of federal funding. 1 - The proposed project will incorporate additional community outreach and engagement as necessary, including public meetings within the served municipality or municipalities. 2 - The proposed project has already been subject to community outreach and engagement, and the applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the project process as it develops. 3 - The proposed project is the result of a rigorous community engagement process, and the proposed scope of work reflects the feedback or input received by the applicant from the community. The applicant will continue to engage stakeholders in the process, and the applicant has novel or innovative strategies to improve community engagement. | 3 | Yes |
| BONUSES | ||
| CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat carbon emissions, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve air quality/treatment. | 1 | |
| CAHQ: Pursuant to the improvement of the capacity of the transit asset or supportive facilities to capture/process/treat contaminated water, the project utilizes nature-based solutions to improve water quality or treatment. | 1 | |
| Resilience: The project design is expected to address multiple hazards and/or provide multiple environmental benefits such as risk reduction, ecological restoration, aquatic connectivity, improved water quality, groundwater recharge, etc. 0 - Project design is not expected to address multiple hazards or provide multiple environmental benefits. 1 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards OR provide multiple environmental benefits. 2 - Project design is expected to address multiple hazards AND provide multiple environmental benefits. | 2 | |
| Resilience: The project design includes provision of educational material for the public related to environmental improvements and aspects of the project/area. 0 - Project will not provide educational material. 1 - Project will provide educational material. | 1 | |
| Resilience: The primary purpose of the project is to improve resilience and reduce risk to climate hazards. 0 - The primary purpose of the project is not resilience. 1 - The primary purpose of the project is resilience. | 1 | |
| Resilience: The project proponents have used RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool to demonstrate the value of resilience improvements in the project area. 0 - Proponents have not shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. 1 - Proponents have shared results from RMAT's Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. | 1 | |
Table A-9
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Community Connections Program Project Evaluation Criteria: Bicycle Lanes
| Evaluation Criteria for the FFYs 2025 Community Connections Program: Bicycle Racks Applications | ||
| Scoring Criteria | Max Points | |
| Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations. | ||
| Work locations are near to existing areas of concentrated development or public spaces. | 0 - The proposed work locations are not near to a moderate density of residential housing, commercial businesses, or public facilities. 1 - The proposed work locations are near to some mid-density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 2 - The proposed work locations are near to mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 3 - The proposed work locations are near to a combination of mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments and public facilities and open space. | 3 |
| Work locations are near to planned developments or public spaces. | 0 - No planned developments or public realm improvements are sited near the work locations. 1 - Proposed developments in the project area are limited. 2 - Numerous developments are proposed at or near work locations for the project, and include enabling land uses. 3 - All work locations are near to areas of planned development, and the types of development are supportive to demand for cycling. Alternatively, full credit may also be earned if some of the work locations are near designated areas for Transit Oriented Development, including zones for compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act. | 3 |
| Work locations for the project are situated near to transit facilities. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not located near transit stations. 1 - At least one of the proposed work locations is within 300 feet of a transit facility. 2 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility. 3 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility, and the RTA/owner of the facility has provided written support for the project. | 3 |
| Work locations for the project complement transit operating routes. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near transit routes. 1 - Only one work location in the project is located near a transit route with limited accessibility or utility to and from that point. 2 - One work location in the project is located near a major transit route, but the location provides some utility to and from that point. Or, more than one work location is near a transit route, but the locations are not well connected to one another. 3 - The proposed work locations effectively mirror one or more transit routes, and improve accessibility to and from that route. | 3 |
| The work location or locations are safely accessible by walking. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks and crosswalks. 1 - Less than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 2 - More than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 3 - All work locations are near safe, pedestrian-accessible sites that include signalized crosswalks and continuous sidewalks. | 3 |
| The work location or locations are near to safe bicycle-supportive infrastructure. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe bicycle infrastructure. 1 - Most proposed work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that does not provide physical separation for users. 2 - Most proposed work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that provides some on-road separation for users. 3 - Most or all work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that provides full physical separation, including vertical or horizontal separation, for users. | 3 |
| Connectivity Score | 18 | |
| Regional and Interlocal Coordination | ||
| The project includes a substantial public engagement process. | 0 - The municipality or municipalities applying for the project are the primary stakeholders in the project development process. 1 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged their communities for the purpose of implementing the proposed improvements, specifically entities responsible for ensuring the continuing operations of the project (ROW, local operating costs, etc.) 2 - The municipality or municipalities have held public meetings on the proposed project, in addition to the above. 3 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged stakeholders in their communities for the purpose of soliciting feedback to improve the planning and prioritization of the project, in addition to the above. 4 - The project involves a rigorous public engagement process that addresses multiple public and private groups at the local level. The public engagement process specifically led to the identification of sites included in the project. | 4 |
| The project demonstrates collaboration between different components of the municipality for site prioritization. | 0 - The applicant is not working with other business units within the municipality as part of the project. 1 - The applicant has received support from elected officials within the municipality for the project beyond the budget process. 2 - In addition to the above, the selection of sites as part of the project was performed in consultation with other municipal units, including for example school committees, Councils on Aging, Parks Departments, etc. | 2 |
| The project demonstrates collaboration between multiple municipalities. | 0 - No direct support from other municipalities is provided. 1 - The applicant is a regional organization providing bicycle parking for one or more municipalities. 2 - The project involves collaboration between one or more municipalities. | 2 |
| The project demonstrates collaboration with other state or federal agencies. | 0 - The project does not involve any direct coordination with state or federal agencies in a manner unrelated to the TIP process. 1 - The project involves a state or federal facility, and support for the applicant to improve that facility has been provided by the facility owner. The owner is not otherwise involved in the project. 2 - The project is a direct partnership between a municipality and a state or federal agency, which may be demonstrated through providing bicycle racks at State/National Parks, publicly-accessible state/federal buildings (including universities), or other facilities. | 2 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors | 0 - No direct support from private entities is listed. 2 - The project proponent coordinated with the private sector in the development of the project as part of selecting site areas. 4 - The project includes extensive support between the public and private sectors, including private funding contributions. | 4 |
| Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO | 0 - The applicant has not attached letters of support. 2 - Letters of support are attached to demonstrate fulfillment of the above criteria. | 2 |
| Coordination Score | 16 | |
| Plan Implementation: Support local, regional, and statewide planning efforts. | ||
| Project is included in local plans or studies | 0 - The project is not included in any local plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, and those documents are cited by the applicant. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a local plan or study. | 6 |
| Project is included in regional plans or studies, including those created by the Boston Region MPO and Metropolitan Area Planning Council | 0 - The project is not included in any regional plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, and the applicant cites those documents. Alternatively, the applicant developed this project or identified the need being addressed by the project through direct consultation with MAPC or a similar body. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a regional plan or study, or is located at a regionally significant junction for the Bluebikes network as identified by MAPC or a similar entity. | 6 |
| Project is included in statewide plans or studies | 0 - The project is not included in any statewide plans or studies. 2 - The project is included in a statewide planning document, but is not cited by the applicant. 4 - The project is included in a statewide planning document cited by the applicant. | 4 |
| Project acts as an 'anchor' for development of a sustainable bicycle network. | 0 - The project does not add racks to an area of at least low-moderate utility. 1 - The project expands into an area of low-moderate utility, or add racks where none currently exist to an area of low utility. 2 - The project expands into an area of moderate or greater utility. | 2 |
| Plan Implementation Score | 18 | |
| Transportation Equity: Ensure that all people receive comparable benefits from, and are not disproportionately burdened by, MPO investments, regardless of race, color, national origin, age, income, ability, or sex. | ||
| Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO | Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index. Equity Score Look-up Table If the sum of the Indices Greater than… …And Less Than… The Project Score is… 0 1 0 0.99 6 3 5.99 11 6 10.99 16 9 15.99 21 12 20.99 27 18 | 18 |
| The project expands or maintains direct access to a safe bicycle facility. | 0 - Work locations for the project are not near to a safe bicycle facility. 1 - Work locations for the project are near to a safe bicycle facility. | 1 |
| The project serves a community with a low rate of automobile ownership. | 0 - The project does not install bicycle racks in an area with low rates of automobile ownership. 1 - The project installs bicycle racks in an area with a low rate of automobile ownership. | 1 |
| Transportation Equity Score | 20 | |
| Climate Change Mitigation | ||
| For new racks, does the project further promote mode shift? For repair/replacement projects, how many users utilize the facility? | 0 - The extent to which the project creates new trips is unclear or lacks sufficient supporting information. For rack repair/replacement projects, the applicant does not provide data for existing ridership at the involved stations. 2 - The project creates a moderate number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile. For rack repair/replacement projects, the stations being replaced are of moderate utility and consistent ridership levels. 3 - The project creates a large number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile, or increases the accessibility of an alternative transportation mode/route (ex: existing trails, routes parallel to transit operations). For rack repair/replacement projects, the stations being replaced are of significant utility with strong ridership levels, and are first priority investments. 4 - Pursuant to 3 above, but does so in area with disproportionate air quality burden. | 4 |
| Estimates for project demand are realistic and grounded in thorough analysis. | 0 - Future demand projections do not seem realistic, or the methodology as to how they were calculated is not explained. 2 - Future demand projections seem reasonable and support the above argument for substituting single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The applicant has provided realistic demand projections and accounted for possible variations in demand (seasonal variation, new enabling infrastructure, etc.) in their estimate. | 4 |
| The rack investment is complementary to an ongoing or planned surface transportation investment. | 0 - The investment does not complement any planned or nearby projects. 2 - The investment is somewhat related to a planned or nearby project, but the connection between the two is limited. 4 - The investment is related to a planned or nearby project that offers some bike-supportive infrastructure. 6 - The investment is directly and deliberately related to a planned or nearby project that offers safe and accessible bike-supportive infrastructure, such as a shared-use-path. | 6 |
| The rack investment reinforces access to an existing surface transportation facility. | 0 - The investment does not complement any nearby bicycle facilities. 2 - The investment complements an existing low to moderate utility link for biking. 4 - The investment complements an existing moderate to high utility link for biking, or a physically separated and safe pathway for all users (ex: shared use path, rail trail). | 4 |
| Climate Change Mitigation | 18 | |
| Performance Management | ||
| The project application includes a budget worksheet that outlines the sources and uses of the project. | Disqualifying - No budget worksheet is attached. 0 - A budget sheet is included, but the costs associated are unrealistic. 3 - The budget sheet is attached, and the applicant describes the expenses, including the rationale behind the selected unit type. | 3 |
| The project proponent broadly outlines expected activities necessary for asset maintenance. | 0 - No description of maintenance activities are provided. 3 - An anticipated maintenance schedule is provided. | 3 |
| The estimates for the usage rates on the bicycle racks are sound. | 0 - The applicant does not describe how demand was estimated. 2 - The process for estimating demand for the bicycle racks is vague. 4 - The demand estimates for the bicycle racks are sound. | 4 |
| Performance Management | 10 | |
| Total Score | 100 | |
Table A-10
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Community Connections Program Project Evaluation Criteria: Bicycle Racks
| Evaluation Criteria for the FFYs 2025 Community Connections Program: Bicycle Lanes Applications | ||
| Scoring Criteria | Max Points | |
| Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations. | ||
| Work locations are near to existing areas of concentrated development or public spaces. | 0 - The proposed work locations are not near to a moderate density of residential housing, commercial businesses, or public facilities. 1 - The proposed work locations are near to some mid-density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 2 - The proposed work locations are near to mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 3 - The proposed work locations are near to a combination of mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments and public facilities and open space. | 3 |
| Work locations are near to planned developments or public spaces. | 0 - No planned developments or public realm improvements are sited near the work locations. 1 - Proposed developments in the project area are limited. 2 - Numerous developments are proposed at or near work locations for the project, and include enabling land uses. 3 - All work locations are near to areas of planned development, and the types of development are supportive to demand for micromobility. Alternatively, full credit may also be earned if some of the work locations are near designated areas for Transit Oriented Development, including zones for compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act. | 3 |
| Work locations for the project are situated near to transit facilities. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not located near transit stations. 1 - At least one of the proposed work locations is within 300 feet of a transit facility. 2 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility. 3 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility, and the RTA/owner of the facility has provided written support for the project. | 3 |
| Work locations for the project complement transit operating routes. | 0 - The proposed project is not near transit routes. 1 - A transit route is located in the project area, but with limited accessibility or utility to and from that point. 2 - A major transit route is present, and the proposed facility provides some utility to and from that point. 3 - The proposed facility effectively mirrors or complements transit routes, and improves accessibility to and from that route. | 3 |
| The work location or locations are safely accessible by walking. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks and crosswalks. 1 - Less than half of the project area contains safe pedestrian infrastructure. 2 - Most of the project limits are near to safe, pedestrian-accessible facilities that include signalized crosswalks and continuous sidewalks. | 2 |
| The proposed lanes are not placed in areas that could be potentially hazardous to users. | -5 - Proposed work locations could be hazardous to users due to high speeds along the roadway, and additional mitigations besides lane striping are not planned for implementation. 0 - The proposed lanes are placed in areas that lack connectivity with other bicycle facilities, leading to 'drop offs' at the ends of the lanes. 1 - The lanes are located in areas with no current bicycle facilities and create a safer outcome, but speeds for vehicles along the roadway are high. 2 - The bicycle lanes create safe connections between other network assets, and the proposed implementation of the lanes is not hazardous to users. | 2 |
| The proposed lanes are near to other bicycle-supportive assets, such as racks, signage, or other trails and paths. | 0 - No other bicycle supportive assets are near to the facility. 1 - A low amount of bicycle supportive assets are near to the facility, such as occasional bicycle lanes or signs. 2 - The bicycle lanes connect into other micromobility facilities, and/or the lanes are near to both current and planned supportive assets such as racks or signs. | 2 |
| Connectivity Score | 18 | |
| Regional and Interlocal Coordination | ||
| The project includes a substantial public engagement process. | 0 - The municipality or municipalities applying for the project are the primary stakeholders in the project development process. 1 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged their communities for the purpose of implementing the proposed improvements, specifically entities responsible for ensuring the continuing operations of the project (ROW, local operating costs, etc.) 2 - The municipality or municipalities have held public meetings on the proposed project, in addition to the above. 3 - The project involves a rigorous public engagement process that addresses multiple public and private groups at the local level. The public engagement process specifically led to the identification of sites included in the project. | 4 |
| The project demonstrates collaboration between different components of the municipality for site prioritization. | 0 - The applicant is not working with other business units within the municipality as part of the project. 1 - The applicant has received support from elected officials within the municipality for the project beyond the budget process. 2 - In addition to the above, the selection of sites as part of the project was performed in consultation with other municipal units, including for example school committees, Councils on Aging, Parks Departments, etc. | 2 |
| The project demonstrates collaboration between multiple municipalities. | 0 - No direct support from other municipalities is provided. 1 - The applicant is a regional organization providing a bicycle network for one or more municipalities. 2 - The project involves collaboration between one or more municipalities. | 2 |
| The project demonstrates collaboration with other state or federal agencies. | 0 - The project does not involve any direct coordination with state or federal agencies beyond that related to the TIP process. 1 - The project involves a state or federal facility, and support for the applicant to improve that facility has been provided by the facility owner. The owner is not otherwise involved in the project. 2 - The project is a direct partnership between a municipality and a state or federal agency, which may be demonstrated through providing lanes near to State/National Parks, publicly-accessible state/federal buildings (including universities), or other facilities. | 2 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors | 0 - No direct support from private entities is listed. 2 - The project proponent coordinated with the private sector in the development of the project as part of selecting site areas. | 2 |
| Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO | 0 - The applicant has not attached letters of support. 2 - Letters of support are attached to demonstrate fulfillment of the above criteria. | 2 |
| Coordination Score | 14 | |
| Plan Implementation: Support local, regional, and statewide planning efforts. | ||
| Project is included in local plans or studies | 0 - The project is not included in any local plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, and those documents are cited by the applicant. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a local plan or study. | 6 |
| Project is included in regional plans or studies, including those created by the Boston Region MPO and Metropolitan Area Planning Council | 0 - The project is not included in any regional plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, and the applicant cites those documents. Alternatively, the applicant developed this project or identified the need being addressed by the project through direct consultation with MAPC or a similar body. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a regional plan or study, or is located at a regionally significant junction for the Bluebikes network as identified by MAPC or a similar entity. | 6 |
| Project is included in statewide plans or studies | 0 - The project is not included in any statewide plans or studies. 2 - The project is included in a statewide planning document, but is not cited by the applicant. 4 - The project is included in a statewide planning document cited by the applicant. | 4 |
| Project acts as an 'anchor' for development of a sustainable bicycle network. | 0 - The project does not add lanes to an area of at least low-moderate utility. 1 - The project expands into an area of low-moderate utility, or adds lanes where none currently exist to an area of low utility. 2 - The project expands into an area of moderate or greater utility. | 2 |
| Plan Implementation Score | 18 | |
| Transportation Equity: Ensure that all people receive comparable benefits from, and are not disproportionately burdened by, MPO investments, regardless of race, color, national origin, age, income, ability, or sex. | ||
| Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO | Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index. Equity Score Look-up Table If the sum of the Indices Greater than… …And Less Than… The Project Score is… 0 1 0 0.99 6 3 5.99 11 6 10.99 16 9 15.99 21 12 20.99 27 18 | 19 |
| The project serves a community with a low rate of automobile ownership. | 0 - The project does not install bicycle lanes in an area with low rates of automobile ownership. 1 - The project installs bicycle lanes in an area with a low rate of automobile ownership. | 1 |
| Transportation Equity Score | 20 | |
| Climate Change Mitigation | ||
| To what extent do these lanes encourage new trips, or shift existing trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile? | 0 - The extent to which the project creates new trips is unclear or lacks sufficient supporting information. 2 - The project creates a moderate number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile. 3 - The project creates a large number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile, or increases the accessibility of an alternative transportation mode/route (ex: existing trails, routes parallel to transit operations). 4 - Pursuant to 3 above, but does so in area with disproportionate air quality burden. | 4 |
| Estimates for project demand are realistic and grounded in thorough analysis. | 0 - Future demand projections do not seem realistic, or the methodology as to how they were calculated is not explained. 2 - Future demand projections seem reasonable and support the above argument for substituting single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The applicant has provided realistic demand projections and accounted for possible variations in demand (seasonal variation, new enabling infrastructure, etc.) in their estimate. | 4 |
| The lanes are near to planned or underway bike supportive capital projects. | 0 - The investment does not complement any planned or nearby projects. 2 - The investment is somewhat related to a planned or nearby project, but the connection between the two is limited. 4 - The investment is related to a planned or nearby project that offers some bike-supportive infrastructure. 6 - The investment is directly and deliberately related to a planned or nearby project that offers safe and accessible bike-supportive infrastructure, such as a shared-use-path. | 6 |
| The planned bike lanes reinforce connections to existing micromobility facilities. | 0 - The investment does not complement any nearby bicycle facilities. 2 - The investment complements an existing low to moderate utility link for biking. 4 - The investment complements an existing moderate to high utility link for biking, or a physically separated and safe pathway for all users (ex: shared use path, rail trail). | 4 |
| Climate Change Mitigation | 18 | |
| Performance Management | ||
| The project application includes a budget worksheet that outlines the sources and uses of the project. | Disqualifying - No budget worksheet is attached. 0 - A budget sheet is included, but the costs associated are unrealistic. 3 - The budget sheet is attached, and the applicant describes the sources of expenses. | 3 |
| The project proponent broadly outlines expected activities necessary for asset maintenance, including year round use of the facility. | 0 - No description of maintenance activities are provided. 1 - The applicant describes how the facility may be maintained over time. 2 - The applicant describes how the facility may be maintained, and may remain accessible during times of inclement weather (ie: snow removal). | 2 |
| The project proponent describes interest in or the potential for future upgrades to the bicycle facility | 0 - No further upgrades are planned for the bike lanes after installation. 1 - The applicant describes an interest in future upgrades to the bicycle lanes. 2 - The applicant describes interest in and a plan for implementing upgrades to bicycle lanes in the future. 3 - The applicant provides a descriptive plan for implementing further upgrades to the facility, including additional actions to date. | 3 |
| The projected volumes for the bicycle lanes are sound. | 0 - The applicant does not describe how demand was estimated. 2 - The process for estimating demand for the bicycle lanes is vague. 4 - The demand estimates for the bicycle lanes are sound. | 4 |
| Performance Management | 12 | |
| Total Score | 100 | |
Table A-11
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Community Connections Program Project Evaluation Criteria: Bikeshare Support
| Evaluation Criteria for the FFYs 2025 Community Connections Program: Bikeshare Support and Expansion Applications | |||
| Scoring Criteria | Max Points | ||
| Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations. | |||
| Work locations are near to existing areas of concentrated development or public spaces. | 0 - The proposed work locations are not near to a moderate density of residential housing, commercial businesses, or public facilities. 1 - The proposed work locations are near to some mid-density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 2 - The proposed work locations are near to mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 3 - The proposed work locations are near to a combination of mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments and public facilities and open space. | 3 | |
| Work locations are near to planned developments or public spaces. | 0 - No planned developments or public realm improvements are sited near the work locations. 1 - Proposed developments in the project area are limited. 2 - Numerous developments are proposed at or near work locations for the project, and include enabling land uses. 3 - All work locations are near to areas of planned development, and the types of development are supportive to demand for bikeshare. Alternatively, full credit may also be earned if some of the work locations are near designated areas for Transit Oriented Development, including zones for compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act. | 3 | |
| Work locations for the project are situated near to transit facilities. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not located near transit stations. 1 - At least one of the proposed work locations is within 300 feet of a transit facility. 2 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility. 3 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility, and the RTA/owner of the facility has provided written support for the project. | 3 | |
| Work locations for the project complement transit operating routes. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near transit routes. 1 - Only one work location in the project is located near a transit route with limited accessibility or utility to and from that point. 2 - One work location in the project is located near a major transit route, but the location provides some utility to and from that point. Or, more than one work location is near a transit route, but the locations are not well connected to one another. 3 - The proposed work locations effectively mirror one or more transit routes, and improve accessibility to and from that route. | 3 | |
| The work location or locations are safely accessible by walking. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks and crosswalks. 1 - Less than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 2 - More than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 3 - All work locations are near safe, pedestrian-accessible sites that include signalized crosswalks and continuous sidewalks. | 3 | |
| The work location or locations are near to safe bicycle-supportive infrastructure. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe bicycle infrastructure. 1 - Most proposed work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that does not provide physical separation for users. 2 - Most proposed work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that provides some on-road separation for users. 3 - Most or all work locations are near bicycle infrastructure that provides full physical separation, including vertical or horizontal separation, for users. | 3 | |
| Connectivity Score | 18 | ||
| Regional and Interlocal Coordination | |||
| Project demonstrates collaboration between multiple entities within the municipality or municipalities. | 0 - The municipality or municipalities applying for the project are the primary stakeholders in the project development process. 2 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged entities within their communities for the purpose of implementing the proposed improvements, specifically entities responsible for ensuring the continuing operations of the project (ROW, local operating costs, etc.) 3 - The project is a joint effort between one or more municipalities (minimum score for joint applications). 4 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged stakeholders in their communities for the purpose of soliciting feedback to improve the planning and prioritization of the project, in addition to securing any local support for ROW. 6 - The project involves a rigorous public engagement process that addresses multiple public and private groups at the local level, including direct involvement from community based organizations to help shape the scope of the project. | 6 | |
| Project demonstrates collaboration between multiple municipalities. | 0 - No direct support from other municipalities is provided. 2 - The application refers to the Bluebikes Council as providing support, but there is no written documentation. 4 - The project has the written approval of the Bluebikes Council, or letters of support from neighboring communities, or involves work spread across multiple municipalities. | 4 | |
| Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors | 0 - No direct support from private entities is listed, or the applicant refers to private collaboration that is within the existing scope of the Bluebikes contract (ex: vendor, sponsorships) 2 - The project proponent coordinated with the private sector in the development of the project beyond the private stakeholders already involved in the Bluebikes contract. 4 - The project includes extensive cooperation with the private sector, including the direct contribution of local, private funding from local businesses, fundraising, etc. | 4 | |
| Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO | 0 - The applicant has not attached letters of support. 2 - Letters of support are attached to demonstrate fulfillment of the above criteria. | 2 | |
| Coordination Score | 16 | ||
| Plan Implementation: Support local, regional, and statewide planning efforts. | |||
| Project is included in local plans or studies | 0 - The project is not included in any local plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, and those documents are cited by the applicant. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a local plan or study. | 6 | |
| Project is included in regional plans or studies, including those created by the Boston Region MPO and Metropolitan Area Planning Council | 0 - The project is not included in any regional plans or studies. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 4 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, and the applicant cites those documents. Alternatively, the applicant developed this project or identified the need being addressed by the project through direct consultation with MAPC or a similar body. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a regional plan or study, or is located at a regionally significant junction for the Bluebikes network as identified by MAPC or a similar entity. | 6 | |
| Project is included in statewide plans or studies | 0 - The project is not included in any statewide plans or studies. 2 - The project is included in a statewide planning document, but is not cited by the applicant. 4 - The project is included in a statewide planning document cited by the applicant. | 4 | |
| Project acts as an 'anchor' for development of a sustainable bikeshare network. | 0 - For expansion projects, the project does not expand into an area of at least low-moderate utility, or is located in an area saturated with bikeshare. For repair projects, the project does not address an asset nearing the end of its useful life in a priority location, or in a location of at least moderate utility. 1 - For expansion projects, the project expands into an area of low-moderate utility. For repair projects, the project addresses an asset nearing the end of its useful life in a location of at least moderate utility. 2 - For expansion projects, the project expands into an entirely new part of the Boston Region, or expands into an area ranging from moderate to high utility. Alternatively, the proposed expansion seeks to link together more 'disconnected' nexuses of stations back into the larger regional system For repair projects, the project addresses an asset nearing the end of its useful life in a high utility or critical area. | 2 | |
| Plan Implementation Score | 18 | ||
| Transportation Equity: Ensure that all people receive comparable benefits from, and are not disproportionately burdened by, MPO investments, regardless of race, color, national origin, age, income, ability, or sex. | |||
| Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO | Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index. Equity Score Look-up Table If the sum of the Indices Greater than… …And Less Than… The Project Score is… 0 1 0 0.99 6 3 5.99 11 6 10.99 16 9 15.99 21 12 20.99 27 18 | 18 | |
| The project expands or maintains direct access to a safe bicycle facility. The bikeshare model supports access to these facilities for individuals who do not own a private bicycle. | 0 - Work locations for the project are not near to a safe bicycle facility. 1 - Work locations for the project are near to a safe bicycle facility. | 1 | |
| The project incorporates pedal-assist or fully electric bikes in an area with a high share of older adults. | 0 - The project does not incorporate any pedal-assist or fully electric bikes. 1 - The project incorporates pedal-assist or fully electric bikes. | 1 | |
| Transportation Equity Score | 20 | ||
| Climate Change Mitigation | |||
| For expansion projects, to what extent does the expanded service encourage new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile? For repair/replacement projects, how many trips does the existing service support? | 0 - The extent to which the project creates new trips is unclear or lacks sufficient supporting information. For station repair/replacement projects, the applicant does not provide data for existing ridership at the involved stations. 2 - The project creates a moderate number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile. For station repair/replacement projects, the stations being replaced are of moderate utility and consistent ridership levels. 3 - The project creates a large number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile, or increases the accessibility of an alternative transportation mode/route (ex: existing trails, routes parallel to transit operations). For station repair/replacement projects, the stations being replaced are of significant utility with strong ridership levels, and are first priority investments. 4 - The project performs all work necessary for 3 above, and does so in an area with disproportionate air quality burden. | 4 | |
| Estimates for project demand are realistic and grounded in thorough analysis. | 0 - Future demand projections do not seem realistic, or the methodology as to how they were calculated is not explained. 2 - Future demand projections seem reasonable and support the above argument for substituting single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The applicant has provided realistic demand projections and accounted for possible variations in demand (seasonal variation, new enabling infrastructure, etc.) in their estimate. | 4 | |
| The bikeshare investment is complementary to an ongoing or planned surface transportation investment. | 0 - The investment does not complement any planned or nearby projects. 2 - The investment is somewhat related to a planned or nearby project, but the connection between the two is limited. 4 - The investment is related to a planned or nearby project that offers some bike-supportive infrastructure. 6 - The investment is directly and deliberately related to a planned or nearby project that offers safe and accessible bike-supportive infrastructure, such as a shared-use-path. | 6 | |
| The bikeshare investment expands access to an existing surface transportation facility. | 0 - The investment does not complement any nearby bicycle facilities. 1 - The investment complements an existing low to moderate utility link for biking. 2 - The investment complements an existing moderate to high utility link for biking, or a physically separated and safe pathway for all users (ex: shared use path, rail trail). | 2 | |
| The investment incorporates improvements for bikeshare electrification. | 0 - The investment does not incorporate or support current and future electrification of the bikeshare facility (or facilities). 1 - The investment incorporates electrification of the bikeshare fleet, but not for the facility itself. 2 - The investment incorporates electrification for the bikeshare facility. | 2 | |
| Climate Change Mitigation | 18 | ||
| Performance Management | |||
| The project proponent outlines expected sources of funding to support the costs of operation associated with the project. | -3 - No sources of potential operating costs are provided. 0 - Sources of funding for operating costs are indicated, but are vague. 2 - Sources of funding for operating costs are indicated and seem secure. 3 - The proponent identifies sources of funding for operating costs that are secure and innovative in some manner. | 3 | |
| The project proponent outlines expected sources of funding to support the maintenance or replacement of the asset. In the case of Bikeshare projects seeking capital support for station repair or replacement, the project proponent outlines their plan for keeping the asset in a state of good repair. | 0 - The applicant does not describe the sources of funding necessary for long term maintenance of the asset, or describe any plan to maintain the asset. 1 - The applicant describes how they intend to maintain the asset, but does not indicate sources of funding for maintenance. Alternatively, the source of maintenance funding described is from other state or Boston Region MPO programs that have a local match requirement (which is not indicated). 2 - The applicant describes a plan to maintain the asset and identifies sources of funding to do so to some detail. 3 - The applicant thoroughly details a plan to maintain and continue to fund the maintenance of assets included in the proposed project. | 3 | |
| Project application includes completed budget worksheet that demonstrates financial viability of project | Disqualifying - No budget worksheet is attached. 0 - The project application includes a budget worksheet, but it is missing information or does not demonstrate the financial viability of the project. 2 - The project application includes a complete budget worksheet, but some concerns around the financial viability and sustainability of the project remain. 4 - Pursuant to the above criteria, the budget worksheet demonstrates the near term and long term fiscal viability and sustainability of the project. | 4 | |
| Performance Management | 10 | ||
| Total Score | 100 | ||
Table A-12
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Community Connections Program Project Evaluation Criteria: Microtransit Pilots
| Evaluation Criteria for the FFYs 2025 Community Connections Program: Microtransit Pilot Applications | ||
| Scoring Criteria | Max Points | |
| Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations. | ||
| The project connects to existing residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. | 0 - The project does not connect to any current residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 1 - The project primarily connects to low to medium density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 2 - The project primarily connects to high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 3 - The project primarily connects to high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, and better integrates those developments into other non-SOV infrastructure options such as commuter rail stations, bike paths, etc. | 3 |
| The project connects to planned residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. | 0 - The project does not connect to any planned or permitted residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 1 - The project connects to some planned or permitted commercial or residential development, but the developments are limited in scope or low density. 2 - The project connects to numerous planned or permitted high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. 3 - The project connects to numerous planned or permitted high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, including zones included as part of compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act or 40B developments. | 3 |
| The project provides a connection to other transit facilities or routes, including but not limited to train stations, bus hubs and stops, or other shuttle services. | 0 - The project does not primarily provide connections to other transit facilities or routes. 1 - The project provides some connections to low-frequency transit facilities or routes. 2 - The project provides some connections to moderate or high frequency transit facilities or routes. 3 - The project provides significant connections to moderate or high frequent transit facilities or routes, and the design or schedule of the project complements the schedules of those alternate transit services. The project proponent is directly collaborating with other transit providers as part of this effort. | 3 |
| The project deliberately creates connections to safe and accessible facilities for walking and biking. | 0 - The project does not provide for connections to safe and accessible facilities for walking and biking. 1 - The project provides for connections to facilities for walking and biking, but these connections are either incidental (included in the service area for a demand-response service) or are not high-utility corridors. 2 - The project deliberately provides for connections to facilities for walking and biking, and some of the included facilities are on high-utility corridors. 3 - The project deliberately provides for numerous connections to safe and accessible walking and biking facilities, many of which are on high utility corridors. Recreational trails may also be included in the project area. | 3 |
| The project increases access to open space or other natural / recreation sites. | 0 - The project does not provide for any access to open space or natural sites. 1 - The project is a demand response service that provides for access to open space or natural sites within the service area. 2 - The project is a fixed route service with connections near to open space or other recreation / natural sites. 3 - The project is a demand response or fixed route service with deliberate, priority connections to and from open space and other natural or recreation sites, with the service model intentionally aiming to increase access to those areas. | 3 |
| The proposed hours of and times of service support a variety of potential use cases. | 0 - The applicant does not provide an explanation as to why their times of service were selected. 1 - The applicant provides hours and times of service, but their explanation regarding why these times were selected are vague or largely relate to fiscal and personnel constraints. 2 - The applicant provides hours and times of service with an explanation as to how the model suits the needs of a diverse array of potential users. 3 - The applicant provides an explanation of why the hours and times of service were selected, how its operations supports the needs of a diverse array of potential users, and explains the conditions under which they may expand service offerings. | 3 |
| The project expands upon an existing service or service delivery model within the Commonwealth. | 0 - The project is entirely novel, and does not build upon an existing service or leverage a service delivery model implemented within the Commonwealth. 1 - The project expands the hours of service or area of service within a single municipality. 2 - The project expands the hours of service or area of service across multiple municipalities, including adding a new municipality to the service area. | 2 |
| Connectivity Score | 20 | |
| Regional and Interlocal Coordination | ||
| Project demonstrates collaboration between multiple entities | 0 - The project applicant is the sole entity involved in the project. 1 - The project applicant and the operator are the only entities involved in the project. 2 - The project applicant and operator are the only entities involved in the project, but the project includes robust public outreach. 3 - The project applicant is partnering with one or more municipalities in administering the service, including providing service to adjacent municipalities, but the applicant performs most of the work. 4 - Multiple municipalities are involved in overseeing the project in tandem with the operator. 5 - The project has multiple municipalities taking an active role in administering the service in addition to a diverse array of other project partners. | 5 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors | 0 - The project does not demonstrate collaboration across multiple sectors. 1 - The project demonstrates some collaboration between the public and private sector in the form of letters of support, or connections to private employers. 2 - The project demonstrates moderate collaboration between the public and private sector, with private sector stakeholders involved in some supporting functions. 3 - The project demonstrates significant collaboration between the public and private sector, with private sector stakeholders making a significant financial or in-kind contribution to support the financial sustainability of the project. | 3 |
| Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO | 0 - No letters of support have been provided by the applicant. 1 - The applicant provides letters of support, but the letters only include support from municipal entities. 2 - The applicant provides letters of support, including letters from a variety of non-governmental and/or community based organizations. | 2 |
| The Regional Transit Authority (RTA), including the MBTA, that provides service to or near the municipality or municipalities involved in the proposed service has been made aware of the application by the applicant. | 0 - The applicant has not discussed their proposed service with their local RTA or RTAs. 1 - The applicant has discussed their proposed service with their local RTA or RTAs. If the applicant is an RTA, it has discussed the proposed service with MassDOT's Rail and Transit Division (RTD). 2 - The applicant has discussed their proposed service with their local RTA or RTAs, and the RTA has provided written support for the project. If the applicant is an RTA, MassDOT Rail and Transit Division (RTD) is aware of and has provided written support for the project. | 2 |
| The project is included in statewide or regional plans and/or studies, including the Boston Region MPO's Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (CPTHST) | 0 - The applicant does not cite, or the project is not consistent with the themes or explicit needs identified in any statewide or regional planning documents or studies. 3 - The project is consistent with the broad themes or recommendations laid out for the municipality or region in the CPTHST. 6 - The project is explicitly called for in a statewide, regional, or municipal planning document, or is the direct result of a study conducted by an independent federal, state, or regional entity. | 6 |
| Coordination Score | 18 | |
| Transportation Equity: Ensure that all people receive comparable benefits from, and are not disproportionately burdened by, MPO investments, regardless of race, color, national origin, age, income, ability, or sex. | ||
| Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO | Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index. Equity Score Look-up Table If the sum of the Indices Greater than… …And Less Than… The Project Score is… 0 1 0 0.99 6 3 5.99 11 6 10.99 16 9 15.99 21 12 20.99 27 18 | 20 |
| The project supports a fare structure that does not hinder access from disadvantaged groups. | 0 - The proposed service operates on a uniform fare structure. 1 - The proposed service subsidizes fares for disadvantaged groups, including means-based fares and fare-free service for seniors and persons with disabilities. 2 - The proposed service is entirely fare-free. | 1 |
| The project prioritizes service to disadvantaged groups or areas. | 0 - The project does not prioritize service to disadvantaged groups or areas, and the applicant does not offer any information as to how they would provide services to a person with disabilities. 1 - The project serves all individuals regardless of ability, but there are restrictions in terms of eligibility (ex: residence) 2 - The project effectively prioritizes service for disadvantaged groups or areas and balances the needs of other users as well. The service is accessible to and may be used by all. | 1 |
| Transportation Equity Score | 24 | |
| Climate Change Mitigation | ||
| Is the proposed service an effective substitute for current trips conducted by private single occupancy vehicles? | Disqualifying: The project is not anticipated to have any significant impact on encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicles to the proposed service. 1 - According to the figures provided by the applicant, the project is anticipated to have a small impact on encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicles. 2- The project is anticipated to have a small impact on directly encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicle, but is also complementary to other alternative modes of transportation (transit facilities, active transportation, etc.) 3 - The project is expected to have an at least moderate impact in encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The project is expected to have a moderate impact in encouraging shifts from single occupancy vehicles, and reinforces or expands access to additional alternative modes of transportation (transit facilities, active transportation, etc.) | 4 |
| Does the proposed service create new connections or trips that could not otherwise be fulfilled without an automobile? | 0 - The project is redundant to existing transit services in the project area, and the applicant has not sufficiently detailed how their service is meant to be complementary to it. 1 - The service creates new connections, but the efficacy of the service in substituting automobile trips is unclear. 2 - The project is complementary to existing transit services in the project area, specifically services that may have gaps in times of service, capacity to serve, or headways. 3 - The project creates entirely new connections in areas not otherwise served by a regional transit authority or other transit operator with a moderate likelihood of substitution. 4 - The project creates entirely new connections in areas not otherwise directly served by a regional transit authority or other transit operator, and these connections include other intermodal facilities (Commuter Rail stations, trails, etc.) | 4 |
| Does the proposed service operate with low or no emission vehicles? | 0 - The project utilizes standard internal combustion engine vehicles for its fleet. 4 - The project utilizes low emission fuel source vehicles, including diesel electric hybrids or compressed natural gas (CNG). 5 - The project utilizes fully electric vehicles. 6 - The project utilizes fully electric vehicles, and planned or existing charging facilities utilize renewable energy sources. | 6 |
| What is the expected amount of time spent operating the vehicle for non-revenue hours, or "dead-heading" between trips in the case of demand response service? | 0 - The applicant does not estimate the amount of non-revenue hours of operation for the service or provide dead-head estimates. Dead-head estimates, if provided, represent a sizable component of operating time and the vehicles used are not low/no emission vehicles. 2 - The proposed project has minimal dead-head zones. For fixed-route service, minimal time is spent moving vehicles between motor pools or staging areas towards the route. For demand response services, ridership levels and operating strategies or technologies minimize downtime between trips. 4 - The proposed project has minimal dead-head zones. For fixed-route service, minimal time is spent moving vehicles between motor pools or staging areas towards the route, and the vehicles involved are low/no emission. For demand response services, ridership levels and operating strategies or technologies minimize downtime between trips while also operating electric vehicles. | 4 |
| Is the average driving miles per passenger trip significantly different than if the trip was conducted with a single-occupancy vehicle? | Disqualifying - The average driving miles per passenger trip with a non low/zero emission vehicle are equal to or greater than the mileage for a typical SOV trip. 0 - The average driving miles per passenger trip are not significantly different from conducting the trip with a SOV, but the vehicle used is a low/no emissions vehicle. 2 - The average driving miles per passenger trip are significantly different from conducting the trip with an SOV. | 2 |
| Climate Change Mitigation | 20 | |
| Performance Management | ||
| The project application includes a budget sheet that lays out the anticipated sources and uses of operating funding for at least the first three years of the project. | Disqualifying: no budget sheet is provided. 0: A budget sheet is provided, but the funding requests are not broken out by year or the estimates provided are unrealistic/flawed. 2: A budget sheet is provided with funding sources and uses laid out for each year in the period of performance. The expected expenditures and revenues are reasonable. 4: A budget sheet is provided with funding sources and uses laid out for each year in the period of performance, in addition to potential alternative sources of funding. The applicant has identified how they may pursue funding to continue the operations of the shuttle(s), if successful, following the three-year pilot period. The expected revenues and expenditures laid out in the sheet are thoroughly defensible. | 4 |
| Project demand estimate is realistic and grounded in thorough analysis | Disqualified: The applicant does not provide a project demand estimate, or an estimate is provided but lacks any explanation of the methodology used to achieve that estimate. 0: The applicant provides a demand estimate and means of estimation, but the estimate lacks sufficient supporting information to justify the estimate. If the applicant does not provide a follow-up response with sufficient information, they may be disqualified. 5: The applicant provides a demand estimate, a means of estimation, and supporting information that justifies the estimate to an acceptable extent. 10: The applicant provides a comprehensive analysis of their estimated demand, explains their methodology, and/or has utilized technical assistance from the Boston Region MPO, MassDOT, or a similar third-party to set their ridership targets. | 10 |
| The applicant lists their performance measures and the intervals at which they evaluate their success against those metrics. | 0 - The applicant does not provide any performance measures, or is vague in their description of how those measures are to be evaluated. 2 - The performance of the proposed shuttle is evaluated against the minimum necessary parameters for the shuttle service, including average daily passenger trips, number of unique riders, total number of trips, and spending to date at monthly intervals. The monthly reporting also includes the aforementioned information at a total level for the month. Demand response services provide passenger trip time for a given month. 4 - The monthly reporting listed above will be utilized to evaluate, in a qualitative fashion, whether or not the data gathered is expected to remain steady or change in the future. The project proponent also intends to survey riders with questions including how riders would have made their trip without the service, the number of times a given rider uses the service at a weekly or monthly interval, the number of passengers that have a private vehicle available, and the purposes of that passenger trip. 6 - The project proponent exceeds the minimum requirements set in the previous thresholds for performance evaluation, reporting, and passenger surveys, and is proposing the employment of innovative strategies or technologies to gather and analyze this data. The proponent may also achieve this parameter if they are pursuing a robust community engagement strategy that emphasizes regional connections, including engaging adjacent municipalities. | 6 |
| Performance Management Score | 20 | |
| Total Score | 100 | |
Table A-13
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Community Connections Program Project Evaluation Criteria: Wayfinding Signage
| Evaluation Criteria for the FFYs 2025 Community Connections Program: Wayfinding Signage Applications | ||
| Scoring Criteria | Max Points | |
| Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to key destinations. | ||
| Project sites serve areas of concentrated development. | 0 - The proposed work locations are not near to a moderate density of residential housing, commercial businesses, or public facilities. 2 - The proposed work locations are near to mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments, or public facilities/open space. 4 - The proposed work locations are near to a combination of mid-high density residential, commercial, or mixed use developments. | 4 |
| Project sites are near to planned developments. | 0 - No planned developments or public realm improvements are sited near the work locations. 2 - Developments are proposed at or near work locations for the project, and include enabling land uses. 4 - Project sites are near to areas of planned development. Alternatively, full credit may also be earned if some of the work locations are near designated areas for Transit Oriented Development, including zones for compliance with Section 3A of the Massachusetts Zoning Act. | 4 |
| Project sites support navigation towards public facilities or community assets, including open space. | 0 - The project does not support navigation to and from public facilities or open spaces. 1 - The project indirectly supports navigation to and from public facilities or open spaces. 2 - The signage explicitly highlights public points of interest and provides information on how to access the area. | 2 |
| Project sites are situated near to transit facilities. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not located near transit stations. 1 - At least one of the proposed work locations is within 300 feet of a transit facility. 2 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility. 3 - At least one of the proposed work locations is sited directly at or on a transit facility, and the transit operator has provided a letter of support for the project. | 3 |
| Project sites support the identification of and navigation towards transit facilities. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near transit routes. 1 - The signage indirectly supports access near transit routes or facilities, but these are not highlighted on the signs. 2 - The proposed signage highlights locations of transit facilities. 3 - The proposed signage highlights the presence of transit service in the area, and provides detail on other service features such as headways, hours of operation, etc. | 3 |
| Project sites support the identification of and navigation towards safe facilities for pedestrians. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks and crosswalks. 1 - Less than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 2 - More than half of proposed work locations are near safe pedestrian infrastructure. 3 - All work locations are near safe, pedestrian-accessible sites that include signalized crosswalks and continuous sidewalks. | 3 |
| Project sites support the identification of and navigation towards safe facilities for bicycles. | 0 - Proposed work locations are not near safe bicycle infrastructure. 1 - The proposed signage provides indirect benefits for cyclists, but does not highlight any specific routes. 2 - The signage highlights and supports a single bicycle facility. 3 - The proposed signage supports a connected bicycle network, including the identification of connecting routes and trails. | 3 |
| Connectivity Score | 22 | |
| Regional and Interlocal Coordination | ||
| Project includes a substantial public engagement process. | 0 - The municipality or municipalities applying for the project are the primary stakeholders in the project development process. 1 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged their communities for the purpose of implementing the proposed improvements (ROW, local operating costs, etc.) 2 - The municipality or municipalities have held public meetings on the proposed project, in addition to the above. 3 - The municipality or municipalities have engaged stakeholders in their communities for the purpose of soliciting feedback to improve the planning and prioritization of the project, in addition to the above. 4 - The project involves a rigorous public engagement process that addresses multiple public and private groups at the local level. The public engagement process specifically led to the identification of sites included in the project. | 4 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration between different components of the municipality for site prioritization. | 0 - The applicant is not working with other business units within the municipality as part of the project. 1 - The applicant has received support from elected officials within the municipality for the project beyond the budget process. 2 - In addition to the above, the selection of sites as part of the project was performed in consultation with other municipal units, including for example school committees, Councils on Aging, Parks Departments, etc. | 2 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration between multiple municipalities. | 0 - No direct support from other municipalities is provided. 1 - The applicant is a regional organization providing bicycle parking for one or more municipalities. 2 - The project involves collaboration between one or more municipalities. | 2 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration with other state or federal agencies. | 0 - The project does not involve any direct coordination with state or federal agencies beyond that related to the TIP process. 1 - The project involves a state or federal facility, and support for the applicant to improve that facility has been provided by the facility owner. The owner is not otherwise involved in the project. 2 - The project is a direct partnership between a municipality and a state or federal agency, which may be demonstrated through providing signage to and from State/National Parks, publicly-accessible state/federal buildings (including universities), or other facilities. | 2 |
| Project demonstrates collaboration across multiple sectors. | 0 - No direct support from private entities is listed. 2 - The project proponent coordinated with the private sector in the development of the project as part of selecting site areas. 4 - The project includes extensive support between the public and private sectors, including private funding contributions. | 4 |
| Project collaborators submit letters of support to MPO. | 0 - The applicant has not attached letters of support. 2 - Letters of support are attached to demonstrate fulfillment of the above criteria. | 2 |
| Coordination Score | 16 | |
| Plan Implementation: Support local, regional, and statewide planning efforts. | ||
| Project is included in local transportation plans or studies. | 0 - The project is not included in any local plans or studies. 1 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a local plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 2 - The project is thematically consist with the contents of a local plan or study, as cited by the applicant. 3 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a local plan or study. | 3 |
| Project is included in local economic development plans or strategies. | 0 - The project does not support any local economic developments. 1 - The project indirectly supports local economic development strategies. 2 - The project directly supports local economic development strategies, including improving access to specific planned sites or destinations. 3 - The project highlights key areas and destinations for travel, and is consistent with a broader strategy for economic development in the community. | 3 |
| Project is included in regional plans or studies, including those created by the Boston Region MPO and Metropolitan Area Planning Council | 0 - The project is not included in any regional plans or studies. 1 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, but the applicant does not cite those documents. 2 - The project is thematically consistent with the contents of a regional plan or study, and the applicant cites those documents. Alternatively, the applicant developed this project or identified the need being addressed by the project through direct consultation with MAPC or a similar body. 3 - The project is explicitly called for in the contents of a regional plan or study, or is located at a regionally significant junction for the Bluebikes network as identified by MAPC or a similar entity. | 3 |
| Project is included in statewide plans or studies | 0 - The project is not included in or consistent with any statewide plans or studies. 1 - The project is supportive of a statewide study, such as a vulnerable road user safety assessment, but this is not cited by the applicant. 2 - The project is supportive of a statewide study, but locations are not in priority corridors highlighted by that study. 3 - The applicant is leveraging a state study or plan to guide this investment, and investments are being made in key priority areas as determined by the study. | 3 |
| Project supports the development of a connected multimodal transportation network. | 0 - The project primarily installs signage in seemingly disconnected areas for a single mode. 1 - The project installs signage to support connections for a single mode. 2 - The project installs signage that supports connections to and from multiple transportation modes. | 2 |
| Plan Implementation Score | 14 | |
| Transportation Equity: Ensure that all people receive comparable benefits from, and are not disproportionately burdened by, MPO investments, regardless of race, color, national origin, age, income, ability, or sex. | ||
| Project serves one or more transportation equity populations, as identified by the Boston Region MPO | Each population's index scores are based on the percent of the population group within the service area relative to the MPO regional average. For example, the higher percentage, the higher the index. Equity Score Look-up Table If the sum of the Indices Greater than… …And Less Than… The Project Score is… 0 1 0 0.99 6 3 5.99 11 6 10.99 16 9 15.99 21 12 20.99 27 18 | 20 |
| Transportation Equity Score | 20 | |
| Climate Change Mitigation | ||
| To what extent do these lanes encourage new trips, or shift existing trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile? | 0 - The extent to which the project creates new trips is unclear or lacks sufficient supporting information. 2 - The project creates a moderate number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile. 3 - The project creates a large number of new trips that would otherwise be taken by an automobile, or increases the accessibility of an alternative transportation mode/route (ex: existing trails, routes parallel to transit operations). 4 - Pursuant to 3 above, but does so in area with disproportionate air quality burden. | 4 |
| Estimates for traffic volumes through the corridor are realistic and grounded in thorough analysis. | 0 - Future demand projections do not seem realistic, or the methodology as to how they were calculated is not explained. 2 - Future demand projections seem reasonable and support the above argument for substituting single occupancy vehicle trips. 4 - The applicant has provided realistic demand projections and accounted for possible variations in demand (seasonal variation, new enabling infrastructure, etc.) in their estimate. | 4 |
| The wayfinding signage is complementary to an ongoing or planned surface transportation investment. | 0 - The investment does not complement any planned or nearby projects. 2 - The investment is somewhat related to a planned or nearby project, but the connection between the two is limited. 4 - The investment is related to a planned or nearby project that offers some bike-supportive infrastructure. 6 - The investment is directly and deliberately related to a planned or nearby project that offers safe and accessible bike-supportive infrastructure, such as a shared-use-path. | 6 |
| The wayfinding signage reinforces access to or informs users about an existing surface transportation facility. | 0 - The investment does not complement any nearby active transportation or transit facilities. 2 - The investment complements an existing low to moderate utility link for active transportation or transit. 4 - The investment complements an existing moderate to high utility link for active transportation, including physically separated and safe pathway for all users (ex: shared use path, rail trail). Or, the investment directly highlights a transit route. | 4 |
| Climate Change Mitigation | 18 | |
| Performance Management | ||
| The project application includes a budget worksheet that outlines the sources and uses of the project. | Disqualifying - No budget worksheet is attached. 0 - A budget sheet is included, but the costs associated are unrealistic. 3 - The budget sheet is attached, and the applicant describes the expenses, including the rationale behind the selected unit type. | 3 |
| The project proponent broadly outlines expected activities necessary for asset maintenance. | 0 - No description of maintenance activities are provided. 3 - An anticipated maintenance schedule is provided. | 3 |
| The estimates for average daily users for the facilities are grounded in thorough analysis. | 0 - The applicant does not describe how demand was estimated. 2 - The process for estimating traffic counts is vague. 4 - The estimates of traffic counts are sound. | 4 |
| Performance Management | 10 | |
| Total Score | 100 | |
The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008 (GWSA) required statewide reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 25 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. As part of the GWSA, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) released the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2025 and 2030 (CECP) in June 2022, which outlines programs to attain GHG emissions reduction goals—including an 18 percent reduction attributed to the transportation sector by 2025 and a 34 percent reduction by 2030. EOEEA released an updated CECP in December 2022, which specified an emissions reduction target of 86 percent by 2050 for the transportation sector.
The Commonwealth’s 13 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are integrally involved in achieving GHG emissions reductions mandated by the GWSA. MPOs work closely with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to develop common transportation goals, policies, and projects that will help to reduce GHG emissions levels statewide and meet the specific requirements of the GWSA and its requirements for the transportation sector, defined in state regulation 310 CMR 60.05. The purpose of this regulation is to assist the Commonwealth in achieving its adopted GHG emissions reduction goals by requiring the following:
The Commonwealth’s MPOs are meeting the requirements of this regulation through the transportation goals and policies contained in their LRTPs, the major projects planned in their LRTPs, and the mix of new transportation projects that are programmed and implemented through their TIPs.
The GHG tracking and evaluation processes enable the MPOs and MassDOT to identify the anticipated GHG impacts of the planned and programmed projects, and to use GHG impacts as criteria to prioritize transportation projects. This approach is consistent with the GHG emissions reduction policies that promote healthy transportation modes through prioritizing and programming an appropriate balance of roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments, as well as policies that support smart growth development patterns by creating a balanced multimodal transportation system.
MassDOT coordinated with the Boston Region MPO and other regional planning agencies to implement GHG tracking and to evaluate projects during the development of LRTPs starting in 2011. Working together, MassDOT and the MPOs have attained the following milestones:
In addition to monitoring the GHG impacts of larger-scale projects in the LRTP, it also is 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 but that may affect 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 criteria to prioritize and program 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 anticipated GHG emissions impacts of different types of projects. Since carbon dioxide (CO2) is the largest component of GHG emissions overall and is the focus of regulation 310 CMR 60.05, CO2 has been used to measure the GHG emissions impacts of transportation projects in the TIP and LRTP.
All TIP projects have been sorted into two categories for analysis: 1) projects with quantified CO2 impacts, and 2) projects with assumed CO2 impacts. Projects with quantified impacts consist of capacity-adding projects from the LRTP and projects from the TIP that underwent a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program spreadsheet analysis. Projects with assumed impacts are those that would be expected to produce a minor decrease or increase in emissions, and those that would be assumed to have no CO2 impact.
Projects with quantified impacts include capacity-adding projects in the LRTP that were analyzed using the Boston Region MPO’s travel demand model set. No independent calculations were done for these projects during the development of the TIP.
MassDOT’s Office of Transportation Planning provided spreadsheets that are used to determine projects’ eligibility for funding through the CMAQ program. These spreadsheets contain emissions factors produced by the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model that are used to calculate emissions reduction as a result of mode shift to active or public transportation and/or reduction of single-occupancy vehicle trips. Typically, MPO staff uses data from projects’ functional design reports, which are prepared at the 25-percent design phase, to conduct these calculations. Staff used these spreadsheets to calculate estimated projections of CO2 for each project, in compliance with GWSA regulations. These estimates are shown in Tables B-1 and B-2. A note of “to be determined” is shown for those projects for which a functional design report was not yet available.
Table B-1
Greenhouse Gas Regional Highway Project Tracking: FFYs 2025-29 Programmed Projects
| Project ID Number | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | GHG Impact Description | |
| Federal Fiscal Year 2025 | |||||
| 606901 | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-16-109, RIVER STREET BRIDGE OVER MBTA/AMTRAK | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 607342 | MILTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 28 (RANDOLPH AVENUE) & CHICKATAWBUT ROAD | Quantified | 1,148,459 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| 608051 | WILMINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 38 (MAIN STREET), FROM ROUTE 62 TO THE WOBURN C.L. | Quantified | 492,167 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 608067 | WOBURN- BURLINGTON- INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION AT ROUTE 3 (CAMBRIDGE ROAD) & BEDFORD ROAD AND SOUTH BEDFORD STREET | Quantified | 168,263 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| 608522 | MIDDLETON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-20-003, ROUTE 62 (MAPLE STREET) OVER IPSWICH RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 608703 | WILMINGTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-38-029 (2KV), ST 129 LOWELL STREET OVER I 93 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 608865 | STONEHAM- WINCHESTER- DECK REPLACEMENT, S-27-008=W-40-030 (2M5), MARBLE STREET OVER I-93 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 609516 | BURLINGTON- IMPROVEMENTS AT I-95 (ROUTE 128)/ROUTE 3 INTERCHANGE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 609531 | ARLINGTON- STRATTON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 610544 | PEABODY- MULTI-USE PATH CONSTRUCTION OF INDEPENDENCE GREENWAY AT I-95 AND ROUTE 1 | Quantified | 24,423 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| 610776 | CAMBRIDGE- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, C-01-031, US ROUTE 3/ROUTE 16/ROUTE 2 OVER MBTA REDLINE | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612044 | BROOKLINE- NEWTON- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 9 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612073 | SHARON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION OF S-09-015 AND S-09-016 ALONG THE I-95 CORRIDOR | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612094 | CANTON- DEDHAM- WESTWOOD- INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 AND I-93 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612173 | BELLINGHAM- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-06-022, MAPLE STREET OVER I-495 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613178 | LEXINGTON- DECK REPLACEMENT, L-10-019 (2DW, 2DX), STATE ROUTE 2/CONCORD TURNPIKE OVER PLEASANT STREET | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613181 | BOSTON- NEWTON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION OF 3 BRIDGES ALONG STATE ROUTE 9/BOYLSTON STREET | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613209 | BOSTON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, B-16-236 (39M, 39P, 39U, 39W, 39Y), 5 BRIDGES CARRYING STATE ROUTE 1A (EAST BOSTON EXPRESSWAY NB/SB) AND RAMPS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613216 | MARLBOROUGH- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, M-06-010, ELM STREET OVER I-495 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613357 | CAMBRIDGE- SEPARATED BICYCLE LANE ON STEEL PLACE (MA272) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613638 | BOSTON- CLEANING & PAINTING, B-16-259, I-93 OVER MBTA/COLUMBIA ROAD/RED LINE/RELIEF | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 86461 | LINCOLN- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-12-002, CONCORD ROAD (ROUTE 126) OVER MBTA | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12697 | PLEASANT STREET SHUTTLE SERVICE EXPANSION | Quantified | 183,575 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12699 | STONEHAM SHUTTLE SERVICE | Quantified | 41,707 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12700 | CATA ON DEMAND MICROTRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION – ROCKPORT AND LANESVILLE | Quantified | 33,400 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12701 | MWRTA CATCHCONNECT MICROTRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION - HUDSON AND MARLBOROUGH | Quantified | 11,936 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12703 | MONTACHUSETT RTA MICROTRANSIT SERVICE – ON-DEMAND SERVICE FOR BOLTON, BOXBOROUGH, LITTLETON, STOW | Quantified | 24,602 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12819 | JACKSON SQUARE STATION ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12907 | FRAMINGHAM - CHRIS WALSH AQUEDUCT TRAIL CONNECTIVITY PROJECT (DESIGN EARMARK MA275) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12908 | P# 611940: SOMERVILLE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-17-016 (3GF), WEBSTER AVENUE OVER MBTA & BMRR | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12958 | BOSTON- BLUEBIKES STATION REPLACEMENT AND ELECTRIFICATION, 12 STATIONS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12959 | BOSTON- REPURPOSING SINGLE SPACE PARKING METER POLES FOR 1600 BICYCLE RACKS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12960 | CAMBRIDGE- BLUEBIKES STATE OF GOOD REPAIR, 8 STATIONS AND 65 PEDAL BIKES | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12961 | BROOKLINE- BLUEBIKES STATE OF GOOD REPAIR, 3 STATIONS AND 62 PEDAL BIKES | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12962 | SOMERVILLE- BLUEBIKES STATE OF GOOD REPAIR, 3 STATIONS AND 62 PEDAL BIKES | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12964 | REVERE- BLUEBIKES EXPANSION TO NORTHERN STRAND (SALEM STREET AT NORTH MARSHALL STREET) AND GRISWOLD PARK | Quantified | 1,518 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| S12965 | ARLINGTON- INSTALLATION OF 123 BICYCLE RACKS AND RELATED MATERIALS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12966 | MALDEN- CANAL STREET BICYCLE LANES | Quantified | 33,312 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| S12967 | SCITUATE- INSTALLATION OF 25 BICYCLE RACKS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| Federal Fiscal Year 2026 | |||||
| 604564 | MAYNARD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-10-004, ROUTE 62 (MAIN STREET) OVER THE ASSABET RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 605168 | HINGHAM- IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 3A, FROM OTIS STREET/COLE ROAD INCLUDING SUMMER STREET AND ROTARY, ROCKLAND STREET TO GEORGE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD | Quantified | 284,736 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 605857 | NORWOOD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ ROUTE 1 & UNIVERSITY AVENUE/EVERETT STREET | Quantified | 1,092,131 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| 606449 | CAMBRIDGE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, C-01-008, FIRST STREET BRIDGE & C-01-040, LAND BOULEVARD/BROAD CANAL BRIDGE | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 606453 | BOSTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON BOYLSTON STREET, FROM INTERSECTION OF BROOKLINE AVENUE & PARK DRIVE TO IPSWICH STREET | Quantified | 1,920,790 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| 607684 | BRAINTREE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-21-017, WASHINGTON STREET (ST 37) OVER MBTA/CSX RAILROAD | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 608045 | MILFORD- REHABILITATION ON ROUTE 16, FROM ROUTE 109 TO BEAVER STREET | Quantified | -38,500 | Qualitative Increase in Emissions | |
| 608197 | BOSTON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, B-16-107, CANTERBURY STREET OVER AMTRAK RAILROAD | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 608940 | WESTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS BOSTON POST ROAD (ROUTE 20) AT WELLESLEY STREET | Quantified | 102,453 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| 608952 | CHELSEA- BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT C-09-013, WASHINGTON AVENUE, CARTER STREET & COUNTY ROAD/ROUTE 1 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 609399 | RANDOLPH- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 28 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 609467 | HAMILTON- IPSWICH- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, H-03-002=I-01-006, WINTHROP STREET OVER IPSWICH RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 609532 | CHELSEA- TARGETED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED WORK ON BROADWAY, FROM WILLIAMS STREET TO CITY HALL AVENUE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 610537 | BOSTON- ELLIS ELEMENTARY TRAFFIC CALMING (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 610680 | NATICK- LAKE COCHITUATE PATH | Quantified | 2,844 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| 610782 | DANVERS- MIDDLETON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, D-03-009=M-20-005, ANDOVER STREET (SR 114) OVER IPSWICH RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 610823 | QUINCY- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT WILLARD STREET AND RICCIUTI DRIVE | Quantified | 288,400 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| 611954 | BOSTON- GUIDE AND TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON I-90/I-93 WITHIN CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL SYSTEM | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 611974 | MEDFORD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT MAIN STREET/SOUTH STREET, MAIN STREET/MYSTIC VALLEY PARKWAY RAMPS, AND MAIN STREET/MYSTIC AVENUE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 611982 | MEDFORD- SHARED USE PATH CONNECTION AT THE ROUTE 28/WELLINGTON UNDERPASS | Quantified | 4,309 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| 611997 | NEWTON- HORACE MANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612001 | MEDFORD- MILTON FULLER ROBERTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612050 | BRAINTREE- WEYMOUTH- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 3 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612075 | SALEM- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-01-024, JEFFERSON AVENUE OVER PARALLEL STREET | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612178 | NATICK- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, N-03-010, SPEEN STREET OVER RR MBTA/CSX | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612182 | NEWTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, N-12-040, BOYLSTON STREET OVER GREEN LINE D | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612184 | REVERE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, R-05-015, REVERE BEACH PARKWAY OVER BROADWAY | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612496 | SOMERVILLE- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, S-17-031, I-93 (NB & SB) FROM ROUTE 28 TO TEMPLE STREET (PHASE 2) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612599 | LYNN- TARGETED SAFETY AND MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS (PLAYBOOK PRIORITY CORRIDORS) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612804 | DEDHAM- IMPROVEMENTS AT AVERY ELEMENTARY (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612884 | CHELSEA- IMPROVEMENTS AT MARY C. BURKE ELEMENTARY (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613099 | BOSTON- SLOPE STABILIZATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-93 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613182 | MILFORD- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, M-21-022 (1UD, 1UE), I-495 OVER STATE ROUTE 109/MEDWAY ROAD | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613184 | GLOUCESTER- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, G-05-017 (2U8), STATE ROUTE 128/YANKEE DIVISION HIGHWAY OVER ANNISQUAM RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613274 | FOXBORO- BRIDGE PRESERVATION AT 6 BRIDGES ALONG THE I-95 CORRIDOR | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613649 | BRAINTREE- QUINCY- RANDOLPH- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, B-21-029, Q-01-046, AND R-01-009, BRIDGES OVER I-93 & STATE ROUTE 28 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613650 | DEDHAM- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, D-05-002, GREENDALE AVENUE OVER CHARLES RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12807 | MWRTA CATCHCONNECT MICROTRANSIT EXPANSION PHASE 2 | Quantified | 102,845 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12904 | FRAMINGHAM- CULVERT REPLACEMENT ON ROUTE 126 (HOLLIS STREET) OVER WAUSHAKUM POND BROOK | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| Federal Fiscal Year 2027 | |||||
| 605276 | BEVERLY- SALEM- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-11-005=S-01-013, KERNWOOD AVENUE OVER DANVERS RIVER AND B-11-001, BRIDGE STREET OVER BASS RIVER (HALL-WHITAKER DRAWBRIDGE) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 607420 | NATICK- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, N-03-012, BODEN LANE OVER CSX/MBTA | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 607977 | HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE | Quantified | RTP project included in the statewide model | ||
| 608954 | WESTON- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 30 | Quantified | 357,681 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 609204 | BELMONT- COMMUNITY PATH, BELMONT COMPONENT OF THE MCRT (PHASE I) | Quantified | 26,347 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| 609252 | LYNN- REHABILITATION OF ESSEX STREET | Quantified | 411,006 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 609257 | EVERETT- RECONSTRUCTION OF BEACHAM STREET | Quantified | 4,038 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 609437 | SALEM- PEABODY- BOSTON STREET IMPROVEMENTS | Quantified | 58,773 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 609527 | READING- IMPROVEMENTS ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 610660 | SUDBURY- WAYLAND- MASS CENTRAL RAIL TRAIL (MCRT) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 610662 | WOBURN- ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT WOBURN COMMON, ROUTE 38 (MAIN STREET), WINN STREET, PLEASANT STREET AND MONTVALE AVENUE | Quantified | 736,275 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| 611983 | CHELSEA- PARK STREET & PEARL STREET RECONSTRUCTION | Quantified | 10,214 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 612076 | TOPSFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, T-06-013, PERKINS ROW OVER MILE BROOK | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612099 | ASHLAND- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, A-14-006, CORDAVILLE ROAD OVER SUDBURY RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612100 | REVERE- IMPROVEMENTS AT BEACHMONT VETERANS ELEMENTARY (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612196 | BRAINTREE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-21-067, JW MAHER HIGHWAY OVER MONATIQUOT RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612499 | MEDFORD- SOUTH MEDFORD CONNECTOR BIKE PATH | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612523 | REVERE- STATE ROAD BEACHMONT CONNECTOR | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612613 | NEWTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 16 AND QUINOBEQUIN ROAD | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612816 | BROOKLINE- IMPROVEMENTS AT WILLIAM H. LINCOLN SCHOOL (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612889 | SHARON- COTTAGE STREET SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612894 | FRAMINGHAM- IMPROVEMENTS AT HARMONY GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612989 | BOSTON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, B-16-066 (38D), CAMBRIDGE STREET OVER MBTA | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613082 | MEDFORD- WELLINGTON GREENWAY CONSTRUCTION (PHASE IV) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613121 | EVERETT- TARGETED MULTI-MODAL AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 16 (DESIGN ONLY) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613154 | WELLESLEY- DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ROUTE 9 AND CULVERT REPLACEMENTS OVER BOULDER BROOK FOR FLOOD MITIGATION | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613275 | BEVERLY- DANVERS- GLOUCESTER- BRIDGE PRESERVATION AT 5 BRIDGES CARRYING STATE ROUTE 128 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613318 | BURLINGTON- WOBURN- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613343 | FOXBOROUGH - INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613382 | DEDHAM- NEEDHAM- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613468 | NEWTON- IMPROVEMENTS AT PARKER STREET FOR THE OAK HILL MIDDLE SCHOOL (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613477 | HOLLISTON- LINDEN STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT ROBERT ADAMS MIDDLE SCHOOL (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613564 | READING- OAKLAND ROAD AT READING MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL AND COOLIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL (SRTS) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613646 | WATERTOWN- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, W-10-003, STATE ROUTE 16/GALEN STREET OVER CHARLES RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12963 | CHELSEA-REVERE- REGIONAL ON-DEMAND MICROTRANSIT PILOT PROJECT | Quantified | 4,055 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| Federal Fiscal Year 2028 | |||||
| 605091 | NATICK- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, N-03-032, N-03-033, N-03-034, N-03-035, RAMP A & B OVER ROUTE 9 & SPEEN STREET OVER RAMPS G & D | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 605743 | IPSWICH- RESURFACING & RELATED WORK ON CENTRAL & SOUTH MAIN STREETS | Quantified | 4,356 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 606728 | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT B-16-365, STORROW DRIVE OVER BOWKER RAMPS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 608052 | NORWOOD- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT US 1 (PROVIDENCE HIGHWAY) & MORSE STREET | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 608397 | GLOUCESTER- BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION, G-05-002, WESTERN AVENUE OVER BLYNMAN CANAL | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 608436 | ASHLAND- REHABILITATION AND RAIL CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS ON CHERRY STREET | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 610650 | BOSTON- SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON GALLIVAN BOULEVARD (ROUTE 203), FROM WASHINGTON STREET TO GRANITE AVENUE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 610665 | STONEHAM- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 28 (MAIN STREET), NORTH BORDER ROAD AND SOUTH STREET | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 610666 | SWAMPSCOTT- RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION | Quantified | 138,430 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| 610691 | NATICK- COCHITUATE RAIL TRAIL EXTENSION, FROM MBTA STATION TO MECHANIC STREET | Quantified | 13 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| 611987 | CAMBRIDGE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, C-01-026, MEMORIAL DRIVE OVER BROOKLINE STREET | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612519 | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-16-165, BLUE HILL AVENUE OVER RAILROAD | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612607 | DANVERS- RAIL TRAIL WEST EXTENSION (PHASE 3) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612616 | MILTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 138 AND BRADLEE ROAD | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613088 | MALDEN- SPOT POND BROOK GREENWAY | Quantified | 77,012 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| 613125 | BOSTON- DECK/SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE B-16-051 (4T5), MASS AVENUE OVER I-90 & MBTA (STRUCTURE 54, MILE 132.84) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613145 | WAKEFIELD- COMPRHENSIVE DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT | Quantified | 3,506 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 613164 | BOSTON- MILTON- NEW BRIDGE AND SHARED-USE PATH CONSTRUCTION OVER NEPONSET RIVER AT OSCEOLA STREET | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613166 | ACTON- SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 2A/119 (GREAT ROAD) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613276 | READING- WILMINGTON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, W-38-028 (2HR, 2HT) AND R-03-011 (2HK), I-93 (NB/SB) OVER MBTA/B&M RAILROAD AND I-95/STATE ROUTE 128 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613383 | LYNNFIELD- WAKEFIELD- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613639 | FRAMINGHAM- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 9 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613656 | CAMBRIDGE- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, C-01-038, MEMORIAL DRIVE (EB) OVER CHARLES RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| Federal Fiscal Year 2029 | |||||
| 606226 | BOSTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF RUTHERFORD AVENUE, FROM CITY SQUARE TO SULLIVAN SQUARE | Quantified | RTP project included in the statewide model | ||
| 607748 | ACTON- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ON SR 2 & SR 111 (MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE) AT PIPER ROAD & TAYLOR ROAD | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 607981 | SOMERVILLE- MCGRATH BOULEVARD CONSTRUCTION | Quantified | 136,345 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 608158 | WESTWOOD- NORWOOD- RECONSTRUCTION OF CANTON STREET TO UNIVERSITY DRIVE, INCLUDING REHAB OF N-25-032=W-31-018 | Quantified | 5,693 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 608396 | LYNN- REVERE- BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION, L-18-015=R-05-008, ROUTE 1A OVER SAUGUS RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 608495 | CONCORD- LEXINGTON- LINCOLN- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 2A | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 609246 | LYNN- REHABILITATION OF WESTERN AVENUE (ROUTE 107) | Quantified | 902,708 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 610543 | REVERE- MALDEN- IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 1 (NB) (PHASE 1) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 610675 | CHELSEA- RECONSTRUCTION OF SPRUCE STREET, FROM EVERETT AVENUE TO WILLIAMS STREET | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 610932 | BROOKLINE- REHABILITATION OF WASHINGTON STREET | Quantified | 36,431 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 612046 | GLOUCESTER- RESURFACING ON ROUTE 128 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612615 | CANTON- MILTON- ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 138, FROM ROYALL STREET TO DOLLAR LANE | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612634 | SOMERVILLE- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-17-024, ROUTE 28/MCGRATH HWY OVER SOMERVILLE AVE EXT & MBTA | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 612738 | IPSWICH- ARGILLA ROAD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION | Quantified | 306 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| 612963 | BELLINGHAM- ROADWAY REHABILITATION OF ROUTE 126 (HARTFORD ROAD), FROM 800 NORTH OF THE I-495 NB OFF RAMP TO MEDWAY TL, INCLUDING B-06-017 | Quantified | 2,558 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 613108 | QUINCY- SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, Q-01-038 (3FG), STEDMAN STREET OVER I-93/US-1/STATE ROUTE 3 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613124 | BOSTON- DECK/SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, B-16-054 (4T2), BEACON STREET OVER I-90 (STRUCTURE 50, MILE 132.2) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613130 | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-16-033, MORRISSEY BOULEVARD OVER DORCHESTER BAY | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613162 | LITTLETON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-13-008, ROUTE 119 OVER BEAVER BROOK AND CAUSEWAY IMPROVEMENT FOR WILDLIFE | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613163 | LYNNFIELD- WAKEFIELD- RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613319 | SUDBURY- FRAMINGHAM- BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION OF BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL, FROM THE SUDBURY DIAMOND RAILROAD CROSSING TO EATON ROAD WEST | Quantified | 18,348 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| 613356 | SHARON- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613640 | NATICK- RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 9 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613654 | FRAMINGHAM- BIKE PATH CONSTRUCTION OF BRUCE FREEMAN RAIL TRAIL, FROM EATON ROAD WEST TO FROST STREET | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12113 | BOSTON REGION - TRANSIT TRANSFORMATION PROGRAM | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12124 | BOSTON REGION - COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS PROGRAM | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12820 | BOSTON REGION - BIKESHARE SUPPORT SET ASIDE | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
Table B-3
Greenhouse Gas Regional Highway Project Tracking: Completed Projects
| Project ID Number | Project Name | GHG Analysis Type | GHG CO2 Impact (kg/yr) | GHG Impact Description | |
| Federal Fiscal Year 2024 | |||||
| 110980 | NEWTON- WESTON- BRIDGE REHABILITATION, N-12-010=W-29-005, COMMONWEALTH AVENUE (ROUTE 30) OVER THE CHARLES RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 603739 | WRENTHAM- CONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE I-495/ROUTE 1A RAMPS | Quantified | 1,233,486 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| 605313 | NATICK- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, N-03-020, ROUTE 27 (NORTH MAIN STREET) OVER ROUTE 9 (WORCESTER STREET) AND INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 606496 | BOSTON- BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT AND WIDENING, B-16-052, BOWKER OVERPASS OVER I-90, MBTA/CSX AND IPSWICH STREET | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 606901 | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-16-109, RIVER STREET BRIDGE OVER MBTA/AMTRAK | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 606902 | BOSTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, B-16-181, WEST ROXBURY PARKWAY OVER MBTA | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 607342 | MILTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 28 (RANDOLPH AVENUE) & CHICKATAWBUT ROAD | Quantified | 1,148,459 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| 607777 | WATERTOWN- REHABILITATION OF MOUNT AUBURN STREET (ROUTE 16) | Quantified | 536,769 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 607977 | HOPKINTON- WESTBOROUGH- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-90/I-495 INTERCHANGE | Quantified | RTP project included in the statewide model | ||
| 608007 | COHASSET- SCITUATE- CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED WORK ON JUSTICE CUSHING HIGHWAY (ROUTE 3A), FROM BEECHWOOD STREET TO HENRY TURNER BAILEY ROAD | Quantified | 5,849 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 608522 | MIDDLETON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-20-003, ROUTE 62 (MAPLE STREET) OVER IPSWICH RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 608562 | SOMERVILLE- SIGNAL AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT ON I-93 AT MYSTIC AVENUE AND MCGRATH HIGHWAY (TOP 200 CRASH LOCATION) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 608762 | BOSTON- CAMBRIDGE- BRIDGE PRESERVATION OF B-16-246=C-01-029, ELIOT STREET OVER THE CHARLES RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 609054 | LITTLETON- RECONSTRUCTION OF FOSTER STREET | Quantified | 1,140 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Complete Streets Project | |
| 609058 | PEABODY TO GLOUCESTER- GUIDE AND TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON ROUTE 128 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 609211 | PEABODY- INDEPENDENCE GREENWAY EXTENSION | Quantified | 36,612 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| 609254 | LYNN- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT TWO INTERSECTIONS ON BROADWAY | Quantified | 73,291 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| 609438 | CANTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, C-02-042, REVERE COURT OVER WEST BRANCH OF THE NEPONSET RIVER | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 610722 | ACTON- BOXBOROUGH- LITTLETON- PAVEMENT PRESERVATION ON ROUTE 2 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612034 | WOBURN- INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 612048 | WALTHAM- INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE AND RELATED WORK ON I-95 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| 613196 | BURLINGTON- LYNNFIELD- WAKEFIELD- WOBURN- BRIDGE PRESERVATION OF 10 BRIDGES CARRYING I-95 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613209 | BOSTON- BRIDGE PRESERVATION, B-16-236 (39M, 39P, 39U, 39W, 39Y), 5 BRIDGES CARRYING STATE ROUTE 1A (EAST BOSTON EXPRESSWAY NB/SB) AND RAMPS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| 613211 | MEDFORD- BRIDGE PRESERVATION OF 10 BRIDGES CARRYING I-93 | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12114 | ROYALL STREET SHUTTLE | Quantified | 409,583 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12694 | NEWMO MICROTRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION | Quantified | 91,800 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12697 | PLEASANT STREET SHUTTLE SERVICE EXPANSION | Quantified | 183,575 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12699 | STONEHAM SHUTTLE SERVICE | Quantified | 41,707 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12701 | MWRTA CATCHCONNECT MICROTRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION | Quantified | 11,936 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12703 | MONTACHUSETT RTA MICROTRANSIT SERVICE | Quantified | 24,602 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12705 | LYNN STATION IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12802 | LYNN - BROAD STREET CORRIDOR TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY | Quantified | 1,328,755 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Traffic Operational Improvement | |
| S12803 | MEDFORD - BICYCLE PARKING (TIER 1) | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12804 | MEDFORD - BLUEBIKES EXPANSION | Quantified | 4,561 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| S12805 | CANTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS BIKE PROGRAM | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12806 | CANTON PUBLIC LIBRARY BICYCLE RACKS | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12807 | MWRTA CATCHCONNECT MICROTRANSIT EXPANSION PHASE 2 – FRAMINGHAM AND NATICK EXTENDED HOURS | Quantified | 102,845 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12818 | ACTON PARKING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12819 | JACKSON SQUARE STATION ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12821 | RAIL TRANSFORMATION - EARLY ACTION ITEMS - READING STATION AND WILBUR INTERLOCKING | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12822 | COLUMBUS AVENUE BUS LANES PHASE 2 | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
| S12823 | BOSTON - ELECTRIC BLUEBIKES ADOPTION | Quantified | 160,925 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| S12824 | CAMBRIDGE - ELECTRIC BLUEBIKES ADOPTION | Quantified | 66,559 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| S12858 | PEABODY - BORDER TO BOSTON TRAIL DESIGN | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12859 | SALEM - BORDER TO BOSTON TRAIL DESIGN | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12860 | MARBLEHEAD - BORDER TO BOSTON TRAIL DESIGN | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12861 | BOSTON- SAFE STREETS FOR ALL (SS4A) IMPLEMENTATION GRANT | Not Applicable | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12867 | MWRTA - Flex to FTA for Vehicle Replacements (16 cutaway) Electric and CNG Buses | Quantified | 11,936 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from New/Additional Transit Service | |
| S12868 | ARLINGTON-NEWTON-WATERTOWN–BLUEBIKES EXPANSION PROJECT | Quantified | 6,570 | Quantified Decrease in Emissions from Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure | |
| S12870 | ARLINGTON- MYSTIC RIVER PATH TO MINUTEMAN BIKEWAY CONNECTION DESIGN | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12871 | DOVER-NEEDHAM - CENTRE STREET / CENTRAL AVENUE BRIDGE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12872 | Brookline - Beacon Street Bridle Path Project (Design Only) | Qualitative | No assumed impact/negligible impact on emissions | ||
| S12876 | Quincy Bus Facility Modernization | Qualitative | Qualitative Decrease in Emissions | ||
As part of the development of the FFYs 2025–29 TIP, analyses were done for the types of projects described below. A summary of steps performed in the analyses is provided.
For an intersection reconstruction or signalization project that typically reduces delay and, therefore, idling, the following steps are taken:
For a shared-use path that would enable more walking and biking trips and reduce automobile trips, the following steps are taken:
For a program that replaces old buses with new buses that reduce emissions or run on cleaner fuel, the following steps are taken:
Calculations may be performed on the project types listed below:
Projects with assumed CO2 impacts are those that could produce a minor decrease or increase in emissions, but the change in emissions cannot be calculated with any precision. Examples include a bicycle rack installation, Safe Routes to School projects, or transit marketing or customer service improvements. These projects are categorized as producing an assumed nominal increase or decrease in emissions.
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, or a bridge rehabilitation or replacement that restores the bridge to its previous condition—are assumed to have no CO2 impact. The following tables display the GHG impact analyses of projects funded in the FFYs 2025–29 Highway Program (Table B-1) and Transit Program (Table B-2). Table B-3 summarizes the GHG impact analyses of highway projects completed before FFY 2025. Table B-4 summarizes the GHG impact analyses of transit projects completed before FFY 2025. A project is considered completed when the construction contract has been awarded
In the course of developing the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the staff of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) regularly engages with municipalities and the general public to provide information and solicit feedback about the milestones and key decision points in the TIP development process. The MPO staff publishes materials and information used by the MPO board for decision-making via the TIP development web page, www.bostonmpo.org/tip-dev, and shares updates via email and social media communication channels. This process affords the public ongoing opportunities to provide input to the MPO board during the development of the TIP and prior to the release of the draft TIP for the official public review period. This appendix documents the input received during the development of the FFYs 2025–29 TIP and comments received during the public review period.
MPO staff initiated public engagement activities for the FFYs 2025–29 TIP in October 2023. Engagement activities were primarily conducted virtually. MPO staff used virtual public involvement (VPI) tactics such as online workshops and virtual information sessions. Many Boston Region MPO board meetings throughout the FFYs 2025–29 TIP development cycle were hosted remotely, allowing project proponents and members of the public to participate via internet or telephone and provide comments without the need to travel to attend meetings in person. These virtual engagement opportunities continue to provide a greater level of accessibility and transparency to the TIP process than is achievable through in-person meetings alone.
The MPO also held several hybrid (virtual and in-person) MPO board meetings to engage the public in the TIP development process, starting with the MPO’s Annual Meeting on November 30, 2023, where staff encouraged project proponents and other stakeholders to apply for project funding in the FFYs 2025–29 TIP. The MPO also held two hybrid meetings on March 21 and April 4, 2024, and meetings of the newly formed TIP Process, Readiness, and Engagement Committee on March 14 and 28, 2024, to discuss and develop the final programming scenario for the FFYs 2025–29 TIP. Project proponents for new and currently programmed projects were encouraged to speak about their projects and progress being made on them. There were multiple opportunities for public comment and discussion during the meetings.
In addition to the specific meetings mentioned above, the MPO board held a series of discussions at its regular meetings as the TIP was developed in stages that focused on project solicitation, project evaluation, and programming of funds. Staff informed the public at each stage via its standard communication channels (email, social media, and the MPO website). There were also opportunities for the public to comment at these meetings.
Throughout the TIP development process, the MPO staff maintained communication with municipal, state agency, and public stakeholders. The primary engagement events staff held with municipal TIP contacts were two TIP How-To virtual information sessions where staff shared information about the project application process and requirements. Staff also connected with municipal stakeholders in each of the Boston region’s eight subregions by attending subregional committee meetings hosted by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and by hosting Inner Core Committee Transportation group meetings to discuss the TIP. In addition, staff held TIP development discussions at several Regional Transportation Advisory Council meetings. These events offered individuals the opportunity to directly engage with staff to ask questions, voice concerns, provide suggestions, and propose new projects for funding.
As a result of all these engagement activities, the MPO received a number of oral and written comments while developing the draft TIP. These comments are summarized below in Table C-1. In addition to these comments, the MPO also received 38 formal comment letters from stakeholders; the commenters and subjects of the letters are listed below Table C-1, and the letters are available on the MPO’s website,
www.ctps.org/data/calendar/pdfs/2024/0404_MPO_LettersofSupport.
Table C-1
Public Comments Received during Development of the FFYs 2025–29 TIP
| TABLE C-1 | TABLE C-2 | TABLE C-3 | TABLE C-4 | TABLE C-5 | TABLE C-6 | TABLE C-7 | TABLE C-8 | TABLE C-9 | TABLE C-10 | TABLE C-11 | TABLE C-12 | TABLE C-13 | TABLE C-14 | TABLE C-15 | TABLE C-1 | TABLE C-1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FFYS 2025-29 TIP | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | SUPPORT/OPPOSE/REQUEST/CONCERN | COMMENT | PROJECT | PROJECT | NAME | MUNICIPALITY/ AFFILIATION | PROJECT | NAME | PROJECT | |||||
| #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | Oppose | Subject: McGrath "Resurfacing" and proposed McGrath Boulovard After driving home through the disaster that the state has made of the McGrath highway in Somerville. I was struck with one thought. "What idiot designed this mess." Not only has a lane been removed, but lanes are not lined up from one side of an intersection to the other, lanes disappear right after an intersection, markings are inadequate to non-existent. To think this is the result of a "resurfacing" project. Basically you lied to the public saying you would resurface the road, and instead instituted a poorly conceived and atrociously executed resign of an important roadway. When I look at the review process I see that comments have been turned off, and the the review process apparently occurred with little public input and no publicity. I live in the area and have long been signed up for every city of Somerville distribution for construction and changes around the Union Square area. I heard not a peep. To me this is the definition of bad government. You are squandering my tax dollars in ways that actually makes my life worse. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | Somerville resident | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Philip Hood | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | |||||
| #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | Support | Spoke in support of the Lynnfield/Wakefield Rail Trail project and benefits for Lynnfield, Wakefield, and the North Shore subregion. Stated the project will be ready for construction in 2026. | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | Lynnfield | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | Rob Dolan | #607329 Lynnfield-Wakefiled Rail Trail Extension Project | |||||
| #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and discussed the town's ongoing support for the project and the project's benefits to the town. Stated that design funding has been approved at Town Meeting. | #609204 Belmont Community Path | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | #609204 Belmont Community Path | |||||
| #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community path project. Discussed the current state of design for the project and stated that the work is on track for its TIP programming with expected 75% design in June of 2024 and expected construction in 2026/ | #609204 Belmont Community Path | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | Belmont | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Glenn Clancy | #609204 Belmont Community Path | |||||
| #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Supprot | Spoke in support of the McGrath Boulevard project. Discussed a recent community meeting on the project which was well-attended and successful. Spoke of the project's regional importance and local support. | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | Somerville | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | Brad Rawson | #607981 McGrath Reconstruction | |||||
| #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Hingham Rt 3A improvement project. Noted the project remains on track for TIP programming and expected construction in 2026. | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | Hingham | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | JR Frey | #605168 Hingham Improvements on Rt 3A | |||||
| FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Spoke in support of the Transit Transformation Program and the MWRTA's application for funding.for procurement of new buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | MWRTA | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | Jim Nee | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project application - MWRTA Procurement of three 29-foot buses | |||||
| #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region | #609204 Belmont Community Path | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | Suffolk and Middlesex district | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Senator WIll Brownsberger | #609204 Belmont Community Path | |||||
| #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | Belmont | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Roy Epstein | #609204 Belmont Community Path | |||||
| #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | Support | Spoke in support of the Belmont Community Path project and noted the project's significance and benefit to the town and region and the project's local support | #609204 Belmont Community Path | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | Belmont | #609204 Belmont Community Path | Patrice Garvin | #609204 Belmont Community Path | |||||
| #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and urged the MPO not to delay the project past FFY2027. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | Salem | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | Dominick Pangallo | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | |||||
| #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | Support | Spoke in support of the Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard Street and Ricciuti Drive project application | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | Quincy | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | Allie Ruel | #610823 Quincy Intersection Improvements at Willard St & Ricciuti Dr | |||||
| #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and its benefits for resilience and safety | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | |||||
| #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | Support | Spoke in support of the Boston Street Improvements project in Salem and noted that the city is actively working on the project. | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | Salem | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | David Kucharsky | #609437 Salem Boston St Improvements | |||||
| #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Apologized for the town's past delays on advancing the project and stated that new town leadership and staff is strongly committed to moving the project forward as a priority. Advocated for the project to not be deprogrammed from the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | Woburn | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | John Cashell | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | |||||
| #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project in Sudbury and Framingham and advocated for the project. | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | Sudbury | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rassmussen | #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | |||||
| #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | Support | Spoke in support of the Woburn downtown improvement project. Spoke of Woburn's commitment to the project and its status as a top priority for new town leadership. Advocated for the project to remain on the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | Woburn | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | Mike Concannon | #610662 Woburn Roadway & Intersection Improvements | |||||
| #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | Support | Spoke in support of the Ipswich Argilla Road project and advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the environmental concerns and urgent resilience needs in the project area which the project would address. Spoke of the congressional support for the project. Discussed project scoring and noted that while the project did not score points for bicycle and pedestrian facilities due to environmental permitting issues barring such facilities in the project area, the design team is now looking into the addition of extra road striping to create buffers for cyclists and pedestrians within the roadway. | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | Statewide | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | Cynthia Dittbrenner | #612738 Ipswich Argilla Rd Ecological Tidal Restoration Project | |||||
| Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | Community Connections | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | Support | Spoke in support of the Sudbury Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. Spoke of the project's significance as a regional connector. Advocated for the funding scenario that programs the project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | Sudbury | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | Marcia Rasmussen | FFYs 25-29 TIP Project #613319 Sudbury-Framingham Bike Path Construction, BFRT | |||||
| Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Support | Dear Boston MPO & CTPS Staff, Hello, my name is Jim Nee, Administrator for the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and I am writing to you today in support of Newton in Motion's (NewMo) scope change via Amendment 3 to the 2024-2028 TIP. As a fellow member of the Boston MPO region, and a provider of MicroTransit services, I think that the MWRTA is uniquely positioned to comment on the requested change, and the need for flexibility in program scopes. As we all know, MicroTransit exists as a new mode type in response to changing technology and changing transportation preferences in less dense urban areas. With the advent of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber nad Lyft, the expectations for public and municipal transportation options have changed dramatically over the last decade. While not every community is well suited for MicroTransit, some being to dense, and others being too rural, there are those who fit the Goldilocks scenarios where MicroTransit does serve people well. I believe that the NewMo program is such a program. The proposed scope change is in response to the changing nature of funding, demand, and operational concerns that are a feature of all MicroTransit projects, especially the more successful ones. When grants are applied for, and scopes are established, they have limited real world data that is so critical to promoting the long term health of such a program. As that data is collected, responsible programs undertake a system of continuous improvement and evaluate to refine how the program is delivered to maximize the effectiveness and longevity of the service. By accepting the scope change, the Boston MPO will allow NewMo the flexibility required to promote the long term health of their system. Thank you for your time and consideration. | Jim Nee | MWRTA | Jim Nee | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | Concern/ Oppose | NOTE: I am an 8th grade Civics teacher at Bigelow Middle School in Newton. I am forwarding this message in the hopes that you can respond soon to support their efforts. Thank you! (Students cannot receive emails from outside the school district, so I must send on their behalf.) Dear Mr Lapointe, We are a group of 8th grade civics students, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the NewMo services, which are currently only available to elderly citizens. We have confidence that students and the general public should have access to affordable and safe transportation in the Newton areas, and that NewMo services could be beneficial to individuals with limited options and tight budgets. It could also provide students with more accessible and sustainable transportation. We are disappointed to hear that NewMo has officially stopped accepting students as of September 5th, 2023 due to insufficient funding for the program. We would like to inquire about the motives behind the lack of funding and request an interview with you, a funding specialist in MPO to gain further insight into why the decision was made to reduce the fundings. This reduction has had a significant impact on students who rely on this service. We understand that the MPO is responsible for the funding and overseeing transportation services in the Newton areas. We would appreciate the opportunity to understand their decision making process and the factors that led to the reduction in funding for NewMo. We believe that this information would be valuable to our understanding of the issue and could help us identify potential solutions to ensure accessible transportation services for all civilians of Newton. We believe that your work in funding and your knowledge of transportation can help us resolve our issue. We would greatly appreciate it if you wrote back to us soon. We truly want to express our gratitude for considering our request. With your help you could make a significant impact on our project. Our best regards, Shi Shi and Cyrus | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | Newton/ 8th Grade civics students - Bigelow Middle School, Newton | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | Shi Shi and Cyrus (students) | CC Project S12125 - Newton Microtransit Service (NewMo) | |||||
| FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Discussed the challenges for smaller municipalities in funding design costs, and noted the benefits of the pilot. Spoke in support of Hudson't application for design funding for the Hudson connection of the MCRT project. Encouraged the MPO to support smaller municipalities' applications in the TIP process. | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | Christina Johnson | Hudson MA Central Rail Trail Extension Design Only | |||||
| Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the TIP project design pilot. Spoke in support of Framingham's application for design funding for the Chris Walsh Rail Trail project in Framingham and its interconnections to other trail networks and destinations. | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | Sarkis Sarkisian | Framingham Chris Walsh Rail Trail (Phase 2) Design Only | |||||
| Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Support | Spoke in support of the Hudson Mass Centrail Rail Trail Extension project and its application for design funding. Stated that the town is working on a pre-25% design study, has local support, and noted the project's benefit in continuing and creating trail connections. | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | Pam Helinek | Hudson MCRT Extension Project Design application | |||||
| Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Request | Spoke about the Cambridge project design funding application for the new bridge and shared-use path connection over the MBTA Fitchburg Line at Daheny Park project. Stated that Cambridge obtained an RCN funding award that may cover design costs. Requested that the project be moved to construction funding in the outer years of the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | Charles Creagh | Cambridge New Bridge and Shared-Use Path Connection over MBTA FItchburg Line at Daheny Park Connector Project Design application | |||||
| Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 8th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 9th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 10th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 11th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 12th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 13th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 14th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 15th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 16th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 17th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 18th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 19th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 9th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 16/126 project in Sherborn and advocated for the project to receive design funding in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Stated his appreciation for the MPO's support for smaller municipalities in the region. | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | 9th Middlesex district (Holliston, Hopkinton, Sherborn, Millis) | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | James Arena-DeRosa | Sherborn Reconstruction of Rt 27 & Rt 16 Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | |||||
| Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Support | Spoke in support of the Metacomet Greenway design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Zack McKeever | Norfolk-Wrentham-Walpole Shared-Use Path Installation (Metacomet Greenway) Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | |||||
| Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support/ Concern | Spoke about the project prioritization process, particularly regarding project design pilot applications. Thanked the MPO for creating the project design pilot program and spoke of the program's expected benefits, especially for smaller municipalities. Advocated for the inclusion of the MA Centrail Rail Trail design project in the FFYs 25-29 TIP despite its relatively low score, and raised concerns about whether scoring accurately reflects expected local and regional benefits of some smaller projects like this one. | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Kristina Johnson | Hudson Massachusetts Central Rail Trail Extension design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | |||||
| Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Support | Spoke in support of the Framingham project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's regional benefits including to economic development and the critical nature of the rail crossing involved in the project. Discussed the public outreach already undertaken and expected to continue during the design process. | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Eric Johnson | Framingham Rt 126/135 grade Crossing Elimination project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | |||||
| Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Support | Spoke in support of the Granger Boulevard/Rt 20 design project in Marlborough. Discussed the project's local and environmental justice benefits. Advocated for the project's inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Tom DiPersio | Marlborough Reconstruction of Granger Boulevard design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | |||||
| Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Support | Spoke in support of the Burlington design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. Discussed the different contexts in the suburban municipalities of the MPO region, and the importance of transportation investments to support transit-oriented development and economic development in those municipalities that ultimately benefits the entire region. | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | Melisa Tintocalis | Burlington Intersection Improvements at Rt 3A & Winn St Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application); TIP process | |||||
| Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Support | Spoke in support of the Malden Rt 60 Complete Streets design project and advocated for its inclusion in the FFYs 25-29 TIP. | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | Yan Lip | Malden Rt 60 Improvements Design project (FFYs 25-29 TIP application) | |||||
| Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 15th Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 16th Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 17th Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 18th Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 19th Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 20th Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 21st Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 22nd Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 23rd Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 24th Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 25th Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 26th Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 16th Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Support | Spoke in support of the Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave complete streets reconstruction project included in the Destination 2050 LRTP. Advocated for the project to be funded in the FFYs 25-29 TIP through the 2026 LRTP Project Design category. Discussed the project's local and regional benefits, and the need to advance project design in tandem with other local transportation efforts. | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | 16th Middlesex district (Lexington, Woburn, Winchester) | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | Michelle Ciccolo | Lexington Rt 4/225 Bedford/Hartwell Ave Interchange project (Destination 2050 LRTP; FFYs 25-29 TIP 2026 LRTP design) | |||||
| General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | General / Process | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Request | Suggest creating educational materials about the TIP, investment programs, how to initiate projects; especially for small municipalities with limited capacity | Julia Wallerce | MAPC | Julia Wallerce | |||||||||||||||||
| Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Request | Request more information about the project design pilot | Rob King | Brookline | Rob King | |||||||||||||||||
| Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Concern | Significant barrier to initiating projects in the TIP is getting them to 25% design. Internal engineering lacks capacity and external is too expensive | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | Milton | Taber Keally, Josh Lee | |||||||||||||||||
| Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Concern | Relatively small projects that are too expensive for the town but too small for the TIP are a challenge and barrier (i.e. traffic lights) | Steve Olanoff | Westwood | Steve Olanoff | |||||||||||||||||
| Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Concern | Grant writing capacity is a barrier to going after grants to supplement or fund smaller priorities/projects. Considering a grant writer shared across commuinties | Karen Dumaine | NVTMA | Karen Dumaine | |||||||||||||||||
| Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Request | Swampscott Rail Trail - have put up 25% design, moving forward they anticipate some ROW acquisition challenges, can the design pilot help fund costs beyond the 25%- up to 80 (such as ROW) for projects that have already begun? | Marzie Galazka | Swampscott | Marzie Galazka | |||||||||||||||||
| Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Request | Can munis just submit a project and you decide what program it falls into, or do they need to apply to a specific program? | Sarah Scott | MAPC/ Regionwide | Sarah Scott | |||||||||||||||||
| Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Request | Question about maintenance projects - resurfacing project on 114 - at what point does the state say we need to start adding sidewalks? does that have to be its own project or can it be easily added on? | Katrina O'Leary | Middleton | Katrina O'Leary | |||||||||||||||||
| Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Request | Process to get a project on the TIP - design reqs (25%) vs more iterative - and how a project actually does get on the TIP, broadly? | Kristin Kassner | NSTF Munis/ MA Rep. 2nd Essex | Kristin Kassner | |||||||||||||||||
| Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Request | Connecting TIP to housing and senior housing needs? | Sharief Jackson | NSTF munis | Sharief Jackson | |||||||||||||||||
| Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | How to get a project started when it's a muni priority but state assets? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Chris Diiorio | |||||||||||||||||
| Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Request | Scituate has a bicycle commission that is looking at installing more bike racks in key locations around the town - would that be TIP eligible? | Susi Hofmeister | Scituate | Susi Hofmeister | |||||||||||||||||
| Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Request | CTPS did a study and provided Hull various intersection improvement project options. Is CTPS staff available to help the town decide which option is best? Or can we apply for design funding with multiple options in our app? | Chris Diiorio | Hull | Chris Diiorio | |||||||||||||||||
| Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | Design pilot funding for the town of Hudson to help us advance projects. As a small Town, it's difficult to build a funding strategy to get a design through MassDOT. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Kristina Johnson | |||||||||||||||||
| Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Request/ Concern | Question re project design pilot - we are a 3A commuter rail town working on zoning proposals, and our largest barrier is capacity. We have a 2 person planning dept and most of our time is working on zoning and housing development right now. we're one of the stations that isn't accessible and we know we would like it to be, we have the potential for housing connections, is this the stage where we could come to you to help us start visioning some work on the station? or do we need to do more work before we come to you? we just don't have the capacity to do much visioning ourselves now | Jennifer Glass | Lincoln | Jennifer Glass | |||||||||||||||||
| Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Concern | We tend to shy away from federally-aided projects because there is zero staff capacity. Hudson's Planning Department is only three. I feel lincoln's pain! | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Kristina Johnson | |||||||||||||||||
| Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Request | We have a project that I think could fit here, the question is that the design is really old, 2008-2010 - we had the predecessor of MassDevelopment help with the design - would this design still qualify even though it's old to get a project into the pipeline and move it forward? | Travis Ahern | Holliston | Travis Ahern | |||||||||||||||||
| Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Support | Municipalities should get to know the MassDOT District planning staff. They can assist you with project scoping. Shout out to MassDOT D3 office--terrific planning staff. | Kristina Johnson | Hudson | Kristina Johnson | |||||||||||||||||
| Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | Largest barriers to advancing projects - our community doesn't get much support from D5, they won't talk to us much unless we've already advanced a design, which is costly. | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Rachel Benson | |||||||||||||||||
| Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Concern | We have to use our Ch. 90 funding to pay for design and engineering for projects on state owned roadways - that seems counterintuitive, and comes out of a very limited pot of funding | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Rachel Benson | |||||||||||||||||
| Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Has MassDOT or the MPO thought about doing a one-stop grant info center where we can see different funding available and what we might be eligible for? | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Rachel Benson | |||||||||||||||||
| Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Concern | for Franklin, our DPW/engineering dept initiates and manages transportation and roadway projects/efforts, sometimes planning isn't fully aware | Amy Love | Franklin | Amy Love | |||||||||||||||||
| Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Request | Same in Medway, DPW initiates and manages projects, and COA works with the RTAs. Would be great to hear from the MPO about the process and what's available through CC | Jeremy Thompson | Medway | Jeremy Thompson | |||||||||||||||||
| Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Is there a website that has all of the grants and funding opportunities available (TIP and beyond?) | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Rachel Benson | |||||||||||||||||
| Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Request | Walpole, Wrentham, and a few other communities (6 total) are planning to apply for design pilot funding for the Metacomet Greenway project | Rachel Benson | Wrentham | Rachel Benson | |||||||||||||||||
| Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Support | Discussed successful examples of MWRTA CatchConnect and NewMo microtransit services. Suggested that in the future, municipalities could improve by further engaging and creating partnerships with transit-dependent populations. | Josh Ostroff | Newton | Josh Ostroff | |||||||||||||||||
| Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Oppose | I received a request for comments regarding TIP amendment #5 for the 2024-2028. I took the opportunity to review all of the proposed budgets for expenditures on rail-trails. I find it remarkable and incredibly irresponsible that the MPO feels justified on carrying at least $80 million dollars of rail trail projects considering the widely acknowledged climate crisis. The projects that were actually scored (and I question the objectivity of the scoring) are very low in actually reducing the state's GHG emissions and mobility in any meaningful way. These projects simultaneously commit to a non-solution, for all practical purposes, to automotive congestion and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. while destroying the opportunity to create GHG-reducing, practical mass transportation solutions that are desperately needed by Massachusetts. Rail transit solutions are the most efficient way of moving people and goods and can include trails in the right of way. This is an unquestionable fact. The millions spent on rail trail projects to date, if we are being honest, have done virtually NOTHING to meaningfully way reduce highway congestion and reduce the associated GHG emissions. The reality is, that the MPO seems unable to admit, is that these projects are used by a vanishingly small number percentage of citizens, primarily for recreation and only during fair weather. This is in stark contrast to the fact that rail transportation operates every day, year round, providing real transportation solutions that reduce GHG and congestion. The argument that "It's too expensive to restore rail transportation" is a false presumption if we are being honest about the long term benefits of this transportation mode. With climate change already having highly negative impacts to Massachusetts, the time has long past to restore our non-road rail transportation network to actually have any chance of meeting the state's GHG reduction and net-zero goals. It is up to the MPO to be HONEST and realize that seasonal, recreational trails will not get us to the ambitious environmental goals that the state has. Non-highway mass transportation WILL! i would appreciate a follow-up response to this comment. | Kurt Marden | Boxborough resident | Kurt Marden | |||||||||||||||||
| Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Request | When towns have limited capacity to advance projects it is very important for the MPO to assist. | Franny Osman | RTAC - Acton resident | Franny Osman | |||||||||||||||||
| AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | Support | Asked about and voiced support for weighting whether new [design pilot] projects come from communities that have not had a project in the TIP in many years | AnaCristina Fragoso | RTAC - Boston Society of Civil Engineers | AnaCristina Fragoso | |||||||||||||||||
| John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | Support | Spoke in support of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail Phase 3 project. | John McQueen | RTAC - WalkMassachusetts | John McQueen | |||||||||||||||||
| Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Support | Spoke in support of the board's consideration of projects as well as process improvements for the TIP | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Brad Rawson | |||||||||||||||||
| Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Request | Encouraged municipalities and project proponents to stay engaged with the MPO and the TIP cycle for the long term, and not only during the project programming decision-making period. Noted that the next TIP development cycle will be starting in the fall, with fiscal challenges similar to the current cycle expected. Discussed the importance of coalition-building and regional and subregional collaboration throughout the TIP development process. | Brad Rawson | Somerville | Brad Rawson | |||||||||||||||||
The following formal comment letters were received during the development of the FFYs 2025-29 TIP:
The MPO board voted to release the draft FFYs 2025–29 TIP document for public review at its April 18, 2024, meeting. This vote initiated an official 30-day public review period, longer than the 21-day minimum requirement. The public review period began on April 22, 2024, and closed on May 20, 2024. The comments received during this public review period are summarized in Table C-2.
Table C-2
Public Comments Received during the Public Review Period for the Draft FFYs 2025–29 TIP
This table will be included in the final version of the document when it is posted to the MPO’s website following a vote for endorsement.
Appendix D provides information about the geographic distribution of federal highway funding in the Boston region in the federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2025–29 Transportation Improvement Program, as well as for all years since 2011. It includes the distribution of the Boston Region MPO’s Regional Target Program funding (the MPO’s discretionary funding) and funding for projects and programs prioritized by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Funding amounts shown include the state’s matching funds that leverage the available federal funds.
Figures D-1 through D-4 summarize the distribution of the MPO’s Regional Target Program funding and all federal highway funding by subregion. Funding is shown for the time period covered by this TIP (FFYs 2025–29) and over a longer time horizon (FFYs 2011–29). Table D-1 shows the breakdown of this data for each municipality in the Boston region for FFYs 2025–29.
The analysis presented here provides details about how the MPO has allocated its federal transportation highway dollars across its geographic region by showing which municipalities and areas of the Boston region have received highway funding for the construction of transportation projects. This data was first compiled for FFYs 2008-13 in response to the Boston Region MPO’s 2014 Certification Review by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration.
Figure D-1
Distribution of Regional Target Funding by Subregion (FFYs 2025–29)
Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
Figure D-2
Distribution of All Federal Highway Funding in the Boston Region by Subregion (FFYs 2025–29)
FFY = Federal Fiscal Year.
Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
Figure D-3
Distribution of Regional Target Funding by Subregion (FFYs 2011–29)
FFY = Federal Fiscal Year.
Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
Figure D-4
Distribution of All Federal Highway Funding in the Boston Region by Subregion (FFYs 2011–29)
FFY = Federal Fiscal Year.
Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
Table D-1
Federal Highway Programming for Municipalities in the Boston Region (FFYs 2025–29)
| MPO Municipality | Subregion | Community Type | Pct Pop. | Pct Empl. | Percent Federal Aid Roadway Miles (2016) | Regionally Prioritized Target Funding (FFY 2025-29) | Percent Regionally Prioritized Target Funding | State Prioritized Funding | Percent State Prioritized Funding | Total Funding (Regionally Prioritized and State Prioritized) | Percent Total Funding (Regionally Prioritized and State Prioritized) | FFYs 2011-2029 (Target) | FFYs 2011-2029 (State) | FFYs 2011-2029 (All) | Percent FFYs 11-29 Target | Percent FFYs 11-29 State | Percent FFYs 11-29 All |
| Boston | Inner Core | Inner Core | 20.1% | 33.3% | 11.1% | $133,516,870 | 20.0% | $294,419,621 | 18.8% | $427,936,491 | 19.1% | $294,419,621 | $427,936,491 | $196,935,577 | 18.75% | 19.12% | 19.12% |
| Somerville | Inner Core | Inner Core | 2.4% | 1.5% | 1.2% | $90,588,127 | 13.6% | $231,698,858 | 14.8% | $322,286,985 | 14.4% | $231,698,858 | $322,286,985 | $184,056,811 | 14.76% | 14.40% | 14.40% |
| Hopkinton | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.5% | 1.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $72,273,687 | 4.6% | $72,273,687 | 3.2% | $72,273,687 | $72,273,687 | $11,346,584 | 4.60% | 3.23% | 3.23% |
| Beverly | NSTF | Regional Urban Center | 1.3% | 1.2% | 1.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $50,994,954 | 3.2% | $50,994,954 | 2.3% | $50,994,954 | $50,994,954 | $38,972,530 | 3.25% | 2.28% | 2.28% |
| Natick | MetroWest | Maturing Suburb | 1.1% | 1.0% | 1.2% | $7,656,912 | 1.1% | $40,355,157 | 2.6% | $48,012,069 | 2.1% | $40,355,157 | $48,012,069 | $30,456,681 | 2.57% | 2.14% | 2.14% |
| Cambridge | Inner Core | Inner Core | 3.5% | 7.1% | 1.8% | $385,456 | 0.1% | $79,586,223 | 5.1% | $79,971,679 | 3.6% | $79,586,223 | $79,971,679 | $45,373,097 | 5.07% | 3.57% | 3.57% |
| Wilmington | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.7% | 1.1% | 1.3% | $37,452,645 | 5.6% | $24,970,700 | 1.6% | $62,423,345 | 2.8% | $24,970,700 | $62,423,345 | $43,894,003 | 1.59% | 2.79% | 2.79% |
| Salem | NSTF | Regional Urban Center | 1.3% | 0.9% | 0.7% | $24,816,586 | 3.7% | $48,182,285 | 3.1% | $72,998,871 | 3.3% | $48,182,285 | $72,998,871 | $35,546,555 | 3.07% | 3.26% | 3.26% |
| Lynn | Inner Core | Regional Urban Center | 3.0% | 1.3% | 1.3% | $54,698,640 | 8.2% | $50,297,024 | 3.2% | $104,995,664 | 4.7% | $50,297,024 | $104,995,664 | $67,071,331 | 3.20% | 4.69% | 4.69% |
| Norwood | TRIC | Regional Urban Center | 0.9% | 1.1% | 1.0% | $27,636,336 | 4.1% | $1,668,001 | 0.1% | $29,304,337 | 1.3% | $1,668,001 | $29,304,337 | $35,588,616 | 0.11% | 1.31% | 1.31% |
| Milton | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.9% | 0.1% | 1.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $28,224,439 | 1.8% | $28,224,439 | 1.3% | $28,224,439 | $28,224,439 | $0 | 1.80% | 1.26% | 1.26% |
| Peabody | NSTF | Regional Urban Center | 1.6% | 1.1% | 1.4% | $15,272,235 | 2.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $15,272,235 | 0.7% | $0 | $15,272,235 | $30,492,095 | 0.00% | 0.68% | 0.68% |
| Chelsea | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.2% | 0.8% | 0.6% | $21,802,029 | 3.3% | $30,990,670 | 2.0% | $52,792,699 | 2.4% | $30,990,670 | $52,792,699 | $33,695,642 | 1.97% | 2.36% | 2.36% |
| Framingham | MetroWest | Regional Urban Center | 2.2% | 2.1% | 2.5% | $7,107,213 | 1.1% | $20,391,409 | 1.3% | $27,498,622 | 1.2% | $20,391,409 | $27,498,622 | $20,783,343 | 1.30% | 1.23% | 1.23% |
| Brookline | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.9% | 0.9% | 1.3% | $29,195,267 | 4.4% | $955,021 | 0.1% | $30,150,288 | 1.3% | $955,021 | $30,150,288 | $36,125,793 | 0.06% | 1.35% | 1.35% |
| Watertown | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.1% | 1.0% | 0.6% | $228,939 | 0.0% | $2,160,000 | 0.1% | $2,388,939 | 0.1% | $2,160,000 | $2,388,939 | $24,747,368 | 0.14% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| Medford | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.8% | 1.1% | 1.5% | $5,509,294 | 0.8% | $24,902,223 | 1.6% | $30,411,517 | 1.4% | $24,902,223 | $30,411,517 | $47,361,692 | 1.59% | 1.36% | 1.36% |
| Revere | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.9% | 0.5% | 1.3% | $875,867 | 0.1% | $75,691,671 | 4.8% | $76,567,538 | 3.4% | $75,691,671 | $76,567,538 | $875,867 | 4.82% | 3.42% | 3.42% |
| Woburn | NSPC | Regional Urban Center | 1.2% | 2.1% | 1.5% | $12,773,511 | 1.9% | $2,282,175 | 0.1% | $15,055,686 | 0.7% | $2,282,175 | $15,055,686 | $42,850,437 | 0.15% | 0.67% | 0.67% |
| Everett | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.5% | 0.8% | 0.6% | $10,954,656 | 1.6% | $5,059,530 | 0.3% | $16,014,186 | 0.7% | $5,059,530 | $16,014,186 | $40,201,854 | 0.32% | 0.72% | 0.72% |
| Braintree | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 1.2% | 1.3% | 1.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $52,311,757 | 3.3% | $52,311,757 | 2.3% | $52,311,757 | $52,311,757 | $0 | 3.33% | 2.34% | 2.34% |
| Randolph | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 1.0% | 0.4% | 1.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $7,194,377 | 0.5% | $7,194,377 | 0.3% | $7,194,377 | $7,194,377 | $2,000,000 | 0.46% | 0.32% | 0.32% |
| Quincy | Inner Core | Regional Urban Center | 3.0% | 2.4% | 2.1% | $1,885,353 | 0.3% | $3,221,140 | 0.2% | $5,106,493 | 0.2% | $3,221,140 | $5,106,493 | $11,513,193 | 0.21% | 0.23% | 0.23% |
| Canton | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.7% | 1.1% | 1.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $16,609,548 | 1.1% | $16,609,548 | 0.7% | $16,609,548 | $16,609,548 | $2,386,278 | 1.06% | 0.74% | 0.74% |
| Newton | Inner Core | Inner Core | 2.6% | 2.6% | 2.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $31,179,309 | 2.0% | $31,179,309 | 1.4% | $31,179,309 | $31,179,309 | $18,576,963 | 1.99% | 1.39% | 1.39% |
| Belmont | Inner Core | Inner Core | 0.8% | 0.4% | 0.6% | $20,499,750 | 3.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $20,499,750 | 0.9% | $0 | $20,499,750 | $35,999,864 | 0.00% | 0.92% | 0.92% |
| Lexington | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 1.0% | 1.1% | 1.9% | $1,650,000 | 0.2% | $14,019,980 | 0.9% | $15,669,980 | 0.7% | $14,019,980 | $15,669,980 | $6,850,000 | 0.89% | 0.70% | 0.70% |
| Weston | MetroWest | Maturing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.3% | 1.3% | $23,237,516 | 3.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $23,237,516 | 1.0% | $0 | $23,237,516 | $23,237,516 | 0.00% | 1.04% | 1.04% |
| Reading | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.8% | 0.4% | 0.8% | $6,000,000 | 0.9% | $26,089,557 | 1.7% | $32,089,557 | 1.4% | $26,089,557 | $32,089,557 | $16,093,721 | 1.66% | 1.43% | 1.43% |
| Stoneham | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.7% | 0.3% | 0.8% | $205,189 | 0.0% | $6,658,780 | 0.4% | $6,863,969 | 0.3% | $6,658,780 | $6,863,969 | $2,345,081 | 0.42% | 0.31% | 0.31% |
| Waltham | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.9% | 3.2% | 1.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Burlington | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.8% | 2.4% | 1.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $13,834,451 | 0.9% | $13,834,451 | 0.6% | $13,834,451 | $13,834,451 | $14,563,174 | 0.88% | 0.62% | 0.62% |
| Hingham | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 0.7% | 0.8% | 1.3% | $28,738,432 | 4.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $28,738,432 | 1.3% | $0 | $28,738,432 | $37,708,939 | 0.00% | 1.28% | 1.28% |
| Wrentham | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.3% | 1.0% | $697,500 | 0.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $697,500 | 0.0% | $0 | $697,500 | $697,500 | 0.00% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| Boxborough | MAGIC | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.4% | $101,660 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $101,660 | 0.0% | $0 | $101,660 | $101,660 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Bellingham | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.5% | 0.3% | 0.9% | $8,340,000 | 1.2% | $13,721,814 | 0.9% | $22,061,814 | 1.0% | $13,721,814 | $22,061,814 | $15,054,278 | 0.87% | 0.99% | 0.99% |
| Cohasset | SSC | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Milford | SWAP | Regional Urban Center | 0.9% | 0.9% | 1.2% | $13,548,565 | 2.0% | $3,744,000 | 0.2% | $17,292,565 | 0.8% | $3,744,000 | $17,292,565 | $20,016,509 | 0.24% | 0.77% | 0.77% |
| Dedham | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.8% | 0.8% | 1.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $25,097,925 | 1.6% | $25,097,925 | 1.1% | $25,097,925 | $25,097,925 | $16,090,272 | 1.60% | 1.12% | 1.12% |
| Weymouth | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 1.7% | 1.0% | 1.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $7,275,077 | 0.5% | $7,275,077 | 0.3% | $7,275,077 | $7,275,077 | $25,040,879 | 0.46% | 0.33% | 0.33% |
| Swampscott | NSTF | Maturing Suburb | 0.5% | 0.2% | 0.3% | $8,624,000 | 1.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $8,624,000 | 0.4% | $0 | $8,624,000 | $8,624,000 | 0.00% | 0.39% | 0.39% |
| Middleton | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.2% | 0.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $6,487,646 | 0.4% | $6,487,646 | 0.3% | $6,487,646 | $6,487,646 | $0 | 0.41% | 0.29% | 0.29% |
| Danvers | NSTF | Maturing Suburb | 0.8% | 1.3% | 1.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $13,292,606 | 0.8% | $13,292,606 | 0.6% | $13,292,606 | $13,292,606 | $8,836,648 | 0.85% | 0.59% | 0.59% |
| Winchester | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.7% | 0.4% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $1,786,779 | 0.1% | $1,786,779 | 0.1% | $1,786,779 | $1,786,779 | $1,809,703 | 0.11% | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| Ipswich | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.7% | $14,728,698 | 2.2% | $1,693,293 | 0.1% | $16,421,991 | 0.7% | $1,693,293 | $16,421,991 | $15,804,933 | 0.11% | 0.73% | 0.73% |
| Foxborough | TRIC | Developing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.6% | 1.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $20,231,680 | 1.3% | $20,231,680 | 0.9% | $20,231,680 | $20,231,680 | $0 | 1.29% | 0.90% | 0.90% |
| Acton | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.7% | 0.5% | 1.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $11,266,036 | 0.7% | $11,266,036 | 0.5% | $11,266,036 | $11,266,036 | $15,862,768 | 0.72% | 0.50% | 0.50% |
| Winthrop | Inner Core | Inner Core | 0.6% | 0.1% | 0.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $6,617,959 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Littleton | MAGIC | Developing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.4% | 1.0% | $101,660 | 0.0% | $15,078,675 | 1.0% | $15,180,335 | 0.7% | $15,078,675 | $15,180,335 | $1,944,188 | 0.96% | 0.68% | 0.68% |
| Lynnfield | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $11,514,688 | 0.7% | $11,514,688 | 0.5% | $11,514,688 | $11,514,688 | $0 | 0.73% | 0.51% | 0.51% |
| Wakefield | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.8% | 0.7% | 0.9% | $18,435,976 | 2.8% | $13,632,192 | 0.9% | $32,068,168 | 1.4% | $13,632,192 | $32,068,168 | $18,435,976 | 0.87% | 1.43% | 1.43% |
| Ashland | MetroWest | Maturing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.2% | 0.5% | $836,339 | 0.1% | $5,100,483 | 0.3% | $5,936,822 | 0.3% | $5,100,483 | $5,936,822 | $20,425,893 | 0.32% | 0.27% | 0.27% |
| Nahant | Inner Core | Maturing Suburb | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Malden | Inner Core | Inner Core | 2.0% | 0.7% | 1.0% | $4,939,377 | 0.7% | $4,181,800 | 0.3% | $9,121,177 | 0.4% | $4,181,800 | $9,121,177 | $7,236,920 | 0.27% | 0.41% | 0.41% |
| Stow | MAGIC | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.6% | $101,660 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $101,660 | 0.0% | $0 | $101,660 | $101,660 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Topsfield | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $3,141,758 | 0.2% | $3,141,758 | 0.1% | $3,141,758 | $3,141,758 | $0 | 0.20% | 0.14% | 0.14% |
| Hudson | MAGIC | Developing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.5% | 0.7% | $79,744 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $79,744 | 0.0% | $0 | $79,744 | $11,194,224 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Marlborough | MetroWest | Regional Urban Center | 1.2% | 1.6% | 2.0% | $1,294,744 | 0.2% | $2,160,000 | 0.1% | $3,454,744 | 0.2% | $2,160,000 | $3,454,744 | $6,908,380 | 0.14% | 0.15% | 0.15% |
| Medway | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $12,062,567 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Sudbury | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.3% | 1.0% | $4,049,850 | 0.6% | $783,273 | 0.0% | $4,833,123 | 0.2% | $783,273 | $4,833,123 | $15,669,937 | 0.05% | 0.22% | 0.22% |
| Wayland | MetroWest | Maturing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.7% | $0 | 0.0% | $3,133,090 | 0.2% | $3,133,090 | 0.1% | $3,133,090 | $3,133,090 | $0 | 0.20% | 0.14% | 0.14% |
| Hamilton | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $1,693,293 | 0.1% | $1,693,293 | 0.1% | $1,693,293 | $1,693,293 | $0 | 0.11% | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| Maynard | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.2% | 0.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $6,036,680 | 0.4% | $6,036,680 | 0.3% | $6,036,680 | $6,036,680 | $0 | 0.38% | 0.27% | 0.27% |
| Sharon | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.2% | 1.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $21,847,588 | 1.4% | $21,847,588 | 1.0% | $21,847,588 | $21,847,588 | $42,000 | 1.39% | 0.98% | 0.98% |
| Arlington | Inner Core | Inner Core | 1.4% | 0.5% | 0.8% | $3,111,128 | 0.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $3,111,128 | 0.1% | $0 | $3,111,128 | $8,350,180 | 0.00% | 0.14% | 0.14% |
| Scituate | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.2% | 1.0% | $22,800 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $22,800 | 0.0% | $0 | $22,800 | $22,800 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Westwood | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.5% | 0.6% | 0.7% | $22,854,847 | 3.4% | $9,966,667 | 0.6% | $32,821,514 | 1.5% | $9,966,667 | $32,821,514 | $34,630,264 | 0.63% | 1.47% | 1.47% |
| Bedford | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.9% | 0.8% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $24,507,736 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Bolton | MAGIC | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.7% | $101,660 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $101,660 | 0.0% | $0 | $101,660 | $101,660 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Carlisle | MAGIC | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Concord | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.6% | 1.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $2,026,960 | 0.1% | $2,026,960 | 0.1% | $2,026,960 | $2,026,960 | $22,592,311 | 0.13% | 0.09% | 0.09% |
| Dover | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Essex | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Franklin | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 1.0% | 0.8% | 1.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Gloucester | NSTF | Regional Urban Center | 0.9% | 0.5% | 1.0% | $1,400,388 | 0.2% | $85,654,780 | 5.5% | $87,055,168 | 3.9% | $85,654,780 | $87,055,168 | $1,400,388 | 5.46% | 3.89% | 3.89% |
| Holbrook | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.3% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $3,036,628 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holliston | MetroWest | Developing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.5% | $250,000 | 0.0% | $1,012,500 | 0.1% | $1,262,500 | 0.1% | $1,012,500 | $1,262,500 | $250,000 | 0.06% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| Hull | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $8,223,422 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Lincoln | MAGIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $14,251,506 | 0.9% | $14,251,506 | 0.6% | $14,251,506 | $14,251,506 | $22,492,311 | 0.91% | 0.64% | 0.64% |
| Manchester | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Marblehead | NSTF | Maturing Suburb | 0.6% | 0.2% | 0.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $622,284 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Marshfield | SSC | Maturing Suburb | 0.8% | 0.3% | 1.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $5,682,660 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Medfield | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.5% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Melrose | Inner Core | Inner Core | 0.9% | 0.3% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $4,405,030 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Millis | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Needham | TRIC | Maturing Suburb | 1.0% | 1.1% | 1.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $3,803,625 | 0.2% | $3,803,625 | 0.2% | $3,803,625 | $3,803,625 | $100,365,195 | 0.24% | 0.17% | 0.17% |
| Norfolk | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.2% | 0.5% | $697,500 | 0.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $697,500 | 0.0% | $0 | $697,500 | $697,500 | 0.00% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| North Reading | NSPC | Maturing Suburb | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Norwell | SSC | Developing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.5% | 0.8% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Rockland | SSC | Developing Suburb | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.6% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Rockport | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.2% | $107,388 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $107,388 | 0.0% | $0 | $107,388 | $107,388 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Saugus | Inner Core | Maturing Suburb | 0.9% | 0.5% | 0.8% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Sherborn | SWAP | Developing Suburb | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.4% | $900,000 | 0.1% | $0 | 0.0% | $900,000 | 0.0% | $0 | $900,000 | $900,000 | 0.00% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| Southborough | MetroWest | Maturing Suburb | 0.3% | 0.4% | 1.2% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $7,294,520 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Walpole | TRIC | Developing Suburb | 0.8% | 0.5% | 1.2% | $155,000 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $155,000 | 0.0% | $0 | $155,000 | $25,808,571 | 0.00% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| Wellesley | MetroWest | Maturing Suburb | 0.9% | 0.9% | 0.9% | $0 | 0.0% | $4,332,177 | 0.3% | $4,332,177 | 0.2% | $4,332,177 | $4,332,177 | $73,350,868 | 0.28% | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| Wenham | NSTF | Developing Suburb | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.4% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | 0.0% | $0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
FFY = Federal Fiscal Year.
Subregions: ICC = Inner Core Committee. MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination. MWRC = MetroWest Regional Collaborative. NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council. NSTF = North Shore Task Force. SSC = South Shore Coalition. SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee. TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.
Source: Boston Region MPO.
This appendix contains detailed background on the regulatory documents, legislation, and guidance that shape the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) transportation planning process.
The Boston Region MPO is charged with executing its planning activities in line with federal and state regulatory guidance. Maintaining compliance with these regulations allows the MPO to directly support the work of these critical partners and ensures its continued role in helping the region move closer to achieving federal, state, and regional transportation goals. This appendix describes the regulations, policies, and guidance taken into consideration by the MPO during development of the certification documents and other core work the MPO will undertake during federal fiscal year (FFY) 2025.
The MPO’s planning processes are guided by provisions in federal transportation authorization bills, which are codified in federal statutes and supported by guidance from federal agencies. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) was signed into law on November 15, 2021 as the nation’s five-year surface transportation bill, and covers FFYs 2022–26. This section describes new provisions established in the BIL.
The purpose of the national transportation goals, outlined in Title 23, section 150, of the United States Code (23 USC § 150), is to increase the accountability and transparency of the Federal-Aid Highway Program and to improve decision-making through performance-based planning and programming. The national transportation goals include the following:
The Boston Region MPO has incorporated these national goals, where practicable, into its vision, goals, and objectives, which provide a framework for the MPO’s planning processes. More information about the MPO’s vision, goals, and objectives is included in Chapter 1.
The MPO gives specific consideration to the federal planning factors, described in Title 23, section 134, of the US Code (23 USC § 134), when developing all documents that program federal transportation funds. In accordance with the legislation, studies and strategies undertaken by the MPO shall
The Boston Region MPO has also incorporated these federal planning factors into its vision, goals, and objectives. Table E-1 shows the relationships between FFY 2024 MPO studies and activities and these federal planning factors.
Table E-1
FFY 2025 3C-Funded UPWP Studies and Programs—Relationship to Federal Planning Factors
* For ongoing FFY 2024 3C-funded studies, see FFY 2024 UPWP
** Includes Support to the MPO and its Committees, Public Participation Process, and Regional Transportation Advisory Council Support
FFY = Federal Fiscal Year. UPWP = Unified Planning Work Program.
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), in consultation with states, MPOs, and other stakeholders, established performance measures relevant to the national goals established in the FAST Act. These performance topic areas include roadway safety, transit system safety, National Highway System (NHS) bridge and pavement condition, transit asset condition, NHS reliability for both passenger and freight travel, traffic congestion, and on-road mobile source emissions. The FAST Act and related federal rulemakings require states, MPOs, and public transportation operators to follow performance-based planning and programming practices—such as setting targets—to ensure that transportation investments support progress towards these goals. See Chapter 3 for more information about how the MPO has and will continue to conduct performance-based planning and programming.
On December 30, 2021, the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration jointly issued updated planning emphasis areas for use in MPOs’ transportation planning process, following the enactment of the BIL. Those planning emphasis areas include the following:
The Clean Air Act, most recently amended in 1990, forms the basis of the United States’ air pollution control policy. The act identifies air quality standards, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designates geographic areas as attainment (in compliance) or nonattainment (not in compliance) areas with respect to these standards. If air quality in a nonattainment area improves such that it meets EPA standards, the EPA may redesignate that area as being a maintenance area for a 20-year period to ensure that the standard is maintained in that area.
The conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act “require that those areas that have poor air quality, or had it in the past, should examine the long-term air quality impacts of their transportation system and ensure its compatibility with the area’s clean air goals.” Agencies responsible for Clean Air Act requirements for nonattainment and maintenance areas must conduct air quality conformity determinations, which are demonstrations that transportation plans, programs, and projects addressing that area are consistent with a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining air quality standards.
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 projects in the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (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 air quality standards in any area. The policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating air quality conformity in the Boston region were established in Title 40, parts 51 and 53, of the Code of Federal Regulations (40. C.F.R. 51, 40 C.F.R. 53).
On April 1, 1996, the EPA classified the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville as in attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Subsequently, the Commonwealth established a CO maintenance plan through the Massachusetts SIP process to ensure that emission levels did not increase. While the maintenance plan was in effect, past TIPs and LRTPs included an air quality conformity analysis for these communities. As of April 1, 2016, the 20-year maintenance period for this maintenance area expired and transportation conformity is no longer required for carbon monoxide in these communities. This ruling is documented in a letter from the EPA dated May 12, 2016.
On April 22, 2002, the EPA classified the City of Waltham as being in attainment for CO emissions with an EPA-approved limited-maintenance plan. In areas that have approved limited-maintenance plans, federal actions requiring conformity determinations under the EPA’s transportation conformity rule are considered to satisfy the conformity test. The MPO is not required to perform a modeling analysis for a conformity determination for carbon monoxide, but it has been required to provide a status report on the timely implementation of projects and programs that will reduce emissions from transportation sources—so-called transportation control measures—which are included in the Massachusetts SIP. In April 2022, the EPA issued a letter explaining that the carbon monoxide limited maintenance area in Waltham has expired. Therefore, the MPO is no longer required to demonstrate transportation conformity for this area, but the rest of the maintenance plan requirements, however, continue to apply, in accordance with the SIP.
On February 16, 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a decision in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, which struck down portions of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) SIP Requirements Rule concerning the ozone NAAQS. Those portions of the SIP Requirements Rule included transportation conformity requirements associated with the EPA’s revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Massachusetts was designated as an attainment area in accord with the 2008 ozone NAAQS but as a nonattainment or maintenance area as relates to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As a result of this court ruling, MPOs in Massachusetts must once again demonstrate conformity for ozone when developing LRTPs and TIPs.
MPOs must also perform conformity determinations if transportation control measures (TCM) are in effect in the region. TCMs are strategies that reduce transportation-related air pollution and fuel use by reducing vehicle-miles traveled and improving roadway operations. The Massachusetts SIP identifies TCMs in the Boston region. SIP-identified TCMs are federally enforceable and projects that address the identified air quality issues must be given first priority when federal transportation dollars are spent. Examples of TCMs that were programmed in previous TIPs include rapid-transit and commuter-rail extension programs (such as the Green Line Extension in Cambridge, Medford, and Somerville, and the Fairmount Line improvements in Boston), parking-freeze programs in Boston and Cambridge, statewide rideshare programs, park-and-ride facilities, residential parking-sticker programs, and the operation of high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes.
In addition to reporting on the pollutants identified in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the MPOs in Massachusetts are also required to perform air quality analyses for carbon dioxide as part of the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) (see below).
The Boston Region MPO complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Executive Order 12898—Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations (EJ EO), and other federal and state nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities it conducts. Per federal and state law, the MPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin (including limited-English proficiency), religion, creed, gender, ancestry, ethnicity, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, veteran’s status, or background. The MPO strives to provide meaningful opportunities for participation of all persons in the region, including those protected by Title VI, the ADA, the EJ EO, and other nondiscrimination mandates.
The MPO also assesses the likely benefits and adverse effects of transportation projects on equity populations (populations covered by federal regulations, as identified in the MPO’s Transportation Equity program) when deciding which projects to fund. This is done through the MPO’s project selection criteria. MPO staff also evaluate the projects that are selected for funding, in the aggregate, to determine their overall impacts and whether they improve transportation outcomes for equity populations. The major federal requirements pertaining to nondiscrimination are discussed below.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 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—Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, dated August 11, 2000, extends Title VI protections to people who, as a result of their nationality, have limited English proficiency. Specifically, it calls for improved access to federally assisted programs and activities, and it requires MPOs to develop and implement a system through which people with limited English proficiency can meaningfully participate in the transportation planning process. This requirement includes the development of a Language Assistance Plan that documents the organization’s process for providing meaningful language access to people with limited English proficiency who access their services and programs.
Executive Order 12898, dated February 11, 1994, requires each federal agency to advance environmental justice by identifying and addressing any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.
On April 15, 1997, the USDOT 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 1997 Final Order was updated in 2012 with USDOT Order 5610.2(a), which provided clarification while maintaining the original framework and procedures.
Title III of the ADA “prohibits states, MPOs, and other public entities from discriminating on the basis of disability in the entities’ services, programs, or activities,” and requires all transportation projects, plans, and programs to be accessible to people with disabilities. Therefore, MPOs must consider the mobility needs of people with disabilities when programming federal funding for studies and capital projects. MPO-sponsored meetings must also be held in accessible venues and be conducted in a manner that provides for accessibility. Also, MPO materials must be made available in accessible formats.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. In addition, the Rehabilitation Act of 1975, and Title 23, section 324, of the US Code (23 USC § 324) prohibit discrimination based on sex.
Much of the MPO’s work focuses on encouraging mode shift and diminishing GHG emissions through improving transit service, enhancing bicycle and pedestrian networks, and studying emerging transportation technologies. All of this work helps the Boston region contribute to statewide progress towards the priorities discussed in this section.
Beyond Mobility, the Massachusetts 2050 Transportation Plan, is a planning process that will result in a blueprint for guiding transportation decision-making and investments in Massachusetts in a way that advances MassDOT’s goals and maximizes the equity and resiliency of the transportation system. MPO staff continue to coordinate with MassDOT staff so that Destination 2050, the MPO’s Long-Range Transportation Plan, is aligned with the Beyond Mobility plan.
The Commission on the Future of Transportation in the Commonwealth—established by Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s Executive Order 579—published Choices for Stewardship in 2019. This report makes 18 recommendations across the following five thematic categories to adapt the transportation system in the Commonwealth to emerging needs:
Beyond Mobility will build upon the Commission report’s recommendations. The Boston Region MPO supports these statewide goals by conducting planning work and making investment decisions that complement MassDOT’s efforts and reflect the evolving needs of the transportation system in the region.
The Massachusetts 2023 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) identifies the state’s key safety needs and guides investment decisions to achieve significant reductions in highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The SHSP establishes statewide safety goals and objectives and key safety emphasis areas, and it draws on the strengths of all highway safety partners in the Commonwealth to align and leverage resources to address the state’s safety challenges collectively. The Boston Region MPO considers SHSP goals, emphasis areas, and strategies when developing its plans, programs, and activities.
The Massachusetts Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) is a risk-based asset management plan for the bridges and pavement that are in the NHS inventory. The plan describes the condition of these assets, identifies assets that are particularly vulnerable following declared emergencies such as extreme weather, and discusses MassDOT’s financial plan and risk management strategy for these assets. The Boston Region MPO considers MassDOT TAMP goals, targets, and strategies when developing its plans, programs, and activities. MassDOT’s TAMP was most recently updated in 2023.
In 2017, MassDOT finalized the Massachusetts Freight Plan, which defines the short- and long-term vision for the Commonwealth’s freight transportation system. In 2018, MassDOT released the related Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Rail Plan, which outlines short- and long-term investment strategies for Massachusetts’ freight and passenger rail systems (excluding the commuter rail system). In 2019, MassDOT released the Massachusetts Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Massachusetts Pedestrian Transportation Plan, both of which define roadmaps, initiatives, and action plans to improve bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the Commonwealth. These plans were updated in 2021 to reflect new investments in bicycle and pedestrian projects made by MassDOT since their release. In 2023, MassDOT released the Massachusetts Freight Plan, which identifies short- and long-term improvements and strategies for the state’s freight systems. The MPO considers the findings and strategies of MassDOT’s modal plans when conducting its planning, including through its Freight Planning Support and Bicycle/Pedestrian Support Activities programs.
The GWSA makes Massachusetts a leader in setting aggressive and enforceable 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 (EEA), 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, and updated in 2022 to reflect new interim targets, establishes the following targets for overall statewide GHG emission reductions:
In 2018, EEA published its GWSA 10-year Progress Report and the GHG Inventory estimated that 2018 GHG emissions were 22 percent below the 1990 baseline level.
On June 30, 2022, EEA certified its compliance with the 2020 emissions limit of 25 percent below the 1990 levels, noting that there was an estimated emissions reduction of 31.4 percent below the 1990 level in 2020.
MassDOT fulfills its responsibilities, defined in the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2050, through a policy directive that sets three principal objectives:
In January 2015, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection amended Title 310, section 7.00, of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (310 CMR 60.05), Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, which was subsequently amended in August 2017. This regulation places a range of obligations on MassDOT and MPOs to support achievement of the Commonwealth’s climate change goals through the programming of transportation funds. For example, MPOs must use GHG impact as a selection criterion when they review projects to be programmed in their TIPs, and they must evaluate and report the GHG emissions impacts of transportation projects in LRTPs and TIPs.
The Commonwealth’s 10 MPOs (and three non-metropolitan planning regions) are integrally involved in supporting the GHG reductions mandated under the GWSA. The MPOs seek to realize these objectives by prioritizing projects in the LRTP and TIP that will help reduce emissions from the transportation sector. The Boston Region MPO uses its TIP project evaluation criteria to score projects based on their GHG emissions impacts, multimodal Complete Streets accommodations, and ability to support smart growth development. Tracking and evaluating GHG emissions by project will enable the MPO to anticipate GHG impacts of planned and programmed projects. See Chapter 3 for more details related to how the MPO conducts GHG monitoring and evaluation.
On September 9, 2013, MassDOT passed the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive to formalize its commitment to implementing and maintaining transportation networks that allow for various mode choices. This directive will ensure that all MassDOT projects are designed and implemented in ways that provide all users with access to safe and comfortable walking, bicycling, and transit options. MassDOT’s design justification process, which established controlling criteria for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit provisions and the length of off- and on-ramps, has helped to operationalize and further the goals of the original Healthy Transportation Policy Directive.
In November 2015, MassDOT released the Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide. This guide represents a step in MassDOT’s continuing commitment to Complete Streets, sustainable transportation, and the creation of more safe and convenient transportation options for Massachusetts’ residents. This guide may be used by project planners and designers as a resource for considering, evaluating, and designing separated bike lanes as part of a Complete Streets approach.
In the current LRTP, Destination 2050, the Boston Region MPO continues to use investment programs—particularly its Complete Streets and Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Connections programs—that support the implementation of Complete Streets projects. In the Unified Planning Work Program, the MPO budgets to support these projects, such as the MPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Support Activities program, corridor studies undertaken by MPO staff to make conceptual recommendations for Complete Streets treatments, and various discrete studies aimed at improving pedestrian and bicycle accommodations.
MassDOT developed the Congestion in the Commonwealth 2019 report to identify specific causes of and impacts from traffic congestion on the NHS. The report also made recommendations for reducing congestion, including addressing local and regional bottlenecks, redesigning bus networks within the systems operated by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the other regional transit authorities, increasing MBTA capacity, and investigating congestion pricing mechanisms such as managed lanes. These recommendations guide multiple new efforts within MassDOT and the MBTA and are actively considered by the Boston Region MPO when making planning and investment decisions.
On March 18, 2019, MassDOT and the MBTA released Focus40, the MBTA’s Program for Mass Transportation, which is the 25-year investment plan that aims to position the MBTA to meet the transit needs of the Greater Boston region through 2040. Complemented by the MBTA’s Strategic Plan and other internal and external policy and planning initiatives, Focus40 serves as a comprehensive plan guiding all capital planning initiatives at the MBTA. These initiatives include the Rail Vision plan, which will inform the vision for the future of the MBTA’s commuter rail system; the Bus Network Redesign (formerly the Better Bus Project), the plan to re-envision and improve the MBTA’s bus network; and other plans. The next update of the Program for Mass Transportation is planned for development in 2024.The Boston Region MPO continues to monitor the status of Focus40 and related MBTA modal plans to inform its decision-making about transit capital investments, which are incorporated into the TIP and LRTP.
MetroCommon 2050, which was developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and adopted in 2021, is Greater Boston’s regional land use and policy plan. MetroCommon 2050 builds upon MAPC’s previous plan, MetroFuture (adopted in 2008), and includes an updated set of strategies for achieving sustainable growth and equitable prosperity in the region. The MPO considers MetroCommon 2050’s goals, objectives, and strategies in its planning and activities. See Chapter 7 for more information about MetroCommon 2050 development activities.
MetroCommon 2050 is the foundation for land use projections in the MPO’s LRTP, Destination 2050.
The purpose of the Congestion Management Process (CMP) is to monitor and analyze the mobility of people using transportation facilities and services, develop strategies for managing congestion based on the results of traffic monitoring, and move those strategies into the implementation stage by providing decision-makers in the region with information and recommendations for improving the transportation system’s performance. The CMP monitors roadways, transit, and park-and-ride facilities in the Boston region for safety, congestion, and mobility, and identifies problem locations. See Chapter 3 for more information about the MPO’s CMP.
Every four years, the Boston Region MPO completes a Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (CPT‒HST), in coordination with the development of the LRTP. The CPT‒HST supports improved coordination of transportation for seniors and people with disabilities in the Boston region by guiding transportation providers in their development of proposals for funding from the Federal Transit Administration’s Section 5310 Program (known in Massachusetts as the Community Transit Grant Program). To be eligible for funding, a proposal must meet a need identified in the CPT‒HST. The CPT‒HST contains information about
The MPO adopted its current CPT‒HST in 2023.
The MBTA and the region’s RTAs—the Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA) and the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA)—are responsible for producing transit asset management plans that describe their asset inventories and the condition of these assets, strategies, and priorities for improving the state of good repair of these assets. The Boston Region MPO considers goals and priorities established in these plans when developing its plans, programs, and activities.
The MBTA, CATA, and MWRTA are required to create and annually update Public Transit Agency Safety Plans that describe their approaches for implementing Safety Management Systems on their transit systems. The Boston Region MPO considers goals, targets, and priorities established in these plans when developing its plans, programs, and activities.
The COVID-19 pandemic has radically shifted the way many people in the Boston region interact with the regional transportation system. The pandemic’s effect on everyday life has had short-term impacts on the system and how people travel, but it may also have other lasting effects. Four years on from the beginning of the pandemic, travel patterns have shifted to reflect a hybrid working schedule for many workers. Some changes made in response to the pandemic may become permanent, such as the expansion of bicycle, bus, sidewalk, and plaza networks. As the region recovers from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the long-term effects become apparent, state and regional partners’ guidance and priorities are likely to be adjusted.
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) includes both permanent members and municipal members who are elected for three-year terms. Details about the MPO’s members are listed below.
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) was established under Chapter 25 (An Act Modernizing the Transportation Systems of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) of the Acts of 2009. MassDOT has four divisions: Highway, Rail and Transit, Aeronautics, and the Registry of Motor Vehicles. The MassDOT Board of Directors, composed of 11 members appointed by the governor, oversees all four divisions and MassDOT operations and works closely with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Board of Directors. The MassDOT Board of Directors was expanded to 11 members by the Legislature in 2015, a group of transportation leaders assembled to review structural problems with the MBTA and deliver recommendations for improvements. MassDOT has three seats on the MPO board, including seats for the Highway Division.
The MassDOT Highway Division has jurisdiction over the roadways, bridges, and tunnels that were overseen by the former Massachusetts Highway Department and Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. The Highway Division also has jurisdiction over many bridges and parkways that previously were under the authority of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The Highway Division is responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of the Commonwealth’s state highways and bridges. It is also responsible for overseeing traffic safety and engineering activities for the state highway system. These activities include operating the Highway Operations Control Center to ensure safe road and travel conditions.
The MBTA, created in 1964, is a body politic and corporate, and a political subdivision of the Commonwealth. Under the provisions of Chapter 161A of the Massachusetts General Laws, it has the statutory responsibility within its district of operating the public transportation system in the Boston region, preparing the engineering and architectural designs for transit development projects, and constructing and operating transit development projects. The MBTA district comprises 177 communities, including all of the 97 cities and towns of the Boston Region MPO area.
In April 2015, as a result of a plan of action to improve the MBTA, a five-member Fiscal and Management Control Board (FMCB) was created. The FMCB was created to oversee and improve the finances, management, and operations of the MBTA. The FMCB’s authorizing statute called for an initial three-year term, with the option for the board to request that the governor approve a single two-year extension. In 2017, the FMCB’s initial mandate, which would have expired in June 2018, was extended for two years, through June 30, 2020. In 2020, the FMCB’s mandate was extended a second time for an additional period of one year, through June 30, 2021.
Following the expiration of the FMCB’s extended mandate, the MBTA Board of Directors was formed as a permanent replacement to provide oversight for the agency. By statute, the board consists of nine members, including the Secretary of Transportation as an ex-officio member. The MBTA Advisory Board appoints one member who has municipal government experience in the MBTA’s service area and experience in transportation operations, transportation planning, housing policy, urban planning, or public or private finance. The Governor appoints the remaining seven board members, which include an MBTA rider and member of an environmental justice population, and a person recommended by the President of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.
The MBTA Advisory Board was created by the Massachusetts Legislature in 1964 through the same legislation that created the MBTA. The Advisory Board consists of representatives of the 175 cities and towns that compose the MBTA’s service area. Cities are represented by either the city manager or mayor, and towns are represented by the chairperson of the board of selectmen. Specific responsibilities of the Advisory Board include reviewing and commenting on the MBTA’s long-range plan, the Program for Mass Transportation; proposed fare increases; the annual MBTA Capital Investment Program; the MBTA’s documentation of net operating investment per passenger; and the MBTA’s operating budget. The MBTA Advisory Board advocates for the transit needs of its member communities and the riding public.
The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) has the statutory responsibility under Chapter 465 of the Acts of 1956, as amended, for planning, constructing, owning, and operating such transportation and related facilities as may be necessary for developing and improving commerce in Boston and the surrounding metropolitan area. Massport owns and operates Boston Logan International Airport, the Port of Boston’s Conley Terminal, Flynn Cruiseport Boston, Hanscom Field, Worcester Regional Airport, and various maritime and waterfront properties, including parks in the Boston neighborhoods of East Boston, South Boston, and Charlestown.
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) is the regional planning agency for the Boston region. It is composed of the chief executive officer (or a designee) of each of the cities and towns in the MAPC’s planning region, 21 gubernatorial appointees, and 12 ex-officio members. It has statutory responsibility for comprehensive regional planning in its region under Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws. It is the Boston Metropolitan Clearinghouse under Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and Title VI of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. Also, its region has been designated an economic development district under Title IV of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended. MAPC’s responsibilities for comprehensive planning encompass the areas of technical assistance to communities, transportation planning, and development of zoning, land use, demographic, and environmental studies. MAPC activities that are funded with federal metropolitan transportation planning dollars are documented in the Boston Region MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program.
The City of Boston, six elected cities (currently Beverly, Everett, Framingham, Newton, Somerville, and Burlington), and six elected towns (currently Acton, Arlington, Brookline, Hull, Wrentham, and Norwood,) represent the 97 municipalities in the Boston Region MPO area. The City of Boston is a permanent MPO member and has two seats. There is one elected municipal seat for each of the eight MAPC subregions and four seats for at-large elected municipalities (two cities and two towns). The elected at-large municipalities serve staggered three-year terms, as do the eight municipalities representing the MAPC subregions.
The Regional Transportation Advisory Council, the MPO’s citizen advisory group, provides the opportunity for transportation-related organizations, non-MPO member agencies, and municipal representatives to become actively involved in the decision-making processes of the MPO as it develops plans and prioritizes the implementation of transportation projects in the region. The Advisory Council reviews, comments on, and makes recommendations regarding certification documents. It also serves as a forum for providing information on transportation topics in the region, identifying issues, advocating for ways to address the region’s transportation needs, and generating interest among members of the general public in the work of the MPO.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) participate in the Boston Region MPO in an advisory (nonvoting) capacity, reviewing the Long-Range Transportation Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, and Unified Planning Work Program, and other facets of the MPO’s planning process to ensure compliance with federal planning and programming requirements. These two agencies oversee the highway and transit programs, respectively, of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) under pertinent legislation and the provisions of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL).
Table G-1
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Operations and Maintenance Summary: MassDOT
| Statewide and District Contracts plus Expenditures within MPO boundaries | |||||
| Program Group/Sub Group | Est SFY 2024 Spending | Est SFY 2025 Spending | Est SFY 2026 Spending | Est SFY 2027 Spending | Est SFY 2028 Spending |
| Part 1: Non-Federal Aid | |||||
| Section I - Non Federal Aid Maintenance Projects - State Bondfunds | |||||
| 01 - ADA Retrofits | |||||
| Sidewalk Construction and Repairs | $ 2,527,973 | $ 1,154,109 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 02 - Bicycles and pedestrians program | |||||
| Bikeway/Bike Path Construction | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 03 - Bridge | |||||
| Bridge Maintenance | $ 38,823,388 | $ 30,607,721 | $ 14,961,883 | $ 1,113,028 | $ - |
| Bridge Maintenance - Deck Repairs | $ 10,003,534 | $ 10,139,124 | $ 7,440,018 | $ 546,417 | $ - |
| Bridge Maintenance - Joints | $ 1,622,979 | $ 1,888,486 | $ 1,573,739 | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Preservation | $ 12,420,609 | $ 10,425,512 | $ 5,129,556 | $ 692,413 | $ - |
| Bridge Replacement | $ - | $ 598,754 | $ 1,796,261 | $ 299,377 | $ - |
| Drawbridge Maintenance | $ 8,369,008 | $ 6,317,237 | $ 2,625,000 | $ 515,007 | $ - |
| Painting - Structural | $ 839,566 | $ 835,547 | $ 1,260,216 | $ 210,036 | $ - |
| Structures Maintenance | $ (43,962) | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 04 - Capacity | |||||
| Highway Relocation | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Hwy Reconstr - Added Capacity | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Hwy Reconstr - Major Widening | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 05 - Facilities | |||||
| Vertical Construction (Ch 149) | $ 17,976,879 | $ 4,651,566 | $ 1,609,386 | $ 206,609 | $ - |
| 07 - Intersection Improvements | |||||
| Traffic Signals | $ 3,682,661 | $ 2,380,658 | $ 2,014,210 | $ 102,122 | $ - |
| 08 - Interstate Pavement | |||||
| Resurfacing Interstate | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 09 - Intelligent Transportation Systems Program | |||||
| Intelligent Transportation System | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 10 - Non-interstate DOT Pavement Program | |||||
| Milling and Cold Planing | $ 5,369,210 | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Resurfacing | $ 26,463,372 | $ 15,822,396 | $ 7,243,191 | $ - | $ - |
| Resurfacing DOT Owned Non-Interstate | $ 10,246,699 | $ 2,669,150 | $ 4,321,796 | $ 1,786,791 | $ - |
| 11 - Roadway Improvements | |||||
| Asbestos Removal | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Catch Basin Cleaning | $ 2,639,496 | $ 1,152,484 | $ 241,154 | $ - | $ - |
| Contract Highway Maintenance | $ 14,260,788 | $ 14,433,780 | $ 7,827,224 | $ 942,840 | $ - |
| Crack Sealing | $ 1,120,385 | $ 874,404 | $ 845,600 | $ 51,969 | $ - |
| Culvert Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Culvert Reconstruction/Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Drainage | $ 9,006,753 | $ 10,552,249 | $ 2,223,511 | $ - | $ - |
| Guard Rail & Fencing | $ 8,074,789 | $ 5,566,800 | $ 3,198,449 | $ 246,000 | $ - |
| Highway Sweeping | $ 1,285,981 | $ 1,038,047 | $ 283,520 | $ - | $ - |
| Landscaping | $ 661,954 | $ 997,891 | $ 844,696 | $ - | $ - |
| Mowing and Spraying | $ 3,921,935 | $ 1,744,547 | $ 1,258,591 | $ 187,826 | $ - |
| Sewer and Water | $ 357,394 | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Tree Trimming | $ 4,155,926 | $ 4,285,897 | $ 2,775,495 | $ 572,870 | $ - |
| 12 - Roadway Reconstruction | |||||
| Hwy Reconstr - Restr and Rehab | $ 3,999,753 | $ 50,053 | $ 30,590 | $ - | $ - |
| 13 - Safety Improvements | |||||
| Electrical | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Impact Attenuators | $ 1,243,385 | $ 730,625 | $ 579,195 | $ 48,696 | $ - |
| Lighting | $ 4,327,624 | $ 3,549,482 | $ 1,974,433 | $ 78,087 | $ - |
| Pavement Marking | $ 5,034,163 | $ 2,880,555 | $ 1,164,804 | $ - | $ - |
| Safety Improvements | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Sign Installation/Upgrading | $ 1,904,647 | $ 749,713 | $ 533,787 | $ 65,026 | $ - |
| Structural Signing | $ 467,090 | $ 98,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Section I Total: | $ 200,763,979 | $ 136,194,787 | $ 73,756,305 | $ 7,665,114 | $ - |
| Section II - Non Federal Aid Highway Operations - State Operating Budget Funding | |||||
| Snow and Ice Operations & Materials | |||||
| $ 75,000,000 | $ 95,000,000 | $ 95,000,000 | $ 95,000,000 | $ 95,000,000 | |
| District Maintenance Payroll | |||||
| Mowing, Litter Mgmt, Sight Distance Clearing, Etc. | $ 36,200,000 | $ 37,290,000 | $ 38,410,000 | $ 39,570,000 | $ 40,760,000 |
| Section II Total: | $ 111,200,000 | $ 132,290,000 | $ 133,410,000 | $ 134,570,000 | $ 135,760,000 |
| Grand Total NFA: | $ 311,963,979 | $ 268,484,787 | $ 207,166,305 | $ 142,235,114 | $ 135,760,000 |
| Statewide and District Contracts plus Expenditures within MPO boundaries | |||||
| Program Group/Sub Group | Est SFY 2024 Spending | Est SFY 2025 Spending | Est SFY 2026 Spending | Est SFY 2027 Spending | Est SFY 2028 Spending |
| Part 2: Federal Aid | |||||
| Section I - Federal Aid Maintenance Projects | |||||
| 01 - ADA Retrofits | |||||
| Sidewalk Construction and Repairs | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 02 - Bicycles and pedestrians program | |||||
| Bikeway/Bike Path Construction | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 03 - Bridge | |||||
| Bridge Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Maintenance - Deck Repairs | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Maintenance - Joints | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Preservation | $ 1,603,769 | $ 820,406 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Reconstruction/Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Drawbridge Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Painting - Structural | $ 1,205,265 | $ 596,970 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Structures Maintenance | $ 1,086,368 | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 04 - Capacity | |||||
| Hwy Reconstr - Added Capacity | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 05 - Facilities | |||||
| Vertical Construction (Ch 149) | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 07 - Intersection Improvements | |||||
| Traffic Signals | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 08 - Interstate Pavement | |||||
| Resurfacing Interstate | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 09 - Intelligent Transportation Systems Program | |||||
| Intelligent Transportation System | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 10 - Non-interstate DOT Pavement Program | |||||
| Milling and Cold Planing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Resurfacing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Resurfacing DOT Owned Non-Interstate | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 11 - Roadway Improvements | |||||
| Asbestos Removal | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Catch Basin Cleaning | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Contract Highway Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Crack Sealing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Culvert Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Culvert Reconstruction/Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Drainage | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Guard Rail & Fencing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Highway Sweeping | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Landscaping | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Mowing and Spraying | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Sewer and Water | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Tree Trimming | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 12 - Roadway Reconstruction | |||||
| Hwy Reconstr - Restr and Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 13 - Safety Improvements | |||||
| Electrical | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Impact Attenuators | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Lighting | $ 932,873 | $ 467,165 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Pavement Marking | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Safety Improvements | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Sign Installation/Upgrading | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Structural Signing | $ 54,025 | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Section I Total: | $ 4,882,300 | $ 1,884,541 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Mowing, Litter Mgmt, Sight Distance Clearing, Etc. | |||||
| Grand Total Federal Aid: | $ 4,882,300 | $ 1,884,541 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Statewide and District Contracts | |||||
| Program Group/Sub Group | Est SFY 2024 Spending | Est SFY 2025 Spending | Est SFY 2026 Spending | Est SFY 2027 Spending | Est SFY 2028 Spending |
| Part 1: Non-Federal Aid | |||||
| Section I - Non Federal Aid Maintenance Projects - State Bondfunds | |||||
| 01 - ADA Retrofits | |||||
| Sidewalk Construction and Repairs | $ 2,527,973 | $ 1,154,109 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 02 - Bicycles and pedestrians program | |||||
| Bikeway/Bike Path Construction | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 03 - Bridge | |||||
| Bridge Maintenance | $ 36,832,755 | $ 27,374,727 | $ 11,202,912 | $ 927,820 | $ - |
| Bridge Maintenance - Deck Repairs | $ 10,003,534 | $ 10,139,124 | $ 7,440,018 | $ 546,417 | $ - |
| Bridge Maintenance - Joints | $ 1,622,979 | $ 1,888,486 | $ 1,573,739 | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Preservation | $ 3,461,504 | $ 1,774,656 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Replacement | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Drawbridge Maintenance | $ 8,369,008 | $ 6,317,237 | $ 2,625,000 | $ 515,007 | $ - |
| Painting - Structural | $ 741,316 | $ 415,475 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Structures Maintenance | $ (43,962) | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 04 - Capacity | |||||
| Highway Relocation | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Hwy Reconstr - Added Capacity | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Hwy Reconstr - Major Widening | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 05 - Facilities | |||||
| Vertical Construction (Ch 149) | $ 8,934,384 | $ 2,709,748 | $ 1,439,204 | $ 206,609 | $ - |
| 07 - Intersection Improvements | |||||
| Traffic Signals | $ 3,682,661 | $ 2,380,658 | $ 2,014,210 | $ 102,122 | $ - |
| 08 - Interstate Pavement | |||||
| Resurfacing Interstate | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 09 - Intelligent Transportation Systems Program | |||||
| Intelligent Transportation System | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 10 - Non-interstate DOT Pavement Program | |||||
| Milling and Cold Planing | $ 5,369,210 | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Resurfacing | $ 26,463,372 | $ 15,822,396 | $ 7,243,191 | $ - | $ - |
| Resurfacing DOT Owned Non-Interstate | $ 10,246,699 | $ 2,669,150 | $ 4,321,796 | $ 1,786,791 | $ - |
| 11 - Roadway Improvements | |||||
| Asbestos Removal | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Catch Basin Cleaning | $ 2,639,496 | $ 1,152,484 | $ 241,154 | $ - | $ - |
| Contract Highway Maintenance | $ 13,780,927 | $ 14,433,780 | $ 7,827,224 | $ 942,840 | $ - |
| Crack Sealing | $ 1,120,385 | $ 874,404 | $ 845,600 | $ 51,969 | $ - |
| Culvert Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Culvert Reconstruction/Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Drainage | $ 8,915,161 | $ 10,552,249 | $ 2,223,511 | $ - | $ - |
| Dredging | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Guard Rail & Fencing | $ 8,074,789 | $ 5,566,800 | $ 3,198,449 | $ 246,000 | $ - |
| Highway Sweeping | $ 1,285,981 | $ 1,038,047 | $ 283,520 | $ - | $ - |
| Landscaping | $ 661,954 | $ 997,891 | $ 844,696 | $ - | $ - |
| Mowing and Spraying | $ 3,718,863 | $ 1,739,747 | $ 1,258,591 | $ 187,826 | $ - |
| Sewer and Water | $ 357,394 | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Tree Trimming | $ 4,155,926 | $ 4,285,897 | $ 2,775,495 | $ 572,870 | $ - |
| 12 - Roadway Reconstruction | |||||
| Hwy Reconstr - No Added Capacity | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Hwy Reconstr - Restr and Rehab | $ 3,999,753 | $ 50,053 | $ 30,590 | $ - | $ - |
| Roadway - Reconstr - Sidewalks and Curbing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 13 - Safety Improvements | |||||
| Electrical | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Impact Attenuators | $ 1,243,385 | $ 730,625 | $ 579,195 | $ 48,696 | $ - |
| Lighting | $ 4,327,624 | $ 3,549,482 | $ 1,974,433 | $ 78,087 | $ - |
| Pavement Marking | $ 5,034,163 | $ 2,880,555 | $ 1,164,804 | $ - | $ - |
| Safety Improvements | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Sign Installation/Upgrading | $ 1,673,740 | $ 749,713 | $ 533,787 | $ 65,026 | $ - |
| Structural Signing | $ 467,090 | $ 98,000 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Section I Total: | $ 179,668,063 | $ 121,345,493 | $ 61,641,119 | $ 6,278,079 | $ - |
| Section II - Non Federal Aid Highway Operations - State Operating Budget Funding | |||||
| Snow and Ice Operations & Materials | |||||
| $ 75,000,000 | $ 95,000,000 | $ 95,000,000 | $ 95,000,000 | $ 95,000,000 | |
| District Maintenance Payroll | |||||
| Mowing, Litter Mgmt, Sight Distance Clearing, Etc. | $ 36,200,000 | $ 37,290,000 | $ 38,410,000 | $ 39,570,000 | $ 40,760,000 |
| Section II Total: | $ 111,200,000 | $ 132,290,000 | $ 133,410,000 | $ 134,570,000 | $ 135,760,000 |
| Grand Total NFA: | $ 290,868,063 | $ 253,635,493 | $ 195,051,119 | $ 140,848,079 | $ 135,760,000 |
| Statewide and District Contracts | |||||
| Program Group/Sub Group | Est SFY 2024 Spending | Est SFY 2025 Spending | Est SFY 2026 Spending | Est SFY 2027 Spending | Est SFY 2028 Spending |
| Part 2: Federal Aid | |||||
| Section I - Federal Aid Maintenance Projects | |||||
| 01 - ADA Retrofits | |||||
| Sidewalk Construction and Repairs | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 02 - Bicycles and pedestrians program | |||||
| Bikeway/Bike Path Construction | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 03 - Bridge | |||||
| Bridge Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Maintenance - Deck Repairs | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Maintenance - Joints | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Preservation | $ 1,603,769 | $ 820,406 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Reconstruction/Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Drawbridge Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Painting - Structural | $ 53,456 | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Structures Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 04 - Capacity | |||||
| Hwy Reconstr - Added Capacity | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 05 - Facilities | |||||
| Vertical Construction (Ch 149) | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 07 - Intersection Improvements | |||||
| Traffic Signals | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 08 - Interstate Pavement | |||||
| Resurfacing Interstate | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 09 - Intelligent Transportation Systems Program | |||||
| Intelligent Transportation System | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 10 - Non-interstate DOT Pavement Program | |||||
| Milling and Cold Planing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Resurfacing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Resurfacing DOT Owned Non-Interstate | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 11 - Roadway Improvements | |||||
| Asbestos Removal | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Catch Basin Cleaning | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Contract Highway Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Crack Sealing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Culvert Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Culvert Reconstruction/Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Drainage | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Guard Rail & Fencing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Highway Sweeping | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Landscaping | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Mowing and Spraying | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Sewer and Water | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Tree Trimming | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 12 - Roadway Reconstruction | |||||
| Hwy Reconstr - Restr and Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 13 - Safety Improvements | |||||
| Electrical | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Impact Attenuators | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Lighting | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Pavement Marking | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Safety Improvements | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Sign Installation/Upgrading | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Structural Signing | $ 54,025 | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Section I Total: | $ 1,711,249 | $ 820,406 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Mowing, Litter Mgmt, Sight Distance Clearing, Etc. | |||||
| Grand Total Federal Aid: | $ 1,711,249 | $ 820,406 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Boston Region | |||||
| Program Group/Sub Group | Est SFY 2024 Spending | Est SFY 2025 Spending | Est SFY 2026 Spending | Est SFY 2027 Spending | Est SFY 2028 Spending |
| Part 1: Non-Federal Aid | |||||
| Section I - Non Federal Aid Maintenance Projects - State Bondfunds | |||||
| 01 - ADA Retrofits | |||||
| Sidewalk Construction and Repairs | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 02 - Bicycles and pedestrians program | |||||
| Bikeway/Bike Path Construction | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 03 - Bridge | |||||
| Bridge Maintenance | $ 1,334,884 | $ 2,907,897 | $ 3,758,971 | $ 185,209 | $ - |
| Bridge Maintenance - Deck Repairs | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Maintenance - Joints | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Preservation | $ 5,883,405 | $ 5,722,539 | $ 1,907,513 | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Replacement | $ - | $ 598,754 | $ 1,796,261 | $ 299,377 | $ - |
| Drawbridge Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Painting - Structural | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Structures Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 04 - Capacity | |||||
| Highway Relocation | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Hwy Reconstr - Added Capacity | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Hwy Reconstr - Major Widening | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 05 - Facilities | |||||
| Vertical Construction (Ch 149) | $ 9,014,837 | $ 1,941,818 | $ 170,182 | $ - | $ - |
| 07 - Intersection Improvements | |||||
| Traffic Signals | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 08 - Interstate Pavement | |||||
| Resurfacing Interstate | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 09 - Intelligent Transportation Systems Program | |||||
| Intelligent Transportation System | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 10 - Non-interstate DOT Pavement Program | |||||
| Milling and Cold Planing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Resurfacing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Resurfacing DOT Owned Non-Interstate | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 11 - Roadway Improvements | |||||
| Asbestos Removal | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Catch Basin Cleaning | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Contract Highway Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Crack Sealing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Culvert Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Culvert Reconstruction/Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Drainage | $ 91,592 | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Dredging | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Guard Rail & Fencing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Highway Sweeping | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Landscaping | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Mowing and Spraying | $ 203,072 | $ 4,800 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Sewer and Water | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Tree Trimming | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 12 - Roadway Reconstruction | |||||
| Hwy Reconstr - No Added Capacity | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Hwy Reconstr - Restr and Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Roadway - Reconstr - Sidewalks and Curbing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 13 - Safety Improvements | |||||
| Electrical | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Impact Attenuators | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Lighting | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Pavement Marking | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Safety Improvements | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Sign Installation/Upgrading | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Structural Signing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Section I Total: | $ 16,527,789 | $ 11,175,807 | $ 7,632,927 | $ 484,586 | $ - |
| Section II - Non Federal Aid Highway Operations - State Operating Budget Funding | |||||
| Snow and Ice Operations & Materials | |||||
| $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | |
| District Maintenance Payroll | |||||
| Mowing, Litter Mgmt, Sight Distance Clearing, Etc. | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Section II Total: | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Grand Total NFA: | $ 16,527,789 | $ 11,175,807 | $ 7,632,927 | $ 484,586 | $ - |
| Boston Region | |||||
| Program Group/Sub Group | Est SFY 2024 Spending | Est SFY 2025 Spending | Est SFY 2026 Spending | Est SFY 2027 Spending | Est SFY 2028 Spending |
| Part 2: Federal Aid | |||||
| Section I - Federal Aid Maintenance Projects | |||||
| 01 - ADA Retrofits | |||||
| Sidewalk Construction and Repairs | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 02 - Bicycles and pedestrians program | |||||
| Bikeway/Bike Path Construction | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 03 - Bridge | |||||
| Bridge Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Maintenance - Deck Repairs | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Maintenance - Joints | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Preservation | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Bridge Reconstruction/Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Drawbridge Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Painting - Structural | $ 1,151,810 | $ 596,970 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Structures Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 04 - Capacity | |||||
| Hwy Reconstr - Added Capacity | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 05 - Facilities | |||||
| Vertical Construction (Ch 149) | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 07 - Intersection Improvements | |||||
| Traffic Signals | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 08 - Interstate Pavement | |||||
| Resurfacing Interstate | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 09 - Intelligent Transportation Systems Program | |||||
| Intelligent Transportation System | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 10 - Non-interstate DOT Pavement Program | |||||
| Milling and Cold Planing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Resurfacing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Resurfacing DOT Owned Non-Interstate | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 11 - Roadway Improvements | |||||
| Asbestos Removal | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Catch Basin Cleaning | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Contract Highway Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Crack Sealing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Culvert Maintenance | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Culvert Reconstruction/Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Drainage | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Guard Rail & Fencing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Highway Sweeping | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Landscaping | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Mowing and Spraying | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Sewer and Water | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Tree Trimming | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 12 - Roadway Reconstruction | |||||
| Hwy Reconstr - Restr and Rehab | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| 13 - Safety Improvements | |||||
| Electrical | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Impact Attenuators | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Lighting | $ 932,873 | $ 467,165 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Pavement Marking | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Safety Improvements | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Sign Installation/Upgrading | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Structural Signing | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Section I Total: | $ 2,084,682 | $ 1,064,135 | $ - | $ - | $ - |
| Grand Total NFA: | $ 2,084,682 | $ 1,064,135 | $ - | $ - | $ - |