MPO Meeting Minutes
Draft Memorandum for the Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting
May 14, 2020 Meeting
10:00 AM–12:15 PM, Zoom Conference Call
Steve Woelfel, Chair, representing Stephanie Pollack, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) agreed to the following:
See attendance on page 14.
There was none.
T. Teich reported that the Boston Region MPO received formal recertification from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) following the 2018 federal certification review and the completion of two corrective actions. T. Teich stated that MPO staff continues to pursue implementation of additional recommendations in the certification review report and provides quarterly progress reports to FHWA and FTA.
T. Teich highlighted a successful outreach activity conducted by MPO staff on May 12, 2020. MPO staff and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) co-hosted a forum titled “Essential Trips: A COVID-19 Response Discussion for Local Transit Providers.” The intent of the events was to give regional transit authorities, transportation management associations, Councils on Aging, and other transportation providers a chance to discuss the challenges they are facing and adaptations they are making during the pandemic. Speakers included Monica Tibbits-Nutt from 128 Business Council, Susan Barrett from the Town of Lexington’s Lexpress service, Michelle Brooks from TransAction Associates, and Rachel Fichtenbaum from MassMobility. T. Teich stated that a recording of the conversation is posted to the MPO’s YouTube channel.
T. Teich stated that this meeting would be the last MPO presentation for Andrew Clark, who would be taking a position at the Greater Portland Council of Governments. T. Teich thanked A. Clark for his work at MPO staff.
There were none.
Brian Kane (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority [MBTA] Advisory Board) reported that Paul Regan, long-time Executive Director of the MPO Board and MPO member, retired at the end of March. B. Kane stated that P. Regan served on the MPO board for 21 years and that his retirement represents a loss of institutional knowledge for the MPO; he has stayed on to assist B. Kane during the transition. B. Kane stated that the MPO will likely honor P. Regan’s service at a future meeting.
S. Woelfel acknowledged P. Regan’s service at the MPO and stated that the MPO would work to honor P. Regan’s work appropriately at a future meeting. S. Woelfel added that one of P. Regan’s roles at the MPO was as Chair of the Administration and Finance (A&F) Committee. A discussion of the role of this committee appears later on this agenda. S. Woelfel encouraged any members interested in serving as Chair of the A&F Committee to notify the Chair and staff.
L. Diggins acknowledged the service of P. Regan at the MPO as well as in his visits to the MBTA Rider Oversight Committee (which L. Diggins represents on the Regional Transportation Advisory Council). L. Diggins reported that the Advisory Council met on May 13, 2020, and heard from Michelle Ho, Director of Capital Planning at the MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning. M. Ho presented on the interaction between the MassDOT and MPO capital planning processes. L. Diggins stated that the Advisory Council’s 3C Documents Committee also discussed its draft public comment letter to the MPO regarding the draft federal fiscal years (FFY) 2021-25 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 16, 2020, was made by the MAPC (Eric Bourassa) and seconded by the MBTA Advisory Board (B. Kane). The motion carried.
E. Bourassa stated that one of the recommendations of the 2018 federal certification review was that the MPO review its election process to ensure that it is effectively engaging all communities in the region. MAPC and the MBTA Advisory Board jointly administer MPO elections and, as such, have drafted a 10-question survey for municipal TIP contacts to gather information on their awareness of and engagement in the MPO process. E. Bourassa stated that TIP contacts were chosen because they are those most engaged in the MPO process. E. Bourassa stated that the goal of this presentation was to get feedback on the survey questions before distributing the survey.
Tom Kadzis (City of Boston) (Boston Transportation Department) suggested that the survey not include the text of the certification report recommendation in order not to bias respondents for or against the elections process. T. Kadzis suggested adding follow up questions to Questions 1, 3, and 6 in order to investigate why respondents feel the way they do. T. Kadzis also asked whether Question 7 should include the explanation of the reasoning behind the elections process or just focus on what respondents think of the current process.
Tina Cassidy (North Suburban Planning Council) (City of Woburn) suggested that Question 7 could be restated or made more open-ended in order to solicit feedback on specific concerns respondents might have about the elections process rather than encouraging a reopening of the conversation around whether only subregional municipalities should vote for their representatives. E. Bourassa agreed, stating that he personally feels the current policy is the correct one.
L. Diggins agreed with T. Cassidy and asked what percentage of municipalities in the region vote in MPO elections and whether the same municipalities vote every time. E. Bourassa stated that approximately 40 to 50 percent of municipalities on average vote in MPO elections. E. Bourassa stated that he did not know whether the same municipalities participate over time but could investigate this. L. Diggins stated that it would also be interesting to ask questions about why municipalities do not vote, if they don’t.
Tom Bent (Inner Core Committee) (City of Somerville) agreed with T. Kadzis and T. Cassidy.
Sheila Page (At-Large Town) (Town of Lexington) agreed with L. Diggins that it would be useful to investigate the nuances of voting behavior by adding follow up questions to Question One. Regarding Question 4, S. Page stated that it might be useful to add distance or access to Boston as a challenge. S. Page also suggested adding questions about what would make participation easier, for instance continuing virtual meetings beyond the pandemic.
Daniel Amstutz (At-Large Town) (Town of Arlington) agreed with S. Page regarding distance and time commitments. D. Amstutz agreed that the response options for Question 7 seem too binary. D. Amstutz suggested trying to construct questions that investigate what value municipalities do or do not see in the MPO process, given that some municipalities do not have dedicated transportation staff.
David Koses (At-Large City) (City of Newton) stated that he agrees that it does not make sense to have only cities vote for at-large city seats, towns vote for at-large town seats, or subregional municipalities vote for their subregional representatives.
Ken Miller (FHWA) stated that surveys are not always the best instrument to gather information, particularly when looking for why people feel the way they do. K. Miller suggested asking municipalities that have run unsuccessfully for seats about their experiences and why they have chosen not to run again. K. Miller suggested focus groups or interviews in addition to the survey. K. Miller added that many of the questions presented are not necessarily yes or no questions and suggested providing additional response options and disaggregating questions that have multiple parts. K. Miller suggested focusing on communities that have never even voted. K. Miller stated that at every level of the United States government, representatives who are elected by their constituents are expected to balance the needs of the whole with the concerns of their districts. K. Miller stated that sometimes MPO representatives think regionally and sometimes MPO representatives vote in the interest of their own constituencies and neither is necessarily a bad thing.
T. O’Rourke (Three Rivers Interlocal Council) (Town of Norwood/Neponset Valley Chamber of Commerce) suggested prefacing the survey by stating it is part of a regular review process. T. O’Rourke suggested disaggregating the response options for Question 8.
K. Miller stated that there is a middle ground regarding possible term limits, stating that the MPO could have term limits but only when races are contested.
T. Cassidy asked whether there is a need for Question 8 if the survey might reach respondents who have no experience with the MPO process. The results of the survey might be used by the MPO to address the issue of term limits.
S. Page stated that she agreed with T. Cassidy and added that it is her understanding that many municipalities view the MPO process as synonymous with the TIP, and so are not interested in the process unless they have a TIP project.
E. Bourassa stated that given that this issue was raised by the MPO’s federal partners, it makes sense to include it but in a revised format. T. Cassidy suggested asking what respondents think would improve the process relative to term limits and provide multiple choice answers.
L. Diggins suggested simply asking respondents whether they think there should be term limits or not, and agreed with K. Miller that it would be helpful to have some outreach outside of the survey.
B. Kane stated that the downward trend on participation in local government processes is not unique to the MPO, and so the lack of participation may not necessarily be something the MPO is doing wrong, but that the survey is a good first step and something the MPO should move forward with.
D. Amstutz acknowledged that some municipalities have limited resources and would need additional help to participate. D. Amstutz stated that trying to address this without addressing the foundational capacity issues that some municipalities face seems to be addressing the wrong issue.
E. Bourassa thanked the board members for their feedback and stated that he and B. Kane would incorporate it into the survey and work with the MPO Chair before sending it to municipalities.
J. Church presented an overview of the MPO’s three committees: the A&F committee, the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) committee, and the Congestion Management Process (CMP) committee. The goal of this presentation was to make sure that all board members were aware of the committees and how to participate.
Hiral Gandhi (MPO Staff) stated that the role of the A&F committee is to ensure that the fiduciary responsibilities of the MPO are being maintained and that policies and procedures are in place. Some of the responsibilities of the committee include budgeting and financial planning, financial reporting, and the creation and monitoring of internal controls and accountability policies. Typical tasks are to oversee the annual operating budget, approve the budget within the committee, and give recommendations to the full MPO board award for approval. In the near future, the committee may work with MPO staff to determine the financial implications of the strategic plan and work with the staff to plan a multi-year organizational budget that will financially support the implementation of the recommended strategy. Historically, the committee has met once a year during the development and approval of the operating budget but could meet twice a year or once every quarter.
Ben Muller (MassDOT) stated that the UPWP committee oversees the development of the UPWP, which is a financial plan identifying the work MPO staff will perform to support the functioning and decision-making of the MPO and member municipalities. These tasks are then fleshed out as the scopes of work that the board regularly votes on. The next draft UPWP document will likely be presented at the next MPO meeting. The UPWP committee provides an opportunity for board members to help prioritize the studies and technical assistance performed by MPO staff. Meetings are usually held the hour before the MPO meeting and typically occur once a month during the spring. MPO staff develops the Universe of Studies and tasks and seeks guidance on which specific tasks should be selected from that universe for inclusion in the UPWP. Meetings are held throughout the remainder of the year for occasional amendments. B. Muller stated that the committee would likely be reevaluting the formal membership of the committee in the coming months. B. Muller encouraged any members interested in the committee to reach out to him or Sandy Johnston, MPO staff.
Mark Abbott (MPO Staff) stated that the CMP committee supports and identifies tasks for the CMP to look at. In the past couple of years the committee has done an overall collection of park-and-ride data throughout the MBTA system and is currently in the process of creating a summary of the collection effort and an online dashboard. The committee has also supported the update of the MPO’s express highway dashboards. M. Abbott said that the committee is important for guiding staff efforts as part of the CMP program. Jay Monty (At-Large City) (City of Everett) stated that the kinds of data and tools the committee has developed over the past few years will be incredibly useful for influencing decision-making, particularly in the context of the current pandemic. J. Monty encouraged interested members to participate.
K. Miller noted that the 2018 federal certification review recommended that the MPO develop the operations plan outlined in its Memo of Understanding, and the practices and policies of subcommittee operation should be included in this document.
introduced further discussion of the MPO’s definition of Major Infrastructure
program projects in the LRTP. While the MPO was
developing the current LRTP, Destination
2040, FHWA confirmed that its only requirement for listing a major
infrastructure project in the LRTP is that a project be one that changes the
capacity of the transportation network. There is no threshold for cost. At the
MPO meeting on November 21, 2019, the MPO discussed whether to continue to
include the current $20 million cost threshold in its definition of Major
Infrastructure program projects. The board decided to continue to include this
threshold. The current definition for a Major Infrastructure project is one
that changes capacity of the transportation network and/or costs more than $20
million. The issue arose again in discussions of the draft FFY 2020-24 TIP
Amendment Three, when three Complete Street projects reached the $20 million
threshold. This required the MPO to amend the LRTP to include these three
projects (Route 126 project in Ashland, Ferry Street in Everett, and Mount
Auburn Street in Watertown). The question raised at that time was whether the
MPO should consider Complete Streets projects that cost more than $20 million
in the Major Infrastructure Program or in the Complete Streets Program. This
would affect the MPO’s funding goals for investment programs as established in
the LRTP. The funding goals in Destination
2040 established that no more than 30 percent of the MPO’s Regional Target
funds should be allocated to the Major Infrastructure program. The goal for the
Complete Streets program is 45 percent. If the three Complete Streets projects
amended into the LRTP were recategorized as Major Infrastructure, the MPO would
no longer be meeting the goals established in the LRTP. Moving forward, the MPO
can consider four options:
Amendments may be required in the future if project costs increase during the
development of the TIP. Currently there are additional projects programmed in
FFY 2024 and 2025 with costs nearing $20 million. Given that revisions to the
project evaluation criteria are currently underway with a unique set of
criteria associated with each investment program, continuing to use the $20
million threshold may result in a Major Infrastructure program that includes a variety
of projects that span many project types. It may be more beneficial to evaluate
these projects using the criteria specific to their project type than that of the
Major Infrastructure program.
reviewing project costs for Complete Streets projects that have recently been
submitted, a threshold of $50 million could exclude these types of projects
from the Major Infrastructure Program.
Option 3: Change the definition to apply to
projects on certain types of roadways
The MPO could choose, for example, only those
on the National Highway System or those with a certain level of average daily
option allows all projects to remain in the investment program aligned with
their project type, and the new project evaluation criteria can be properly
applied. It also eliminates the requirement for LRTP amendments during TIP development
as costs increase. The definition
must still include all projects that change the capacity of the transportation
conducted research on the policies held by other large MPOs. Some do not have a
threshold dollar amount identified in their LRTPs. Some identify threshold
dollar amounts for different kinds of projects.
Samantha Silverberg (MBTA) asked whether there are projects currently included in the Major Infrastructure program that would no longer be included if the MPO were to discontinue the cost threshold. A. McGahan replied that there are five Complete Streets projects that are currently in the Major Infrastructure program that do not change the capacity of the transportation network and are only included because of cost. S. Silverberg stated that it seems like the MPO should have some way of accounting for projects that don’t change capacity but do have an impact on a wide range of the public, whether by including some measure of the kind of roadway or vehicle miles traveled.
T. Cassidy stated that the $20 million threshold is no longer appropriate, and the Major Infrastructure definition should capture projects with a regional impact, such as an interchange improvement or significant transit extension. T. Cassidy expressed support for, at a minimum, increasing the threshold to at least $50 million, perhaps $60 or $75 million.
D. Amstutz agreed with T. Cassidy, stating that the $20 million seems to function like a proxy for the tipping point at which a project becomes Major Infrastructure. D. Amstutz advocated for increasing the threshold and also including some other metrics.
J. Monty agreed with T. Cassidy and D. Amstutz. J. Monty asked about Major Infrastructure projects like McGrath Boulevard in Somerville, which do not increase the capacity of the system. A. McGahan clarified that the definition is that the project changes the capacity of the system, not that it increases capacity. Any change to the capacity of the system would qualify. J. Monty noted that there are some as yet unfunded projects that have been proposed for funding in the LRTP that may not qualify under a new definition, and cautioned that a new definition not create a situation where projects fall out of consideration.
E. Bourassa supported increasing the cost threshold and looking at other criteria related to impact.
L. Diggins asked when the $20 million threshold was established. A. McGahan briefly reviewed the history of guidance from FHWA regarding cost thresholds, which have changed over time. L. Diggins advocated for discontinuing use of the cost threshold and coming to an agreement on what Major Infrastructure really means. L. Diggins stated that if the threshold is maintained, the MPO should retain projects in their original categories and adopt a certain threshold at which projects must be recategorized.
K. Miller stated that FHWA guidance is that Major Infrastructure projects must be regionally significant, and regionally significant projects are those that change capacity in a way that must be modeled for air quality impacts using the travel demand model. K. Miller stated that it would make sense to raise the cost threshold and create a definition that includes regionally significant projects. K. Miller suggested that the MPO call Major Infrastructure projects “Regionally Significant,” retaining Complete Streets in its own category.
T. Bent agreed with previous commenters that the MPO should raise the threshold and redefine the kinds of projects that would apply in ways that can be explained to the public.
Jim Fitzgerald (City of Boston) (Boston Planning & Development Agency) advocated for keeping some cost threshold in order to retain a level of scrutiny for projects that are that expensive.
S. Woelfel stated that MassDOT is fine with using the federal definition of impact on air quality, and that it seemed like members were interested in raising the cost threshold.
D. Amstutz asked whether the threshold should be a specific amount, or whether it should be tied to the amount of regional target funding available in a given year, and whether eligibility for Advanced Construction (AC) could be incorporated into the definition.
A. McGahan noted that the percentage of regional target funding might be confusing because the amount of funding changes year to year. For the AC amount, this may replicate the issues already at play because the FHWA guidance is $25 million.
K. Miller stated that the $25 million guidance is essentially arbitrary to prevent AC being used for every project.
S. Woelfel conducted a straw poll, asking any members opposed to raising the threshold to $50 million to raise their hands. No members raised their hands. S. Woelfel asked members who agreed that raising the threshold to $50 million is the correct number to raise their hands, and for members who would prefer to have no threshold at all to raise their hands. These straw polls indicated that most members were in agreement with the $50 million threshold and some preferred no threshold.
A. McGahan stated that staff would take these results and look at what other metrics the MPO could use to define Major Infrastructure projects. S. Woelfel asked A. McGahan to provide members with the written federal definition of regionally significant projects.
A. Clark provided an update on the “Transit Mitigation for New Developments” study originally funded in the FFY 2020 UPWP. The original intent of this project was to study potential mitigation strategies for increased transit ridership caused by new developments by reviewing national best practices and identifying needs in the Boston region. MassDOT has also been working on this topic and in the course of scoping the study, MPO staff determined that there was little opportunity for MPO staff to add value to their existing workflow. To avoid duplicating their work, MPO staff began exploring related study ideas to pursue instead. MPO staff developed an additional project idea that keeps with the theme of the original project and supports a number of additional internal and external efforts. The topic of focus is trip generation rates at new developments. Traditionally, trip generation rates come from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The data for this manual was collected at suburban single-use sites and tends to overestimate vehicular trips and underestimate trips by transit biking or walking. This means there is limited applicability to urban settings and especially to mixed-use developments. There are some efforts underway across the country to develop other ways of estimating trip generation, and these methodologies typically involve gathering site-specific data. MPO staff believe a more thorough investigation of these methodologies could be beneficial to the Boston region and would benefit future transit mitigation work. The CTPS modeling group will undertake an FFY 2021 UPWP study to examine the applicability of ITE rates to the Boston region. MPO staff believes there's an opportunity to conduct a review of national best practices with regard to innovative approaches to estimating trip generation rates prior to this effort. Staff estimates that a literature review of this nature would require $30,000 should the board choose to proceed. The board will also need to decide what to do with the remaining $30,000, because the original transit mitigation study was budgeted at $60,000. MPO staff suggests a review of nationwide and international Vision Zero policies.
D. Amstutz expressed general support for study of both trip generation and Vision Zero, but asked how this work differs from the work proposed for next FFY. A. Clark stated that the work proposed for FFY 2021 will take Boston-specific trip data and then work with ITE to recalibrate those rates to the Boston region. The work proposed here is to look at innovative ways to get trip generation rates without using the ITE manual being advanced nationally.
Note: At this point,
E. Bourassa assumed the chair’s seat.
D. Amstutz suggested that the additional funding could be used to study a topic germane to the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Scott Peterson (MPO Staff) added that one of the main differences between the UPWP study that's proposed for the fall and the work being proposed by A. Clark is that the FFY 2021 study will use observed data from developments that have actually happened in this region. The work proposed by A. Clark looks at inferred data based on socio-economic characteristics.
L. Diggins asked whether leaving the funding unused would mean that MPO staff would lose the funding. L. Diggins agreed with D. Amstutz that looking at ways to deal with COVID-19 recovery would also be useful.
J. Fitzgerald asked whether MassDOT would be able to provide the MPO with an update on its trip generation work. J. Fitzgerald stated that the trip generation research would be a great use of these funds, and that work should focus on refining the internal trip capture factors of trip generation.
T. Teich agreed that there are interesting COVID-19 related questions evolving that MPO staff is starting to filter into its work, while acknowledging that this is challenging because of the ongoing nature of the crisis. T. Teich stated that staff is open to concrete study ideas on this topic.
Annette Demchur (MPO Staff) clarified that if MPO staff doesn't use the additional $30,000 or the $60,000 it remains on the table. If the MPO chooses to move forward with the trip generation research and the board feels that that fits within the transit mitigation scope, then the MPO would not have to amend the UPWP. However, if MPO staff used the other $30,000 for a project that does not fit within the scope of the transit mitigation work, the MPO would have to amend the UPWP to include the new project.
B. Muller stated that MassDOT has conducted a preliminary literature review, which focused more on policy than CTPS’s work would have. MassDOT’s public-private development unit is now putting together a scope for additional work. Regarding COVID-19, the MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning is looking at what the pandemic means for next year’s work program.
Laura Gilmore (Massport) expressed support for the trip generation research topic.
E. Bourassa stated that MAPC is in support of this topic, noting that more research-based literature review projects are the kinds of work that are more feasible for staff in the current work from home environment. E. Bourassa added that he is aware that MassDOT and the MBTA are working to understand different reopening scenarios, what transit demand will be, and suggested that there might be ways for CTPS to help with lighter weight modeling of what different reopening scenarios might look like.
T. Teich agreed with E. Bourassa regarding research projects and stated that the proposed Vision Zero work could be useful at this time.
S. Peterson stated that there are a number of ongoing projects regarding trip generation, and CTPS is working to avoid duplication of work. S. Peterson stated that CTPS is monitoring ongoing travel behavior changes during the pandemic to reassess forecasting and trip generation going forward.
A. Clark clarified that if the board is comfortable with the trip generation research, staff can write a scope and begin that project. For the additional $30,000, whether it relates to Vision Zero or COVID-19, staff would write an amendment to the UPWP before bringing a new scope to the board.
Sandy Johnston (MPO Staff) stated that the MPO will be preparing a UPWP amendment anyway, and this new project could be included with that amendment.
E. Bourassa encouraged staff to move forward with scoping the trip generation project and bring another idea for the remaining funds to the UPWP Committee as an amendment to forward to the MPO.
B. Kane stated that there would be an MBTA Advisory Board meeting on Tuesday, May 19, 2020.
S. Woelfel stated that the next MPO Board meeting would be held Thursday, May 28, 2020.
A motion to adjourn was made by the Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) (T. Bent) and seconded by the MBTA Advisory Board (B. Kane). The motion carried.
At-Large City (City of Everett)
At-Large City (City of Newton)
At-Large Town (Town of Arlington)
At-Large Town (Town of Lexington)
City of Boston (Boston Planning &
City of Boston (Boston Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville)
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
MassDOT Highway Division
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Massachusetts Port Authority
MBTA Advisory Board
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
MetroWest Regional Collaborative (City of
Thatcher Kezer III
Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal
Coordination (Town of Acton)
North Shore Task Force (City of Beverly)
North Suburban Planning Council (City of
Regional Transportation Advisory Council
South Shore Coalition (Town of Rockland)
South West Advisory Planning Committee
(Town of Medway)
Three Rivers Interlocal Council (Town of
Norwood/Neponset Valley Chamber of Commerce)
City of Somerville
MassDOT Highway District 5
City of Quincy
Town of Norwood
MassDOT Highway District 4
Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff
Tegin Teich, Executive Director
The Boston Region
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) operates its programs, services, and
activities in compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws including Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the Civil Rights Restoration
Act of 1987, and related statutes and regulations. Title VI prohibits
discrimination in federally assisted programs and requires that no person in
the United States of America shall, on the grounds of race, color, or
national origin (including limited English proficiency), be excluded from
participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity that receives federal
assistance. Related federal nondiscrimination laws administered by the
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, or both, prohibit
discrimination on the basis of age, sex, and disability. The Boston Region
MPO considers these protected populations in its Title VI Programs,
consistent with federal interpretation and administration. In addition, the
Boston Region MPO provides meaningful access to its programs, services, and
activities to individuals with limited English proficiency, in compliance
with U.S. Department of Transportation policy and guidance on federal
Executive Order 13166.
The Boston Region MPO also
complies with the Massachusetts Public Accommodation Law, M.G.L. c 272
sections 92a, 98, 98a, which prohibits making any distinction,
discrimination, or restriction in admission to, or treatment in a place of
public accommodation based on race, color, religious creed, national origin,
sex, sexual orientation, disability, or ancestry. Likewise, the Boston Region
MPO complies with the Governor's Executive Order 526, section 4, which
requires that all programs, activities, and services provided, performed,
licensed, chartered, funded, regulated, or contracted for by the state shall
be conducted without unlawful discrimination based on race, color, age,
gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression,
religion, creed, ancestry, national origin, disability, veteran's status
(including Vietnam-era veterans), or background.
A complaint form and
additional information can be obtained by contacting the MPO or at http://www.bostonmpo.org/mpo_non_discrimination. To request this
information in a different language or in an accessible format, please
Title VI Specialist