Draft Memorandum for the
Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Process, Engagement, and Readiness
Committee Meeting Summary
December 14, 2023, Meeting
1:00 PM–2:30 PM, Zoom Video Conferencing Platform
Jen Rowe, Chair, representing Mayor Michelle Wu, City of
Boston, and the Boston Transportation Department (BTD)
Meeting Agenda and Summary of
Discussion
1. Introductions—Jen Rowe, Chair, and Ethan Lapointe, TIP Manager
J. Rowe and E. Lapointe welcomed committee members to the
second meeting of the TIP Process, Engagement, and Readiness Committee.
E. Lapointe stated that the meeting objectives were to
provide context for a TIP amendment regarding Newton’s microtransit service, to
be discussed at the MPO board meeting on December 21, and to discuss the full
TIP Universe of Projects and Project Design Pilot.
2.
Public Comments
There were no public comments.
3.
Status Update on Microtransit Projects including Newton in Motion (NewMo)
Scope Change—Ethan Lapointe, TIP Manager
E. Lapointe provided background on the MPO’s Community
Connections investment program, which funds three-year pilots for new
microtransit services. Projects must emphasize providing first- and last-mile
connections and demonstrate air quality benefits.
E. Lapointe indicated that the MPO’s Community Connections
program is one of several funding sources for pilot funds used by service
providers. MassDOT’s Community Transit Grants is another source. He noted that
pilots had been employed by the MPO in the past. The current program is an
iteration of the Workforce Transportation Grant Program.
E. Lapointe listed the seven currently funded microtransit
services in the FFYs 2024–28 TIP: Canton’s Royall Street Shuttle, Cape Ann
Transportation Authority’s (CATA) On-Demand service, NewMo Microtransit, Montachusett
Regional Transit Authority’s (MART) Microtransit service, MetroWest Regional
Transit Authority’s (MWRTA) on-demand Catch Connect service, Stoneham’s fixed-route
shuttle, and Watertown’s fixed route shuttle.
E. Lapointe provided background information on the NewMo
shuttle, which has been funded by the MPO since federal fiscal year (FFY) 2021
with $1.6 million in contributions over five years. The latest ridership data
was also provided to illustrate rapid growth in demand and a stark decline in
ridership after eligibility restrictions were put in place. Restrictions were
put in place due to rising costs. MPO contributions did not scale with rising
costs, and the on-demand nature of the service was not conducive to economies
of scale. Costs per unique rider grew heavily.
E. Lapointe explained how the ridership eligibility
restrictions put in place by the City of Newton required an amendment to the
project in the FFYs 2024–28 TIP to reflect the change in scope.
E. Lapointe noted that NewMo is a strong performer in
ridership, and the challenges faced are indicative of future discussions that
will be had about other services that may be struggling.
E. Lapointe illustrated that the cost of running multiple
MPO-funded microtransit projects has heavily impacted funding availability
within the Community Connections program for other first-and-last-mile work.
In FFY 2025, existing microtransit shuttles accounted for more than 60 percent of
the funding set-aside before new projects could be considered.
E. Lapointe discussed demand and supply issues, noting that limited
paratransit service is provided by regional transit authorities (RTAs) and that
the MBTA is a strong driver of municipal demand for microtransit. He noted that
RTAs may also treat microtransit as a substitute for low-ridership fixed
routes. Almost every municipality has expressed an interest in microtransit,
but funding has been a major constraint, and post-COVID mobility trends are
being worked out.
E. Lapointe discussed how it is difficult to benchmark
success and find out what works based on the unique contexts of many shuttles services.
There is much academic, industry, and media coverage of the topic, but local
contexts and changing mobility trends make implementation of a regional
strategy difficult. Pilots often become expensive information-gathering
exercises.
E. Lapointe discussed how each of the shuttle projects
funded by the MPO were performing, with NewMo and MWRTA’s CatchConnect services
being the two that showed the strongest indication of being able to continue
after MPO funding concluded.
E. Lapointe noted that further pilots could still be funded
in future years of the TIP. However, most projects funded have struggled to
demonstrate potential to continue.
Discussion
Nicole Freedman (City of Newton) expressed thanks for MPO
support for microtransit and innovative technologies to gather data on this
service. Cities like Newton with high car ownership rates still have high
demand for these kinds of affordable services. Newton is looking at new avenues
to continue funding the program under a new contract and will evaluate pricing
to make the system sustainable.
Lenard Diggins (Regional Transportation Advisory Council)
inquired as to what kinds of metrics MPO staff use to evaluate the success of
microtransit programs.
E. Lapointe noted that reductions in carbon dioxide, volatile
organic compounds, and nitrogen oxide emissions were necessary to demonstrate
compliance. The MPO uses cost per passenger trip to gauge how viable the
shuttle may be in the absence of an MPO subsidy. The MPO cannot support a
project past three years because of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
funding rules. Reductions over time in the cost of passenger trips and the
numbers of unique riders are key.
L. Diggins asked how benefits may be quantified in
comparison to those costs for consistency with other MPO goals.
E. Lapointe stated that many shuttle operators survey
customers to get information about satisfaction rates as part of funding
reauthorization. MPO staff are using a Conveyal study to better understand how
microtransit provides access and serves different equity populations. One of
the issues in benchmarking success is the unique nature of each shuttle versus the
others.
J. Ostroff clarified that NewMo uses a significant amount of
mitigation funding from mixed-use development in addition to other grant funds
for operating costs. Newton demonstrates coordination between housing
developments with lower parking thresholds and microtransit service to support
alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles and, therefore, lower parking
thresholds.
J. Rowe asked how microtransit would compare in a cost-benefit
analysis to other types of projects under Community Connections, citing
Bluebikes as an example.
E. Lapointe noted that Newton was not being cited solely
because of cost issues, rather because data was available and there was a scope
change, and because the issues were somewhat systemic to microtransit projects
funded by the MPO. The MPO is evaluating other new funding opportunities for
Community Connections thanks to new flexibility under the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law.
N. Freedman mentioned that cost per trip for microtransit
tends to factor in capital and operating cost, whereas Bluebikes does not
necessarily factor that in. Factoring in capital costs for Bluebikes tends to
increase the cost per trip to a degree beyond where it is shown in a solely
operating context.
4.
FFYs 2025–29 TIP Universe of Projects Overview—Ethan Lapointe, TIP
Manager
E. Lapointe reviewed the funding of the FFY 2024-28 TIP. There
was $150.2 million allocated to 21 new projects; 10 of were Community
Connections projects and three were Transit Transformation projects. The TIP
funds 58 projects with $697.5 million in Regional Target funding, and in the FFY
2024-28 TIP new programs, such as the Design Pilot and Bikeshare Support programs,
were created to bolster the project pipeline.
E. Lapointe cited the stark downward trend in applications
that the MPO has received since the FFYs 2019-23 TIP cycle, decreasing from 25
applications in that year to eight applications to core investment programs in
FFYs 2024-28. Smaller dollar investment programs represent a growing part of
the application portfolio.
E. Lapointe reviewed the lifecycle of projects that are
candidates for TIP funding. The cycle begins either with a MassDOT Highway
discussion or with MPO staff. Both lead to the intake process and project
scoping. MassDOT’s Project Review Committee is the main gate for project
proponents seeking federal funding.
E. Lapointe described how these phases enable projects to be
eligible under the TIP for the project design pilot and construction funds, and
how 25 percent design enables preference for construction funding
consideration.
E. Lapointe reviewed the new TIP Universe. This Universe is
based on the one presented in November 2022 minus the programmed or deactivated
projects. The list is refined through correspondence with state, regional, and
local stakeholders.
E. Lapointe gave a high-level visual overview of the TIP
Universe with 143 projects. The Universe now accounts for Community
Connections. There are 38 more projects than last year due to less gatekeeping,
which allows the TIP Universe to reflect projects that may be pursuing design
funding. A growing Universe means there is a growing body of work.
E. Lapointe discussed the Universe by subregion. The Inner
Core had an increase in bicycle and pedestrian projects, and Inner Core
projects tended to have momentum in obtaining MassDOT approvals and funding for
design. MAGIC and MetroWest saw the most increases, from 7 each to 15 in MAGIC
and 10 in MetroWest. In these subregions, there are multiple municipalities
expressing interest in projects, including projects for Community Connections.
The northern suburbs and North Shore saw some growth, but these regions have
historically been well engaged with the TIP and are familiar with designing and
initiating projects; most of the projects focused on vulnerable user safety.
The southwestern subregions of SWAP and TRIC saw growth thanks to Complete
Streets, but almost all new projects were in four communities because other
communities had issues getting projects initiated and designed. The South Shore
communities saw the least growth and had little engagement with MPO staff, who
are currently working with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) to
coordinate a strategy there to address resilience and trail gap concerns.
In the interest of time, a discussion of this topic occurred
during the subsequent agenda item on the Design Pilot Update.
5.
FFY 2025 Project Design Pilot Update—Ethan Lapointe, TIP Manager
E. Lapointe discussed the parameters of the design pilot, explaining
that $4 million was available for design work only in FFY 2025 to bring
projects to any desired stage of design. Applications to date have focused
heavily on dedicated bike and pedestrian infrastructure and intersection safety,
with fewer applications applying directly for the Complete Streets investment program.
E. Lapointe cautioned that strong interest in the Design Pilot program may be
positive to justify demand for the resources, but would constrain the MPO’s
ability to support all of the applications it received.
E. Lapointe suggested a compartmentalization process for
Project Scenarios. The objective would be to create “bundles” of projects for
the Design Pilot, Community Connections, Transit Transformation, and new Outer
Year projects, so they may be discussed separately for ease of consideration.
If additional funding was available, those uses would be addressed after the
draft scenario was created.
E. Lapointe mentioned that new scenarios for the FFYs
2025-29 TIP would emphasize some project areas more heavily than in previous
years. For example, more consideration may be given to an applicant
representing a municipality that had not had a TIP project in recent years.
Discussion
J. Rowe opened the floor to discussion.
Brad Rawson, Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville),
noted that the forum was helpful for enabling further discussion and
transparency in the TIP development process at this early stage.
L. Diggins noted that communities that lack staff capacity
may be affected negatively in the evaluation of design pilots and that the
process may reinforce the pattern of these communities not having projects. These
communities should also be given resources to get that capacity, he said. L.
Diggins asked if funding or MPO staff capacity were the main constraint to providing
technical assistance to communities.
E. Lapointe said that if funding is available, the MPO board
makes the decisions. He cautioned that the Community Connections program is an
example of where funding too many projects over multiple years would constrain
the ability to administer funding to new projects over time and make managing
projects at the state, local, and regional levels tricky. The other major
consideration is that projects funded for design by the MPO may be funded for construction
by the MPO. While obligations to fund more construction projects offsets current
issues with low application volumes, in an environment of future fiscal
constraint these designs could be shelved and expire.
L. Diggins asked if scenario compartmentalization applied
only to Community Connections or if it counted for other projects.
E. Lapointe responded that it is not for each investment
program, but for the Design Pilot, Community Connections, Transit
Transformation, and Outer Years at first. The purpose of the change was to
mitigate the number of adjustments to programming that would be required if the
scenarios are adjusted by the board during a discussion in a meeting.
Eric Bourassa, MAPC, asked if the trail and bike path
projects had any overlap or coordination with the MassTrails programs to
advance more projects in tandem. E. Bourassa also asked when the Universe
would be formally presented, and E. Lapointe noted that it would be
presented December 21st.
Rachel Benson, Town of Wrentham, asked how MassDOT Highway
Districts and their capacity may be influencing the ability of communities to
advance projects. R. Benson also asked about TIP outreach to directors of
Departments of Public Works, and she asked what smaller communities were doing
with their projects given they were seeing some development.
E. Lapointe noted that most of the Districts are aware of
the design pilot, but most MassDOT districts work with multiple MPOs. District
6 is an exception, working only with the Boston Region MPO, and the MPO
benefits from that. District 3 and 4 are also working with other MPOs that are
considering project design programs. Staff capacity and prerequisites for
initiation and approvals can also be an issue for state staff. For construction
projects, the cost of designing projects has limited municipal progress
alongside staff capacity issues.
Dennis Giombetti, MetroWest Regional Collaborative (City of
Framingham), expressed thanks for coordination between MPO staff and
communities in the region and for advancing a large volume of design project
applications and supporting interest.
E. Lapointe also thanked MassDOT District staff, MAPC
subregional liaisons, and other MPO members for advancing interest in these
projects.
J. Rowe thanked members for the discussion and asked for a
motion to adjourn.
6.
Members Items
There were none.
7.
Adjourn
A motion to adjourn was made by the Regional Transportation
Advisory Council (L. Diggins) and seconded by the MAPC (E. Bourassa). The
motion carried.
