Draft Memorandum for the Record

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization
Meeting Minutes

September 4, 2025, Meeting

10:00 AM–11:47 AM, Zoom Video Conferencing Platform

David Mohler, Chair, representing Monica Tibbits-Nutt, Secretary of Transportation and Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)

Meeting Agenda

1. Introductions

See attendance below.

2. Chair’s Report—David Mohler, MassDOT

D. Mohler announced the June 26, 2025, Executive Session Minutes are not ready to be publicly released as the lawsuit the session was regarding is ongoing.

3. Executive Director’s Report—Tegin Teich, Executive Director, Central Transportation Planning Staff

T. Teich introduced Bohui Liang, Travel Demand Modeling Team Manager of Model Development. T. Teich previewed the agenda and upcoming meetings.

4. Public Comments  

There were none

5. Committee Chairs’ Reports

Jen Rowe, City of Boston, shared that the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project Engagement and Readiness Committee last met on July 24, 2025, and discussed updates to the 2021 TIP Project Cost Increase Policy. They also discussed a new set of readiness guidelines that will come before the full board before the end of the year.

6. Initial TIP Project Rescoring—Ethan Lapointe, Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Staff

E. Lapointe provided an update on project rescoring, primarily that the existing policy has not been used after four TIP cycles despite multiple projects triggering rescoring conditions.

He stated a flaw of the current approach is timeliness, as it is reactive to project changes. Another flaw is consistency, as the current policy required the board to select individual projects for rescoring, and there is no mechanism for rescoring projects evaluated under substantially different criteria sets.

He stated how rescoring would address consistency, clear expectations, fairness and predictability, and repeatability for project proponents and MPO Staff/Board.

He stated that staff were hoping to launch the solicitation of new information for project rescoring today, and it would close December 31, 2025. This would allow for four months to complete updated forms and overlaps with new project solicitation.

E. Lapointe shared a list of five projects that were unscored in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2026 that staff will be rescoring to help improve their understanding of what the projects are delivering as they approach construction.

He shared another list of projects that were scored before FFYs 2022–26 TIP, many of which are under a 134-point scale compared to the current 100-point scale.

He emphasized that updating rescoring practices requires an update to the TIP Project Cost Policies, which is subject to future discussions at the TIP committee and MPO Board.

Discussion

Jay Monty, City of Everett, stated he had an issue with taking projects that are already programmed and asking them to be rescored, especially if the outcome would be recommending removing projects. He also stated that this does not fix the cost or scope increase issues. He stated he did agree with rescoring old unprogrammed projects, just not those already programmed that are moving along as best as they can.

Len Diggins, City of Arlington, agreed with J. Monty and shared that rescoring should only be mandated if a project is being removed from the TIP and competing with all other projects to get back on. He asked if MassDOT fill-in projects have a separate scoring process.

E. Lapointe shared that MassDOT has a separate project scoring policy, but it is at a much earlier stage of the process and does not line up neatly with MPO criteria. L. Diggins asked if performance-based evaluation could still be completed without the rescoring. E. Lapointe responded it could not.

L. Diggins finished by emphasizing that he supports getting all data possible from a project but is uncomfortable with rescoring leading to comparison to other projects.

D. Mohler summarized that some projects will have to be delayed or removed due to cost increases and/or budget. This is an attempt to reset projects to the same criteria so when decisions must be made, all the information is available and based on the same criteria.

E. Lapointe emphasized that requests for new information do not automatically alter a project’s status on the TIP or force the board to decide if a score changes.

Brad Rawson, City of Somerville, stated that the staff presentation and recommendation is consistent with the Board’s efforts to improve transparency and predictability for all partners in the process.

L. Diggins thanked D. Mohler and E. Lapointe for further explanations and emphasized the need for digging into why cost increases are required. He also shared he is now supportive of the rescoring.

J. Rowe shared that some of L. Diggins’ worries may be addressed by upcoming readiness guidelines discussed at TIP Committee meetings.

B. Rawson asked if all 13 projects that needed rescoring were municipal proponents or if some were MassDOT proponents. E. Lapointe stated that the proponents were contacted last week, as well as each of the MassDOT project managers, and, yes, some projects were MassDOT proponents.

7. Multimodal Mobility Infrastructure Program (MMIP): Woburn Intersection Study—Kyle Casiglio, MPO Staff

Documents posted to the MPO meeting calendar

1. Woburn Intersection Study (pdf ) (html )

K. Casiglio summarized that the MMIP aims to address gaps in both regional and community multimodal transportation needs, and identify opportunities to advance towards a safe, integrated, sustainable, and accessible regional multimodal transportation system.

K. Casiglio explained the selection process that led to this intersection study. He emphasized the safety concerns, growth pressure, and regional significance.

K. Casiglio summarized the community engagement including a public survey and steering committee. He then explained mode choice and reason for travel statistics for the location.

K. Casiglio analyzed the intersection capacity, highlighting documented crash locations. He shared the identified key concerns: a significant pattern of northbound and westbound angle collisions, a crash cluster just north of the intersection, and higher westbound speeds. The city implemented a new timing pattern that addressed the angle collisions; thus the recommendations are striping guiding lines for vehicles turning right onto the highway and replacing the broken right-lane-must-turn-right sign. Calming measures are also recommended for the high westbound speeds. He also summarized some longer-term interventions that may be feasible based on the performance of the short-term improvements.

Discussion

D. Mohler had to leave the meeting. E. Bourassa took over as chair.

L. Diggins asked if there was any potential for a significant increase in cyclists.

K. Casiglio responded that it was addressed in the memo, but they do not recommend including bicycle facilities due to potential alternative routes.

8. Mobility Access and Transportation Insecurity (MATI) Grant Project Update: Moving Toward Universal Basic Mobility by Expanding Multimodal Accessibility for Transport-Insecure Communities—Rebecca Morgan and Joe Delorto, MPO Staff

R. Morgan shared how the MATI and Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness projects relate to the MPO’s goals, particularly equity, access and connectivity, mobility and reliability, and resiliency.

J. Delorto summarized the MATI grant program’s focus on transportation insecurity. The project is focused on advancing universal basic mobility in affordable housing communities in Chelsea, Everett, and Revere through reduced transit fare and income-tiered carsharing.

J. Delorto emphasized the community engagement input into the project, including surveys, focus groups, and interviews. He then summarized key challenges and opportunities that emerged through the work. He finished by sharing next steps including a pilot demonstration and advancing affordable carsharing across the region.

Discussion

B. Rawson asked if the implementation grant will fund transit passes or just assist participants with signing up for an existing program.

J. Delorto responded that the primary aim is to fund staff time to assist people with signing up with the Metropolitan Bay Transportation Authority’s (MBTA) existing program. 

L. Diggins suggested having an ambassador from within the community and asked for clarification on rideshare operators as the phase one partner is no longer available.

J. Delorto clarified that the first step of the part two implementation would be identifying an operator.

L. Diggins followed up suggesting a peer-to-peer ridesharing option.

B. Rawson highlighted a best practice of paying community-based organizations for their time and work.

J. Delorto shared that practice has been followed throughout the project.

T. Teich clarified that practice is now followed across MPO Work.

9. Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Grant Project Update: Neutralizing Onerous Heat Island Effects on Active Transportation (NO-HEAT)—Seth Strumwasser and Jenn Emiko Kaplan, MPO Staff

S. Strumwasser introduced the project, which has generated datasets that show where there is the highest heat risk for cyclists and pedestrians and developed heat mitigation pilots at priority locations.

S. Strumwasser explained how perceived distance is highly impacted by heat, and how the issue has known disparities between low- and high-income neighborhoods. He explained how the project is producing a one meter, hourly resolution Universal Thermal Climate Index that is much more informative than the typical 30-meter, 16-day resolution Land Surface Temperature. He then explained how this data was used to identify priority locations for mitigation pilots.

J. Emiko Kaplan explained how the pilot locations list was narrowed down to three. She also shared information on the walk and bike audits, particularly how they assist with “ground truthing” the Universal Thermal Climate Index data. Finally, she shared some potential pilot interventions, such as shade sails, tree planting, or bus shelters and summarized next steps.

Discussion

J. Rowe asked if there are plans for a report and if the dataset is publicly available.

S. Strumwasser responded that the data is intended to be released this fall, and there are not current plans to produce a report.

J. Emiko Kaplan shared that a StoryMap may be produced.

10. Members’ Items

E. Bourassa shared that the Boston Region MPO has four open subregional seats and nominations are due October 6, 2025.

11. Adjourn

A motion to adjourn was made by the MBTA Advisory Board (Frank Tramontozzi) and seconded by the City of Arlington (L. Diggins). The motion carried.

Attendance

CIVIL RIGHTS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

Welcome. Bem Vinda. Bienvenido. Akeyi. 欢迎. 歡迎 .

You are invited to participate in our transportation planning process, free from discrimination. The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is committed to nondiscrimination in all activities and complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin (including limited English proficiency). Related federal and state nondiscrimination laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, sex, disability, and additional protected characteristics.

For additional information or to file a civil rights complaint, visit www.bostonmpo.org/mpo_non_discrimination.

To request accommodations at meetings (such as assistive listening devices, materials in accessible formats and languages other than English, and interpreters in American Sign Language and other languages) or if you need this information in another language, please contact:

Boston Region MPO Title VI Specialist

10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150

Boston, MA 02116

Phone: 857.702.3700

Email: civilrights@ctps.org

For people with hearing or speaking difficulties, connect through the state MassRelay service, www.mass.gov/massrelay. Please allow at least five business days for your request to be fulfilled.