Add Comment

Growth often generates increased demand for transportation capacity, and major capacity expansion projects in turn lead to an acceleration of growth in the vicinity of the new capacity. A key land use goal of MetroFuture is to direct growth to those areas where
transportation infrastructure already exists – and to bolster that infrastructure to accept more growth. This is precisely the opposite of what we have often done in the recent past, when we expanded transportation infrastructure far from the urban core and far from regional urban centers, thereby encouraging sprawl at the periphery of the metropolitan region and increasing traffic throughout the region.

We need to put our land use goals first in determining transportation investment priorities. If a transportation project advances our land use goals, we should try to fund it; if it doesn’t, we should leave in on the cutting room floor. We must also ensure that new growth takes a form that does not immediately overstress newly added transportation capacity, or lead to
unnecessary additional state transportation investments.

1. Implement a comprehensive corridor planning process.
   The Commonwealth should commit to a full corridor planning process whenever:

   • A corridor is identified as not meeting the transportation needs of the population;
   • A major public transportation investment is planned for a particular corridor, regardless of mode; or
   • Intense private investment is anticipated in a particular corridor.

   Each process should be a coordinated effort among the affected municipalities, the RPA(s), and state agencies and should be conducted to the greatest degree possible before the specifics of any new transportation project or mode is identified. The end result would be a plan, agreed upon by the participants, that identifies the infrastructure investment (if any) needed to address the needs of
   the corridor; as well as a corridor land use plan that will preserve the capacity added by any such investments. Each plan should be developed consistent with the goals and objectives of MetroFuture, and each plan should provide the affected municipalities with the necessary tools and resources to grow responsibly and to preserve critical resources.
    

2. Strengthen Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) evaluation criteria.
   Each year, over a half a billion dollars in state and local transportation funding is programmed through the TIP. However, the process lacks efficiency because projects are not coordinated with each other or with local or regional land use plans. Projects wait years and may never receive funding. Getting on the TIP is essential to moving your project forward; but being on the TIP is no guarantee
   that a project will actually happen.

   2.a The MPO should strengthen land use and economic development criteria to be aligned with MetroFuture’s principles and best practices.

   2.b The MPO should make it standard policy to reject (not defer) projects that score below an evaluation threshold.

   2.c The MPO should strongly discourage TIP consideration for construction of new interchanges on existing limited access highways.
   

3. Integrate transportation planning as an independent function in the Metro Boston region.
   To be effective, transportation and land use planning for the region should be fully integrated. The current planning system physically and procedurally separates the two. The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) is responsible for most vehicle-based and transit analysis and planning, while MAPC undertakes most land use analysis. Both MAPC and CTPS have responsibilities for bicycle and pedestrian planning. Both agencies engage highquality
   professional staff who work hard to meet the needs of their members, clients, and the region.

   In a 2006 study of 50 large MPOs across the country the Brookings Institute identified the Boston MPO as one of four that was “state-run”, “largely guided and staffed by the state government”. The Boston MPO (like all MPOs
   throughout the state), is always chaired by the Secretary of Transportation or his designee. CTPS operates, in effect, as an agency of state government, responsible at the end of the day not to the MPO, but to the Commonwealth.
   This state control complicates the intended  cooperativeness of the federal 3C process (which directs planning processes that utilize federal funds to be
   “continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative”). The MPO would benefit from a more balanced process that allowed at least an equal voice to local and regional stakeholders.

   In all other regions of the state, the Regional Planning Agency (RPA) – an agency fully independent of state government – provides planning services to the MPO, in regard to both land use and transportation. This allows for a more fully unified perspective in decision making and problem solving for each region. The state Transportation Reform Act of 2004 makes this responsibility explicit,
   “…regional planning agencies in the commonwealth …shall serve as the principal source of transportation planning for local and regional transportation projects.”

   The Reform Act has yet to be implemented in Metro Boston, where the RPA (MAPC) receives neither adequate resources nor primary responsibility for
   regional transportation planning. Efforts should be made to ensure that MPO staff is fully and functionally independent of state direction, enabling both the MPO and the Commonwealth to discuss all issues before the body and to negotiate occasional differences, with everyone fully and independently informed.

   Substantively, several improvements could assist the MPO process, such as the election of officers and committee chairs by the full MPO, delivery of materials and action items with more lead time, greater clarity about the MPO process to members of the public and local officials, and an improvement in the sensitivity of the regional model to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. The
   latter could encourage more attention to multi-model and multi-disciplinary solutions to transportation challenges. All of the relevant parties – CTPS, MAPC, the MPO, and EOTPW – can and should work together to resolve these
   issues. Enactment of new Memorandum of Understanding regarding the operation of the MPO might be one forum in which to address these and other issues.
    

4. Ensure that the MPO structure promotes accountability and diversity of opinion.
   The transportation needs of the region have expanded and diversified. Transportation investments are powerful tools to stimulate and support economic growth and at the same time provide balanced mobility options to diverse, needy, and underserved groups. Each transportation decision must also be evaluated for its effect on housing needs and access, economic benefit, and environmental impact. An MPO that is strengthened and has members from more constituencies is needed to properly weigh and represent these sometimes divergent and multidimensional demands.

   4.a A commission should be formed to investigate expanding and diversifying membership in the MPO.
   

5. Improve data modeling and analysis to support transportation decisionmaking.
   To effectively implement the policy changes identified in this document the decision process must be supported by comprehensive data and analysis that reflect the relationship among transportation, land use and current behavior. Transportation planning policy reforms must be institutionalized through technical analysis to affectively change the current process and culture.

   5.a The Unified Planning Working Program (UPWP) should include support for an independent committee tasked with investigating the adoption of a new travel demand model.

   5.b MAPC should create and maintain a  comprehensive development database.

   5.c The MPO should implement transportation performance measures to assess the effectiveness of transportation investments.
    

6. Ensure that the new Highway Project Development & Design Guidebook are fully implemented and integrated.
   The Highway Project Development & Design Guidebook is the culmination of a comprehensive planning effort that included state, regional, and local representatives. It represents state-of-the-practice updates to outdated
   automobile-dominated engineering guidelines. The new guidebook takes a more modally balanced approach, incorporates elements of contextually sensitive design, and establishes a much needed project development process. To ensure that the guidebook is integrated into all levels of project development and planning, the following steps should be taken:

   6.a Municipalities should incorporate principles of the guidebook for all state and locally funded projects. Local projects funded with Chapter 90
   funds should not be exempt from the design provisions of the Guidebook.

   6.b EOTPW should establish a certification process for consultants involved in state-funded transportation projects.

   6.c MPO should take elements of the guidebook into account in adjusting TIP evaluation criteria.

   6.d EOTPW should establish a project evaluation and benchmarking program to support periodic updates to the guidebook.
    

7. Local and state development mitigation processes should be refined.

   7.a MAPC should develop a mitigation tool kit.

   7.b State agencies should prioritize transit as a mitigation element.