Minutes of April 9, 2015 MVMPO Meeting

Page 1 of 10

MEETING MINUTES

MerrimackValleyMetropolitan Planning Organization(MVMPO)

Merrimack ValleyPlanning Commission(MVPC),Haverhill, MA 01830

Thursday, April 9, 2015 – 12:30p.m.

Attending:

VotingMembers:

Clinton Bench, MassDOT, representing MassDOTSecretary Pollack

Joe Costanzo, MVRTA Administrator

DennisDiZoglio,MerrimackValley PlanningCommission(MVPC) Executive Director

Connie Raphael, MassDOT Representing Acting Highway Administrator Thomas Tinlin

Theresa Park, Representing Mayor Rivera of Lawrence

Mayor James Fiorentini, City of Haverhill

NeilHarrington, Town of Salisbury Town Manager -MVMPO Subregion #1 Representative

OthersPresent:

Sreelatha Allam, MassDOT-OTP
Bill Buckley, City of Methuen
Mary KayBeninati, MVPC
Joe Cosgrove, MVPC
ToddFontanella, MVPC
BetsyGoodrich, MVPC
Donna Holaday, Mayor of Newburyport
Jerry Klima, Town of Salisbury / Anthony Komornick, MVPC
Elena Mihaly, CLF
John Pettis, City of Haverhill
Bill Scott, City of Amesbury
Jim Terlizzi, MVPC
Geordie Vining, City of Newburyport
Kevin Wright, FHWA

Agenda ItemNo.1: Call toOrder

Mr. Benchcalled the meeting toorderat 12:38 and asked those present to introduce themselves.

Agenda ItemNo.2: AdoptionofMinutes of the February 4, 2015 MVMPO Meeting

There was amotiontoapprove theFebruary 4, 2015MVMPOmeeting minutes. The motion was seconded and approved.

Agenda ItemNo.3: OpportunityforPublicComment

Mr. Benchasked if there wereanymembersofthe publicpresentwho wished tospeak tothe MVMPO. No one came forward to do so.

Agenda ItemNo.4: MVMPO TransportationImprovement Program(TIP)

a. Status ofFFYs2013 & 2014 TIP Roadway and Bridge Projects

Ms.Raphaelupdatedthe MVMPOonthestatusofthefollowing FFYs2013 2014TIP Projects:

FFY 2013

  • Merrimac – Merrimac Square Reconstruction Project: Construction began in June and the project is approximately 35% complete. Project completion is anticipated in November 2015;
  • Methuen - I-93/MA-110/MA-113 Rotary Reconstruction Project: Construction work began in Juneand the project is on schedule and approximately 17% complete. A Summer 2018 project completion is expected, and
  • I-495 Sign Replacement Project: Work began in June 2014 and the project is approximately 4% complete. Project completion is expected in May 2016.

FFY 2014

  • Amesbury – MA-150 Reconstruction Project: The construction contract was awarded in October 2014 and a preconstruction conference was held on December 9, 2014. Construction has begun and a May 2016 completion is projected.
  • Haverhill – Bradford Rail Trail Phase I Project: Project was advertised on September 20, 2014 and construction bids, which were due on February 12,2015, are now due on May 12, 2015.
  • Lawrence – Union Crossing Transportation and Community Systems Preservation (TCSP) Project: The project was advertised on September 20, 2014 and bids are due on May 5, 2015.
  • Haverhill –MA-125 Bridge Painting Project: This bridge carries MA-125 over Ferry Road and the MBTA railroad tracks. The project was advertised on September 20, 2014 and construction bids, which were due on February 18, 2015, are now due on May 9, 2015.

b. Status ofTransitProjects

Mr. Costanzo advised of the following:

  • State of Good Repair (SGR): replacement of ten Model Year 2004 buses. Five are being delivered in August 2015, and the remainder in June 2016. New vans are expected to arrive in May 2015. Meanwhile, nine 2005 bus power plants are being overhauled.
  • Buckley and McGovern Transportation Centers – lane striping, lighting replacements and paving work will be done.
  • Replacement of 2001 Bus Washing System to increase reliability, reduce water usage.

c. Discussion of FFY 2015 MVMPO Target Projects

Ms. Raphael provided the following updates on FFY 2015 MVMPO Target and Statewide projects:

Target Projects:

  • Amesbury – Powow Riverwalk Phase II Project: Discussion on this project was limited today, as MassDOT District 4 has not yet received a newly revised 25% design.
  • Groveland - MA-97 Reconstruction Project: Town and District 4 have conferred; the Town is working on securing the necessary property rights, which requires that the construction advertising date be rescheduled for August 2015
  • Lawrence – Lawrence and Park Streets Intersection Reconstruction Project:The 25% Design Public Hearing was held on March 31. Project is scheduled for construction advertising on August 29, 2015. Construction likely to proceed in Spring 2016.
  • Newburyport - Clipper City Rail Trail Phase II: Project is scheduled for construction advertising on August 15, 2015

Statewide Projects:

  • Amesbury I-495 Bridges over Powow Riverwalk: The 25% Design Public Hearing was held on March 19, 2015, andthe projected construction advertising date is now July 19, 2015.
  • Amesbury/Boxford/Newbury/Newburyport/Rowley/Salisbury- I-95 Resurfacing: Project advertised December 27, 2014, and bids are due on April 28, 2015.

d. Discussion and Potential Endorsement of Proposed Amendments to FFYs 2015-2018 TIP

Mr. Komornick summarized the proposed amendments to the FFYs 2015-2018 TIP as follows:

1) Reduce the scope and cost of the Amesbury Powow Riverwalk (“Riverwalk”) projectand reprogram it in FFY 2016.

2)Add a new project, the Lawrence/Park Streets Intersection Reconstruction Project (“Lawrence/Park Project”) in Lawrence to FFY 2015 using funding from the old Powow Riverwalk project, the Methuen Rotary as well as STP funding moved from FFY 2016 to FFY 2015 for the Groveland MA-97 Reconstruction Project.

3) Delete the project to purchase three MVRTA Diesel/Electric Hybrid buses using $450,000 in CMAQ funding and instead use these funds to help cover the increased cost of the Clipper City Rail Trail – Phase II project in Newburyport.

4) Add a new Statewide Project for $496,158 in FFY 2015 to cover the remaining additional cost of the Clipper City Rail Trail – Phase II project.

The MVMPO staff received the following comments on the proposed duringthe public review and comment period:

  • Two letters of support from the Coastal Trails Commission;
  • Comment from MassDOT requesting that the MVMPO remove all programming entries for the Methuen Rotary Project from the current TIP, as the project was fully funded in previous FFYs. In response to a question from Mr. Klima, Mr. Komornick explained that the practical effect of this removal is to open up space in FFYs 2015-2016 for programming other projects;
  • A comment from Curt Turner of the Rowley Conservation Commission requesting that the description of the proposed amendment that was released should be modified to identify each community impacted, which was addressed by providing him with a modified description;
  • Amesbury resident Eric Thompson made the following comments:
  • The City must continue to work towards building the pedestrian bridge over the Powow Riverwalk even though it has been removed from the revised version of the Riverwalk project. This bridge improves access to the Lower Millyard and the new MVRTA Transit Center.
  • The City of Amesbury should move ahead with plans to replace the R Street Bridge over the Back River. A new bridge at this location would improve access to the Cedar Street neighborhood.
  • Ongoing discussions within MassDOT and with the City of Newburyport concerning a non-participating element (drainage liner) in the CCRT Phase II Project – will require that the funds programmed for this project be reduced by approximately $5,000. The City of Newburyport will provide the funds for the drainage liner.

Mr. Bench asked if the CCRT Phase II project was utilizing statewide or target CMAQ funds. Mr. Komornick summarized all of the project’s funding, and added that it was making use of both statewide and target CMAQ funds, totaling $900,000. Details are viewable on p. 14 of the TIP – including use of Statewide Transportation Enhancements funds.

A motion to approve the Amendment was made by Mr. DiZoglio and seconded by John Pettis. The MVMPO did not vote on this motion and heard the following comments:

Ms. Allam said that the MVMPO motion must be to approve but with the cost of the CCRT Phase II project reduced by $5,000. The reduction comes out of FFY 2014 Statewide CMAQ. The motion can be made that this is an administrative change, not a change requiring re-advertisement.

Ms. Raphael commented that since the MVMPO removed CMAQ funding from the Methuen Rotary Project (p.8 of TIP), the MVMPO could reprogram the $524,104 in CMAQ target funds for the CCRT Phase II. Discussion ensued, with reference to TIP p. 3 - $1,016,277 is available. If theMVMPO makes this change, it would have to re-issue/re-advertise a new TIP Amendment. Mr. Bench’s preference was that MVMPO members would have worked out these changes in advance of the MVMPO meeting – it is possible that MassDOT could reallocate statewide CMAQ funding no longer needed for this Project to another project. It was decided that the CCRT Phase II funding sources would remain as is, which helps the Commonwealth to be flexible without risking a loss in funding.

A motion was made to endorse the TIP amendment with the $5,000 subtraction (and accompanying STIP revision) that was seconded and approved without objections or abstentions.

4e: Proposed FFY 2015 Transit Amendment (Bus for Newbury Council on Aging)

Mr. Komornick explained that there is a need to amend the FFY 2016 TIP transit element of the current TIP to accommodate the Newbury Council on Aging’s purchase of a new van (p. 4 of packet). MassDOT awarded $48,320 in FTA Section 5310 funds, combined with $12,080 in state funds last week for this purchase, which is a new project and therefore requires that the TIP be amended.

A motion was made to release the above referenced amendment, which was seconded by Mr. Costanzo and approved unanimously.

Mr. Vining questioned why the Commonwealth was able to find more funding for the Methuen Rotary Project. Mr. Bench explained that there are more federal funds available to the state each year than get programmed in the various TIPs and some of these funds may come available. Also, a project from one of the MPOs in the state may not move forward as originally anticipated and those funds would then become available. And the state often receives what are known as redistribution funds at the end of eachFFY. Massachusetts has had a long-standing capability for developing projects so that they are ready to make use of additional federal funds when they become available.

4f: FFYs 2016-2019 TIP Candidate Projects

Highway

Mr. Komornick referred attendees to a handout showing the universe of candidate highway projects for programming in the FFYs 2016-2019 TIP. This information is for the public’s consideration and comment; the MVMPO staff will be discussing it with MassDOT staff and others tomorrow during TIP Day. While no funding increase is projected for FFY 2016, anadditional $5.5 millionis available to be allocated in portions over FFYs 2017-2019.

Ms. Beninati summarized the FFYs 2016-2019 TIP federal funds sources and amounts that would be available if the projects now appearing in FFYs 2015-2018 TIP are included in the new document:

Category / FFY 2016 / FFY 2017 / FFY 2018 / FFY 2019
CMAQ / $0 / $ 795,500 / $1,400,000
HSIP / $0 / $ 442,900 / $443,000 / $ 443,000
STP / $266,000 / $1,400,000 / $ 58,000 / $ 730,000
TAP / $0 / $ 397,000 / $ 300,000
TOTAL / $266,000 / $3,035,400 / $501,000 / $2,873,000

In FFY 2016, the $266,000 in available STP funds comes from the removal of the Methuen Rotary project. In FFY 2017, there would be just over $3 million in target funds available. FFY 2018 has little in the way of uncommitted funding. However, FFY 2019 shows that there is still almost $2.9 million available for programming.

Mr. Bench explained that each federal funding category relevant to the MVMPO regional target has different applications and degrees of flexibility. STP is the most flexible. HSIP is very specific. CMAQ is also very specific, and candidate projects require the CMAQ Consultation Committee’s eligibility determination.

Ms. Allam asked if the MVMPO had planned its FFY 2017 program of projects yet. Mr. Komornick replied that the FFY 2017element is in development, and staff is considering whether a FFY 2018 project(s) could be moved into FFY 2017. At this point, several attendees stepped up to advocate for their projects:

  • Whittier Bridge / Ghost Trail Connector (#607737) – Mr. Klima noted that he had spoken with the MassDOT Project Engineer who said that its design is approaching 25%. Both he and Mr. Vining cited the project’s regional connectivity benefit, and its value as a component of the Whittier Bridge/I-95 project, which should be completed by the same time that these funds become available.
  • US-1 Ramps at Merrimac Street (#608029) – Mr. Vining said that he was aware that MassDOT’s Project Review Committee approved the project a few months ago, but he was unsure of the project’s design status. Ms. Raphael noted that this project was likely to be eligible for both CMAQ and HSIP funding
  • US-1 north of Salisbury Square (#602202) –Ms. Raphael noted that design for this project is now approaching 75% and might be eligible for HSIP funding.

Mr. Bench restated his earlier comment that the MVMPO has an additional month of time before making its final FFYs 2016-2019 project choices in June.

Transit

Mr. Costanzo reiterated that the MVRTA’s Transit Capital Improvement Program (TCIP) prioritizes Asset State of Good Repair (SGR) projects. The MVRTA is proposing to add three buses to its fleet, raising its total fleet count to 50-52 buses, to meet its service plan demands. As said earlier, the MVRTA is also planning SGR projects for its various transit center facilities. The FTA’s upcoming Asset Management Rule will affect the MVRTA TCIP's starting next year and going forward.

Agenda ItemNo.5: Update onMVMPO Draft FFY 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

a. Goals, Objectives, Measures, and Targets

Mr. Komornick briefly described changes that the MVMPO staff made since it shared a shorter, less developed version in February. Since then, staff has added goals and identified additional performance measures. Betsy Goodrich noted that these measures may be modified slightly as we get the chance to look at more data. Mr. Komornick noted that one such performance measure could be the total number of fatal crashes in the region. Based on feedback that MVPC had received on this proposed measure, staff analyzed crash data from 1990 forwardin an effort to identify along-term trend in the number of fatalities in the MVMPO region. Unfortunately, the data did not show a definite trend. He said a better measure might be the number of fatal crashes per total vehicle miles traveled in the region.

Mr. Scott, commenting on Objective 4.4 (Congestion), asked whether ITS might be a strategy for addressing this problem similar to the approach that was used in NH to reduce congestion along NH-28. He said that ITS could also be used as a strategy in reducing GHG Emissions (Objective 5.1). Ms. Allam asked about lack of a proposed Performance Measure for Objective 4.2 (Freight Movement). Mr. Komornick said that staff is considering a measure that calls for the reduction of freight “hot spot” locations as measured in each TIP cycle.

b. Population and Employment Projections

Mr. Komornick commented that the MVMPO staff is comparing notes with MassDOT and other MPOs on the best population forecasts to use. The MassDOT/MAPCpopulation projection for the MVPC region for 2040 is 379,708. There are other projections from UMass-Donahue Institute, but the MVMPO staff is questioning their accuracy. He noted that the FFY 2012 RTP population projections for Lawrence (78,000) and Methuen (51,500) for the year 2035 were both higher than the EOEEA buildout projections for these communities. The MassDOT/MAPC population forecast for Lawrence in the year 2040 is 88,690 and the 2030 population forecast for the City slightly exceeds that figure.

He said that MassDOT/MAPC’s population forecast for the MVPC region appears reasonable, but MVMPO staff expects to reallocate some of the population increases around the region. Mayor Fiorentini asked how well previous population forecasts have squared well with actual numbers. He said that the birth rate is declining and asked Mr. Komornick to report back to him on how this measure is calculated. Mr. Bench added that certain ethnic groups have higher birth rates, different household sizes. Mayor Fiorentini thought that it was reasonable to expect that Lawrence’s population would increase to 2030 and decline to 2040. This can happen because of changes in buildout. Mr. Bench noted that the Central Mass Regional Planning Commission created a table showing different population projection scenarios. It was suggested that we create a similar table for our region for distribution to MVMPO members at the next meeting.

c. State/Regional Financial Constraint Figures

Mr. Komornick referred attendees to two handouts in their packets. Mr. Costanzo asked how accurate can the projections be in the absence of MAP-21’s replacement? The reliance on continuing resolutions has the practical effect of restricting funds on projects that the government wants to fund. His concern is that the next transportation authorization may provide even less funding than is currently available.

d. Discussion of Community/Regional Transportation Projects

Mr. Komornick commented that we included the Methuen Rotary Project in our 2012 RTP, even though it was technically a ‘regionally significant’ project. The MVMPO did this to demonstrate the project’s importance and to enable the MVMPO to provide some funding towards its completion. However for this RTP, MassDOT will not be labeling any projects as regionally significant. The MVMPO is concerned is that the burden of financing large-scale projects will instead fall on each MPO, which in practical terms means that these projects will not advance because of their limited targets. The MVMPO considers the MA-114 Corridor in Andover/North Andover, some bridges (I-495 over the Merrimack River, Basiliere Bridge) as regionally significant projects. Also, intersection and other improvements recommended in MassDOT’s I-495 Study (2008) are important – but have yet to be initiated.

Mr. Vining asked what impact the inclusion of theMA-114 or MA-495 projects could have on maintaining a fiscally constrained RTP. He was concerned that large projects would eliminate small projects – and questioned what the MVMPO’s role in making decisions to program and spend on large projects really is. Mr. Bench said that Secretary Pollack, in deciding to eliminate ‘regionally significant’ projects, was giving more flexibility to MPOs to determine which projects were important in their regions. The Commonwealth’s intent is not to walk away from these projects. However, everyone should be aware that there will be few such projects in the future.

Mr. DiZoglio said that neither the improvements recommended in MassDOT’s I-495 Corridor Study nor the Lowell Junction Interchange project should be target projects. While it worked to include the Methuen Rotary project in the previous RTP and a portion or all of the MA-114 project might be included in the 2016 RTP, the I-495 project would only be included as an illustrative project since there will not be enough regional target funds available. Mayor Fiorentini predicted that the Commonwealth would have to find additional funding in other ways, i.e. raising the gas tax, to meet future needs.