Regional Equity Analysis Of Current Funding (Highway STIP and CIP) Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council

Regional Equity Analysis Of Current Funding (Highway STIP and CIP) Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction and Analysis Framework... 1-1 1.1 The Project Selection Advisory Council... 1-1 1.2 Analysis Methodology... 1-1 1.3 Metrics... 1-4 1.4 Key Findings... 1-6 2 Chapter 90 Apportionment Funding... 2-1 2.1 Chapter 90 Funding per Capita... 2-1 2.2 Chapter 90 Funding per Roadway Lane Mile... 2-3 2.4 Chapter 90 Allocation Summary... 2-5 3 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)... 3-5 3.1 STIP Highway Funding per Capita... 3-6 3.2 STIP Highway Funding per Roadway Lane Mile... 3-7 3.3 STIP Highway Funding by Urban and Suburban/Rural... 3-12 3.3.1 Urban and Suburban/Rural Analysis per Capita... 3-12 3.3.2 Urban and Suburban/Rural Analysis per Lane Mile... 3-14 3.4 STIP Highway Funding Allocation Summary... 3-15 4 Capital Investment Plan (CIP)... 4-1 4.1 CIP Funding per Capita... 4-1 4.2 CIP Funding by Urban and Suburban/Rural... 4-2 4.2.1 Urban and Suburban/Rural Analysis per Capita... 4-2 4.3 CIP Highway Funding Allocation Summary... 4-3 5 Qualitative Assessment of Regional Equity... 5-1 5.1 Funding Summary by District... 5-1 5.2 Funding Summary by Metropolitan Planning Organization... 5-1 5.3 Funding Summary by Urban and Suburban/Rural... 5-2 5.4 Bridge Analysis... 5-3 5.4.1 Bridge Sufficiency Rating... 5-3 5.5 Pavement Analysis... 5-4 5.6 Project Value Outlier Analysis... 5-5 5.6.1 Issue description and background... 5-5 5.6.2 Discussion and Analysis... 5-5 5.6.3 Findings... 5-6 LIST OF FIGURES and Tables Figure 1-1: MassDOT Highway Districts... 1-1 Figure 1-2: Metropolitan Planning Organizations... 1-2 Figure 1-3: Urbanized Areas... 1-3 Table 1-1: Urbanized Areas by District... 1-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 1-2: Urbanized Areas by MPO Region... 1-4 Figure 1-4: Proportions of Statewide Population and Lane Miles by District... 1-5 Figure 1-5: Proportions of Statewide Population and Lane Miles by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest)... 1-5 Figure 1-6: Residents per Lane Mile by District... 1-6 Figure 1-7: Residents per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest)... 1-6 Figure 2-1: Chapter 90 Funding per Capita by District... 2-2 Figure 2-2: Chapter 90 Funding per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest)... 2-2 Table 2-1: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by District... 2-3 Figure 2-3: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by District... 2-3 Table 2-2: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest)... 2-4 Figure 2-4: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest)... 2-5 Figure 3-1: STIP Highway Funding per Capita by District... 3-6 Figure 3-2: STIP Highway Funding per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest)... 3-7 Table 3-1: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by District... 3-7 Figure 3-3: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by District... 3-8 Table 3-2: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest)3-11 Figure 3-4: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest)3-11 Figure 3-5: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Capita by District... 3-13 Figure 3-7: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Lane Mile by District... 3-14 Figure 3-8: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest)... 3-15 Figure 4-1: CIP Funding per Capita by District... 4-1 Figure 4-2: CIP Funding per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest)... 4-2 Figure 4-3: Per Capita CIP Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas by District... 4-3 Figure 5-1: Total Program Funding Comparison by District... 5-1 Figure 5-2: Program Total Funding Comparison by MPO (Ordered by Funding, Highest to Lowest)... 5-2 Figure 5-3: Suburban/Rural and Urban Funding Proportions by Funding Program... 5-2 Figure 5-5: STIP Pavement Funding versus Fair/Poor Lane miles... 5-5 Figure 5-6: Chapter 90 Total Funding Compared with Filtered STIP and CIP Total Funding... 5-6 Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page ii December 31, 2014

REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP) 1 Introduction and Analysis Framework 1.1 The Project Selection Advisory Council The Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council was established by the Massachusetts Legislature in Section 11 of Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013 to review existing statewide project evaluation criteria and prioritization processes for Massachusetts multi-modal transportation system. The PSA Council will recommend changes for a more uniform, transparent and data-driven prioritization process that reflects MassDOT s mission to provide our nation s safest and most reliable transportation system to strengthen the economy and quality of life across the Commonwealth. 1 Initial PSA Council meetings have highlighted the importance of regional equity as one of the top level criteria to be considered. Council members have requested data and charts to see how transportation funding is being allocated regionally today, organized by MassDOT district, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) region, and other regional and geographic measures. For purposes of this memo, regional equity is a goal to ensure that the distribution of transportation funding across the Commonwealth is not unreasonably higher or lower in certain geographic areas compared to others. PSA Council members have also observed that all regions have transportation needs that exceed available funding levels and that no municipality or region is receiving more transportation funding than they need. 1.2 Analysis Methodology This technical memo provides an analysis of the regional allocation of transportation funding in three major funding programs: 1) the Chapter 90 Apportionment Funding for 2015; 2) the current State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Highway projects only for 2014-2017; and 3) the current Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for 2014-2018. Chapter 90 is a formula driven state program with funding allocation patterns considered to be generally equitable across the Commonwealth. Therefore, at the suggestion of the PSA Council, the regional allocation pattern of Chapter 90 funding was used as a measure for comparing the regional allocation patterns of the STIP and CIP programs. Through meetings and ongoing coordination and feedback from the PSA Council, the project lists for the STIP and CIP funding programs were refined for the analysis. Each funding program was analyzed to determine spending levels by: MassDOT Highway District, MPO 2, Per Capita (based on 2010 census numbers), Per Roadway Lane Mile (obtained from the 2013 MassDOT road inventory file), and Urban compared to Suburban/Rural. 3 1 Project Selection Advisory Council Mission Statement, MassDOT website, August 2014. 2 In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, there are 10 designated MPOs and three Regional Planning Agencies, which are too small to be officially designated as MPOs, but which function as MPOs. All 13 are included in this analysis as MPOs. 3 For the purposes of this analysis, urban areas were defined as municipalities containing census blocks with 5,000 persons or more per square mile. All other municipalities were considered suburban and rural areas (suburban/rural). The data was obtained from 2010 Census Block Group Files supplied by MassGIS. Based on this definition, 73% of the total population is within the urban areas and 27% of the population is within the suburban/rural areas. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 1-1 December 2, 2014

REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP) Figure 1-1: MassDOT Highway Districts Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 1-1 December 2, 2014

REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP) Figure 1-2: Metropolitan Planning Organizations Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 1-2 December 2, 2014

REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP) Figure 1-3: Urbanized Areas Table 1-1: Urbanized Areas by District District Total Land Urban Area Urban Population Area (Sq Mi) (Sq Mi) Area (%) (2010) 1 1630 86 5% 160,511 2 1621 303 19% 715,944 3 1715 302 18% 1,192,066 4 865 482 56% 1,699,341 5 1992 284 14% 1,453,045 6 260 197 76% 1,326,722 Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 1-3 December 2, 2014

REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP) Table 1-2: Urbanized Areas by MPO Region MPO Total Land Area (Sq Mi) Urban Area (Sq Mi) Urban Area (%) Population Berkshire 946 86 9% 131,219 Boston Region 1440 629 44% 3,143,875 Cape Cod 412 0 0% 215,963 Central 960 96 10% 556,698 Massachusetts Franklin 725 53 7% 71,372 Martha's Vineyard 106 0 0% 16,460 Merrimack Valley 278 148 53% 333,748 Montachusett 684 88 13% 236,475 Nantucket 49 0 0% 286,901 Northern Middlesex 196 62 32% 10,172 Old Colony 344 73 21% 306,506 Pioneer Valley 1179 250 21% 621,570 Southeastern Massachusetts 806 187 23% 616,670 In addition to the funding analysis, additional analyses were conducted where potential inequity was identified. Methods included an outlier analysis, an analysis on number and condition of bridges, and an analysis on pavement condition. 1.3 Metrics The metrics of funding per capita and funding per lane mile are used to determine relative allocations by district and by MPO as they are two factors that would weigh heavily into determining appropriate funding amounts. Figure 1-4 illustrates how these factors apply across the districts. District 1 is the most rural, with the lowest population and the fewest lane miles per square mile. While District 6 is the most urban, its population lies in the middle and its lane miles is actually the second smallest because the land area is so small. Districts 4 and 5, which include the Boston suburbs, consist of larger land areas and have the greatest populations. It is important to note, however, that populations fluctuate over time. District 6 increases several fold in population during the workday and District 5, for example, increases significantly in population in the summer months due to tourism on Cape Cod and the Islands. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 1-4 December 2, 2014

REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP) Figure 1-4: Proportions of Statewide Population and Lane Miles by District Population % Lane Mile % 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Figure 1-5: Proportions of Statewide Population and Lane Miles by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest) 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Population % Lane Mile % Analyzing districts and MPOs by residents per lane mile confirms the differences in population density by region. Figure 1-6 shows that District 6 has over four times the population per lane mile of District 1. Similarly for MPOs, Figure 1-7 shows that Boston has over five times the number of people per lane mile as Franklin. These differences are important to note because they impact funding allocation patterns. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 1-5 December 2, 2014

REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP) Figure 1-6: Residents per Lane Mile by District 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 - District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Figure 1-7: Residents per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20-1.4 Key Findings The MassDOT highway districts and MPOs were ranked based on analysis of funding levels for Chapter 90, STIP highway, and the CIP across regional equity measures determined most relevant, which included total funding for projects, funding per capita, funding per lane mile, and funding in urban compared to suburban/rural areas. The key findings of the analysis are summarized below: The Chapter 90 funding allocation shows good regional equity characteristics for both districts and MPOs and is used as a benchmark for analyzing the STIP highway and CIP allocations. Per capita and per lane mile analyses produce different funding distributions that are largely dependent on relative proportions of population and lane miles in a given region. These trends are important to note for comparison against the STIP and CIP funding programs (see Section 2). Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 1-6 December 2, 2014

REGIONAL EQUITY ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FUNDING (CHAPTER 90, STIP AND CIP) STIP highway funds include many high value bridge projects not covered under Chapter 90 allotments. Thus, the per capita and per lane mile analyses show that District 2, Pioneer Valley MPO, and Martha s Vineyard MPO are proportionally greater than their Chapter 90 allotments. District 5, Old Colony, and Nantucket have consistently low funding allocation among different analyses (see Section 3). Similar to STIP highway allocations, CIP funds include many high value bridge and transit projects not covered under Chapter 90 allocations, which is why District 6, the Boston MPO, and the Martha s Vineyard MPO show proportionally higher funding levels when compared to Chapter 90. District 3, District 5, and Old Colony MPO have consistently low funding allocations across the analyses (see Section 4). For MassDOT Highway districts, District 5 receives the lowest funding per lane mile and per capita compared to Chapter 90 allocations. District 6 and District 2 receive relatively higher amounts of funding than other districts per lane mile and per capita (see Section 5.1). For MPOs, Old Colony receives the lowest funding per lane mile and per capita when compared to Chapter 90 allocations. Martha s Vineyard has both the highest funding per lane mile and per capita compared to Chapter 90 (see Section 5.2). On a per capita basis, the STIP has a relatively equal distribution between urban and suburban/rural for highway projects (see Section 3.3). The CIP provides a larger share of funding on a per capita basis to urban areas. Much of this additional funding is for large transit or bridge projects. Analyzing the number and condition of bridges in each MPO shows that although Old Colony appears to have disproportionally low funding, it has the fewest number and best condition bridges of all MPOs. Conversely, Martha s Vineyard, often ranking highest among MPOs in funding analyses, has the lowest average bridge rating (see Section 5.4). Comparing STIP highway funding to pavement condition does not produce uniquely significant results, but agrees with other analyses identifying relatively low funding allocation in District 5 (which contains Old Colony) (see Section 5.5). Removing large value outlier projects decreases the variance in funding among MPOs, thus providing results that exhibit a more consistent level of regional equity in the funding patterns. However, Old Colony still seems to underperform even when outliers are removed. Nevertheless, this analysis suggests that regional equity may warrant two levels of tracking going forward: By removing outliers, or mega-projects, from the analysis to understand more consistent spending habits, as well as by tracking mega-projects separately to understand how these one-off large projects are distributed throughout the state (see Section 5.6). Based on the entire analysis, District 5 may still warrant additional attention, given how it consistently received a lower share of the funding than anticipated. Some of this apparent inequity may be explained by the number and quality of bridges in Old Colony, but given that the population of District 5 is often-times much greater than the stated population due to tourism, MassDOT may want to pay closer attention to funding allocations in the District going forward. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 1-7 December 2, 2014

2 Chapter 90 Apportionment Funding This section summarizes the distribution of the $200 million Chapter 90 Program funding for federal fiscal year 2015. The Chapter 90 Program was enacted on March 23, 1973, by vote of the Public Works Commission to entitle municipalities to reimbursement of documented expenditures under the provisions of General Laws, Chapter 90, Section 34, and Clause 2(a) on approved projects. The funds provided from transportation bond issues authorizes such capital improvement projects for highway construction, preservation and improvement projects that create or extend the life of capital facilities. The formula for determining Chapter 90 apportionment funding is based 60% on lane miles, 20% on population, and 20% on employment. Chapter 90 funds are allocated to roadway projects, such as resurfacing and related work and other work incidental to the above such as preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, shoulders, landscaping and tree planting, drainage, structures (including bridges), sidewalks, traffic control and service facilities, and street lighting. All Chapter 90 analyses are performed for the year 2015. Chapter 90 funding allocations are generally regarded to be equitable, though insufficient to meet identified transportation funding needs. 2.1 Chapter 90 Funding per Capita Figure 2-1 shows the per capita distribution of Chapter 90 funding by highway district. District 1 has the highest funding per capita, which may be explained by its relatively large geographic area and low population density. Districts 4 and 6 have the lowest funding per capita, but also have the highest population compared to number of lane miles (see Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 2-1 December 31, 2014

Figure 1-4). Figure 2-1: Chapter 90 Funding per Capita by District $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 $79 $37 $34 $32 $25 $24 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Figure 2-2 shows the per capita distribution of Chapter 90 funding by MPO. While the absolute range between the highest and lowest is somewhat similar for the MPO analysis as in the district analysis, there is more variation within the range for the MPOs. The relatively small size and low total population contained within some of the MPOs, such as for example the Franklin, Nantucket, and Martha s Vineyard MPOs, allows for single projects to have a more significant impact on the analysis for these areas. The Franklin MPO has the highest funding per capita, which is expected given the formula because it also has the lowest number of residents per lane mile (see Figure 1-7). Figure 2-2: Chapter 90 Funding per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest) $90 $80 $85 $70 $60 $50 $61 $63 $40 $30 $20 $26 $34 $30 $35 $28 $27 $28 $40 $43 $46 $10 $0 Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 2-2 December 31, 2014

2.2 Chapter 90 Funding per Roadway Lane Mile Chapter 90 funding distribution per lane mile by District and MPO was also reviewed. Table 2-1 shows the Chapter 90 funding, lane miles per district, and funding per lane mile by district. As shown in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-3, District 6 has the highest funding of nearly $4,500 per lane mile. By comparison, the other districts have lower but generally consistent funding ranging from approximately $2,300 to $3,000 per lane mile. Although District 6 has the lowest Chapter 90 funding per capita, it has the highest funding per lane mile. (see Figure 1-6). Table 2-1: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by District MassDOT Highway District Chapter 90 Funding Lane Miles Funding per Lane Mile District 1 $ 12,666,953 5,613 $2,257 District 2 $ 26,258,358 10,769 $2,438 District 3 $ 40,289,795 15,336 $2,627 District 4 $ 42,292,122 14,166 $2,986 District 5 $ 46,712,262 20,360 $2,294 District 6 $ 31,780,510 7,104 $4,473 Grand Total (All) $ 200,000,000 73,349 $2,726 Figure 2-3: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by District $5,000 $4,500 $4,473 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,986 $2,500 $2,627 $2,438 $2,000 $2,257 $2,294 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 As shown in Table 2-2 and Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 2-3 December 31, 2014

Figure 2-4, Boston has the highest funding of nearly $3,400 per lane mile. Funding per lane mile values for other MPOs are all less than $2,900 per lane mile. Cape Cod has the lowest funding of approximately $1,800 per lane mile. Although the Boston MPO has the lowest funding per capita (see Figure 2-2), it has the highest funding per lane mile. This is the expected result because Boston has the highest population and employment per lane mile, which are the other factors in the formula (see Figure 1-7). Table 2-2: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest) MPO Chapter 90 Funding Lane Miles Funding per Lane Mile Boston $81,240,761 23,983 $3,387 Pioneer Valley $21,324,850 8,535 $2,499 Southeast MA $18,490,488 7,652 $2,416 Central MA $19,270,845 7,524 $2,561 Cape Cod $9,310,822 5,083 $1,832 Montachusett $9,443,977 3,919 $2,410 Old Colony $8,332,729 3,492 $2,386 Berkshire $7,948,039 3,478 $2,285 Merrimack Valley $9,221,708 3,468 $2,659 North Middlesex $7,931,254 2,856 $2,777 Franklin $6,089,525 2,789 $2,183 Martha's Vineyard $758,893 345 $2,201 Nantucket $636,108 224 $2,841 Total $200,000,000 73,349 $2,726 Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 2-4 December 31, 2014

Figure 2-4: Chapter 90 Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest) $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 2.4 Chapter 90 Allocation Summary The Chapter 90 funding program provides formula-driven allotments to ensure equity among municipalities. Comparing funding per capita and funding per lane mile yields different results that are largely dependent on population per lane mile. Low-density districts and MPOs generally have higher per capita funding, but lower funding per lane mile. Conversely, districts and MPOs with higher population per lane mile have lower per capita funding, but higher funding per lane mile. These trends are important to note when comparing Chapter 90 against the STIP highway and CIP funding programs. 3 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) This section summarizes analysis of current funding programmed through the STIP for federal fiscal years 2014 to 2017. The STIP is a compilation of the individual Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) prepared annually by the state s 13 MPOs. The STIP is a listing of transportation projects (roadway, bridge, intermodal and transit projects) prioritized for funding over a five-year period, listed by funding category and fiscal year. The STIP has two components: a highway component and a transit component. This structure allowed the Council to focus on the highway component to understand how equitable highway spending is across the Commonwealth. The MassDOT CIP (the focus of Chapter 4), which is not organized as rigidly around mode, was used to understand the current state of equity in multimodal investments in Massachusetts. The funding programs for STIP highway projects include the following federal programs: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Homeland Security Infrastructure Program (HSIP) Scenic Byway Program High Priority Projects Surface Transportation Program (STP) Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 3-5 December 31, 2014

National Highway Performance Program Grant Anticipation Notes and other interest payments were removed from the analysis. 3.1 STIP Highway Funding per Capita The analysis of highway projects for the STIP looked at spending per capita by highway district and by MPO. Figure 3-1 shows the per capita STIP funding for highway projects by district. Districts 1 and 2 have the highest funding levels of $638 and $620 per capita, respectively, which is far higher than the other districts. The other districts have funding levels ranging from $188 to $243 per capita. This pattern is similar to that shown for Chapter 90 (see Figure 2-1), with the exception of District 2, where STIP per capita highway funding is at nearly the same level as District 1. This is largely attributed to the high-value STIP highway project on I-91 in Springfield, located in District 2. Figure 3-1: STIP Highway Funding per Capita by District $700 $600 $500 $638 $620 $400 $300 $200 $100 $243 $234 $188 $206 $0 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Figure 3-2 shows the per capita expenditure of the STIP funding for highway projects by MPO. Martha s Vineyard has the highest funding of $2,300 per capita, and Old Colony has the least, with $74 per capita. The reasons for the significantly wider range of funding per capita across the MPOs compared with the highway districts is due to lower MPO populations, as described for the Chapter 90 analysis. There are several low population MPOs where a handful of major projects (as in the case of Martha s Vineyard) or a relatively small highway network in good shape with relatively few bridges (as in the case of Old Colony) results in per capita funding levels that are outliers. Although Boston has a large number of high value projects, it has the third lowest funding per capita because of high population compared to the other MPOs. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 3-6 December 31, 2014

Figure 3-2: STIP Highway Funding per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest) $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 3.2 STIP Highway Funding per Roadway Lane Mile STIP highway funding per lane mile was also analyzed by district and MPO. Table 3-1 shows the STIP highway funding per lane mile by district. The total STIP highway funding available fiscal years 2014-2017 is $2.1 billion and the portion of that funding allocated to each of the six MassDOT Highway Districts is $1.8 billion. The remaining STIP highway funding covers statewide initiatives and funding not allocated to a specific district, (Statewide Storm Water Retrofits funding, for example) which have been allocated to the Other category shown in the table. As shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-3, funding per lane mile by district ranges from as low as $13,427 for District 5 to as high as $41,242 for District 2. After District 2, District 6 has the highest funding of $38,413 per lane mile. Table 3-1: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by District MassDOT Highway District STIP Highway Funding Lane Miles Funding per Lane Mile District 1 $102,426,047 5,613 $18,247 District 2 $444,149,330 10,769 $41,242 District 3 $289,693,445 15,336 $18,890 District 4 $397,318,487 14,166 $28,048 District 5 $273,374,909 20,360 $13,427 District 6 $272,906,576 7,104 $38,413 Other $296,224,339 - - Subtotal (Districts only) $1,779,868,793 73,349 $24,266 Grand Total (All) $2,076,093,133 73,349 Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 3-7 December 31, 2014

Figure 3-3: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by District $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 STIP highway funding per lane mile by MPO was also analyzed and is described in Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 3-8 December 31, 2014

Table 3-2. The total STIP highway funding for the 13 MPO regions is $1.7 billion, slightly different than the amount allocated to specific districts as some projects are allocated district wide and not to specific MPOs. The remaining STIP highway funding is grouped into the Statewide category, as shown in the table. As shown in Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 3-9 December 31, 2014

Table 3-2 and Figure 3-4, funding per lane mile by MPO ranges from a low of $5,829 for Nantucket to a high of $109,960 for Martha s Vineyard. Martha s Vineyard has only 345 total lane miles and its funding per lane mile is particularly sensitive in this case to the presence of a large value bridge project. Funding for other MPO regions are under $45,000 per lane mile. Nantucket and Old Colony both have the least funding per lane mile (less than $7,000), for reasons explained in the per capita analysis (see Section 3.1). Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 3-10 December 31, 2014

Table 3-2: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest) MassDOT Highway District STIP Funding for Highway Projects Lane Miles Funding per Lane Mile Boston $543,686,717 23,983 $22,670 Pioneer Valley $381,281,515 8,535 $44,674 Southeastern MA $130,003,423 7,652 $16,990 Central MA $166,553,769 7,524 $22,137 Cape Cod $51,838,770 5,083 $10,198 Montachusett $63,578,004 3,919 $16,222 Old Colony $22,555,392 3,492 $6,459 Berkshire $71,647,462 3,478 $20,599 Merrimack Valley $126,570,417 3,468 $36,498 N Middlesex $87,487,735 2,856 $30,632 Franklin $62,341,453 2,789 $22,350 Martha's Vineyard $37,921,388 345 $109,960 Nantucket $1,305,081 224 $5,829 Statewide $329,322,007 - - Subtotal (MPOs only) $1,746,771,126 73,349 $23,813 Grand Total (All) $2,076,093,133 73,349 Figure 3-4: STIP Highway Funding per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest) $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 3-11 December 31, 2014

3.3 STIP Highway Funding by Urban and Suburban/Rural While the question of regional equity is often focused on the share of funding going to the Boston MPO or District 6 versus the rest of the state, there have also been concerns raised by the Council that developing a project prioritization system based on current MassDOT goals and policies could favor urban communities or other communities with older pre-automobile settlement patterns. Many of the objectives identified by the Council thus far in the process mode shift, GHG reduction, social equity and increased physical activity may be inherently easier to achieve in those areas of the Commonwealth where current land use supports compact residential and commercial development. For these reasons, the Council was interested in learning more about how current funding is allocated between areas of compact development (for the purposes of this document, urban ) and lower density suburban or rural areas. As explained in Chapter 1, urban was defined as areas (census blocks) with population density above 5,000 people per square mile. This is a density that is generally understood to be able to support fixed route bus service, and also an environment conducive to making trips on foot or by bike. Due to the complications of identifying hundreds of STIP and CIP projects by their census block, the analysis made the compromise of categorizing an entire municipality as urban if any census blocks within it met the density threshold. The result is an imperfect analysis that considers many municipalities in their entirety as urban even though most would consider them to be either suburban or rural towns. All projects within these municipalities were classified as urban as well. With more time, if the Council believes it would be useful, the analysis could be more precise about these designations. But, since the concerns raised were more related to the impact going forward of proposed PSA Council objectives and metrics on lower-density communities, the imperfect classification of municipalities described above should be sufficient for analysis of current trends. It is important, however, to remember that in this report the definition of urban projects is much more expansive than just projects within areas above the 5,000 people/square mile threshold. 3.3.1 Urban and Suburban/Rural Analysis per Capita Figure 3-5 shows per capita STIP highway funding in urban and rural/suburban areas by highway district. More than 80 percent of the population in Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 live in towns classified as suburban/rural. District 2 has significantly higher per capita funding in urban communities, largely due to the I-91 viaduct project in Springfield. No suburban/rural STIP projects exist in District 6, where only four towns (Canton, Dover, Westwood and Weston) representing 3.9% of the district s population are considered suburban/rural. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 3-12 December 31, 2014

Figure 3-5: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Capita by District Suburban/Rural STIP Spending per Capita Urban STIP Spending per Capita $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $- District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Figure 3-6 shows per capita STIP highway funding in urban and suburban/rural areas for each MPO. Boston highway STIP funding is almost completely proportional on a per capita basis. In Pioneer Valley, as with District 2, urban funding is significantly higher due largely to the I-91 viaduct project. Similarly, In Northern Middlesex, a few high value bridge projects may be skewing the distribution more towards urban areas. Cape Cod, Martha s Vineyard and Nantucket do not have any urban areas and Martha s Vineyard has a very large bridge project that is skewing the data. Figure 3-6: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest) Suburban/Rural STIP Funding per Capita Urban STIP Funding per Capita $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $- Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 3-13 December 31, 2014

3.3.2 Urban and Suburban/Rural Analysis per Lane Mile Figure 3-7 shows STIP highway funding per lane mile in urban and rural/suburban communities by highway district. District 2 has significantly higher funding per lane mile in urban municipalities, largely due to the I-91 viaduct project. And again, no suburban/rural STIP projects exist in District 6. Figure 3-7: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Lane Mile by District Suburban/Rural STIP Spending per Lane Mile Urban STIP Spending per Lane Mile $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $- District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Figure 3-8 shows the same breakdown of per lane mile STIP funding. Again, Pioneer Valley funding is somewhat skewed by the I-91 viaduct project. Unlike the per capita distribution, which seemed relatively equitable between urban and rural areas, most MPOs have greater spending per lane mile in urban areas. The consistently higher levels of spending per lane mile across all regions in urban areas may be an indication of both the greater wear and tear on urban roadways given their heavier usage and possibly the more complicated nature of roadway projects in a more constrained urban environment. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 3-14 December 31, 2014

Figure 3-8: STIP Highway Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas per Lane Mile by MPO (Ordered by Lane Miles, Highest to Lowest) Suburban/Rural STIP Funding per Lane Mile Urban STIP Funding per Lane Mile $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $- 3.4 STIP Highway Funding Allocation Summary STIP highway funds include many high value bridge projects that appear to result in some inequities across regions. The largest of these is a $220 million viaduct deck replacement project on I-91 located in Springfield. Similarly, the $38 million bridge replacement project in Martha s Vineyard greatly impacts the per capita and per lane mile funding levels for this small MPO due to the low population and number of lane miles on the island. Overall, District 5, Old Colony, and Nantucket show consistently low funding allocations across the different analyses. In Section 5, additional analyses are presented to try to explain these findings. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 3-15 December 31, 2014

4 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) This section summarizes funding programmed through the MassDOT CIP for federal fiscal years 2014 to 2018. The CIP provides the allocation of estimated state and federal revenues for the reconstruction, maintenance and development of statewide highways, bicycle and pedestrian paths, bridges, local roads, bus and rail networks and airports for the next five state fiscal years. In addition to the high value highway projects also programmed through the STIP, the CIP includes a number of major transit projects such as bus and rail vehicle procurements, the Green Line Extension project, and allocations to support the South Coast Rail project. The major funding programs for CIP include the following: Transportation Bond Cap Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) Federal Highway, Federal Aviation, Federal Transit, and Federal Railroad Administration Funding Metropolitan Highway System (MHS) and Western Turnpike Toll Revenue, Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) Only one interest payment was included for CIP projects, totaling less than 0.1% of the CIP. 4.1 CIP Funding per Capita Figure 4-1 shows per capita CIP funding by district. District 6 is the highest with almost $3,000 per capita. District 3 has per capita funding of less than $700. District 6 has the lowest funding per capita for Chapter 90 (see Figure 2-1), but the largest per capita allocation of CIP funds. This is due to the large number of high value bridge and MBTA projects in District 6 funded by the CIP. Figure 4-1: CIP Funding per Capita by District $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,984 $2,000 $1,500 $1,762 $1,000 $500 $1,198 $685 $1,101 $879 $0 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Figure 4-2 shows per capita CIP funding by MPO. Martha s Vineyard has the highest funding of $3,900 per capita. Montachusett, Northern Middlesex, and Old Colony all have per capita funding (below $500). The Boston MPO has the third largest funding amount per capita. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 4-1 December 2, 2014

Figure 4-2: CIP Funding per Capita by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest) $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 Since the CIP s inclusion of transit funding makes regional comparisons of spending per lane mile less informative (the comparison would want to look at spending across a more multimodal set of assets), the per lane mile analysis conducted for the STIP was not repeated for the CIP. 4.2 CIP Funding by Urban and Suburban/Rural CIP funding distribution across urban and suburban/rural areas was reviewed and compared. The analysis used the same definitions of urban and suburban/rural as Chapter 90 (see Section 2.3). 4.2.1 Urban and Suburban/Rural Analysis per Capita Figure 4- shows per capita CIP funding in urban and rural/suburban municipalities by highway district. 4 Compared to the Highway STIP (see Error! Reference source not found.) the CIP has a similar distribution of suburban/rural funds. District 6 has significantly higher urban funding, owing both to several expensive urban bridge projects and large MBTA transit projects. 4 See discussion of urban vs. suburban/rural analysis in Section 3.3. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 4-2 December 2, 2014

Figure 4-3: Per Capita CIP Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas by District Suburban/Rural CIP Spending per Capita Urban CIP Spending per Capita $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $- District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Figure 4- shows per capita CIP funding for projects in urban and suburban/rural communities by MPO. Boston s per capita funding in urban municipalities is significantly higher than in suburban/rural areas. Again, this is due to large MBTA projects, which were not included in the Highway STIP analysis. Figure 4-4: Per Capita CIP Funding in Urban and Suburban/Rural Areas by MPO (Ordered by Population, Highest to Lowest) Suburban/Rural CIP Funding per Capita Urban Chapter CIP per Capita $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $- 4.3 CIP Highway Funding Allocation Summary CIP funds include many high value bridge projects, transit, and MBTA projects. In District 6 alone (and thus the Boston MPO), the CIP funds four bridge replacement projects totaling $800 million, or four times Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 4-3 December 2, 2014

the total Chapter 90 allocation. The Boston MPO also has over $2 billion in MBTA projects to further skew the allocation in the Boston region s favor. Additionally, the $40 million bridge replacement project in Martha s Vineyard impacts the per capita and per lane mile funding levels for this MPO due to the low population and number of lane miles on Martha s Vineyard. Overall, District 3, District 5, and Old Colony show consistently low funding allocations across the different analyses, which will be explored further in Section 5. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 4-4 December 2, 2014

5 Qualitative Assessment of Regional Equity Results for STIP and CIP funding analyses were compared against the proportion of Chapter 90 funding allocated to each district and MPO to compare patterns of regional equity. 5.1 Funding Summary by District Figure 5-1 (and subsequent figures in this chapter) shows the percentage of statewide Chapter 90, STIP and CIP funding allocated to each region. The percent of total funding for Chapter 90, STIP highway, and CIP are compared by district in Error! Reference source not found.. The greatest deviation occurs in District 6 where the proportion of CIP funding is nearly triple that of Chapter 90 funding. The second greatest deviation is in District 2 where the proportion of STIP funding is nearly double that of Chapter 90 funding. Districts 1, 3, and 5 all have lower STIP and CIP funding compared to Chapter 90 funding allotments. Figure 5-1: Total Program Funding Comparison by District Chapter 90 STIP Highway CIP 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 5.2 Funding Summary by Metropolitan Planning Organization The percent of statewide funding for Chapter 90, STIP, and CIP are compared by MPO in Figure 5-. For reasons explained in the previous sections, in Martha s Vineyard the proportion of STIP highway funding is 5.7 times greater than Chapter 90 funding and the proportion of CIP funding is 1.5 times greater than Chapter 90. Pioneer Valley s highway STIP funding is twice its Chapter 90 allocation. Northern Middlesex s CIP is one quarter of its Chapter 90 allocation, but its highway STIP allocation is 1.25 its CIP allocation. Old Colony has both STIP and CIP funding proportions about one quarter of its Chapter 90 proportion. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 5-1 December 2, 2014

Figure 5-2: Program Total Funding Comparison by MPO (Ordered by Funding, Highest to Lowest) Chapter 90 STIP Highway CIP 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 5.3 Funding Summary by Urban and Suburban/Rural Figure 5- shows the funding proportions of each funding program for urban and suburban/rural municipalities. STIP highway funds are proportionally higher for urban areas than Chapter 90 funds, and the CIP shows higher funding levels for urban areas than the STIP. One reason for this difference is because the large size of STIP and CIP funds, they are able to fund large urban projects. For example, the CIP allocates $280 million to the urban located Longfellow Bridge, which is larger than the total amount of the $200 million Chapter 90 allotment. Figure 5-3: Suburban/Rural and Urban Funding Proportions by Funding Program Suburban/Rural Urban 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 60% 73% 79% 40% 30% 40% 20% 10% 27% 21% 0% Chapter 90 STIP Highway CIP Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 5-2 December 2, 2014

5.4 Bridge Analysis Approximately half of all transportation funding in the three programs reviewed go toward bridge projects. A potential reason for significant differences in funding levels across regions using the various measures used in this analysis is the number and condition of bridges in each region. These factors were analyzed by MPO. 5.4.1 Bridge Sufficiency Rating Bridges amount to approximately half of funding from the STIP and CIP, thus the number, length, and condition of bridges by region is important to understand in an analysis of regional equity. The amount of STIP bridge funding was estimated based on projects that contained the words bridge or viaduct in their title. MassDOT uses a sufficiency rating with a 100-point scale to determine bridge status. Data was obtained from the National Bridge Inventory Database. 5 Average bridge sufficiency ratings are compared with STIP bridge funding by MPO in Error! Reference source not found.. The mean rating is 64 with a standard deviation of 12. Old Colony has an average rating 1.3 standard deviations above the mean and Martha s Vineyard s rating is 2.1 standard deviations below the mean. Thus, the apparent inequity shown in Error! Reference source not found., and other cuts of the data from earlier sections, is at least partially a result of the state of bridges in each MPO. Old Colony appears to have disproportionally low funding, however it has the highest rated and the fewest bridges of all MPOs. Martha s Vineyard, on the other hand, was often ranked high among MPOs for per capita STIP and CIP funding, which can potentially be justified as it has the lowest average bridge rating. As has been noted throughout the report, a large share of Martha s Vineyard s funding is going to a high value bridge replacement project. Figure 5-4: Average Bridge Sufficiency Rating by MPO, 2012 (Ordered by Sufficiency Rating, Highest to Lowest) 5 http://nationalbridges.com/ Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 5-3 December 2, 2014

Table 5-1 may further help to explain variations in funding due to the number of bridges in each MPO. Table 5-1: Number of Bridges by MPO MPO Number of Bridges Boston 930 Pioneer Valley 508 Central Massachusetts 459 Southeastern Massachusetts 322 Berkshire 297 Franklin 220 Montachusett 220 Merrimack Valley 181 Northern Middlesex 113 Old Colony 59 Cape Cod 46 Martha s Vineyard 1 Nantucket 1 5.5 Pavement Analysis Highway projects account for over one third of MassDOT funding allocations, and include a high percentage of pavement and resurfacing projects. Pavement is rated by MassDOT as being in excellent, good, fair or poor condition. An analysis was conducted to compare STIP highway funding to DOT maintained lane miles rated fair or poor for pavement condition to determine whether regions with worse pavement conditions are receiving more or less funding than regions with higher performing pavement. Because it is difficult on a project level basis to isolate dollars spent on pavement, the entire STIP is used to relate spending to pavement condition in the analysis. The results in Error! Reference source not found. show that District 3 has a much greater proportion of statewide STIP highway funding than its proportion of the state s fair/poor lane miles. District 5 has the greatest discrepancy between STIP spending and fair/poor lane miles, which agrees with other analyses pointing towards relatively low funding levels for District 5 compared to the other districts. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 5-4 December 2, 2014

Figure 5-5: STIP Pavement Funding versus Fair/Poor Lane miles 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% STIP PAVEMENT SPENDING vs PAVEMENT CONDITION STIP Spending Fair/Poor Lane Miles District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 5.6 Project Value Outlier Analysis 5.6.1 Issue description and background Based on the analyses in this report, it has become apparent that geographic equity in transportation funding can be impacted by large value projects. Large value projects can be considered outliers in the total transportation funding patterns at the MPO or highway district level. Removing outliers allows the analysis to focus on a more typical range of projects and project cost, as infrequent mega-projects can easily skew the results when looking at a single plan horizon. STIP and CIP project outliers are analyzed independently. Outliers are assumed to be greater than two standard deviations away from the mean, based on ranked order. In other words, the highest 2.3% of projects are assumed to be outliers, removing the eight highest value projects from the STIP and the 33 highest value projects from the CIP. For the STIP, the project outlier value is approximately $20 million for the years 2014 to 2017, and the CIP outlier value is approximately $30 million for the years 2014 to 2018. Removing outliers decreases the funding distribution s range and variance, especially for the CIP. 5.6.2 Discussion and Analysis Metrics analyzed are total funding, funding per lane-mile, and funding per capita. The charts in this section can be compared with the charts in Section 5-2 to understand the extent to which the removal of outliers impacts the appearance of equity between the different funding sources. Figure 5-6 illustrates the percentage of each funding source allocated to each MPO, when the outliers in the STIP and CIP are removed. Compared with Figure 5-2, where the CIP relative allocation for the Boston MPO is 1.5 the relative allocation for Chapter 90, when the outliers are removed, the CIP allocation is only 1.02 the Chapter 90 allocation. With the outliers removed, the Southeastern Massachusetts MPO, Franklin and Boston are the only two MPOs that receive a greater proportion of CIP funding than Chapter 90. The differences in proportions are all less than 45 percent The Boston MPO shows the largest discrepancy for the STIP in percentage terms, but still receives 80 percent of the relative allocation for STIP funds than Chapter 90 funds. Old Colony receives only half the proportion of CIP funds compared to its Chapter 90 allocation, although it is only a 2 percent difference. Project Selection Advisory (PSA) Council Draft Tech Memo Page 5-5 December 2, 2014