2020 Regional Transportation PlanThe Regional Transportation Plan (2020) does not specifically call out the Connecticut River Trail, but it
does identify the need and objective to fill gaps and connect trails (Pages 125, 199, 202). This path will
connect the rich shared use path network (eventually Boston to Northampton to New Haven) with
Hatfield, which is currently not served at all by shared use trails.
ii
2020 Update
to the
Regional Transportation Plan
Draft Report – June, 2019
Prepared by the
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
For the Pioneer Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Pioneer Valley MPO Members
Name Title
Stephanie Pollack Secretary and CEO of the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation
Jonathan L. Gulliver Administrator of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Highway Division
Walter Gunn Chairman of the Pioneer Valley Executive Committee
Mayor David Narkewicz Chairman of the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority Advisory Board
Mayor Richard Kos Mayor of Chicopee
Mayor Alexander Morse Mayor of Holyoke
Mayor Brian P. Sullivan Mayor of Westfield
Mayor Nicole LaChapelle Mayor of Easthampton
Carmina Fernandes Ludlow Board of Selectmen
Roger Fuller Chesterfield Board of Selectmen
Richard Sullivan Economic Development Council of Western Massachusetts
Alternates
Mayor Domenic Sarno Mayor of Springfield
Mayor William C. Reichelt Mayor of West Springfield
John Martin Southampton Board of Selectmen
Ex-Officio (Non-Voting)
Jeff McEwen Federal Highway Administration
Peter Butler Federal Transit Administration
Sandra Sheehan Administrator of the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority
James Czach Chairman – Pioneer Valley Joint Transportation Committee
Prepared in cooperation with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Transportation -
Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, and the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority. The views
and opinions of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
U.S. Department of Transportation.
2020 Update to the Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 1
INTRODUCTION 1
A. Vision, Goals, and Emphasis Areas ................................................................................................ 3
1. Regional Goals ............................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Emphasis Areas ........................................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2 5
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS 5
A. Requirements .................................................................................................................................. 6
1. Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act ............................................................................... 6
2. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ........................................................................................................... 7
3. Title VI/ Environmental Justice .................................................................................................................. 7
B. The Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) ................................................. 8
C. Key Products .................................................................................................................................11
1. Transportation Improvement Program ...................................................................................................... 11
2. Unified Planning Work Program ............................................................................................................... 11
3. Public Participation Process ...................................................................................................................... 11
4. RTP Amendment Process.......................................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 3 15
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 15
A. RTP Survey ....................................................................................................................................16
B. RTP Outreach ................................................................................................................................19
C. Draft RTP ......................................................................................................................................20
CHAPTER 4 23
EQUITY 23
A. Background ....................................................................................................................................23
B. Goals of the Pioneer Valley Environmental Justice Plan ..............................................................24
1. Goals Related to Identifying the Region's Minority and Low-Income Populations .................................. 24
2. Goals Related to Public Involvement: ....................................................................................................... 24
3. Goals Related to Service Equity: ............................................................................................................... 24
C. Identification of Minority and Low Income Populations and Target Populations ........................25
1. Minority Populations ................................................................................................................................. 25
2. Identification of Low Income Populations ................................................................................................ 25
D. Identification of Persons with Disabilities Populations ................................................................27
1. Foreign Born Demographics and Migration .............................................................................................. 29
E. Consultation and Active Solicitation of Public Participation ........................................................30
1. Methods to Engage Populations in the Planning Process .......................................................................... 31
F. Equity Assessment Measures .........................................................................................................32
1. Equity Assessment Strategies .................................................................................................................... 32
2. Equity Distribution Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 32
3. Pioneer Valley Language Access Plan and Analysis of Language-related U.S. Census Data ................... 50
4. Recommendations from the Language Access Plan (LAP) Plan ............................................................... 52
5. Ongoing Evaluation of Title VI and EJ Planning Efforts .......................................................................... 52
G. Title VI and EJ Self Certification ...................................................................................................53
1. Conditions Related to Public Involvement ................................................................................................ 54
2. Conditions Related to Equity Assessment ................................................................................................. 54
3. Title VI and EJ Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 5 55
REGIONAL PROFILE 55
A. Highway .........................................................................................................................................56
B. Passenger Transportation .............................................................................................................57
1. Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) ................................................................................................ 57
2. Other Transit Services ............................................................................................................................... 58
3. Passenger Rail ........................................................................................................................................... 59
C. Intelligent Transportation Systems ................................................................................................60
D. Non-Motorized Transportation ......................................................................................................61
E. Aviation..........................................................................................................................................63
F. Transportation of Goods ...............................................................................................................64
2020 Update to the Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan
ii
G. Demographics ................................................................................................................................65
CHAPTER 6 67
SAFETY 67
A. Highway Safety Improvement Program .........................................................................................67
B. Strategic Highway Safety Plan ......................................................................................................68
1. 2018 Update to the SHSP .......................................................................................................................... 68
2. Role of Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning ......................................................................................... 70
C. Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................71
1. Massachusetts Crash Data ......................................................................................................................... 71
2. Regional Crash History ............................................................................................................................. 71
3. Bridges ...................................................................................................................................................... 75
4. At-grade Railroad Crossings ..................................................................................................................... 76
5. Dams in the Pioneer Valley Region .......................................................................................................... 79
D. Transportation Safety Planning Projects in the Region ................................................................82
1. Top 100 High Crash Intersections ............................................................................................................. 82
2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Clusters in the Region ................................................................................ 82
3. SafetyCompass .......................................................................................................................................... 82
4. Transportation Safety Studies ................................................................................................................... 84
5. Local Technical Assistance ....................................................................................................................... 84
CHAPTER 7 85
SECURITY 85
A. Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................85
1. Homeland Security .................................................................................................................................... 85
2. Transit Security ......................................................................................................................................... 87
3. Rail Security .............................................................................................................................................. 87
B. Western Massachusetts Evacuation Plan ......................................................................................88
C. Massachusetts Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan .....................................................91
1. Massachusetts Emergency Support Function 1 Transportation ................................................................. 91
2. Local Hazard Mitigation Planning ............................................................................................................ 91
D. Improving Regional Security .........................................................................................................92
CHAPTER 8 93
CONGESTION 93
A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................93
1. Regulatory Context ................................................................................................................................... 94
2. CMP Development Process ....................................................................................................................... 95
3. Implementation Strategies ......................................................................................................................... 95
4. CMP Corridors .......................................................................................................................................... 97
5. National Performance Measures Research Data Set (NPMRDS) .............................................................. 99
6. Expanded NPMRDS Data ....................................................................................................................... 101
B. Congestion Studies ......................................................................................................................103
1. Travel Time Contours ............................................................................................................................. 105
CHAPTER 9 115
PAVEMENT 115
A. Regional Efforts and Process ......................................................................................................115
B. Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................116
CHAPTER 10 121
SUSTAINABILITY 121
A. MassDOT- Commmission on the Future of Transportation ........................................................124
B. Regional Sustainability Initiatives ...............................................................................................125
1. Smart Growth—integrating transportation, land use and housing ........................................................... 126
2. Legislative Changes to Expand Funding Options ................................................................................... 126
3. Electric Charging—Decarbonization of the Fleet ................................................................................... 127
4. Complete Streets ..................................................................................................................................... 128
5. ValleyBike .............................................................................................................................................. 128
6. Social Determinants of Health—Transportation and the Built Environment .......................................... 128
7. Adapting to the Changing Climate/Risk Management ............................................................................ 129
CHAPTER 11 131
2020 Update to the Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan
iii
LIVABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 131
A. Regional Weather Trends and Anticipated Changes ...................................................................133
1. Temperature ............................................................................................................................................ 133
2. Precipitation ............................................................................................................................................ 137
3. Extreme Weather Events ......................................................................................................................... 143
B. Existing Policies Programs .........................................................................................................144
1. Complete Streets ..................................................................................................................................... 144
2. GHG emissions assessments as MEPA ................................................................................................... 144
3. Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Program ......................................................................... 145
4. Green Communities ................................................................................................................................ 145
5. Local Bylaw/Ordinance & Other Regulatory Reform ............................................................................. 146
C. New/Recommended Policies ........................................................................................................146
1. TCI .......................................................................................................................................................... 146
2. Housing Choice/Zoning Reform ............................................................................................................. 147
3. Our Next Future ...................................................................................................................................... 148
4. Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 148
CHAPTER 12 149
PERFORMANCE MEASURES 149
A. Introduction .................................................................................................................................149
B. Safety Performance Measures (PM1) ..........................................................................................151
C. Bridge & Pavement Performance Measures (PM2) ....................................................................153
D. Reliability, Congestion, & Emissions Performance Measures (PM3) .........................................154
1. National Performance Measure Research Data Set (NPMRDS) ............................................................. 157
E. Transit Asset Management Plan (TAM) ......................................................................................158
F. System Performance Report ........................................................................................................161
1. Overall System Performance Assessment ............................................................................................... 168
CHAPTER 13 169
FUTURE FORECASTS 169
A. Regional employment scenario ....................................................................................................170
B. Regional Travel Demand Model ..................................................................................................175
1. Regionally Significant Projects ............................................................................................................... 175
2. Estimated Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled ........................................................................................... 177
3. Future Traffic Volume Projections .......................................................................................................... 177
CHAPTER 14 179
NEEDS, STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS 179
A. Needs ...........................................................................................................................................181
B. Strategies .....................................................................................................................................183
C. Projects ........................................................................................................................................186
1. PROJECT PRIORITY CRITERIA AND SELECTION ......................................................................... 186
2. Development of the FY2020 – FY2024 TIP ........................................................................................... 188
3. Major Regional Projects .......................................................................................................................... 195
D. Visionary Projects .......................................................................................................................195
1. I-91 Viaduct - Springfield ....................................................................................................................... 196
2. I-90 Interchange Study ............................................................................................................................ 198
3. East-West Passenger Rail Study .............................................................................................................. 198
E. RTP Problem Statements .............................................................................................................199
CHAPTER 15 205
FINANCIAL ELEMENT 205
A. Revenue........................................................................................................................................206
B. Financially Constraint Process ...................................................................................................208
1. Regional Target Funding ......................................................................................................................... 209
C. Financial Constraint ....................................................................................................................211
D. Needs ...........................................................................................................................................212
1. Operating and Maintenance .................................................................................................................... 212
E. Alternative Funding Scenarios ....................................................................................................216
1. Summary of Identified Scenarios ............................................................................................................ 217
2. Local Revenue Options .......................................................................................................................... 219
2020 Update to the Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan
iv
3. Local Pavement Maintenance Needs....................................................................................................... 220
4. Regional Transit Needs ........................................................................................................................... 224
CHAPTER 16 227
CONFORMITY 227
A. Air Quality Conformity Information ............................................................................................227
B. Introduction .................................................................................................................................227
C. Legislative and Regulatory Background ......................................................................................228
D. Current Conformity Determination .............................................................................................230
1. Latest Planning Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 231
2. Consultation ............................................................................................................................................ 231
3. Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures ................................................................. 232
4. Fiscal Constraint: .................................................................................................................................... 232
CHAPTER 17 235
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION 235
A. Environmental Consultation ........................................................................................................235
CHAPTER 18 241
ENDORSEMENT 241
Index of Tables
INDEX OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................... IV
INDEX OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................... VI
TABLE 3-1 - WHAT TYPE OF PROJECTS ARE IMPORTANT TO YOU? ................................................................. 16
TABLE 3-2 – RTP OUTREACH EVENTS ........................................................................................................... 19
TABLE 3-3 – COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT RTP ............................................................................... 21
TABLE 4-1 – DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECTS IN THE RTP TO LOW INCOME POPULATIONS ................................. 33
TABLE 4-2 – DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECTS IN THE RTP TO MINORITY POPULATIONS ...................................... 33
TABLE 4-3 - EVALUATION OF TRANSIT SERVICE BY ROUTE ........................................................................... 40
TABLE 4-4 - TRAVEL SERVICE BETWEEN ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS FOR AMHERST .................................. 42
TABLE 4-5 - TRAVEL SERVICE BETWEEN ORIGIN AND DESTINATIONS FOR NORTHAMPTON ........................... 43
TABLE 4-6 - TRAVEL SERVICE BETWEEN ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS FOR HOLYOKE .................................. 43
TABLE 4-7 - TRAVEL SERVICE BETWEEN ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS FOR CHICOPEE .................................. 43
TABLE 4-8 - TRAVEL SERVICE BETWEEN ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS FOR SPRINGFIELD ............................. 44
TABLE 4-9 - TRAVEL SERVICE BETWEEN ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS FOR WEST SPRINGFIELD ................... 44
TABLE 4-10 – DISTRIBUTION OF UPWP TASK BY COMMUNITY BY YEAR ...................................................... 49
TABLE 4-11 – LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH SPOKEN AT HOME IN THE PVPC REGION ........................ 52
TABLE 5-1 – VALLEYBIKE MONTHLY RIDERSHIP .......................................................................................... 62
TABLE 6-1 – PROJECTS ADVERTISED UNDER HSIP ........................................................................................ 68
TABLE 6-2 –ROADWAY SAFETY AUDITS BY COMMUNITY ............................................................................. 71
TABLE 6-3 – TEN YEAR COMMUNITY CRASH HISTORY ................................................................................. 73
TABLE 6-4 – BRIDGE CONDITION IN THE PVPC REGION ................................................................................ 77
TABLE 6-5 – DAMS IN THE PIONEER VALLEY IN POOR OR UNSAFE CONDITION ............................................. 80
TABLE 8-1 – CMP IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ........................................................................................ 96
TABLE 8-2 – POTENTIAL CONGESTION STUDIES TO BE ADVANCED THROUGH A FUTURE UPWP ................. 103
TABLE 8-3 – TIP PROJECTS THAT MAY IMPROVE CONGESTION ................................................................... 104
TABLE 8-4 – TRAVEL T IME COMPARISON NORTHBOUND ROUTES (2001, 2015, AND 2019) ........................ 105
TABLE 8-5 – TRAVEL T IME COMPARISON SOUTHBOUND ROUTES (2001, 2015, AND 2019) ......................... 106
TABLE 8-6 – TRAVEL T IME COMPARISON EASTBOUND ROUTES (2001, 2015, AND 2019) ............................ 106
TABLE 8-7 – TRAVEL T IME COMPARISON WESTBOUND ROUTES (2001, 2015, AND 2019) ........................... 107
TABLE 9-1 - AVERAGE OCI BY COMMUNITY ............................................................................................... 117
TABLE 9-2 - PAVEMENT CONDITION RANGE BY FUNCTIONAL CLASS .......................................................... 118
TABLE 11-1 – REGIONAL CULVERTS ............................................................................................................ 143
TABLE 12-1 - REGIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURE STATUS ........................................................................ 150
TABLE 12-2 – BRIDGE AND PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURE STATUS ................................................. 154
TABLE 12-3 – RELIABILITY, CONGESTION AND EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE MEASURE STATUS ................... 155
2020 Update to the Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan
v
TABLE 12-4 - PERFORMANCE MEASURE LINKED INVESTMENTS 2015-2019 ................................................ 156
TABLE 12-5 – PVTA TAM PLAN PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS ............................................... 159
TABLE 12-6 - TAM INVESTMENTS 2015-2019 ............................................................................................. 160
TABLE 12-7 – STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES IN THE PIONEER VALLEY SINCE 2009 ......................... 161
TABLE 12-8 – REGIONAL OCI BY RTP YEAR .............................................................................................. 162
TABLE 12-9 – FATAL CRASHES IN THE PIONEER VALLEY ............................................................................ 162
TABLE 12-10 – FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES IN THE PIONEER VALLEY ........................................ 163
TABLE 12-11 – SAFETY STUDIES COMPLETED OVER THE PAST 7 YEARS ..................................................... 163
TABLE 12-12 – AVERAGE REGIONAL TRAVEL TIME INDEX BY CMP ANALYSIS YEAR ................................ 164
TABLE 12-13 – COMPLETED CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ........................................................... 164
TABLE 12-14 – COMPLETED CONGESTION PLANNING STUDIES .................................................................... 164
TABLE 12-15 – ON-ROAD BICYCLE FACILITY MILEAGE IN THE PIONEER VALLEY ....................................... 165
TABLE 12-16 – PVTA ROUTES THAT MEET PASSENGERS PER TRIP AND PASSENGERS PER REVENUE HOUR
STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................ 165
TABLE 12-17 – STATEWIDE GHG EMISSIONS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR ................................... 166
TABLE 12-18 – AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS COMPLETED OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS ................. 166
TABLE 12-19 – RESTRICTED AND CLOSED BRIDGES .................................................................................... 166
TABLE 12-20 – AVERAGE PARK AND RIDE LOT OCCUPANCY 2011 -2015 ................................................... 167
TABLE 12-21 – HISTORIC USE OF THE SPRINGFIELD RIVERWALK ................................................................ 167
TABLE 12-22 – PVTA AND FRTA TOTAL ANNUAL RIDERSHIP ................................................................... 168
TABLE 12-23 – SUMMARY OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ........................................................... 168
TABLE 13-1 – POPULATION FORECAST FOR THE PIONEER VALLEY REGION ................................................. 171
TABLE 13-2 – HOUSEHOLD FORECAST FOR THE PIONEER VALLEY REGION ................................................. 172
TABLE 13-3– EMPLOYMENT FORECAST FOR THE PIONEER VALLEY REGION ............................................... 173
TABLE 13-4 – PVPC SCENARIO FOR PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT CHANGE .................................................... 174
TABLE 14-1 – SAFETY AND SECURITY NEEDS (S&S) ................................................................................... 181
TABLE 14-2 – NEEDS TO ENHANCE THE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE (MOP) ...................................................... 181
TABLE 14-3 – NEEDS TO ENHANCE THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS (MOG) ...................................................... 182
TABLE 14-4 – NEEDS TO ENHANCE THE MOVEMENT OF INFORMATION (MOI) ............................................. 182
TABLE 14-5 – SUMMARY OF NEEDS TO ENHANCE SUSTAINABILITY (S) ....................................................... 182
TABLE 14-6 – SAFETY AND SECURITY STRATEGIES ..................................................................................... 183
TABLE 14-7 – STRATEGIES TO ASSIST IN THE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE ......................................................... 184
TABLE 14-8 – STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS.......................................................... 184
TABLE 14-9 – STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE THE MOVEMENT OF INFORMATION ............................................... 185
TABLE 14-10 – STRATEGIES THAT ENHANCE SUSTAINABILITY .................................................................... 185
TABLE 14-11 – TEC SCORING SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 187
TABLE 14-12 – 2020-2024 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) ........................................... 189
TABLE 14-12 – 2020-2024 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) CONTINUED ....................... 190
TABLE 14-12 – 2020-2024 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) CONTINUED ....................... 191
TABLE 14-12 – 2020-2024 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) CONTINUED ....................... 192
TABLE 14-12 – 2020-2024 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) CONTINUED ....................... 193
TABLE 14-13 – MAJOR REGIONAL PROJECTS ............................................................................................... 195
TABLE 14-14 – VISIONARY PROJECTS .......................................................................................................... 196
TABLE 14-15 – MID-TERM I-91 IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................................................... 197
TABLE 15-1 – ESTIMATED PIONEER VALLEY REGION HIGHWAY REVENUE 2020 – 2040 ............................. 206
TABLE 15-2 – ESTIMATED STATEWIDE BRIDGE FUNDING ............................................................................ 207
TABLE 15-3 – ESTIMATED TRANSIT CAPITAL REVENUE 2020 - 2040 ........................................................... 207
TABLE 15-4 – ESTIMATED TRANSIT OPERATING REVENUE 2020 – 2040...................................................... 207
TABLE 15-5 – TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE 2020-2040 .............................................................................. 208
TABLE 15-6– SUMMARY OF HIGHWAY SPENDING BY PROJECT TYPE 2015 - 2019 ....................................... 209
TABLE 15-7 – REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING PROJECT ALLOCATION ............................................... 209
TABLE 15-8 - REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING BREAKDOWN .............................................................. 210
TABLE 15-9 - HIGHWAY FISCAL CONSTRAINT SUMMARY ............................................................................ 211
TABLE 15-10 - TRANSIT FISCAL CONSTRAINT SUMMARY ............................................................................ 212
TABLE 15-11 – SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED HIGHWAY NEEDS OVER THE LIFE OF THE RTP ........................... 213
2020 Update to the Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan
vi
TABLE 15-12 – ESTIMATED TRANSIT NEED 2020 – 2040 ............................................................................. 214
TABLE 15-13 – ESTIMATED RAIL NEED 2016 – 2040 ................................................................................... 216
TABLE 15-14 - SCENARIO FUNDING SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 219
TABLE 17-1 – RTP ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION MAILING LIST ......................................................... 239
Index of Figures
FIGURE 2-1 – PIONEER VALLEY MPO .............................................................................................................. 8
FIGURE 2-2 – REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS FLOWCHART ............................................. 13
FIGURE 3-1 – TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WORD CLOUD ................................................................... 17
FIGURE 3-2 – PRIMARY VS. DESIRED TRANSPORTATION MODES ................................................................... 18
FIGURE 3-3 – REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEFINITION WORD CLOUD ........................................................ 19
FIGURE 4-1 – CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS WITH MINORITY POPULATIONS EXCEEDING REGIONAL AVERAGE .... 26
FIGURE 4-2 – 2010 CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS WITH A POVERTY RATE ABOVE THAT OF THE REGION .............. 27
FIGURE 4-3 – CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS- INDIVIDUALS IN THE PIONEER VALLEY AGE 21-64 WITH
DISABILITIES............................................................................................................................. 28
FIGURE 4-4 – CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS INDIVIDUALS IN THE PIONEER VALLEY AGE 65+ WITH DISABILITIES 29
FIGURE 4-5 – NET DOMESTIC MIGRATION IN THE PIONEER VALLEY REGION ................................................ 30
FIGURE 4-6 – DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECTS IN THE RTP TO LOW INCOME AND MINORITY POPULATIONS ....... 34
FIGURE 4-7 – DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS........................................................................ 35
FIGURE 4-8 - TRANSIT ACCESS TO MAJOR EMPLOYERS FOR ZONES OF HIGH PERCENTAGES OF MINORITY
AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS ............................................................................................. 39
FIGURE 4-9 - ATTAINABILITY BY TRANSIT FOR LOW INCOME AND MINORITY ............................................... 41
FIGURE 4-10 - ATTAINABILITY BY TRANSIT FOR THE ELDERLY ..................................................................... 45
FIGURE 4-11 - ATTAINABILITY BY TRANSIT FOR THE DISABLED WORKING AGE GROUP ............................... 46
FIGURE 4-12 - ATTAINABILITY BY TRANSIT FOR THE DISABLED ELDERLY .................................................... 47
FIGURE 5-1 – PIONEER VALLEY REGION MAP ................................................................................................ 56
FIGURE 5-2 – PIONEER VALLEY ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND JURISDICTION ..................... 56
FIGURE 5-3– PVTA COMMUNITIES AND BUS ROUTES ................................................................................... 57
FIGURE 5-4 – MASSACHUSETTS 511 REAL TIME TRAFFIC .............................................................................. 60
FIGURE 5-5 – REGIONAL BICYCLE NETWORK ................................................................................................ 61
FIGURE 5-6 – MASSACHUSETTS RAIL FREIGHT NETWORK ............................................................................. 64
FIGURE 5-7 - POPULATION CHANGE 1950 - 2015 ........................................................................................... 65
FIGURE 5-8 – 2017 HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE ...................................................................................................... 65
FIGURE 5-9 - PER CAPITA INCOME CHANGE 2007 - 2017 ............................................................................... 66
FIGURE 5-10 – 2015 VEHICLE REGISTRATION ................................................................................................ 66
FIGURE 5-11 –EMPLOYMENT MODE OF TRAVEL BY COUNTY ........................................................................ 66
FIGURE 6-1 – MASSACHUSETTS TOP 200 HIGH CRASH LOCATIONS IN THE REGION ....................................... 72
FIGURE 6-2 – TOP 100 HIGH CRASH INTERSECTIONS IN THE PIONEER VALLEY ............................................. 74
FIGURE 6-3 – FATAL CRASHES IN HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN COUNTIES ..................................................... 75
FIGURE 6-4 – STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES IN THE PIONEER VALLEY ............................................... 76
FIGURE 6-5 – AT-GRADE RAILROAD CROSSINGS ............................................................................................ 78
FIGURE 6-6 – TOP 10 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH CLUSTERS IN THE REGION ..................................... 83
FIGURE 7-1 – EVACUATION ROUTES AND WATER HAZARDS IN HAMPDEN COUNTY ...................................... 89
FIGURE 7-2 – EVACUATION ROUTES AND WATER HAZARDS IN HAMPSHIRE COUNTY ................................... 90
FIGURE 8-1 – CMP CORRIDORS ..................................................................................................................... 98
FIGURE 8-2 – NPMRDS COVERAGE .............................................................................................................. 99
FIGURE 8-3 – TRAVEL TIME INDEX – URBAN (2017) .................................................................................... 100
FIGURE 8-4 – TRAVEL TIME INDEX – REGION (2017) ................................................................................... 101
FIGURE 8-5 – EXPANDED NPMRDS COVERAGE .......................................................................................... 102
FIGURE 8-6 – TRAVEL TIME CONTOURS FOR THE SPRINGFIELD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ................... 108
FIGURE 8-7 – TRAVEL TIME CONTOURS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS - AMHERST ................ 109
FIGURE 8-8 – TRAVEL TIME CONTOURS FOR THE EAST LONGMEADOW INDUSTRIAL PARK ......................... 110
FIGURE 8-9 – TRAVEL TIME CONTOURS FOR THE NORTHAMPTON CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ............... 111
2020 Update to the Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan
vii
FIGURE 8-10 – TRAVEL TIME CONTOURS FOR THE PALMER FOUR CORNERS ............................................... 112
FIGURE 8-11 – TRAVEL TIME CONTOURS FOR WESTFIELD SUMMIT LOCK ................................................... 113
FIGURE 9-1 - PAVEMENT CONDITION OF THE REGION’S ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADWAYS ............... 118
FIGURE 9-2- ARTERIAL ROAD CONDITION COMPARISONS BY MILES ........................................................... 119
FIGURE 9-3- COLLECTOR ROAD CONDITION COMPARISONS BY MILES ........................................................ 119
FIGURE 10-1 – CITIES WITH THE MOST “SUPER – COMMUTERS” .................................................................. 124
FIGURE 11-1 – GLOBAL WARMING TEMPERATURE FORECASTS ................................................................... 134
FIGURE 11-2 – ANNUAL DAYS WITH MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE ABOVE 90° F ........................................... 134
FIGURE 11-3 – MASSACHUSETTS CLIMATE PROJECTIONS ............................................................................ 135
FIGURE 11-4 – MASSACHUSETTS EMISSIONS SCENARIOS ............................................................................. 136
FIGURE 11-5 – AVERAGE TEMPERATURES IN CHICOPEE, MA ...................................................................... 136
FIGURE 11-6 – EXTREME TEMPERATURES IN CHICOPEE, MA ...................................................................... 137
FIGURE 11-7 – HISTORIC TRENDS IN MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION.................................................................. 138
FIGURE 11-8 – PREDICTED ANNUAL TOTAL PRECIPITATION ........................................................................ 138
FIGURE 11-9 – PREDICTED RAINFALL EVENTS > 1” ..................................................................................... 139
FIGURE 11-10 - 100 AND500 YEAR FLOOD AREAS ....................................................................................... 140
FIGURE 11-11 - FLOOD ZONES FOR I-91, ROUTE 9 AND ROUTE 20 ............................................................... 141
FIGURE 11-12 – CULVERTS FOR ROADWAY CROSSINGS IN THE PIONEER VALLEY ....................................... 142
FIGURE 11-13 – DISASTER EVENTS IN THE UNITED STATES ......................................................................... 143
FIGURE 11-14 – MUNICIPAL VULNERABILITY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM PARTICIPATION ........................... 145
FIGURE 12-1 - TOTAL FATALITIES AND FATALITY RATE .............................................................................. 152
FIGURE 12--2 - TOTAL INCAPACITATING INJURIES AND INJURY RATE ......................................................... 153
FIGURE 12-3 – LEVEL OF TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY .................................................................................. 157
FIGURE 12-4 – TRUCK TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY ...................................................................................... 158
FIGURE 13-1 – ESTIMATED FUTURE VMT .................................................................................................... 177
FIGURE 13-2 - PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON AREA BRIDGES ................................................... 178
FIGURE 13-3 - PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON INTERSTATE 91 ................................................... 178
FIGURE 14-1 – RTP EMPHASIS AREAS ......................................................................................................... 180
FIGURE 14-2 – RTP PROJECTS BY TYPE ....................................................................................................... 194
FIGURE 14-3 – NEAR AND MID-TERM IMPROVEMENTS I-91 SOUTH SECTION .............................................. 197
FIGURE 14-4 – KEY CONSTRAINTS ALONG THE RAIL CORRIDOR ................................................................. 198
FIGURE 15-1 – COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED HIGHWAY NEEDS AND REVENUE ........................................... 214
FIGURE 15-2 – PIONEER VALLEY MPO TRANSIT CAPITAL NEEDS VS. ESTIMATED REVENUE ...................... 215
FIGURE 15-3 –PROJECT BUILT VS. PROJECT COST 2015 - 2020 .................................................................... 217
FIGURE 15-4 –PROJECT OCI BASED ON SCENARIOS ..................................................................................... 218
FIGURE 15-5 – MILES OF ROADWAY BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ...................................................... 221
FIGURE 15-6 – PIONEER VALLEY MUNICIPAL CHAPTER 90 FUNDING 2010-2019 ........................................ 222
FIGURE 15-7 OCI PROJECTIONS BASED ON CURRENT CHAPTER 90 PROGRAM ............................................ 222
FIGURE 15-8 OCI PROJECTIONS BASED ON CURRENT CHAPTER 90 PROGRAM ............................................ 223
FIGURE 15-9 – PVTA OPERATING FUNDS BREAKDOWN .............................................................................. 225
FIGURE 15-10 – PVTA OPERATING FUNDS SCENARIO ................................................................................. 225
FIGURE 17-1 – RTP PROJECTS AND MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS .............................................................. 237
FIGURE 17-2 – RTP PROJECTS WITH 100 AND 500 YEAR FLOOD ZONES ...................................................... 238
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1
Photo: Julia Buxton Bridge
INTRODUCTION
The Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) outlines the direction
of transportation planning and improvements for the Pioneer Valley through
the year 2040. It provides the basis for all state and federally funded
transportation improvement projects and planning studies. This document is
an update to the current RTP (last published in 2015) and is endorsed by the
Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
As the Pioneer Valley’s blueprint for maintaining a safe and efficient
transportation system for all modes of travel, this long range plan identifies
the region’s goals, strategies, and projects to both enhance and maintain our
transportation system. The RTP is developed in concert with the Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) legislation as well as the
recommendations included in statewide transportation planning documents
developed by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT).
CHAPTER 1
Chapter 1 – Introduction
2
All projects included as part of the regional Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) must come from a conforming RTP. This is extremely
important as most major transportation improvement projects rely on federal
transportation funds for construction. The following projects are just a few
examples of recent transportation improvements in the Pioneer Valley region
that advanced through a conforming RTP.
Restoration of Springfield’s Union Station.
Repairs to the Interstate I-91 Viaduct in Springfield.
Expansion of regional passenger rail service from Springfield, MA to
Hartford, CT.
Westfield’s Columbia River Greenway Trail.
A new roundabout at the intersection of Pleasant Street with Conz
Street in Northampton.
State of the art electric buses at the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority.
Although the RTP focuses on transportation, it is a comprehensive planning
document that has been developed and coordinated with other planning
efforts in the region. The plan recognizes that while we do not know the
future, change is inevitable and is important to advocate for change that is
beneficial to our residents, workers, economy, and landscape. Changes in
land use and development patterns transform the traditional visual characte r
and function of the region and transportation plays a significant role in
influencing how the region will grow and change.
Strategic planning is a continuing process that produces planning documents
and agendas which decision-makers can use to prioritize local needs. A truly
effective planning process relies upon the input of the chief elected official(s),
city and town staff, and the general public. In addition, the strategic planning
process is based on a realistic assessment of external forces - political,
social, economic, and technological - that can affect Pioneer Valley
communities and residents. All recommendations generated through the
strategic planning process must have a real potential for implementation. By
developing the RTP for the Pioneer Valley in such a manner, the region will
be able to conduct successful transportation improvement programming
through the year 2040.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
3
Goals
1. Safety
2. Operations and
Maintenance
3. Environment
4. Coordination
5. Energy Efficiency
6. Cost Effectiveness
7. Intermodal Access
8. Multimodal Choices
9. Economic Productivity
10. Quality of Life
11. Environmental Justice
12. Land Use
13. Climate Change
A. VISION, GOALS, AND EMPHASIS AREAS
The Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization developed a vision to
provide a framework for the development of the RTP.
1. Regional Goals
To support the realization of the Vision of the plan for the Pioneer Valley
MPO, a series of thirteen transportation goals were developed that are
consistent with the Fast Act. Cooperation between federal, state, regional,
and local decision makers will be necessary in order to achieve these goals.
Through cooperative planning efforts the region can maintain a dependable
transportation system and develop strategies to maximize the efficiency of
transportation funding for the region.
1. Safety - To provide and maintain a
transportation system that is safe for
users of all travel modes and their
property.
2. Operations and Maintenance - To
provide a transportation system that is
dependable, resilient, and adequately
serves users of all modes. To give
priority to adaptable repair of existing
infrastructure.
3. Environmental - To minimize the
transportation related adverse impacts
to air, land, wildlife and water quality
and strive to improve environmental
conditions at every opportunity and
incorporate green infrastructure.
RTP Vision
The Pioneer Valley region strives to create and maintain a
safe, dependable, resilient, environmentally sound, and
equitable transportation system for all. We pledge to
balance performance based strategies and projects that
promote sustainable development, reduced use of fossil fuels,
healthy and livable communities, provide for efficient
movement of people and goods, advance economic vitality
and enhance connectivity in the region.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
4
Emphasis Areas
1. Safety and Security
2. Movement of People
3. Movement of Goods
4. Movement of Information
5. Sustainability
4. Coordination - - To facilitate collaborative efforts between the general
public and local, state and federal planning and project implementation
activities.
5. Energy Efficient - To promote the reduction of energy consumption
through demand management techniques and increasing the use of
energy efficient travel modes.
6. Cost Effective - To provide a transportation system that is cost effective
to maintain, improve and operate.
7. Intermodal - To provide access between travel modes for people and
goods while maintaining quality and affordability of service.
8. Multimodal - To provide a complete choice of adequate travel options that
are accessible to all residents, students, visitors and businesses.
9. Economically Productive - To maintain a transportation system that
promotes and supports economic stability and expansion.
10. Quality of Life - To provide and maintain a transportation system that
enhances quality of life and improves the social and economic climate of
the region.
11. Environmental Justice - To provide an equitably accessible
transportation system that considers the needs of and impacts on low-
income, people of color, elderly and disabled persons.
12. Land Use - To incorporate the concepts of Sustainable Development in
the regional transportation planning process and integrate the
recommendations of the current Regional Land Use Plan into
transportation improvements.
13. Climate Change - To promote and advance transportation projects that
reduce the production of greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, and advance
new energy technologies consistent with the Pioneer Valley Clean Energy
Plan.
2. Emphasis Areas
A total of five emphasis areas were
identified to assist in the achievement of the
regional goals. The transportation emphasis
areas consist of broad topics related to
transportation planning that are related to
the regional goals. These emphasis areas
are not intended to be a replacement for the regional transportation goals;
instead, they were established with the recognition that many of the
transportation improvement strategies included as part of the RTP can meet
multiple goals. The emphasis areas connect regional transportation needs,
strategies, and projects and will be covered in greater detail in Chapter 14.
Chapter 2 – Transportation Planning Process
5
Photo: PVTA Bus Shelter
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS
The Pioneer Valley MPO is required by federal law to conduct the
metropolitan transportation planning process for the region based on the
requirements of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The
final rules on Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning and
Metropolitan Transportation Planning were published on May 27, 2016 and
set the requirements for the transportation planning process. The Pioneer
Valley MPO seeks to develop a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive
(3C) transportation planning process in concert with our federal, state and
local partners. As the lead planning agency for the Pioneer Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission (PVPC) is responsible for the day to day management of this
process.
CHAPTER 2
Chapter 2 – Transportation Planning Process
6
A. REQUIREMENTS
1. Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
The FAST Act was signed into law by President Obama on December 4,
2015. This transportation bill specifically addresses all modes of
transportation and enhances many of the existing provisions and programs
defined in past transportation legislation.
National goal areas identified as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century (MAP-21) Act continue to be a priority under the FAST Act and
address the following areas:
Safety—To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and
serious injuries on all public roads.
Infrastructure condition—To maintain the highway infrastructure
asset system in a state of good repair.
Congestion reduction—To achieve a significant reduction in
congestion on the NHS.
System reliability—To improve the efficiency of the surface
transportation system.
Freight movement and economic vitality—To improve the national
freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access
national and international trade markets, and support regional
economic development.
Environmental sustainability—To enhance the performance of the
transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural
environment.
Reduced project delivery delays—To reduce project costs, promote
jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and
goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in
the project development and delivery process, including reducing
regulatory burdens and improving agencies’ work practices.
a) FAST Act Planning Factors
All metropolitan planning organizations are required to incorporate ten factors
into their planning process. The Pioneer Valley MPO has taken great strides
to incorporate these ten factors into the regional planning process. The Ten
Planning Factors are:
Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan areas, especially by
enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-
motorized users.
Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and
non-motorized users.
Chapter 2 – Transportation Planning Process
7
Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight.
Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation,
improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between
transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and
economic development patterns.
Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system,
across and between modes, for people and freight.
Promote efficient system management and operation.
Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and
reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation.
Enhancing travel and tourism.
2. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
The Regional Transportation Plan must demonstrate compliance with federal
Clean Air legislation – the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Specifically,
the RTP must demonstrate of how this plan will work to achieve National
Ambient Air Quality standards. This compliance is addressed as part of
Chapter 16 of the RTP.
3. Title VI/ Environmental Justice
Title VI states that "No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of
race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance." Title VI bars intentional discrimination
as well as disparate impact discrimination (i.e., a neutral policy or practice
that has a disparate impact on protected groups).
The Environmental Justice (EJ) Orders further amplify Title VI by providing
that "each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of
its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations."
Both Title VI and Environmental Justice are covered in greater detail as part
of Chapter 4 of the RTP. This also included a self-certification of the MPO’s
compliance with Title VI and Environmental Justice planning requirements.
Chapter 2 – Transportation Planning Process
8
B. THE PIONEER VALLEY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
(MPO)
The Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) implements
and oversees the 3C transportation planning process to provide an open
comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing transportation planning and
programming process in conformance with federal and state requirements.
The Pioneer Valley MPO was restructured in August of 2006 to enhance the
role of the local communities in the transportation planning process and allow
local MPO members to represent sub-regional districts respective to
community size and geographic location. A more recent update in 2017
recognized the Western Massachusetts Economic Development Council as a
voting member.
Figure 2-1 – Pioneer Valley MPO
Chapter 2 – Transportation Planning Process
9
The Pioneer Valley MPO consists of the following officials, their designee (as
allowed under the current Memorandum of Understanding), or alternate.
The Secretary of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
The Administrator of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
– Highways Division
The Chairman of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
The Chairman of the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority
The President and CEO of the Western Massachusetts Economic
Development Council (EDC)
The Mayors of two of the following three (3) urban core cities:
Chicopee Holyoke Springfield
The Mayor or a Selectman of one of the following four (4) cities and
towns:
Agawam Southwick Westfield
West
Springfield
The Mayor or a Selectman of one of the following five (5) cities and
towns:
Amherst Easthampton Hadley
Northampton South Hadley
A Selectman of one of the following fourteen (14) suburban and rural
towns:
Belchertown Brimfield East Longmeadow
Granby Hampden Holland
Longmeado
w
Ludlow Monson
Palmer Pelham Wales
Ware Wilbraham
A Selectman of one of the following seventeen (17) suburban and rural
towns:
Blandford Chester Chesterfield
Cummington Goshen Granville
Hatfield Huntington Middlefield
Montgomery Plainfield Russell
Southampton Tolland Westhampton
Williamsburg Worthington
In addition, the Administrator of the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority, the Joint
Transportation Committee (JTC) Chairman, and one representative each from
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), the five (5) alternate community MPO representatives,
and one representative each from both the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation Highway Division District One and District Two Offices shall be
Chapter 2 – Transportation Planning Process
10
considered ex-officio, non-voting members of the Pioneer Valley MPO.
Alternate members shall be additional chief elected officials from each of the
above-cited categories of communities and he/she shall be eligible to attend,
participate and vote at MPO meetings in the event that the primary member
cannot attend.
The MPO jointly develops, reviews, and endorses core planning documents
such as the Regional Transportation Plan, Unified Planning Work Program
and Transportation Improvement Program. The MPO also oversees all
amendments to these core plans and other programs that are required by
federal and state laws and regulations.
a) Joint Transportation Committee (JTC)
The Pioneer Valley Joint Transportation Committee (JTC) is the region's
transportation advisory group for the Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO). The committee is designed to assist the MPO in
incorporating citizen participation in transportation decisions which provides a
mechanism for federal, state, and local input into the regional transportation
planning process. Each member community is asked to appoint two
representatives (a representative and an alternate) to the committee. The
Pioneer Valley MPO also appoints other transportation organizations in the
region to serve on the JTC.
The JTC convenes monthly meetings open to the public. The planning
program and the various functional elements of the planning process are
developed cooperatively with the JTC with the purpose of establishing a
recommendation for action by MPO. The JTC is responsible for coordination
of all regional transportation related plans and programs in cooperation with
PVPC staff and Pioneer Valley MPO.
i) Bicycle, Pedestrian and Complete Streets Subcommittee
The Pioneer Valley Joint Transportation's Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Complete Streets Subcommittee was established by the JTC in 2000.
The subcommittee is responsible for the oversight and coordination of
planning activities related to non-motorized modes of transportation.
ii) TIP Subcommittee
The Pioneer Valley Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Subcommittee was established by the JTC in 2003. The goal of the
subcommittee is to develop recommendations for the entire JTC on
candidate projects to be included as part of the current TIP. Factors such
as the project’s score from the Pioneer Valley Transportation Evaluation
Criteria (TEC), current design status, environmental permitting status, and
Chapter 2 – Transportation Planning Process
11
status of any needed right of way acquisition are all used to develop the
listing of projects recommended for inclusion in the TIP.
C. KEY PRODUCTS
1. Transportation Improvement Program
The Pioneer Valley TIP is a four-year schedule of priority highway, bridge,
transit, and multimodal projects identified by year and location complete with
funding source and cost. The TIP is developed annually and is available for
amendment and adjustment at any time. Each program year of the TIP
coincides with the Federal Fiscal Year calendar, October 1 through
September 30. All TIPs and amendments are consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Regional Transportation Plan for the Pioneer Valley region
and are financially constrained. More information on the TIP can be found
here.
2. Unified Planning Work Program
The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) is a narrative description of the
annual technical work program for the region. The UPWP provides an
indication of regional long and short-range transportation planning objectives,
the manner in which these objectives will be achieved, the budget necessary
to sustain the overall planning effort, and the sources of funding for each
specific program element. Work tasks included as part of the UPWP are
reflective of issues and concerns originating from transportation agencies at
the federal, state, and local levels. More information on the UPWP can be
found here.
3. Public Participation Process
The MPO has a proactive public involvement process that provides complete
information, timely public notice, and full public access to MPO activities at all
key stages in the decision making process. The MPO involves the public early
in the planning process, and actively seeks out the involvement of
communities most affected by particular plans or projects. The Region’s
transportation plans and programs are developed in a manner that assures
that the public, and affected communities in particular, are consulted and
afforded ample opportunity to participate in the development of such plans.
The most recent version of the Public Participation plan for the MPO can be
found here.
4. RTP Amendment Process
If, during the four year cycle of the adopted long range transportation plan
(RTP), it becomes apparent that changes are necessary, the RTP will be
amended by redefining the appropriate chapter or section as necessary. All
Chapter 2 – Transportation Planning Process
12
changes will be developed in cooperation with MassDOT, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA), and other concerned agencies
as appropriate. Typical changes include, but are not limited to:
Modification of the Financial Constraint Chapter to reflect changes in
projected transportation funding as presented in the endorsed RTP.
Changes required by FHWA or FTA to demonstrate conformity.
The addition or removal of a regionally significant project that impacts
the current Transportation Improvement Program.
Other actions as defined or requested by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), or
the Pioneer Valley MPO.
Proposed amendments to the RTP will be presented to the Pioneer Valley
MPO for release for a minimum 21 day public comment period and require
MPO endorsement at the end of the agreed comment period.
Chapter 2 – Transportation Planning Process
13
Figure 2-2 – Regional Transportation Planning Process Flowchart
Chapter 3 – Public Participation
15
Photo: Public Meeting at South Hadley Town Hall
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Draft Regional Transportation Plan for the Pioneer Valley (RTP) underwent a
public review and comment period consistent with the Pioneer Valley Region Public
Participation Process. Early in the development of the RTP a series of focus groups
were convened to assist in the development of the draft document. Focus groups
consisted of a core group of representatives that were invited to participate in a
discussion on the development of the vision statement, goals, needs, and strategies
included in the RTP. Comments received as part of the focus groups were used to
assist in the development of the problem statements included in the RTP. There
were a total of four focus groups on the RTP.
November 14, 2018 – Bicycle and Pedestrian
November 14, 2018 – Infrastructure
December 4, 2018 – Transit
December 6, 2014 – Environment, Sustainability and Climate Change
To begin each focus group, staff developed a short video describing regional
transportation from the viewpoint of the average citizen. This video helped to set the
tone for discussion by identifying the regional transportation needs and priorities of a
select group of residents. Comments received as part of the focus groups were used
to develop a draft vision, goals, needs, strategies and problem statements for the
CHAPTER 3
Chapter 3 – Public Participation
16
RTP. This draft version was distributed to the JTC, MPO, and through the PVPC
website in January 2019 to continue to solicit comments.
A series of RTP informational products were developed beginning in the fall of 2018
to begin outreach efforts and education on the RTP process. These products are
summarized below:
RTP Webpage - http://www.pvpc.org/projects/2020-regional-transportation-plan-update
RTP Article - http://www.pvpc.org/content/lot-can-happen-four-years
RTP FAQs - http://www.pvpc.org/sites/default/files/RTP%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.pdf
RTP Brochure
RTP Survey
All of the products were made available on the dedicated webpage for the RTP
update. The RTP article also appeared in PVPC’s quarterly newsletter. A copy of the
RTP brochure and survey have been included as part of the appendix to this
document.
A. RTP SURVEY
A brief survey was developed in consultation with the JTC to obtain public input on
the content of the RTP. The survey was provided in both English and Spanish. To
date, over 100 responses have been received. Significant responses have been
summarized below.
Respondents were asked to rank a list of transportation improvement categories
from most important to least important. This information is summarized in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 - What Type of Projects are Important to You?
Transportation Improvement Project Category Score
Projects that enhance the movement and connectivity of pedestrians and bicycles
(ex. on road bike lanes and sidewalks) 6.37
Projects that expand or enhance transit. (ex. express bus service and improved bus
stops) 6.22
Projects that improve Safety. (ex. improvements that reduce accidents) 5.64
Projects that improve the roadway surface. (ex. paving streets) 5.17
Projects that protect or enhance Environmental Resources such as Wetlands,
Streams, Wildlife, and Air Quality. (ex. upgrades to culverts) 4.63
Projects that promote responsible Economic Growth and Development. (ex. multi-
modal transportation centers) 4.4
Bridge Projects (ex. repairing bridges with structural deficiencies and/or weight
restrictions) 4.27
Projects that preserve Existing Regional Assets such as Parks, Historic Areas, and
Farms. (ex. off road bike paths and trails) 4.23
Projects that reduce Traffic Congestion and Travel Time. (ex. signal timing
improvements) 4.08
Chapter 3 – Public Participation
17
Most respondents selected “projects that enhance the movement and connectivity of
pedestrians and bicycles” as their number 1 choice. This was closely followed by
transit improvements, and safety improvements. There was not much widespread
variation in the weighted scores for each of the nine categories.
Figure 3-1 – Transportation Improvements Word Cloud
A follow up question was
included asking why each
respondent chose one of the
transportation project categories
as their number one choice. A
Word Cloud was developed
using the most common words
included in their responses and is
shown on Figure 3-1. Common
themes in the responses
indicated a need for more safety
on roadways, improvements to
better accommodate bicycles,
and a need to reduce the number
of cars on the road. Others
commented on the necessity of
driving a car to get to your
destination in the Pioneer Valley
and the need for improvements
to public transit.
Two questions asked about ones primary mode of transportation versus their
desired mode of transportation. In other words, what mode of transportation would
you prefer to use if possible. Over 75% of respondents reported that a car was their
primary mode of transportation, however just over 30% of respondents indicated that
a car was their desired mode of transportation. Respondents also indicated a high
desire to travel by bicycle, transit, and rail. A complete comparison of these two
questions is shown in Figure 3-2.
Chapter 3 – Public Participation
18
Figure 3-2 – Primary Vs. Desired Transportation Modes
Each survey respondent was asked to define what the term “regional transportation”
means. This question was included to gain insight on how the average person
perceives the regional transportation system. This information was compiled into a
Word Cloud that is shown on Figure 3-3. The word “connected” appeared on a large
percentage of the definitions. Many responses talked about a transportation system
that connects all residents and communities to different transportation modes, areas
of employment, schools, and shopping areas. Another common response was that
transportation be both safe and accessible.
Chapter 3 – Public Participation
19
Figure 3-3 – Regional Transportation Definition Word Cloud
B. RTP OUTREACH
PVPC reached out to local groups and organizations to give a presentation on the
RTP. Table 3-2 summarizes the outreach on the RTP that has occurred to date.
Table 3-2 – RTP Outreach Events
Date Event
Monthly Pioneer Valley Joint Transportation Committee Meetings
Monthly Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Meetings
February 12, 2019 West Springfield Rotary Club
February 13, 2019 Transportation Evaluation Criteria Scoring
February 21, 2019 Pioneer Valley Commissioner Meeting
March 20, 2019 Western Massachusetts Historical Commission Coalition
May 20, 2019 Greater Holyoke Chamber of Commerce Meeting
June 6, 2019 MassDOT CIP Public Meeting at Springfield Public Library
Chapter 3 – Public Participation
20
C. DRAFT RTP
The PVPC utilized existing committees such as the Joint Transportation Committee,
Pioneer Valley Executive Committee, and Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization to provide routine status updates in the development of the Draft RTP.
A brief presentation on the RTP was given, and comments received as part of the
meeting were incorporated into the Draft RTP. The monthly JTC meetings were
particularly useful to receive feedback from local communities on the content of the
RTP.
An environmental consultation day will be scheduled to allow the opportunity for
discussion and comment on the potential environmental impacts of transportation
projects included in the regional transportation plan. PVPC will provide large scale
maps of transportation improvement projects included in the RTP and invite the
public and special interest groups to comment on the Draft RTP.
Three public meetings were scheduled to solicit public comments on the Draft
Regional Transportation Plan during the formal public participation process:
June 25, 2019 – Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Springfield, MA
June 26, 2019 – Northampton City Hall, Northampton, MA
June 27, 2019 – Westfield, City Hall, Westfield, MA
Paper copies of the Draft RTP were made available during the formal public
participation process on request. The Draft RTP was also available for download
from PVPC’s web page at www.pvpc.org.
Chapter 3 – Public Participation
21
Table 3-3 – Comments Received on the Draft RTP
Comment From MPO Response
This section will be added after the formal public participation process is completed in July.
Chapter 4 – Equity
23
Photo: Maple Street in Holyoke, MA
EQUITY
A. BACKGROUND
The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (MPO) is required to certify to the
Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration that
their planning process addresses the major transportation issues facing
region. This certification assures that planning is conducted in accordance
with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and requirements of Executive
Order 12898 (Environmental Justice). Under the provisions of Title VI and
Environmental Justice PVPC works to assess and address the following:
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI " No person in the United States shall,
on the grounds of race, color, or national origin be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice "Each Federal agency
shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
CHAPTER 4
Chapter 4 – Equity
24
identifying and addressing as appropriate disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies,
and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued a DOT Order to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations in 1997. It identifies environmental justice as an "undeniable
mission of the agency" along with safety and mobility. USDOT stresses three
principles of environmental justice:
To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects, including social and
economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations.
To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected
communities in the transportation decision-making process.
To prevent the denial of reduction in or significant delay in the receipt
of benefits by minority and low-income populations.
B. GOALS OF THE PIONEER VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PLAN
The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission has been working together with
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA), MassDOT, Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on
addressing the principles of Title VI and Environmental Justice in the
transportation planning process for the Region. The primary goals of the plan
include:
1. Goals Related to Identifying the Region's Minority and Low-Income
Populations
Develop a demographic profile of the Pioneer Valley Region that
includes identification of the locations of socio-economic groups,
including low-income and minority populations as covered by the
Executive Order on Environmental Justice and Title VI provisions.
2. Goals Related to Public Involvement:
Create a public involvement process that identifies a strategy for
engaging minority and low-income populations in transportation
decision making, and routinely evaluate this strategy for its
effectiveness at reducing barriers for these populations.
3. Goals Related to Service Equity:
Institutionalize a planning process for assessing the regional benefits
and burdens of transportation system investments for different socio-
economic groups. Develop an on-going data collection process to
support the effort and identify specific actions to correct imbalances in
the RTP, TIP and Transit funding.
Chapter 4 – Equity
25
C. IDENTIFICATION OF MINORITY AND LOW INCOME POPULATIONS
AND TARGET POPULATIONS
Strategy - Identifying minority and low-income populations using Census
data. Review EJ population thresholds and assessment methods from other
regions and select a definition that provides the best representation for
minority and low-income populations in the Pioneer Valley.
The equity performance measures developed in subsequent sections of the
plan are dependent on an accurate definition of the "target population." T he
43 communities of the Pioneer Valley Region are diverse in incomes and
ethnicity. The region’s urban cores of 14 communities comprise the majority
of the population and nearly 90 percent of the jobs. To establish the most
effective measure of equity, PVPC staff reviewed EJ plans from similar
Metropolitan Planning Organizations in other parts of the country. The
definition used to define "target populations" in each of these plans was
scrutinized and evaluated based on its applicability to our region. From these
plans, 8 different population definitions for low income and minority
populations were singled out for review in Pioneer Valley. PVPC actively
solicited additional feedback and input from stakeholders in the region.
1. Minority Populations
The PVMPO defines “minority” as “the population that is not identified by the
census as White-Non-Hispanic” in the ACS (2010 based Census). Under this
definition, minority persons constitute 23.48% of the region’s population. The
racial or ethnic groups included are:
White Non-Hispanic
African-American or Black
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
Asian (including Native Hawaiian, & other)
American Indian (& Alaska Native)
Some other race
Two or More Races
2. Identification of Low Income Populations
The PVMPO defines “low income” areas using census block group data. Any
block group with a proportion of people in that block group living at or below
the federally defined poverty level that exceeds the proportion of people in
poverty in the region as a whole, which is 15.47% is defined as “low income.”
Chapter 4 – Equity
26
Figure 4-1 – Census Block Groups with Minority Populations Exceeding
Regional Average
Source: ACS 2006-10 (2010 based Census)
Chapter 4 – Equity
27
Figure 4-2 – 2010 Census Block Groups with a Poverty Rate above that of
the Region
Source: ACS (2010 based Census)
D. IDENTIFICATION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES POPULATIONS
In identifying “Persons with Disabilities” PVPC used the Census definition of
employed persons with a disability between ages 21-64. A more inclusive
definition of people needing transportation services would also include age
groups 5 and younger, and children age 5-17. However, because these age
groups are not considered part of the workforce that typically needs daily
transportation; they are not included in this analysis. The update of this report
used the American Community Survey block level estimates for this data.
Chapter 4 – Equity
28
Figure 4-3 – Census Block Groups- Individuals in the Pioneer Valley Age
21-64 with Disabilities
Chapter 4 – Equity
29
Figure 4-4 – Census Block Groups Individuals in the Pioneer Valley Age
65+ with Disabilities
1. Foreign Born Demographics and Migration
Retaining the population base has been a challenge in the Pioneer Valley
region. Although trends of out-migration decreased between 1991 and 2002,
it appears that this trend is reversing. During the recession of the 2000s when
the housing market crashed, net outmigration decreased significantly,
reflecting similar trends to those in previous economic downturns. However,
net-out migration has been increasing steadily since then. In 2011, net out-
migration was over seven times higher than in 2010. Although this trend
reversed between 2016 and 2017, net out-migration in the Pioneer Valley
region is overall on the rise.
Chapter 4 – Equity
30
Figure 4-5 – Net Domestic Migration in the Pioneer Valley Region
Source: U. S. Census Bureau Population Division, 2017
The Pioneer Valley has always been a destination for foreign immigrants and
this continues to be the case. From 2000 to 2009 inclusive, a total of 13,656
new immigrants settled in the Pioneer Valley region. In fact, if not for foreign
born immigration, the Pioneer Valley region would have experienced a net
loss of population between 1990 and 2000. This trend of foreign immigration
has continued since 2010, which has seen an additional 14,663 people
immigrating to the region from another country.
E. CONSULTATION AND ACTIVE SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
In accordance with state and federal law requirements, and to ensure
inclusive and accessible public engagement processes for transportation
decision making, the Pioneer Valley MPO developed a Public Participation
Plan (PPP) to guide agency public participation efforts to include those
populations that have been underserved by the transportation system and/or
have lacked access to the decision-making process. The PPP guides the
MPO in its efforts to offer early, continuous, and meaningful opportunities for
the public to help identify social, economic, and environmental impacts of
proposed transportation projects and initiatives. The Plan was developed in
collaboration with MassDOT in 2016. The PPP defines how public
Chapter 4 – Equity
31
participation is incorporated into its transportation decision-making processes,
and how the MPO ensures access for people with disabilities and the
inclusion of low income and minority stakeholders.
Specifically, the PPP states the methods that MPO will use to reach out to
persons who are low-income, minority, Limited English Proficient (LEP), or
have a disability, and other traditionally underrepresented populations .
Because different transportation decisions to be made require different
techniques for reaching the public, this Plan provides a toolbox of techniques
to be applied, as appropriate, to achieve effective participation.
The Public Participation program was developed around a process that
includes outreach to representatives of the target populations. The Pioneer
Valley Planning Commission has an ongoing working relationship with
representatives of minority and low-income populations. The Plan for
Progress, the Urban Investment Strategy Team, and the Welfare to Work
Program and Regional Comprehensive Land Use Plan have created
relationships with opened lines of communication into the needs and issues of
minority and low-income populations.
1. Methods to Engage Populations in the Planning Process
Many neighborhoods in Pioneer Valley Region receive a high influx of
immigrant populations from a wide range of nationalities. PVPC staff develop
and employ a strategic public engagement process with an open approach to
engage, inform and involve ethnically diverse neighborhoods in the decision
making process.
PVPC’s guiding principles in this public engagement process include:
Promote Respect: All transportation constituents and the views they
promote should be respected. All feedback received should be given
careful and respectful consideration. Members of the public should have
opportunities to debate issues, frame alternative solutions, and affect final
decisions.
Provide Proactive and Timely Opportunities for Involvement:
Avenues for involvement should be open, meaningful, and organized to let
people participate comfortably, taking into consideration accessibility,
language, scheduling, location and the format of informational materials.
Meetings should be structured to allow informed, constructive dialogue, be
promoted broadly and affirmatively; and be clearly defined in the early
stages of plan or project development. Participation activities should allow
for early involvement and be ongoing and proactive, so participants can
have a fair opportunity to influence PVMPO decisions.
Offer Authentic and Meaningful Participation: The MPO should support
public participation as a dynamic and meaningful activity that requires
Chapter 4 – Equity
32
teamwork and commitment at all levels. Public processes should provide
participants with purposeful involvement, allowing useful feedback and
guidance. Participants should be encouraged to understand and speak
with awareness of the many competing interests, issues, and needs that
lead to transportation ideas and projects.
Provide a Clear, Focused, and Predictable Process: The participation
process should be understandable and known well in advance. This clarity
should be structured to allow members of the public and officials to plan
their time and use their resources to provide input effectively. Activities
should have a clear purpose, the intended use of input received made
clear, and all explanations described in language that is easy to
understand.
Foster Diversity and Inclusiveness: The MPO should proactively reach
out to and engage people with disabilities, as well as low-income, minority,
limited English proficient disabled and other traditionally underserved
populations.
Be Responsive to Participants: PVMPO meetings should facilitate
discussion that addresses participants’ interests and concerns. Scheduling
should be designed to meet the greatest number of participants possible
and be considerate of their schedules and availability.
Record, Share and Respond to Public Comments: Public comments,
written and verbal, should be given consideration in the MPO decision
making processes and reported in relevant documents.
Self-evaluation and Plan Modification
F. EQUITY ASSESSMENT MEASURES
1. Equity Assessment Strategies
Title VI and the executive orders of Environmental Justice call for programs
that quantify the benefits and burdens of the transportation investments and
evaluate the impacts for different socio-economic groups. To accomplish this
task PVPC worked with the JTC to establish measures of effectiveness that
would reflect quantifiable transportation expenditures in the Region. These
measures were used to evaluate capital expenditures in the Regional
Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program and to
evaluate transit service. The evaluations provide a barometer of the
distribution of resources and also assist decision-makers in achieving an
equitable balance of in future years.
2. Equity Distribution Analysis
Information collected from census data, GIS, transit route inventory, and
regional models was used to identify and assess transportation deficiencies,
Chapter 4 – Equity
33
benefits, and burdens. The evaluation of each measure of effectiveness
included the following:
a) Distribution of Transportation Investments in the Region
Past and proposed funding allocations for TIP projects were calculated for
defined low income and minority populations. PVPC completed an inventory
of projects included on the RTP and mapped these projects. GIS tools were
used to determine the amount of transportation funds (including bridge
projects) allocated to each population group and also compared these values
to regional average allocations using census block group data. This analysis
is also conducted annually for the Transportation Improvement Program.
PVPC is also working to conduct analysis on other Title VI protected classes.
The RTP analysis is presented in Tables 4-1 and
4-2.
The analysis shows that 45.13 percent of projects on the RTP are located in
low income block groups and that 31.86 percent of projects are located in
minority block groups. The table also shows that 77.61 percent of funding
was distributed to defined low income block groups compared to 67.59
percent to other block groups in the region.
Table 4-1 – Distribution of Projects in the RTP to Low Income Populations
Table 4-2 – Distribution of Projects in the RTP to Minority Populations
Low Income Equity Analsysi PVPC Total
Low Income Block
Groups
Other Block
Groups
% PVPC Total in
Low Income
Block Groups
% PVPC Total in
Other Block
Groups
Transportation Analysis Zones (Block Groups)442 158 284 35.75% 64.25%
Population 621570 207727 413843 33.42% 66.58%
Minority Population 171475 110607 60868 64.50% 35.50%
Number of Projects 113 51 62 45.13% 54.87%
Projects Not Funded 0 0 0 0 0
Projects $1,494,243,790 $1,159,644,147 $334,599,643 77.61% 22.39%
Total Project Dollars per Capita $2,403.98 $5,582.54 $808.52 2.32 0.34
Funded Projects per Capita $2,403.98 $5,582.54 $808.52 2.32 0.34
Minority Equity Analsysi PVPC Total
Minority Block
Groups
Other Block
Groups
% PVPC Total in
Minority Block
Groups
% PVPC Total in
Other Block
Groups
Transportation Analysis Zones (Block Groups)442 163 279 36.88% 63.12%
Population 621570 212230 409340 34.14% 65.86%
Minority Population 171475 130808 40667 76.28% 23.72%
Number of Projects 113 36 77 31.86% 68.14%
Projects Not Funded 0 0 0 0.00%0.00%
Projects $1,494,243,790 $1,009,927,416 $484,316,374 67.59% 32.41%
Total Project Dollars per Capita $2,403.98 $4,758.65 $1,183.16 1.98 0.49
Funded Projects per Capita $2,403.98 $4,758.65 $1,183.16 1.98 0.49
Chapter 4 – Equity
34
Figure 4-6 – Distribution of Projects in the RTP to Low Income and Minority
Populations
b) Annual Equity Assessment of Distribution of TIP Funding
PVPC conducted an equity assessment on the transportation planning tasks
completed as part of previous UPWP’s this assessment process has
previously been used on the Regional TIP and identifies how regional
transportation improvement projects have potential impacted defined minority
and low-income block groups in the region. The following demographic map
displays an overlay of federally funded projects from the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) to minority and low income census block groups.
http://pvpc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/StorytellingTextLegend/index.html?appid=f54bf3b
6dfd04033980dcd9a898b85a3
A complete table for all highway and transit projects included as part of the
equity assessment is included in the RTP Appendix.
Chapter 4 – Equity
35
Figure 4-7 – Distribution of Transportation Projects
c) Attainability by Transit
The level of attainability by transit in our region describes regional
accessibility by low income, minority, and immigrant populations of the
Pioneer Valley. These populations usually depend on local public transit to
reach necessary regional amenities such as health care, food stores,
education, employment, and housing. Other groups that likely depend on
public transit are the elderly and disabled. These groups were mapped
against the regional transit network.
This current analysis involves estimating travel times between major activity
centers and residential locations of the study populations. Using census data,
transportation analysis zones with percentages higher than that of the
regional average for minority and low-income populations were identified.
The location of major employers the Pioneer Valley region was mapped
(Figure 4-8). Major employers were defined as businesses which have 50 or
more employees. Accessibility to transit was defined as being within a
Chapter 4 – Equity
36
quarter of a mile from a bus route. The map shows transit connectivity in our
region between major employers and residential locations of low-income and
minority zones.
Attainability of goods and services by the low-income and minority groups is
analyzed through a comparison between transit and auto-vehicle travel times.
Most zones with a high percentage of minority groups also included a high
percentage of low-income groups. Communities with high percentages in one
of these two categories included Amherst, Northampton, Holyoke, Chicopee,
Springfield, West Springfield, Westfield, Palmer, and Ware. Whereas, major
employers were concentrated in Springfield, Holyoke, Amherst, and
Northampton. (Figure 4-9)
The Pioneer Valley MPO will continue to assess transit travel needs in the
region and update this analyses to revise travel times due to changes in bus
service times and frequencies. In response to budgetary challenges faced by
the regional transit authority due to level funding while costs increased, a
change in transit services and fees were deemed necessary. A recent
service changes and fare increase analysis study was concluded in 2017 and
many of its recommendations have been implemented by September 2018.
Changes in bus service since the last RTP 2016 update include a variety of
frequency and service hours reductions, combining of existing bus routes, as
well as a few discontinuations or modifications to low performing routes. Most
of the newer cross town routes introduced in 2014 following the
recommendations of the comprehensive system analysis study, were
retained. System wide weekend service reduction to Saturday service levels
to match Sunday service levels resulted in some Saturday service elimination.
The 2018 system changes to transit service will negatively affect attainability
by transit due to longer wait time between buses and narrower service
windows.
Four scenarios were selected to analyze transit attainability of individuals
living in low-income and minority zones. These scenarios represent
examples of the regional travel needs of our low-income and minority groups
and their associated travel time expenditures. However, these examples are
not exhaustive of all regional travel needs. The following four scenarios
represent various travel needs across the region. They cover long, medium,
and short distance travel to services and activity centers within our region.
i) Travel between Amherst and Springfield represents the furthest
destination in the region between zones of higher minority and low-
income rates. These two destinations are important activity centers in
our region that provide several opportunities for education,
employment and entertainment. Springfield additionally provides
Chapter 4 – Equity
37
opportunities for health and other state aid services. Depending on
time of day, a transit traveler between these two locations will spend
between 100 to 120 minutes each way using three or two different
buses: (B43, B48, and P21) or (R29, and P21). Therefore, a two hour
appointment at Baystate Medical Center would necessitate at least a
four hour round trip by public transit. In comparison, the same trip by
private auto may take 40 minutes each way, a third of the time it takes
to travel by bus. This is due to the number of stops en route and the
additional time associated with waiting to transfer between buses. In
this scenario, public transit offers an alternative to the personal
automobile as a travel mode, but at a higher time cost. This may be
the only travel mode available for low-income and minority groups who
cannot afford auto ownership or are unable to drive for other reasons.
Other options like the intercity motor coach carrier or cabs can be cost
prohibitive. Public transit bus ticket costs $1.5 each way. Whereas, a
bus ticket for the motor coach run by the PeterPan Bus company
would cost $9. A ride with Uber costs around $34, while a cab ride
costs around $65. This means that the round trip by these three
modes of travel would cost $3, $18, $68, $130 respectively. The cost
disparity between the three options makes public transit the only
viable alternative for the population under study.
ii) Travel between low-income housing in Northampton and state health
service providers or employment centers in Holyoke represents a
medium length regional travel trip for the population under study.
Depending on time of day, a trip between these two locations takes
about an hour on average using two buses: R42 or R44 then B48. This
is twice as long as it takes to travel by car. In this case, a two-hour
appointment would necessitate an additional one-hour time
expenditure for travel by bus compared to auto.
iii) Travel between Springfield and major employers at the Holyoke Mall
and the adjacent industrial park in Holyoke represent short length
travel trips in the region. A Springfield resident seeking employment in
the service and retail industry in Holyoke would spend 30 minute on
average to commute by bus. Due to the short distance traveled
between the two locations, travel time is lower between the two
activity centers in this scenario compared to the previous two
scenarios. Yet, travel time by bus is three times as long as travel by
car.
iv) Within a large city such as Springfield, a trip to the supermarket from
Mason Square takes an average of 30 minutes by bus whereas it takes
half of that duration by car.
Chapter 4 – Equity
38
Public transit provides an important connecting service between major activity
centers and residential locations for low-income and minority populations in
the Pioneer Valley. The various bus routes connecting these zones have
different levels of service ranging from regular to limited on weekdays,
weekends, and during academic seasons. Several of the bus routes run on
reduced schedule during the summer and the colleges’ No School periods.
The complexity of the bus route system requires further in-depth analysis to
identify transit connection challenges due to schedule and service availability
between all identified zones. Transit attainability can be further analyzed in
conjunction with Level of Service for all bus routes. Updates to this analysis
are required whenever major bus routes changes occur. Many route changes
have been implemented during the past year to address budget deficit by the
Transit Authority due to level funding by the state and increased costs of
operation. Level of Service categories were identified for each of the bus
routes in the Pioneer Valley service area ranged from 6 being best to 1 being
worst (Table 4-3).
The methodology used to rank the level of service of bus routes includes
calculating trip frequency of each bus route during weekdays and weekends.
Most bus routes offer service during regular business hours and provide
service coverage for 12 hours on weekdays. Some routes provide limited
weekend service as well. Regular business hour service is assumed to be
from 6am to 6pm. The number of service trips provided by a bus leaving its
starting point towards its main destination is divided by 12 to calculate the bus
route’s service rate (number of trips per hour). The trip rate is then adjusted to
incorporate any additional service provided after regular business hours. An
adjustment factor is calculated by counting the number of trips occurring at
6pm and beyond then dividing that number by 12. Some bus routes offer
service on Saturdays while others offer service on both Saturdays and
Sundays. Therefore, another adjustment factor is required for the trip rate. An
addition of bus service for one day out of the seven days of the week is
factored as 1/7 = 0.14. This factor is added to represent each Saturday or
Sunday service. The total bus route trip rate includes the sum of all four
measures: business hours weekday trip rate, after business hours weekday
trip rate, Saturday service factor, and Sunday service factor. The majority of
bus routes provided by the Regional Transit Authority service were analyzed
according to this methodology. The calculated total trip rates ranged from 0.5
to 5.6. A constant value of 0.5 was added to all totals to arrive at the current
ranking integers ranging from 6 best to 1 lowest Level of Service.
Chapter 4 – Equity
39
Figure 4-8 - Transit Access to Major Employers for Zones of High Percentages of Minority and Low-Income
Populations
Chapter 4 – Equity
40
Table 4-3 - Evaluation of Transit Service by Route
Chapter 4 – Equity
41
Figure 4-9 - Attainability by Transit for Low Income and Minority
The six previously identified communities that contain a high percentage of low-
income and minority populations in our region are serviced by transit routes of
varying levels of service. In general, shorter trips between two adjacent locations
can maintain a high level of service throughout the day. On the other hand, longer
trips connecting three or more locations are subject to a combination of levels of
service from each of the connecting transit routes. This can result in a lower overall
level of service due to travel constraints posed by the lowest level of service
Chapter 4 – Equity
42
category of a trip segment. Whenever a bus route schedule includes variations in
frequency and coverage during summer or "No School" season, the reduced
schedule is entered into the analysis because most transit users continue to travel to
work and other destinations regardless of season. This is an important factor to keep
in mind when analyzing the overall transit attainability of individuals living in these
locations because it affects their ability to engage in activities, acquire needed
services, or seek employment.
The following tables analyze the effects of various levels of service on transit trips
between the five identified locations: Amherst, Northampton, Holyoke, Chicopee,
Springfield, and West Springfield (Tables 4-4 – 4-9). Each table looks at all transit
options, including local and express routes, connecting each location as an origin of
a trip to the other five destinations. Such information is indicative of the overall
accessibility via transit.
Average travel time spent along each route to complete a trip is also of interest.
Travel times durations may fluctuate at varying times of the day or days of the week
due to variations in schedules. Variation in a route schedule can increase wait time
between bus connections. There is also the potential increase in travel time due to
traffic congestion on certain portions of the route during lunch time, on Friday
afternoon, and other traditional rush hour times. This makes taking a bus trip more
time efficient during certain times of the day or on certain days of the week. While
this complexity is difficult to analyze, calculating an average travel time between the
identified origins and destinations will help reveal the need for schedule or service
changes to improve attainability by transit.
Table 4-4 - Travel Service between Origins and Destinations for Amherst
Origin Destination Bus Number Route Level
of Service
Trip Level of
Service
Amherst Northampton B43 3 3
Amherst Holyoke B43/B48 3,2 2
R29 1 1
Amherst Chicopee B43/B48/P21 3,2,4 2
B43/B48/X90 3,2,3 2
R29/X90 1,3 1
Amherst Springfield B43/B48/P20 3,2,3 2
B43/B48/P21 3,2,3 2
B43/B48/P21E 3,2,2 2
R29/P21 1,3 3
Amherst W . Springfield B43/B48/P20 3,2,4 2
Chapter 4 – Equity
43
Table 4-5 - Travel Service between Origin and Destinations for Northampton
Origin Destination Bus Number Route Level
of Service
Trip Level of
Service
Northampton Amherst B43 3 3
Northampton Holyoke B48 2 2
Northampton Chicopee B48/X90 2,3 2
B48/P21 2,3 2
Northampton Springfield B48/P20 2,3 2
B48/P21 2,3 2
B48/P21E 2,2 2
B48/X90 2,3 2
Northampton W . Springfield B48/P20 2,4 2
Table 4-6 - Travel Service between Origins and Destinations for Holyoke
Origin Destination Bus Number Route Level
of Service
Trip Level of
Service
Holyoke Amherst B48/B43 2,3 2
R29 1 1
Holyoke Northampton B48 2 2
Holyoke Chicopee X90 3 3
P21 3 3
Holyoke Springfield X90 3 3
P20 4 4
P21 3 3
P21E 2 2
Holyoke W . Springfield P20 4 4
Table 4-7 - Travel Service between Origins and Destinations for Chicopee
Origin Destination Bus Number Route Level
of Service
Trip Level of
Service
Chicopee Amherst P21/R29 3,1 1
X90/R29 3,1 1
P21/B48/B43 3,2,3 2
X90/B48/B43 3,2,3 2
Chicopee Northampton P21/B48 3,2 2
X90/B48 3,2 2
Chicopee Holyoke P21 3 3
X90 3 3
Chicopee Springfield P21 3 3
X90 3 3
G1 5 5
Chicopee W . Springfield G1/P20 5,4 4
G1/R10 5,2 2
X90/G3/R10 3,3,2 2
X90/G3/P20 3,3,4 3
X90/B7/R10 3,6,2 2
X90/B7/P20 3,6,4 3
Chapter 4 – Equity
44
Table 4-8 - Travel Service between Origins and Destinations for Springfield
Origin Destination Bus Number Route Level
of Service
Trip Level of
Service
Springfield Amherst P20/B48/B43 4,2,3 2
P21/B48/B43 3,2,3 2
P21/R29 3,1 1
Springfield Northampton P20/B48 4,2 2
P21/B48 3,2 2
P21E/B48 2,2 2
Springfield Holyoke P20 4 4
P21 3 3
P21E 2 2
X90 3 3
Springfield Chicopee X90 3 3
G1 5 5
P21 3 3
Springfield W . Springfield P20 4 4
R10 2 2
Table 4-9 - Travel Service between Origins and Destinations for West Springfield
Origin Destination Bus Number Route Level
of Service
Trip Level of
Service
W . Springfield Amherst P20/B48/B43 4,2,3 2
P20/R29 4,1 1
W . Springfield Northampton P20/B48 4,2 2
W . Springfield Holyoke P20 4 4
W . Springfield Chicopee P20/P21 4,3 3
P20/X90 4,3 3
R10/P21 2,3 2
W . Springfield Springfield P20 4 4
R10 2 2
TAZ's that have a proportion of seniors that exceeds that of the regional average are
highlighted by the yellow color in the following Figure. Communities with areas that
do not fall within 3/4 of a mile from transit route while housing more seniors
compared to the region as whole include: Hadley, Hatfield, Westfield, Granby,
Ludlow, Wilbraham (Figure 4-10).
The proportion of residents who are disabled is mapped according to two age
categories. The first group combines all disable residents of working age between
ages of 20 to 64 years old. Figure 4-11 shows that zones with higher proportions of
working aged disabled persons are serviced by the regional fixed route buses. On
the other hand, some of the zones with disabled elderly, 65 and over, are not
Chapter 4 – Equity
45
serviced by the regional fixed route transit network. Those areas are located in the
communities of Hatfield, Granby, and Westfield.
Figure 4-10 - Attainability by Transit for the Elderly
Chapter 4 – Equity
46
Figure 4-11 - Attainability by Transit for the Disabled Working Age Group
Chapter 4 – Equity
47
Figure 4-12 - Attainability by Transit for the Disabled Elderly
d) Equity Analysis of PVTA Comprehensive Fare/Service Changes
In 2018 PVPC conducted an equity analysis of proposed changes to the PVTA
transit service in the region. This service equity analysis was prepared to meet the
requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in 49 CFR Section 21.5(b)(2),
49 CFR Section 21.5(b)(7), and Appendix C Section 3 to 49 CFR part 21, and in
accordance with the guidance in Federal Transit Administration Circular 4702.1B of
October 1, 2012.
Chapter 4 – Equity
48
Changes to PVTA’s fixed route bus services
were necessary to reduce operating costs and
balance the agency’s FY2019 budget. The
equity analysis was designed to determine
whether proposed service changes would
have a discriminatory impact with regard to
race, color, income, or national origin. A
demographic analysis of PVTA customers
affected completed to determine whether or
not there are adverse or disproportionate
burdens on minority or low‐income populations
in the PVTA service area, as well as the types
of measures that are likely to be effective and
appropriate in mitigating adverse impacts on
those transit customers.
A separate Title VI Fare Equity Analysis was
completed and presented to the PVTA
Advisory Board in April 2018 as required by federal guidelines and PVTA policies.
e) Distribution of UPWP Tasks
PVPC conducted an equity assessment on the transportation planning tasks
completed as part of previous UPWP efforts. UPWP tasks are an important
barometer as they provide assistance to Towns that might not have the resources to
complete the task and also because the planning studies and reports generated
through UPWP task can result in recommendations that prepare a project for future
development. For this assessment process work plans from the previous eleven
years were reviewed to identify the transportation planning tasks that were
completed for each of the 43 communities in the PVPC region. Tasks included data
collection, planning studies, local technical assistance requests, and regional
activities such as the update to the TIP or CMP. All total, nearly 970 tasks were
identified over the five year period. While the total number of projects for each
community is often a function of the size of the community, at least on task was
completed for each community over the five year period. This information is
summarized in the Table 4-10.
Chapter 4 – Equity
49
Table 4-10 – Distribution of UPWP Task by Community by Year
Community 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019* 2020* Total
Agawam 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 5 5 24
Amherst 4 2 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 21
Belchertown 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 15
Blandford 1 1 1 1 1 5
Brimfield 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 13
Chester 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 10
Chesterfield 1 1 1 3
Chicopee 4 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 24
Cummington 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 8
East Longmeadow 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 15
Easthampton 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 5 4 23
Goshen 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 10
Granby 2 3 1 1 7
Granville 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 9
Hadley 1 3 4 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 19
Hampden 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 8
Hatfield 1 1 2
Holland 1 1 1 2 1 2 8
Holyoke 3 5 6 3 3 3 6 6 4 1 40
Huntington 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8
Longmeadow 3 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 1 19
Ludlow 7 1 2 1 2 13
Middlefield 1 1
Monson 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Montgomery 1 2 1 1 5
Northampton 7 6 5 7 3 4 5 6 6 49
Palmer 1 3 3 2 2 11
Pelham 1 1 1 1 4
Plainfield 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Region Wide 38 29 33 34 28 30 26 24 26 25 25 318
Russell 1 1 1 1 1 5
South Hadley 3 1 2 4 3 2 1 4 2 22
Southampton 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 10
Southwick 6 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 22
Springfield 8 12 10 6 6 10 14 11 8 3 88
Tolland 1 1 1 1 1 2 7
Wales 1 1 1 2 2 7
Ware 5 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 21
West Springfield 4 3 2 2 1 1 3 9 2 27
Westfield 1 1 3 3 1 2 5 6 22
Westhampton 2 1 1 1 5
Wilbraham 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 11
Williamsburg 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 12
Worthington 1 1 1 2 1 6
Grand Total 121 95 101 102 80 76 97 117 110 38 32 970
Chapter 4 – Equity
50
3. Pioneer Valley Language Access Plan and Analysis of Language-related
U.S. Census Data
The Pioneer Language Access Plan (LAP) Plan was been developed by the Pioneer
Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) in consultation with FHWA, FTA and
MassDOT. The plan describes the strategic approach that PVPC is pursuing to
achieve its program to better engage people who are Limited English Proficient
(LEP) in metropolitan transportation planning activities. PVPC’s goal is to ensure
that LEP persons have meaningful access to the public involvement process for
PVMPO activities. This LAP Plan clarifies PVMPO’s responsibilities with respect to
LEP requirements as a recipient of federal financial assistance from the U.S.
Department of Transportation to people who are Limited English Proficient.
The Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (PVMPO) is committed to
making the metropolitan transportation planning process as accessible as possible
to all people who live within the region. The PVMPO programs the transportation
projects that utilize federal and state sources of operating assistance for transit, as
well as and capital assistance for transportation and transit projects. Support for LEP
outreach and related services are integrated with the planning and development of
these projects. The PVMPO actively works to identify programs, activities, and
services provided by the MPO that are of importance to the general public, and take
reasonable steps to overcome language barriers to these, at no cost to the limited
English proficient (LEP) individual. The MPO currently strives to accomplish the
following:
Translate our most vital documents into Spanish, including our notice of civil
rights, compliant procedures, and complaint form. We will make a concerted
attempt translate any of these documents into other languages upon request.
Provide flyers, meeting notices, and other announcements in the languages
spoken in the affected area.
Offer to translate meeting materials, upon request.
Post notices in non-English community newspapers when appropriate.
Incorporate Google Translate in our website which may be used to translate
site materials into multiple languages.
Provide interpreters, upon request, at public meetings.
Translated our transit map into Spanish.
Provided information about PVTA service changes in Spanish.
Provide information about projects that impact a neighborhood or that may
have a significant impact in the languages spoken in the area.
Translate consent forms, and letters containing information regarding
participation in a program when needed.
Chapter 4 – Equity
51
The PVMPO has prioritized the following documents considered vital, and has
begun the task of providing translations:
Notice to Beneficiaries (Notice of Civil Rights)
Title VI Complaint Procedures
Complaint Form
Consent Form
Statement advising of the availability of free language assistance services for
LEP individuals in materials routinely disseminated to the public
Notices of proposed public hearings regarding proposed transportation plans
and programs.
The PVMPO identifies LEP persons who need language assistance through the
following activities and services:
Coordination with municipal, regional and state agencies engaged in
transportation planning processes.
Outreach to community based organizations and municipal agencies to ask
their assistance in identifying LEP persons who may need language
assistance.
Outreach to social service agencies in the region.
Planning coordination and public involvement services and activities with the
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority.
Inclusion of instructions on how to request language translation of key written
documents on public meeting notices.
Asking persons attending public hearings if Spanish language translation
and/or signing interpreter services are desired or needed (services are always
available).
Demographic assessment of census data to ascertain likely geographic
location of potential LEP customers.
The PVMPO maintains a database of a written translation and oral interpreter
service provider. This effort improves the speed and convenience with which written
documents can be translated for the public, and reduces the need to have public
requests for them. The staff to the MPO also works to ensure that PVMPO members
are aware of the USDOT LEP guidance and support related LEP planning activities
Analysis of demographic data related to the ability to speak English from the 2013-
17 U.S. Census and the American Community Survey (ACS). Table 4-11 shows the
wide range of languages other than English spoken at home in the Pioneer Valley
and speaks to the cultural diversity of the region.
Chapter 4 – Equity
52
Table 4-11 – Languages other than English Spoken at Home in the PVPC Region
Total Population # of
People *
% of Total
Population
Spanish 26994 4.51%
Other Indo-European Languages 4963 0.83%
Russian, Polish, or other Slavic languages 4449 0.74%
Chinese (incl. Mandarin, Cantonese) 2047 0.34%
Other Asian and Pacific Island languages 1499 0.25%
French, Haitian, or Cajun 1133 0.19%
Vietnamese 1033 0.17%
Arabic 552 0.09%
Korean 552 0.09%
Other and unspecified languages 542 0.09%
German or other West Germanic languages 151 0.03%
Tagalog (incl. Filipino) 107 0.02%
*Speaks English Less than Very Well ACS 2013-17
4. Recommendations from the Language Access Plan (LAP) Plan
The PVPC staff will continue to implement recommendations identified through
analysis and the public participation process with the assistance of the Joint
Transportation Committee, the MPO and the Pioneer Valley Transit Administration.
PVPC intends to take actions necessary to assure that the all affected communities
are included in the decision making process and that the information needed to
make decisions is available. As the process develops, practices being tested today
may be institutionalized as policy depending on their success. Examples include:
Review and update the measures of effectiveness on a regular basis,
incorporating new spending on projects listed in the TIP.
Continue public participation efforts related to the RTP and TIP to include
local presentations at special group meetings, neighborhood council
meetings, and community activities.
Continue to follow recommendations related public outreach to LEP
populations included in the 2106 PVMPO Public Participation Plan.
5. Ongoing Evaluation of Title VI and EJ Planning Efforts
To assess success in achieving the goals an action item evaluation was developed.
This list will be used as an ongoing review of the effectiveness of policies and
practices related to EJ and Title VI.
Has a demographic profile of the metropolitan planning area been developed
that identifies low-income and minority populations? Has this data been
updated to reflect revised census data?
Chapter 4 – Equity
53
Have PVTA and PVPC responded to requests for new and expanded transit
service when requested? Has the region sought funds to offer these
services?
Have Title VI reporting requirements been supplemented with a report to the
MPO?
Does the planning process use demographic information to examine the
benefits and burdens of the transportation investments included in the plan
and TIP?
Does the planning process have an analytical process in place for assessing
the regional benefits and burdens of transportation system investments for
different socio-economic groups?
To what extent has PVPC made proactive efforts to engage and involve
representatives of minority and low-income groups through public
involvement programs? Does the public involvement process have a strategy
for engaging minority and low-income populations in transportation decision
making?
What issues were raised, how are their concerns documented, and how do
they reflect on the performance of the planning process?
What mechanisms are in place to ensure that issues and concerns raised by
low-income and minority populations are appropriately considered in the
decision making process?
What corrective action should be put into the process regarding existing
requirements and prepare it for future regulatory requirements?
G. TITLE VI AND EJ SELF CERTIFICATION
The Pioneer Valley MPO has conducted an analysis of the Pioneer Valley Regional
Transportation Plan with regard to Title VI and EJ conformity. The purpose of the
analysis is to evaluate the impacts of the transportation planning process on minority
and low-income populations. The analysis evaluates efforts to identify minority and
low-income populations, develop public participation inclusive of these populations,
and to identify imbalances that impact these populations. The procedures and
assumptions used in this analysis follow FHWA guidance, are consistent with the
procedures used by MPOs in Massachusetts, and are consistent with Title VI of the
1964 Civil Rights Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Section 109(h) of Title 23,
Dot Title VI Regulations, DOT and CEQ NEPA Regulations, Section 1202 of TEA-
21, DOT and CEQ NEPA Regulations, Section 1203 of TEA-21, DOT Planning
Regulations, Executive Order 12898, USDOT Order 5610.2, and FHWA Order
6640.23.
Accordingly, PVPC has found the Pioneer Valley Regional Transportation Plan to be
in conformance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and requirements of
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice). Based on the measures used for
Chapter 4 – Equity
54
the EJ Analysis, the RTP does not have disproportionately high and adverse impacts
on low-income and minority populations. Specifically, the following conditions are
met:
1. Conditions Related to Public Involvement
PVPC has identified a strategy for engaging minority and low-income populations in
transportation decision making and to reduce participation barriers for these
populations. Efforts have been undertaken to improve performance, especially with
regard to low-income and minority populations and organizations representing low-
income and minority populations. In 2016 the Public Participation Process was
modified to incorporate Title VI guidance from the Massachusetts Office of Diversity
and Civil Rights.
2. Conditions Related to Equity Assessment
The Pioneer Valley planning process has an analytical process in place for
assessing the regional benefits and burdens of transportation system investments
for different socio-economic groups. A data collection process is used to assess the
benefit and impact distributions of the investments and specific strategies are
identified for responding to imbalances.
3. Title VI and EJ Conclusions
PVPC addresses Title VI and environmental justice and social equity issues as part
of its transportation planning process. PVPC has identified goals to enhance the
existing public participation process, to identify low income and minority populations,
and provides measures of effectiveness to evaluate transportation deficiencies,
benefits, and burdens. The PVPC will continue to improve its public participation
and planning process to ensure that it is conducted in accordance with Title VI of the
Civil Right Act of 1964, FHWA/FTA guidance on LEP and requirements of Executive
order 12898 (Environmental Justice) to give full and fair consideration to minority
and low income residents in the region. The region’s outreach and efforts to engage
all residents in meaningful discussion around transportation issues continues to be a
priority of the MPO.
.
Chapter 5 – Regional Profile
55
Photo: North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA
REGIONAL PROFILE
The Pioneer Valley Region is located in the Midwestern section of Massachusetts.
Encompassing the fourth largest metropolitan area in New England, the region
consists of 43 cities and towns covering 1,179 square miles. The Pioneer Valley is
bisected by the Connecticut River and is bounded on the north by Franklin County,
on the south by the State of Connecticut, on the east by Quabbin Reservoir and
Worcester County and on the west by Berkshire County.
Unique within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Pioneer Valley region
contains a diverse economic base, internationally known educational institutions ,
and limitless scenic beauty. Prime agricultural land, significant wetlands, and scenic
rivers are some of the region’s premier natural resources. Its unique combination of
natural beauty, cultural amenities, and historical character make the Pioneer Valley
region an exceptional environment in which to live and work.
A more comprehensive version of Chapter 5 is presented in the Appendix to the
RTP.
CHAPTER 5
Chapter 5 – Regional Profile
56
A. HIGHWAY
The Pioneer Valley area is
considered the crossroads of
transportation in Western
Massachusetts. Situated at the
intersection of the area's major
highways, Interstate 90 and
Interstate 91, the region offers easy
access to all markets in the
Eastern United States and Canada.
Major southern New England
population centers are accessible
within hours.
Figure 5-1 – Pioneer Valley Region Map
There are just over 4,387 miles of roadway in
the Pioneer Valley region. Roadway functional
classification is a framework for identifying the
role of a roadway in moving vehicles through
the network of highways. Functional
classification is based in part on roadway
design, speed, capacity and its relationship to
existing and future land use development. It is
also used to establish funding eligibility. A total
of 1,360 miles of regional roads are eligible for
federal aid. Local roads, which are not eligible
for federal aid comprise approximately 66% of the regional roadway mileage. Cities
and towns are responsible for the maintenance of 82% of regional roadway miles.
Figure 5-2 – Pioneer Valley Roadway Functional Classification and Jurisdiction
Regional Highway Statistics
4387 Roadway Miles
1,360 Federal Aid Eligible
Roadway Miles
685 Bridges
15,331,000 Estimated
Daily Vehicle Miles
Travelled in 2020.
4 Designated Scenic
Byways
Chapter 5 – Regional Profile
57
B. PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
The Pioneer Valley provides an extensive transit system that offers many different
modes of public transportation. Intra-county and Intercity buses, passenger rail
service, van service for seniors and disabled riders, ridesharing, and park and ride
lots are all vital to the mobility of the regions residents.
1. Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA)
PVTA’s service area begins at the
Connecticut state line and stretches north to
Leverett, MA. PVTA serves 24 communities
with a total population of 561,952 (2017
U.S. Census estimate). A 2015/16
passenger survey found that 55.1% of
PVTA riders use the bus to commute to
work or school. A total of 71.5% of riders
report earning less than $20,000 per year
and 68% of riders say they have no other
way to make their trip other than using
PVTA.
Figure 5-3– PVTA Communities and Bus Routes
a) Paratransit Service
Paratransit is demand response
door-to-door van service that is
scheduled by the rider. These
vans are equipped with
wheelchair lifts and other
special equipment to insure the
safety of disabled riders. As the
average age of the region’s
residents continues to rise, the
need and demand for
paratransit services will
increase.
In addition to the PVTA, the
Franklin Regional Transit
Authority (FRTA) provides
paratransit service under
contract to 14 towns in the
region. Councils on Aging
(COAs) and Senior Centers in
Largest regional transit
authority in Massachusetts
Serves 24 communities
189 vehicle fixed route fleet
3 electric
42 fixed bus routes
2018 fixed route ridership of
10,902,207 (down 4.9%)
142 van paratransit fleet
2018 paratransit ridership of
291,932 (down 1.9%)
Chapter 5 – Regional Profile
58
Services providers:
PVTA
FRTA
COAs/Senior Centers
3 Regional Coordinating
Councils
Pioneer Valley
Hilltown
Quaboag Valley
the region also provide transportation to their
senior residents. Days, hours of operations,
fares and service frequency vary by town.
Massachusetts has 3 Regional Coordinating
Councils (RCC) formed under Executive Order
530 to enhance the efficiency of community and
paratransit transportation services, raise
awareness, report unmet needs, and develop
regional priorities.
2. Other Transit Services
The Pioneer Valley is served by a number of other providers such as commercial
bus passenger carriers that provide scheduled service to destinations within the
region, as well as cities and towns throughout New England and North America.
These carriers serve four bus terminals and other stops in the region. The Pioneer
Valley also has a number of facilities, organizations and programs to help people
share rides. The region has 3 designated and many informal park and ride lots
where people may leave their car to board a bus or join a carpool.
Bus Terminals
Springfield Union Station
Northampton Bus Terminal
Holyoke Transportation
Center
Olver Transit Pavilion
Commercial Carriers
Peter Pan Bus Lines
Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Private Van Service
Charter Tour Service
Taxis
Uber/Lyft
Ridesharing
Bay State Commute
UMass Rideshare
Private ride matching sites
ZipCar
Park and Ride
Sheldon Field, Northampton
Veteran’s Administration,
Northampton
Massachusetts Turnpike Exit
#7 - Ludlow
Chapter 5 – Regional Profile
59
3. Passenger Rail
The Springfield Union Station is currently
served by 24trains daily providing service
in the northeastern U.S. and connections
nationwide. Passenger rail service is
provided on both East-West routes and
North-South routes in the region.
Most trains in Springfield operate south to
New Haven as either Amtrak or CTRail
trains. Amtrak provides daily through
service on the Vermonter between St.
Albans Vermont and Washington D.C., with
major stops at Springfield, Hartford, New
York City and Philadelphia. The highest
ridership origin-destination pair along the
Vermonter route is Northampton, MA to
New York City, NY averaging over 900
riders per year.
Service on the Connecticut River Line is very
successful with a 2017 annual ridership of
nearly 28,000. Based off this success, 4 new
trips per day are planned between Greenfield
and Springfield. This new service will debut as
a pilot program in the summerof2019.
A long distance train, the Lake Shore Limited
serves Springfield by providing daily service
between Chicago and Boston. The Pioneer
Valley’s East-West service is limited by control
over the track by the host freight railroad CSX.
In December of 2018, MassDOT began a study
to examine the feasibility of implementing passenger rail service from Boston to
Springfield and Pittsfield. The study will assess up to six alternatives, including high
speed rail and potential infill stations.
Photo: Springfield Amtrak Service North/South Rail Service
Amtrak and CTRail
11 arrivals/11 departures
4 CTRail
6 Amtrak
1 Vermonter
28,000 riders in 2017
East/West Rail Service
Lake Shore Limited
Chicago to Boston
MassDOT Study examining
service from Boston to
Springfield and Pittsfield
Passenger Rail Terminals
Springfield Union Station
Holyoke
Northampton
Map: Connecticut River Line
Chapter 5 – Regional Profile
60
C. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
utilizes technology in traffic control,
communications, computer hardware and
software to improve the performance of
an existing transportation system. The
dissemination of real-time travel
information improves safety and
efficiency while reducing congestion.
The ITS infrastructure is continually
expanding in the region. Interstate 90, 90
and 291 have a network of cameras and
variable message signs to assist in
incident management. PVTA vehicles are
equipped with technology to allow real
time tracking of the fleet. The
Massachusetts Turnpike converted to all
electronic tolling in October of 2018.
MassDOT also works with communities to include ITS technology in future roadway
improvement projects.
Figure 5-4 – Massachusetts 511 Real Time Traffic
I-91/I-90
Closed circuit cameras
Variable message signs
Linked to MassDOT and
Mass State Police
PVTA
ITS equipped vehicles
Automatic counters
Automatic announcements
Real-time bus tracker
Massachusetts 511
Real Time Traffic Management
Live travel time information
Smart Work Zones
Efficient construction areas
EZDriveMA
All electronic tolling
Chapter 5 – Regional Profile
61
D. NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
Bicycling and walking are inextricably linked to quality of life in our communities. The
Pioneer Valley region affords some of the best environments for walking and
bicycling in the Commonwealth. An expanding network of off-road trails, vibrant
downtowns laced with sidewalks and scenic shared-use roadways create an
unmatched potential. As a destination or as a place to call home, the Pioneer Valley
offers a wide range of transportation choices.
Figure 5-5 – Regional Bicycle Network
Currently seventeen communities provide over 90 miles of bicycle lanes, multi-use
paths or “rail trails” in the region. Eleven communities provide 45 miles of designated
on-road bicycle facilities. The Pioneer Valley Transit Authority supports a popular
“Rack and Roll” bikes-on-buses program for the entire region. All fixed route buses
are equipped with bicycle racks.
Pedestrian access and circulation are typically better in town or city centers due to
the physical design of such places. Shops, offices, restaurants and other amenities
Chapter 5 – Regional Profile
62
are generally clustered together and
connected by a pedestrian network which is
often more accessible and efficient than the
vehicle network. Sidewalks are the most
common infrastructure feature devoted to
pedestrian circulation. The provision of
sidewalks in the region varies with respect
to location, quality and function.
Photo: South Maple Street crossing in Hadley, MA
The Massachusetts Safe Routes to School
program promotes healthy alternatives for
children and parents in their travel to and
from school. A total of 83 schools in the
Pioneer Valley activity participate in the
program. Benefits include education on the
value of walking and bicycling and funding for sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic
calming measures.
The Pioneer Valley MPO funded $1.3 million using the federal Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality program in 2017 for Valley Bike, a docked bicycle sharing system in
Amherst (including the
University of Massachusetts),
Holyoke, Northampton, South
Hadley, and Springfield. Valley
Bike launched in the spring of
2018 and will expand into the
City of Easthampton in 2019.
All total, 550 electrically
assisted bicycles are deployed
at 55 stations.
Table 5-1 – ValleyBike Monthly Ridership
Bicycle Network
90+ mile network across 17
communities.
45 miles of on-road lanes
2019 = 20th year of Bike Week
ValleyBike regional bike share
55 Stations
6 communities
550 electric assist bikes
26,353 trips in 2018
Bike racks on all fixed route
transit vehicles
62,778 uses in 2017
Pedestrian Network
Varies by community
More comprehensive in
downtown and village centers
Massachusetts Safe Routes to
School Program
83 participating schools
Complete Streets Program
38 communities participating
18 advancing requirements
12 adopted policies
Chapter 5 – Regional Profile
63
E. AVIATION
The Pioneer Valley is well
served by air transportation
facilities located within or
adjacent to the region. Most air
travel from the region goes
through Bradley International
Airport in Windsor Locks,
Connecticut situated 15 miles
south of the City of Springfield.
The largest airport the Pioneer
Valley region is the Westover Air
Reserve Base and Metropolitan
Airport facility in Chicopee and
Ludlow. The Westfield-Barnes
Airport is located in the City of
Westfield and is a general
aviation facility that also houses
the Air National Guard 104th
Tactical Fighter Group. The
Northampton Airport is a small
privately owned airport serving
both business and recreational
uses.
Bradley International Airport
Served by 9 major airlines
International service to Canada,
Ireland, Mexico and Puerto Rico
Averaged 256 daily flights (2016)
Westfield Barnes Municipal Airport
Mass. Air National Guard
Averaged 113 daily flights (2016)
Westover Air Reserve Base
Air Force Reserve 439th Airlift Wing
Averaged 54 daily flights (2017)
Northampton Airport
Averaged 85 flights/day (2016)
Map: Pioneer Valley Airports
Chapter 5 – Regional Profile
64
F. TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS
The major interstates and rail lines in the
Pioneer Valley Region enable the quick
delivery of goods to some of the nation’s
largest cities. The proximity of the region to
major and middle sized cities allows goods
from the Pioneer Valley to be quickly
transported to competitive markets. Freight is
moved in and out of the Pioneer Valley
primarily by truck with rail, air and pipeline
carrying the remaining goods.
Figure 5-6 – Massachusetts Rail Freight Network
Source: Massachusetts Freight Plan
Trucking
Dominant mode for freight
Small, private carriers
Shortage of truck rest areas
Rail Carriers
CSX Transportation
Terminal in West Springfield
Pan AM Southern Railways
New England Central
Pioneer Valley Railroad
MassCentral Railroad
Air Freight
No major regional facilities
Typically shipped through
Logan and Bradley airports
Pipeline
Natural Gas
Jet Fuel
Gas, Kerosene, Distillates
Map: 2011 Freight Flows
Chapter 5 – Regional Profile
65
G. DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographic data was developed for
the RTP by the PVPC Data section
using the latest information available
from sources such as the US Census
Bureau, American Community Survey
(ACS), U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Massachusetts Department
of Revenue, and Massachusetts
Department of Employment and Training. For more information, please visit the
Pioneer Valley Data Portal at http://pioneervalleydata.org/.
Figure 5-7 - Population Change 1950 - 2015
The regional population
continues to grow at a
steady rate. Between
2000 and 2010, the
region’s population grew
by 2.4%. Population
growth is a direct result of
foreign immigration as
the region has steady
trend of domestic
migration to other parts of
the country the last
several years.
Figure 5-8 – 2017 Households by Size
Information from the US Census
shows a total of 237,713 households
in the region in 2017, nearly a 1%
increase from 2010. Overall
household size is decreasing. Only
20% of all households report a size of
four or more. Over 62% of all
households are comprised of 1 or 2
occupants.
2017 population = 630,385
Up 1.4% from 2010
2017 regional households = 237,713
2017 total employment = 273,376
Median household income = $55,666
2015 registered vehicles = 489,999
Chapter 5 – Regional Profile
66
Figure 5-9 - Per Capita Income Change 2007 - 2017
Per capita income in the
Pioneer Valley region, has
been increasing steadily.
Despite two recessions in
the 2000s, per capita
wages continue to
increase. The largest
increases occurred
between 2011 and 2012
and 2014 and 2015. All
total, per capita income
has grown by nearly
$7,000 since 2011.
Figure 5-10 – 2015 Vehicle Registration
Based on 2015 data, a total of 489,999
vehicles, or approximately 0.78
vehicles per person were registered in
the Pioneer Valley. Between 2000 and
2015, automobile registrations dropped
by over 23 percent. Light trucks and
SUVs registrations continue to grow
and comprise over one-third of
registered vehicles. The City of
Springfield has the most registered
vehicles with 90,493. This translates to 18.5 percent of all registered vehicles.
Figure 5-11 –Employment Mode of Travel by County
The mode share
differences between
Hampden and
Hampshire Counties are
significant but both skew
towards single occupant
vehicles. More
commuters walk, bicycle
or take public transit in
Hampshire County
potentially due to the
large student population
in the Five College area.
Chapter 6 – Safety
67
Photo: East Longmeadow Rotary
SAFETY
Transportation Safety is one of the primary emphasis areas of the Pioneer
Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission works in cooperation with MassDOT to identify and prioritize
transportation projects that improve traffic safety in the region. The PVPC
also provides assistance to local communities to increase safety at locations
with a history of crashes.
A. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid
program which aims to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all
public roads. The HSIP was established under the SAFETEA-LU legislation
and continued under MAP-21. It consists of three main components, the
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), State HSIP or program of highway
safety improvement projects and the Railway-Highway Crossing Program
(RHCP).
CHAPTER 6
Chapter 6 – Safety
68
To receive HSIP funds, a State must:
Produce a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety
problems.
Develop, implement, and update a SHSP.
Evaluate the SHSP on a regular basis.
Table 6-1 – Projects Advertised under HSIP
Year Community - Project Description
2015 Hadley- Signal & Intersection Improvements at Route 9 (Russell Street) & Route 47 (Middle Street)
2016 Springfield- Signal & Intersection Improvements at Roosevelt Avenue, Island Pond Road, and Alden
Street 2017 Ludlow- Reconstruction of Center Street (Route 21)
2019 Chicopee- Signal & Intersection Improvements at 13 Intersections along Route 33 Memorial Drive
2019 Springfield- Intersection Improvements at Bay Street and Berkshire Avenue
Source MassDOT
B. STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN
A Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is a major component and
requirement of the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). It
is a statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive
framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public
roads. The SHSP identifies a State's key safety needs and guides investment
decisions towards strategies and countermeasures with the most potential to
save lives and prevent injuries.
MassDOT developed the Massachusetts SHSP in a cooperative process with
Federal, State, local, private, and public sector safety stakeholders. The
SHSP is a data-driven, strategic plan that integrates the four E's: engineering,
education, enforcement and emergency medical services (EMS).
Since the first Massachusetts SHSP was prepared in 2006, highway fatalities
have dropped by 19% and serious injuries have dropped by 44%.
Massachusetts updated the Plan in 2013, completed a second revision in
December 2018 and is now actively implementing the strategies included in
the SHSP. The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission works in cooperation
with MassDOT to achieve the regional targets and goals set in the SHSP.
1. 2018 Update to the SHSP
The latest update to the SHSP has the:
Vision: A roadway system with zero roadway deaths and serious injuries.
Mission: To work collaboratively on strategies that will reduce roadway
fatalities and serious injuries.
Chapter 6 – Safety
69
Goal: Zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries gradually. By year
2022, the SHSP interim goal is to reduce the five-year average fatalities
by 12% and serious injuries by 21%.
a) Emphasis Areas
In order to meet these SHSP target, a multidisciplinary team of policymakers,
advocates and practitioners has prioritized a set of data-driven strategies
associated with 14 emphasis areas (EAs) to address the causes of crashes in
Massachusetts. These EAs are outlined by annual fatality average:
Lane Departure Crashes [198]
Impaired Driving [124]
Occupant Protection [102]
Speeding and Aggressive Driving [97]
Intersection Crashes [96]
Pedestrians [80]
Older Drivers [74]
Motorcycle Crashes [49]
Younger Drivers [41]
Large Truck-Involved Crashes [34]
Driver Distraction [30]
Bicyclists [10]
Safety of Persons Working on Roadways [2]
At-Grade Rail Crossings [1]
b) Legislative Policies
The SHSP proposes that Massachusetts consider six high-leverage policies
to reduce the frequency and severity of roadway fatalities. These legislative
measures target the most predominant types of crashes and address the
contributing factors such as speeding, driver distraction, and impaired driving.
Hands Free: Would allow police to stop and issue citations to motorists
using mobile electronic devices while operating a vehicle.
Primary Seat Belt: Would enable law enforcement to stop motorists who
appear to not be wearing seatbelts while operating a vehicle.
Work Zone Safety: Would enable variable speed limits in work zones and
increase penalties for motorists who strike roadway workers.
Ignition Interlock for All Offenders: Would statutorily allow judges to
order ignition interlock devices for first time Operating Under the Influence
offenders.
Truck Side Guards: Would require that trucks registered in
Massachusetts, meeting certain criteria, have side guards.
Chapter 6 – Safety
70
Automated Enforcement: Would give municipalities “opt in” authority to
issue citations through the use of cameras and radar technology.
c) Overview of the Plan
The SHSP reflects the efforts of 250 stakeholders from more than 50 partner
agencies. The outcome of their work is an implementation plan that includes
61 specific strategies, 283 direct actions and 5 legislative proposals to move
Massachusetts closer towards zero deaths and to an interim goal of a 12%
drop in five-year average fatalities and a 21% drop in five-year average
serious injuries.
The latest update to the SHSP can be downloaded at:
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/01/18/dot_SHSP_2018.pdf
2. Role of Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning
The Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization is responsible for
providing support to MassDOT to achieve the SHSP targets. Regional
Planning Agencies (RPAs) and MPOs are identified as responsible agencies
for 23 strategies included in the SHSP.
PVPC has developed specific safety criteria as part of its Transportation
Evaluation Criteria (TEC) in compliance with the goals and objectives set forth
in the SHSP. More information is available through this
link:http://www.pvpc.org/projects/transportation-evaluation-criteria-
information-center. The regional needs and strategies for the RTP Emphasis
Area of Safety are also based on the Action Plans proposed in the SHSP and
included in Chapter 14.
a) Roadway Safety Audit
A Road Safety Audit (RSA) is a formal safety review of an existing, or planned
road or intersection. During the audit, an independent, multidisciplinary team
identifies potential safety issues and opportunities for safety improvements.
RSAs have become an important part of the HSIP. An RSA is required for
HSIP eligible projects. PVPC participates in all RSAs in the region. PVPC
also works in cooperation with MassDOT and local Police departments at
some of the locations to help provide most recent crash data and other
relevant traffic volume and congestion data for the RSA team to study and
review. Since 2015, 30 RSAs have been conducted in the Pioneer Valley
Region. Copies of RSA reports can be obtained from the MassDOT website
at: https://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/roadsafetyaudits/.
Chapter 6 – Safety
71
Table 6-2 –Roadway Safety Audits by Community
No. Community Number of RSAs
1 Agawam 1
2 Amherst 1
3 Chicopee 2
4 Holyoke 3
5 South Hadley 1
6 Springfield 15
7 Ware 1
8 West Springfield 2
9 Westfield 4
Total 30
Source: MassDOT
C. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following section provides an update to the existing traffic safety
condition in the region.
1. Massachusetts Crash Data
MassDOT publishes and updates a report which summarizes the top 200 high
crash locations in the state. The most recent report is based on reported
crashes from 2014 – 2016. This report is based on aa new methodology of
ranking the crash clusters. The report can be accessed at:
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/03/01/dot-
2016TopCrashLocationsRpt.pdf
A total of 28 locations from Hampshire and Hampden counties were included
in the most recent version of this report. The City of Springfield has 21 of the
28 locations. A large crash cluster identified in the document in the vicinity of
the Holyoke Mall in the City of Holyoke is likely a result of crashes occurring
on private property that are incorrectly assigned to a local intersection.
2. Regional Crash History
MassDOT maintains a database of crashes by collecting the records from the
Registry of Motor Vehicles. PVPC utilizes this information as well as crash
information collected locally from police departments to analyze and evaluate
safety problems at different locations in the region. A summary of the total
number of crashes reported by each community to the Massachusetts
Registry of Motor Vehicles over the last ten years is provided in Table 6-3.
This information consists of crashes that either resulted in a personal injury or
fatality, or resulted in greater than $1000.00 worth of property damage.
Chapter 6 – Safety
72
Figure 6-1 – Massachusetts Top 200 High Crash Locations in the Region
Source: MassDOT
Chapter 6 – Safety
73
The City of Springfield experienced the highest number of crashes (29,371)
over the ten year period while the City of Holyoke experienced the highest
number of average annual crashes per roadway mile (9.8). The City of
Springfield was under reporting its crash data until the year 2011. As a result
the number of crashes in the city increased significantly after that period. The
Pioneer Valley experienced a 3.2% increase in the number of reported
crashes between the calendar years of 2015 and 2016.
Table 6-3 – Ten Year Community Crash History
Source: MassDOT
No. Community 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1 AGAWAM 603 586 513 564 541 494 480 505 554 589 5,429 543 3.61
2 AMHERST 218 182 92 443 450 390 276 368 430 407 3,256 326 2.40
3 BELCHERTOWN 215 221 259 229 228 230 208 261 254 226 2,331 233 1.50
4 BLANDFORD 72 70 58 76 76 77 55 67 53 66 670 67 0.75
5 BRIMFIELD 68 85 43 57 74 77 55 46 58 114 677 68 0.85
6 CHESTER 17 16 9 18 13 12 15 15 17 13 145 15 0.22
7 CHESTERFIELD 11 9 9 3 11 19 17 9 5 17 110 11 0.19
8 CHICOPEE 1,624 1,471 1,445 1,437 1,502 1,390 1,351 1,425 1,854 1,908 15,407 1,541 5.92
9 CUMMINGTON 11 9 3 3 0 4 2 4 7 3 46 5 0.07
10 EAST LONGMEADOW 452 452 444 388 446 384 384 402 391 375 4,118 412 4.38
11 EASTHAMPTON 135 124 78 286 274 303 277 293 282 334 2,386 239 2.70
12 GOSHEN 23 17 6 11 18 14 10 18 20 13 150 15 0.34
13 GRANBY 150 165 136 116 138 166 168 154 173 210 1,576 158 2.33
14 GRANVILLE 18 22 10 22 18 12 10 9 10 6 137 14 0.19
15 HADLEY 388 318 324 266 256 290 267 263 399 461 3,232 323 3.88
16 HAMPDEN 55 63 39 55 47 37 68 59 57 54 534 53 0.99
17 HATFIELD 50 32 19 35 36 29 25 23 18 30 297 30 0.50
18 HOLLAND 5 7 10 12 6 9 10 9 7 8 83 8 0.22
19 HOLYOKE 1,342 1,654 1,702 1,705 2,054 1,636 1,673 1,707 1,771 1,783 17,027 1,703 9.81
20 HUNTINGTON 13 19 21 22 19 21 14 12 28 25 194 19 0.36
21 LONGMEADOW 284 238 244 185 212 216 224 187 194 187 2,171 217 2.20
22 LUDLOW 479 449 457 433 454 448 409 395 589 599 4,712 471 3.64
23 MIDDLEFIELD 7 5 0 2 1 3 1 5 1 3 28 3 0.07
24 MONSON 117 110 87 51 65 50 62 61 51 53 707 71 0.63
25 MONTGOMERY 9 8 15 18 16 17 11 9 9 12 124 12 0.40
26 NORTHAMPTON 706 670 606 623 630 565 573 577 605 628 6,183 618 3.42
27 PALMER 429 379 288 417 436 347 409 210 344 379 3,638 364 3.18
28 PELHAM 20 11 13 7 6 17 6 13 6 11 110 11 0.24
29 PLAINFIELD 9 7 9 4 7 10 9 4 2 6 67 7 0.14
30 RUSSELL 36 45 30 39 46 50 44 43 53 32 418 42 1.16
31 SOUTH HADLEY 289 276 245 283 254 261 241 246 251 225 2,571 257 2.48
32 SOUTHAMPTON 60 50 53 46 51 44 51 52 58 73 538 54 0.73
33 SOUTHWICK 192 202 189 97 234 179 154 144 141 146 1,678 168 2.19
34 SPRINGFIELD 911 805 561 470 4,643 4,501 4,330 4,139 4,347 4,664 29,371 2,937 5.90
35 TOLLAND 3 1 2 2 4 5 3 3 3 2 28 3 0.07
36 WALES 6 12 8 8 7 5 7 6 8 9 76 8 0.26
37 WARE 181 162 192 211 233 196 188 197 198 234 1,992 199 1.70
38 WEST SPRINGFIELD 150 145 527 611 850 823 727 662 782 630 5,907 591 4.13
39 WESTFIELD 850 755 725 812 813 778 735 623 780 786 7,657 766 3.10
40 WESTHAMPTON 17 20 17 14 18 20 15 19 18 19 177 18 0.37
41 WILBRAHAM 334 308 287 353 363 317 304 313 336 349 3,264 326 2.93
42 WILLIAMSBURG 65 67 61 39 64 54 57 41 56 50 554 55 1.11
43 WORTHINGTON 9 14 6 1 5 4 6 10 12 5 72 7 0.11
TOTAL 10,633 10,261 117,762 10,474 120,631 122,645 125,285 130,233 139,050 143,474 930,448 12,985 3.00
Total
Crashes
Average
Crashes
per year
Average
Crashes
per mile
Chapter 6 – Safety
74
The PVPC also develops and updates its own list of top 100 crash
intersections. The latest report utilized the crash data between the calendar
years of 2011 – 2013.
Figure 6-2 – Top 100 High Crash Intersections in the Pioneer Valley
Chapter 6 – Safety
75
The top locations depicted in this report differ from the MassDOT report
because of the different crash data time periods and due to a recent change
by MassDOT in its ranking system. PVPC will review this change as part of a
future update to the regional Top 100 report.
a) Fatal Crashes
The Pioneer Valley experienced a total of 46 fatal crashes in 2016. This
increase from 2015 and follows current state trends. Figure 6-3 depicts the
fatal crashes in Hampshire and Hampden counties over the past decade.
More information on fatal crashes is presented in Chapter 12 of the RTP.
Figure 6-3 – Fatal Crashes in Hampshire and Hampden Counties
Source: MassDOT
3. Bridges
All bridges throughout the state undergo routine structural inspection.
Previously the State utilized a generally accepted rating system developed by
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) to ascertain the condition of the bridges. Beginning in 2018, that
system was updated to a new 100 point scale system which measures the
Bridge Health Index (BHI).
BHI is a weighted average of the health indices of all bridge elements (e.g.
trusses, decks, bridge rails, etc.) to provide a comprehensive overview of
bridge condition. A value of zero indicates that all of the bridge elements are
in the worst condition, and a score of 85 or greater indicates that the bridge
elements are in good condition.
28
37
27 31 31 27
34 33 31 28
35
9
8
8
10 6
7
10 7 9
6
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20062007200820092010201120122013201420152016Fatal Crashes Year
Hampshire
Hampden
Chapter 6 – Safety
76
Under this new system, a ‘structurally deficient bridge’ is defined as a bridge
with a deck, substructure, or superstructure that requires attention. Table 6-4
summarizes the status of bridge conditions within the Pioneer Valley Region
by community.
The percentage of structurally deficient bridges in the region has steadily
declined over past decade by almost 4%. This trend is shown in Figure 6-4.
There is a gap in data from 2014 and 2018 as a result of the transition to the
new bridge classification system and scoring method.
Figure 6-4 – Structurally Deficient Bridges in the Pioneer Valley
4. At-grade Railroad Crossings
The Federal Railroad Authority’s (FRA) rail crossing inventory summarizes at-
grade rail road crossings in the region. There are currently 295 at-grade
crossings in the region. Approximately two-thirds of these crossings are
located in Hampden County. Many of the crossings are located on non-
operational rail road tracks. A total of 31 crossings are gated. While safety
gates are not present at most crossings, other supplemental warning devices
such as flashing lights, warning signs, and pavement markings are present
and require routine maintenance to provide maximum effectiveness. Figure
6-5 depicts the at-grade railroad crossings in the region.
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2018
% Structurally Deficient
Chapter 6 – Safety
77
Table 6-4 – Bridge Condition in the PVPC Region
Community
Total
No. of
Bridges
Average
BHI
Jurisdiction Structurally
Deficient Municipal State
No. Avg. BHI No. Avg. BHI No. Avg. BHI
Agawam 18 85.51 1 64.30 17 86.76 1 48.80
Amherst 15 76.47 10 71.13 5 87.16 1 11.40
Belchertown 12 87.68 8 92.45 4 78.15 1 43.90
Blandford 12 88.16 6 92.22 6 84.10 0 0
Brimfield 27 86.63 17 89.32 10 82.05 0 0
Chester 25 86.83 16 85.68 9 88.88 1 53.50
Chesterfield 10 76.17 7 75.01 3 78.87 2 58.00
Chicopee 50 77.68 5 86.12 45 76.74 2 53.20
Cummington 13 74.91 6 76.80 7 73.29 0 0
Easthampton 19 83.00 10 83.53 9 82.41 1 67.50
Goshen 4 95.48 2 97.15 2 93.80 0 0
Granby 8 84.13 7 83.21 1 90.50 0 0
Granville 7 85.44 4 83.78 3 87.67 0 0
Hadley 10 87.09 4 91.40 6 84.22 0 0
Hampden 8 86.16 8 86.16 0 1 100.00
Hatfield 15 81.43 5 79.82 10 82.24 2 74.05
Holland 2 0.00 2 0.00 0 0 0
Holyoke 49 77.48 9 81.97 40 76.47 4 33.23
Huntington 8 84.83 2 77.00 6 87.43 1 92.10
Longmeadow 4 73.98 0 4 73.98 0 0
Ludlow 23 67.26 8 55.48 15 73.54 2 66.05
Middlefield 9 72.54 9 72.54 0 1 51.50
Monson 23 77.71 13 77.82 10 79.63 4 56.53
Montgomery 5 81.54 4 87.08 1 59.40 0 0
Northampton 44 80.27 21 85.52 23 75.47 8 67.09
Palmer 30 76.92 8 83.38 22 74.58 3 78.33
Pelham 3 97.57 3 97.57 0 0 0
Plainfield 2 87.50 2 87.50 0 0 0
Russell 15 83.07 4 80.30 11 84.08 1 99.70
South Hadley 11 84.21 4 80.30 7 86.44 0 0
Southampton 11 76.14 9 71.42 2 97.35 0 0
Southwick 3 84.20 1 55.90 2 98.35 0 0
Springfield 61 75.75 13 67.40 48 78.00 5 50.70
Wales 1 93.20 1 93.20 0 1 93.20
Ware 16 84.62 9 80.57 7 89.83 3 74.37
West Springfield 26 73.40 26 73.40 1 12.10
Westfield 36 80.68 13 73.43 25 81.03 1 60.30
Westhampton 14 73.76 11 79.89 1 78.10 1 31.50
Wilbraham 4 83.23 2 84.00 2 82.45 0 0
Williamsburg 17 87.50 10 84.02 7 92.47 1 51.80
Worthington 15 77.85 10 74.06 5 85.44 1 90.30
Grand Total 685 79.67 284 79.81 401 79.55 50 60.35
Source: MassDOT
Chapter 6 – Safety
78
Figure 6-5 – At-grade Railroad Crossings
Chapter 6 – Safety
79
5. Dams in the Pioneer Valley Region
There are approximately 260 dams in the PVPC region that are regulated by the
Office of Dam Safety. To be regulated, these dams are in excess of 6 feet in height
(regardless of storage capacity) and have more than 15-acre feet of storage capacity
(regardless of height). There are also many dams in the region that because they
fall below these parameters are known as non-jurisdictional dams. Of the regulated
dams in the region, approximately:
40 have a hazard index rating of high,
130 are rated significant hazard, and
90 are rated low hazard1
Hazard index rating is a level of risk determined by the likelihood that a dam failure
(an uncontrolled release of impounded water) would result in loss of life or
substantial property damage.2
Under dam safety regulations owners have significant responsibilities for their dams.
The financial burden associated with these responsibilities can vary greatly,
depending on the number of dams for which an owner is responsible, and the dam’s
condition and hazard index rating. A dam in poor or unsafe condition can involve
very costly repairs, and a hazard index rating also brings with it different
requirements related to frequency of inspections by engineers and the need for
development of emergency action plans.
Recently enacted regulations seek to promote greater dam safety by extending the
requirement of emergency action plans to significant hazard dams (in addition to
high hazard dams), strengthening the authority of the Office of Dam Safety by
increasing fines for non-compliance, and establishing the Dam and Sea Wall Repair
and Removal Fund, an annual grant and loan program available to dam owners.
While it appears high hazard dams in poor and unsafe condition in the region have
been either repaired or removed, there are still 13 significant hazard dams in such
condition. There are an additional 26 low hazard dams in poor or unsafe condition.
It is important to note that most of these dams are located upstream of important
roadway infrastructure. See Table 6-5 for a listing of specific dams.
1 These numbers are estimates based on periodic and partial updates to PVPC’s dams data base from the
Massachusetts Office of Dam Safety. 2 Dams that are “likely” to cause such damage are classified as “high hazard”; dams that “may” cause such damage
are classified as “significant” hazard; dams that “may cause minimal property damage to others” where “loss of life is
not expected” are classified as “low” hazard. Dams that fall into these classifications are regulated by the Office of
Dam Safety.
Chapter 6 – Safety
80
Table 6-5 – Dams in the Pioneer Valley in Poor or Unsafe Condition
Dam name Town Hazard index
code rating
Condition
Nine Lot Dam Agawam Low Poor
Rising Dam Agawam Low Poor
Robinson Pond Dam Agawam Low Poor
Factory Hollow Dike Amherst Significant Poor
Owens Farm Pond Dam Amherst Low Poor
Wetstone Tobacco Co. #3 Dam East Longmeadow Low Poor
Forge Pond Dam Granby Significant Poor
Forge Pond Dike Granby Significant Poor
Quenneville Dam Granby Low Unsafe
Dufrense Farm Pond Dam Granby Low Poor
D.F. Riley Grist Mill Dam Hatfield Significant Poor
Mountain Street Reservoir Dikes Hatfield Low Poor
Clear Pond Dam Holyoke Low Poor
Clear Pond West Dike Holyoke Low Poor
Virginia Lake Shore Dam Middlefield Low Poor
Church Manufacturing Co. Dam Monson Low Poor
Boulder Hill Pond Dam Monson Significant Poor
Springfield Sportsman Club Dam Monson Significant Unsafe
Shepard Upper Pond Dam Monson Low Poor
Rocky Hill Pond Dam Northampton Low Poor
Queensville Pond Dam South Hadley Significant Poor
Alder Pond Dam Southampton Low Poor
Lyman Mill Pond Dam Southampton Significant Unsafe
Dr. Logie Pond Dam Southwick Low Poor
Porter Lake Dam Springfield Significant Poor
Breckwood Pond Dam Springfield Significant Poor
Putnam's Puddle Dam Springfield Low Unsafe
Upper Van Horn Reservoir Dam Springfield Significant Poor
Forest Park Middle Pond Dam Springfield Low Poor
Camp Kinderland Dam Tolland Low Poor
Vinica Pond Dam Wales Low Poor
Norcross Pond #2 Dam Wales Low Poor
Norcross Pond #3 Dam Wales Low Poor
Beaver Lake Dam Ware Significant Unsafe
Skowron Dam Ware Low Poor
O'Brien Pond Dam Ware Significant Poor
Horse Pond Dam Westfield Low Poor
Lyman Pond Dam Westhampton Low Unsafe
Brass Mill Pond Dam Williamsburg Low Poor
Source: Massachusetts Office of Dam Safety, May 2019.
In Table 6-5, Dams labeled as “POOR” are dams with major structural, operational,
maintenance and flood routing capability deficiencies. This category also includes
unsafe-nonemergency dams. An “UNSAFE” dam indicates a dam whose condition,
as determined by the Commissioner, is such that a high risk of failure exists. Among
Chapter 6 – Safety
81
the deficiencies which would result in this determination are: excessive seepage or
piping, significant erosion problems, inadequate spillway capacity and/or condition of
outlet(s), and serious structural deficiencies, including movement of the structure or
major cracking.
With the more frequent larger storm events in the northeastern United States, these
and other dams will be tested and dam failure may increase in likelihood.3 The
extreme storm flows produced by Tropical Storm Irene in 2011, for example, led to
the failure of at least two dams in the Pioneer Valley Region. An unnamed private
dam in Blandford failed, sending a surge of water downstream to inundate and
damage nearby roads. At the Granville Reservoir Dam owned by the City of
Westfield, the spillway failed when waters overwhelmed and then undermined the
structure. Since then, the City of Westfield has had to spend $3 million in repairs
and improvements to the dam and spillway.
These storm events raise questions about dams and their current capacity to pass
more frequent extreme flows. Poor condition dams in the region—as may have
been the case in Blandford—will certainly be tested, but so will other dams—such as
the Granville Reservoir Dam, which was reportedly in fair condition at the time of the
failure.
Where a dam is no longer providing a specific beneficial function, such as water
supply or power generation, it makes sense to focus resources on removal to avoid
what could be the larger costs of damages in the wake of a failure. Throughout the
state, there have been 50 dam removal projects in the past 10 years, with permitting
and costs decreasing as professionals, local boards, and state agencies gain more
experience with design, permitting, and construction.
Within the Pioneer Valley, there is a good recent example of a dam removal in
Pelham along Amethyst Brook that can help inform other local projects going
forward. The project in Pelham involved removing the 20-foot high/170-foot wide
significant hazard Bartlett Rod Shop Co. Dam. Located upstream of West Pelham
Road and Route 9, the dam was in poor repair and estimated costs to bring it to
good condition were $300,000. Removal, funded through a combination of grants,
cost a total of $193,000, and involved a coalition that included the Massachusetts
Department of Fish & Game, and the Pelham and Amherst conservation
commissions.
3 A study examining climate records, found that New England has experienced the greatest change, with intense
rainstorms and snowstorms now happening 85 percent more often than in 1948. This study also found that the
biggest rainstorms and snowstorms are getting bigger. Extreme downpours are more frequent and more intense.
See: When it Rains, It Pours: Global Warming and the Increase in Extreme Participation from 1948 to 2011 ,
Environment America Research & Policy Center, Summer 2012.
Chapter 6 – Safety
82
D. TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PLANNING PROJECTS IN THE REGION
The PVPC conducts studies at the regional and local scale in cooperation with
MassDOT and local communities to improve safety. The following summarizes some
of the studies performed to assist in the advancement of the SHSP objectives to
reduce traffic-related fatalities and injuries.
1. Top 100 High Crash Intersections
PVPC develops its own independent listing of high crash locations based on
MassDOT data. This regional study identifies the regional intersections with the
highest Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores. EPDO places a weight
on each crash based on the severity of the crash. Crashes that result in an injury or
fatality received a higher weight. PVPC uses the regional GIS system to properly
identify crash locations and group closely linked intersections into clusters. The first
version of this report was completed in 2008. Two updates have since been
completed with the most recent one released in 2016.
This report can be accessed
at:https://www.pvpc.org/sites/default/files/files/Top%20100%20High%20Crash%20In
tersections%20draft%20II.pdf
2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Clusters in the Region
PVPC began summarizing the top 10 high crash bicycle and pedestrian clusters in
the region beginning in 2016 as part of the Top 100 High Crash Intersections report.
This data was used to assist local communities in their sustainability and livability
planning as well as advance Complete Streets planning in the region. Figure 6-6
shows the top 10 regional non-motorist crash clusters.
3. SafetyCompass
The PVPC developed the SafetyCompass in 2017 to respond to concerns from the
JTC and local communities that the Top 100 High Crash Intersections report did not
provide safety data outside of the urban core. SafetyCompass summarizes crash
data trends for every community in the region. In addition, the SafetyCompass
identifies crash data and trends differently for rural and urban communities,
recognizing that the total number of crashes is not the sole indication of a safety
problem. Each community also received a digital version of the crash data included
in the SafetyCompass to incorporate into their local GIS system. The
SafetyCompass can be downloaded
from:http://www.pvpc.org/sites/default/files/Final%20Report%20Safety%20Compass
.pdf
Chapter 6 – Safety
83
Figure 6-6 – Top 10 Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Clusters in the Region
Chapter 6 – Safety
84
4. Transportation Safety Studies
As a part of PVPC’s Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), locations in the region
that have a history of safety related issues are identified for proposed traffic studies.
Crash data obtained from both MassDOT’s crash database and local police
departments is used in this analysis. PVPC also works with the local community to
develop a series of recommendations to improve safety. Past studies have been
helpful to advance short term safety improvements and provide documentation to
apply for funding to implement long term improvements. The PVPC utilizes
information from products such as the Top 100 High Crash Intersections report and
SafetyCompass to identify potential locations for safety studies and all studies are
coordinated with MassDOT and the JTC.
5. Local Technical Assistance
PVPC helps member communities as part of the Local Technical Assistance (LTA)
program to provide short term safety analysis and guidance. This assistance is
performed at the request of the community and typically consists of the review of
historic crash data and a brief in-field assessment. PVPC develops a technical
memo to summarize the problem and propose a series of short term
recommendations
Chapter 7 – Security
85
Photo: CSX Railyard in West Springfield, MA
SECURITY
The security of the regional transportation system is an ever increasing priority. It is
critical to ensure that the highest levels of security are provided for the users of our
regional transportation system and that appropriate measures are taken to restrict
access to our critical transportation infrastructure.
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The region works in collaboration with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public
Safety (EOPS) and the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) to
improve the security of the regional transportation system. In cooperation with both
agencies a number of changes have been made to increase both existing security
measures and public awareness of potential threats to security. The following
sections provide additional information on the topic of security for the Pioneer Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organization.
1. Homeland Security
The Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning organization is part of the Western
Massachusetts Homeland Security Region. The Western Region Homeland Security
Advisory Council provides planning, financial and technical resources to all 101
CHAPTER 7
Chapter 7 – Security
86
communities within Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin, and Berkshire counties of
Massachusetts.
The focus of this organization is to support the following activities:
Identification of Threats and Vulnerabilities within the Region
Plan Regionally to Protect Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets
Training First Responders and Local Officials
Improve Interoperability
Multi-jurisdiction Exercises
Intelligence Gathering & Information Sharing
The Pioneer Valley MPO has also assisted in improving Homeland Security by
providing planning assistance in the following areas:
Assisting in the development of Mutual Aid Agreements between the state
and local communities.
Updating maps for critical infrastructure such as bridges and Tier II Haz-Mat
locations.
Providing technical assistance as needed for use in local and regional
evacuation planning efforts.
Western Mass Ready (http://www.westernmassready.org/) was created by the
WRHSAC and provides resources for individuals in the Pioneer Valley to prepare for
emergency events.
a) Western Region Homeland Security Plan
This plan seeks to enhance the region’s capabilities to support homeland security-
related public safety efforts, and is guided by the principles established by the
Commonwealth in the Massachusetts State Homeland Security Strategy. The Plan
identifies and prioritizes key vulnerabilities that exist in the region and develops
steps to mitigate these potential threats.
Regional solutions were developed in order to strengthen core functions and provide
all public safety agencies the tools required to effectively prevent, provided early
response, and recover from terrorist events or other high profile events that threaten
security. The Plan also defines funding levels to address the identified priorities and
improve interoperable communications and overall emergency preparedness
through focused training exercises and upgraded equipment.
PVPC has conducted evacuation planning studies using the regional transportation
model and dynamic traffic assignment. The TransCAD modeling software was used
to analyze the evacuation scenarios at the macro level. The network used in this
study excludes local roads; only major arterials and highways are considered.
Dynamic Traffic assignment was utilized because it is more responsive to
Chapter 7 – Security
87
operational factors, route changes, and produces more realistic results for modeling
unexpected results than traditional travel demand models. PVPC has conducted
analysis on the following four evacuation scenarios using this methodology.
2. Transit Security
The Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) has undertaken extensive efforts in
order to increase the security of the regional transit system. This includes the
development of an emergency operations plan for the agency and the placement of
security cameras on their entire fleet of buses. PVTA has also installed security
cameras and audio alert equipment in passenger terminals, vehicle storage and
maintenance facilities. Most importantly, the PVTA has committed transit vehicles for
use in situations that may require the evacuation of residents.
The PVTA participates in regional emergency drills and has provided extensive
emergency training for their staff. PVPC has also worked in cooperation with the
PVTA to develop videos for emergency responders on how to access PVTA vehicles
and provide information on the configuration of the different buses in their fleet.
3. Rail Security
Similar to rail service itself, rail security is usually defined by both passenger and
freight rail services, separated into two parts: passenger rail and freight rail. Unlike
air travel, neither passenger or freight rail services lend themselves to the increased
security measures utilized at airports. While each type of rail service has its own
security concerns, they must not be separated because they often share the same
track. Passenger rail stations are often located in densely populated areas, and
freight rail transports nearly half of the nation’s hazardous waste materials. As a
result, the Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization has continually
integrated both passenger and freight rail security concerns into its regional planning
efforts. Representatives from the region’s rail providers are invited to participate in
monthly Joint Transportation Committee meetings. In addition, all planning studies
approved by the MPO include a rail component when appropriate.
a) Pedestrian Rail Access
Trespassing by local residents within the rail yard, across railroad bridges and along
railroad tracks is not only a safety problem but also is frequently a security problem
that involves theft and vandalism. Because of the hazardous materials, dangerous
equipment, and unsafe settings found within the rail yard, this unhindered trespass is
significant and needs to be addressed. CSX implemented a series of security
improvements as part of a recent upgrade to their rail yard. These improvements
include:
Physical barriers;
Secure access gates at portals;
Closed circuit television system;
Chapter 7 – Security
88
Conspicuously located signage;
Surveillance patrols utilizing two-way radio communications; and,
Sensors, alarms and detectors with audible/visual alerts.
New security fencing was added along the Knowledge Corridor rail line prior to the
return of passenger rail service at the end of 2014. Many pedestrians and bicyclists
cross this rail line in Northampton, MA between King Street and Woodmont Road to
access the Norwottuck Rail Trail and businesses along King Street. A new
pedestrian underpass was constructed in 2018 to deter pedestrians from illegally
crossing this rail line.
B. WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS EVACUATION PLAN
Completed in January of 2013, the Western Massachusetts Evacuation Plan
provides emergency responders on the local, state, and federal levels with the
resources necessary for conducting a regional evacuation in as efficient and
effective a manner as possible. The plan provides maps and lists of evacuation
routes, population centers, infrastructure, and other critical assets. Contact
information for municipal and state officials, as well as major employers, schools,
and hospitals is also provided.
This plan pertains to the counties of Berkshire County, Franklin County, Hampshire
County, and Hampden County. Contact information for municipalities in Worcester
County that border Franklin County, Hampshire County, and Hampden County is
also provided, as these towns and cities would potentially be active in any
evacuation from western Massachusetts. Information for state resources applicable
to the region is also provided. The plan was completed in conjunction with other
emergency plans that have been developed for western Massachusetts, including a
regional sheltering plan and regional communications plan. Data and
recommendations from these plans have been integrated into the evacuation plan to
the extent possible.
Evacuation routes were developed based on an analysis of the transportation
network, considering factors such as capacity, congestion, and road destinations to
develop a hierarchy of primary, secondary, and tertiary routes. Definitions of these
routes are as follows:
Primary – state designated highways that carry the largest capacity and
provide the most direct route out of the region.
Secondary – main arterial roads through towns that carry traffic where
primary routes do not exist or provide an alternate route to the primary route.
Tertiary – local main roads, used to channel traffic towards secondary and
primary evacuation routes.
Evacuation routes are shown by county in Figures 7-1 and 7-2.
Chapter 7 – Security
89
Figure 7-1 – Evacuation Routes and Water Hazards in Hampden County
Chapter 7 – Security
90
Figure 7-2 – Evacuation Routes and Water Hazards in Hampshire County
Chapter 7 – Security
91
C. MASSACHUSETTS COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Massachusetts Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) outlines
the system that will be used to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from
emergencies and disasters. It also identifies and assigns specific areas of
responsibility for coordinating resources to support the Commonwealth’s response to
an emergency or disaster. Last updated in January of 2019, the CEMP is maintained
by the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA).Link to the CEMP
Base Plan.
1. Massachusetts Emergency Support Function 1 Transportation
The Massachusetts Emergency Support Function 1 (MAESF-1) Transportation
provides a framework for coordination and cooperation across state agencies
regarding transportation needs for a disaster, emergency, or planned event. An
annex to the CEMP, it describes how the Commonwealth will provide transportation
related support and assistance to local jurisdictions in the event local needs exceed
available local resources during an emergency. Link to MAESF-1 Transportation.
The primary state agency for the MAESF-1 is MassDOT. As the primary regional
transit agency, PVTA has a supporting role in MAESF-1 including:
Provide information on the status of PVTA facilities and operations, including
any service restrictions or cancellations.
Provide buses or other transportation assets as requested to facilitate
evacuations or other movements of large numbers of people.
Provide resources to assist in the movement and/or staging of commodities
as needed.
2. Local Hazard Mitigation Planning
PVPC assists its member communities with developing new and updating existing
Hazard Mitigation Plans. Hazard mitigation is any action taken to reduce or eliminate
the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. Common mitigation
strategies include minor localized flood reduction projects, culvert improvements,
wildfire mitigation, and infrastructure retrofits. FEMA requires the plans to be
updated every 5 years to maintain eligibility for Hazard Mitigation funding.
The Hazard Mitigation planning process involves an assessment of the risks faced
from natural hazards, a review of existing mitigation capabilities currently
implemented, identification of action steps that can be taken to prevent damage to
property and loss of life, and prioritization of future mitigation efforts to implement.
The plans are developed with assistance from MEMA and funding provided by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Chapter 7 – Security
92
D. IMPROVING REGIONAL SECURITY
A key component of homeland security is the ability to work with federal, regional,
local, and private partners to identify the critical infrastructure that is at the greatest
risk and take the necessary steps to mitigate these risks. This begins through the
identification of our critical links in the transportation infrastructure and the agencies
responsible for the maintenance and security of these areas. This is an ongoing
process that is defined in the State Homeland Security Strategy (SHSS) for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The following goals have been identified as part
of the SHSS.
Engage Stakeholders to Maintain, Enhance, Formalize, and Integrate the
Various Components of the Homeland Security System into a Structure that
Identifies and Guides Implementation of Homeland Security Strategy.
Increase the ability to effectively provide prompt and accurate public
information and alerts.
Protect the Commonwealth from Intentional Acts of Violence and Terrorism.
Enhance Resilience across the Commonwealth by Preparing for & Mitigating
Against Acts of Terrorism, and Natural, Technological, & Intentional Hazards.
Increase Capacity across the Commonwealth to Effectively Respond to Acts
of Terrorism, and Natural, Technological, & Intentional Hazards.
Enhance Capacity across the Commonwealth to Recover from Acts of
Terrorism, and Natural, Technological, & Intentional Hazards.
Link to the Massachusetts State Homeland Security Strategy.
Chapter 8 – Congestion
93
Photo: Route 9 in Northampton, MA
CONGESTION
A. INTRODUCTION
Congestion means different things depending on where you are and what
mode of transportation you are using. In any case, the consequences of
excessive congestion are real: aggressive driving, decreased personal safety,
and, eventually, stifled community development. The environment also
suffers. Stop-and-go traffic needlessly increases greenhouse gas emissions
from vehicles and wastes fuel. Congestion also wastes people’s personal and
professional time.
Understanding where and why traffic congestion is happening is an important
step toward reducing it. The Pioneer Valley Congestion Management Process
(CMP) works toward identifying the major traffic congested locations within
the Pioneer Valley Region. This information is essential in advancing future
transportation improvements that will reduce traffic congestion and improve
the overall safety and efficiency of our transportation network.
The CMP is an integrated planning activity. It supports the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) planning process for regional transportation
CHAPTER 8
Chapter 8 – Congestion
94
infrastructure, maintenance, and operating investments. In addition, CMP
activities and information are valuable to planning at the municipal level for
non-federal transportation investments, as well as for decision-making about
land use, environmental protection, housing and community development.
CMP activities are intended to identify existing deficiencies in the regional
transportation system through ongoing monitoring and analysis of key
performance measures. These performance measures themselves may
evolve as a region’s transportation capacities, needs, and shortcomings
change.
CMP activities are comprehensive. They involve multiple agencies at all
levels of government and stakeholders in communities large and small.
PVPC developed a vision to provide a framework for the development of the
CMP.
VISION
The Pioneer Valley Congestion Management Process identifies, evaluates,
monitors, and implements transportation strategies that enhance the safety
and efficiency of the movement of people, goods, and information.
1. Regulatory Context
The current transportation reauthorization bill Fixing Americas Surface
Transportation Act (FAST - Act) retains the CMP requirement of the Safe
Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act – a Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) and MAP-21. In addition, FAST- Act features 8 steps
framework for CMP.
Develop congestion management objectives;
Identify areas of application;
Define system or network of interest;
Develop performance measures;
Institute system performance monitoring plan;
Identify and evaluate strategies;
Implement selected strategies and manage transportation system;
Monitor strategy effectiveness.
CMP activities are a continuation of the predecessor Congestion
Management System (CMS) process established by the 1991 federal
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). PVPC has
continuously engaged in congestion monitoring and analysis consistent with
federal guidance in support of the MPO process.
Chapter 8 – Congestion
95
2. CMP Development Process
The CMP builds on previous versions completed for the Pioneer Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organization. Consistent with Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidance, the CMP process for the Pioneer Valley
has been broadened to better incorporate assessment of the congestion
impacts and benefits experienced by transit, cyclists, and pedestrians. This
necessitated a significant review and expansion of performance measures.
PVPC therefore took this opportunity to engage in a public and agency review
of CMP performance measures. Steps included:
Generate implementation strategies for all transportation modes;
Engage agency participants and stakeholders in review of the
strategies;
Identify timeframe for availability;
Data collection and analysis;
Public review of preliminary findings.
3. Implementation Strategies
The goal of the CMP is to identify, evaluate, and implement transportation
implementation strategies that enhance the safety and efficiency of the
movement of people, goods, and information throughout the Pioneer Valley.
In order to achieve this goal PVPC identified the strategies necessary to
obtain the data needed to fulfill this goal. Implementation Strategies included
in the CMP are summarized in Table 8-1. The status of each strategy is
based on the availability of existing data. Ongoing strategies have data which
is currently collected by the PVPC or available from partner agencies.
Immediate strategy data is not currently available but is anticipated to be
available in the near future. Future strategy data is also not available but is
highly desirable for use in future CMP activities.
Chapter 8 – Congestion
96
Table 8-1 – CMP Implementation Strategies
Strategy Status
Monitor on-time performance, ridership, and customer satisfaction for all transit and paratransit services
of the Pioneer Valley Region
Ongoing
Develop regional route Congestion Ratio, Delay per Mile, and Congestion Index through collection of
travel time data using NPMRDS data
Ongoing
Inventory and monitor pavement conditions for all federal aid eligible roadways. Ongoing
Increase awareness and availability of park-and-ride lots in the Pioneer Valley region. Ongoing
Monitor and update the inventory of bicycle lanes and trails in the region. Ongoing
Increase the percentage of bicycle rack utilization on buses. Ongoing
Increase customer satisfaction levels of the bus terminal and shelters. Ongoing
Increase and inventory the number of municipal bicycle racks in the region. Ongoing
Identify regional auto/transit mode split. Future
Identify system wide transportation alternatives and monitor, update, and increase the number of
intermodal transfer points.
Future
Decrease the number of structurally deficient Bridges. Ongoing
Identify safe alternate heavy vehicle routes in the region. Ongoing
Map travel time contours to show distance traveled in 15 minute intervals. Ongoing
Identify off-ramps that are operating at above capacity. Immediate
Increase efficiency of rail system wide. Immediate
Improve LOS on major intermodal connector routes to the National Highway System. Future
Monitor and update the percentage of areas without broadband access. Ongoing
Increase the number of ITS based cameras, variable message boards, and detection units in Region Ongoing
Continue to utilize car based GPS travel time data collection as appropriate Ongoing
Improve access to advance information on ongoing construction activity. Immediate
Data sharing with regional public and private partners. Immediate
Provide more advance information for transit riders on anticipated vehicle arrival time. Ongoing
Monitor the average incident response time Future
Monitor Peak hour loading vs. vehicle rated capacities (load factors). Ongoing
Monitor transit vehicle crash rate and identify high crash locations Ongoing
Monitor PVTA customer satisfaction related to safety throughout the PVTA system. Ongoing
Monitor the EPDO ranking at intersections in the region Ongoing
Monitor the percent of the Federal Aid Eligible Roadway Network rated as Unreliable Ongoing
Identify communities in the Pioneer Valley with a Safe Route to School Program. Ongoing
Annual totals of fatalities and injuries caused by motor vehicle crashes. Ongoing
Develop Transit Severity Ranking based on the information available from the PVTA AVL Immediate
Identify data to increase coverage outside the NHS / Interstate system covered by NPMRDS data Immediate
Chapter 8 – Congestion
97
4. CMP Corridors
The CMP corridors are the basis for all data collection and analysis. When
developing the corridors, PVPC staff utilized data and results from previous
CMP reports, past congestion relief studies, and general knowledge of the
region. This information was used to develop the CMP corridor map of 76
unique corridors that are presented in Figure 8-1.
It is difficult to ensure that every congested roadway in the region is being
monitored. While CMP activities are both interactive and comprehensive, the
availability of resources and data guides the assessment of congestion in the
region. As technology continues to advance, data will become more readily
available allowing more corridors to be analyzed in the CMP. PVPC will
consider adding corridors at the request of a communities’ chief elected
official. If requested to do so, PVPC will perform 3 days of travel time data
collection. If the data verifies congestion, PVPC will consider adding the
corridor. Likewise, PVPC can discontinue a corridor if the corridor is not
considered congested based on our CMP process. See appendix for latest
CMP report.
Chapter 8 – Congestion
98
91
391
291
90
112
57
21
143
32
10
66
47
181
19
159
116
75
67
187
189
141
186
63
83
220
33
168
192
10
141
32
19
21 32
57
116
5
202
202
WARE
MONSON
WESTFIELD
PALMER
GRANVILLE
BELCHERTOWN
HARDWICK
BRIMFIELD
PELHAM
GRANBY
WARRENLUDLOW
HADLEY
AMHERST
SPRINGFIELD
AGAWAM
SOUTHWICK WALES
HOLYOKE
CHICOPEE
RUSSELL
CHESTERFIELD
NORTHAMPTON
WORTHINGTON
HAMPDEN
HUNTINGTON
SOUTHAMPTON
HATFIELD
WILBRAHAM
WESTHAMPTON
WILLIAMSBURG
BROOKFIELD
HOLLAND
NEW BRAINTREE
WEST BROOKFIELD
MONTGOMERY
EASTHAMPTON
LONGMEADOW
SOUTH
HADLEY
NORTH BROOKFIELD
WEST
SPRINGFIELD
EAST
LONGMEADOW
Quabbin
Reservoir
ConnecticutRiverC O N N E C T I C U T
All regional roads not included to promote clarity.
2.5 0 2.5 5 Miles
Pioneer Valley Region
Congestion
Management Process
CMP Corridors
Prepared by Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, April 2010.
Figure 8-1 – CMP Corridors
Chapter 8 – Congestion
99
5. National Performance Measures Research Data Set (NPMRDS)
NPMRDS is defined as the baseline dataset to meet the newly established federal
congestion and freight performance reporting regulation . Data is available for all
state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations; and is
available from 2017 to the present. NPMRDS provides consistent data for
passenger and commercial freight roadway performance across the National
Highway System.
The federal performance measure planning rule (PM3) for congestion only requires
states to report on the Interstate and National Highway System (NHS). Figure 1
shows the portion of the roadway network in the Pioneer Valley region covered by
the NPMRDS data.
Figure 8-2 – NPMRDS Coverage
Chapter 8 – Congestion
100
PVPC is in the process of integrating NPMRDS data as the primary data used in the
CMP. By utilizing NPMRDS data, PVPC can process data for the entire region in a
much more efficient and accurate way. Not only does the NPMRDS data allow
PVPC to monitor reliability of roadways to meet the PM3, staff can also calculate the
Travel Time Index (TTI) by roadway segment. TTI is used to measure congestion
intensity. It is the ratio of time spent in traffic during peak traffic times as compared
to light or free flow traffic times. By processing TTI by roadway segment, PVPC will
be able to identify regional bottlenecks. See Figure 8-3 and 8-4.
For the RTP, PVPC staff has used the same methodology used to determine PM3
reliability by roadway segment to determine TTI. Staff will reevaluate the
methodology and modify it to better meet the needs of the CMP.
Figure 8-3 – Travel Time Index – Urban (2017)
Chapter 8 – Congestion
101
Figure 8-4 – Travel Time Index – Region (2017)
As can be seen in Figure 8-3 and 8-4 the majority of the congestion (red, orange,
and yellow) are located in the urban centers in close proximity to the interstate
system. Red locations are indicated by any roadway segment with a TTI greater
than 2, Orange or those segments between 1.75 and 1.99, and Yellow are between
1.5 and 1.74. For reference a TTI of 2 indicates a travel time twice that of the free
flow travel time. PVPC will integrate 2018 data into the process before updating the
CMP report and the Top bottleneck report.
6. Expanded NPMRDS Data
Although NPMRDS data meets the requirements of PM3, is does not sufficiently
cover the roadway network in the Pioneer Valley Region. PVPC is in the process of
identifying resources to acquire expanded NPMRDS data. Figure 8-5 illustrates the
coverage of the expanded data in our region. Although the expanded NPMRDS
data would not provide full roadway coverage, we believe the data would work
sufficiently for our CMP and Regional Bottleneck reports. Manual data may still be
Chapter 8 – Congestion
102
needed on a small scale to verify congestion or to fill in gaps on known congestion
routes.
Figure 8-5 – Expanded NPMRDS Coverage
Chapter 8 – Congestion
103
B. CONGESTION STUDIES
As part of the CMP process, PVPC is required to monitor and develop strategies to
improve congestion in the region. Under this section we have identified several
proposed locations PVPC can perform congestion studies in a future UPWP as well
of a list of TIP projects that may improve congestion within the Pioneer Valley
Region. Many locations identified as a regional bottleneck or a corridor of serious
congestion do not appear in Table 8-2 as a candidate for a future study as they were
determined to have a planned transportation improvement project to reduce
congestion, a planned congestion study, or have a recently completed study.
Table 8-2 – Potential Congestion Studies to be advanced through a Future UPWP
Location Study
Region wide Develop a congestion “Toolbox” which will contain
various congestion management strategies which
can be applied to locations identified as being
congested. Strategies will be based on type and
extent of congestion
Region wide Update the Top 15 Bottlenecks report – NPMRDS
Data
PVTA Service Area Advance the “Transit Congestion Severity”
calculation based on the data discussed in the
transit congestion severity section of this chapter
Interstate and NHS Off Ramp Study Study existing congestion that causes traffic to
queue back onto the highway
Regional Corridor Updates Evaluate the existing CMP corridors and evaluate
for future CMP update based on availability of data.
Regional Corridor Congestion Ranking Update corridor ranking based on NPMRDS and
expanded NPMRDS data
Region Wide Analysis of Top Bottleneck locations based on
NPMRDS data
Chapter 8 – Congestion
104
Table 8-3 – TIP Projects that May Improve Congestion
Curren
t TIP
Municipality SID Project Name and Description Estimated
Cost
2020 Northampton 608236 NORTHAMPTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMON
ROAD, FROM ROUTE 9 TO ROUTE 5
$ 10,043,653
2020 Chicopee 604434 RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ON FULLER
ROAD, FROM MEMORIAL DR (RTE 33) TO
SHAWINIGAN DR (2.0 MILES)
$ 8,034,211
Springfield 608717 SPRINGFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF SUMNER AVE
AT DICKINSON ST AND BELMONT AVE (THE "X")
$ 13,369,637
2022/20
23
West
Springfield
608374 RECONSTRUCTION OF MEMORIAL AVENUE (ROUTE
147), FROM COLONY ROAD TO THE MEMORIAL
AVENUE ROTARY (1.4 MILES)
$ 22,545,121
2021 Northampton 607502 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT KING ST,
NORTH ST & SUMMER ST AND AT KING ST & FINN
ST
$ 3,384,309
2021
SW
Holyoke 606450 TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADES AT 15 INTERSECTIONS
ALONG HIGH & MAPLE ST
$ 9,100,000
2021/20
22
Hadley 605032 HADLEY- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 9, FROM
MIDDLE STREET TO MAPLE/SOUTH MAPLE STREET
$ 23,893,982
2021 Amherst 608084 AMHERST- IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON
ROUTES 9 & 116, FROM UNIVERSITY DRIVE TO
SOUTH PLEASANT STREET (0.8 MILES)
$ 3,892,738
2020 Westfield 607773 WESTFIELD- IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK
ON ROUTE 20, COURT ST & WESTERN AVE, LLOYDS
HILL RD TO HIGH ST/MILL ST INTERSECTION
(PHASE II) Eastern Section
$ 8,153,565
2021 Springfield 608782 SPRINGFIELD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT
COTTAGE ST, ROBBINS RD AND INDUSTRY AVE
$ 2,748,386
2021 Springfield 608718 SPRINGFIELD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT
BERKSHIRE AVE, COTTAGE AND HARVEY ST
$ 2,280,751
2020
SW
Springfield 608560 IMPROVEMENTS ON ST. JAMES AVENUE AT
TAPLEY STREET
$ 1,589,420
Northampton 609286 NORTHAMPTON- DOWNTOWN COMPLETE STREETS
CORRIDOR AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
ON MAIN STREET (ROUTE 9)
$ 7,654,605
2021 Easthampton 608577 EASTHAMPTON- IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED
WORK ON UNION STREET (ROUTE 141) FROM
PAYSON AVENUE TO HIGH STREET (0.36 MILES)
$ 3,284,450
2023 Longmeadow
/ Springfield
608881 RESURFACING AND INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS ON LONGMEADOW STREET
(ROUTE 5) AND CONVERSE STREET (0.84 MILES)
$ 5,228,168
Chicopee 609061 CHICOPEE - INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION,
MONTGOMERY RD AT GRANBY RD AND
MCKINSTRY AVE, AND MONTGOMERY RD AT
TURNPIKE ACCESS RD
$ 6,000,000
South Hadley 608785 MAIN STREET ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT $ 3,089,720
2021
SW
Springfield 608565 IMPROVEMENTS ON ST. JAMES AVENUE AT ST.
JAMES BOULEVARD AND CAREW STREET
$ 2,400,000
Chapter 8 – Congestion
105
1. Travel Time Contours
Travel Time Contours are a great visual tool for showing average travel times from a
specific location within the Pioneer Valley Region. These contours were developed
for the region based on the location of centers of employment. A total of six
employment centers were selected because of their geographic diversity and
significance. Each contour is broken down into 15, 30, 45, and 60 minute intervals.
Pioneer Valley Region Travel Time Contours were created using the Esri ArcGIS
Online Spatial Analysis Use Proximity Tool Set - Create Drive-Time Areas. Create
Drive-Time Areas identifies areas that can be reached within a specified drive time
or drive distance. The tool measures out from up to 1,000 roadway points to create
drive time buffers. Drive time buffers are calculated using the street location,
density, and other physical/use attributes. They take into account one-way streets,
stop signs, traffic signals, traffic volume, speed limit, physical barriers, and terrain.
The information for both the original contours (circa 2001) and the new contours
(2014) are shown in the tables below. The latest Pioneer Valley Region Travel Time
Contours are shown in Figures 8-6 – 8-11.
Table 8-4 – Travel Time Comparison Northbound Routes (2001, 2015, and 2019)
Northbound
2001
(Minutes)
2015
(Minutes)
2019
(Minutes)
North End Bridge Rotary 2.25 3.86 4.06
I-91 Exit 9 (Route. 20 - North End Bridge) 2.03 4.33 5.06
I-91 Exit 10 (Birnie Ave) 0.65 0.78 0.91
I-91 Exit 12 (I-391 - Chicopee) 1.05 1.09 1.08
I-91 Exit 13A (Route 5 - West Springfield 0.58 0.79 0.77
I-91 Exit 14 (Massachusetts Turnpike) 2.38 2.54 2.53
I-91 Exit 15 (Holyoke - Ingleside) 0.65 0.90 0.85
I-91 Exit 16 (Holyoke - Route 202) 1.48 1.60 1.56
I-91 Exit 17A (Holyoke - Route 141) 1.17 0.81 0.77
I-91 Exit 18 (Northampton - Route 5) 6.17 7.55 7.23
I-91 Exit 19 (Northampton - Route 9) 1.80 1.91 2.02
I-91 Exit 21 (Hatfield/Northampton) 2.10 2.32 2.36
I-91 Exit 22 (North Hatfield) 2.37 2.61 2.59
I-91 Exit 24 (Deerfield/Whately) 7.12 4.40 4.28
I-91 Exit 26 (Greenfield - Route 2A) 10.47 7.74 7.65
I-91 Exit 27 (Greenfield - Route 2) 2.37 2.58 2.57
I-91 Exit 28 (Bernardston) 4.12 4.67 4.60
Vermont State Line 4.17 4.13 4.19
I-91 VT Exit 1 (US Route 5) 6.93 6.88 7.36
Total 59.85 61.49 62.44
Chapter 8 – Congestion
106
As can be seen in Tables 8-4 – 8-7, with the exception of southbound travel, the
average travel times in the region over the past 15 years have not changed
significantly. Travel times on average where measured to be approximately 45
seconds slower overall than in 2001 (not including southbound data.) This can be
attributed to the fact that infrastructure improvements made in the past have been
offset by an increase in vehicular volumes on the roadways. The significant
decrease in travel times on roadways in the southbound direction can be attributed
partially to less roadway congestion but also to better data. The 2001 data was
manually collected by PVPC staff. The new data as discussed previously is
calculated using GIS software and is based on a larger sample size. Westbound
times also show a minor decrease in travel times while eastbound and northbound
times have increased slightly.
Table 8-5 – Travel Time Comparison Southbound Routes (2001, 2015, and 2019)
Southbound
2001
(Minutes)
2015
(Minutes)
2019
(Minutes)
Memorial Bridge Rotary 5.10 1.86 2.15
I-91 Exit 3 (Route 5/57 - South End Bridge) 2.53 3.01 4.10
I -91 Exit 2 (Longhill Street) 0.37 0.89 0.73
I-91 Exit 1 (Route 5 - Longmeadow) 0.63 0.12 0.12
I-91 CT Exit 49 (US Route 5) 3.77 3.77
I-91 CT Exit 48 (CT Route 220) 1.27 1.53 1.54
I-91 CT Exit 47 (CT Route 190) 2.08 0.41 0.41
I-91 CT Exit 46 (US Route 5) 2.30 2.57 2.59
I-91 CT Exit 45 (Bradley Airport) 8.22 2.16 2.12
Total 22.50 14.46 17.53
Table 8-6 – Travel Time Comparison Eastbound Routes (2001, 2015, and 2019)
Eastbound
2001
(Minutes)
2015
(Minutes)
2019
(Minutes)
I-291 Exit 2 (Dwight/Chestnut Streets 4.67 5.51 6.65
I-291 Exit 3 (Armory Street) 0.73 0.68 0.73
I-291 Exit 4 (St. James Avenue) 1.07 1.37 1.34
I-291 Exit 5 (Page Boulevard) 1.72 1.76 1.77
I-291 Exit 6 (Shawinigan Drive) 1.38 1.26 1.28
I-90 Exit 6 (Chicopee/Springfield) 2.03 2.01 1.94
I-90 Exit 7 (Ludlow) 4.27 3.20 3.45
I-90 Exit 8 (Palmer) 5.88 7.02 7.00
I-90 Exit 9 (Sturbridge) 14.12 14.71 14.43
I-90 Exit 10 (Auburn/Worcester) 10.67 10.87 10.73
Total 46.53 48.39 49.32
Chapter 8 – Congestion
107
Table 8-7 – Travel Time Comparison Westbound Routes (2001, 2015, and 2019)
Westbound
2001
(Minutes)
2015
(Minutes)
2019
(Minutes)
I-90 Exit 4 (Holyoke/West Springfield 12.78 10.73 10.36
I-90 Exit 3 (Westfield) 5.45 4.43 4.99
I-90 Exit 2 (Lee) 27.23 28.12 27.69
I-90 Exit 1 (West Stockbridge) 7.63 8.14 7.91
Total 53.10 51.42 50.95
Chapter 8 – Congestion
108
Figure 8-6 – Travel Time Contours for the Springfield Central Business District
Chapter 8 – Congestion
109
Figure 8-7 – Travel Time Contours for the University of Massachusetts - Amherst
Chapter 8 – Congestion
110
Figure 8-8 – Travel Time Contours for the East Longmeadow Industrial Park
Chapter 8 – Congestion
111
Figure 8-9 – Travel Time Contours for the Northampton Central Business District
Chapter 8 – Congestion
112
Figure 8-10 – Travel Time Contours for the Palmer Four Corners
Chapter 8 – Congestion
113
Figure 8-11 – Travel Time Contours for Westfield Summit Lock
Chapter 9 – Pavement
115
Photo :Route 9 in Williamsburg, MA
PAVEMENT
A. REGIONAL EFFORTS AND PROCESS
A Pavement Management System (PMS) is a systematic process that collects and
analyzes roadway pavement information for use in selecting cost-effective strategies
for providing and maintaining pavements in a serviceable condition. The role of PMS
is to provide an opportunity to improve roadway conditions and make cost-effective
decisions on maintenance priorities and schedules.
The regional PMS involves a comprehensive process for establishing the network
inventory and project histories, collecting and storing the pavement distress data,
analyzing the data, identifying the network maintenance activities and needs and
integrating the PMS information in the metropolitan and statewide planning
processes. The roadway network covered by the regional PMS includes all urban
and rural Federal-Aid highways of the 43 cities and towns in the region.
The “PAVEMENTView” software developed by Cartegraph Systems was used to
generate an Overall Condition Index (OCI) for each inventoried roadway segment
using the pavement distress data collected by PVPC. OCI is measured from 0 to
CHAPTER 9
Chapter 9 – Pavement
116
100, with 100 being an excellent or perfect condition and zero being failure or
impassable condition. The OCI values generated are grouped into OCI category
ranges which are defined depending on the type and functional class of each
segment. PVPC incorporates 5 default repair categories:
Reconstruction of Collectors and Arterials
Rehabilitation
Preventive maintenance
Routine maintenance
No action
Reconstruction involves the complete removal and replacement of a failed pavement
section which includes reclamation. The rehabilitation of pavements includes the
work necessary to restore the pavement to a condition that will allow it to perform
satisfactorily for several years. Preventative maintenance activities are those which
are performed at planned intervals to protect and seal the pavement. Routine
maintenance activities are those which are taken to correct a specific pavement
failure or area distress.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The PVPC staff surveyed approximately 1,280 miles of federal-aid eligible roadways
in the Pioneer Valley region which was divided into 2,479 roadway segments.
Pavement distress data was collected for the entire Surface Transportation Program
(STP) roadway network and select National Highway System (NHS) roadways. The
average OCI for the surveyed roadways in the region is rated at 76, which indicates
that majority of the roadways are in a good condition. The average OCI information
by community is depicted in Table 9-1.
The OCI generated by PAVEMENTView was used to establish pavement condition
categories of “Excellent”, “Good”, “Fair”, “Poor”, and “Failed” using the OCI ranges
provided in Table 9-2.
Chapter 9 – Pavement
117
Table 9-1 - Average OCI by Community
Community Arterial Miles Collector Miles Federal Aid
Miles
Average OCI
2020
Average OCI
2016
Agawam 24.47 26.18 50.65 85 67
Amherst 16.32 34.15 50.47 65 58
Belchertown 26.22 20.63 46.85 79 74
Blandford 8.47 7.87 16.34 68 68
Brimfield 11.58 13.56 25.14 87 83
Chester 8.058 0.00 8.058 76 84
Chesterfield 7.71 9.29 17.00 88 81
Chicopee 17.84 43.23 61.07 88 74
Cummington 12.95 7.77 20.72 72 71
East Longmeadow 8.31 23.304 31.61 84 73
Easthampton 4.25 25.79 30.04 58 68
Goshen 5.401 3.71 9.11 76 71
Granby 7.72 14.117 21.83 67 85
Granville 8.803 6.94 15.74 60 76
Hadley 17.41 21.439 38.85 65 85
Hampden 0.00 12.64 12.64 84 84
Hatfield 0.00 14.687 14.69 76 83
Holland 0.00 11.45 11.45 69 77
Holyoke 16.25 46.97 63.22 87 54
Huntington 11.227 7.06 18.29 75 72
Longmeadow 3.26 15.79 19.05 88 74
Ludlow 24.47 11.68 36.15 75 68
Monson 8.64 22.95 31.59 54 83
Montgomery 0.00 5.197 5.20 74 83
Northampton 50.81 15.7 66.51 78 68
Palmer 15.59 30.73 46.32 58 87
Pelham 5.795 6.02 11.82 94 71
Plainfield 0.00 11.893 11.89 60 39
Russell 9.45 4.75 14.2 60 78
South Hadley 15.39 13.84 29.23 68 74
Southampton 0.00 17.17 17.17 65 88
Southwick 14.14 12.66 26.8 60 77
Springfield 42.08 116.52 158.60 84 62
Tolland 5.66 0.00 5.66 99 77
Wales 0.00 8.03 8.03 60 44
Ware 13.36 19.77 33.13 66 85
West Springfield 7.51 28.64 36.15 86 60
Westfield 19.21 48.57 67.78 82 62
Westhampton 0.00 21.08 21.08 73 71
Wilbraham 5.79 28.25 34.04 78 85
Williamsburg 8.11 11.20 19.31 73 74
Worthington 10.32 6.48 16.80 64 84
Average OCI 75.8 71.1
Chapter 9 – Pavement
118
Table 9-2 - Pavement Condition Range by Functional Class
Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed
Arterial >89.5 >69.5 and <=89.5 >48.5 and <=69.5 >25.5 and <=48.5 <=26.5
Collector >88.5 >68.5 and <=88.5 >47.5 and <=68.5 >24.5 and <=47.5 <=24.5
The results indicate that most of the region’s surveyed federal-aid eligible roadways
are in good condition. Figure 9-1 shows the region’s pavement condition graphically
by functional class. As shown, the region’s arterial and collector roadways follow a
similar pattern with regards to pavement condition. The region’s surveyed federal-aid
roadways consist of 473 miles of arterial and 818 miles of collector roadways.
Figure 9-1 - Pavement Condition of the Region’s Arterial and Collector Roadways
Arterial Roads Collector Roads
Figures 9-2 and 9-3 show a comparison of the number of miles of existing surveyed
roadways by pavement condition to the last time the RTP was updated for the
arterial and collector roadways respectively. Figure 9-2 is indicative of pavement
repair action taken on the arterial roadway segments which require major
rehabilitation and whose condition cannot deteriorate much further resulting in more
roadway segments in excellent or good condition. Figure 9-3 is indicative of
application of improvement funds to be directed towards the cost effective repairs
that improve and/or maintain the segments which are salvageable resulting in more
miles of excellent condition and keeping up with miles of good or fair condition.
Chapter 9 – Pavement
119
Figure 9-2- Arterial Road Condition Comparisons by Miles
Figure 9-3- Collector Road Condition Comparisons by Miles
Chapter 10 – Sustainability
121
Photo: Solar Farm off Holyoke Street in Ludlow, MA
SUSTAINABILITY
In the Pioneer Valley we define sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present
generation without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.” 4 We also find the analogy of the three legged sustainability stool to be
useful, with its balanced understanding of the importance and inter-dependence of
equity, the environment and the economy.
Our transportation system can advance our sustainability goals: affirmatively
furthering improved access to opportunity for people in the region who have been
left out/kept out; sustainably growing our regional economy and respecting/nurturing
the environment while maintaining/developing resilient thriving communities; or it can
be an impediment. The majority of motorized vehicles consume fossil fuels to
operate and as a result produce exhaust and other GHG emissions. This
accelerates the climate crisis that threatens the resilience of our region, pollutes our
air and exacerbates health problems such as asthma and emphysema. Complete
4 using the United Nations Bruntland Commission definition from 1984—
CHAPTER 10
Chapter 10 – Sustainability
122
Streets, however, those that are safe and comfortable for all road users focus
equally on pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, cars and trucks. They also facilitate
residents’ healthy behavior, making it easier for people to walk and bike to work,
school, and play, and reduce GHG emissions from transportation. Motorized
vehicles require impervious surfaces, which pollute both ground and surface water
sources as rain water runs across these surfaces, picking up gasoline, oil and other
pollutants before being absorbed into surface water bodies or into groundwater.
Access to a vehicle, especially one that is safe, reliable and energy efficient, can
help a family move out of poverty and into the middle class by making it easier and
more efficient to consistently get to work, school, and appointments on time.
Individual and neighborhood access to electric vehicles (EV) with a robust public and
private EV charging station network can advance climate action goals. Lack of
transit services, missing sidewalks and bicycle lanes all hamper the quality of life of
people without vehicle access. A balanced transportation system is more
sustainable, it meets more people’s needs while using resources efficiently, and it
facilitates regional economic development.
A goal of PVPC’s sustainable transportation system is to consistently reduce VMT
per population. This can be accomplished by providing more access to resource
efficient transportation options, especially public transportation, as well as by
improving the flow of existing traffic through signal timing, roundabouts, electronic
toll collection and real ride-sharing (not on-demand ride hailing apps.) Expanding
access to resource efficient transportation options can maximize social equity,
increase social connectivity, and improve safety and resource efficiency.
Transportation efficiency benefits society and reduces the negative impacts of
motorized vehicles, which account for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions and
20-25% of average U.S. household expenditures.
Since our last RTP, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has made dramatic
strides in articulating and implementing a range of initiatives to advance
sustainability across the State. In 2016, Governor Baker signed Executive Order
569, which lays out a comprehensive approach to further reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, safeguard residents, municipalities and businesses from the impacts of
climate change, and build a more resilient Commonwealth.
“Massachusetts is a national leader in addressing the threat of climate change and
proactively preparing for its impacts, and I am proud to sign this bipartisan bill to
build on those efforts,” said Governor Charlie Baker. “The Commonwealth is now
positioned to increase our resiliency to climate change, protect the environment, and
improve recreational opportunities. We look forward to working with our legislative
and local partners to build a cleaner and more sustainable Commonwealth.”
https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-baker-signs-legislation-directing-24-billion-to-
climate-change-adaptation
Chapter 10 – Sustainability
123
On March 21, 2018, at a conference focused on recycling, a statement from
Governor Baker was presented: “The Commonwealth is committed to sustainability
and protection of our environment, and working collectively, we can continue to
increase the economic value and environmental benefit of recycling in all of our
communities.” In addition, Governor Baker’s administration recently committed $10
million to Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) to invest in climate-smart
infrastructure and nature-based solutions to protect public health, safety, and
property.
In Massachusetts sustainability means acting to reduce GHG emissions and protect
the environment while maintaining economic value. The Commonwealth has long
been a leader with respect to aggressive goals of GHG emissions reduction.
However, Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from transportation are still 38% of
MA GHG emissions and 32% in the Pioneer Valley. Single vehicle trips are still most
common. Housing costs in MA are some of the highest in the country. Severe
weather events cost the Commonwealth and its residents $556,876,789,345. And
just 6% of Pioneer Valley commuters do so on foot and only 4% on bike.
The Pioneer Valley region is committed to a sustainable future, working to reduce
GHG emissions in accord with state goals, protect open space, catalyze sustainable
economic and community development, build a balanced transportation system and
advance municipal, regional and Commonwealth resilience. We are proud to partner
so effectively with many state agencies and departments.
The Housing crisis in Massachusetts is related to how we use land and the
transportation needs that result from our spread out development patterns.
Massachusetts and California are two places in the country experiencing a surge in
“super commuters”, people who have to travel for 90 minutes or more to get to their
jobs because the cost of housing near jobs is too high for all but the wealthy to
afford.5
Our goal for sustainable transportation is keeping people and goods moving safely
and efficiently throughout the Pioneer Valley by planning, designing, building and
maintaining a balanced interconnected transportation system that includes
expanded rail service, sidewalks, on and off road bike ways, airports, and miles of
paved and unpaved roadways, while minimizing negative impacts on the region’s
current and future air, land, water and people.
5 https://www.ctps.org/data/html/studies/other/Long-Distance_Commuting/Long-
Distance_Commuting_in_the_Boston_Region.html#_Toc496628576
Chapter 10 – Sustainability
124
Figure 10-1 – Cities with the Most “Super – Commuters”
A. MASSDOT- COMMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION
The function of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is to define an overarching
vision of the future of the region, establish principles and policies that will lead to the
achievement of that vision, and allocate projected revenue to transportation
programs and projects that reflect those principles and policies. In order for our
transportation system to be more sustainable, the Commission on the Future of
Transportation in the Commonwealth developed the report Choices for Stewardship:
Recommendations to Meet the Transportation Future . Executive Order #579
established the Commission and charged it with imagining Massachusetts in 2040.
The Commission report identifies 10 key challenges facing transportation in
Massachusetts over the next 20 years:
We can’t know the future.
Disruptive technological change is inevitable.
Massachusetts is growing and aging.
The existing transportation system is made up of transportation haves and have-
nots.
Transportation needs vary across the Commonwealth and its communities.
Chapter 10 – Sustainability
125
The transportation system needs to move more people in fewer vehicles.
Land use and development decisions drive transportation patterns.
The transportation system needs to be de-carbonized.
Transportation infrastructure needs to be made resilient to a changing climate.
Needed investments need to be prioritized and paid for.
They went on to emphasize the importance of affirmatively focusing on people with
low-incomes, disabilities, limited access to public transit and other transportation
options. This also includes communities of color who are disproportionately affected
by many of the challenges currently facing our transportation system and related
systemic issues, such as pollution, congestion, long commute times, rising housing
costs, and unreliable public transportation. PVPC is committed to ensuring active
representation and participation of these groups of people in our regional
transportation planning processes.
Chapter 11 of the RTP details the Pioneer Valley’s plan, within the context of the
Commonwealth of MA rules and regulations, to reduce GHG emissions from
transportation: 10% -25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and an 80% reduction below
1990 levels by 2050. Based on information from the Commission on the Future of
Transportation, almost 40% of GHG emissions in 2015 came from transportation
infrastructure and vehicles.
B. REGIONAL SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES
Over the last decade, the Pioneer Valley has taken great steps to integrate
sustainability into all our regional planning work. Our regional efforts support the
recommendations from the Commission on the Future of Transportation in the
Commonwealth’s report as referenced above. In the Pioneer Valley, we are working
on nine focus areas:
Promote Smart Growth and assure integration of Land Use planning with
Transportation, Housing, and Economic Development planning—continuing to
collaborate with the Governor and others on zoning reform.
Legislative changes to expand funding options—Regional Ballot Initiative (RBI)
and the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI).
Electrify Buses and Cars—decarbonization of the fleet.
Make all our streets “complete,” safe and comfortable for all road users, by
building out a connected network of both on and off road protected bike lanes,
paths, and trails, prioritizing carbon free modes of transportation where possible.
Expand ValleyBike, our regions’ all electric bikeshare program a collaboration of
PVPC and 5 member municipalities and UMASS.
Maintain and strengthen our inter-disciplinary efforts to improve public health by
facilitating Mass in Motion, Aging in Place, County Health Improvement Plans,
Transforming Communities Initiative, Community Transformation Grant, Climate
Action & Resilience plans and other public health work in our region.
Chapter 10 – Sustainability
126
Advance Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) and Hazard Mitigation
work at the municipal level to assure strong and resilient communities.
Advance and expand opportunities for North-South and East-West passenger
rail.
Collaborate to expand transit and other efficient multi-passenger forms of
transportation.
1. Smart Growth—integrating transportation, land use and housing
The region has researched, planned and worked collaboratively to implement a
regional Smart Growth plan, Valley Vision, since 1998. The goals of Valley Vision,
promoting compact, mixed use development in and around existing urban and town
centers while protecting open space and natural resources, are in sync with the
RTP. For more information on Valley Vision, please visit:
http://www.pvpc.org/plans/valley-vision-4-land-use.
The Commonwealth has continually funded District Local Technical Assistance
(DLTA) for the last 12 years, helping our region advance smart growth planning. In
addition the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) has
launched Land Use Planning Grants over the last three years, helping our
municipalities and our region to advance smart growth. Some of our member
municipalities are making great progress promoting infill, housing rehabilitation and
new affordable and market rate housing development where there is existing
infrastructure to support it.
2. Legislative Changes to Expand Funding Options
a) Zoning Reform
The effort to update Massachusetts zoning laws, widely recognized as the most out
of date in the United States of America, is ongoing. Governor Baker is leading
significant support to a new initiative to expand housing choice, which, could help
reduce the need to drive if there was more of a range of housing choices - especially
affordable housing. A recent study by a Boston University professor reveals how
local Boards seem to prioritize the voices of established property owners who abut
proposed new affordable housing over the needs of the rest of the community,
highlighting the need for training and new perspectives of residents to serve on
these boards.
b) Regional Ballot Initiatives
Massachusetts municipalities and regions would benefit from enabling legislation for
Regional Ballot Initiatives (RBI), which would allow a city or town or a group of
cities or towns to raise revenue through higher property taxes or sales taxes or
another source. The revenue would have to be used for a specific transportation
project. Approving a new tax would require a vote of the town's governing body
Chapter 10 – Sustainability
127
and approval by town voters on the ballot. The ballot question would specify the
size and duration of the tax and the specific projects it would be used for. RBIs
were supported by the Senate in the last legislative session, but did not make it
into the final approved legislation.
c) Transportation and Climate Initiative
The Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) is a regional collaboration of 12
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States and the District of Columbia that seek to improve
transportation, develop the clean energy economy and reduce carbon emissions
from the transportation sector. The participating states are: Connecticut, Delaware,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. The initiative builds on the
region's strong leadership and commitment to energy efficiency and clean energy
issues, and its programs to reduce carbon emissions in the power sector, which
have resulted in the region becoming one of the most energy efficient areas in the
nation. At the same time, the effort underscores the sense of urgency shared by all
13 jurisdictions, and their collective aspirations to become the leading region for
sustainability and clean energy deployment in the country.
The TCI is directed by state and district agencies located within the 13 TCI
jurisdictions. Each agency is free to determine whether and how they will participate
in individual projects and working groups. The initiative is facilitated by the
Georgetown Climate Center.
3. Electric Charging—Decarbonization of the Fleet
In 2017, PVPC advanced a regional EV charging station plan and working group
(http://www.pvpc.org/projects/ev-charging-station-planguide ). The work affirmed that
all municipalities, businesses and institutions that receive customers for an hour or
more, should add EV charging stations. Both Eversource and National Grid, the two
investor owned utilities that serve our region, currently offer incentive programs to
advance EV charging stations. While our municipal utilities are not yet offering EV
charging station subsidies, the Commonwealth continues to fund the Massachusetts
Offers Rebates for Electric Vehicles (MOR-EV) program, offering funds to offset up
to half the cost of an EV charging station as well as a rebate on the purchase of
electric vehicles.
Thanks to the efforts of our certified Green Communities, and to some foresight from
major employers in the region, we have a good start on a connected network of EV
charging in our region and we continue to assist our municipalities and collaborators
to advance this work.
The PVTA currently has 3 electric buses in their fleet of fixed route transit vehicles
with plans to acquire more. When the PVPC worked with the city of Springfield on
Chapter 10 – Sustainability
128
their Climate Action & Resilience plan, we highlighted that a complete electrification
of PVTA buses could result in reductions of 18,260 metric tons of CO2.
4. Complete Streets
Many communities in the Pioneer Valley still lack adequate bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure. However, in the last few years communities in the region have had
some success improving bicycle infrastructure, repairing and adding new sidewalks
and developing new shared use paths, thanks in part to MassDOT’s Complete
Streets program. Through this program our communities have initiated projects to
make local streets safer and more inviting for people to walk, run, and bike. These
efforts will also improve the health of Pioneer Valley residents through improved
opportunities stay active, reducing chronic disease. More information on the
Complete Streets program is included as part of the Appendix to the Regional Profile
Chapter of the RTP.
5. ValleyBike
Bikeshare in the Pioneer Valley, known as ValleyBike, is the culmination and
realization of state, regional and municipal goals articulated in the region’s 2014
sustainability plan, Our Next Future, as well as in municipal and state plans and
goals. Bikeshare is an integral component of the region’s path to a regenerative and
sustainable future and strives to promote healthy habits and reduce greenhouse gas
producing vehicle trips. If managed effectively and expanded appropriately,
ValleyBike could also mitigate the need for expensive road repairs and expansion,
and has the potential to improve the effectiveness of our region’s transit system.
ValleyBike had great success in its first five months of operation in the region.
Riders rode 83,735 miles (equivalent to 3.3 trips around the earth!), on 26,353
bicycle trips. ValleyBike officially launched on June 28th, 2018 and remained open
until November 30th hosting a total of 26,353 rides, an average of 170 per day. An
average of 167 bikes were available at any given time throughout the season at 43
stations spread amongst five cities and towns (Amherst, Holyoke, Northampton,
South Hadley, and Springfield). The ValleyBike program is designed to have 500
bikes available at 50 stations throughout the region. Twenty-six stations were
opened at the launch in June and 17 more opened in July and August. The
remaining seven stations should be opened in Year Two. The average rides per bike
for the entire season was approximately 157.8, and the average rides per bike per
day was just over 1.
6. Social Determinants of Health—Transportation and the Built Environment
Health-related impacts of transportation projects, particularly those on environmental
justice populations, have been factored into our local TIP scoring process. The
impacts of the aging population is receiving greater consideration, as well as access
to medical care and sources of healthy foods for all segments of the population.
Chapter 10 – Sustainability
129
PVPC is assisting the communities of South Hadley, Chicopee and Holyoke with an
Age-Friendly assessment and many of our member communities are moving forward
with this designation on their own, including Springfield, Palmer, Agawam, West
Springfield, Northampton, and Monson. Both Springfield and Holyoke are “urban
food deserts” with portions of the community lacking easy access to full-line grocery
stores. PVPC has worked with Springfield and Healthy Hampshire to complete food
access mapping projects, helping the local government assess and respond to food
insecurity. More information is available here:
http://www.pvpc.org/HampshireFoodAsssessment.
7. Adapting to the Changing Climate/Risk Management
Transportation planning in our region is addressing the issue of adaptation to climate
change. As our member municipalities complete their Municipal Vulnerability
Preparedness (MVP) Community Resilience Building (CRB) processes and update
their Hazard Mitigation plans, they are prioritizing the transportation assets in
greatest need of maintenance, such as specific portions of roadway that would do
the most damage if they were to fail, especially under-sized or poorly maintained
culverts. They are all prioritizing the need to improve the capacity of culverts while
minimizing roadway stream crossing impacts all while advancing ecologically and
sensible alternatives to reduce roadway washouts. These are referred to by
Governor Baker as “Nature Based Solutions.” PVPC worked with the city of
Springfield Department of Public Works to develop a Green Infrastructure Design
Guide to facilitate nature based solutions in the city with Land Use Planning funding
from EOEEA that could serve as a model for other municipalities.
In addition to the above, we also continue to work to promote technology and other
measures to reduce the need to drive.
a) Avoided Trips
PVPC continues to support expansion of comprehensive internet access for our
entire region, and to encourage home-based businesses, because just like in
buildings, the most sustainable energy is the energy you do not use. We are working
to make it possible for people to telecommute, shop, and take classes on-line,
reducing the need for many vehicle trips.
b) Technology-Enhance Capacity of Existing Infrastructure
PVPC continues to advocate for and integrate Intelligent Transportation System
(ITS) technologies into our existing transportation systems. This includes real-time
traffic congestion monitoring and transit schedule information as well as ride and car
sharing programs linked to smart phones. The use of highway medians and other
transportation property for solar energy production is being studied and
implemented, and the use of recycled roadway materials is encouraged on roadway
projects carried out by MassDOT and municipal DPWs.
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
131
Photo: Winter of 2018 at the Brunelle Marina in South Hadley, MA
LIVABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has re-affirmed its place as a leader in the
country with respect to working actively to address our changing climate
(https://www.mass.gov/topics/climate-action) both aggressively reducing GHG
emissions to mitigate the damage caused by these pollutants and managing risk and
facilitating adaptation to a ‘new normal’ of increasingly severe and unpredictable
weather events while also promoting and facilitating livability--with MassDOT often
leading the way. Regulations like the requirement to assess Green House Gas
(GHG) emissions on all major transportation projects, and programs like the
Complete Streets Initiative (https://www.mass.gov/complete-streets-funding-
program) are helping Massachusetts become more livable and do our part to
address the climate crisis.
The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission is a proud partner with the Commonwealth
in leading the way to Livability and Climate Action, since 2008 when we completed
the Commonwealth’s first regional clean energy plan, committing the region to 80%
CHAPTER 11
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
132
reductions in GHG emission by 2050. Just as the Commonwealth is realizing that we
need to be even more aggressive in our commitment to climate action, so are we
here in the Pioneer Valley. The same data and resulting conclusions that are
summarized and explained in Volume II of the “Choices for Stewardship:
Background Books – Facts, Trends, & Issues” report of the Commission on the
Future of Transportation in the Commonwealth pp. 89-115, is guiding and informing
the work of the PVPC.
We are a motivated partner with the MA EOEEA, promoting the Commonwealth’s
Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program to assist municipalities and
regions to understand and manage risks to people, the environment and critical
infrastructure. These risks are associated with the increasingly severe and
unpredictable weather Massachusetts is experiencing and will continue to
experience in the future. We also refer to and utilize the same data from the
Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center as cited by MassDOT in the recent
products of the Commission on the Future of Transportation in the Commonwealth.
Significant variations in the consequences of severe weather depend on how
successful we can be in collectively reducing GHG emissions. Our region has been
and continues to be a leader with respect to understanding the danger to
municipalities caused by the climate crisis as demonstrated by our integration of
climate change into our region’s hazard mitigation plans in 2013.
PVPC promotes and provides technical assistance to advance Green Communities
and Complete Streets certification in our region, two State initiatives that serve to
help municipalities reduce energy use thereby reducing GHG emissions in the
transportation sector. Green Communities requires municipalities to commit to
purchase fuel efficient vehicles (in addition to many other building energy use
reduction requirements) and Complete Streets promotes livability by requiring
communities to adopt Complete Streets policies, requiring the addition of bike lanes
(or other bike infrastructure) and sidewalks (or other pedestrian infrastructure) on all
new and rehabilitated roadways. Each municipality must develop a Complete Streets
Prioritization Plan to qualify for funding.
As the MassDOT “Choices for Stewardship” report Vol II highlights on p. 109,
Massachusetts is unusual in the country with the high percentage of our GHG
emissions that come from transportation—39%, compared to 28% for the USA. Our
estimates of the magnitude of the problem here make our task slightly less onerous,
with an estimated 32% of our GHG emissions coming from transportation. We are
excited about the possibilities offered by the regional Transportation Climate
Initiative (TCI) (https://www.transportationandclimate.org/) the regional collaboration
of nine states, including Massachusetts that seeks to develop the clean energy
economy and reduce oil dependence and GHG emissions from the transportation
sector. As noted, the Pioneer Valley region is a leader with respect to Green
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
133
Communities and our communities have combined to reduce GHG emissions from
municipal buildings using RGGI funds through the DOER by an estimated 20%.
We are very enthusiastic and optimistic about the possibilities to reduce GHG
emissions from transportation if we had a comparable investment pool to fund
collaborative work focused on the transportation sector. A public-private TCI funding
stream could provide the spark needed to light the creative fires required to solve
this emergency.
Just as PVPC has been catalyzing regional progress with respect to regional
economic development, clean energy and transportation planning, PVPC has also
been a leader in the Commonwealth with a regional smart growth plan. This plan is
designed to help our member municipalities grow sustainably, channeling new
development where there is existing supporting infrastructure. Livable communities
are safe and convenient for people to walk, scoot, bus, stroll, drive, jog, ride, and/or
bicycle to their destinations. Valley Vision, our regional Livability plan is now 21
years old and in its fourth iteration. (hyperlink)
A. REGIONAL WEATHER TRENDS AND ANTICIPATED CHANGES
The transportation sector is a significant source of greenhouse gases (GHG),
accounting for almost 1/3 of the Pioneer Valleys GHG emissions and almost 40% of
the Commonwealth’s emissions. Our regional transportation plan includes the goal
of reducing driving in single occupant vehicles and accelerating the transition to
electric vehicles as we work to green the grid. At the same time we are also very
aware of how vulnerable the existing transportation network is to the effects of our
changing climate and we are simultaneously working to reduce municipal
vulnerability.
1. Temperature
Depending on how successful we collectively are at reducing GHG emissions; our
region stands to experience a wide range of temperature changes. The International
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has documented a trend of warming temperatures
caused by human use of fossil fuels. Both the Commonwealth and the Pioneer
Valley region have committed to reduce GHG emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by
2050. As summarized in the following figures, temperature increases could be as
bad as 34 days over 90 degrees by the end of this century with a 7.2 degree
increase in average temperature.
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
134
Figure 11-1 – Global Warming Temperature Forecasts
Figure 11-2 – Annual Days With Maximum Temperature Above 90° F
After Governor Baker signed Executive Order 569, committing the administration to
work across the state to plan and prepare for the impacts of climate change, EOEEA
funded the Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center to develop down scaled
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
135
projections for changes in temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The down-scaled, or localized, temperature and
precipitation projections are based on simulations from the latest generation of
climate models from the International Panel on Climate Change and scenarios of
future greenhouse gas emissions. The models were carefully selected from a larger
ensemble of climate models based on their ability to provide reliable climate
information for the Northeast U.S., while maintaining diversity in future projections
that capture some of the inherent uncertainty in modeling climate variables like
precipitation. Both annual and seasonal projections are available at the statewide
and major drainage basin geographic scales. The charts following highlight some of
their findings. (insert website).
Figure 11-3 – Massachusetts Climate Projections
The Commonwealth could experience a dramatic variability depending on whether
or not we are able to collectively reduce our GHG emissions.
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
136
Figure 11-4 – Massachusetts Emissions Scenarios
Figure 11-5 – Average Temperatures in Chicopee, MA
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
137
Figure 11-6 – Extreme Temperatures in Chicopee, MA
2. Precipitation
One of the most pronounced changes in climate in the northeast, more than any
region of the U.S. during the past several decades, has been a 71% increase in the
frequency of extreme precipitation events since the mid-1990s. Figure 11-7 shows
the annual maximum 24 hour precipitation from the Amherst weather station, the
closest station with solid historical data, showing a major change in the trend line
since the 1960s.The highest 24-hour rainfall event recorded within the last few years
was approximately 7.5
inches.https://www.climatehubs.oce.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ClimateRisksNorthes
t_02222017_final2.pdf.
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
138
Figure 11-7 – Historic Trends in Maximum Precipitation
Annual precipitation in the basin is expected to increase by +1.1 to +6.0” by 2050
and by up to 7.7” by the end of the century. Rainfall is expected to increase in spring
and winter months in particular. Understanding that both winter precipitation and
winter temperatures could increase in future decades, we can expect more of this
precipitation to fall as rain instead of snow. This could result in reduced snow cover
for winter recreation and tourism, less spring snow melt to replenish aquifers, higher
levels of winter runoff, and lower spring river flows for aquatic ecosystems. Less
snowfall could also increase flood damage to roadways and other transportation
infrastructure.
Figure 11-8 – Predicted Annual Total Precipitation
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
139
The climate projections suggest that the frequency of high-intensity rainfall and
storm events will continue to trend upward. Again, we see the greatest changes in
the spring and winter. These are the types of storms that cause flooding, erosion,
and pollutant runoff from agricultural activities. Flooding that results from a single
intense downpour can cause widespread damage to property and critical
infrastructure. High-intensity rainfall events mobilize pollutants such as sediments
and nutrients and pose a threat to surface water quality.
Figure 11-9 – Predicted Rainfall Events > 1”
The Commonwealth is funding municipalities to undertake Community Resilience
Building (CRB) workshops to prioritize risks to existing infrastructure, people, and
the environment. In our region, transportation infrastructure, especially culverts and
bridges, are emerging as the most pressing need for improvement, repair, and
maintenance as all our municipalities understand the increased risk of flooding due
to our changing climate.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been slowly updating
their federal floodplains based on the new normal of our changing climate, but their
updated maps are not yet available to the public. Information on FEMA’s flood
mapping updates is available at this website: https://www.fema.gov/flood-mapping-
products. The map below shows 100 and 500 year flood areas based on the latest
flood map data available to the public.
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
140
Figure 11-10 - 100 and500 Year Flood Areas
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
141
Figure 11-11 - Flood Zones for I-91, Route 9 and Route 20
The western border of Hadley and the eastern border of Northampton possess a 100
year flood zone. During flood events road closures could potentially occur on Routes
5, 9, and 47. The Connecticut River would be the source of the flooding event. In the
City of Westfield the commercial and industrial areas along Route 20 and Union
Street respectively are within the 100 year flood zone. During a 100 year flood Rout e
20 and Union Street could potentially be closed. The CSX rail line could also be
potentially flooded at its lower elevation points in Westfield. Downtown Westfield is
within the 500 year flood zone. If a flood of that magnitude occurs Routes 10, 20,
and 202 as well local roads and the CSX line could potentially be flooded by the
Westfield River.
Interstate I-91 is expected to be accessible during a flood event due to its higher
elevation. However, many ramps in near downtown Springfield are at a lower
elevation and at risk of flooding. The Connecticut River rail line runs adjacent to I-91
in close proximity to the Connecticut River. Portions of the rail line through
Easthampton and Northampton are within the 100 year flood zone.
In addition to flood zones, in the Pioneer Valley, severe storms are causing an
increasing number of washouts of culverts and bridge structures. In 2011, Tropical
Storm Irene caused more than $25 million of roadway damage in the region,
including many culvert wash outs. Culverts and bridges are structures usually built to
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
142
carry a road, rail line or path over a stream or river. Culverts and bridges are usually
located at points where the banks narrow, either naturally or as a result of man-
made earthworks. In either case, the effect is to create a potential “choke point” in
the downstream water flow.
All culverts in the region are mapped on Figure 11-12 and summarized by
municipality in Table 11-1. The top 5% deemed most ecologically vulnerable or
sensitive to extreme weather and heavy rain are shown in red. Additional information
on the potential increase in habitat connectivity that can result from improving a
road-stream crossing is presented in Chapter 17 of the RTP.
Figure 11-12 – Culverts for Roadway Crossings in the Pioneer Valley
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
143
Table 11-1 – Regional Culverts
TOWN Total in top
5% TOWN Total in top
5% TOWN Total in top
5%
Agawam 100 Hadley 61 1 Plainfield 34 3
Amherst 87 Hampden 47 4 Russell 37
Belchertown 146 Hatfield 32 1 South Hadley 46
Blandford 74 10 Holland 35 2 Southampton 54 4
Brimfield 119 10 Holyoke 86 Southwick 72
Chester 65 13 Huntington 41 3 Springfield 146
Chesterfield 25 Longmeadow 35 Tolland 38 7
Chicopee 60 Ludlow 117 4 Wales 60 4
Cummington 44 8 Middlefield 29 5 Ware 95
E. Longmeadow 45 Monson 124 4 W. Springfield 90
Easthampton 45 Montgomery 32 2 Westfield 130 4
Goshen 27 3 Northampton 109 Westhampton 43 8
Granby 71 1 Palmer 92 3 Wilbraham 82 1
Granville 72 13 Pelham 36 16 Williamsburg 53 6
Worthington 49 4
TOTAL: 2,885 145
3. Extreme Weather Events
The climate crisis is manifest by overall warming temperatures across the globe and
an increase in precipitation, and it is also bringing a dramatic and noticeable
increase in extreme weather events. Across the country weather disasters cost $16
billion in 2017, tying the record set in 2011, our region’s year of disasters.
Figure 11-13 – Disaster Events in the United States
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
144
B. EXISTING POLICIES PROGRAMS
As noted, the Commonwealth is a leader in forward-thinking climate action policies,
which are developed into programs by staff at MassDOT, EOEEA and other state
agencies and departments. Since 2008, Massachusetts has been using a strong
combination of regulation, legislation, incentives, requirements, technical assistance
and support to achieve necessary GHG emissions reductions to maintain
Massachusetts livability, as exemplified by both the Complete Streets and the
Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) programs.
The GWSA provides a strong foundation on which current efforts have been built
while risk management and adaptation to the changing climate have been built into
how the Commonwealth does business. At the regional level, PVPC works with
member municipalities to advance their participation in the State programs. We also
regularly collaborate with public/private governments, organizations and institutions
to plan for and implement local policies and programs that advance livable
communities.
1. Complete Streets
In 2016 MassDOT launched the Complete Street Funding Program to incentivize
municipal best practice in Complete Streets policy and implementation. To date, 38
communities have participated in MassDOT sponsored Complete Streets training
and 18 communities have actively participated in the Complete Streets Program.
More information on the Complete Streets program is included as part of the
Appendix to the Regional Profile Chapter of the RTP.
2. GHG emissions assessments as MEPA
In 2007 Massachusetts started the process of integrating GHG emissions impact
assessments into the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). This policy
was extremely innovative and continues to play an important role in raising
awareness of GHG emissions and educating people about how to mitigate impacts.
As explained by the Commonwealth:
“The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) has determined
that the phrase "damage to the environment" as used in the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) includes the emission of greenhouse gases
caused by Projects subject to MEPA review. EEA now issues the following
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy to fulfill the statutory obligation to take all
feasible measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate damage to the environment.
The Policy requires that certain Projects undergoing review by the MEPA Office
quantify the Project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identify measures to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate such emissions. In addition to quantifying Project-
related GHG emissions, the Policy also requires proponents to quantify the
impact of proposed mitigation in terms of emissions and energy savings. EEA
recognizes that this Policy will not itself avert climate change. However, this
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
145
Policy is part of a larger effort to focus attention on the causes of climate change
and harness creative thought and technology to implement long-term solutions.
EEA also recognizes that the GHG quantification required by this Policy will not
result in absolutely accurate projections. The intent is not one hundred percent
certainty as to the amount of GHG emissions; rather, it is a reasonably accurate
quantitative analysis of emissions and potential mitigation that will allow the
Project proponent and reviewers to assess the overall impact of the Project as
proposed and the reduction in emissions if various techniques are used.
https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/EEA/emepa/pdffiles/misc/GHG%20Policy%20F
INAL.pdf
3. Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Program
Every city and town is encouraged, but not required, to accept funding from the
State to undertake a Community Resilience Building (CRB) process to identify
municipal vulnerabilities and strengths, and to develop a prioritized action plan to
build on strengths and minimize and mitigate vulnerabilities. The Commonwealth is
funding MVP action grants up to $2,000,000/community in the second year of
funding, 2019.
Figure 11-14 – Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Program Participation
Fourteen member municipalities have participated in the MVP program in its first two
years and an estimated 15 more are preparing to apply in the third year of planning
work. Statements of findings from all 14 participating municipalities highlight the
vulnerability of transportation infrastructure to extreme weather caused by our
changing climate. In particular, concerns about under-sized and poorly maintained
culverts and bridges are being raised across all participating municipalities.
4. Green Communities
The Green Communities Division provides funding opportunities to reduce municipal
energy use and costs by way of clean energy projects in municipal buildings,
facilities, and schools; guidance, technical assistance, and local support from
Regional Coordinators working out of the Massachusetts Department of Energy
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
146
Resources (DOER). With respect to transportation, the program requires all
participating municipalities to adopt a fuel efficient vehicle policy that requires the
purchase of energy efficient vehicles by the municipality. This program is a “Lead by
example’ initiative that shows residents and businesses in participating
municipalities that it is possible to buy an energy efficient vehicle for most day to day
uses and not suffer any negative consequences. There are 33 certified Green
Communities in our region and three additional communities are working on
certification. These communities have invested $10,617,410 to make their
communities more energy efficient and reduce GHG emissions.
5. Local Bylaw/Ordinance & Other Regulatory Reform
PVPC’s Land Use & Environment Section leads the development and
implementation of the region’s smart growth plan, Valley Vision. How land is used
and developed determines how much people need to drive to fulfill their daily
functions. The Pioneer Valley has been a leader for over 20 years with respect to
promoting and encouraging smart growth, that is development that is targeted where
there is existing infrastructure to support it, versus initiating development far away
from roads, power lines, water and sewer lines etc. We work closely with our
member municipalities to adopt and revise as needed, their existing bylaws and
ordinances to make it possible for communities to minimize the need to drive and
promote energy efficient modes of transportation such as walking, biking and using
the bus.
For over 20 years the PVPC, along with many other organizations including the
MAPC, MPHA, the MA Smart Growth Alliance and Transportation for MA have been
advocating for and educating the Commonwealth about the need for zoning reform.
A key area for improvement is the 2/3 majority needed to modify local land use
regulations.
C. NEW/RECOMMENDED POLICIES
1. TCI
The Transportation Climate Initiative is an exciting future policy. If we can achieve
the same success reducing GHG emissions from transportation that we have
collectively achieved with RGGI reducing GHG emissions from buildings, we will be
much better situated to have a safe and sustainable future for our children and our
grandchildren. Excerpt from WBUR on 12/18/18:
“Massachusetts and eight other states, along with Washington, D.C., announced
Tuesday they will join together to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
the transportation sector.
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
147
In a statement, the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) said it will design a
proposal that "would cap and reduce carbon emissions from the combustion of
transportation fuels, and invest proceeds from the program into low-carbon and
more resilient transportation infrastructure."
Along with Massachusetts, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states participating in the
TCI, as of its inception, are: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. The initiative is based on the
decade-old Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that has reduced carbon emissions
produced by Northeast electric power plants through carbon-trading. A "RGGI for
Transport" would be a similar market mechanism for fossil fuels used to power
vehicles, charging wholesalers a fee at the border for fuels they import into the
region.
In a250-page report, the state's Transportation of the Future commission estimates
that the new carbon price would cost the average driver $2 a month. The funds
could be invested in building the transportation system of the future, offering rebates
on electric cars, and constructing charging stations and bike paths.
Emissions from transportation account for the largest portion of the region's carbon
pollution. In Massachusetts, the transportation sector accounts for nearly 40 percent
of emissions.
"The trick in carbon pricing is to make sure you don't penalize people who can't
adjust immediately," said Michael Barrett, chair of the Massachusetts Senate
Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee. Barrett suggested easing the
pain of a carbon tax by paying people in advance to cut their future use of fossil
fuels. For instance, the government could estimate the annual per capita cost of a
carbon price, cut people a check for that amount, and let them decide what to do
with the money. Perhaps they might use the advance to insulate their homes, or buy
more fuel-efficient cars.
“Reducing emissions in the transportation sector requires a collaborative approach,"
state Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Matthew Beaton said in a
statement, "and the Commonwealth is proud to partner with Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic states to pursue a potential program to further mitigate the impacts of
climate change, protect the health of our residents, and build a more resilient and
sustainable transportation system for the next generation."
2. Housing Choice/Zoning Reform
As stated in a recent Boston Globe article, “in Massachusetts, even incremental
legislation that aims to make it easier for towns to change their own zoning has
proved to be a challenge. The (latest Zoning Reform) measure’s uncertain fate on
Beacon Hill highlights the contentious politics around housing in a state that takes
pride both in progressive social policy and in preserving local control of the look and
Chapter 11 – Livability and Climate Change
148
feel of its cities and towns.” (Boston Globe, March 16, 2019.) Massachusetts is
seeing a drastic decline in new housing development (half of the new housing
development experienced in the 1970s and 80s) and the search for housing is
causing more and more people to drive longer and longer distances to get to work
and school and other important destinations. We very much need zoning reform in
Massachusetts to address the connection between land use and zoning, housing
and transportation, especially in the face of the severe consequences of our current
global climate crisis.
3. Our Next Future
In 2014, PVPC wrapped up a three-year bi-state regional sustainability planning
process: Our Next Future: An Action Plan for Building A Smart, Sustainable, and
Resilient Pioneer Valley. The plan is now being updated and implemented across all
sections of the PVPC and in close partnership and collaboration with our member
municipalities, the business and economic development sector, educational, health
care, insurance, clean energy and other key anchor institutions, residents, the not for
profit sector, community based organizations and the general public. These plans
are available on our website: http://www.pvpc.org.
PVPC has a number of working committees/groups that meet regularly to advise
staff and Commissioners on plan development and implementation. These include:
the Joint Transportation Committee, Plan for Progress—focus on economic
development, Valley Development Council—focus on land use and zoning, the
Clean Energy/Climate Action committee, the CT River Clean Up committee, regional
Housing Committee, and the Stormwater committee. All of these committees and
working groups contribute to the region’s livability.
4. Resources
Below is a list of websites and reports used in the development of this chapter.
https://necsc.umass.edu/projects/massachusetts-climate-change-projections
Massachusetts Climate Data Clearinghouse: http://www.resilientma.org
https://www.mass.gov/complete-streets-funding-program
https://www.mass.gov/municipal-vulnerability-preparedness-mvp-program
https://www.mass.gov/orgs/green-communities-division
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
149
Photo: I-391 Exit 3 in Chicopee, MA
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
A. INTRODUCTION
The FAST Act requires MPOs, in collaboration with the state DOT and transit
agencies, to formally establish targets for performance measures aligned with the
national goals. Performance Based Planning and Programming (PBPP) refers to the
application of performance management within the parameters of the FAST Act to
achieve desired outcomes for the multimodal transportation system. It is intended
advance transportation investments based on their ability to meet established goals.
This includes setting targets for the measures identified in the FAST Act.
Performance measures are intended to monitor and track performance over time
and assess the effectiveness of projects and strategies in meeting the national goal
areas. In the Pioneer Valley region, performance based planning methods have
been used in the development of the Transportation Evaluation Criteria to program
projects as part of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program for many
years.
CHAPTER 12
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
150
USDOT implemented the federal PBPP requirements through a series of phased
rulemakings. At the conclusion of this rulemaking process, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts had twelve months to establish statewide performance targets for
each required federal performance measure. The Pioneer Valley MPO then had 180
days from the date of Commonwealth’s adoption of the statewide performance
targets to either adopt the statewide targets or establish their own regional
performance targets.
The Federal Transit Administration has finalized a rule to define requirements for
transit asset management. This rule requires public transportation providers to
develop and implement transit asset management (TAM) plans. TAM plans must
include an asset inventory, condition assessments of inventoried assets, and a
prioritized list of investments to improve the state of good repair of capital assets.
This rule also establishes state of good repair standards and four state of good
repair performance measures.
Table 12-1 - Regional Performance Measure Status
Final Rule Effective
Date
Status Updated
Safety
Performance
Measures (PM1)
April 14,
2016
MPO adopted state
targets on February
26, 2019
Annually
Pavement/Bridge
Performance
Measures (PM2)
May 20,
2017
MPO adopted state
targets on October
23, 2018
Every Two
Years
System
Performance
Measures (PM3)
May 20,
2017
MPO adopted state
targets on
September 25, 2018
Every Two
Years
Transit Asset
Management Plan
(TAM)
July 26,
2016
MPO adopted TAM
Plan on March 26,
2019
Every Four
Years
As can be seen from the above table, the Pioneer Valley MPO has elected to adopt
the State performance targets for PM1, PM2 and PM3. The MPO will continue to
work in close collaboration with the PVTA to incorporate their TAM performance
targets in to the regional transportation planning process. The UPWP includes
specific tasks to support the performance based planning and programming for the
Pioneer Valley MPO.
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
151
B. SAFETY PERFORMANCE MEASURES (PM1)
Pioneer Valley has chosen to adopt the statewide safety performance measure
targets set by MassDOT for Calendar Year (CY) 2019. In setting these targets,
MassDOT has followed FHWA guidelines by using statewide crash data and
Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data for vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) in order to calculate 5 year, rolling average trend lines for all FHWA-defined
safety measures. For CY 2019 targets, four of the five safety measures—total
number of fatalities, rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, total
number of incapacitating injuries, and rate of incapacitating injuries per 100 million
VMT—were established by extending their trend lines into the 2015-2019 period. All
four of these measures reflect a modest decrease in statewide trends. The fifth
safety measure, the total number of combined incapacitating injuries and fatalities
for non-motorized modes, is the only safety measure for which the statewide trend
line depicts an increase. MassDOT’s effort to increase non-motorized mode share
throughout the Commonwealth has posed a challenge to simultaneously reducing
non-motorized injuries and fatalities. Rather than adopt a target that depicts an
increase in the trend line, MassDOT has elected to establish a target of non-
motorized fatalities and injuries and for CY 2019 that remains constant from the
rolling average for 2012–2016. In recent years, MassDOT and the Pioneer Valley
have invested in “complete streets,” bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure,
intersection and safety improvements in both the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to address increasing mode
share and to incorporate safety mitigation elements into projects. Moving forward,
Pioneer Valley, alongside MassDOT, is actively seeking to improve data collection
and methodology for bicycle and pedestrian VMT counts and to continue analyzing
crash clusters and crash counts that include both motorized and non-motorized
modes in order to address safety issues at these locations.
In all safety categories, MassDOT has established a long-term target of “Toward
Zero Deaths” through MassDOT’s Performance Measures Tracker6 and will be
establishing safety targets for the MPO to consider for adoption each calendar year.
While the MPO is not required by FHWA to report on annual safety performance
targets, FHWA guidelines require MPOs to adopt MassDOT’s annual targets or to
establish their own each year.
The safety measures MassDOT has established for CY 2019, and that Pioneer
Valley has adopted, are as follows:
Fatalities: The target number of fatalities for years CY 2019 is 353, down from
an average of 364 fatalities for the years 2012–2016. [See Figure 12-1]
Rate of Fatalities per 100 million VMT: The target fatality rate for years CY
2019 is 0.58, down from a 0.61 average for years 2012–2016. [See Figure 12-1]
6 https://www.mass.gov/lists/tracker-annual-performance-management-reports
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
152
Serious Injuries: The target number of incapacitating injuries for CY2019 is
2801, down from the average of 3146 for years 2012–2016. [See Figure 12-2]
Rate of Incapacitating Injuries per 100 million VMT: The incapacitating injury
rate target for CY2019 is 4.37 per year, down from the 5.24 average rate for
years 2012–2016. [See Figure 12-2]
Figure 12-1 - Total Fatalities and Fatality Rate
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
153
Figure 12--2 - Total Incapacitating Injuries and Injury Rate
C. BRIDGE & PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES (PM2)
Pioneer Valley has chosen to adopt the 2-year (2020) and 4-year (2022) statewide
bridge and pavement performance measure targets set by MassDOT. MassDOT
was required to adopt a statewide target by May 20th, 2018, with MPOs either
adopting the statewide target or establishing their own by November 2018. In setting
these targets, MassDOT has followed FHWA guidelines by measuring bridges and
pavement condition using the 9-point National Bridge Inventory Standards (NBIS);
the International Roughness Index (IRI); the presence of pavement rutting; and the
presence of pavement cracking. Two year and four year targets were set for six
individual performance measures: percent of bridges in good condition; percent of
bridges in poor condition; percent of Interstate pavement in good condition; percent
of Interstate pavement in poor condition; percent of non-Interstate pavement in good
condition; and percent of non-Interstate pavement in poor condition. All of the above
performance measures are tracked in greater detail in MassDOT’s Transportation
Asset Management Plan (TAMP), which is due to be finalized in July 2019.
Targets for bridge-related performance measures were determined by identifying
which bridge projects are programmed and projecting at what rate bridge conditions
deteriorate. The bridge-related performance measures measure the percentage of
deck area, rather than the total number of bridges.
Performance targets for pavement-related performance measures were based on a
single year of data collection, and thus were set to remain steady under the
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
154
guidance of FHWA. These measures are to be revisited at the 2-year mark (2020),
once three years of data are available, for more informed target setting.
MassDOT continues to measure pavement quality and to set statewide short-term
and long-term targets in the MassDOT Performance Management Tracker using the
Pavement Serviceability Index (PSI), which differs from IRI. These measures and
targets are used in conjunction with federal measures to inform program sizing and
project selection.
Table 12-2 – Bridge and Pavement Performance Measure Status
Performance Measure Current (2017) 2-year target (2020) 4-year target (2022)
Bridges in good condition 15.22% 15% 16%
Bridges in poor condition 12.37% 13% 12%
Interstate Pavement in good
condition
74.2% 70% 70%
Interstate Pavement in poor
condition
0.1% 4% 4%
Non-Interstate Pavement in good
condition
32.9% 30% 30%
Non-Interstate Pavement in poor
condition
31.4% 30% 30%
D. RELIABILITY, CONGESTION, & EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE MEASURES
(PM3)
Pioneer Valley has chosen to adopt the 2-year (2020) and 4-year (2022) statewide
reliability, congestion, and emissions performance measure targets set by
MassDOT. MassDOT was required to adopt a statewide target by May 20 th, 2018,
with MPOs either adopting the statewide target or establishing their own by
November 2018.
MassDOT followed FHWA regulation in measuring Level of Travel Time Reliability
(LOTTR) on both the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS as well as Truck Travel Time
Reliability (TTTR) on the Interstate system using the National Performance
Management Research Dataset (NPMRDS) provided by FHWA. These performance
measures aim to identify the predictability of travel times on the roadway network by
comparing the average travel time along a given segment against longer travel
times. For LOTTR, the performance of all segments of the Interstate and of the non-
Interstate NHS are defined as either reliable or unreliable based on a comparison
between the 50th percentile travel time and the 80th percentile travel time, and the
proportion of reliable segments is reported. For TTTR, the ratio between the 50 th
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
155
percentile travel time and the 90th percentile travel time for trucks only along the
Interstate system is reported as a statewide measure. As this data set has but one
year of consistent data, FHWA guidance has been to set conservative targets and to
adjust future targets once more data becomes available. To that end, MassDOT’s
reliability performance targets are set to remain the same.
Emissions reduction targets are measured as the sum total of all emissions
reductions anticipated through CMAQ-funded projects in non-attainment or air
quality maintenance areas (currently the cities of Lowell, Springfield, Waltham, and
Worcester, and the town of Oak Bluffs) identified in the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). This anticipated emissions reduction is calculated
using the existing CMAQ processes.
Table 12-3 – Reliability, Congestion and Emissions Performance Measure Status
Measure Current (2017) 2-year (2020) 4-year (2022)
Non-Interstate LOTTR 80% 80% 80%
Interstate LOTTR 68% 68% 68%
TTTR 1.85 1.85 1.85
PHED (Boston UZA) 18.31 18.31 18.31
% non-SOV (Boston UZA) 33.6% (2016) 34.82% 35.46%
Emissions Reductions Baseline (FFY 14–17) 1,622 CO
497.9 Ozone
TBD CO (Springfield)
1.1 Ozone
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
156
Table 12-4 - Performance Measure Linked Investments 2015-2019
As can be seen in Table 12-4 the PVMPO has invested $25 million on projects
which will help meet the MassDOT Performance Targets. This assessment was
made based on the project TEC scoring for performance related categories such as
safety, pavement condition, congestion relief, etc. Of these investments, 14% will
help achieve PM1, 17% will help achieve PM2, and 70% will help achieve PM3. As
more data becomes available it is anticipated that corresponding PM trends should
demonstrate that our region is meeting or exceeding our PM Targets.
TIP
Year
SID Municipality Project Description Total
Programmed
Funds
PM Rule
2017 608023 Multiple AMHERST- HADLEY- SIDEWALK & WHEELCHAIR RAMP
CONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 9
1,204,050$ PM1
2015 604035 Hadley HADLEY- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 9
(RUSSELL STREET) & ROUTE 47 (MIDDLE STREET)
1,000,000$ PM1
2015 604035 Hadley HADLEY- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 9
(RUSSELL STREET) & ROUTE 47 (MIDDLE STREET)
1,201,102$ PM1
PM 1 Total (3 Projects) 3,405,152$ 14%
2019 600513 Agawam AGAWAM- RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 187 FROM 425 FT. SOUTH
OF S. WESTFIELD STREET TO ROUTE 57 (0.3 MILES - PHASE I)
2,622,622$ PM2
2015 606417 Cummington CUMMINGTON- RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT ON ROUTE 9
ADJACENT TO C-21-023 OVER WESTFIELD BROOK
1,500,000$ PM2
PM 2 Total (2 Projects) 4,122,622$ 17%
2019 PV0001 multiple P21 Express - Year 2 Operating 500,000$ PM3
2018 PV0005 Multiple PVTA P21 Express Service Between Union Station in Springfield and
the Holyoke Transportation Center
500,000$ PM3
2018 608786 Multiple AMHERST- HADLEY- NORTHAMPTON- TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY
UPGRADES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
1,200,000$ PM3
2019 607987 Ware WARE- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS @ MAIN STREET, WEST
STREET, NORTH STREET, SOUTH STREET & CHURCH STREET
2,475,087$ PM3
2018 604203 Agawam AGAWAM- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 187 & ROUTE
57
3,288,000$ PM3
2018 604597 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- IMPROVEMENTS ON I-91 INTERCHANGE 19 AT
ROUTE 9 AND DAMON ROAD
7,438,490$ PM3
2015 604035 Hadley HADLEY- SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT ROUTE 9
(RUSSELL STREET) & ROUTE 47 (MIDDLE STREET)
1,836,958$ PM3
PM 3 Total (7 Projects) 17,238,535$ 70%
Total (12 Projects) 24,766,309$ 100%
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
157
1. National Performance Measure Research Data Set (NPMRDS)
The NPMRDS is a monthly archive of average travel times, reported every 5 minutes
when data is available, on the National Highway System. The travel times are based
on vehicle probe-based data. Separate average travel times are included for “all
traffic”, freight and passenger travel. FHWA provides access to the NPMRDS to our
State DOT and MPO partners for their performance management activities. Average
travel times have been collected monthly since July 2013.
Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) on both the Interstate System and non-
Interstate NHS.
LOTTR is based on the amount of time it takes to drive the length of a road
segment.
The metric is the percentage of person-miles traveled that are "reliable.
Reporting Requirements:
Must be on the statewide level.
MassDOT is required to adopt a target by May 20, 2018 with MPOs either
adopting the statewide target or establishing their own by November 2018.
To compute LOTTR:
Collect travel times (NPMRDS)
Find the 50th pct. and 80th pct. times
Compute LOTTR = 80th/50th percentile
Repeat for 4 periods (see figure on
right)
If all are below 1.50, segment is
reliable.
The statewide metric is the % of person miles traveled that are reliable.
Figure 12-3 – Level of Travel Time Reliability
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
158
Level of Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR)
TTTR is based on the amount of time it takes trucks to drive the length of a road
segment.
Reporting Requirements:
Must be on the statewide level.
Only required to report on TTTR for the Interstate system.
MassDOT is required to adopt a target by May 20, 2018 with MPOs either adopting
the statewide target or establishing their own by November 2018.
To compute TTTR:
Collect travel times (NPMRDS)
Find the 50th pct. and 95th pct. times
Compute TTTR = 95th/50th percentile
Repeat for 5 periods (see figure on
right)
The TTTR Index is generated as a
weighted average of the largest period
for each segment and its weight.
Figure 12-4 – Truck Travel Time Reliability
E. TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (TAM)
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) defines transit asset management as a
strategic and systematic process through which an organization procures, operates,
maintains, rehabilitates, and replaces transit assets to manage their performance,
risks, and costs over their lifecycle to provide cost-effective, reliable, and safe
service to current and future customers.
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
159
As part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act and the
subsequent Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) ACT, the FTA enacted
regulations for transit asset management that require transit service providers to
establish asset management performance measures and targets and to develop a
TAM Plan. The final TAM rule was published on July 26, 2016 and went into effect
on October 1, 2016.
The Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) manages a range of assets that include
a fleet of heavy duty transit buses, paratransit vehicles, support vehicles, and nine
facilities, plus other capital assets required to support operations across a service
territory encompassing 24 communities. PVTA recognizes that an effective approach
to asset management incorporates the people, processes, technology, data and
information and continual improvement needed to support better management of
assets over their entire lifecycle. PVTA has developed their TAM Plan as a roadmap
to systematically identify and address assets and asset management practices in
need of improvement; establish a benchmark for where their inventory and policies
stand; identify gaps in their practice; establish new, measurable key performance
indicators and use a data-driven approach to achieve its goals.
PVTA has developed the TAM plan, not as an end, but instead as the beginning of
an on-going effort to develop and integrate asset management practices throughout
the entire organization. Over the coming years PVTA plans to continue to build upon
this foundation and will work to implement successful and effective policies,
practices and processes that reinforce and complement the goals and objectives
outlined in the TAM plan. PVTA expects the TAM plan to be a living document that is
updated annually.
Table 12-5 – PVTA TAM Plan Performance Measures and Targets
Rule Performance Measure State Target
TAM Percent of revenue vehicles by asset class
that have met or exceeded their Useful
Life Benchmark (ULB)
Articulated Bus = 0%, Bus = 20%, Minibus
= 100%, Cutaway Bus = 25%, Minivan =
30%, Trolleybus = 100%
TAM Percent of vehicles that have met or
exceeded their Useful Life Benchmark
(ULB)
Automobiles = 25%
Trucks and other Rubber Tire Vehicles =
25%
TAM Percent of facilities with a condition rating
below 3.0 on the FTA Transit Economic
Requirements Model (TERM) Scale
Administrative and Maintenance = 25%
Passenger and Parking = 0%
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
160
Table 12-6 - TAM Investments 2015-2019
Table 12-6 shows the PVTA capital investment which will help our region meet their
TAM Targets. Over the past 5 years, PVTA has invested $26 million on buses,
vans, and mini buses. PVTA spends approximately 30% of their annual capital
budget on fleet replacement in order to meet TAM Targets.
TIP Year RTA Capital Project Total Programmed PM Rule
2019 PVTA Buy Replacement 40' Diesel Bus (4) $ 2,226,480.00 TAM
2019 PVTA Buy Replacement 35" Bus (4) $ 2,203,970.00 TAM
2019 PVTA Purchase Replacement Vans (27) $ 1,836,620.00 TAM
2018 PVTA Replacement Vans (4) $ 283,795.00 TAM
2018 PVTA Replace Mini Buses for Shuttles (3) $ 270,000.00 TAM
2018 PVTA Replacement 40' Buses (4) $ 2,161,631.00 TAM
2017 PVTA Purchase - Replacement: Vans (12) $ 781,298.00 TAM
2017 PVTA BUY REPLACEMENT VAN (7) $ 436,948.00 TAM
2016 PVTA BUY 40-FT BUS FOR EXPANSION (4) - Match for FY 15 $ 395,640.00 TAM
2016 PVTA BUY REPLACEMENT 40-FT BUS (6) Match for FY 15 $ 593,460.00 TAM
2016 PVTA BUY REPLACEMENT 35-FT BUS (5) - Match for FY15 $ 489,549.00 TAM
2016 PVTA BUY 40-FT BUS FOR EXPANSION (2) (Match for FY15) $ 203,195.00 TAM
2016 PVTA BUY 40-FT BUS FOR EXPANSION (2) (Match for FY15) $ 196,805.00 TAM
2015 PVTA PVTA Bus Replacement 887,221.00$ TAM
2015 PVTA Buy replacements 35ft) bus (5)2,017,556.00$ TAM
2015 PVTA Buy <30ft bus for expansion (4)380,000.00$ TAM
2015 PVTA ADA operating projects 1,479,468.00$ TAM
2015 PVTA Purchase - Buses for expanded service, 40'1,528,810.00$ TAM
2015 PVTA Buy , 30' mini bus, replacement (4)280,000.00$ TAM
2015 PVTA BUY REPLACEMENT 40-FT BUS (6) - Match in FY 16 $ 2,373,838.00 TAM
2015 PVTA BUY REPLACEMENT 35-FT BUS (5) - Match in FY16 $ 1,958,199.00 TAM
2015 PVTA BUY 40-FT BUS FOR EXPANSION (4) Match in FY16 $ 1,582,559.00 TAM
2015 PVTA BUY 40-FT BUS FOR EXPANSION (2) - Match in FY 16 635,220.00$ TAM
2015 PVTA BUY 40-FT BUS FOR EXPANSION (2) - Match in FY 16 757,970.00$ TAM
2015 PVTA Purchase - Replacement: Vans (6) $ 391,988.00 TAM
26,352,220.00$
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
161
F. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT
The System Performance Report developed for the RTP 2016 was updated for the
2020 RTP to assess the progress made in achieving targets established during the
previous report. Each performance target was assessed on an evaluation ranking of
excellent, good, or needs improvement. The definition of each of the three
evaluation rankings are summarized below:
Excellent – The performance measure currently meets or exceeds its
performance target.
Good – The performance measure is on track to meet its performance target
by the established deadline.
Needs Improvement – The performance measure is not on track to meet its
performance target by the established deadline, or the data is not yet
available for the performance measure.
a) Structurally Deficient Bridges
Performance Target = Reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges below
2014 levels.
Table 12-7 – Structurally Deficient Bridges in the Pioneer Valley Since 2009
2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2018
Structurally Deficient Bridges 75 69 63 65 53 50
Total Bridges 674 674 669 676 678 685
Source: MassDOT Bridge Data
The percentage of structurally deficient bridges in the region was reduced from
7.8% to 7.2%
RTP Assessment: Excellent
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
162
b) Overall Condition Index
Performance Target = Increase the average Overall Condition Index (OCI) for
federal aid eligible roadways by 5% by 2025.
Table 12-8 – Regional OCI By RTP Year
2012 2016 2019
Overall Condition Index 77.6 71.1 76
Source: PVPC
The average OCI has increased by 4.9% since 2016. This trend shows there is
improvement in the pavement quality and the region is well placed to likely
achieve the targeted improvement of 5% by the year 2025.
RTP Assessment: Good
c) Motor Vehicle Fatalities
Performance Target = Reduce motor vehicle fatalities by 20% over five years.
Table 12-9 – Fatal Crashes in the Pioneer Valley
RTP 2016 Table
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
35 41 37 34 44
RTP 2020 Update
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
42 43 36 51 41
Source: MassDOT Crash Portal
The number of fatalities in the region has marginally reduced from the year 2012
to 2017; however this reduction is far less than 20%. Over the last five years the
annual fatalities were below the 2012 threshold with an exception of the calendar
year 2016.
RTP Assessment: Needs Improvement
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
163
d) Roadway Fatalities and Serious Injuries
Performance Target = Reduce the number of roadway fatalities and serious
injuries by 50% by 2030.
Table 12-10 – Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes in the Pioneer Valley
RTP 2016 Table
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
277 249 269 514 486
RTP 2020 Update
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
408 362 333 356 264
Source: MassDOT Crash Portal
The spike in the number of fatal and serious injury crashes from 2010 to 2011
are a result of improvements in crash data reporting by local communities and
more accurate data on the severity of the injury. The number of fatal and serious
injury crashes decreased by nearly 45% from 2012 to 2017. The region is
expected to achieve more than a 50% reduction by 2030 if similar trends
continue.
RTP Assessment: Good
e) Safety Studies
Performance Target = Complete at least one safety study per year as part of the
UPW P.
Table 12-11 – Safety Studies Completed Over the Past 7 Years
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
4 1 2 1 2 2 2
Source: PVPC
Currently, the region is exceeding the target to complete at least one safety study
per year as part of the UPWP.
RTP Assessment: Excellent
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
164
f) Average Driver Delay
Performance Target = Reduce the average regional travel time index to less than
1.5 by 2025.
Table 12-12 – Average Regional Travel Time Index by CMP Analysis Year
2010 2015 2019
1.56 1.71 Data Collection Method is
being updated
Source: PVPC
Currently the PVPC is in the process of updating the data collection method to
determine travel times, congestion, and driver delays in the region.
RTP Assessment: Needs Improvement
g) Congestion Improvement Projects
Performance Target = Fund at least one congestion improvement project through
the TIP every 5 years.
Table 12-13 – Completed Congestion Improvement Projects
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3
Source: PVPC
Historically, the Pioneer Valley region has completed at least one congestion
improvement project through the TIP over the last 8 years.
RTP Assessment: Excellent
h) Congestion-related Planning Studies
Performance Target = Complete one planning study to reduce congestion per
year as part of the UPWP.
Table 12-14 – Completed Congestion Planning Studies
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
1 0 2 1 1 1 1
Source: PVPC
PVPC has consistently conducted at least one study per year that addresses
congestion and/or safety improvement at different locations within the region.
RTP Assessment: Excellent
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
165
i) On-road Bicycle Facility Mileage
Performance Target = Increase the total mileage of on-road bicycle facilities by
10% by 2025.
Table 12-15 – On-road Bicycle Facility Mileage in the Pioneer Valley
2000 2005 2010 2015 2019
4.50 7.25 8.95 17.95 43.12
Source: PVPC
The region has exceeded expectations and has already increased the bicycle
facilities mileage by more than 140%.
RTP Assessment: Excellent
j) Passengers per Trip and Passengers per Revenue Hour
Performance Target = Meet the minimum number of Passengers per Trip and
Passengers per Revenue Hour for fixed route transit
service consistent with PVTA’s established tiers of
service.
Table 12-16 – PVTA Routes That Meet Passengers per Trip and Passengers per
Revenue Hour Standards
September 2014
– April 2015
July 2018 –
April 2019
Number of Routes that Meet Minimum Performance
Standards 34 15
Total PVTA Routes 47 41
Source: PVPC
The number of routes that meet the PVTA performance standards has decreased
since 2015. Factors such as uncertain funding environment, service cuts,
increasing use of Uber and Lyft, increased rates of car ownership,
stagnant/declining urban population, and fare hikes in the past two years could
have contributed towards this decline.
RTP Assessment: Needs Improvement
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
166
k) Transportation Sector Green House Gas Emissions
Performance Target = Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation
sector by 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
Table 12-17 – Statewide GHG Emissions from the Transportation Sector
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2016
33.6 30.8 30.8 31.0 30.4 39% 43%
Source: Massachusetts Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, July 2014
The greenhouse gas emissions from the transportations sector have increased
rather than decrease since 2012.
RTP Assessment: Needs Improvement
l) Air Quality Improvement Projects
Performance Target = Fund at least one air quality improvement project through
the TIP each year.
Table 12-18 – Air Quality Improvement Projects Completed Over the Past 5 Years
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
1 1 1 2 3 1 0 2
Source: PVPC
The region has been successful in achieving a project per year target for the
majority of the TIP years assessed.
RTP Assessment: Good
m) Weight Restricted, Height Restricted, and Closed Bridges
Performance Target = Minimize the impact of weight restricted, height restricted,
and closed bridges.
Table 12-19 – Restricted and Closed Bridges
2011 2014 2018
Weight Restricted Bridges 92 63 78
Bridges with Vertical Clearance Restrictions (Under 15ft) 73 65 110
Closed Bridges 14 13 6
Source: MassDOT
There is an increase in number of restricted bridges for both weight and height
limitations; however the number of closed bridges has declined.
RTP Assessment: Needs Improvement
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
167
n) Average Park and Ride Lot Use
Performance Target = Increase average park and ride lot use by 5% by 2025.
Table 12-20 – Average Park and Ride Lot Occupancy 2011 -2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
136 138.6 118.3 99.9 76.5 42.5 42.7 38
Source: PVPC
The Park and Ride lots usage has been declining in the region. Rideshare is not
a popular option for the inhabitants of the region and increased popularity of Lyft
and Uber also decreases the necessity for people to consider this alternative.
RTP Assessment: Needs Improvement
o) Regional Bike Path Usage
Performance Target = Demonstrate an overall annual increase in the use of
regional bike paths.
Table 12-21 – Historic Use of the Springfield Riverwalk
2012 2013 2014 2018
56 100 189 Bikepath closed due
to construction
Use of the Springfield Riverwalk was steadily increasing over the period when
data was collected which is a trend with a majority of bike paths in the region.
PVPC has collected data along this path over a period of time and has been
working towards developing an ongoing data collection program to track bike
path use for all facilities in the Pioneer Valley region.
RTP Assessment: Good
Chapter 12 – Performance Measures
168
p) PVTA and FRTA Ridership
Performance Target = Demonstrate an overall annual increase in PVTA and
FRTA ridership.
Table 12-22 – PVTA and FRTA Total Annual Ridership
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
PVTA 11,128,713 11,415,923 12,074,280 12,154,880 11,466,707 10,902,207
Source: PVPC
Transit ridership increased between 2013-2016, however the last 2 years have
seen a decline in number of PVTA users across majority of the routes. PVTA
reduced services along some routes and increased fares system wide which
strongly contributed to the decline in number of riders.
RTP Assessment: Needs Improvement
q) Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Mileage
Performance Target = Increase the total mileage of all bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure by 10% by 2025.
A complete breakdown of existing pedestrian infrastructure mileage is not
available for the entire region at this time. PVPC has performed sidewalk
inventory for communities such as Granby, Palmer, Holyoke, Springfield, and
South Hadley over past few years. Existing efforts will need to be focused to
develop an accurate baseline to allow for tracking of this performance target over
time.
RTP Assessment: Needs Improvement
1. Overall System Performance Assessment
Based on the results of the system performance assessment, 9 of the 17 defined
regional performance targets are either currently met or are on track to be met by
established deadlines. Eight targets require additional data or are currently not being
met. This information is summarized in Table 12-23.
Table 12-23 – Summary of System Performance Assessment
Excellent Good Needs Improvement
5 4 8
Chapter 13 – Future Forecasts
169
Photo: PVTA Loop Shuttle
FUTURE FORECASTS
Air quality conformity regulations related to the latest planning assumptions require a
consistent approach to estimate future population, household and employment data
used in the regional transportation plan. This data is input into the regional
transportation model to estimate future traffic volumes in the region which can in turn
be used to analyze the effects of transportation improvement projects, identify areas
where congestion could occur in the future, and perform an air quality conformity
determination for the region.
The MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning (OTP) led the effort of developing
forecasts for future population and employment for Massachusetts and each MPO
region. This was a collaborative effort between MassDOT's Office of Transportation
Planning (OTP), the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC), and the
UMass Donahue Institute (UMDI). These three entities, in consultation with the
thirteen regional planning agencies, acted as the Projections Advisory Group tasked
with estimating the potential for future growth and decline across the state over 30
CHAPTER 13
Chapter 13 – Future Forecasts
170
years from 2010 to 2040. This chapter summarizes this process. A more detailed
description of this process is provided in the Appendix to the RTP.
Initial municipal population and employment projection estimates were provided by
MassDOT. Thereafter, PVPC staff adjusted the values by reallocating growth among
each community based on current trends and local staff knowledge of the
opportunity for additional growth and major development planned throughout all
forecast years. The resulting forecasts for population, households and employment
are shown in Tables 13-1 – 13-3. An alternate regional specific scenario for
employment estimates in the 2020 forecast year was subsequently developed by the
PVPC.
The regional projections presented in Tables 13-1 – 3 represent the demographic
data that was included as part of the statewide model for air quality conformity. The
alternate employment scenario presented in Table 13-4 was used in the PVPC
regional transportation model.
A. REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT SCENARIO
PVPC developed an in-house scenario for regional employment for use in the
regional transportation model and RTP. This scenario results in an additional 23,105
employees for the 2020 analysis year. It was developed based on the following
assumptions:
Employment growth out to 2020 largely mirrors that from 2010 – 2015.
Twenty four growth communities were identified:
Agawam, Amherst, Belchertown, Brimfield, Chicopee, E.
Longmeadow, Easthampton, Granby, Hadley, Hatfield, Holyoke,
Ludlow, Monson, Northampton, Palmer, South Hadley, Southampton,
Southwick, Springfield, Ware, West Springfield, Westfield, Wilbraham,
Williamsburg.
Growth communities received more growth as deemed necessary based on
the actual growth in employment from 2010 – 2015.
Non-growth communities (with the exception of Longmeadow) were allocated
growth based on the actual growth rate calculated from 2010 - 2015 for that
community.
2030 and 2040 employment estimates mirrored the projections developed by
MassDOT in conjunction with UMDI.
This alternate regional employment scenario will be used in the regional
transportation model but not in the statewide transportation model for air quality
conformity purposes.
Chapter 13 – Future Forecasts
171
Table 13-1 – Population Forecast for the Pioneer Valley Region
Chapter 13 – Future Forecasts
172
Table 13-2 – Household Forecast for the Pioneer Valley Region
Chapter 13 – Future Forecasts
173
Table 13-3– Employment Forecast for the Pioneer Valley Region
Chapter 13 – Future Forecasts
174
Table 13-4 – PVPC Scenario for Projected Employment Change
Chapter 13 – Future Forecasts
175
B. REGIONAL TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL
Travel demand forecasting is a major step in the transportation planning process.
By simulating the current roadway conditions and travel demand, deficiencies in the
transportation system are identified. This is an important tool in planning future
network enhancements and analyzing proposed improvement projects as travel
demand models are developed to simulate actual travel patterns and existing
demand conditions. PVPC uses the TransCAD software for its regional travel
demand model.
1. Regionally Significant Projects
Only “regionally significant” projects are required to be included in travel demand
modeling efforts. The final federal conformity regulations define regionally significant
as follows:
Regionally significant: a transportation project (other than an exempt project)
that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to
and from the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the region,
major planned developments such as new retail malls, sport complexes, etc., or
transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would be
included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network,
including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway
transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel.
“Non-Exempt” projects add capacity to the existing transportation system and must
be included as part of the air quality conformity determination for the RTP.
Examples of “Non-Exempt” projects include those defined as regionally significant in
addition to projects expected to widen roadways for the purpose of providing
additional travel lanes.
Projects considered regionally significant were included as part of the 2010 Baseline
model network and subsequent future model networks based on the project's
expected construction date. These projects include non exempt system expansion
projects that were financially constrained.
The 2010 base year roadway network includes the following:
Hadley: Widening Route 9 from two lanes to four lanes from West Street to
Coolidge Bridge.
Hadley/Northampton: Rehabilitation of the Coolidge Bridge with lane addition
and widening from three lanes to four lanes.
Springfield: Reverse the direction of four existing I-91 ramps.
Westfield: Route 10/202 Great River Bridge project.
Holyoke: Commercial Street extension project from the I-391 ramp to
Appleton Street.
Chester: Maple Street Bridge one way northbound, connecting Route 20 to
Main Street.
Chapter 13 – Future Forecasts
176
The 2020 model network will include the following regionally significant projects:
Wilbraham: Boston Road reconstruction. Currently one lane in each
direction, will become two lanes in each direction. Project starts at the
Springfield City Line and continues east to Stony Hill Road (0.28 miles), but
does not include Stony Hill Road. Expected in 2016.
Passenger Rail Service from Hartford, CT to Greenfield, MA. (Currently in
operation but not modeled.)
Extension of the North South Passenger Rail Service from Springfield to
serve stations in Holyoke, Northampton and Greenfield. (Anticipated to begin
this year.)
Reduction from 2 lanes of travel to one lane of travel in each direction along
Route 116 (Chicopee Street) in the City of Chicopee from Meadow Street to
Springfield Street (Davitt Bridge). This occurred in 2018.
The 2030 model network will include the following regionally significant projects:
Hadley -Route 9 widening from Middle Street to Maple Street from one lane in
each direction to two lanes in each direction. Expected in 2026.
The 2040 model network does not include any regionally significant projects:
Visionary Projects are discussed in Chapter 15 of the RTP and may be included as
part of the 2040 model network for analysis purposes as follows:
MassDOT I-91 Viaduct Recommendations:
Interstate I-91 and South End Bridge improvements
The installation of collector-distributor roads alongside I-91 mainline
and roundabouts at the South End Bridge and U.S. Route 5; reduction
in on/off ramps; realignment of I-91; and elimination of existing lane
drops in the vicinity of the South End Bridge.
Replacement of the Agawam Rotary with modified diamond
interchange; replacement of the South End Bridge and Westfield River
bridge to provide two travel lanes in each direction and a new shared-
use path; new acceleration and deceleration lanes and proper left and
right shoulders on both bridges; access to/from Meadow Street.
Replacement of the Plainfield Street bridges over I-91 and the existing
railroad tracks with a third westbound travel lane.
Relocation of the existing left side on ramp from I-291 to I-91 SB to a
more traditional right side on ramp.
A potential new Turnpike Exit in Blandford, pending the results of a current
study by MassDOT.
East/West Passenger Rail Service to Boston pending the outcome of the
current MassDOT study.
Chapter 13 – Future Forecasts
177
2. Estimated Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled
The total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) was estimated for the model years of 2010,
2020, 2030, and 2040. The total VMT is shown in Figure 13-1. The total VMT is
projected to increase by an average of 0.6% per year from 2010 to 2020 and 0.3%
per year from 2020 to 2040.
Figure 13-1 – Estimated Future VMT
3. Future Traffic Volume Projections
The PVPC regional travel demand model was used to estimate the Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) on key roadways throughout the region. These estimates are used to
identify the potential traffic impacts of the future growth scenarios for the 2020, 2030,
and 2040 analysis years. Projected changes in ADT on 5 area bridges are shown on
Figure 13-2. The projected ADT along the I-91 corridor is shown on Figure 13-3.
Additional projections for ADT along regional roadways are included as part of the
appendix to this chapter.
Chapter 13 – Future Forecasts
178
Figure 13-2 - Projected Average Daily Traffic on Area Bridges
Figure 13-3 - Projected Average Daily Traffic on Interstate 91
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
179
Photo: Columbia River Greenway, Westfield, MA
NEEDS, STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS
The vision of the RTP focuses on the attainment of a safe and dependable
transportation system. To achieve this vision and its associated goals, regional
transportation needs have been identified. The second step is to develop
appropriate strategies to address these needs while adhering to the policies and
objectives of the RTP. The third and final step is to advance planning studies and
implement improvement projects that will enhance the transportation system in a
manner consistent with our vision.
Emphasis areas were identified to assist in the achievement of the RTP vision and
goals. These emphasis areas are not intended to be a replacement for the regional
transportation goals. Instead they were established with the recognition that many
of the transportation improvement strategies included as part of the RTP Update can
meet multiple regional transportation goals. The five emphasis areas are:
Safety and Security (S&S)
The Movement of People (MoP)
The Movement of Goods (MoG)
The Movement of Information (MoI)
Sustainability (S)
CHAPTER 14
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
180
The transportation emphasis areas are related to each of the thirteen Regional
Transportation Goals. Needs and Strategies were developed for each emphasis
area to advance each of the thirteen goals without the need for repetitiveness. More
information on the five RTP Emphasis Areas is presented in Figure 14-1.
Figure 14-1 – RTP Emphasis Areas
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
181
A. NEEDS
Regional transportation needs have been identified and summarized by emphasis
area in Tables 14-1 – 14-5. Each need has been prioritized as either “Immediate,”
“Future,” or “Ongoing.” Immediate needs are areas that are a high priority and must
be addressed through the implementation of future planning studies and projects.
Future needs are considered to be areas of a medium importance that should be
addressed in the development of future projects. Ongoing needs are areas that
require routine attention and that are typically already included as part of the
regional transportation planning process.
Table 14-1 – Safety and Security Needs (S&S)
1 Reduce the number of fatal and incapacitating injury crashes for bicyclists, pedestrians and
vehicles in the region. Ongoing
2 Ongoing construction activities, special events and major incidents can negatively impact
emergency responders. Ongoing
3 Improve safety at freight facilities and at-grade railroad crossings. Ongoing
4 Improve knowledge and compliance with existing Emergency Evacuation plans. Ongoing
5 Protection of critical/at-risk regional transportation infrastructure. Ongoing
6 Ensure the safety and security of mass transit facilities and equipment. Ongoing
7 Provide for the safety and security of hazardous materials while in transportation and in storage. Immediate
8 Improve access to driver, bicycle, and pedestrian education. Immediate
9 Many roadways are unsuitable for bicycles, pedestrians and transit users. Immediate
10 Communities lack the proper resources to maintain bridges and culverts under their jurisdiction. Immediate
Table 14-2 – Needs to Enhance the Movement of People (MoP)
1 Proper integration of complete streets, traffic calming, parking and connectivity into
transportation improvements. Ongoing
2 Monitor peak hour congestion in the region. Ongoing
3 Expansion of the existing bicycle and pedestrian network. Ongoing
4 Maintain equity in providing transportation services and access throughout the region. Ongoing
5 Maintain and increase access to national passenger rail service in the Pioneer Valley. Ongoing
6 The regional transportation system does not address the requirements of an aging population. Ongoing
7 Improve coordination and notification of the review of roadway improvement projects. Ongoing
8 Secure adequate, dependable and equitable funding for a balanced regional transportation
system that serves both urban and rural areas in the region. Immediate
9 Increase the number of riders using transit to commute to work and school. Immediate
10 Expand transit options for inter-city, inter-regional passenger trips. Immediate
11 Transportation options for underserved populations to designated heating and cooling centers Immediate
12 Expand opportunities for tourism along designated Scenic Byways. Future
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
182
Table 14-3 – Needs to Enhance the Movement of Goods (MoG)
1 Support the development and maintenance of short line and regional railroads. Ongoing
2 Improve the communication between private carriers and state and local officials. Ongoing
3 Increase opportunities for air cargo in the region. Ongoing
4 Improve coordination with class one carriers serving the region. Immediate
5 Consider impacts on freight when making future transportation investments. Future
Table 14-4 – Needs to Enhance the Movement of Information (MoI)
1 Improve distribution and access of real-time highway and transit information. Ongoing
2 Coordinate efficient use of existing rights of way to house communication infrastructure. Ongoing
3 Educate communities on the advantages of ITS and expand the use of ITS in the region. Ongoing
4 Outdated navigation applications provide incorrect travel directions. Ongoing
5 Increase public and community involvement in the transportation planning process. Ongoing
6 Improve the availability of high speed internet and wireless communication access in the region. Immediate
7 Develop and implement policies on autonomous vehicles. Immediate
8 On demand services require a smart phone and cellular service which are not easily available to
low income households and rural areas. Immediate
Table 14-5 – Summary of Needs to Enhance Sustainability (S)
1 Protect existing natural, historical, and cultural resources. Ongoing
2 Reduce vehicle miles traveled in the region to minimize impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions and energy consumption. Ongoing
3 Raise the average vehicle occupancy rate for the region. Ongoing
4 Consider the impacts of large scale development on surrounding communities. Ongoing
5 Reduce impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff from roads and highways. Ongoing
6 Promote transit oriented development and pedestrian friendly development. Immediate
7 Reduce visual and light pollution while ensuring pedestrian and bicycle visibility. Immediate
8 Incorporate renewable energy into transportation improvement projects and transportation
facilities. Future
9 Reduce sprawl and foster investment in existing urban areas. Future
10 Provide for fish and wildlife migration and passage in transportation projects. Future
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
183
B. STRATEGIES
Strategies were developed to address the regional needs identified for each
emphasis area. These strategies are summarized in Table 14-6 – 14-10. Again,
each strategy has been prioritized as either Immediate, Future or Ongoing.
Immediate strategies are considered a high priority and must be advanced in the
short term. Future strategies are considered to be areas of a medium importance
that should be considered during the development of future projects. Ongoing
strategies are typically already included as part of the regional transportation
planning process.
Recognizing that regional strategies can address more than one need, a third
column has been added to each strategy table to identify the corresponding regional
need(s). This column is abbreviated for space considerations and includes the
Emphasis Area abbreviation followed by the corresponding need number(s) from
Tables 14-1 – 14-5. Each table has also been color coded by Emphasis Area to
match Figure 14-1.
Table 14-6 – Safety and Security Strategies
Priority Need(s)
Addressed
1 Develop a regional list of high crash locations. Incorporate “Vision Zero” strategies in safety planning. Ongoing S&S 1,9
S 7
2 Work with appropriate agencies to improve the consistency of crash records and reporting to assist in
identifying the contributing factors to crashes, fatalities, and incapacitating injuries. Ongoing S&S 1
3
Provide accommodations for pedestrians, transit users, and bicyclists in roadway and bridge design
and the maintenance of existing facilities. Promote connectivity as part of all transportation
improvement projects.
Ongoing S&S 1,9
4 Implement communications and ITS technologies to improve public transit safety, and security. Ongoing S&S 2,6
5 Develop an inventory of critical transportation choke points, haz-mat routes, and users. Ongoing S&S 5,7
6 Promote the Safe Routes to School program. Ongoing S&S 1,8
7 Promote and advance the use of roadway safety audits in the Pioneer Valley. Ongoing S&S 1
8 Work with emergency responders to update regional evacuation plans. Ongoing S&S 4
9 Identify and advocate for additional revenue sources to bring the regional transportation system into
a state of good repair. Immediate S&S 10,
MoP 8
10 Improve intersection geometry and upgrade traffic signal control equipment to improve safety.
Consider roundabouts as alternatives to new traffic signals. Immediate S&S 1
11 Develop appropriate educational resources to promote safety for drivers, bicyclists, transit users, and
pedestrians. Immediate S&S 8
12 Limit opportunities to access freight rail facilities and infrastructure. Immediate S&S 3
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
184
Table 14-7 – Strategies to Assist in the Movement of People
Priority Need(s)
Addressed
1 Seek innovative methods to increase transit ridership, including express routes and flex vans. Ongoing MoP 6,8,9
S 2,3,6
2 Monitor congested areas using the regional Congestion Management Process (CMP). Ongoing MoP 2
3 Develop a regional list of top congested locations. Ongoing MoP 2
4 Promote the implementation of cycle tracks. Ongoing MoP 3
5 Advance and promote the principles of pavement management. Invest in the repair and maintenance
of existing transportation infrastructure. Ongoing MoP 8
6 Conduct parking studies for downtown areas and village centers for all modes of transportation.
Identify locations for park and ride lots and supporting express transit service. Ongoing MoP 9,10
S&S 9
7 Work with local communities to incorporate the concepts of Complete Streets and Traffic Calming
into transportation improvement projects. Ongoing MoP 1,3
S&S 9
8 Maintain equity in providing transportation services and access throughout the region. Ongoing MoP 4 MoI
8
9 Incorporate TAP eligible components into transportation improvement projects. Ongoing MoP 12
10 Develop a comprehensive Commuter Rail network. Immediate MoP 5
S 2,3,6
11 Work with the State and local communities to enhance education and use of GeoDOT and the MaPIT
tool. Immediate MoP 7
12 Advocate for better collaboration and coordination between all transportation service providers to
allow for more opportunities to provide connections between existing services. Immediate MoP
5,10,11
13 Identify sources of revenue for local transportation projects. Immediate MoP 8
14 Promote compact “Village Center” development to include senior and low-income housing, access to
healthy food and medical services via a variety of modes of transportation. Future MoP 3,6
15 Encourage private connections to the regional bikeway network. Future MoP 3
Table 14-8 – Strategies to Enhance the Movement of Goods
Priority Need(s)
Addressed
1 Enhance directional and guide signs to/from the regional highway system and major
destinations. Ongoing MoG 1,3
2 Meet with class one carriers on a regular basis to enhance the regional freight rail network. Ongoing MoG 4
3 Incorporate appropriate design measures in roadway improvement projects to accommodate
freight movements. Ongoing MoG 2,5
4 Improve the connections between the national highway network and air and rail intermodal
terminals, freight yards, and distribution centers. Immediate MoG 1,3
5 Develop incentives to encourage businesses to utilize a mix of freight transportation
alternatives. Immediate MoG 1,3
6 Identify and mitigate vertical clearance issues at underpasses. Immediate MoG 5
7 Use the regional CMP to identify areas of freight congestion. Immediate MoG 1,2,3
MoP 2
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
185
Table 14-9 – Strategies to Enhance the Movement of Information
Priority Need(s)
Addressed
1 Encourage the integration of cameras, security devices and other ITS equipment as part of
transit and roadway improvement projects. Ongoing MoI 1
2 Provide training for local communities and stakeholders to increase their understanding of
various ITS technologies and equipment. Ongoing MoI 3
3 Ensure consistency with the ITS Regional Architecture for Western Massachusetts. Ongoing MoI 1,2,3,6,7
4 Monitor emerging information and communications technologies to stay current with state-of-
the-art information systems and identify opportunities for expansion of existing service. Ongoing MoI 1,7,8
5 Expand efforts to incorporate more feedback into the regional transportation planning process. Ongoing MoI 5 MoP 7
6 Continue to refine and improve the regional TEC project prioritization system as necessary. Ongoing MoI 5 MoP 7
7 Educate local communities on the project development process. Ongoing MoI 5 MoP 7
8 Encourage and promote telecommuting and video conferencing. Ongoing MoI 5 S 2
9 Expand real-time passenger and travel information systems. Immediate MoI 1,3
10 Pursue public/private partnerships to reduce costs and enhance information access. Immediate MoI 2,6
11 Pursue relationships with application developers to ensure they have access to the latest
transportation network. Future MoI 4
12 Incorporate best practices to accommodate autonomous vehicles in infrastructure projects. Future MoI 7
Table 14-10 – Strategies that Enhance Sustainability
Priority Need(s)
Addressed
1 Mitigate the adverse impact of sprawl by creating incentives for downtown revitalization,
promoting smart growth and mixed use development. Ongoing S 2,3,4,9
2 Divert highway runoff through stormwater Best Management Practices, such as rain gardens . Ongoing S 5
3 Restore or maintain connected habitats that allow for movement of fish, water, and wildlife. Ongoing S 1,10
4 Encourage the use of permeable materials and reduce the use of concrete. Ongoing S 5
5 Assist local communities with their sub division needs. Ongoing S 4,6
6 Designate wild and scenic corridors along highways and streams of historic and natural
significance to promote tourism. Ongoing S 1
7 Implement the Regional Clean Energy Plan to promote energy efficient travel modes and
encourage local fleets to use clean fuels. Ongoing S 2,3
8 Implement transportation based strategies identified in local Hazard Mitigation Plans. Ongoing S 1
9 Encourage the planting of shade trees in urban areas and along shared use paths to improve
air quality and modulate extreme weather conditions. Ongoing S 6,8
10 Work with major employers to develop incentives to decrease single occupant vehicle use. Immediate S 2,3,4 MoI 6
11 Mitigate the impacts of roadway salt and chemical usage during snow season. Immediate S 1
12 Refer new TIP projects to the Pioneer Valley Sustainability Toolkit. Immediate S 5,7,8,10
13 Incorporate energy efficient lighting, solar power, and electric vehicle charging stations as part
of transportation improvement projects. Immediate S 7,8
14 Improve education and enforcement of idling reduction programs to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Immediate S 2
15 Identify hazardous locations susceptible to drought and flooding along major roadways. Immediate S 1
16 Prohibit billboards and screen lighting on highways. Future S 7
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
186
C. PROJECTS
The projects section of the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan was reorganized to
provide greater clarity. In previous versions of this document, every approved project
as well as any future project believed to be ready for construction within the life of
the plan was identified in this section. Instead, PVPC has identified three types of
projects to be included in this section:
Projects included in the 2020-2024Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) (Table 14-12)
Major Regional projects (Table 14-13)
Visionary projects (Table 14-14)
Major regional projects are defined as projects with an inflated cost greater than $20
million. Visionary projects include any project that either does not fit into financial
constraint due to cost and/or a priority project that may not be ready to construct
during the lifetime of this plan. A listing of all approved projects, major projects and
visionary projects can be found in the appendix to the RTP. Chapter 15 of the RTP
provides additional information on the anticipated transportation revenue over the life
of the plan and the regional scenario for how transportation funding can be allocated
by the type of project.
The impacts of future transportation improvement projects have been analyzed
using the Pioneer Valley regional transportation model where applicable.
Improvement alternatives with the proposed project in place were compared to
existing conditions to identify the impact of the improvement on existing traffic
volumes and travel times. This information is summarized in Chapter 13.
1. PROJECT PRIORITY CRITERIA AND SELECTION
In 2014 PVPC with the assistance of the JTC completed a comprehensive update to
the Transportation Evaluation Criteria (TEC) for the PVMPO. The purpose of the
update was to bring the TEC up to the latest federal requirements. In 2018, PVPC
staff with the assistance of the JTC reviewed the effectiveness of the TEC to ensure
the criteria was working as anticipated and met the requirements of the FAST Act.
All projects included in the TIP have been evaluated and assigned a priority rating
using the TEC scoring as adopted by the MPO. This process is used as a
management tool to identify projects of regional priority and program them in the
TIP. Table 14-11 provides a summary of the TEC scoring.
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
187
System Preservation,
Modernization and
Efficiency
Livability Mobility Smart Growth and
Economic Development Safety and Security Environment and Climate
Change Quality of Life Environmental Justice
and Title VI
Improves Substandard
Pavement
Design is consistent with
Complete Streets policies
Improves efficiency,
reliability and
attractiveness of public
transit
Encourages development
around existing
infrastructure
Reduces number and
severity of collisions
Preserves floodplains and
wetlands
Enhances or preserves
greenways and blueways
Reduces and limits
disproportionate impacts
on an EJ community
8 3 4 2 7 1 1 0.5
Improves Intersection
Operations
Provides multi-modal
access to a downtown,
village center, or
employment center
Improves existing peak
hour LOS
Prioritizes transportation
investments that support
land use and economic
development goals
Promotes safe and
accessible pedestrian and
bike environment
Promotes green
infrastructure and low
impact development to
reduce stormwater
impacts
Improves access to parks,
open lands and open
space
Reduces and limits
disproportionate impacts
on Title VI community
6 2 6 1 5 2 1 0.5
In a Congestion
Management Process Area Reduces auto-dependency Reduces traffic congestion
Provides services to a
TOD, TND or cluster
development district
Improves emergency
response
Reduced impervious
surfaces Improves access to jobs Improves transit for EJ
populations
5 2 7 0.5 4 0.5 2 1
Project serves a targeted
development site
Supports mixed-use
downtowns and village
centers
Protects or enhances
environmental assets
Preserves historical and
cultural resources
Improves transit for Title
VI populations
2 0.5 0.5 0.5 1
Completes off-road bike
and ped network
Improves Intermodal
Connections
Supports Brownfield
redevelopment
Preserves prime
agricultural land Creates an EJ Burden
3 4 0.5 0.5 -5
Reduces congestion on
freight routes Improves air quality Provides safe and reliable
access to education Creates an Title VI Burden
2 1 0.5 -5
Reduces CO2 emissions Supports designated
scenic byways
1 0.5
Promotes mode shift Implements ITS Strategies
1 2
Improves fish and wildlife
passage
Improves Network
Wayfinding
1 1
Supports Green
Communities Health Impact Assessment
0.5 1
Improves storm resilience
Length of Time Project has
been in queue for TIP
funding
3 1
Maximum Score
19 12 17 10 16 12 11 3
Table 14-11 – TEC Scoring Summary
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
188
2. Development of the FY2020 – FY2024 TIP
As the lead planning agency for the MPO, PVPC accepts the responsibility for
developing the TIP in a cooperative process with members of the MPO and the
general public. The final TIP is voted on for endorsement at a formal meeting of the
MPO. The endorsed TIP project listing is included in the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) and requires endorsement by the Governor.
The MPO relies on a transportation advisory committee, the Joint Transportation
Committee (JTC) to carry out the cooperative process during TIP development. The
JTC is a group of community appointed officials, MPO member representatives,
public and private transportation providers, citizens, and special interest groups and
agencies. The JTC establishes and recommends to the MPO procedures for
submitting, prioritizing and selecting projects for the TIP. PVPC staff provides the
technical support to conduct the TIP development activities for the JTC.
Transportation improvement projects included as part of the FY2020 – FY2024 TIP
for the Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization must come from a
conforming regional transportation plan. Projects included in the FY2020 – FY2024
TIP conform to the 2016 Update the RTP and are presented in this plan for
informational purposes. A summary of these projects is presented in Table 14-12.
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
189
Table 14-12 – 2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
TIP Year Project ID Municipality Project Funding Total Funds Additional Information
2020 607502 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT KING STREET,
NORTH STREET & SUMMER STREET AND AT KING STREET & FINN
STREET
STBG 2,460,910$ 1,968,728$ 492,182$ Construction / (YOE $3,384,309) / 65 TEC /
25% STBG, CMAQ
2020 607502 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT KING STREET,
NORTH STREET & SUMMER STREET AND AT KING STREET & FINN
STREET
CMAQ 923,399$ 738,719$ 184,680$ Construction / (YOE $3,384,309) / 65 TEC /
25% STBG, CMAQ
2020 604434 Chicopee CHICOPEE- RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ON FULLER ROAD,
FROM MEMORIAL DR (RTE 33) TO SHAWINIGAN DR (2.0 MILES)
STBG 6,025,658$ 4,820,526$ 1,205,132$ Construction / (YOE $8,034,211) / 49.5
TEC / 75% STBG, HSIP
2020 604434 Chicopee CHICOPEE- RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ON FULLER ROAD,
FROM MEMORIAL DR (RTE 33) TO SHAWINIGAN DR (2.0 MILES)
HSIP 2,008,553$ 1,807,698$ 200,855$ Construction / (YOE $8,034,211) / 49.5
TEC / 75% STBG, HSIP
2020 608236 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMON ROAD, FROM
ROUTE 9 TO ROUTE 5, INCLUDES DRAINAGE SYSTEM REPAIRS & SLOPE
STABILIZATION AT THE NORWOTTUCK
STBG 10,043,653$ 8,034,922$ 2,008,731$ Construction / (YOE $10,043,653) / 66.5
TEC / PS&E STBG
2020 608718 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT BERKSHIRE
AVENUE, COTTAGE AND HARVEY STREETS
STBG 1,254,413$ 1,003,530$ 250,883$ Construction / (YOE $2,280,751) / 41.5
TEC Score 25% STBG, HSIP
2020 608718 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT BERKSHIRE
AVENUE, COTTAGE AND HARVEY STREETS
HSIP 1,026,338$ 923,704$ 102,634$ Construction / (YOE $2,280,751) / 41.5
TEC Score 25% STBG, HSIP
2020 PV0001 Multiple NORTHAMPTON, AMHERST, CHICOPPE, EASTHAMPTON, HADLEY,
HOLYOKE, SOUTH HADLEY, SPRINGFIELD, and WEST SPRINGFIELD:
ValleyBike share (phase II)
STBG 1,200,000$ 960,000$ 240,000$ Construction / YOE $1,200,000 / 35.5 TEC
STBG
2020 PV0002 Multiple P 21 Express Year 3 CMAQ 500,000$ 400,000$ 100,000$ Funding Year 3 / STBG
2020 608631 Westhampton WESTHAMPTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-27-005, KINGS HIGHWAY
OVER N BRANCH MANHAN RIVER
STBG-BR-OFF 1,937,318$ 1,549,854$ 387,464$
2020 400103 Westfield WESTFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-25-006, ROUTE 10/202
(SOUTHWICK ROAD) OVER THE LITTLE RIVER
NHPP-On 13,276,980$ 10,621,584$ 2,655,396$
2020 606552 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION, N-19-059, I-91 OVER US
5/BMRR & N-19-060, I-91 OVER HOCKANUM ROAD
NHPP-On 4,671,793$ 3,737,434$ 934,359$ AC Year 1 of 5, Total Cost $56,891,767
2020 608473 South Hadley SOUTH HADLEY - RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 116 NHPP 4,987,500$ 3,990,000$ 997,500$
2020 608575 Multiple CHICOPEE TO HOLYOKE- GUIDE AND TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON
I-391
HSIP 1,861,310$ 1,675,179$ 186,131$
2020 602911 Chicopee CHICOPEE- CONNECTICUT RIVERWALK & BIKEWAY CONSTRUCTION,
FROM BOAT RAMP NEAR I-90 TO NASH FIELD (2.5 MILES), INCLUDES
NEW BRIDGE C-13-060 OVER OVERFLOW CHANNEL
CMAQ 3,041,445$ 2,433,156$ 608,289$
2020 Total 55,219,269$ 44,665,036$ 10,554,234$
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
190
Table 14-12 – 2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Continued
TIP Year Project ID Municipality Project Funding Total Funds Additional Information
2021 607773 Westfield WESTFIELD- IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20, COURT
STEET & WESTERN AVENUE, LLOYDS HILL ROAD TO HIGH STREET/MILL
STREET INTERSECTION (PHASE II)
STBG 6,136,732$ 4,909,386$ 1,227,346$ Construction / (YOE $8,479,708) / 52.5
TEC / 25% STBG,CMAQ,HSIP,TAP
2021 607773 Westfield WESTFIELD- IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20, COURT
STEET & WESTERN AVENUE, LLOYDS HILL ROAD TO HIGH STREET/MILL
STREET INTERSECTION (PHASE II)
CMAQ 669,323$ 535,458$ 133,865$ Construction / (YOE $8,479,708) / 52.5
TEC / 25% STBG,CMAQ,HSIP,TAP
2021 607773 Westfield WESTFIELD- IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20, COURT
STEET & WESTERN AVENUE, LLOYDS HILL ROAD TO HIGH STREET/MILL
STREET INTERSECTION (PHASE II)
HSIP 1,115,769$ 1,004,192$ 111,577$ Construction / (YOE $8,479,708) / 52.5
TEC / 25% STBG,CMAQ,HSIP,TAP
2021 607773 Westfield WESTFIELD- IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20, COURT
STEET & WESTERN AVENUE, LLOYDS HILL ROAD TO HIGH STREET/MILL
STREET INTERSECTION (PHASE II)
TAP 557,884$ 446,307$ 111,577$ Construction / (YOE $8,479,708) / 52.5
TEC / 25% STBG,CMAQ,HSIP,TAP
2021 608782 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT COTTAGE STREET,
INDUSTRY AVENUE AND ROBBINS ROAD
CMAQ 2,858,325$ 2,286,660$ 571,665$ Construction / (YOE $2,858,325) / 46.5
TEC Score 25% CMAQ
2021 608084 Amherst AMHERST- IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON ROUTES 9 & 116,
FROM UNIVERSITY DRIVE TO SOUTH PLEASANT STREET (0.8 MILES)
STBG 3,489,558$ 2,791,646$ 697,912$ Construction / (YOE $4,048,448) / 53.5
TEC / 25% STBG, TAP
2021 608084 Amherst AMHERST- IMPROVEMENTS & RELATED WORK ON ROUTES 9 & 116,
FROM UNIVERSITY DRIVE TO SOUTH PLEASANT STREET (0.8 MILES)
TAP 558,890$ 447,112$ 111,778$ Construction / (YOE $4,048,448) / 53.5
TEC / 25% STBG, TAP
2021 605032 Hadley HADLEY- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 9, FROM MIDDLE STREET TO
MAPLE/SOUTH MAPLE STREET
STBG 10,917,509$ 8,734,007$ 2,183,502$ Construction / (YOE $24,849,741) A/C
Year 1 of 2 FFY 2021 $10,917,509, FFY 2022
$13,932,231 /61 TEC / 25% / STBG
2021 608460 Hadley HADLEY- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, H-01-005, BAY ROAD (ROUTE 47)
OVER THE FORT RIVER
NHPP-On 5,714,160$ 4,571,328$ 1,142,832$
2021 606552 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION, N-19-059, I-91 OVER US
5/BMRR & N-19-060, I-91 OVER HOCKANUM ROAD
NHPP-On 9,539,115$ 7,631,292$ 1,907,823$ AC Year 2 of 5, Total Cost $56,891,767
2021 608487 Westfield WESTFIELD - RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTES 10 AND
202
NHPP 2,730,000$ 2,184,000$ 546,000$
2021 608489 Wilbraham WILBRAHAM - RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 20 NHPP 8,283,600$ 6,626,880$ 1,656,720$
2021 608413 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- ROCKY HILL GREENWAY MULTI-USE TRAIL, FROM
THE MANHAN RAIL TRAIL TO ROCKY HILL ROAD (0.4 MILES)
CMAQ 812,026$ 649,621$ 162,405$
2021 Total 53,382,891$
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
191
Table 14-12 – 2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Continued
TIP Year Project ID Municipality Project Funding Total Funds Additional Information
2022 608374 West Springfield WEST SPRINGFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF MEMORIAL AVENUE
(ROUTE 147), FROM COLONY ROAD TO THE MEMORIAL AVENUE
ROTARY (1.4 MILES)
STBG 4,251,369$ 3,401,095$ 850,274$ Construction / (YOE $24,348,731) AC Year
1 of 2 FFY 2022 $4,251,369 FFY2023
$20,097,362 / 70 TEC / 25% / STBG
2022 608577 Easthampton EASTHAMPTON- IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED WORK ON UNION
STREET (ROUTE 141) FROM PAYSON AVENUE TO HIGH STREET (0.36
MILES)
STBG 3,560,664$ 2,848,531$ 712,133$ Construction / (YOE $3,560,664) / 60 TEC /
Pre 25% STBG
2022 605032 Hadley HADLEY- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 9, FROM MIDDLE STREET TO
MAPLE/SOUTH MAPLE STREET
STBG 11,284,113$ 9,027,290$ 2,256,823$ Construction / (YOE $24,849,741) A/C
Year 2 of 2 FFY 2021 $10,917,509, FFY 2022
$13,932,231 /61 TEC / 25% STBG, HSIP,
TAP
2022 605032 Hadley HADLEY- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 9, FROM MIDDLE STREET TO
MAPLE/SOUTH MAPLE STREET
HSIP 2,118,494$ 1,906,645$ 211,849$ Construction / (YOE $24,849,741) A/C
Year 2 of 2 FFY 2021 $10,917,509, FFY 2022
$13,932,231 /61 TEC / 25% STBG, HSIP,
TAP
2022 605032 Hadley HADLEY- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 9, FROM MIDDLE STREET TO
MAPLE/SOUTH MAPLE STREET
TAP 529,624$ 423,699$ 105,925$ Construction / (YOE $24,849,741) A/C
Year 2 of 2 FFY 2021 $10,917,509, FFY 2022
$13,932,231 /61 TEC / 25% STBG, HSIP,
TAP
2022 606450 Holyoke HOLYOKE-TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADES AT 15 INTERSECTIONS ALONG
HIGH & MAPLE STREETS
STBG 5,095,339$ 4,076,271$ 1,019,068$ Construction / (YOE $9,884,646
($4,789,307 in statewide funding) =
$5,095,339) / 63 TEC / 25 / STBG
2022 608869 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, N-19-068, OLD
SPRINGFIELD ROAD OVER THE MILL RIVER
STBG-BR-OFF 3,981,000$ 3,184,800$ 796,200$
2022 608847 Wales WALES- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-02-002, HOLLAND ROAD OVER
WALES BROOK
STBG-BR-OFF 540,096$ 432,077$ 108,019$
2022 608846 Monson MONSON- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, M-27-015, OLD WALES ROAD
OVER CONANT BROOK
STBG-BR-OFF 1,742,784$ 1,394,227$ 348,557$
2022 606552 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION, N-19-059, I-91 OVER US
5/BMRR & N-19-060, I-91 OVER HOCKANUM ROAD
NHPP-On 11,128,545$ 8,902,836$ 2,225,709$ AC Year 3 of 5, Total Cost $56,891,767
2022 608466 Multiple BELCHERTOWN-GRANBY RESURFACING AND RELATED WORK ON
ROUTE 202
NHPP 3,372,062$ 2,697,650$ 674,412$
2022 604209 Multiple HOLYOKE-WEST SPRINGFIELD- REHABILITATION OF ROUTE 5 NHPP 14,489,928$ 11,591,942$ 2,897,986$
2022 606450 Holyoke HOLYOKE- TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADES AT 15 INTERSECTIONS ALONG
HIGH & MAPLE STREETS
CMAQ 4,789,307$ 3,831,446$ 957,861$
2022 608565 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- IMPROVEMENTS ON ST. JAMES AVENUE AT ST. JAMES
BOULEVARD AND CAREW STREET
HSIP 2,592,000$ 2,332,800$ 259,200$
2022 608560 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- IMPROVEMENTS ON ST. JAMES AVENUE AT TAPLEY
STREET
HSIP 1,716,574$ 1,544,916$ 171,657$
2022 608719 Multiple AMHERST- BELCHERTOWN- NORWOTTUCK RAIL TRAIL RESURFACING,
FROM STATION ROAD IN AMHERST TO WARREN WRIGHT ROAD IN
BELCHERTOWN (1.5 MILES)
CMAQ 1,620,000$ 1,296,000$ 324,000$
2022 608157 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- MCKNIGHT COMMUNITY TRAIL CONSTRUCTION, FROM
ARMORY STREET TO HAYDEN AVENUE (1.5 MILES)
CMAQ 3,694,624$ 2,955,699$ 738,925$
2022 Total 76,506,523$
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
192
Table 14-12 – 2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Continued
TIP Year Project ID Municipality Project Funding Total Funds Additional Information
2023 608374 West Springfield WEST SPRINGFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF MEMORIAL AVENUE
(ROUTE 147), FROM COLONY ROAD TO THE MEMORIAL AVENUE
ROTARY (1.4 MILES)
STBG 14,427,945$ 11,542,356$ 2,885,589$ Construction / (YOE $24,348,731) AC Year
2 of 2 FFY 2022 $4,251,369 FFY2023
$20,097,362 / 70 TEC / 25% / STBG,
CMAQ, TAP
2023 608374 West Springfield WEST SPRINGFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF MEMORIAL AVENUE
(ROUTE 147), FROM COLONY ROAD TO THE MEMORIAL AVENUE
ROTARY (1.4 MILES)
CMAQ 3,239,667$ 2,591,734$ 647,933$ Construction / (YOE $24,348,731) AC Year
2 of 2 FFY 2022 $4,251,369 FFY2023
$20,097,362 / 70 TEC / 25% / STBG,
CMAQ, TAP
2023 608374 West Springfield WEST SPRINGFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF MEMORIAL AVENUE
(ROUTE 147), FROM COLONY ROAD TO THE MEMORIAL AVENUE
ROTARY (1.4 MILES)
TAP 809,917$ 647,934$ 161,983$ Construction / (YOE $24,348,731) AC Year
2 of 2 FFY 2022 $4,251,369 FFY2023
$20,097,362 / 70 TEC / 25% / STBG,
CMAQ, TAP
2023 608374 West Springfield WEST SPRINGFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF MEMORIAL AVENUE
(ROUTE 147), FROM COLONY ROAD TO THE MEMORIAL AVENUE
ROTARY (1.4 MILES)
HSIP 1,619,833$ 1,457,850$ 161,983$ Construction / (YOE $24,348,731) AC Year
2 of 2 FFY 2022 $4,251,369 FFY2023
$20,097,362 / 70 TEC / 25% / STBG,
CMAQ, TAP
2023 606895 Granby GRANBY- IMPROVEMENTS @ 2 LOCATIONS ON ROUTE 202: SCHOOL
STREET & FIVE CORNERS
STBG 1,866,279$ 1,493,023$ 373,256$ Construction / (YOE $2,865,964) / 42 TEC /
25% STBG, HSIP
2023 606895 Granby GRANBY- IMPROVEMENTS @ 2 LOCATIONS ON ROUTE 202: SCHOOL
STREET & FIVE CORNERS
HSIP 999,685$ 899,717$ 99,969$ Construction / (YOE $2,865,964) / 42 TEC /
25% STBG, HSIP
2023 608163 Wales WALES- RECONSTRUCTION & IMPROVEMENTS ON MONSON ROAD,
FROM THE MONSON T.L. TO REED HILL ROAD (1.5 MILES)
STBG 4,185,828$ 3,348,662$ 837,166$ Construction / YOE $4,158,828 / 39.5 TEC /
25% STBG
2023 609120 Ludlow LUDLOW- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, L-16-026, PINEY LANE OVER BROAD
BROOK
STP-BR-OFF 577,920$ 462,336$ 115,584$
2023 608848 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-24-016, ARMORY STREET
OVER CSX MAINLINE
NHPP-On 5,723,440$ 4,578,752$ 1,144,688$
2023 608853 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-24-026, ARMORY STREET
OVER CSX
NHPP-On 3,948,640$ 3,158,912$ 789,728$
2023 606552 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION, N-19-059, I-91 OVER US
5/BMRR & N-19-060, I-91 OVER HOCKANUM ROAD
NHPP-On 11,378,353$ 9,102,682$ 2,275,671$ AC Year 4 of 5, Total Cost $56,891,767
2023 606156 Holyoke HOLYOKE- RECONSTRUCTION OF I-91 INTERCHANGE 17 & ROUTE 141 HSIP 6,735,389$ 6,061,850$ 673,539$
2023 607823 Southampton SOUTHAMPTON- GREENWAY RAIL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION, FROM
COLEMAN ROAD TO ROUTE 10 (3.5 MILES)
CMAQ 6,810,409$ 5,448,327$ 1,362,082$
2023 Total 62,323,305$
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
193
Table 14-12 – 2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Continued
TIP Year Project ID Municipality Project Funding Total Funds Additional Information
2024 608881 Longmeadow LONGMEADOW- SPRINGFIELD- RESURFACING AND INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS ON LONGMEADOW STREET (ROUTE 5) AND
CONVERSE STREET (0.84 MILES)
STBG 6,064,675$ 4,851,740$ 1,212,935$ Construction (YOE $6,064,675 / 57.5 TEC /
Pre 25% / STBG
2024 609287 Worthington WORTHINGTON- RECONSTRUCTION & RELATED WORK ON ROUTE 143
(PHASE II) FROM PERU T.L. TO COLD STREET
STBG 9,957,440$ 7,965,952$ 1,991,488$ Construction / (YOE $9,957,440) / 41 TEC /
75% Project Phase I funded in FFY 2019
Total project cost was $16,300,000 / STBG
2024 608717 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF SUMNER AVENUE AT
DICKINSON STREET AND BELMONT AVENUE (THE "X")
STBG 6,972,689$ 5,578,151$ 1,394,538$ Construction / YOE $11,672,689) 70.5 TEC
/ 25% STBG, CMAQ, HSIP, TAP
2024 608717 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF SUMNER AVENUE AT
DICKINSON STREET AND BELMONT AVENUE (THE "X")
CMAQ 3,000,000$ 2,400,000$ 600,000$ Construction / YOE $11,672,689) 70.5 TEC
/ 25% STBG, CMAQ, HSIP, TAP
2024 608717 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF SUMNER AVENUE AT
DICKINSON STREET AND BELMONT AVENUE (THE "X")
HSIP 1,100,000$ 990,000$ 110,000$ Construction / YOE $11,672,689) 70.5 TEC
/ 25% STBG, CMAQ, HSIP, TAP
2024 608717 Springfield SPRINGFIELD- RECONSTRUCTION OF SUMNER AVENUE AT
DICKINSON STREET AND BELMONT AVENUE (THE "X")
TAP 600,000$ 480,000$ 120,000$ Construction / YOE $11,672,689) 70.5 TEC
/ 25% STBG, CMAQ, HSIP, TAP
2024 606552 Northampton NORTHAMPTON- BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION, N-19-059, I-91 OVER US
5/BMRR & N-19-060, I-91 OVER HOCKANUM ROAD
NHPP-On 20,173,960$ 16,139,168$ 4,034,792$ AC Year 5 of 5, Total Cost $56,891,767
2024 609395 Multiple BELCHERTOWN-WARE - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION AND RELATED
WORK ON ROUTE 9
NHPP 8,298,350$ 6,638,680$ 1,659,670$
2024 Total 56,167,114$
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
194
Figure 14-2 – RTP Projects by Type
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
195
3. Major Regional Projects
Major regional projects are defined as a project with an inflated project cost that
exceeds $20,000,000. Over the next 5 years, there are several projects in the
$20,000,000 range at various stages of design. These projects are competing with
the complete backlog of projects for regional target funds. The PVMPO programs
approximately $26,000,000 in regional target funds per federal fiscal year. On
average the PVMPO funds 5 to 6 roadway project per fiscal year. It is difficult to
commit 75% of regional target funds in a given year to a single project as less
projects advance through the TIP process. As a result, it may take high scoring
projects much longer to navigate the TIP process. The Major Regional Projects are
listed in Table 14-13 and shown in Figure 14-2.
Table 14-13 – Major Regional Projects
D. VISIONARY PROJECTS
Visionary Projects are defined as projects that would likely result in an improvement
to the regional transportation system but do not have an identified source of
construction funding. Visionary projects are not included as part of the Financial or
Air Quality Conformity components of the RTP. The RTP will need to be amended
to include any identified visionary projects as funding becomes available in order to
demonstrate financial constraint and conformance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act Amendments.
Municipality SID Project Name and Description Design TEC Score 4% Inflation
Agawam 603372 RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 5
CONNECTOR TO ROUTE 57, INCLUDES A-05-
013 & A-05-014
0 53.0 25,572,465$
Hadley 605032 HADLEY- RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 9,
FROM MIDDLE STREET TO MAPLE/SOUTH
MAPLE STREET
25 50.0 24,849,741$
Northampton 606552 NORTHAMPTON– BRIDGE REPLACEMENT,
N-19-059, I-91 OVER US ROUTE 5 AND
B&MRR, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, N-19-060, I-
91 OVER HOCKANUM ROAD AND
IMPROVEMENTS TO I-91/INTERCHANGE 19
61,534,135$
West Springfield 604746 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, W-21-006, CSX
RAILROAD OVER UNION STREET
0 21.0 26,131,364$
West Springfield 608374 RECONSTRUCTION OF MEMORIAL AVENUE
(ROUTE 147), FROM COLONY ROAD TO THE
MEMORIAL AVENUE ROTARY (1.4 MILES)
25 70.0 24,384,803$
Williamsburg 608787 CONSTRUCTION OF THE "MILL RIVER
GREENWAY" SHARED USE PATH
0 29.0 21,315,518$
1,925,961,446$
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
196
Table 14-14 – Visionary Projects
1. I-91 Viaduct - Springfield
The Interstate 91 Viaduct Study was initiated by MassDOT to study alternatives for
the future replacement of the elevated portion of the Interstate 91 in the city of
Springfield. This study, completed in 2018, developed a series of conceptual
alternatives that focus on potential structural changes to the I-91 Viaduct as well as
improvements to improve safety and efficiency along the I-91 corridor. A copy of the
full study is available at: https://www.mass.gov/lists/i-91-viaduct-study-
documents#final-report-. All total, four alternatives, including a “no-build” alternative,
were presented for consideration.
Alternative 1 – Depressed Section of I-91 with Same Alignment
Alternative 2 – Depressed Section of I-91 with New Alignment
Alternative 3 – Elevated Viaduct
No Build
At the conclusion of the study, the “No Build” alternative was viewed as the most
beneficial long term improvement option for the I-91 Viaduct. The No Build
alternative still had several near and mid-term improvement recommendations to
improve safety and enhance the efficiency of the I-91 Corridor. Most near term
improvement recommendations consisted of enhancements to the bicycle and
pedestrian network and are included as part of the financially constrained section of
the RTP. Proposed near and mid-term improvements for the southern section of I-91
are shown in Figure 14-3.
Mid-term improvements consist of projects to improve safety along the existing curve
on I-91 through Longmeadow, improvements to the existing ramps to Route 5 in
Longmeadow, enhancements to the South End Bridge between Springfield and
Agawam, and elimination of the existing Route 5/57 rotary in Agawam. All of the
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
197
above projects are extremely beneficial but are not included in the financially
constrained portion of the RTP due to their projected cost. Additional resources will
need to be identified by MassDOT to advance these projects to construction. A
summary of the mid-term I-91 improvement projects is provided in Table 14-15.
Figure 14-3 – Near and Mid-Term Improvements I-91 South Section
Table 14-15 – Mid-Term I-91 Improvements
Proposed Improvement Project Estimated Cost
I-91 Longmeadow Curve Improvements $212,750,000
Forest Park Bikeway to Springfield Riverwalk* $19,750,000
South End Bridge Upgrades $206,250,000
Agawam Rotary Elimination and Improvements $156,600,000
I-291 to I-91 SB Ramp Relocation $152,000,000
Plainfield Street (Springfield) Improvements $76,000,000
* Estimate assumes construction concurrently with the Longmeadow curve.
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
198
2. I-90 Interchange Study
MassDOT is currently conducting a study to evaluate the feasibility of constructing a
new interchange on the Massachusetts Turnpike (Interstate 90 (I-90), between Exits
2 and 3. More information on the study can be found on the project website:
https://www.mass.gov/i-90-interchange-study. To date, the study has narrowed the
alternatives down to three potential locations:
Alternative 1 – Algerie Road in Otis, MA - $37.8 million
Alternative 2 – Blandford Maintenance Facility in Blandford, MA - $29.5 million
Alternative 3 – Blandford Service Plaza in Blandford, MA - $34.0 million
The Algerie Road location is located outside of the Pioneer Valley region but would
serve residents of the region living in the western hilltowns. None of the three
alternatives are included as part of the financially constrained portion of the RTP. An
amendment to include the project in the RTP will be considered based on the
recommendations of the MassDOT study.
3. East-West Passenger Rail Study
Passenger rail service from Boston to Springfield and Pittsfield is currently under
study by MassDOT. The study will examine the costs, benefits, and investments
necessary to implement passenger rail service at a speed and frequency to be a
competitive travel option along this corridor. More information can be found on the
study website: https://www.mass.gov/east-west-passenger-rail-study.
Figure 14-4 – Key Constraints Along the Rail Corridor
To date, there have been two meetings for the study. While we believe it is important
to advance east/west passenger rail service for the region to Boston, the project
cannot be included as part of the financially constrained portion of the RTP until a
formal recommendation is made through the study.
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
199
E. RTP PROBLEM STATEMENTS
Problem statements were originally developed as part of the 2016 RTP to identify
the potential obstacles to achieve the region’s Vision for the transportation system.
The problem statements were revisited and updated as part of the 2020 RTP in
relation to the updated vision and goals. Problem statements are concise
descriptions of the overarching issues that must be addressed through the
implementation of the RTP. A total of 10 problem statement was developed based
on the input received during the RTP public outreach process and are summarized
below.
1. There are seriously insufficient resources to support the state of good repair of
the regional transportation system.
2. Existing passenger rail and transit service does not meet the needs of residents
of the Pioneer Valley. Expanded regional passenger rail and transit service is
integral to education, economic development and workforce development.
3. There is a need for innovative, cost-effective solutions independent of the
regional transit authorities to provide services to rural areas.
4. There are a lack of intermodal connections that support and enhance
transportation options for downtown areas and village centers.
5. Increased and comprehensive resources and policies to improve sustainability in
the transportation sector are necessary if the region is to meet its fair share of
GHG reductions to comply with the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions
Act.
6. The regional transportation infrastructure does not sufficiently accommodate the
movement and distribution of freight.
7. The built environment for walking, bicycling and transit is hampered by significant
barriers that include: narrow road and bridge cross sections,
disjointed/unconnected off-road trail networks, a lack of sidewalks, uniformity in
signs/markings, transit access points and maintenance issues.
8. The regional transportation system is not prepared to adequately support
changes in future transportation technology. The system must be prepared for
the safe and seamless integration of innovations in technology which includes
autonomous vehicles.
9. People use the regional transportation system differently based on their age,
residence and occupation. The regional transportation system must continue to
evolve to safely meet the needs of an aging population, young adults and
children.
10. There are inconsistencies in how cities and towns regulate development and
their requirements to encourage alternative forms of transportation through
development.
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
200
1. There are seriously insufficient resources to support the state of good
repair of the regional transportation system.
In short, there are not enough resources to fund all the necessary improvements
to keep the transportation system in a state of good repair. One obstacle is the
disconnect between transportation revenue and the rising cost of transportation
improvements. For the purpose of this RTP a 1.5% per year increase in
transportation revenue is assumed versus a 4% per year increase in the cost of
transportation projects. This is not sustainable. The rising cost of transportation
improvement projects has resulted in many projects being pushed back into
future years for construction. It also results in the development of several phased
projects that can be constructed at a more manageable cost. Ultimately, this is a
poor use of transportation funds as any cost savings in the short term are offset
by inflated long term project cost.
On the national scale, the federal Highway Trust Fund is not able to keep pace
with the current pace of transportation spending. The trust fund relies on federal
gasoline taxes yet the federal gasoline tax has not been adjusted in over 20
years. At the local level, communities rely on Chapter 90 funding to advance
necessary maintenance projects. This funding is critical to maintain local roads
which are not eligible for federal transportation dollars. A 2018 analysis by the
Massachusetts Municipal Association estimated that a total of $685 million/year
would be required to keep roadways in a state of good repair. This is significantly
higher than the $200 million allocated for the Chapter 90 program in 2018.
2. Existing passenger rail and transit service does not meet the needs of
residents of the Pioneer Valley. Expanded regional passenger rail and
transit service is integral to education, economic development and
workforce development.
There is a strong desire to expand passenger rail service in the region. Most
trains in Springfield operate south to New Haven as either Amtrak or CTRail
trains. There are 11 departures and 11 arrivals on weekdays on this route . The
Vermonter travels once a day in each direction between Washington D.C. and St.
Albans Vermont. Northbound trains from Springfield stop at Holyoke,
Northampton and Greenfield. Four additional trips per day are planned as a pilot
program between Greenfield and Springfield in the summer of 2019. East-West
rail service consists of one train per day, the Lake Shore Limited, providing
service between Chicago and Boston. In December of 2018, MassDOT began a
study to examine the costs, benefits, and investments necessary to implement
passenger rail service from Boston to Springfield and Pittsfield, with the speed,
frequency, and reliability necessary to be a competitive option for travel along
this corridor.
The expansion of intercity passenger rail has the potential to be a major
component in producing economic revitalization, spurring job creation, improving
air quality, increasing overall mobility and reducing vehicular traffic congestion.
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
201
This requires an investment in the development and maintenance of rail
infrastructure, modern stations and pricing that encourages ridership.
3. There is a need for innovative, cost-effective solutions independent of the
regional transit authorities to provide services to rural areas.
Transit service can be difficult in rural areas that may not have the populati on
density to support traditional fixed route transit services. Innovation is the key in
the development of new rural transit service. This can consist of the identification
of overlapping duplicative services, adaptation of existing underutilized services,
and the development of partnerships with local business to provide new services.
It will be important to continue to work with the Regional Coordinating Councils,
the existing transportation providers, and human service providers to identify
opportunities to develop cost effective and replicable models to provide rural
transit service in the Pioneer Valley.
The Quaboag Connector (www.rideconnector.com) serves 4 rural communities in
the eastern part of the PVPC region and 5 in the neighboring Central
Massachusetts region. This service is coordinated with existing RTA transit
service. This may be a potential model to provide transit service for other rural
areas.
4. There are a lack of intermodal connections that support and enhance
transportation options for downtown areas and village centers.
Intermodal transportation facilities encourage the use of alternative transportation
modes through the coordination of a variety of transportation modes at a
strategic location. Amenities such as waiting areas, restrooms, and food service
may also be provided. Larger facilities are often incorporated into developments
that may include residential units as well as retail and office space. A strong
multimodal transportation system must be developed in coordination with
complementary land uses at a level that is appropriate for the community.
5. Increased and comprehensive resources and policies to improve
sustainability in the transportation sector are necessary if the region is to
meet its fair share of GHG reductions to comply with the Massachusetts
Global Warming Solutions Act.
The transportation sector is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas
pollution accounting for nearly 40 percent of all GHG emissions in
Massachusetts. One way to assist in the reduction of GHG emissions is the
electrification of vehicles. While Massachusetts is committed to the International
Zero-Emission Vehicle Alliance, other strategies such as market-based
incentives to manage GHG emissions will be required. One such strategy is the
multi-state Transportation Climate Initiative to explore potential regional policies
to improve transportation systems and reduce pollution.
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
202
PVPC will continue to assist regional communities in municipal vulnerability
preparedness, advocate for certified “Green Communities” and implement the
region’s smart growth plan, Valley Vision. This work is vital to foster change and
promote energy efficient modes of transportation such as walking, biking and
using the bus.
6. The regional transportation infrastructure does not sufficiently
accommodate the movement and distribution of freight.
Trucking is the dominant mode for freight transportation in the Pioneer Valley due
to its flexibility to provide both short and long haul connections to facilities that
may lack convenient access to other freight modes. Truck movements are often
hindered due to route restrictions as a result of poor bridge conditions,
inadequate vertical clearance, oversize loads, hazardous cargo, and municipal
regulations. Many intersections also lack the proper turning radii to safely
accommodate truck movements. As a result, it is important to have appropriate
design elements in the regional transportation system to safely and efficiently
accommodate the movement of freight.
7. The built environment for walking, bicycling and transit is hampered by
significant barriers that include: narrow road and bridge cross sections,
disjointed/unconnected off-road trail networks, a lack of sidewalks,
uniformity in signs/markings, transit access points and maintenance
issues.
It is important to provide for the needs of pedestrians, bicycles and transit riders
as part of the regional transportation network. The challenge lies in balancing the
needs of the maintenance of the existing infrastructure while continuing to
expand connections to the pedestrian, bicycle and transit network in a logical
manner.
PVPC advocates for a “Complete Streets” approach as part of its transportation
planning activities. A “Complete Street” improves livability by improving public
safety, increasing usable public space, and making it easier to share the street. It
also creates a more welcoming environment for local businesses.
The identification of gaps in transportation system for all users is a critical task to
identify and eliminate existing barriers that restrict travel options. Proper
maintenance ensures the continued expansion of a complete transportation
system that enhances options for all travel modes in the future.
Chapter 14 – Needs, Strategies and Projects
203
8. The regional transportation system is not prepared to adequately support
changes in future transportation technology. The system must be prepared
for the safe and seamless integration of innovations in technology which
includes autonomous vehicles.
Changes in technology have the ability to greatly improve the safety and
efficiency in which vehicles operate. This, however, requires the appropriate
physical and informational infrastructure to fully support the new technology. It
will be important to continue to incorporate the appropriate infrastructure in future
transportation improvement projects to support autonomous vehicles, electric
vehicles, broadband communications including 5G networks, and ITS
infrastructure. Similarly, it will be important to review existing bylaws, ordinances,
and motor vehicle laws to ensure they fully and appropriately address new
transportation technology.
9. People use the regional transportation system differently based on their
age, residence and occupation. The regional transportation system must
continue to evolve to safely meet the needs of an aging population, young
adults and children.
Our regional transportation system is not intended to be a “one size fits all”
model. It is important to recognize that people will have different transportation
needs based on their age, income, place of residence and place of employment.
As a result it will be important to seek balance in the transportation system to
provide modes that support all of our residents. The “Age Friendly” movement is
a way to design a transportation system to allow all people to have access
regardless of their age or ability.
10. There are inconsistencies in how cities and towns regulate development
and their requirements to encourage alternative forms of transportation
through development.
The Pioneer Valley has been a leader with respect to promoting and encouraging
smart growth, or development that is targeted where there is existing
infrastructure to support it, versus development far away from roads, power lines,
water and sewer lines etc. As a result, it will be important to continue to work
closely with our member municipalities to adopt and revise as needed their
existing bylaws and ordinances to promote development while encouraging the
use of alternate forms of transportation.
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
205
Photo: South Street in Ware, MA
FINANCIAL ELEMENT
Title 23 CFR Section 450.322 and 310 CMR 60.03(9) requires the RTP to be
financially constrained. The financial element must demonstrate which projects can
be implemented using current revenue sources and which are to be implemented
using proposed revenue sources while the existing transportation system is being
adequately operated and maintained. Projects can only be programmed up to the
congressionally authorized spending amounts in any individual fiscal year.
The estimate of revenue for the region will be highly dependent upon the funding
allocated to Massachusetts as part of future transportation bills. Estimates of the
projected revenue sources for highway and transit projects have been made based
on past historical trends and information available from the estimated apportionment
of the federal authorizations contained in the Fixing Americas Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act. Financial constraint will be maintained in the 2020 RTP
Update.
CHAPTER 15
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
206
A. REVENUE
The overall RTP, and each fiscal year contained herein, is financially constrained to
the annual federal apportionment and projections of state resources reasonably
expected to be available during the appropriate time-frame. Projections of federal
resources are based upon the estimated apportionment of the federal authorizations
contained in The FAST Act, as allocated to the region by the State or as allocated
among the various MPOs according to federal formulae or MPO agreement.
Estimates used to develop the highway component of the financial plan were
developed by MassDOT. A summary of the projected highway revenue from 2020 –
2040 is presented in Table 15-1.
Table 15-1 – Estimated Pioneer Valley Region Highway Revenue 2020 – 2040
Federal and state matching funds for the period of 2020 to 2024 reflect
current allocations and are inflated 2.2% per year thereafter, beginning in
2025 per MassDOT.
Deductions for statewide items that cannot be allocated individually to the
MPOs - Central Artery GANs repayment, Planning, and Extra Work
Orders/Cost Adjustments, and the Accelerated Bridge Program - are taken
from total available funding, leaving an amount for the available federal
funding to be allocated in the regional plans.
Statewide Bridge funding is not included in table 15-1, MassDOT did not
provide regional breakout (see table 15-2)
Interstate and Non Interstate funding are attributed to each region based
upon formula such as a region’s % of the total lanes miles of interstate
miles/national highway system miles.
Funding availability for bridges is based upon the Commonwealth’s
commitment to a Statewide Bridge Program. The bridge program has two
components: federal aid and non-federal aid (NFA) eligible.
Estimated funding for Other Statewide, NFA Bridge, and Regional Target
funding is allocated among the MPOs based upon the existing MARPA TIP
targets.
After 2028 the GANS repayment of the Central Artery and Accelerated Bridge
Program is anticipated to be complete. This results in an increase in
available transportation revenue. The MassDOT and MARPA agreed to
allocate this additional revenue equally between statewide needs and
regional discretionary funds.
Year Target Other Statewide Non Interstate NFA Bridge Interstate Total All Funding
10.8099%10.8099% 13.0542% 10.8099% 8.4544%
2020 - 2024 134,136,806$ 121,332,223$ 47,144,718$ 54,049,500$ 13,381,407$ 370,044,654$
2025-2029 $ 153,789,263 $ 136,359,264 $ 56,120,172 $ 55,238,590 $ 16,897,096 418,404,385$
2030-2034 $ 188,833,297 $ 167,431,514 $ 68,908,303 $ 56,453,840 $ 20,747,444 502,374,398$
2035-2039 $ 209,293,530 $ 185,572,848 $ 76,374,571 $ 57,695,820 $ 22,995,446 551,932,215$
2040 $ 44,516,326 $ 39,470,984 $ 16,244,722 $ 11,793,026 $ 4,891,087 116,916,145$
Totals $ 730,569,222 $ 650,166,833 $ 264,792,486 $ 235,230,776 $ 78,912,480 1,959,671,797$
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
207
Table 15-2 – Estimated Statewide Bridge Funding
The estimates of available 5307, 5310 and 5339 transit revenue shown in this RTP
were provided by MassDOT in April of 2019. Estimates of available RTACAP
revenue were provided by the PVTA. Information on anticipated farebox and local
revenue was developed using the funding total from the most recent data and based
on historical data from the PVTA, then aggregated through the life of the RTP. A
summary of estimated transit revenue during the 2020-2040 periods is presented in
Table 15-3 and 15-4.
Table 15-3 – Estimated Transit Capital Revenue 2020 - 2040
5307 funding has been inflated 2.08% per year starting in 2021 per MassDOT
5310 funding has been inflated 2.09 per year starting in 2021 per MassDOT
5339 funding has been inflated 3.83 pear year starting in 2021 per MassDOT
5339 funding is a grant based program awarded yearly based on project merit
Table 15-4 – Estimated Transit Operating Revenue 2020 – 2040
Local assessments escalated 2.5% annually as allowed by statute based on
previous RTP.
Year Statewide Bridges
2020 - 2024 985,237,695.00$
2025-2029 1,120,781,229.00$
2030-2034 1,376,174,182.00$
2035-2039 1,525,283,718.00$
2040 324,424,877.00$
Totals 5,331,901,701.00$
Year 5307 5310 5339 RTACAP Total
2020-2024 68,180,385$ 2,933,482$ 7,224,890$ 36,688,650$ 115,027,407$
2025-2029 75,572,320$ 3,253,115$ 8,718,575$ 40,357,515$ 127,901,525$
2030-2034 83,765,669$ 3,607,577$ 10,521,068$ 44,393,267$ 142,287,581$
2035-2039 92,847,318$ 4,000,659$ 12,696,208$ 48,832,593$ 158,376,778$
2040 19,744,098$ 850,992$ 2,838,307$ 10,743,170$ 34,176,567$
Total 340,109,790$ 14,645,825$ 41,999,048$ 181,015,195$ 577,769,858$
2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 Grand Total
Local Assessments 49,372,389$ 55,860,326$ 63,200,831$ 71,505,940$ 15,445,284$ 255,384,770$
5307 Federal Urbanized Formula 58,635,131$ 64,992,195$ 72,038,475$ 79,848,693$ 16,979,925$ 292,494,419$
5339 Federal 7,224,890$ 8,718,575$ 10,521,068$ 12,696,208$ 2,838,307$ 41,999,048$
5310 Federal Elderly and Disabled 2,933,482$ 3,253,115$ 3,607,577$ 4,000,659$ 850,992$ 14,645,825$
Fare box 45,399,763$ 50,125,006$ 55,342,057$ 61,102,103$ 13,198,054$ 225,166,983$
Advertising, other revenue 3,255,020$ 3,593,805$ 3,967,851$ 4,380,829$ 946,259$ 16,143,764$
Available Operating Funds for
Programming in the RTP 166,820,675$ 186,543,022$ 208,677,859$ 233,534,432$ 50,258,821$ 845,834,809$
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
208
Federal grant program contributions (5307, 5339, and 5310) escalated 1.5%
annually based on previous RTP.
Farebox revenue estimate based on actual FY15 amount of $7.9 million and
escalated 2% annually per PVTA.
Advertising and other revenue assumed to be $566,516 per year in FY16 and
escalated 2% annually per PVTA.
Actual RTACAP contracted (and FY16 contracted numbers are known) were
arrived at and entered 2021-2040 used 10% escalation based on previous
RTP
The estimated revenue from both highway and transit sources is summarized in
Table 15-5.
Table 15-5 – Total Estimated Revenue 2020-2040
Total Estimated Highway
Revenue
$1,959,671,797
Total Estimated Transit Capital
Revenue
$577,769,858
Total Estimated Transit Operating
Revenue
$845,834,809
Grand Total $3,383,276,464**
**Total Estimated Revenue does not include statewide bridge
B. FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINT PROCESS
The Pioneer Valley MPO used the following methodology to populate the Operating
and Maintenance Expenditure Tables. Projects were assigned to an estimated
construction year based on project readiness, TEC Score, RTP Priority, and project
cost unless otherwise specified.
Operating and Maintenance expenditures were developed separately for the areas
of Highway and Transit planning. Cost estimates for each of the priority projects
included as recommendations of the RTP were assigned a construction year for
planning purposes. An inflation factor of 4% per year was applied to each project to
reflect anticipated increases in construction materials over the life of the plan.
Inflation factors were not applied to projects included as part of the current TIP as all
of these projects have a 25% contingency applied to their current cost estimate.
Each project was assigned to the appropriate federal funding category to correspond
with the revenues estimated in Table 15-1. The total cost estimates for each
category were then compared to the recommended investment as developed by
MassDOT.
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
209
1. Regional Target Funding
The PVPC reviewed historic spending by project type to assist in identifying future
regional transportation needs. This information is summarized in Table 15-6.
Table 15-6– Summary of Highway Spending by Project Type 2015 - 2019
Values based on passed 5 year regional discretionary expenditures in the PV
Region.
Over the last 5 years on average the region has spent 56% (up from 50% in the
2016 RTP) of its transportation improvement dollars on roadway maintenance
projects. Table 15-6 shows a break of the projects funded by improvement type.
Each improvement type was then weighted to reflect the % the improvement that
included maintenance as part of the improvement. This represents the Actual %
column in the table. Table 15-6 was presented to our Joint Transportation
Committee (JTC) and feedback was provide on how estimate the highway needs
over the life of the RTP. Table 15-7 shows the % of expenditure by project type for
our Regional Discretionary funding.
Table 15-7 – Regional Discretionary Funding Project Allocation
2016 RTP 2020 RTP
70% 67% Roadway Improvement Projects
12.5% 8% Congestion improvement Projects
12.5% 12.5% Safety Improvement Projects
1.25 5% Bicycle Improvement Projects
1.25 5% Pedestrian Improvements Projects
2.5 2.5 Air Quality Improvement Projects
The Pioneer Valley MPO used the 2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) to populate target projects in the 2020-2024 targets bin. Starting in the 2025-
2029 RTP bin, projects were programmed based on TEC score, project readiness,
Improvement Type # of Projects Expenditure
%
Maintenance
Adjusted
Expenditure
Actual
%
2016 RTP
Scenario
Roadway Maintenance 15 59,546,307.00$ 100%77,317,334.80$ 72.2%70%
Congestion Improvement 7 20,422,908.00$ 50%10,211,454.00$ 9.5% 12.50%
Bike Infrastructure 3 10,881,382.00$ 50%5,440,691.00$ 5.1% 1.25%
Safety 6 7,330,958.00$ 25%5,498,218.50$ 5.1% 12.50%
Transportation Alternative Program 6 3,426,569.00$ 0%3,426,569.00$ 3.2%0%
Air Quality Improvement 5 2,861,433.00$ 10%2,575,289.70$ 2.4% 2.50%
Pedestrian Infrastructure 2 2,564,842.00$ 0%2,564,842.00$ 2.4% 1.25%
Freight Infrastructure 0 -$ 50%0 0.0%0%
Total 44 107,034,399.00$ 107,034,399.00$ 100%
Expenditure by Improvement Type 2015-2019
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
210
and project cost. Table 15-8 shows the breakdown of any reaming Regional
Discretionary dollars for the FY2025-2029, FY2030-2034, FY2035-2039, and
FY2040 funding periods. This breakdown was developed using the historical
spending data, Cartegraph pavement condition forecasting software analysis, and
through consultation with the JTC. Table 15-8 gives the distributions of the regional
discretionary funds based on available funding.
Table 15-8 - Regional Discretionary Funding Breakdown
2020 - 2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 Totals
Target 134,136,806$ 153,789,263$ 188,833,297$ 209,293,530$ 44,516,326$ 730,569,222$
Programmed 133,715,699$ 153,789,263$ 188,833,297$ 209,293,530$ 44,516,326$ 730,148,115$
Difference 421,107$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 421,107$
Roadway
Maintenance
Projects = 67%
100,535,091$ 103,038,806$ 126,518,309$ 140,226,665$ 29,825,938$ 399,609,719$
Congestion
Improvement Projects
= 8%
15,453,664$ 12,303,141$ 15,106,664$ 16,743,482$ 3,561,306$ 47,714,593$
Safety Improvement
Projects = 12.5%
12,976,945$ 19,223,658$ 23,604,162$ 26,161,691$ 5,564,541$ 74,554,052$
Bicycle
Improvement
Projects = 5%
2,200,000$ 7,689,463$ 9,441,665$ 10,464,677$ 2,225,816$ 29,821,621$
Pedestrian
Improvement
Projects = 5%
2,050,000$ 7,689,463$ 9,441,665$ 10,464,677$ 2,225,816$ 29,821,621$
Air Quality
Improvement
Projects = 2.5%
$ 500,000
3,844,732$ 4,720,832$ 5,232,338$ 1,112,908$ 14,910,810$
Constraint 421,107$ Constraint Constraint Constraint Constraint Constraint
Total Expenditures 133,715,699$ 153,789,263$ 188,833,297$ 209,293,530$ 44,516,326$ 730,148,115$
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
211
C. FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT
The estimated available funds for the region must be greater than or equal to the
financial needs of the region over the life of the plan in order to maintain financial
constraint. As can be seen from Table 15-9 and 15-10, the Pioneer Valley Regional
Transportation Plan is financially constrained over the life of the plan.
Table 15-9 - Highway Fiscal Constraint Summary
2020 - 2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 Grand Total
Total Estimated Highway
Revenue
493,112,924$ 418,404,385$ 502,374,398$ 551,932,215$ 116,916,145$ 2,082,740,067$
Interstate 13,381,407$ 16,897,096$ 20,747,444$ 22,995,446$ 4,891,087$ 78,912,480$
Statewide Bridge 61,534,135$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 61,534,135$
NORTHAMPTON– BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT, I-91 OVER US
ROUTE 5 AND B&MRR,
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, I-91
OVER HOCKANUM ROAD
AND IMPROVEMENTS TO I-
91/INTERCHANGE 19 (605552)
61,534,135$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 61,534,135$
NFA Bridge 54,049,500$ 55,238,590$ 56,453,840$ 57,695,820$ 11,793,026$ 235,230,776$
Non Interstate 47,144,718$ 56,120,172$ 68,908,303$ 76,374,571$ 16,244,722$ 264,792,486$
Other Statewide 121,332,223$ 136,359,264$ 167,431,514$ 185,572,848$ 39,470,984$ 650,166,833$
Target 134,136,806$ 153,789,263$ 188,833,297$ 209,293,530$ 44,516,326$ 730,569,222$
Majore Regional Projects Funded with Target Funds
HADLEY- RECONSTRUCTION
ON ROUTE 9, FROM MIDDLE
STREET TO MAPLE/SOUTH
MAPLE STREET (605032)
24,849,741$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,849,741$
WEST SPRINGFIELD -
RECONSTRUCTION OF
MEMORIAL AVENUE (ROUTE
147), FROM COLONY ROAD TO
THE MEMORIAL AVENUE
ROTARY (1.4 MILES) (608374)
24,384,803$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,384,803$
AGAWAM -
RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE
5 CONNECTOR TO ROUTE 57,
INCLUDES A-05-013 & A-05-014
(603372)
-$ -$ -$ 25,572,465$ 25,572,465$
WEST SPRINGFIELD - BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT, W-21-006, CSX
RAILROAD OVER UNION
STREET (604746)
-$ -$ -$ 26,131,364$ 26,131,364$
WILLIAMSBURG -
CONSTRUCTION OF THE
"MILL RIVER GREENWAY"
SHARED USE PATH (608787)
-$ -$ -$ 21,315,518$ 21,315,518$
Total of Programmed Highway
Projects in the 2020 RTP
492,691,817$ 418,404,385$ 502,374,398$ 551,932,215$ 116,916,145$ 2,082,740,067$
Difference 421,107$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 421,107$
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
212
Table 15-10 - Transit Fiscal Constraint Summary
State Contract Assistance is funding determined each year by the Massachusetts
Legislature through coordination with MassDOT. This funding is used to support
each region’s Transit Authority. The following identifies the historical level of funding
received by PVTA with a suggested percentage of growth. The MPO is hopeful that
such growth will occur based on the findings associated with the RTA Task Force.
D. NEEDS
1. Operating and Maintenance
a) Highway Needs
The values in Table 15-11 are based on the financial data provided by MassDOT for
use in the Financial Plan in Table 15-1. The funding identified as Non Interstate,
Other Statewide, and Target where summed and then portioned based on historic
TIP funding. The estimated highway needs were summarized in five year
increments and are shown in Table 15-11. As shown in section C of this chapter –
Alternative Funding Scenario, PVPC believes that it would take 100% of these
funding categories to reasonably maintain our existing federal aid eligible roadway
system near its current condition. Although table 15-11 does not commit 100% of
the funding to Maintenance, many of the improvements would include maintenance
as a significant amount of the work completed.
2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 Grand Total
Local Assessments 49,372,389$ 55,860,326$ 63,200,831$ 71,505,940$ 15,445,284$ 255,384,770$
5307 Federal Urbanized Formula 58,635,131$ 64,992,195$ 72,038,475$ 79,848,693$ 16,979,925$ 292,494,419$
5339 Federal 7,224,890$ 8,718,575$ 10,521,068$ 12,696,208$ 2,838,307$ 41,999,048$
5310 Federal Elderly and Disabled 2,933,482$ 3,253,115$ 3,607,577$ 4,000,659$ 850,992$ 14,645,825$
Fare box 45,399,763$ 50,125,006$ 55,342,057$ 61,102,103$ 13,198,054$ 225,166,983$
Advertising, other revenue 3,255,020$ 3,593,805$ 3,967,851$ 4,380,829$ 946,259$ 16,143,764$
Available Operating Funds for
Programming in the RTP 166,820,675$ 186,543,022$ 208,677,859$ 233,534,432$ 50,258,821$ 845,834,809$
2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 Grand Total
RTACAP 36,688,650$ 40,357,515$ 44,393,267$ 48,832,593$ 10,743,170$ 181,015,195$
5307 68,180,385$ 75,572,320$ 83,765,669$ 92,847,318$ 19,744,098$ 340,109,790$
5310 2,933,482$ 3,253,115$ 3,607,577$ 4,000,659$ 850,992$ 14,645,825$
5339 7,224,890$ 8,718,575$ 10,521,068$ 12,696,208$ 2,838,307$ 41,999,048$
Available Capital Funds for
Programming in the RTP 115,027,407$ 127,901,525$ 142,287,581$ 158,376,778$ 34,176,567$ 577,769,858$
Total Programmed Transit Funding 281,848,082$ 314,444,547$ 350,965,440$ 391,911,210$ 84,435,388$ 1,423,604,667$
Difference -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Estimated Transit Operating Funds 2020 - 2040
Estimted Transit Capital Funds 2020 - 2040
2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 Grand Total
State Contract Assistance 145,747,760$ 168,961,600$ 195,872,803$ 227,070,262$ 46,776,474$ 784,428,899$
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
213
Table 15-11 – Summary of Estimated Highway Needs over the Life of the RTP
*CMAQ funding does not include funds which were allocated to Bike,
Congestion, Safety, or Transit projects under the CMAQ funding category.
The total investment required over the life of the RTP based on financial
information provided by MassDOT.
For the purposes of operations and maintenance, the financial plan shall estimate
the costs that are reasonably expected to be needed to maintain the federal aid
highways and public transportation system (23 CFR 450.324(7)(h)). In an attempt to
comply with this requirement, the total estimated needs from Table 15-10 were
added to the estimated regional discretionary funding from Table 15-1 and
compared to the total estimated highway revenue from Table 15-1. This information
is presented in Figure 15-1.
As can be seen in figure 15-1 the estimated highway revenue exceeds the estimated
highway needs over the life of the RTP. However it is not feasible to spend over 80%
of all funding on maintenance, State and Federal standards require funding to be
allocated to different types of projects as show in Table 15-11. It should be noted
that while Figure 15-1 indicates available funding to support needs based on historic
spending, there is still a large need for additional funding to keep the transportation
system in a state of good repair over the long term.
b) Transit Needs
Secure funding for transit operations and projects in the region is a key concern. In
2014 Massachusetts Legislation approved forward funding for the Regional Transit
Authorities (RTA’s). Forward funding allows the RTA’s to pay for needs up front
rather than being required to borrow money to pay for needs, which results in
interest payments. In the short term, this along with increased operating assistance
allowed PVTA to make both service and capital improvements system wide. Over
the past couple of years, funding has not matched the cost increases that occur on a
yearly basis at all RTA’s. As a result RTA’s have been forced to reduce both service
and capital projects. A summary of the estimated transit needs over the life of the
RTP is presented in Table 15-12.
Improvement 2020 - 2024 2025 - 2029 2030 - 2034 2035 - 2039 2040 Totals
Congestion 15,013,160.36$ 17,178,953.56$ 21,093,529.97$ 23,379,030.22$ 4,972,674.19$ 81,637,348.30$
Maintenance 130,838,538.18$ 149,713,259.37$ 183,828,491.80$ 203,746,450.74$ 43,336,473.23$ 711,463,213.33$
*CMAQ 7,192,445.51$ 8,230,025.15$ 10,105,404.94$ 11,200,333.36$ 2,382,289.09$ 39,110,498.05$
Safety 28,105,490.19$ 32,159,978.25$ 39,488,287.96$ 43,766,874.44$ 9,309,128.95$ 152,829,759.78$
Bike 10,953,773.92$ 12,533,961.47$ 15,390,081.29$ 17,057,608.48$ 3,628,120.10$ 59,563,545.26$
Transit 2,980,106.36$ 3,410,015.44$ 4,187,057.30$ 4,640,728.19$ 987,073.85$ 16,204,981.15$
Bridge 107,530,232.49$ 123,042,505.76$ 151,080,260.73$ 167,449,923.56$ 35,616,272.59$ 584,719,195.13$
Total Investment 302,613,747.00$ 346,268,699.00$ 425,173,114.00$ 471,240,949.00$ 100,232,032.00$ 1,645,528,541.00$
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
214
Figure 15-1 – Comparison of Estimated Highway Needs and Revenue
Table 15-12 – Estimated Transit Need 2020 – 2040
2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 Grand Total
SATCO Rehabilitation to Paratransit Facility 4,275,000$ 4,275,000$
Northampton Garage rehabilitation 9,975,000$ 9,975,000$
Northampton Intermodal Center 10,740,000$ 10,740,000$
UMTS Maintenance Facility 24,304,000$ 24,304,000$
PVTA Facility maintenance/Environmental 4,878,466$ 8,338,181$ 10,144,672$ 12,342,545$ 2,962,211$ 33,787,609$
PVTA Fleet Replacement Program 44,916,297$ 48,653,279$ 59,194,153$ 72,018,738$ 17,284,497$ 197,150,667$
Vehicle Maintenance 39,749,580$ 48,361,442$ 58,839,089$ 71,586,749$ 17,180,820$ 195,968,100$
Bus Shelters 1,370,675$ 1,667,636$ 2,028,934$ 2,468,509$ 592,442$ 6,757,521$
Bus stop sign replacement 532,037$ 140,824$ 171,334$ 208,454$ 50,029$ 570,641$
ITS/AVL and communication equipment 14,678,720$ 15,988,258$ 17,481,787$ 19,186,055$ 4,062,383$ 56,718,482$
MAP van program 5,977,051$ 6,929,041$ 8,032,657$ 9,312,051$ 2,234,892$ 26,508,641$
Total Capital Need 126,352,826$ 165,122,661$ 155,892,626$ 187,123,101$ 44,367,274$ 517,461,661$
2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 Grand Total
PVTA Fixed Route 203,498,118$ 235,696,575$ 273,091,741$ 316,544,615$ 73,438,351$ 1,102,269,400$
PVTA Paratransit 51,416,110$ 59,551,416$ 68,999,730$ 79,978,592$ 18,555,033$ 278,500,881$
PVTA Administration 29,268,023$ 33,898,951$ 39,277,293$ 45,526,883$ 10,562,237$ 158,533,386$
FRTA Paratransit 4,415,643$ 5,114,307$ 5,925,734$ 6,868,604$ 1,593,516$ 23,917,804$
Total Operating Need (4% annual Escalation)288,597,894$ 334,261,249$ 387,294,497$ 448,918,694$ 104,149,137$ 1,563,221,472$
Grand Total of Needs 414,950,721$ 499,383,910$ 543,187,123$ 636,041,795$ 148,516,411$ 2,080,683,133$
% of TIP Increase above 13%12%12%12%12%
Plus 4% Escalation 17%16%16%16%16%
Note: FRTA data based on FRTA Financial Statement and supplementary information http://www.pvtaapps.com/opengov/pdfs/frta/FRTAfinal.pdf
Estimated Transit Operating Needs 2020-2040
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
215
In addition, operating funding needs also include $100,000 per year (escalated 4%
annually) for FRTA paratransit in 14 outlying towns in the PVPC region that are not
served by PVTA. FRTA anticipates that the cost of providing paratransit van service
in the 14 PVMPO municipalities not served by PVTA will increase at a rate greater
than 4% in the 2016-2020 timeframe due to the growing need to replace volunteer
drivers with professional drivers in many communities.
The funding outlook with respect to capital project needs is also a significant
concern. Figure 15-2 shows the anticipated transit capital project needs versus
estimated revenues (2016-2040) for the region. It shows that over the life of this
plan, the gap between estimated capital needs ($784,421,506) and anticipated
revenue ($517,968,332) would be $206 million. Therefore, transit capital needs are
50% greater than the amount of funds that are expected to be available.
Figure 15-2 – Pioneer Valley MPO Transit Capital Needs vs. Estimated Revenue
c) Rail Needs
Similar to highway and transit needs, an estimate was developed of the regional rail
needs based on completed study recommendations advocating for expanded
passenger rail service. This information is shown in Table 15-13. It should be noted
that these estimates are presented for informational purposes only as these projects
are not currently part of the financially constrained RTP. Enhanced passenger rail
service does however remain a high regional priority that is recommended should an
adequate funding source be identified.
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
216
Table 15-13 – Estimated Rail Need 2016 – 2040
Knowledge Corridor operating cost are based on Option 1 of the March 23,
2015 HDR Rail Service Analysis
Operating cost for both projects are inflated by 4% annually
E. ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SCENARIOS
It is estimated it will take 15 years to fund all of the current projects included in the
TIP backlog for the Pioneer Valley. This is a growing concern as regional targets
have not increased significantly while project costs continue to rise. Inflation plays a
big role in the number of projects and cost of projects funded per year as costs rise
significantly the further out they are programmed. On average over the past 5 years
the PVMPO has been able to fund 5 transportation projects per year using regional
discretionary funds. As can be seen in Figure 15-3 the average project cost has
been increasing in our region resulting in few projects being built each year.
Based on this information, the region does not have enough money to fund our
transportation program in a financially viable time frame. In order to identify the
amount of money necessary to fund the transportation program in a financially viable
time frame PVPC staff utilized scenario based planning to develop a series of 3
scenarios to identify the funding necessary to maintain our regional overall
pavement condition index at or near its average level. This information is
summarized in Figure 15-4 and Table 15-8.
Project Name Project Description Community 2020-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 2041-2045 Total
Western Mass to Boston
Passenger Rail Service Study
East/West high speed rail Capital
entire system -Boston to Springfield
to Pittsfield
Regionwide current study $0
Commuter Rail Commuter Rail - Springfield to
Greenfield - Capital
Regionwide $1,300,000 $1,300,000
NECR Track Improvements to
accommodate 286K Freight rail track improvements
Regionwide $19,200,000 $19,200,000
Patriot Corridor Double Stack freight operations Study Regionwide further study $0
Ware River Secondary Projects 1.2 mile connection between
MassDOT Ware River line and CSX
Regionwide 9,700,000$ $9,700,000
Track Expansion Track Expansion Palmer Ind Park Palmer $570,000 $570,000
Westfield Industrial Park Track
Expansion
Track Expansion Westfield Ind Park Westfield $3,025,070 $3,025,070
Boston to Springfield to
Montreal Passenger Rail Service
East/West and North/South
Passenger Rail Service from Boston
to Montreal
Regionwide Further Study $0
Total Need $30,200,000 $3,595,070 $0 $0 $0
$33,795,070
Rail Operating Needs
Project Name Project Description Community 2020-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 2041-2045 Total
Passenger Rail Operating Cost Connecticut State Line to Greenfield -
Operating Per $2,980,000 per year
Regionwide $16,140,641 $19,637,558 $23,892,092 $29,068,383 $35,366,133 $124,104,807
Springfield to Greenfield Pilot Passenger Rail Service between Spr Regionwide $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000
High Speed Rail Operating for
entire corridor
East/West high speed rail Operating
entire system -Boston to Springfield
to Pittsfield
Regionwide TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD $0
$17,140,641 $20,637,558 $24,892,092 $30,068,383 $36,366,133 $129,104,807
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
217
Figure 15-3 –Project Built vs. Project Cost 2015 - 2020
1. Summary of Identified Scenarios
a) 70% Scenario – Uses 70% Regional Discretionary Funds, Non Interstate,
and Other Statewide Funds to fund pavement maintenance
This Scenario assumes an investment of 70% of all Regional Discretionary funding
and 70% of all Remaining Statewide Program funding over the life of the plan be
allocated towards pavement maintenance.
b) 80% Scenario – Uses 80% Regional Discretionary Funds, Non Interstate,
and Other Statewide Funds to fund pavement maintenance
This Scenario assumes an investment of 80% of all Regional Discretionary funding
and 80% of all Remaining Statewide Program funding over the life of the plan be
allocated towards pavement maintenance.
c) 100% Scenario – Uses 100% Regional Discretionary Funds, Non
Interstate, and Other Statewide Funds to fund pavement maintenance
This Scenario assumes an investment of 100% of all Regional Discretionary funding
and 100% of all Remaining Statewide Program funding over the life of the plan be
allocated towards pavement maintenance.
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
218
Figure 15-4 –Project OCI Based on Scenarios
Under the 70% Scenario, a significant funding commitment is being made to attempt
to bring the roadway system up to a state of good repair. A total of $212 million is
being spent in the first five years of the plan under this scenario with limited effects
on slowing the deterioration of roadways. A slight decrease in the rate of
deterioration can be seen starting in year 2028, this is the result of the GANS
payments being complete which will allow for additional funding for roadways.
Under the 80% Scenario, in the first 5 years the investment is $30 million ($242
million) more than the 70% scenario. The results of this scenario show a shallower
downward curve, but the OCI trend still shows a significant deterioration over the
next 20 years. This scenario is anticipated to have a 2040 network OCI of 44, u p
from 33 in the 70% scenario.
Under the 100% Scenario, $302 million is committed towards pavement
maintenance in the first five years of the plan. As can be seen in Figure 15-4, the
deterioration curve is much more gradual. In 2028 we experience a slight
improvement in OCI due to additional funding as a result of GANS payments being
completed. Although an improvement over the first two scenarios, the results
appear to trend in the same direction in the later years as the other scenarios. That
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
219
being said, under this scenario the OCI is expected to be significantly better in 2040
than under the other 2 scenarios.
A summary of the investment totals by scenario is shown in Table 15-14.
Table 15-14 - Scenario Funding Summary
2. Local Revenue Options 7
The ability to establish a local revenue source to fund transportation improvements
in the Pioneer Valley region would first require action by the Massachusetts
Legislature. It could also require a successful ballot initiative by local voters. The
information below on local revenue options is provided solely to illustrate options that
other states have used to raise additional revenue to fund transportation
improvement projects.
1. Local Motor Fuel Tax - The revenue base provided by these optional taxes is
supplemental in nature because fuel taxes in addition to state and federal fuel
taxes would likely cause drivers to purchase fuel outside the local area levying
the tax.
2. Local Motor Vehicle Registration Fee - Local counties and municipalities are
authorized by many states to levy an additional fee on motor vehicle registration.
These fees are typically collected by the state and returned to the locality. Most
local registration fees are used for general revenue or directed towards
transportation purposes, often for pay-as-you-go routine maintenance or
operations. Some specific transportation improvement programs are funded
through local registration fees.
3. Local Option Sales Tax - Many states authorize localities to levy local option
sales taxes for transportation purposes. The use of a local option sales tax
requires a voter referendum. Spending authority varies from state to state,
some granting localities the choice of earmarking funding or using it as general
revenue. Other states require a specific purpose be attached to the tax, such as
roadway improvement projects.
7http://www.transportation-finance.org/funding_financing/funding/local_funding/
RTP Bin 70% Scenario 80% Scenario 100% Scenario
2020 - 2024 $ 211,829,623 $ 242,090,998 $ 302,613,747
2025 - 2029 $ 242,388,089 $ 277,014,959 $ 346,268,699
2030 - 2034 $ 297,621,180 $ 340,138,491 $ 425,173,114
2035 - 2039 $ 329,868,664 $ 376,992,759 $ 471,240,949
2040 70,162,422$ 80,185,626$ $ 100,232,032
Totals $ 1,151,869,979 $ 1,316,422,833 $ 1,645,528,541
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
220
4. Local Income/Payroll/Employer Tax – Local income taxes are levied across a
particular municipality. This can create differences in neighboring income tax
rates that discourage residents from settling there. Payroll taxes (often referred
to as commuter taxes), on the other hand, are based on the total of all salaries
paid out by employers, effectively taxing a place of employment rather than a
place of residence. One example of the application of these taxes would be to
support transit service into a city.
5. Local Severance Taxes - A severance tax is a weight-based charge levied on
operators of natural resource extraction operations such as coal, timber, or
stone. It is used to fund road improvements in several rural regions of states
where heavy truck operations from these activities cause a disproportionate
amount of damage to remote roads.
6. Value Capture - Value capture refers to cases where the public sector is able to
capture some of the increased value, usually property value that results from
public investment. Some transportation investments, such as a new freeway or
interchange for example, increase the value of adjacent properties by improving
access.
7. Tax Increment Financing - Tax Increment Financing (TIF) allows cities or
counties to create special districts to generate extra tax revenue and to use that
new income to make public improvements. The legislative process for
implementing and utilizing TIF financing is a complicated process involving the
creation of the special district and the public agency to act as the administrator
of the funds.
3. Local Pavement Maintenance Needs
Currently, roadways classified as “local” roads are not eligible for federal funds. In
the Pioneer Valley Region the vast majority of roadways (66%) are classified as
local roads, meaning that over two thirds of all roads in the region are being
maintained using Chapter 90 funds or other local sources of revenue. See Figure
15-5.
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
221
Figure 15-5 – Miles of Roadway by Functional Classification
During the past several years a number of political, social, and economic trends
have influenced the form and substance of local highway maintenance practices.
Significant among them is the increasing pressure of fiscal austerity on local
resources which place constraints on local tax revenues and make it difficult for the
local highway superintendent or engineer to adequately meet the maintenance
needs of local roads in the community.
The cost increase to maintain local infrastructure, the loss of local revenue, and the
need for more Chapter 90 funding are common concerns of local communities in the
region. The state’s Chapter 90 allocation had been level funded since the middle of
the 1990s. As can be seen in Figure 15-6, in recent years Chapter 90 funding has
seen a modest increase. In 2015 the Governor of Massachusetts approved an
additional $100,000,000 ($10.5 million to the Pioneer Valley) in Chapter 90 funding.
Over the past couple years the Governor has not match the $300,000,000
committed in 2015, instead level funding Chapter 90 at $200,000,000 The
(Massachusetts Municipal Association) MMA as well as local officials have been
lobbying to tie Chapter 90 funding to inflation to ensure rising maintenance cost do
not negate increases in allotments.
0.0
250.0
500.0
750.0
1,000.0
1,250.0
1,500.0
1,750.0
2,000.0
2,250.0
2,500.0
2,750.0
3,000.0
InterstatesUrbanArterialsRuralArterialsUrbanCollectorsRuralCollectorsLocalRoadsRoadway Miles
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
222
Figure 15-6 – Pioneer Valley Municipal Chapter 90 Funding 2010-2019
PVPC reviewed the long term impact of existing Chapter 90 Funding levels on local
roadways in five communities. This information, presented in Figure 15-7, shows a
clear downward trend over time indicating the current level of funding is not sufficient
to maintain the condition of local roadways into the future. As the cost of
construction materials continues to increase, the condition of roads will continue to
deteriorate. This decline in the average OCI level is the result of the improvement
rate being offset by the roadway deterioration rate. Also, the amount of needed
repairs (backlog) increases as the average OCI declines.
Figure 15-7 OCI Projections Based on Current Chapter 90 Program
$15,000,000
$17,000,000
$19,000,000
$21,000,000
$23,000,000
$25,000,000
$27,000,000
$29,000,000
$31,000,000
$33,000,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
223
As can be seen in Figure 15-7, overall Condition Index (OCI) is projected to continue
to decrease every year over the next 20 years. According to the Massachusetts
Municipal Association (MMA), a Chapter 90 funding level of $600,000,000 is needed
statewide in order to bring local roads up to a state of good repair.
https://www.mma.org/advocacy/chapter-90-funding-is-essential-to-repair-our-roads/
In order to identify the level of funding needed in the Pioneer Valley, PVPC staff
developed a scenario to determine how much additional funding would be needed to
maintain the current OCI for a municipality. Under the scenarios, it is assumed that
100% of local Chapter 90 funding is being applied to pavement maintenance in one
local community in the Pioneer Valley region.
Based on the local funding scenario show in Figure 15-8, a 5% per year increase
would allow the sample community to realize an average OCI score in 2040 similar
to the estimated average OCI for 2020. As can be seen in the figure, under this
scenario the OCI drops for the first couple of years before beginning to shows signs
of increasing starting in 2020. In 2040 it is important to note that we begin to see a
decline in OCI, it is not clear if this is due to funding or just on continuation in the
trend from 2031 to 2038
Figure 15-8 OCI Projections Based on Current Chapter 90 Program
If level funded the Chapter 90 program will provide about $450 million in funding to
the PV Region. Based on our scenario the Chapter 90 program would need to
experience a 5% per year increase in funding to maintain the current roadway
condition. A 5% per year increase would result in a Chapter 90 invest in the PV
Region of $800 million over the next 20 years. This would result in a Chapter 90
program in line with the reports released by the MMA.
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
224
4. Regional Transit Needs
One of the biggest hurdles for the Regional Transit Authorities (RTA) has been
securing funding to maintain current service levels. In 2014 PVTA completed a
Comprehensive Service Analysis (SCA). The SCA included recommendations to
both enhance existing service as well as expand service. Since the implementation
of the original recommendations, PVTA has been forced to cut service twice. The
purpose of this scenario is to identify the funding necessary to reinstate service
PVTA was forced to cut as well as he funding PVTA would require to expand transit
service to better meet the needs of the region.
In order to develop this transit funding scenario, PVPC reviewed the
recommendations of the Regional Transit Authority Task Force report and compared
those numbers to PVTA’s FFY2018 operating budget. The report, released in April
of 2019, includes twenty four recommendations. Recommendation #1 - “The
legislature should fund the RTAs in fiscal year 2020 with a base of $90.5 million in
state contract assistance (SCA). Each subsequent year increase the SCA by an
automatic inflator” was used to develop this scenario. A 4% per year increase was
assumed for the “automatic inflator.” This recommendation is intended to provide
adequate and consistent funding for RTA’s and provides each RTA with the
opportunity to provide more consistent service for its riders. In turn, this could result
in increased ridership and generate additional revenue for transit operations.
PVTA receives 29% of the SCA released per year. In FFY 2018, PVTA received just
over $23 million which accounted for 49% of PVTA’s operating budget. According to
the Transit Task Force Report, PVTA’s FFY 2020 SCA amount should be $26.2
million which would increase each year by the “automatic inflator” (assumed to be
4% for this scenario).
Under this scenario, it was assumed that PVTA would receive a total of $26.2 million
in SCA funds in FFY 2020. The operating funding breakdown shown in Figure 15-9
was then used to determine operating funding available over a 5 year range. Figure
15-10 compares the scenario to existing conditions (level funding) as well as PVTA’s
operating needs. Based on this scenario, PVTA would be able to meet its anticipated
operating needs with the first 10 years of funding and exceed its operating needs by
2030. This would allow PVTA to provide additional services for the region.
Chapter 15 – Financial Element
225
Figure 15-9 – PVTA Operating Funds Breakdown
Figure 15-10 – PVTA Operating Funds Scenario
Chapter 16 – Conformity
227
Photo: New Rail Platform at Union Station in Springfield, MA
CONFORMITY
A. AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY INFORMATION
This section documents the latest air quality conformity determination for the 1997
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Pioneer Valley
Region. It covers the applicable conformity requirements according to the latest
regulations, regional designation status, legal considerations, and federal guidance.
Further details and background information are provided below:
B. INTRODUCTION
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require metropolitan planning
organizations within nonattainment and maintenance areas to perform air quality
conformity determinations prior to the approval of Long-Range Transportation
Plans(LRTPs) and Transportation Improvement Programs(TIPs), and at such other
times as required by regulation. Clean Air Act (CAA) section 176(c) (42 U.S.C.
7506(c)) requires that federally funded or approved highway and transit activities are
CHAPTER 16
Chapter 16 – Conformity
228
consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding and approvals are given
to highway and transit activities that will not cause or contribute to new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant
NAAQS or any interim milestones (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1)). EPA’s transportation
conformity rules establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether
metropolitan transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and
federally supported highway and transit projects conform to the SIP (40 CFR Parts
51.390 and 93).
A nonattainment area is one that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has designated as not meeting certain air quality standards. A maintenance area is a
nonattainment area that now meets the standards and has been re-designated as
maintaining the standard. A conformity determination is a demonstration that plans,
programs, and projects are consistent with the State Implementation Plan(SIP) for
attaining the air quality standards. The CAAA requirement to perform a conformity
determination ensures that federal approval and funding go to transportation
activities that are consistent with air quality goals.
C. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
The entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts was previously classified as
nonattainment for ozone, and was divided into two nonattainment areas. The
Eastern Massachusetts ozone nonattainment area included Barnstable, Bristol,
Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, and Worcester
counties. Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties comprised the
Western Massachusetts ozone nonattainment area. With these classifications, the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) required the Commonwealth to reduce its
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), the two
major precursors to ozone formation to achieve attainment of the ozone standard.
The 1970 Clean Air Act defined a one-hour national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. The 1990 CAAA further classified degrees of
nonattainment of the one-hour standard based on the severity of the monitored
levels of the pollutant. The entire commonwealth of Massachusetts was classified as
being in serious nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, with a required
attainment date of 1999. The attainment date was later extended, first to 2003 and a
second time to 2007.
In 1997,the EPA proposed a new, eight-hour ozone standard that replaced the one-
hour standard, effective June 15,2005. Scientific information had shown that ozone
could affect human health at lower levels, and over longer exposure times than one
hour. The new standard was challenged in court, and after a lengthy legal battle, the
Chapter 16 – Conformity
229
courts upheld it. It was finalized in June 2004.The eight-hour standard is 0.08 parts
per million, averaged over eight hours and not to be exceeded more than once per
year. Nonattainment areas were again further classified based on the severity of the
eight-hour values. Massachusetts as a whole was classified as being in moderate
nonattainment for the eight-hour standard, and was separated into two
nonattainment areas - Eastern Massachusetts and Western Massachusetts.
In March 2008, EPA published revisions to the eight-hour ozone NAAQS
establishing a level of 0.075 ppm, (March 27, 2008; 73 FR 16483). In 2009, EPA
announced it would reconsider this standard because it fell outside of the range
recommended by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. However, EPA did
not take final action on the reconsideration so the standard would remain at 0.075
ppm.
After reviewing data from Massachusetts monitoring stations, EPA sent a letter on
December 16, 2011 proposing that only Dukes County would be designated as
nonattainment for the new proposed 0.075 ozone standard. Massachusetts
concurred with these findings.
On May 21, 2012,(77 FR 30088), the final rule was published in the Federal
Register, defining the 2008 NAAQS at 0.075 ppm, the standard that was
promulgated in March 2008. A second rule published on May 21, 2012 (77 FR
30160), revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS to occur one year after the July 20, 2012
effective date of the 2008 NAAQS.
Also on May 21, 2012, the air quality designations areas for the 2008 NAAQS were
published in the Federal Register. In this Federal Register, the only area in
Massachusetts that was designated as nonattainment is Dukes County. All other
Massachusetts counties were designated as attainment/unclassified for the 2008
standard. On March 6, 2015, (80 FR 12264, effective April 6, 2015) EPA published
the Final Rulemaking, “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements; Final
Rule.” This rulemaking confirmed the removal of transportation conformity to the
1997 Ozone NAAQS.
However, on February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. District v. EPA (“South Coast
II,” 882 F.3d 1138) held that transportation conformity determinations must be made
in areas that were either nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
and attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS when the 1997 ozone NAAQS was
revoked. These conformity determinations are required in these areas after February
16, 2019. On November 29, 2018, EPA issued Transportation Conformity Guidance
for the South Coast II Court Decision (EPA-420-B-18-050, November 2018) that
addresses how transportation conformity determinations can be made in areas.
Chapter 16 – Conformity
230
According to the guidance, both Eastern and Western Massachusetts, along with
several other areas across the country, are now defined as “orphan nonattainment
areas” – areas that were designated as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at
the time of its revocation (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) and were designated
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in EPA’s original designations rule for this
NAAQS (77 FR 30160, May 21, 2012).
D. CURRENT CONFORMITY DETERMINATION
After 2/16/19, as a result of the court ruling and the subsequent federal guidance,
transportation conformity for the 1997 NAAQS – intended as an “anti-backsliding”
measure – now applies to both of Massachusetts’ orphan areas. Therefore, this
conformity determination is being made for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on the Pioneer
Valley Regions FFY 2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program and the 2020
Regional Transportation Plan.
The transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.109 sets forth the criteria and
procedures for determining conformity. The conformity criteria for TIPs and RTPs
include: latest planning assumptions (93.110), latest emissions model (93.111),
consultation (93.112), transportation control measures (93.113(b) and (c), and
emissions budget and/or interim emissions (93.118 and/or 93.119).
For the 1997 ozone NAAQS areas, transportation conformity for TIPs and RTPs for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated without a regional emissions analysis,
per 40 CFR 93.109(c). This provision states that the regional emissions analysis
requirement applies one year after the effective date of EPA’s nonattainment
designation for a NAAQS and until the effective date of revocation of such NAAQS
for an area. The 1997 ozone NAAQS revocation was effective on April 6, 2015, and
the South Coast II court upheld the revocation. As no regional emission analysis is
required for this conformity determination, there is no requirement to use the latest
emissions model, or budget or interim emissions tests.
Therefore, transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Pioneer
Valley Region FFY 2020-2024 Transportation Improvement Program and 2020
Regional Transportation Plan can be demonstrated by showing that remaining
requirements in Table 1 in 40 CFR 93.109 have been met. These requirements,
which are laid out in Section 2.4 of EPA’s guidance and addressed below, include:
Latest planning assumptions (93.110)
Consultation (93.112)
Transportation Control Measures (93.113)
Fiscal Constraint (93.108)
Chapter 16 – Conformity
231
1. Latest Planning Assumptions
The use of latest planning assumptions in 40 CFR 93.110 of the conformity rule
generally apply to regional emissions analysis. In the 1997 ozone NAAQS areas, the
use of latest planning assumptions requirement applies to assumptions about
transportation control measures (TCMs) in an approved SIP (See following section
on Timely Implementation of TCMs).
2. Consultation
The consultation requirements in 40 CFR 93.112 were addressed both for
interagency consultation and public consultation. Interagency consultation was
conducted with FHWA, FTA, US EPA Region 1, MassDEP, and the other
Massachusetts MPOs, with the most recent conformity consultation meeting held on
March 6, 2019 (this most recent meeting focused on understanding the latest
conformity-related court rulings and resulting federal guidance). This ongoing
consultation is conducted in accordance with the following:
Massachusetts’ Air Pollution Control Regulations 310 CMR 60.03 “Conformity
to the State Implementation Plan of Transportation Plans, Programs, and
Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 USC or the Federal
Transit Act”
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Memorandum of Understanding by
and between Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction,
Massachusetts Metropolitan Planning Organizations concerning the conduct
of transportation-air quality planning in the development and implementation
of the state implementation plan” (note: this MOU is currently being updated.)
Public consultation was conducted consistent with planning rule requirements in 23
CFR 450.
Title 23 CFR Section 450.324 and 310 CMR 60.03(6)(h) requires that the
development of the TIP, RTP, and related certification documents provide an
adequate opportunity for public review and comment. Section 450.316(b) also
establishes the outline for MPO public participation programs. The Pioneer Valley
MPO's Public Participation Plan was formally adopted in 2016. The Public
Participation Plan ensures that the public will have access to the TIP and all
supporting documentation, provides for public notification of the availability of the
TIP and the public's right to review the document and comment thereon, and
provides a 30-day public review and comment period prior to the adoption of the TIP
and related certification documents.
The public comment period for this conformity determination commenced on June
25, 2019. During the 21-day public comment period, any comments received were
incorporated into this Plan. This allowed ample opportunity for public comment and
Chapter 16 – Conformity
232
MPO review of the draft document. The public comment period will close on July 15,
2019 and subsequently, the Pioneer Valley MPO is expected to endorse this air
quality conformity determination on July 23, 2019. These procedures comply with
the associated federal requirements.
3. Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) have been required in the SIP in revisions
submitted to EPA in 1979 and 1982. All SIP TCMs have been accomplished through
construction or through implementation of ongoing programs. All of the projects have
been included in the Region's Transportation Plan (present of past) as
recommended projects or projects requiring further study.
DEP submitted to EPA its strategy of programs to show Reasonable Further
Progress of a 15% reduction of VOCs in 1996 and the further 9% reduction of NOx
toward attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone
in 1999. Within that strategy there are no specific TCM projects. The strategy does
call for traffic flow improvements to reduce congestion and, therefore, improve air
quality. Other transportation-related projects that have been included in the SIP
control strategy are listed below:
Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program
California Low Emission Vehicle Program
Reformulated Gasoline for On- and Off-Road Vehicles
Stage II Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Refueling Stations
Tier I Federal Vehicle Standards
4. Fiscal Constraint:
Transportation conformity requirements in 40 CFR 93.108 state that TIPs and
transportation plans and must be fiscally constrained consistent with DOT’s
metropolitan planning regulations at 23 CFR part 450. The 2020 Regional
Transportation Plan for the Pioneer Valley is fiscally constrained, as demonstrated in
Chapter 16 of the RTP.
As of April 22, 2002, the city of Springfield was re-designated as being in attainment
for carbon monoxide (CO) with an EPA-approved limited maintenance plan. In
areas with approved limited maintenance plans, federal actions requiring conformity
determinations under the transportation conformity rule are considered to satisfy the
"budget test" (as budgets are treated as not constraining in these areas for the
length of the initial maintenance period). Any future required "project level"
conformity determinations for projects located within this community will continue to
use a "hot-spot" analysis to assure that any new transportation projects in this CO
attainment area do not cause or contribute to carbon monoxide non-attainment.
Chapter 16 – Conformity
233
In summary and based upon the entire process described above, the Pioneer Valley
MPO has prepared this conformity determination for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS in
accordance with EPA’s and Massachusetts’ latest conformity regulations and
guidance. This conformity determination process demonstrates that the FFY 2020-
2024 Transportation Improvement Program and the 2020-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan meet the Clean Air Act and Transportation Conformity Rule
requirements for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, and have been prepared following all the
guidelines and requirements of these rules during this time period.
Therefore, the implementation of the Pioneer Valley MPO’s FFY 2020-2024
Transportation Improvement Program and the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan
are consistent with the air quality goals of, and in conformity with, the Massachusetts
State Implementation Plan.
Chapter 17 – Environmental Consultation
235
Photo: Route 112 Bridge in Huntington, MA
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION
Regional Transportation Plans must provide information on the efforts to consult with
state and local agencies responsible for environmental, land use, and preservation
in the development of the RTP. In addition, the RTP must include a discussion of
the types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry
out these activities. This chapter demonstrates how these requirements have been
integrated into the RTP for the Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION
The Pioneer Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization must consult “as
appropriate” with state and local agencies responsible for land use management,
natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation
to develop the long range transportation plan. PVPC scheduled an environmental
consultation meeting on Tuesday May 28, 2019. Invitations were sent to a number of
federal, state, and local agencies to review the draft transportation improvement
projects included as part of the RTP. PVPC staff was available for questions and
CHAPTER 17
Chapter 17 – Environmental Consultation
236
comments from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM. Transportation Improvement projects were
mapped over several environmental maps including:
Habitat – Road linkage importance for regional habitat connectivity.
Habitat – Link importance for regional habitat connectivity.
Wetlands
500 Year Flood
100 Year Flood Zones
Valley Vision Priority Development Areas
Valley Vision Priority Protection Areas
Massachusetts Historic Commission Historic Inventory Areas
Environmental Justice Minority Census Block Groups
Environmental Justice Low Income Census Block Groups
Disabled Residents Aged 65+ Census Block Groups
Disabled Residents Aged 20-64 Census Block Groups
An online interactive version of this map is located through the following link:
https://tinyurl.com/pvpcrtpupdate2019. A copy of the complete project listing and
Map Key is included as part of the Appendix to the RTP.
Two of these maps are shown in Figures 17-1 and 17-2. A complete list of agencies
invited to participate in the Environmental Consultation is presented in Table 17-1.
Each of these agencies will also be sent a draft copy of the RTP. Comments
received as part of Environmental Consultation have been summarized in Chapter 3
of the RTP.
Chapter 17 – Environmental Consultation
237
Figure 17-1 – RTP Projects and Massachusetts Wetlands
Chapter 17 – Environmental Consultation
238
Figure 17-2 – RTP Projects with 100 and 500 Year Flood Zones
Chapter 17 – Environmental Consultation
239
Table 17-1 – RTP Environmental Consultation Mailing List
American Rivers Massachusetts Historic Commission
Arise for Social Justice Partners for a Healthier Community
Chicopee 4Rivers Watershed Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition
City of Chicopee Pioneer Valley JTC Members
City of Holyoke Pioneer Valley MPO Members
City of Northampton Pioneer Valley EJ and Title VI mailing list
City of Springfield Stavros
City of Westfield Stockbridge-Munsee Community
Connecticut River Watershed Council The Hill Town Trust
Co-op Power The Kestrel Trust
Environmental Protection Agency The Nature Conservancy
Home Builders and Remodelers
Association of Western MA
Town of Belchertown
Massachusetts Association of
Conservation Commissions
Town of Hadley
Mass Audubon Town of South Hadley
MassDEP Trustees of Reservations
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife
University of Massachusetts
Massachusetts DCR US Department of Agriculture
Massachusetts Division of Ecological
Restoration
Westfield River Watershed Association
Massachusetts Department of Public
Health
Westfield River Wild and Scenic
Committee
MassDOT
In addition to the above list, a meeting notice for the Environmental Consultation was
posted on the PVPC website and in the Republican (the local newspaper) in both
English and Spanish.
Chapter 18 – Endorsement
241
Photo: Williston Avenue by Nashawannuck Pond in Easthampton, MA
ENDORSEMENT
The Pioneer Valley MPO will vote to endorse the 2020 Update to the RTP at their
meeting on July 23, 2019.
CHAPTER 18