2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan

Merrimack Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization

July 24, 2019

Prepared for the

Merrimack Valley Metropolitan

Planning Organization

By the

Merrimack Valley Planning Commission

The preparation of this report has been financed under contracts #95416 and MA-80-x012 and x013 between the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and with
the cooperation of the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority.

Cover Photo: Bradford Rail Trail, D. Ovalle.

Photo this page: Placemaking – reimagining roadways at

Salisbury Beach, MVPC.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan ii

Title VI Notice of Public Protection

The Merrimack Valley Planning Commission (MVPC) operates its programs, services and activities in compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, and related
statutes and regulations. Title VI prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs and requires that no person
in the United States of America shall, on the grounds of
race, color or national origin (including limited English proficiency) be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal assistance. Related federal nondiscrimination laws administered by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, or both prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, sex and
disability. These protected categories are contemplated within MVPC’s Title VI Program consistent with federal interpretation and administration. Additionally, MVPC provides meaningful access to its programs, services, and activities to individuals with limited English proficiency, in compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation
policy and guidance on federal Executive Order 13166.
MVPC also complies with the Massachusetts Public
Accommodation Law, M.G.L. Chapter 272, Sections 92a,
98, and 98a prohibiting making any distinction, discrimination, or restriction in admission to or treatment
in a place of public accommodation based upon race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or ancestry. Likewise, MVPC complies with the Governor’s Executive Order 526, Section 4 requiring that all its programs, activities, and services provided, performed, licensed, chartered, funded, regulated, or contracted for shall be conducted without unlawful discrimination based upon race, color, age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender
identity or expression, religion, creed, ancestry, national origin, disability, veteran’s status (including Vietnam-era veterans), or background.

Additional Information

To request additional information regarding Title VI and related federal and state nondiscrimination obligations, please contact:
Title VI Program Coordinator
Merrimack Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization c/o Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
160 Main Street
Haverhill, MA 01830-5061 (978) 374-0519, extension 15
[email protected]

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan iii

Complaint Filing

To file a complaint alleging a violation of Title VI or
related federal nondiscrimination law, contact the Title VI Program Coordinator (above) within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the alleged discriminatory conduct.
To file a complaint alleging a violation of the Commonwealth’s Public Accommodation Law, contact the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination within three hundred (300) days of the alleged discriminatory conduct at:
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
(MCAD)
One Ashburton Place, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02109 (617) 994-6000
TTY: (617) 994-6196

Translation

English

If this information is needed in another language, please contact the MVMPO Title VI/Nondiscrimination Coordinator at 978-374-0519 ext. 15.

Spanish

Si necesita esta información en otro idioma, por favor contacte al coordinador de MVMPO del Título VI/Contra la Discriminación al 978-374-0519 ext. 15.

Portuguese

Caso estas informações sejam necessárias em outro idioma, por favor, contate o Coordenador de Título VI e de Não Discriminação da MVMPO pelo telefone 978-
374-0519, Ramal 15.

Chinese Simplified 如果需要使用其它语言了解信息，请联系Merrimack Valley大 都会规划组织（MVMPO）《民权法案》第六章协调员，电话

978-374-0519，转15。

Chinese Traditional 如果需要使用其他語言瞭解資訊，請聯繫Merrimack Valley大 都會規劃組織（MVMPO）《民權法案》第六章協調員，電話

978-374-0519，轉15

Vietnamese

Nếu quý vị cần thông tin này bằng tiếng khác, vui lòng liên hệ Điều phối viên Luật VI/Chống phân biệt đối xử của MVMPO theo số điện thoại 978-374-0519, số máy nhánh
15.

French Creole

Si yon moun vle genyen enfòmasyon sa yo nan yon lòt lang, tanpri kontakte Kowòdinatè kont Diskriminasyon/MVMPO Title VI la nan nimewo 978-374-
0519, ekstansyon 15.

Russian ЕслиВамнеобходимаданнаяинформацияналюбомдр угомязыке, пожалуйста, свяжитесьсКоординатором

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan iv

Титула VI/Защита от дескриминациив MVMPOпотел:
978-374-0519, добавочный 15.

French

Si vous avez besoin d'obtenir une copie de la présente dans une autre langue, veuillez contacter le
coordinateur du Titre VI/anti-discrimination de MVMPOen
composant le 978-374-0519, poste 15.

Italian

Se ha bisogno di ricevere queste informazioni in un’altra lingua si prega di contattare il coordinatore del MVMPO del Titolo VI e dell'ufficio contro la discriminazione al 978-
374-0519 interno 15.

Mon-Khmer, Cambodian

ប្រសិនបរើបោក-អ្នកប្រូវការរកប្ប្រព័រ៌មានបនេះសូមទាក់ទងអ្នកសប្មរសប្មួលជំពូកទី6/គ្មា នការបរើសបអ្ើងររស់

MVMPOតាមរយៈបលខទូរស័ពទ978-374-0519 រចភ្ជា រ់បៅបលខ15។

Arabic

ةرقفلا قسنمب لاصتلاا ىجرُي ،ىرخأ ةغلب تامولعملا هذه ىلإ ةجاحب تنك اذإ ىلع يلاف كاميريم يف يرضحلا طيطختلا ةمظنملعباتلا زييمتلا عنمل ةسداسلا

15 ماقرلأا طغضا مثو 978-374-0519 :فتاهلا

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan v

Endorsement Page

Merrimack Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization

Endorsement of the 2020 Merrimack Valley Regional

Transportation Plan

This document certifies that the Merrimack Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, at its meeting on July 24, 2019, hereby approves the endorsement of the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan and Air Quality Determination for the Merrimack Valley Region. The RTP is being endorsed in accordance with the 3C Transportation Planning Process and complies with the requirements set forth in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP 21).

Signatory Certification: Date: July 24, 2019

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan vi

Self-Certification Compliance

Statement - Signatures

Merrimack Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization

Concurrent with the submittal of the proposed RTP to the FHWA and the FTA, the MPO Policy Board shall certify that the metropolitan transportation planning process is being carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements including:
1. 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and this subpart;
2. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d)) and 40 CFR part 93;
3. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) and 49 CFR part 21;
4. 49 U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age in employment or business opportunity;
5. Section 1101 (b) of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-357) and 49 CFR part 26 regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in USDOT funded projects;
6. 23 CFR 230, regarding the implementation of an Equal Employment Opportunity Program on Federal and Federal-aid
Highway construction contracts;
7. The provisions of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and 49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38;
8. The Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance;
9. Section 324 of title 23 U.S.C. regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on gender;
10. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and 49 CFR part 27 regarding discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and
11. Anti-lobbying restrictions found in 49 USC Part 20. No appropriated funds may be expended by a recipient to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, in connection with
the awarding of any Federal contract.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan vii

Signatory Certification: Date: July 24, 2019

Karen Conard
MVPC Executive Director

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan viii

310 CMR 60.05: Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)

Certification Compliance Statement for the Merrimack Valley MPO.

This will certify that the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Air Quality Conformity Determination for the Merrimack

Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MVMPO) is in compliance with all applicable requirements in the State Regulation

310 CMR 60.05: Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the MassDOT. The regulation requires the MVMVPO to:

• 310 CMR 60.05, 5(a)(1): Evaluate and report the aggregate transportation GHG emissions and impacts of RTPs and TIPs;

• 310 CMR 60.05, 5(a)(2): In consultation with MassDOT, develop and utilize procedures to prioritize and select projects in

RTPs and TIPs based on factors that include aggregate transportation GHG emissions impacts;

• 310 CMR 60.05, 5(a)(3): Quantify net transportation GHG emissions impacts resulting from the projects in RTPs and TIPs and certify in a statement included with RTPs and TIPs pursuant to 23 CFR Part 450 that the MPO has made efforts to minimize aggregate transportation GHG emissions impacts;

• 310 CMR 60.05, 5(a)(4): Determine in consultation with the RPA that the appropriate planning assumptions used for transportation GHG emissions modeling are consistent with local land use policies, or that local authorities have made documented and credible commitments to establishing such consistency;

• 310 CMR 60.05, 8(a)(2)(a): Develop RTPs and TIPs;

• 310 CMR 60.05, 8(a)(2)(b): Ensure that RPAs are using appropriate planning assumptions;

• 310 CMR 60.05, 8(a)(2)(c): Perform regional aggregate transportation GHG emissions analysis of RTPs and TIPs;

• 310 CMR 60.05, 8(a)(2)(d): Calculate aggregate transportation GHG emissions for RTPs and TIPs;

• 310 CMR 60.05, 8(a)(2)(e): Develop public consultation procedures for aggregate transportation GHG reporting and related GWSA requirements consistent with current and approved regional public participation plans;

• 310 CMR 60.05, 8(c): Prior to making final endorsements on the RTPs, TIPs, STIPs, and projects included in these plans, MassDOT and the MPOs shall include the aggregate transportation GHG emission impact assessment in RTPs, TIPs, and STIPs and provide an opportunity for public review and comment on the RTPs, TIPs, and STIPs.

• 310 CMR 60.05, 8(a)(1)(c): After a final GHG assessment has been made by MassDOT and the MPOs, MassDOT and the

MPOs shall submit MPO-endorsed RTPs, TIPs or projects within 30 days of endorsement to the Department for review of the GHG assessment.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan ix

Signatory Certification: Date: July 24, 2019

Karen Conard
MVPC Executive Director

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan x

List of Acronyms

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan xi

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan xii

Massachusetts

j

Amesbury

'I

I I

I \

I

,.. ----....

( "

\

\

\

North

Andover

',

''', Boxford

\

\

\

\

\

,.\,....

_...."

"""' '

',

' ....

Figure 1: Map of Merrimack Valley Region

1 0.5 0 2 3 4

5 \V E Miles s

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan xiii

Table of Contents

Contents

List of Acronyms xi
Table of Contents xiv
Executive Summary 1
Chapter 1 - Introduction 9
Chapter 2 - Vision and Goals 16
Chapter 3 Socio Economic Conditions and Projections 23
Chapter 4 - The Planning Process and Public Participation 39
Chapter 5 - Fiscal Constraint 51
Chapter 6 - Goal 1: State of Good Repair 65
Chapter 7 - Goal 2: Increase Safety for All Modes 81
Chapter 8 - Goal 3: Create a Multi-Modal Transportation System to Support Mode Shift 97
Chapter 9 - Goal 4: Promote Economic Vitality 116
Chapter 10 - Goal 5: Promote Environmental Sustainability 150
Chapter 11 - Goal 6: Transportation Equity 180
Chapter 12 - Summary 194

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan xiv

Executive Summary

The 2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is the long-range transportation plan that maps out how the Merrimack Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MVMPO) will achieve its vision:

The MVMPO envisions a multi-modal, safe, efficient and cost-effective transportation system that supports our communities’ livability goals of economic vitality, high quality of life, preservation of natural resources and healthy lifestyles.

To achieve this vision within a limited budget, the MVMPO chose not to support any major infrastructure projects that would have required allocation of a substantial amount of funding. Instead, the MVMPO chose projects that addressed the goals and objectives (i.e. safety, state of good repair, mobility) on existing roadways or new rights-of-way, such as multi-use trail
projects.

Photo: Railroad corridor through Rowley.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 1
Executive Summary

Goals and Objectives

Goal 1: Maintain Existing Infrastructure in a

State of Good Repair

• Maintain federal-aid roadways in good to excellent condition.

• Maintain and modernize transit capital assets in good to excellent condition.

• Improve conditions of existing pedestrian infrastructure.

Goal 2: Increase Safety for All Modes

• Reduce overall number of crashes for all modes.

Goal 3: Create a Multi-Modal Transportation

System to Support Mode Shift

• Implement and expand multi-modal network.

• Improve/increase bicycle parking capacity.

• Increase efficiency and effectiveness of transportation systems to support mode shift.

Goal 4: Promote Economic Vitality

• Direct transportation investment to Priority

Development Areas.

• Support freight movement within and through the

Merrimack Valley region.

• Improve/increase multi-modal transportation options for tourism.

• Reduce congestion on region’s roadways that

serve transit and/or existing populations and places of employment.

Goal 5: Promote Environmental Sustainability

• Implement effective stormwater management programs.

• Promote adaptive planning for climate change.

• Improve regional air quality.

Goal 6: Transportation Equity

• Prioritize transportation planning and investments that eliminate barriers for Title VI and Environmental Justice (EJ) communities.

• Break down barriers to participation in MPO

process.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 2
Executive Summary

Throughout the planning process, the MVMPO collected and evaluated data and spoke with many stakeholders to determine the transportation gaps and needs as well as develop strategies that will then be incorporated into future Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs) for the organization. The UPWP is the annual work program that includes studies, data collection, planning, technical assistance and any other programmatic work that the MVMPO staff undertake.

What does the RTP do?

The RTP is the MVMPO region’s 20-year plan for transportation projects that can be selected for implementation with federal funds. Implementation typically involves design, permitting and construction, although capital equipment purchases are also programmed.
Each year, the MVMPO programs projects from the RTP that are ‘ready-to-go’ into its five-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Selected projects have also been evaluation criteria that take into account all the goals found within the RTP — safety, congestion, mobility, economic development, equity and more.

Financial Constraint

A critical element of the RTP is that it must be financially constrained. This means that the total costs of projects and services contained in it may not exceed the amount of funding that can reasonably be expected to be
available to the MPO for the time period being
considered for this RTP (FFYs 2020-2040). This requirement ensures that the projects identified in the document reflect the region’s transportation priorities and needs and that it not be a “wish list” that provides little or no direction or guidance in improving the transportation network.
To ensure that the financial assumptions on funding availability made by the individual MPOs are consistent and fiscally constrained, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) provided to the MVMPO estimates of the amount of highway and transit funding that are expected to be available in FFY 2020 to FFY
2040. Over $1.1 billion in funds are expected to be available to the MVMPO region between from FFYs 2020 through 2040.
Table 1 provides a summary of the funding available and the estimated cost of the projects chosen for funding through the RTP process. Table 2 provides a full list of those projects recommended for funding. The Universe
of Projects, which is a list of projects chosen and not chosen for funding, can be found in the Appendices.
Table 3 summarizes the transit capital expenditures planned for the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (MVRTA). The focus for this RTP was on fleet replacement for the fixed route system, ADA on-demand service and supervisory vehicles. Funding was also allocated for operations and preventive maintenance.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 3
Executive Summary

Table 1: Summary of Transportation Funding in FFY 2020-2040 Regional Transportation Plan

Available Funding 2020-2024 20205-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 Total

Highway/Bridge/Bicycle/Pedestrian $54,965,577 $63,018,613 $77,378,696 $85,762,738 $18,241,567 $299,367,191

Transit Funding $49,150 $48,086,313 $51,450,009 $60,786,697 $11,851,370 $221,324,514

Total Funds Available $55,014,727 $111,104,926 $128,828,705 $146,549,435 $30,092,937 $520,691,705

Demand

Total Highway/Bridge
$54,965,577 $63,018,592 $77,378,696 $85,762,738 $18,241,567 $299,367,171

/Bicycle/Pedestrian Total Transit Capital and Operating $40,709,715 $47,500,469 $50,242,144 $57,399,361 $11,851,369 $207,703,058

Table 2: Roadway and Trail Projects

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 4
Executive Summary

Table 2 Roadway and Trail Projects (Continued)

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 5
Executive Summary

Table 2 Roadway and Trail Projects (Continued)

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 6
Executive Summary

Table 3: Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority Anticipated Capital Expenditures 2020-2040

Category

Capital Expenses 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 Subtotals

5307 - Preventative Maintenance $14,411,676 $15,414,480 $15,414,480 $15,414,480 $3,082,896 $63,738,012

5307 - ADA Operating $7,183,736 $8,164,447 $9,014,209 $9,952,415 $2,111,488 $36,426,297

5307 - Operating $2,268,315 $2,296,611 $2,535,644 $2,799,556 $593,949 $10,494,077

5307- Planning $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $80,000

Facilities

Bank Stabilization $1,400,264

Vehicles

Supervisory Vehicles $153,736 $321,084 $176,234 $651,055

Paratransit Vans $1,320,080 $2,027,705 $1,885,534 $2,787,079 $8,020,399

Bus Replacement $5,469,240 $7,640,350 $9,422,459 $11,542,523 $3,256,391 $37,330,964

Engine/Transmission Replacements $357,728 $1,167,464 $1,525,193

Total Spending Need $32,607,047 $36,622,408 $38,672,328 $43,919,754 $ 9,044,725 $158,185,999

Carryover $7,787,600 $2,335,144 $1,167,928 $4,342,011 $15,632,683

5307 Allocation $31,509,531 $34,925,710 $38,712,262 $42,909,343 $9,124,725 $157,181,571
Federal Funds Allocated to MVRTA $39,297,131 $37,260,854 $39,880,190 $47,251,354 $9,124,725 $172,814,254

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 7
Executive Summary

Transportation Equity and Accessibility

The MVMPO looked at several indicators when analyzing the equitable distribution of funds. Overall, the equity analysis showed that the amount of benefit within low- income and minority populations was proportional to
non-Environmental Justice (EJ) communities. Certainly, EJ

Table 4: Project Funding Distribution (American Community

Survey (ACS))

$ Per

communities receive a much higher share of transit service. Table 4 demonstrates three of these equity measures.
1. Geographic Equity – At least one project was selected for funding in all communities, except for West Newbury.
2. The City of Lawrence was allocated the largest amount of funding for projects. The City of Lawrence also has the largest minority population and the largest low-income population.
3. Not surprisingly, the Town of Rowley has the

Community

# Projects in RTP

Project Funding per Community

Population

2013-2017

ACS

Capita,

2013-2017

ACS

highest per capita spending. One of the least
populated communities in the region, Rowley also has three fairly sizable projects included in the RTP.
Amesbury 2 $9,127,897.15 17,218 $530.14

Andover 1 $18,833,414.04 35,375 $532.39

Boxford 2 $17,036,229.41 8,228 $2,070.52

Georgetown 3 $11,891,174.05 8,569 $1,387.70

Groveland 1 $2,064,255.00 6,697 $308.24


Haverhill 4 $30,030,286.73 62,943 $477.10
Lawrence 4 $40,289,512.25 79,497 $506.81
Merrimac 1 $3,900,830.21 6,752 $577.73

Methuen 3 $11,087,420.87 49,575 $223.65

Newbury 3 $ 13,494,122.89 6,964 $1,937.70

Newburyport 2 $13,648,951.10 17,890 $762.94


North Andover 3 $35,504,656.87 30,170 $1,176.82
Rowley 3 $29,313,417.07 6,232 $4,703.69
Salisbury 2 $10,359,583.67 9,021 $1,148.39
Furthermore, the projects included in the RTP are intended to reduce congestion and vehicle hours of delay for all users of the transportation system, while increasing the amount of funding available for alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling and walking – which benefit low-income and minority populations to a greater degree.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 8

Image: Merrimac’s town square was reconstructed using federal transportation funds.

Chapter 1

Introduction

The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a federally required long-range strategy and evaluation of the transportation system in the Merrimack Valley. Looking out 20 years, the RTP assesses the needs, impacts and performance that transportation choices and investments have on mobility, safety, environment and
the economy.
The RTP must consider all major modes of transportation and be fiscally constrained, which means that each project appearing in the document must include an identified source of funding that will be sufficient in magnitude to allow its completion in the year it is programmed.
When you get right down to it, the RTP spells out how our region will spend federal transportation funding in a way that helps us achieve local, regional and state goals.
The goals will impact how people get to jobs, support
economic development, achieve environmental sustainability and more. It is also important to plan ahead to ensure that the funding is spent equitably and that transportation infrastructure is maintained in a responsible manner.
This RTP is the Merrimack Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MVMPO) 20-year plan for transportation projects that can be programmed for implementation with federal transportation funds. Each year, the
MVMPO programs projects from the RTP that are, or soon will be, ‘ready-to-go’ into its five-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Only those projects that are identified in the RTP, or are consistent with its recommendations, can be programmed in the TIP. The TIP is also fiscally constrained and projects identified in
the TIP are, for the most part, allocated 80% federal funds with a 20% match. Operating funds for transit are matched at 50%.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 9

Chapter 1 Introduction
Beyond simply identifying projects, the RTP also lays out the transportation concepts, programs, analyses and fiscal factors that shape the selection of the projects identified. The analyses, studies and plans that are used to achieve the RTP goals are included in the MVMPO annual Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs).
The RTP must consider 10 planning factors identified in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which are reflected in the goals and objectives. In addition, the MVMPO is required to establish performance measures in the areas of:

• Pavement condition

• Performance of the Interstate System

• Bridge conditions

• Safety

• Traffic Congestion

• Air Quality

• Freight movement

Measures of success (performance measures) are included as well as strategies for work toward achieving goals, objectives and performance targets.

Photo: Tree-lined sidewalks in front of Harbor Place in

Haverhill.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 10

Chapter 1 Introduction

Image: Construction of the Clipper City Rail Trail in Newburyport.

Meeting Federal Requirements

The MVMPO RTP meets several federal requirements related to the Fixing America’s
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015.

Supporting Economic Vitality, Travel and Tourism. Investment focuses on supporting

the Priority Growth Strategy and the movement of goods and people. Creating multi- modal connections enhances the visitor experience and addresses congestion.

Transportation Safety. Safety on the roadways is of great importance to the MVMPO. Of the 60 roadway crash clusters, 50% have been either studied or projects initiated. Six projects included in the RTP address safety issues at seven crash clusters.

Increase Mobility and Connectivity of the Transportation System. RTP projects add

10.35 miles to the trail network, create a sidepath along Rt. 97 in Georgetown and add bike lanes to multiple roadways.

System Preservation and Efficient Management. The RTP calls for $176,001,038 to maintain the 75% of the non-interstate federal-aid roadways at good to excellent condition. $59,409,516 will fund the replacement and upkeep of transit vehicles.

Protect and Enhance the Environment. Projects included in the RTP contribute to reducing congestion and increasing mobility choices in order to reduce air pollutant and increase air quality.

Improve Resiliency. The RTP addresses impacts of climate change and stormwater runoff. Specific projects in Merrimac, Lawrence/North Andover and Rowley address stormwater management and river choke points.

Security. Elements such as cameras on highways and bridges, emergency call boxes on trails and security systems on transit vehicles are included in projects.

Equity. The RTP allocates 40% of funding for projects in minority and low-income communities. Projects are identified in 14 of the Merrimack Valley communities.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 11

Chapter 1 Introduction

• Amesbury

• Andover

• Boxford

• Georgetown

• Groveland

• Haverhill

• Lawrence

• Merrimac

• Methuen

• Newbury

• Newburyport

• North Andover

• Rowley

• Salisbury

• West Newbury

Our member communities represent the diversity of the region, from communities with as few as 4,545 (West Newbury) to as many as 79,497 residents (Lawrence).
34% of the region’s population is considered minority,
adding to the richness and diversity of the people who call our region home.

Photo: Route 125 at Massachusetts Avenue in North

Andover is the site of a federally funded project.

What is the MVMPO

The MVMPO was first created by Massachusetts
Governor Francis Sargent in 1972. The MVMPO covers the same 15-community geographic area that defines the MVPC region and the MVRTA service area. The MVMPO
is a federally-mandated organization created to provide a transparent process for allocating transportation funds. It is essentially a board comprised of representatives from MassDOT, MVRTA, MVPC and member communities. The
MVMPO community members include:
The landscape of the 15 communities is also diverse, from the historic mill cities and towns to the seafaring coastal communities. The Merrimack Valley is centered around the Merrimack River and encompasses most of the Great Marsh, which is the largest continuous stretch of salt
marsh in New England.
The RTP is representative of how the region balances the needs and gaps in the transportation system, addresses state and federal goals and contributes to achieving local goals that enhance livability for residents, employees, employers and visitors.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 12

Chapter 1 Introduction
The current MVMPO membership is as follows:

• Secretary of Transportation – Stephanie Pollack

• MassDOT Highway Division Administrator–Jonathan L.

Gulliver

• Merrimack Valley Planning Commission (MVPC) Executive Director – Karen Conard

• Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority

Administrator/CEO – Joseph Costanzo

• Mayor of Haverhill – James Fiorentini

• Mayor of Lawrence – Daniel Rivera

• Representing Region 1 (Amesbury, Newburyport, Salisbury) – Neil Harrington

• Representing Region 2 (Newbury, Rowley, West

Newbury) – Robert Snow

• Representing Region 3 (Boxford, Georgetown, Groveland, Merrimac) –John Cashell

• Representing Region 4 (Andover, Methuen, North

Andover) – Paul Materazzo
Ex officio, non-voting members of the MVMPO include:

• Federal Highway Administration – Massachusetts

Division – Jeff McEwen

• Federal Transit Administration – Region I – Peter Butler

• Rockingham Planning Commission MPO (NH), Chairman RPC – Barbara Kravitz

• Boston MPO, President MAPC – Erin Wortman

• Northern Middlesex MPO, Chairman NMCOG – Pat

Wojtas

• Nashua MPO (NH), Chairman NRCP – Susan Ruch

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 13

Chapter 1 Introduction

Document Organization

The RTP is generally organized to correspond to each
goal. Here’s what you will find:

Executive Summary

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 Vision and Goals – Elaborates on the goals, objectives and summarizes the strategies and performance measures.

Chapter 3 -Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections – Summarizes and explains population, employment and related data and how it impacts transportation planning.

Chapter 4 - Planning Process and Public Participation – Explains the planning process and provides an overview of public input.

Chapter 5 - Fiscal Constraint – Reviews funding availability and projects chosen for funding.

Chapter 6 - Goal 1: State of Good Repair – Reviews existing conditions related to maintenance and operation.

Chapter 7 - Goal 2: Increase Safety for all Modes – Discussion of existing conditions and projects to increase safety.

Chapter 8 - Goal 3: Create a Multi-Modal Transportation

System – A review of the strategies and projects selected that will enhance mode choice.

Chapter 9 - Goal 4: Promote Economic Vitality – Looks at how the projects support the Priority Growth Strategy, movement of freight and how the MPO is working with communities to address congestion.

Chapter 10 - Goal 5: Promote Environmental Sustainability – Reviews projects and programs that address stormwater management, resiliency and air quality.

Chapter 11 - Goal 6: Equity – Reviews Title VI and environmental justice populations. Looks at transportation projects and funding distribution with an equity lens – geographic, economic and racial.

Chapter 12 - Summary – A quick look at how the selected projects address regional transportation goals.

Appendix A: Universe of Projects

Appendix B: Equity Maps

Appendix C: List of Choke Points along Federal-Aid

Roads

Appendix D: Public Comments – Responses to public comments received during the review and comment period.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 14

Page left Blank.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 15

Chapter 2

Vision and Goals

Vision: Supporting Livable

Communities with Transportation

The MVMPO envisions a multi-modal, safe, efficient and cost-effective transportation system that supports our communities’ livability goals of equity, economic vitality, high quality of life, preservation of

natural resources and healthy lifestyles.

Equity

Mode Choice

Livability

Safety

The goals and objectives outlined in this plan detail how we hope to guide and support regional, local and state efforts to improve livability through creating a more dynamic, equitable and safe transportation system. They have been modified from the 2016 RTP to respond to changing policies and the evolving transportation network in the region. They also incorporate new statewide goals as well as those evolved through other planning processes, such as the Merrimack Valley
Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS).

Environmental

Sustainability

Economic Vitality

State of Good

Repair

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 16
Chapter 2 Vision and Goals

Table 2.1 Summary of Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Performance Measures and Progress

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 17
Chapter 2 Vision and Goals

Table 2.1 Summary of Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Performance Measures and Progress (Continued)

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 18
Chapter 2 Vision and Goals

Table 2.1 Summary of Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Performance Measures and Progress (Continued)

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 19
Chapter 2 Vision and Goals

Table 2.1 Summary of Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Performance Measures and Progress (Continued)

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 20
Chapter 2 Vision and Goals

Table 2.1 Summary of Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Performance Measures and Progress (Continued)

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 21
Chapter 2 Vision and Goals

Table 2.1 Summary of Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Performance Measures and Progress (Continued)

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 22

Photo: 1 Friends walking in Newburyport by Elaine

Gauthier/Essex Heritage

Chapter 3

Socioeconomic

Conditions & Projections

Many factors influence the transportation choices that we make every day. These include the availability of different modes of travel for each trip type and
destination, the cost of making the trip, congestion and capacity constraints within the transportation network, and many others.
Each of these decisions is primarily influenced by where people live, work, shop, socialize and travel for medical appointments. Conversely, the decision of where people live is often guided by where these activities occur.

Current Conditions

Table 3.1 on the following page presents some key
statistics that illustrate the nature of development and transportation in the MVMPO region. These include population, population density, vehicle availability, journey to work characteristics and employment. Each indicator is described in more detail below.

Population

The City of Lawrence has the highest population in the region at 79,497, as measured in the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS). The cities of Haverhill (62,458) and Methuen (49,575) are the next most populous communities.
Over half (55.6%) of the Merrimack Valley’s population is located in the Greater Lawrence communities of Lawrence, Methuen, Andover and North Andover. The population in the eastern Merrimack Valley is much lower than in the west, with only Newburyport (17,890) and Amesbury (17,218) having populations in excess of 10,000
residents.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 23

Chapter 3 Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Figure 3.1 MVMPO Region Population by Community

MVMPO Region

2013-2017 ACS Population by Community

Lawrence Haverhill Methuen Andover

North Andover Newburyport Amesbury Salisbury Georgetown Boxford Newbury Merrimac Groveland Rowley

West Newbury

population densities of less than 350 persons per square mile, which is roughly 1/30th that of Lawrence.
These densities are an important factor in explaining why the City of Lawrence receives the most fixed route bus service in the region and that the eastern
Merrimack Valley communities are very difficult to serve by traditional transit.

Figure 3.2 MVMPO Population Density by Community

(ACS 2013-2017)

MVMPO Region

Population Density by Community

12,000

10,000

8,000

Population

6,000

Population Density

The City of Lawrence is far and away the most densely settled community in the region -- 11,471 residents per square mile. It is more than five times that of Methuen and Newburyport, the two next densely populated communities in the region.
The eastern Merrimack Valley communities of Rowley, West Newbury and Newbury are the least densely settled communities in the MVMPO region, each with

4,000

2,000

0

Population Density Per Square Mile

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 24
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Table 3.1: MVMPO Region: Important Socioeconomic Measures Affecting Transportation

12013-2017 American Community Survey

22011-2015 American Community Survey

3Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development 2017 ES-202 Data

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 25
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Median Age

The median age of the population for the MVMPO region
is 38.9 years old. However, there is great variability in the median ages in each community.
Seven communities have median ages in excess of 45 years old, with the highest ages (49.0) found in the neighboring communities of Newbury and Newburyport. Four of these seven communities are located in the eastern end of the region.

Figure 3.3 Median Age by Community (ACS 2013-2017) MVMPO Region

Median Age by Community

Newburyport Newbury Merrimac

West Newbury

Georgetown Boxford Salisbury Groveland Rowley Amesbury Andover

North Andover Methuen Haverhill Lawrence

In contrast, the City of Lawrence has the lowest median age population (31.4 years). The only other Merrimack Valley communities with the median age below 40 years old are two Greater Lawrence communities (Methuen and North Andover) and the City of Haverhill.
The low median age of the City of Lawrence’s population can largely be explained by its role as a Gateway Community with a large immigrant population. The relatively high median ages found in communities in the eastern half of the region have been attributed to
the high cost of real estate. This presents a barrier to younger families that cannot afford to move into these areas.

Median Household Income

As is the case with Median Age and Population Density,
the Median Household Income for the City of Lawrence is significantly different than those of the other communities in the MVMPO region. Its median
household income of $39,627 is more than $26,000 less than the next highest community (Haverhill) and well below the MVMPO region’s Median Household Income of $73,900.

25 30 35

Median Age in

40

Years

45 50

Five MVMPO region communities have Median Household Incomes of over $100,000, with Boxford and Andover having median incomes of $155,034 and
$143,292 respectively.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 26
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Figure 3.4 MVMPO Region Median Household Income by

Community

MVMPO Region

Median Household Income by Community

Boxford

Andover West Newbury Georgetown

North Andover

Groveland Newburyport Newbury Rowley Merrimac Amesbury Methuen Salisbury Haverhill

Lawrence

$20,000 $60,000 $100,000 $140,000

Median Household Income

Non-White Population

With significant Hispanic populations in Lawrence, Methuen and Haverhill and a growing Asian population in Lawrence and Andover, 34.2% of the MVMPO region is Non-White. This is above the 27.1% figure for Massachusetts.

Figure 3.5 Percent Non-White Population by Community

MVMPO Region

% Non White Population by Community

Lawrence Methuen Haverhill Andover

North Andover Boxford Salisbury Newburyport Amesbury Georgetown Groveland Newbury Merrimac Rowley

West Newbury

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

% Non White Population

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 27

Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Photo: Residents having fun at the Lawrence Ciclovía.

Over 84% of the City of Lawrence’s population is Non- White, which accounts for over half of the region’s total. The magnitude of the Non-White populations in Lawrence, Methuen and Haverhill accounts for the fact that the overall Non-White population for the region is so high despite the fact that there are 10 communities with less than 10% Non-White populations and five communities with 5% or less.

Percent of Structures with 2 to 9 Housing Units

Related to Housing Unit Density, this measure provides a
more informed glimpse into the nature of the housing stock across the region. The perception is that the City of
Lawrence would have far greater numbers of multi-family units of all types than any other community and that is
not the case. Lawrence and Haverhill have the greatest percentage of structures with 2 to 9 Housing Units and is indicative of the widespread presence of this type of housing. Interestingly, the percentage of structures with
10 or more units showed much less variability by community. While the City of Lawrence had the highest percentage of such structures (20.2%), it was closely followed by the City of Amesbury (19.2%) and the Town of North Andover (17.2%)

Figure 3.6 Percentage Structures with 2-9 Housing Units

MVMPO Region

% Structures with 2 to 9 Housing Units

Lawrence Haverhill Salisbury Newburyport Amesbury North Andover Methuen Groveland Merrimac Rowley Andover Georgetown West Newbury Newbury Boxford

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 28
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Figure 3.7 Mean Travel Time to Work (ACS 2013-2017)

MVMPO Region

Mean Travel Time to Work

Boxford Merrimac Georgetown North Andover Salisbury Newbury Groveland

Lawrence

and had more than half of their residents working in the
MVMPO Region.
Conversely, the communities with the three lowest percentages of residents working in the region – Boxford (27.0%), Georgetown (36.5%) and Rowley (39.2%) each had Mean Travel Times that were well above the MVMPO Regional Average of 29.6 minutes.

Households with No Vehicles Available

One of the key measures used in identifying areas that
are likely to generate high transit ridership is the number of households that have no vehicles available. Again, the City of Lawrence stands apart from the other communities in the region in this measure.
Most of the other communities in the region have

0 10 20 30 40

Travel Time in Minutes

Mean Travel Time to Work

This figure has been increasing over time in the MVMPO
Region to just under 30 minutes as measured in the 2013-
2017 ACS. This increase can be attributed to many factors including increasing congestion on the roadways in eastern Massachusetts and the relocation of many workers seeking to obtain more affordable housing.
As should be expected, the lowest travel times to work were found in those communities that had the highest percentages of residents working in the region. Lawrence (23.2%), Haverhill (29.4%) and Groveland
(28.4%) all have Mean Travel Times of less than 30 minutes
approximately 6% or less of their households with no vehicle available. Notable among these is the Town of Newbury, which had no such households counted in the
2013-2017 ACS (Figure 3.8).

Percentage of MVMPO Region Residents that also Work in the Region

One of the most important generators of the demand for
transportation is traveling to and from places of employment.
For many years, a solid majority of the residents of the MVMPO Region also worked in the region. Over the years, this percentage has been dropping, from 60% in
2000, to just 50.2% as measured in the 2013-2017 ACS. The

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 29
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Figure 3.8 Percentage of Households with No Vehicles

Available (ACS 2013-2017)

Figure 3.9 Percentage of Residents Working in the Region by Community (ACS 2013-2017)

MVMPO Region

% of Households with No Vehicles Available by Community

MVMPO Region

% Residents Working in Region by

Community

Lawrence

Haverhill North Andover Salisbury

Newburyport Methuen Amesbury Andover

Rowley Georgetown Merrimac Groveland West Newbury

Boxford

Newbury

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

% of HHs with No Vehicles Available

Lawrence Haverhill Merrimac Salisbury Amesbury Newburyport Groveland West Newbury Methuen Newbury

North Andover Andover Rowley Georgetown Boxford

20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

City of Lawrence has the highest percentage (62%) of its residents commuting to jobs within the region, while the Town of Boxford has the lowest at only 27%.

Employment

The number of jobs and location of employment is one of the primary factors affecting transportation demand. The table on the following page refers to the number of jobs
located in the MVMPO region and not the number of
MVMPO region residents that are working.
Almost two-thirds (64.7%) of all the jobs located in the region are found in the Greater Lawrence communities
of Lawrence, Methuen, Andover and North Andover. The Town of Andover has the most jobs in the region (35,108), followed by the City of Lawrence, which has 29,280. Andover is the only community in the MVMPO Region where the number of jobs is almost as great as the
population.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 30
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Employment Density

While the Town of Andover has more jobs than any
community in the region, The City of Lawrence has a far greater employment density – 4,225 jobs/sq. mi. vs 1,138. In fact, the City of Newburyport has slightly more jobs/square mile (1,391) than does Andover.
Even with a relatively high employment density in the City of Newburyport, Greater Newburyport (i.e. Amesbury, Salisbury, Newbury and Newburyport) has an
employment density, which is an important factor to

Figure 3.10 Number of Jobs in Each Merrimack Valley

Community (ACS 2013-2017)

MVMPO Region

# Jobs in Each Community

Andover Lawrence Haverhill Methuen

North Andover Newburyport Amesbury Salisbury Rowley Georgetown Newbury Groveland Boxford Merrimac

West Newbury

consider when assessing the viability of instituting transit service(s) in an area.

Figure 3.11 Employment Density per Square Mile (ACS

2013-2017)

MVMPO Region

Employment Density/Square Mile

Lawrence Newburyport Andover Methuen Haverhill

North Andover Amesbury Salisbury Georgetown Rowley Groveland Merrimac Newbury

West Newbury

Boxford

-500 500 1,500 2,500 3,500 4,500

Employment Per Sq. Mi.

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Number of Jobs

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 31

Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Photos: Andover's River Road Industrial Park (top) has many jobs but in a less dense development unlike Lawrence’s Merrimack Street industrial corridor (bottom). Andover is encouraging more mixed-use development.

Population and Employment

Projections

Background

The table below examines the recent history of
population and employment changes in the MVMPO
region.
The region’s share of Massachusetts’ population has
been growing at a relatively constant rate, from 4.79% in
1990 to approximately 5.15% as counted in the 2013-2017
American Community Survey.
In contrast, the region’s share of Massachusetts’ Total
Employment has remained virtually unchanged between
2000 (4.27%) and 2017 (4.23%).

MassDOT Projections Committee

Early in 2017, MassDOT formed this committee for two essential purposes;
1) to develop and apply comprehensive methodologies for generating employment and population projections at the state, regional, community and Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) levels, and
2) to ensure that there was consistency in these projections at each of these levels (i.e. regional, community and TAZ) with statewide control totals.
The Committee was comprised of staff from MassDOT’s
Office of Transportation Planning, staff from the

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 32
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), and demographers from the University of Massachusetts’ Donahue Institute’s (UMDI) Economic & Public Policy Research Group. In addition to these organizations, representatives from each of the 13 MPOs in the Commonwealth were active participants.

Table 3.2: MVMPO Regional Share of Massachusetts

Population and Employment

Population Projections

The Projections Committee employed a methodology that considered the following analyses in developing the population projections that were to be used in each MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan:

• Cohort Survival

• Births and Fertility

• Domestic and International Net Migration

• Rate of Household Formation

The population projections were defined to include persons in households and persons living in group quarters.
Tables 3.2 and 3.3 show the population and household projections for each MVMPO community out to the years
2020, 2030 and 2040.
The MVMPO Region’s population is expected to grow by
14% between 2010 and 2040, which is slightly higher than the projected rate of increase in the total population of Massachusetts (12.7%). In addition, the population of ages 65+ is expected to significantly. Figure 3.12 shows that the proportion of seniors to the whole population is due to increase from 10% to 25% of the population.
The City of Methuen is projected to be the fastest growing community (27%) in the MVMPO region between 2010 and 2040 and the neighboring City of Lawrence is expected to grow by 16%. Combined with
the projected growth in the other two Greater Lawrence communities of Andover (14%) and North Andover (13%), the Greater Lawrence area is expected to grow by
17.9%. Population growth is projected to be slightly lower in the eastern and central sections of the MVMPO region than in Greater Lawrence.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 33
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Figure 3.12: Merrimack Valley Population Projections 65+ (Source: MassDOT)

Population Projection Age 65+

which has the second highest rate of increase at 35.0%. The Town of Rowley has the third highest rate at 34.2%.

Table 3.3 Merrimack Valley Population Projections

(Source: MassDOT)

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

-

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Population

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Only the Town of Boxford is expected to lose population (7%) between 2010 and 2040, while the Town of Newbury is projected to basically stay at its 2010 population total. Table 3.3 shows that the rate of growth for households in the region will basically be twice as high as the rate of population growth (29.4% vs. 14.0%). This is primarily due to the assumption made by the MassDOT Projections Committee that the long-term trend of declining household sizes in the Commonwealth will continue into the future.
Interestingly, the rate of increase in the number of households is projected to be greatest in the Town of Georgetown (36.9%) and not in the City of Methuen,

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 34
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Table 3.4: Merrimack Valley Household Projections

(Source: MassDOT)

Employment Projections

The Projections Committee employed a five-step process in developing the statewide and regional employment projections that are used in this RTP. These steps are summarized below.

Incorporating Labor Force Estimates from MAPC MAPC generated labor force projections by regional planning agency for historical years 2010 as well as future

years 2020, 2030, and 2040 that took into account how changes in the state’s population will affect labor force participation rates.

Estimating Future Unemployment Rates and Employment

Base

UMDI-generated RPA-level unemployment rates using
historical data from 1990 to 2017 to forecast these figures.

Projecting Net Commuters

Many residents of nearby states commute into the
Commonwealth for work. UMDI pulled data from 1990 to
2017 on net commuters into Massachusetts, which showed a highly cyclical pattern in net commuting, which tends to rise and fall with economic cycles.

Developing Employment Projections by Industry

UMDI used a variety of public and private information
sources to generate zip-code-level employment projections for three broad ‘super-sectors’ – basic, retail, and services—that were used in transportation demand modeling.

MVMPO Community – Level Adjustments

MVPC staff used its own knowledge of employment in
the MVMPO region to make minor modifications to the community level employment forecasts that were developed by UMDI while maintaining the regional
employment forecast totals.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 35
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Table 3.5 Merrimack Valley Employment Projections

(Source: MassDOT)

Merrimack Valley Employment Projections (Source: MassDOT)

Forecasting Travel Demand

Statewide Travel Demand Model

The MVMPO relied on MassDOT’s Statewide Travel
Demand Model to generate forecasts of traffic volumes
on the region’s federal-aid roadways out to the year
2040. This model uses data on the number of households, auto availability, household income, number of jobs,
type of employment and other factors to estimate the
demand for transportation on the defined transportation network, which includes all federal-aid roadways in the Merrimack Valley region.
The Statewide Travel Demand Model includes 182 TAZs for the Merrimack Valley region. More densely developed communities have a relatively greater number of TAZs than more rural communities. For example, the City of Lawrence, with a land area of 6.9 square miles and a population of almost 80,000 persons has 30 TAZs while the Town of Newbury, with an area of
23.35 square miles and a population of 6,963 contains only five TAZs.

Allocating Growth to TAZs

Working through MAPC, each MPO region provided data on proposed, planned, reviewed and approved residential developments that was used to help identify areas of population and employment growth over the next 20 years.
This information, coupled with land use data and staff’s knowledge of the region, was then used to allocate projected population and employment growth to the TAZs in the region.

High Growth Transportation Corridors

To identify the high growth travel corridors in the region, staff identified those TAZs in the region that are expected to meet the following two criteria.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 36
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Table 3.6 High Growth Travel Corridors in the MVMPO Region 2010 -2040

The number of households is projected to grow by 50% or more between 2010 and 2040, and

• The population of the zone is expected to grow by

30% or more over the same period.
Twenty-eight TAZs in the Statewide Travel Demand Model located in eight MVMPO communities met this definition. These communities and the roadways anticipated to see the greatest increase in traffic volumes are shown in
Table 3.6

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 37
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

Page Left Blank

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 38

Photo: Ribbon cutting for the Newburyport Intermodal

Parking Garage

Chapter 4

The Planning Process and

Public Participation

MPOs were created in 1922 as part of the Federal-aid Highway Act to ensure that decisions about transportation fund were made based on the ‘3C’ process – continuing, cooperative and comprehensive.
The RTP requires a planning process that is data-driven and inclusive. Transportation needs must be identified, with solutions identified and projects chosen to address the transportation need. The FAST Act of 2015 required that 10 planning factors must be considered in the conduct of the 3C Transportation Planning Process. Table 3.1 lists the 10 planning factors and the correlating RTP goals that address them. Public input is needed throughout the planning process from a variety of sources. The planning process includes:
1. Review Goals and Objectives
MVMPO staff sought the input of community leaders (mayors and town managers), municipal staff (DPW directors and planners), members of the Equity Working
Group and environmental leaders. Suggested changes

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 39

Chapter 4 Planning Process and Public Participation

Table 4.5 Planning Factors

Photo: Town official, MassDOT official and resident discussing the design of the Groveland Community Trail

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 40
Chapter 4 Planning Process and Public Participation

in strategies and performance measures were evaluated and included into the revised goals and objectives.
2. Data Gathering and Assessment
For the development of the RTP, the MVMPO draws from a variety of sources including plans, available and gathered data and public input. Data, transportation gaps and needs were all incorporated into the goals, objectives and the performance measures throughout the document. Information sources include:

• Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy

• Regional Housing Plan

• Active Transportation Plan

• Congestion Management Process

• MVRTA’s Transit Asset Management Plan

• MPO’s transportation studies and Road Safety

Audits

• Merrimack Valley Priority Growth Strategy

• Data gathering efforts, such as pavement and sidewalk conditions, park and ride lot utilization and traffic counts.

• MassDOT data, such as Crash Cluster locations and socioeconomic projections

3. Model
Modeling is used to both measure existing travel demand and forecast future travel. Input data such
as socioeconomic data and transportation projects
are included to analyze the impact those projects will have on transportation demand, congestion, air pollution, etc. The MVMPO relies upon the participation in the Statewide Travel Demand Model to perform these functions. MPO staff assigned population and employment data to Traffic Analysis Zones out to 2040 as part of this process.
4. Public Participation
Public input is sought throughout the planning process. The MVMPO’s Public Participation Plan outlines the requirements for public input into the federal transportation funding process.

Public Participation Plan

This 2020 RTP was developed in accordance with the Public Participation Process established for the MVMPO. The MVMPO’s Public Participation Plan as amended through March 2017, reflects the consultation requirements identified in the FAST Act of 2015 and prior federal transportation authorizations, and the existing transportation planning regulations developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the development of RTPs and TIPs. This document identifies a number of stakeholders to be consulted in developing these documents. All MVMPO stakeholders were given notice that the process of developing the 2020 RTP was beginning. Stakeholders were also notified of the availability of the draft document for public review and
comment.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 41
Chapter 4 Planning Process and Public Participation

Public Participation Plan Stakeholder List

Listed below are categories of interested individuals, organizations and other stakeholders (Interested Parties) identified by the MVMPO for inclusion in the PPP.
The MVMPO continues to add individuals, organizations or other stakeholders to this list and their addition is not considered an act requiring the formal amendment of the PPP. Similarly, any of the individuals or organizations identified below may request to be removed from the
mailing list and such action does not necessitate a formal
PPP amendment.

Individuals, including:

• Interested individuals, business persons

• Merrimack Valley Transportation Committee (MVTC)

• Libraries

• City/Town Clerks

• MVMPO Region Congressional Delegation

• MVMPO Region/State Legislative Delegation

Affected public agencies, including:

• Select Boards / City Councils

• Chief Elected and Appointed Officials

• City and Town Engineers

• Federal Emergency Management Agency

• Federal Highway Administration

• Federal Transit Administration

• Greater Derry-Salem Cooperative Alliance for

Regional Transportation

• Cooperative Alliance for Regional Transportation

• Local Departments of Public Works

• Local Police Departments

• Local Traffic and Safety Committees

• Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

• MBTA Commuter Rail Officials

• Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and

Economic Development

• Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and

Security

• MassDOT

• Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority

• Metropolitan Area Planning Council

• Nashua Regional Planning Commission

• Northern Middlesex Council of Governments

• Rockingham Planning Commission

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Representatives of public transportation employees, including:

• Truck Driver’s Union Local #170

• Freight shippers, including:

• P.J. Murphy Transportation

• JB Hunt

• Estes Express

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 42

Chapter 4 Planning Process and Public Participation

Photo: Public Participation in the development of the Whittier Bridge led to the creation of the Garrison Trail.

• Shaheen Brothers

• ABF Freight

• PanAm Railways

• Bonney’s Express

Providers of freight transportation services, including:

• United Parcel Service

• Federal Express

Private for-profit and non-profit providers of transportation in the region, including:

• Assist Incorporated

• C&J Transportation

• Cape Ann Transit Authority (CATA)

• Central Wheelchair and Van Transportation

• EMT Corporation

• Local Taxi Companies

• Northern Essex Elder Transportation (NEET)

• The Coach Company

• TransCare

• Other Transportation Providers Identified in the RTP

Representatives of users of public transportation, including:

• American Training, Inc.

• Cambridge College

• Community Action Incorporated (CAI)

• Emmaus, Inc.

• Elder Services of the Merrimack Valley

• Local Senior Centers/Councils on Aging

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 43
Chapter 4 Planning Process and Public Participation

• Northeast Independent Living Program

• Merrimack College

• Merrimack Valley Hospice

• MassHire Merrimack Valley Workforce Investment

Board

• Northern Essex Community College

• Office of Employment Services

Representatives of bicyclist and pedestrian advocacy organizations, including:

• Andover Trails Committee

• Bay Circuit Alliance

• Coastal Trails Coalition

• Essex National Heritage Commission

• Essex County Trail Association

• Groveland Open Space and Recreation Committee

• MassBike

• Merrimack Valley Off-Road Trails Committee

Representatives for the community of individuals with disabilities, including:

• Executive Office of Health and Human Services

• Northeast Independent Living Program

• Massachusetts Department of Mental Health

• Massachusetts Commission for the Blind

• Area Nursing Homes

• United Cerebral Palsy

• CLASS Inc.

• Fidelity House

• Massachusetts Association of Retarded Persons (ARC)

Organizations and facilities that serve low-income and minority households who traditionally have been underserved by existing transportation systems and may face challenges accessing employment and other services, including:

• MVRTA Transit Centers in Amesbury, Haverhill and

Lawrence (post notices)

• Social Security Offices

• Employment Offices (post notices)

• Ethnic, Civic/Social, Faith-Based and Veterans

Organizations

• Merrimack Valley Goodwill

• Area Hospitals

• Salvation Army

• Groundwork Lawrence

• Lawrence Community Works

• United Way of the Merrimack Valley

• Methuen Arlington Neighborhood, Inc.

• YMCA/YWCA

Agencies and officials responsible for other planning activities within the MPA that are affected by transportation, including:

a. State and local planned growth:

• Area Planning Boards

• MassDevelopment

• Merrimack Valley Transportation Management

Association

• The Junction Transportation Management

Organization

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 44
Chapter 4 Planning Process and Public Participation

b. Economic development:

• Chambers of Commerce

• U.S. Economic Development Administration

• Local Community Development Directors

c. Environmental agencies and federal lands:

• Andover Village Improvement Society (AVIS)

• Essex County Greenbelt Association

• Local Conservation Commissions

• MassRiverways

• Merrimack River Watershed Council

• National Park Service

• Powwow River Watershed Association

• Parker River Clean Water Association

• Shawsheen River Watershed Association

• Trustees of Reservations

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

d. Airport operations:

• Lawrence Airport Commission

e. Other Interested Parties

• Conservation Law Foundation

The notices were sent directly to 870 addressees representing these groups, 600 via e-mail and 270 via traditional mail.
In addition to these direct mailings, and in accordance with this process, public notice of the Draft 2020 RTP was published in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, Newburyport Daily News, Haverhill Gazette (Published Weekly) and Rumbo News informing the public of its right to comment on the document which would be available at the
MVPC office, the MVPC website and local libraries from July 2, 2019 through July 22, 2019. It said that comments would be received through July 22, 2019 and that two separate public hearings on the document would take place on July 17, 2019 at 1:00 PM and at 6:00 PM at the MVPC office at 160 Main Street in Haverhill, MA. The MVMPO will summarize comments that are received during the 21-day review and comment period and will include this summary in the Final 2020 RTP.
Public input in developing the RTP was sought at the following meetings in 2019:

• MVMPO meetings: January 23, 2019, February 27,

2019, March 27, 2019, April 24, 2019, May 22, 2019 and
June 26, 2019

• MVRTA Advisory Board meetings held at the MVRTA office: September 27, 2018, November 1, 2018, February 7, 2019, March 7, 2019, May 2, 2019 and June 6, 2019

• Merrimack Valley Planning Commission (MVPC)

meetings: February 21, 2019, March 21, 2019, April 18,
2019, May 16, 2019 and June 20, 2019

• Environmental Resiliency/ Sustainability Meeting on

March 12, 2019

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 45
Chapter 4 Planning Process and Public Participation

• DPW Directors/Stormwater Collaborative Meeting on

April 3, 2019 and June 5, 2019

• Planning Directors meetings: June 4, 2019 and

February 26, 2019
The above meetings were held at the MVPC Office unless otherwise stated.
Beyond the requirements, public input is a necessary part of identifying transportation gaps and needs as well as ideas and solutions.
5. Project Evaluation and Selection
Project priorities are developed over time as a result of studies, such as road safety audits, community economic development needs, state of good repair and enhanced mobility needs. Projects are evaluated using criteria developed in cooperation with MassDOT. Communities were presented with the universe of projects and are asked to review and edit the projects and prioritize them.
6. Budgeting and Equity
Because the RTP must be fiscally constrained, it is not possible to program every project. The project evaluation and selection process are important to inform which projects will be prioritized. Staff must balance the needs for state of good repair with expansion projects,
new transportation infrastructure, etc. During the process of selecting and budgeting, the MVMPO staff also applied equity analyses to ensure that (1) there is
geographic equity and (2) that protected groups
(minority and low income) do not bear excessive burdens nor are their needs ignored.
7. Air Quality and Green House Gas (GHG) Analyses
Armed with fiscally constrained project lists, the state runs air quality and GHG analyses to demonstrate that the RTPs and TIPs support the attainment of federal air quality conformity standards and meet state mandated GHG reduction targets.

Public Outreach Methods

The goal of the public participation process is to involve and inform the public in the transportation planning process. Public input is essential to the identification of gaps in the transportation network, transportation needs and the development and selection of projects. The MVMPO sought public input at different levels.

Public Gatherings. The MVMPO staff sought to engage members of the public at two events – the Lawrence Ciclovía and the Mt. Washington Alliance Health Fair. Both events were in Title VI/EJ communities and sought to reach people who do not normally participate in the transportation planning process. Interactive posters were used to help encourage discussions and ideas. Members of the public were asked about transportation needs,

priorities and the ideal transportation network. Feedback revolved around increased transit access, bicycle and pedestrian transportation and job access.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 46
Chapter 4 Planning Process and Public Participation

Targeted Audiences. One strategy for encouraging public participation is going to other organizations’ meetings. MVMPO staff attended a variety of meeting, such as the Methuen Arlington Neighborhood, Inc. Board Meeting and the Newburyport Livable Streets meeting. Information was presented and members of the public were able to provide their input into the types of projects they would like to see funded through the RTP process.

In addition, the MVMPO also scheduled specific outreach meetings with Asian-speaking elders and veterans to ensure that the needs of those groups were included in the planning process. Interpreters were present to ensure that their voices were heard.

MVMPO Member Community Leaders. Throughout the development of the RTP, MVMPO staff regularly met and corresponded with community leaders (mayors and town managers), municipal staff (public works, planners, public safety), MVPC Commission members and the MVRTA Advisory Board members. Information was presented at regular monthly meetings and individual

meetings were held to dig deeper into community needs and project priorities.

Public Meetings and Hearings. The MVMPO scheduled a public meeting in the Town of Salisbury to discuss the results of the data analysis and project selection process. Members of the public discussed the need for road repairs, sidewalks, increased transit and marketing of

transit. An additional public meeting is scheduled during
the public review period in Lawrence with Spanish interpretation. Two public hearings will be held during the public review and comment period in Haverhill.

Summary of Public Input

Throughout the development of the RTP, MVMPO staff have gathered comments from members of the public. Those comments have been compiled and sorted by RTP topic.

Goals and Objectives

• The Environment Working group provided specific suggested changes to the goals and objectives around stormwater, such as removing the discharge detection program. They suggested adding a strategy for upgrading stormwater treatment as roads are repaired and repaved. Those changes are reflected in the current strategies.

Demographics

• Salisbury’s population is likely to be greater than

10,000 by 2040. The projection being used is too low.

State of Good Repair

• Jackson Street from Essex Street going North in Lawrence is in terrible condition and should be repaired.

• Streets in South Lawrence are in tough shape

because of the utility work from the gas explosions.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 47
Chapter 4 Planning Process and Public Participation

• North End Boulevard (Rt 1A) in Salisbury is in poor condition and needs to be reconstructed. Need better sidewalks and crossings.

• Fix sidewalks and potholes (Haverhill).

• The Route 28 bridge near the Music Hall in Methuen is in disrepair. Children fish off the bridge and the concrete is disintegrating.

• Need functioning stop lights and pedestrian lights in the city, such as at Salem and Osgood Streets in Lawrence.

Congestion

• Route 114 near the North Andover Mall needs to be expanded and there is congestion near the Stop & Shop.

• Union Street in Lawrence is very congested.

Safety

• Route 28 approaching I-495 in Andover is confusing. MVPC staff followed up and MassDOT was implementing changes at this intersection that would correct this.

• Need public information campaign to address pedestrian use of streetlights.

• Intersection at Water/Canal/Broadway needs to be improved for pedestrians and a transit stop is needed.

Environment

• There was considerable discussion about roads that flood, such as Route 114 in North Andover, Plum Island Boulevard in Newbury/Newburyport and Route 1A/Glen Street in Rowley by the Mill River. Newman Road, Newbury is often under water.

• Include green infrastructure and Low Impact

Development (LID) as strategies.

• Regarding adaptive planning for climate change, roadway design in areas that have been impacted needs to be improved. Roads get washed out and rebuilt, but not necessarily in a resilient nor environmentally friendly way.

• What is MassDOT’s policy on curbs and their impacts on stormwater runoff? Country drainage is preferred with swales for stormwater, but curbs are put in for sidewalks for safety. MassDOT mentioned that Salisbury requested not to have

curbs installed near the Beach to prevent blocking the movement of sand.

• There is continued interest to support wildlife

crossings.

Mobility

• It is tough to ride bikes along Marston Street in Lawrence near the car dealerships and to get to cross the Duck Bridge to South Lawrence.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 48
Chapter 4 Planning Process and Public Participation

• A sidewalk is needed near the top of Oak Street

near McDonald’s (Pleasant Valley St.) in Methuen.

• Veterans living in Bedford/Acton need transportation to get to the Veterans Court located in Lawrence on Thursdays. There is not coordination with the veteran’s health van that provides transportation from the Merrimack Valley to the Bedford Veterans health facility.

• Need better East-West bicycle connections from the North Shore to the Merrimack Valley.

• More walking paths are needed in the Mt.

Washington neighborhood and on Broadway
(Haverhill).

• Sidewalks are often not cleared of snow

(Haverhill).

• Support/advance Complete Street Program.

• Expand, connect and market local and regional multi-use trail networks.

• Develop bike share programs/services in the region.

• Work with Merrimack Valley communities to ensure

electric vehicle readiness.

• More bike lanes are needed.

• Better wheelchair access on sidewalks.

• Revise flow of roads in Lawrence to include bicycles.

Transit

• Would like to have a North-South Lawrence circulator bus to connect both sides of the city.

• Would like a bus from Lawrence to Logan Airport.

Is there long-term parking at the McGovern for those going to Logan Airport?

• Need a bus shelter on Mt. Vernon Street near the

4-way stop at Beacon Street.

• Veterans noted that there is no discount for veterans on the bus.

• Better bus frequency and additional routes are needed in Salisbury.

• Commuter rail is too expensive. It is hard to for elderly to use. It is also very confusing how you pay.

• Need bus stops for local bus service.

• More frequent service and later bus service.

• Expand rail service on the Haverhill Line.

• Implement bus on shoulder on I-93.

• Consider implementing Bus on Shoulder on I-495.

• More transit is needed for medical appointments.

Economic Vitality

• Increase collaboration with employers in the region to better understand their transportation needs.

• Increase/promote low-cost transportation for all ages.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 49
Chapter 4 Planning Process and Public Participation

Amending the Regional Transportation Plan While the RTP is updated every four years, the MVMPO region’s transportation network is always changing.

Projects can get added to or deleted from the document, project scopes and estimated costs can change, or new air quality conformity determinations made. The MVMPO 2020 RTP must be able to reflect these changes in order to continue in its role of demonstrating that the document is fiscally constrained, meets current air quality conformity rules, and accurately lists the important transportation projects expected to be completed.
The MVMPO will amend the 2020 RTP under the following circumstances:

• the addition or deletion of a regionally significant project with an estimated cost of $20 million or more;

• a major change in project cost (more than 10%) or project/project phase initiation dates (change of more than five years);

• a major change in project design concept or design scope (e.g., changing project termini or number of through lanes);

• a new conformity determination for the nonattainment /maintenance area.

An amendment to the MVMPO 2020 RTP for the above reasons will be made in accordance to the public review
and comment procedures as described in the MVMPO’s
PPP.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 50

Chapter 5

Fiscal Constraint

A critical element of the Regional Transportation Plan is that is must be financially constrained. This means that the total costs of projects and services contained in it may not exceed the amount of funding that can reasonably be expected to be available to the MPO for the time period being considered for this RTP (FFYs 2020-
2040). This requirement ensures that the projects identified in the document reflect the region’s transportation priorities and needs and that it not be a “wish list” that provides little or no direction or guidance in improving the transportation network.

Funding Available: Highway

To ensure that the financial assumptions on funding
availability made by the individual MPOs are consistent and fiscally constrained, MassDOT has prepared estimates of the amount of highway funding that are
expected to be available in Massachusetts for the period from FFY 2020 to FFY 2040. These estimates include funds from state and federal funding sources. Using these estimated statewide funding amounts, MassDOT then derived estimates of the amount of state and federal funding that each MPO can expect to receive during this
same period. These estimates are presented in Table 5.1.
Over $1 billion in funds are expected to be available to the MVMPO region between from FFYs 2020 through
2040. All spending under the Bridges, Non-Interstate DOT Pavement, Interstate Pavement and Non-Federal Aid Bridge categories will be carried out by MassDOT. These include spending for projects to resurface/improve the interstate roadways in the region and those other roadways in the region that the Department has maintenance responsibilities for. MassDOT’s Bridge Department will oversee the bridge repair and maintenance work in the MVMPO region.

Remaining Statewide Funding

While the vast majority of funding under this category will be devoted to resurfacing, maintenance and other activities that will be conducted by MassDOT, there specific projects in the region that are being in the financially constrained section of the RTP undertaken.
Under the region’s FFYs 2020-2024 TIP, these funds are being programmed for the construction of two sections of the Border to Boston Rail Trail and for the construction
of the Manchester and Lawrence Branch Multi-Use Trail in the City of Lawrence. Also included in the TIP is the resurfacing of Route 1 in Newbury, Newburyport and Salisbury.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 51
Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint

Table 5.1: Roadway, Trail and Bridge Funding Available to Merrimack Valley MVMPO Region 2020-2040

2020 $8,150,075 $7,152,354 $2,443,249 $5,932,599 $4,429,600 $3,070,966 $10,564,815 $41,743,659

2021 $10,645,061 $6,504,804 $2,025,344 $3,905,736 $4,429,600 $3,070,966 $10,778,652 $41,360,163

2022 $10,567,276 $7,152,354 $1,916,948 $3,616,087 $4,429,600 $3,070,966 $10,998,132 $41,751,364

2023 $10,260,974 $7,507,070 $2,114,502 $3,900,481 $4,429,600 $3,070,966 $11,238,340 $42,521,933

2024 $10,095,225 $7,325,376 $2,328,966 $5,129,579 $4,429,600 $3,070,966 $11,385,638 $43,765,350

2020-2024 $49,718,611 $35,641,959 $10,829,009 $22,484,482 $22,148,000 $15,354,831 $54,965,577 $211,142,469

2025 $10,256,474 $7,442,382 $2,366,166 $5,211,512 $4,527,051 $3,134,842 $11,567,498 $44,505,926

2026 $10,419,042 $7,560,347 $2,403,671 $5,294,116 $4,527,051 $3,200,047 $11,750,847 $45,155,121

2027 $11,023,535 $7,998,983 $2,543,127 $5,601,271 $4,527,051 $3,266,608 $12,432,608 $47,393,184

2028 $11,278,632 $8,184,089 $2,601,978 $5,730,890 $4,527,051 $3,334,554 $12,720,312 $48,377,505

2029 $12,898,597 $9,359,580 $2,975,703 $6,554,026 $4,527,051 $3,403,912 $14,547,348 $54,266,218

2025-2029 $55,876,280 $40,545,382 $12,890,645 $28,391,815 $22,635,255 $16,339,963 $63,018,613 $239,697,953

2030 $13,165,041 $9,552,920 $3,037,172 $6,689,411 $4,626,646 $3,474,714 $14,847,851 $55,393,754

2031 $13,437,347 $9,750,513 $3,099,993 $6,827,775 $4,626,646 $3,546,988 $15,154,964 $56,444,225

2032 $13,715,644 $9,952,452 $3,164,196 $6,969,183 $4,626,646 $3,620,765 $15,468,833 $57,517,719

2033 $14,000,063 $10,158,835 $3,229,811 $7,113,702 $4,626,646 $3,696,077 $15,789,608 $58,614,742

Total - All Categories $1,122,633,043

Total - Discretionary Categories $426,105,048

1 Based on MARPA Formula (4.4296% of State Total) 3 Based on MPO's Share of NHS Road Miles in the State (2.8516%)

2 Based on MPO's Share of Bridges in the State (3.6176%) 4 Based on MPO's Share of Interstate Road Miles in the State (14.2058%)

5 33% of Region's Anticipated Chapter 90 Funding

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 52
Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint

Beyond these TIP projects, the RTP also includes funding to complete the Border to Boston Trail through projects in Boxford and Newbury. Also included are two intersection improvement projects on Route 1 in Rowley. A total of
$52,587,470 of Remaining Statewide Funding has been included in the fiscally-constrained Roadway and Trail section of this document.

Chapter 90

Chapter 90 funds are typically provided to communities by the Commonwealth through the recurring vehicle of the Transportation Bond Bill. They are intended to be used for the maintenance, repair, improvement and
construction of town and county ways and bridges. These funds are used by communities to maintain their local roadways as well as the Federal Aid roadways that they have maintenance responsibility for. It is anticipated that MassDOT will continue to fund the Chapter 90 program over the course of his RTP.

Target Funding Available for the MVMPO

This is the category from which the MVMPO traditionally identifies and programs Target Projects in its TIP. The
$299,367,191 that is expected to be available from this source is the largest amount identified for the region.
Target Funding Available to the MVMPO is expected to increase by 2.08% annually throughout the RTP period. The total amount of federal funding assumed to be
available to the MVMPO to program for roadway and trail projects for the period FFY 2020-2040 is $351954,661.

Maintaining Current Road Pavement Conditions

Through the Merrimack Valley Pavement Management
Program, MVPC staff determined it that approximately
$176 million in resurfacing/ reconstruction spending will be needed to maintain the current condition of the region's locally-maintained Federal-Aid roadways over the course of the RTP. This amount of funding has been factored into this fiscal constraint analysis.

Programmed Projects: Highway

Project Selection

MVPC staff reached out to DPW directors, planners,
elected officials and others to identify their transportation project priorities and to eliminate projects that were no longer considered priorities.
In evaluating projects for inclusion in the RTP, staff considered the following factors, which are discussed below.

FFYs 2020-2024 TIP: All MPO Target and selected Statewide projects shown in the FFYs 2020-2024 Time band of the 2020 RTP also appear in the MVMPO’s FFYs 2020-

2024 TIP.

Proposed RTP Goals: Each of the projects considered in the RTP were evaluated in terms of whether they met the six RTP Goals (see Chapter 12 - Summary).

Project TEC Score: Many of the projects that are included in the Universe of Projects that were considered in developing the 2020 RTP have been assigned a score

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 53
Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint

based using the MVMPO’s Transportation Evaluation Criteria. These scores were a major factor in the project selections and scheduling process.

Community Transportation Priorities: The MVMPO reached out to each community in the region to generate

updated lists of their own ‘Universe of Projects’ and, within
that list, identify their higher priority projects.

Project Status: Many of the proposed projects in the Universe of Projects List have already begun to be developed. Projects that were further along in this process and which received higher TEC Scores and met more of the RTP Goals were given higher priorities for inclusion in

the RTP.

Regional Equity: An important goal in developing t

Funding Availability: Finally, the amount of funding that was expected to be available to the region in each fiscal year within each of the five-year time bands was an important factor in adjusting the scheduling of priority projects.

Active Transportation Plan

Staff also considered projects that would complete the
region’s Active Transportation Network. Projects to complete sections of the Border to Boston Rail Trail are shown in the RTP as is the project to build the M&L Branch
Multi-Use Trail in Lawrence.

Project Cost Estimates

MVMPO staff relied on four resources in estimating the cost of projects being considered for the RTP. These are:

• Construction cost data from current and recent roadway reconstruction projects, multi-use trail construction projects, and roadway resurfacing projects;

• MassDOT’s guidance for estimating the cost of repairing/replacing bridges and making intersection improvements;

• Cost estimates contained in MassDOT’s Project Info

database, which were adjusted as needed;

• Preliminary Design Construction Cost Estimates developed by communities as part of the Project Development process

All project cost estimates developed using the methods noted above were converted to FFY 2020 and then inflated at a 4% annual rate to their estimated year of implementation.
Table 5.2 summarizes those roadway and trail projects chosen by the MVMPO to be included in the FFY 2020 RTP.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 54
Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint

Table 5.2 MVMPO 2020 Regional Transportation Plan Fiscal Constraint - Roadway and Trail Projects

Project Community

(TIP)

2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 TOTAL

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 55
Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint

Table 5.2 continued

Project Community 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 TOTAL

Statewide Funding

TIP Project

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 56
Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint

Key Projects

Route 114 Improvements

This roadway in Lawrence and North Andover suffers
from congestion, flooding and a lack of adequate bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. The MVMPO completed a study of the corridor in 2010. In 2014, MassDOT approved a project that would reconstruct the section of the highway between Waverly Rd. and the Stop & Shop Driveway in North Andover. This project, which is now in preliminary design, is programmed in the FFYs 2021 and FFY 2022 elements of the Merrimack Valley MPO’s FFYs 2020-2024 TIP.
A second project for this corridor has been included in the 2020 RTP, which would widen Route 114 between the I-495 interchange in Lawrence and its intersection with Waverly Road at the Lawrence/North Andover Town
Line. This project would remove and replace it with a wider, more resilient bridge over the Shawsheen River and add a southbound travel lane thereby eliminating the bottleneck that currently exists along this section of the highway.
These two projects, one under design and appearing in the TIP and the other a proposal have among the highest Transportation Evaluation Scores of any projects in the MVMPO region.

Maintenance of Locally-Administered Federal Aid

Roadways

Exclusive of Chapter 90 spending on Federal-Aid roadways, this RTP shows over $100 million in federal and state funding has been set aside to support the maintenance of the locally administered Federal-Aid roadways in the MVMPO region. This is the largest single expenditure item appearing in RTP and demonstrates the MVMPO’s commitment keeping its Federal-Aid roadway network in a state of good repair.

Active Transportation Network

The MVMPO has long supported the development of what is now identified as the region’s Active Transportation Network; a system of on-road and off- road bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are intended to promote these alternative travel modes and thereby reduce our reliance on the automobile.
Many sections of this network are complete or under construction, including the Powow Riverwalk in Amesbury, Newburyport Rail Trail, and the Eastern Marsh Trail in Salisbury to name just a few. This RTP includes projects that will complete key sections of the Active Transportation Network such as:

• M&L Branch Multi-use trail in Lawrence;

• Bradford Rail Trail – Phase II in Haverhill

• Groveland Community Trail;

• Sections of the Border to Boston Multi-use Trail in

Boxford, Georgetown, Newbury and Salisbury

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 57
Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint

Complete Streets Projects

in an effort to improve the quality of life of their citizens,
many local officials in the region have made it a priority to support ‘Complete Streets’ roadway projects that would significantly improve the condition and efficiency of these facilities for vehicles and greatly improve their accommodation for other modes of travel In addition to Route 114 in Lawrence and North Andover described earlier, other significant Complete Street reconstruction projects appearing in the RTP include:

• Lowell Street in Andover;

• North Avenue in Haverhill;

• Merrimack Street in Methuen;

• Water Street in Haverhill

• Central Street in Rowley;

Illustrative Projects

Described below are projects that, while of importance
to the Merrimack Valley transportation network, have not been included in the fiscally constrained section of this document. This is because they are either bridge
projects and would need to be selected by MassDOT as part of the State Bridge Program, are ineligible to receive federal or state bridge funds, or are of such magnitude that they cannot be programmed in the RTP using target funding without significantly compromising the integrity
of the region’s other transportation assets.

• I-495 Widening/Improvements

The I-495 corridor through the western half of the MVMPO region experiences recurring congestion during the AM and PM peak travel periods. Most of the interchanges along this section of the roadway are substandard, with traffic often backing up from local roads onto the highway. Conversely, congestion on I-495 has been observed create congestion on connecting arterial roadways such as Route 125 in Haverhill and Route 110 in Haverhill and Methuen.
A 2008 MassDOT study of the corridor recommended adding a lane in each direction from the Andover/Tewksbury Town Line east to Exit
50 (Route-97) in Haverhill. The estimated cost of implementing all the recommendations identified in the MassDOT Corridor Study (i.e. Route 225 in Westford to I-95 in Salisbury) and adjusted to FFY
2020 dollars is $286,315,4870. In addition, this figure does not include the cost of updating the busy I-
93/I-495 Interchange in Andover.
The bridges that carry I-495 over the Merrimack River near Ward Hill in Haverhill are currently being replaced with wider structures that, when
completed in 2026, will be able to carry four travel lanes in each direction and have full-width
shoulders.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 58
Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint

In addition, one of the recommendations made in this study; the signalization of the I-495 ramps to/from Massachusetts Avenue in North Andover, is included in the Universe of Projects that was considered in the development of the 2020 RTP.

• Howe Street Bridge Replacement

While not an SD bridge, this structure suffers from a number of limitations and is situated on a roadway that is used by residents of northern Methuen, Haverhill and southern New Hampshire to access MA-213. Current lane widths are substandard (<10 ft. at northern end of structure), there is only one
sidewalk, and there are virtually no striped shoulders provided. Methuen officials are concerned that continued growth along the Howe Street corridor north of MA-213 will create additional bicycle and pedestrian traffic that cannot be adequately
served with the existing structure.

Replacement of Middle Street/Plummer Spring Road Bridge between West Newbury and Newburyport

This bridge was closed to vehicle traffic in 2018 shortly after a partial collapse of the roadway and one of the bridge railings. in While this bridge does not carry a high volume of traffic, it is recognized as an important connector between the two communities and carried a relatively large
percentage of heavy trucks. At present MassDOT is
unaware of any additional bridge or highway funds that would be available to fund construction of the project. West Newbury and Newburyport are currently overseeing the design of a new bridge, which is estimated to cost approximately $2 million.

Funding Available: Transit

The Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (MVRTA)
is the primary provider of transit services in the region. The MVRTA receives its funding from a number of sources and programs, including federal, state and local. Therefore, the Authority’s anticipated funding needs must be within the amounts of funding anticipated to be available in certain key state and federal transit funding programs. The major sources of funding are briefly described below.

State Contract Assistance

Provided to the Regional Transit Authorities, these funds pay for not less than 50% and not more than 75% of their net operating deficits generated through the provision of their fixed route, and demand response services.

State Capital Assistance

This state program provides the transit authorities with the matching funds for federal capital funds, which are for the most part provided under the Section 5307 program.

Local Assessments

These are funds that are assessed to MVRTA communities based on the amount of service that they receive.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 59
Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint

Fare and Other Revenue

These include funds that are generated through fares
and the MVRTA’s advertising program, as well as other
sources.

Section 5307 Program

Section 5307 is a formula grant program for urbanized areas providing capital, operating, and planning assistance for mass transportation. It is the FTA's primary transit assistance program. Funds are apportioned to urbanized areas utilizing a formula based on population, population density, and other factors associated with transit service and ridership.
Beginning in FY 2004, the MVRTA was included in the Boston Urbanized Area, and funds were distributed through a funding formula agreed to by the regional transit authorities now included in the Boston Urbanized Area.

Section 5307 Funding Availability

Table 5.3 shows the amount of Section 5307 funding that is expected to be provided to the MVRTA for the RTP period of FFYs 2020-2040. These amounts are based on the assumption that the MVRTA’s Section 5307 allocation will grow by 2.08% annually. Table 5.4 does not include
state or local match for these federal funds.

Table 5.3 MVRTA Section 5307 Funding Availability

FFY’s 2020-2040 (Federal Amounts Only)

Fiscal Constraint: Capital

Table 5.5 on the following page demonstrates that the MVRTA’s anticipated capital expenditure program, including expenditures of Section 5307 funds for operating expenses, can be completed given the amount of capital funding anticipated to be available. Historically, the state has matched federal funding and is expected to continue to do so.
Table 5.4 shows how MVRTA expenditures by type over the RTP period, the MVRTA anticipates

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 60
Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint

Table 5.4 MVRTA Capital Expenditures by Type

Vehicles expenditures are the second largest capital cost

Capital Expense

Type

2020-

2024

2025-

2029

2030-

2034

2035-

2039 2040

RTP Total

type at 28.6%. This percentage increases over the course of the RTP from a low of 21.32% under the FFYs 2020-2024



Preventative Maintenance ADA Operating Assistance Operating Assistance
44.25% 40.56% 38.35% 33.57% 32.52% 38.36%
22.06% 21.49% 22.43% 21.67% 22.27% 21.92%
11.14% 9.67% 10.09% 9.75% 10.02% 10.10%
TIP to a high of 34.35% in 2040. Included are the
replacement of 48 fixed route buses, 29 vans and 7
supervisory vehicles.……….




Planning 1.23% 1.05% 1.00% 0.87% 0.84% 1.01% Vehicles 21.32% 27.23% 28.13% 34.13% 34.35% 28.60% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Preventive Maintenance expenditures by the MVRTA will be 38.36% and is the greatest expense type. This figure decreases steadily over the RTP time bands from 44.25% under the FFYs 2020-2024 TIP to 32.52% in 2040.
ADA Operating Assistance spending is projected to remain relatively constant over the period with a high of
22.43% in 2030-2040 and a low of 21.49% in 2025-2029.
General Operating Assistance expenditures will be similar to ADA Operating Assistance in terms of their variability, although this category is expected to see a slight decline from 11.14% under the FFYs 2020-2024 TIP to just over 10% in 2040.
Planning expenditures constitute the smallest capital cost type for the Authority at 1.01% and are expected to decline slightly over time.

Photo: MVRTA paratransit van.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 61

Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint

Table 5.5 MVRTA Capital Expenditures 2020-2024

MVRTA Capital Expenditures included in the 2020-2024 TIP Category 2020-2024

Capital Expenses

5307 - Preventative Maintenance $18,014,595

5307 - ADA Operating $8,979,670

5307 - Operating $4,536,630

5307- Planning $500,000

Facilities

Bank Stabilization $1,750,330

Vehicles

Supervisory Vehicles $192,170

Paratransit Vans $1,650,100

Bus Replacement $6,836,550


Engine/Transmission Replacements -

Total Spending Need $42,460,045

Available Funds

5307 Allocation for MVRTA $32,607,050

State Contract Assistance $7,667,165

MVPC $100,000

RTA Cap $2,085,830

Carry Over $7,787,600

Available Funds $50,247,645

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 62
Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint

Table 5.6 Anticipated Capital Need

Category

Capital Expenses 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 Subtotals

5307 - Preventative Maintenance $15,414,480.0 $15,414,480.0 $15,414,480.0 $3,082,896.0 $63,738,012.0

5307 - ADA Operating $8,164,447.4 $9,014,209.6 $9,952,415.8 $2,111,488.6 $36,426,297.4

5307 - Operating $2,296,611.6 $2,535,644.8 $2,799,556.7 $593,949.5 $10,494,077.6

5307- Planning $400,000.0 $400,000.0 $400,000.0 $80,000.0

Vehicles

Supervisory Vehicles $321,084.6 - $176,234.9 - $651,055.4

Paratransit Vans $2,027,705.9 $1,885,534.2 $2,787,079.2 - $8,020,399.3

Bus Replacement $7,640,350.1 $9,422,459.5 $11,542,523.2 $3,256,391.17 $37,330,964.5

Engine/Transmission Replacements $357,728.63 $1,167,464.70 $1,525,193.3

Total Spending Need $36,622,408 $38,672,328 $44,239,754 $9,124,725 $158,185,999

Carryover $2,335,144 $1,167,928 $4,342,011 - $15,632,683

5307 Allocation $34,925,710 $38,712,262 $42,909,343 $9,124,725 $157,181,571
Federal Funds Allocated to MVRTA $37,260,854 $39,880,190 $47,251,354 $9,124,725 $172,814,254

Additional Need

The projects shown above in Table 5.6 are funded under the current fiscally-constrained plan. However, there are additional capital needs that are very important to providing mobility, reducing congestion, supporting economic vitality and more.

Commuter Bus Service. The MVRTA provides Boston Commuter Bus Service weekdays from several locations in the Greater Lawrence area to downtown Boston, including South Station. A very popular service, the

commuter bus provides a very competitive alternative to single occupancy vehicle driving.

Facilities Maintenance. The MVRTA manages several facilities including:

• Buckley Transportation Center, Lawrence

• Washington Square Transit Center, Haverhill

• Granite Street Parking Garage adjacent to the commuter rail, Haverhill

• McGovern Transportation Center, Lawrence

• Costello Transportation Center, Amesbury

• Gateway Parking, Lawrence

• MVRTA Office/Maintenance Facility

As these facilities age, maintenance will be needed, such as replacement of elevators for accessibility.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 63

Chapter 5: Fiscal Constraint
Page left blank.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 64

Photo: Reclamation of a roadway.

Chapter 6

Goal 1: State of Good

Repair

Keeping existing transportation infrastructure in good, safe condition goes a long way toward ensuring that people can get to where they need to go. Problems such as potholes, weight limits on bridges and buckling sidewalks can occur and impede our ability to get around
efficiently and safely. Except for new bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, the focus in the Merrimack Valley is primarily on fixing and improving existing
infrastructure. This chapter reviews how we are accomplishing this task.

Objective 1.1: 80% of All Federal- Aid Roads will be Maintained at Good to Excellent Condition

Existing Conditions

Merrimack Valley Federal-Aid Roads under MassDOT Jurisdiction

Within the Merrimack Valley region, approximately 83% of
the approximately 105 miles of non-interstate Federal-Aid roadways under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s (MassDOT) is presently in good or better condition. This high percentage is due in large part to MassDOT resurfacing approximately 20 centerline miles of its non-interstate highways during just the last two years. These projects have been part of planned and programmed capital projects, including:

• Construction and reconstruction of an approximately .75-mile section of Route 110 (Lowell Street) and surrounding roadways as part of the I-

93 and Route 110/113 rotary interchange reconfiguration project.

• The following resurfacing projects:

o 5.5 miles of the multi-lane roadway sections of Route 114 (Winthrop Avenue and Turnpike Street) in Lawrence and North Andover;

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 65
Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

o 3.5 miles of the four-lane limited access highway of

Route 213 (Albert Slack Highway) in Methuen;

o 2 miles of Route 1A (Beach Road) in Salisbury;

o 2 miles of Route 28 near its I-495 interchange in

Andover and Lawrence;

o 1.5 miles of the Storey Avenue section of Route 113 in Newburyport;

o 1 mile of Route 110 (East and Swan Streets) in

Methuen; and

o 1 mile of a four-lane roadway section of Route 125 in Haverhill and North Andover.

These paving jobs always involved roadways with standard or near standard base and binder course structures and therefore MassDOT had just the riding course milled and then resurfaced with new pavement. The programmed jobs also always involved other work within the highway layout limits, including the repairing or reconstruction of old and damaged sidewalks and/or the construction of new sidewalks, and the installation of the latest Americans with Disability Act (ADA) standard pedestrian ramps. The work sometimes involved drainage improvement work, including the adjustment or rebuilding of drainage structures, the raising of the castings, and the
replacement of damaged sections of granite curbing.
The work also involved, in some cases, the replacement of guard rail.

Merrimack Valley Federal-Aid Roads under MUNICIPAL Jurisdiction

Municipalities within the Merrimack Valley and their Departments of Public Works (DPWs) have managed to maintain the Federal-Aid portion of roads under their jurisdiction at a consistent level with nearly 80% of the roads in good or excellent condition. This is the objective of the pavement condition performance measure for the Merrimack Valley region as stated in the MVMPO’s 2016
Regional Transportation Plan. It should be noted that these roads, on a centerline mile basis, represent only approximately 27% of the 1,360 miles of roads that municipalities must maintain within the region. However, the Federal-Aid roads are the arterial and collector roadways within these cities and towns and serve the highest volume of traffic over the longest trip lengths. Their widths are generally wider, and they represent approximately 33% of the total municipal roadway pavement surface area. Table 6.1 presents a listing of the cities and towns within the region and the amount of the Federal-Aid roads in good or better condition.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 66
Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

Table 6.6: Municipal Federal-Aid Roadway Conditions

employed techniques, such as crack-sealing and micro-

Jurisdiction

Municipal Fed-Aid Roads (miles)

Good or Better Roads (miles)

% Good or Better Roads

surfacing. To receive a cost savings through volume, some have procured their services through a collaborative procurement process administered by the Merrimack Valley Planning Regional Road Services
Consortium.

MVPC Region 365.8 290.1 79%

Boxford 21.5 21.2 99% West Newbury 13.5 13.2 98%

Methuen 36.5 34.7 95%

Newbury 15.4 14.0 91%

Andover 54.9 45.3 82%

North Andover 28.1 22.4 80%

Haverhill 61.7 48.8 79% Georgetown 16.4 12.3 75% Newburyport 15.7 11.6 74%

Rowley 11.5 8.5 74%

Lawrence 35.1 24.5 70%

Groveland 15.5 10.3 66% Amesbury 20.6 13.2 64% Salisbury 9.0 5.5 61% Merrimaca 10.4 4.6 44%

Notes a47% of Merrimac’s Federal-Aid roads are in good or better condition when discounting the discontinued section of River Road.

As shown in Table 6.1, the rural communities of Boxford and West Newbury have 98 to 99 percent of their arterial and collector roads in good or excellent condition.
To keep roads in good condition, municipalities have employed pavement preservation strategies to extend the life of roadways. Many municipal DPWs have
Some municipal DPWs have put together pavement management plans and programs, generally 5-year plans, which have enhanced their ability to effectively time and apply those pavement preservation strategies. Some have even brought these plans to Town Meeting or City Council to appeal for extra Town or City funds over what the State is reimbursing through its Chapter 90 program for the costlier rehabilitation strategies.
The Merrimack Valley sits wholly within the northern section of Essex County of Massachusetts. In 1999, the state of Massachusetts abolished county government in Essex County, along with seven other county governments around the same time. Municipalities acquired ownership and maintenance of those former county roadways. Because of this, Massachusetts’ municipalities control the largest share of roadway mileage within their state compared to all states. According to MassDOT’s latest Road Inventory Year End Report, approximately 89% of
the centerline miles of publicly accepted ways within Massachusetts (and the Merrimack Valley) are owned and maintained by cities and towns in the
Commonwealth. By contrast, cities and towns in 37 of the

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 67
Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

50 states in the country control less than half of the

Table 6.2: FY19 Chapter 90 Apportionment

roadway mileage in their states, according to FHWA. Because of the shift in the burden of roadway

Jurisdiction Municipal

Roads(miles)

FY19 Chapter 90 apportionment

maintenance from counties to municipalities in
Massachusetts, pavement management programming as a tool and state-aid as a funding source have become even more important factors to city and town DPWs, which have seen steady decreases in departmental staffing.
Recognizing the need for additional funding, for fiscal year 2012, the state increased its Chapter 90 state-aid to cities and towns by approximately 33% from $150 million to $200 million annually to offset large increases in the cost of oil that had driven up the cost of asphalt. Recently, because of further price increases and expected future increases, municipalities have been
lobbying the state for an increase to $300 million annually.
Merrimack Valley region communities currently receive approximately $9.2 million annually. Table 6.2 presents the total number of centerline miles that each city and town maintain and their Fiscal Year 2019 Chapter 90 allotment.

MVPC Region 1,358.2 $9,212,991

Amesbury 59.7 $397,004

Andover 188.2 $1,363,938

Boxford 89.7 $415,020

Georgetown 55.9 $304,154

Groveland 39.7 $212,581 Haverhill 228.4 $1,536,547

Lawrence 123.4 $1,321,797

Merrimac 37.4 $197,598

Methuen 175.0 $1,186,489

Newbury 53.1 $270,409

Newburyport 68.3 $517,057

North Andover 117.5 $810,973

Rowley 41.5 $233,936

Salisbury 34.9 $231,350 West Newbury 45.5 $214,138

Source: MassDOT

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 68

Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

Photo: Section of Chestnut Street in Andover where trenches were dug to repair gas utility lines.

Greater Lawrence Natural Gas Disaster

Parts of the three communities of Lawrence, Andover, and North Andover were affected by the natural gas disaster of the Merrimack Valley on September 13th of
2018. There was one fatality and more than two dozen injuries resulting from an over-pressurization of gas lines in the area. Nearly 2,000 families, or 6,891 individuals, were placed in alternative housing while repairs were made to restore service, according to the utility company.
The gas company had to replace approximately 3,500 service lines and approximately 48 miles of gas main,
much of which was under roadways and sidewalks. Many
repair crews from around the country were mobilized to conduct this work concurrently. Some crews did a better job than others with the asphalt patching of the gas line trenching, as discovered by the staff conducting the pavement inventory at that time. In early May of 2019, officials of Lawrence, Andover, and North Andover together announced an $80 million settlement with Columbia Gas for road restoration and municipal claims. Of the $80 million, $57.1 is going to road repairs, allocated based on the miles of impacted roads: $31.9 million to Lawrence, $13.9 million to Andover, and $11.3 million to North Andover.

Merrimack Valley Federal-Aid Roads by Funding Program and Functional Class

When the federal-aid roads in the region were evaluated
by funding program categories, it was found that the National Highway System (NHS) roads are kept in better condition, regardless of jurisdiction, than the Surface Transportation Program (STP) roadway network.
According to the state’s year ending 2017 Road Inventory Report, there are approximate 56-centerline miles of MassDOT-maintained interstate highway in the Merrimack Valley. In addition, there are 99 miles of NHS roads under other functional classifications, 59 miles of which are maintained by MassDOT. Table 6.3 presents a summary of the pavement inventory results by NHS and STP funding categories.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 69
Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

Table 6.3 Merrimack Valley Region's Non-Interstate

Federal-Aid Eligible Roadways

(Existing Pavement Conditions)

As shown in Table 6.3, between 86% and 90% of the NHS roads are kept in good condition or better, depending on jurisdiction. It makes sense that these roads are given the most attention and are kept in such good condition by their respective Departments, given that these arterials serve the greatest volume of traffic of all the roadways in the region’s network. By contrast, approximately 81% of STP arterials and slightly less than 74% of STP collector roadways are kept in good condition or better.
Of interesting note is the fact that approximately 43% of
the 59 miles of MassDOT’s NHS roadways are in excellent
condition. As mentioned previously, this high percentage has been due in large part to a capital improvement project at the I-93 and Route 110/113 interchange and
the Department resurfacing approximately 20 centerline miles of its non-interstate highways during just the last two years, approximately 14 miles of which are NHS roadways. The resurfacing jobs by the Department on the NHS roads include: sections of Route 114 in Lawrence and North Andover, all of Route 213 in Methuen, a section of Route 28 near its interchange with Interstate I-495 in Andover and Lawrence, all the Storey Avenue section of
Route 113 in Newburyport, and sections of Route 125 in
Haverhill and North Andover, near the City and Town lines.

Future Conditions

MVPC staff used the pavement management program from Cartegraph’s Pavement View Plus software module to forecast and analyze what actions are needed to maintain the region’s federal-aid roads over the next 20 years.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 70
Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

Some of the model assumptions included initial treatments of any roads in failure condition with a full depth reconstruction or a rehabilitation of hammermill reclamation. Roads that exhibit a high extent of high severity alligator cracking or high severity potholes require a full depth reconstruction. These are roads that
generally had a Pavement Condition Index less than 25 and/or are closed to through traffic. If the road is still open to traffic, vehicles may not be able to travel at the posted speed limits.
Precious few of such roads that serve as arterials or collectors in the region are in this state of disrepair. In one case, a road in this state has not been repaired because the town has opted to leave it this way (a section of J.B. Little Road in Groveland). In another, the roadway was closed and discontinued (a section of River Road in Merrimac).
Some of the other model assumptions include full depth reclamation treatments that only municipal DPWs currently employ, because of the state of repair of some
of their roads. Roads in the lower range of poor condition, with a large extent of fatigue cracking or potholes, are assumed to demand this rehabilitation of hammermill reclamation. Other model assumptions include the most common rehabilitation treatments that MassDOT and municipal DPWs employ, including pavement overlays or milling of a deteriorated riding surface and resurfacing. Roads in poor or fair condition with little fatigue cracking
or potholes are assumed to get the rehabilitation treatments of cold plane and overlay (“mill and fill”) or pavement overlay, depending on the presence and

Photo: Example of crack seal applied on a road.

reveal of curbing and/or underground utilities. For roads that are in good condition and exhibit a certain level of age or cracking, an application of only the favored pavement preservation strategy of crack-sealing is made. Roads in excellent condition demand no maintenance.
A pavement degradation curve was used within the model that states that an untreated road will need a reconstruction or reclamation after 30 years (or 35 years
for a low-volume road) when it reaches poor or failure

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 71
Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

condition, however, this condition is never reached in the future year analysis. It also states that an untreated road will need rehabilitation including a “mill and fill” or overlay after 16 years (or 21 years for a low volume road) when it reaches fair or poor condition. The future conditions analysis assumes that roads that are in good condition will be treated once at the appropriate time with a crack- seal. That action will extend the life of those pavements by about 4 years, therefore the overlays or “mill and fills” will be deferred to 20 years (or 25 years for low volume roads) after their reconstruction or rehabilitation.
Based on those degradation assumptions (and an assumption of an annual inflation rate of 4%), the maintenance needs of the municipally-owned Federal- Aid roads within the Merrimack Valley over the next 20 to
21 years (to the planning horizon of 2040) is $176 million.
Given that the Federal-Aid roads represent only approximately 33% of the total municipally-owned roadway surface in the MVPC communities, using only
33% of Chapter 90 state-aid will not be enough to keep all roads in the current state of repair. Applying some of the MVMPO’s target funds in addition to Chapter 90 state-aid will allow municipalities to keep these regionally significant roads, consisting of arterials and collectors, in nearly the same state of repair that currently exists.

Photo: Replacement of the Basiliere Bridge (shown in background) is programmed in the 2024 element of the TIP.

Improve Conditions of Bridges

Bridge projects are not generally included in the
MVMPO’s target funding. MassDOT has separate funding for and manages the maintenance and replacement of the bridges. This section provides a discussion of those bridges that are in need of repair and are priorities for the region. However, the bridges are not included as part of the fiscal constraint section of this document.
The MVMPO region has 241 federal-aid bridges. Bridges are inspected each year and evaluated to determine their structural soundness and other criteria. Through this process, MassDOT determines whether a bridge is either Functionally Obsolete (FO) or Structurally Deficient (SD).
What do these terms mean?

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 72
Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

Functionally Obsolete: deck geometry, load-bearing capacity, vertical and horizontal clearances or approach roadway alignment do not meet the criteria for the roadway system of which the bridge is a component.

Structurally Deficient: includes bridges that must have vehicle weight restrictions, immediate rehabilitation to remain open, or must be closed.

According to the most recent bridge list supplied by MassDOT (December 2017), there are 27 structurally deficient bridges. Of those, one bridge, North Main Street over the railroad tracks in Andover, is under construction. Ten of the bridges carry I-495. Three additional bridge projects have been programmed in the 2020-2024 TIP:

• The Basiliere Bridge (Route 125 over the Merrimack

River) in Haverhill, a 5-year project to begin in 2024,

• The North/South bridges of I-495 in Haverhill at the

Methuen Border (2023)

• I-495 over Route 28 and the railroad in Andover

(2023)
In addition, MVMPO communities have prioritized six bridges, which are not Structurally Deficient, but which may be Functionally Obsolete or have other additional needs. Those projects include:

Daisy Street Bridge. This functionally obsolete bridge was included in the Merrimack Valley Multi-Hazard Mitigation

Plan as a choke point on the Spicket River and is a location of flooding in the City of Lawrence.

High Street over the Clipper City Rail Trail East and West. High Street crosses over two sections of the loop which creates the Clipper City Rail Trail in Newburyport.

Washington Street over Route 1. The Washington Street bridge has appeared in the MVMPO’s TIP in the past and continues to be a major concern for the City of Newburyport.

Route 28 over Shawsheen River. In Andover, the Shawsheen River flows under Route 28 and during major storms sometimes floods over the bridge. The bridge was included in the Merrimack Valley Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Union Street over North Canal. This functionally obsolete bridge in Lawrence needs improvements. Sidewalks to the east side are in poor condition.

Middle Street/Plummer Spring Road. On the border between West Newbury and Newburyport, this bridge spans the Artichoke River. The road is not on the Federal- aid roadway system, but serves as an important link between these two communities. Design of the bridge is underway, though construction funds have not been identified. Better pedestrian access is also needed on this bridge.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 73
Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

Table 6.4 Structurally Deficient Bridges

Town Bridge Description Bridge # SD Priority Status


Amesbury I-495 over Route 110 (NB/SB) A-07-025 Y Amesbury I-495 over Middle Road (NB/SB) A-07-021 Y
Andover I-495 NB/On-ramp over MBTA A-09-037 Y TIP 2024

Andover Route 28 over MBTA A-09-011 Y Construction





Andover High Plain Road over I-495 A-09-040 Y Andover Chandler Road over I-93 A-09-028 Y Andover Greenwood Road over I-495 SB A-09-032 Y Andover Tewksbury Street over railroad A-09-015 Y

Haverhill I-495 NB/SB over Merrimack River H-12-040 Y (NB) Y TIP 2023
Haverhill Route 125 over Merrimack River/trail (Basiliere

Bridge)
H-12-007 Y Y TIP 2024



Haverhill I-495 SB over railroad and Little River H-12-048 Y Haverhill Route 97 Broadway over I-495 SB H-12-043 Y Lawrence I-495 Upper Level over I-495 Lower Level L-04-035 Y


Lawrence Route 114 over Shawsheen River L-04-021 Y Y Lawrence Route 28 (Broadway) over Spicket River L-04-007 Y
Lawrence Amesbury Street over South Canal L-04-025 Y Y








Methuen I-495 NB over Merrimack Street (Route 113) M-17-031 Y Methuen Route 213 EB over railroad tracks M-17-026 Y Methuen Osgood Street over Spicket River M-17-003 Y Newbury Route 1 over Little River N-10-004 Y Newburyport Route 1 over Merrimack River N-11-011 Y North Andover I-495 NB ramp over Sutton Street/MBTA N-15-018 Y Rowley Route 1A/Main Street over MBTA R-11-001 Y
Notes: SD- Structurally deficient. Priority refers to community priority.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 74
Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

Table 6.5: Bridges: Community Priority Bridges (non-Structurally Deficient)

Town Bridge Description Bridge # SD Priority Status






Lawrence Daisy Street Bridge over Spicket River L-04-008 N Y Newburyport High Street (Rt 113) over Clipper City Rail Trail N-11-002 N Y Newburyport High Street (Rt 1A) over Rt 1 N-11-014 N Y Newburyport Washington Street over Rt 1 N-11-015 N Y Andover Route 28 over Shawsheen River A-09-001 N Y Lawrence Union St. over North Canal L-04-004 N Y
West Newbury Middle Road over Artichoke River N/A N/A Y Design

Notes: SD- Structurally Deficient. Priority refers to community priority. N/A - bridge is not on a federal-aid roadway, so it is not included on

MassDOT's bridge list.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 75

Chapter 6 State of Good Repair

Photo: MVRTA fixed route bus at North Andover Mall.

Objective 2: Maintain and

• Miles between road calls – tracks the distance traveled between mechanical breakdowns.

• Maintenance cost per revenue hour – a lower maintenance cost per revenue hour indicates an increased effectiveness of the maintenance program.

• Maintenance cost per revenue mile – a lower maintenance cost per revenue mile, the more effective the maintenance program.

• Percentage of vehicles that meet or exceed the

useful life benchmark.

Maintenance Cost. The average of the preceding five years is used as the benchmark for these measures. For FY 2015-2019, the MVRTA did not consistently meet its goals every year for maintenance cost per revenue mile and maintenance cost per revenue hour.

Table 6.6: MVRTA Performance Measures

Modernize Transit Capital Assets

Performance

Measure

FY

2015

FY

2016

FY

2017

FY

2018

FY

2019

Measuring Success

The MVRTA regularly schedules maintenance and

Maintenance Cost per Revenue Hour

$8.00 $8.82 $8.11 $8.33 $8.42
replacement of its vehicles to ensure that the transit

Benchmark $8.85 $8.23 $8.48 $8.33 $8.36

system runs efficiently. The MVRTA fleet includes 50 transit
buses, 6 commuter buses, 24 ADA accessible vans and 7 supervisory vehicles.

Maintenance Cost per Revenue Mile

$ .74 $ .81 $ .73 $ .76 $ .77
The MVRTA uses the following performance measures to evaluate its fleet:

Benchmark $ .77 $ .76 $ .77 $.76 $ .76

Notes: Benchmarks are based on the preceding five-year average.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 76


Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

Miles Between Road Calls

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY2017 FY 2018 FY 2019

Miles Between Road Calls Benchmark

replaced. The conditions of all MVRTA facilities are at a
5.0, excellent.

2040 Projections

This RTP shows a projected federal budget of Section
5307 Federal Transit Funding of $157,181,571. Historically, the state has matched the federal funding and is expected to do so. An inflation rate of 2.08% was applied to the funding throughout the time period (See Table 6.7).
The goal for this RTP was preservation of the transit system with a focus on maintenance and replacement of the

Figure 6.1 Miles Between Road Calls

Miles Between Road Calls. As shown in Figure 6.1, the MVRTA has consistently exceeded its benchmark for miles between road calls. This can be attributed to its successful implementation of a regular maintenance program as well as to replacing vehicles according to their useful life benchmark.

Vehicle Service Life. According to the MVRTA’s Transit Asset Management Plan, the MVRTA has used the minimum service life benchmark for buses as 12 years and 4 years for ADA vans. According to the Transit Asset Management Plan, 3 model year 2007 buses had met their useful life benchmark and will be replaced. One

model 2013 supervisory vehicle is also scheduled to be
fixed route buses and ADA vans. Replacement of supervisory vehicles was also included. An inflation rate of 3% was applied to all vehicle purchases. In the past, the MVRTA has replaced buses every 12 years, the minimum. The current fiscally constrained budget requires a 14-year replacement schedule, which is acceptable under FTA guidelines.
Section 5307 funding may also be used for operations and ADA operations. An inflation rate of 2% was applied to these line items. A 1% inflation rate was applied to preventative maintenance. Planning funds remained static. No funding was programmed for commuter coaches or facility maintenance or updates.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 77

Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

Table 6.7: Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority Anticipated Capital Expenditures 2020-2040

Category

Capital Expenses 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040 Subtotals

5307 - Preventative Maintenance $14,411,676 $15,414,480 $15,414,480 $15,414,480 $3,082,896 $63,738,012

5307 - ADA Operating $7,183,736 $8,164,447 $9,014,209 $9,952,415 $2,111,488 $36,426,297

5307 - Operating $2,268,315 $2,296,611 $2,535,644 $2,799,556 $593,949 $10,494,077

5307- Planning $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $80,000

Facilities

Bank Stabilization $1,400,264

Vehicles

Supervisory Vehicles $153,736 $321,084 $176,234 $651,055

Paratransit Vans $1,320,080 $2,027,705 $1,885,534 $2,787,079 $8,020,399

Bus Replacement $5,469,240 $7,640,350 $9,422,459 $11,542,523 $3,256,391 $37,330,964

Engine/Transmission Replacements $357,728 $1,167,464 $1,525,193

Total Spending Need $32,607,047 $36,622,408 $38,672,328 $43,919,754 $ 9,044,725 $158,185,999

Carryover $7,787,600 $2,335,144 $1,167,928 $4,342,011 $15,632,683

5307 Allocation $31,509,531 $34,925,710 $38,712,262 $42,909,343 $9,124,725 $157,181,571
Federal Funds Allocated to MVRTA $39,297,131 $37,260,854 $39,880,190 $47,251,354 $9,124,725 $172,814,254

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 78

Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

Photo: MVPC interns collecting data on sidewalks.

Objective 3: Improve Conditions of

Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure

Whether walking to school or work, to visit a friend, to run an errand, or to walk from a parking lot to a store downtown, people need safe places to walk. In order to succeed in increasing the number of people who walk, the region’s pedestrian infrastructure needs to be improved to support this mode.
The 2016 RTP called for a strategy to inventory conditions of existing pedestrian infrastructure within five years. In
2018, the MVMPO received a grant from the Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to inventory
the conditions of sidewalks in the region. Seven communities jumped on board for the project. To date, the MVMPO has completed sidewalk data collection in five of those communities – Amesbury, Georgetown, Methuen, North Andover and Salisbury. Data collection continues in Andover and Lawrence. In 2015, MVPC had completed a similar inventory for the City of Haverhill.
As shown in Table 6.8, 68% of the sidewalks in the six communities were classified as being in good to excellent condition. Only 3% of the sidewalks were considered in very poor condition. Conditions were classified as the following:
Very Poor. Sidewalk structure has failed and requires entire replacement. Mobility-impaired pedestrians would be unable to use this sidewalk.

Poor. Sidewalk structure is severely distorted; buckling and break up of structure may be present. The extent of the distresses within the structure is typically greater than half of the structure. Major maintenance is needed. Mobility-impaired pedestrians would have difficulty using this sidewalk.

Fair. Sidewalk structure is partially distorted. The severity of the distresses is slightly greater than those in good condition. Some fairly predominant distresses exist constituting between one quarter and one half of the sidewalk area. Minor maintenance efforts would be

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 79

Chapter 6: State of Good Repair

Table 6.8: Sidewalk Conditions 2018 (Haverhill 2015)

Excellent Very

Good

Good Fair Poor Very

Poor

Total

Amesbury 3.5 6.5 20.5 11.7 7.4 2.1 51.7

Georgetown 1.1 8.6 10.2 2.3 0.8 0.2 23.1

Haverhill 13.5 15.0 80.5 26.0 17.8 5.2 158.0

Methuen 2.5 9.5 33.2 22.5 13.2 1.1 81.9

North Andover 4.0 20.3 20.6 6.8 2.3 0.7 54.7

Salisbury 0.9 3.2 7.4 1.7 0.9 0.8 14.9

Total Miles 25.4 63.1 172.4 70.9 42.3 10.2 384.3

% Condition 7% 16% 45% 18% 11% 3% 100%

required to correct this problem, Mobility impaired
pedestrians could use this sidewalk with a little difficulty.
Good. Sidewalk structure is in good condition. Some localized distress exists. The extent of the localized problems consists of a few Portland Concrete (PCC) slabs, a few bricks or cobblestones that may be loose, or less than one quarter of the bituminous concrete sidewalk area is in poor condition. Localized minor maintenance is required. Mobility impaired pedestrians could easily use this sidewalk.
Very Good. Sidewalk structure has no visible defects, however it is more than a few years old. No distresses exist. No maintenance is required. Mobility-impaired pedestrians could easily use this sidewalk.
Excellent. Sidewalk structure is newly or recently- constructed. No maintenance is required.

Strategy for Progress

• Complete sidewalk inventory in five years.

• Create performance measure for miles

of existing sidewalks and % in good to excellent condition.

• Investigate funding sources and quantify cost for achieving performance

measure.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 80

Photo: Truck turning at Route 110/Route 108 intersection during a Road Safety Audit. (Source: Road Safety Audit: Amesbury Road (Rt. 110) at Newton Road (Rt. 108), June 29,

2018, MassDOT/Toole Design Group)

Chapter 7

Goal 2: Increase Safety for

All Modes

Ensuring that the transportation network is safe for all users is a priority for the region, the state and the country. It is the subject of many of the meetings the MVMPO staff have
with communities, the purpose of studies that are performed and reason projects are chosen for funding.

Objective 2.1: Reduce Overall

Number of Crashes for All Modes

Safety Performance Measures (PM1)

The Merrimack Valley MPO has chosen to adopt the
statewide safety performance measures and 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 state-wide trend line depicts an increase. MassDOT’s effort to in-crease 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

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 81
Chapter 7 Increase Safety for All Modes

injuries and for CY 2019 that remains constant from the rolling average for 2012–2016.
In recent years, MassDOT and the MVMPO 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 support increasing non- automotive mode share use to incorporate safety mitigation elements into projects.

Moving forward, MVMPO, 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 Tracker 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 guide- lines 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 the MVMPO has adopted, are as follows:

Fatalities

The target number of fatalities in Massachusetts for CY 2019
is 353, down from an average of 364 fatalities for the years
2012–2016. Similar to the state, the MVMPO region also saw a slight decline in fatalities over the same period. [See
Figure 7.2 for Our MPO vs. Figure 7.1 statewide comparison of the trend for this performance measure]
The target rate of fatalities per 100 million VMT for
Massachusetts in CY 2019 is 0.58, down from a 0.61

Figure 7.1 Statewide Total Fatalities and Fatal Crash Rates –

5-Year Averages

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 82
Chapter 7 Increase Safety for All Modes

average for years 2012–2016. The MVMPO Region saw a similar decline between the years 2009-2013 and the period from 2012-2016.

Figure 7.2 Merrimack Valley Total Fatalities and Fatal Crash

Rates – 5-Yr. Averages

Merrimack Valley MPO Fatalities and Fatality

Rates

( 5-Yr. Averages )

20

Figure 7.4 for Our MPO vs. Figure 7.3 statewide comparison of the trend for this performance measure]

Figure 7.3 Statewide Total Incapacitating Injuries and

Incapacitating Injury Crash Rates

25 18.6

20

15

10

19.6 18 17.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

5 0.53 0.56 0.55 0.5 0.47

0

Fatalities

Fatality Rate

Trend Line (Fatality Rate)

0.2

0

Serious Injuries

The target number of incapacitating injuries in Massachusetts for CY 2019 is 2,801, down from the average of 3,146 for years 2012–2016. [See Figure 4 for Our MPO vs. Figure 7.3 statewide comparison of the trend for this performance measure]
Rate of Incapacitating Injuries per 100 million VMT: The incapacitating injury rate target for CY 2019 is 4.37 per year,
down from the 5.24 average rate for years 2012–2016. [See

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 83
Chapter 7 Increase Safety for All Modes

Figure 7.4 Merrimack Valley Total Incapacitating Injuries and Incapacitating Injury Crash Rates

Figure 7.5 Statewide Combined Cyclist and Pedestrian

Fatalities and Injuries

200

Merrimack Valley MPO Incapacitating Injuries and Incapacitating Injury Rates

( 5-Yr. Averages )

161.2 159

150

100

50

0

150.8 144

4.61 4.51 4.24 4.01

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015

Incapacitating Injuries Incapacitating Injury Rate

Trend Line (Injury Rate)

Total Number of Combined Incapacitating Injuries and

Fatalities for Non-Motorized Modes

The CY 2019 target number of fatalities and incapacitating
in-juries for non-motorists in the Commonwealth is 541 per year, the same as the average for years 2012–2016. It should be noted that the trend for this measure in recent years has been upward as more people walk and ride
bicycles in the Commonwealth. [See Figure 7.6 for Our MPO
vs. Figure 7.5 statewide comparison of the trend for this performance measure]
This trend is also evident in the MVMPO Region over the same period.
Massachusetts and MVMPO Region rates for Combined Non-Motorized Injuries & Fatalities could not be determined given the absence of data on bicycle and pedestrian person miles traveled.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 84
Chapter 7 Increase Safety for All Modes

Figure 7.6 MVMPO Combined Cyclist and Pedestrian

Fatalities and Injuries

Merrimack Valley MPO

Total Combined Non-Motorized Injuries & Fatalities

(5-year Averages)

20

18 17

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

15.2

17 17 17.6

2008-2012 2009-2013 2010-2014 2011-2015 2012-2016

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 85
Chapter 7 Increase Safety for All Modes

MassDOT Crash Clusters

For many years, MassDOT has developed lists of ‘Crash Cluster’ locations in the state. These locations are identified based on the number and nature of crashes using the latest three years of crash data available. MassDOT develops three such lists. One identifies locations where there are a high number of crashes between motor vehicles. Other lists identify the locations of crashes between motor vehicles and pedestrians and between motor vehicles and
bicyclists.
The MVMPO has used these lists as the primary source of in information in identifying high crash locations on the region’s roadway network. In particular, MVPC staff uses this information to identify sites for upcoming traffic studies, Road Safety Audits, or other analyses.

Roadway Crash Cluster Locations in MVMPO Region MassDOT has identified 60 Roadway Crash Cluster locations in the Merrimack Valley region based upon crash data from

2014-2016. These locations were identified based upon their Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores. Those intersections and roadway segments with scores that are in the Top 5% of all such locations in the MVMPO Region appear on this list. This is significant in that these locations are therefore eligible to receive federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for any improvements that are to be made.
MassDOT slightly revised the way that it calculated EPDO Scores for each location in developing its 2014-2016 Crash
Cluster list. Each crash that involved a fatality, serious injury, or non-serious injury was given a value of 21 points while all crashes that involved property damage received just one point. This was done in an effort to better identify those locations that had a higher incidence of injuries and fatalities.
The table on the following pages shows the 60 Roadway Crash Cluster locations in the MVMPO region along with the nature of the severity of the crashes. In addition, MVPC
staff has identified the status of efforts to develop or
implement improvements for each location identified
(Table 7.1 below).

Table 7.1: Summary of Actions Taken for 2014-2016

Roadway Crash Cluster Locations

Summary of Status of 2014-2016

Roadway Crash Cluster Locations

This table shows that 39 of the 60 Roadway Crash Cluster locations in the region have either been analyzed, will be studied, are in the process of being improved or have recently been improved.

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 86
Chapter 7 Increase Safety for All Modes

Table 7.2: 2014-2016 Roadway Crash Clusters in MVPC Region by EPDO Score

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 87
Chapter 7 Increase Safety for All Modes

Table 7.2 2014-2016 Roadway Crash Clusters in MVPC Region by EPDO Score (Continued)

2020 Merrimack Valley Regional Transportation Plan 88
Chapter 7 Increase Safety for All Modes

Table 7.2 2014-2016 Roadway Crash Clusters in MVPC Region by EPDO Score (Continued)