TEC Element	Data	Scoring	Additional Notes	Planning Factors/ Performance Measures
Condition
A. Magnitude of pavement condition improvements	Use Pavement Condition Index (PCI) (if available) to rate current condition as excellent, good, fair, or poor. If not available, use pavement condition description from other sources.	Poor = 3 to 2 Fair = 2 to 1 Good = 1 to 2 Excellent = 0 to 1	Pavement conditions often vary across the project limits, and therefore scores have a range. Excellent current condition may score a 1 if project is not expected to be programmed for several years.	Preservation; Safety; Resiliency & reliability; Economic Vitality. Contributes to meeting Pavement Performance Measure Targets of 70% Interstate or 30% Non-Interstate NHS Pavements in Good Condition and/or 4% max. Interstate or 30% max. Non-Interstate Pavements in Poor Condition Statewide
B. Magnitude of improvement of other infrastructure	Types and number of upgrades	Major Upgrade such as widening a bridge = 3 Multiple upgrades from list of drainage improvements, new sidewalks, new signals, signal upgrades, adding turn lanes, etc. = 3 to 2 One or two of above upgrades = 2 to 1 No Upgrades = 0		Preservation; Safety; Resiliency & reliability; Accessibility & mobility; Environmental and economic sustainability; Enhance travel & tourism; Note that all roadway projects consider drainage improvements.

TEC Element		Data		Scoring	Additional Notes		Planning Factors/ Performance Measures
Mobility
A. Effect on magnitude and duration of congestion		Magnitude of current congestion, measured by Level of Service, traffic delays, or queue lengths, if available. If there is not currently congestion, then score is zero unless project causes congestion.		Significant reduction in congestion = 3 Moderate reduction in congestion = 2 Small reduction in congestion = 1 No change in congestion = 0 Small increase in congestion = -1 Moderate increase in congestion = -2 Significant increase in congestion = -3	If there is not currently congestion, then score is zero unless project causes new congestion.		Economic Vitality; Accessibility and Mobility; Resiliency and reliability; Enhance travel and tourism. Contributes to meeting System Performance Measure Targets of 68% Interstate or 80% Non-Interstate NHS person-miles travelled that are reliable Statewide and/or 1.85 Truck Travel Time Reliability Index Statewide
B. Effect on travel time and connectivity / access		Types and numbers of upgrades, such as, improves travel time by widening shoulders, or signal improvements; provides new access, connects existing trails, etc.		Major Upgrade such as providing new roadway access = 3 Multiple upgrades from signal improvements, new sidewalks, adding turn lanes, new trail = 3 to 2 One or two of above upgrades, or new = 2 to 1 No Upgrades = 0	Additional point (not above 3) if providing connectivity between schools, businesses, and other activity centers.		Economic Vitality; Accessibility and Mobility; Resiliency and reliability; Connectivity; Enhance travel and tourism.
TEC Element	Data		Scoring			Additional Notes		Planning Factors/ Performance Measures
Mobility
C. Effect on other modes using the facility	Types and numbers of upgrades to Other modes (means of travel)		Major Upgrade for Other mode of transportation = 3 Multiple upgrades from adding bike lanes, new sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, proximity to transit facilities = 3 to 2 One or two of above upgrades = 2 to 1 No Upgrades to Other modes = 0					Economic Vitality; Safety; Security; Accessibility and Mobility; Environmental and economic sustainability; Connectivity; Resiliency and reliability; Enhance travel and tourism. Contributes to meeting System Performance Measure Target of 34.5% Non-SOV travel on the NHS in the UZA
D. Effect on regional and local traffic	Whether affects traffic outside of the project limits locally, and beyond that, regionally		Is on the NHS, a State numbered route, connector, or highly traveled local road; and: Substantially improves traffic regionally = 3 Moderately improves traffic regionally = 2 to 1 Substantially or moderately improves traffic locally = 2 to 1 Neutral = 0 Negative scores if adversely affects traffic to the degrees and geography above.					Economic Vitality; Accessibility and Mobility; Efficient System Management; Enhance travel and tourism.

TEC Element	Data		Scoring		Additional Notes		Planning Factors/ Performance Measures
Safety and Security
A. Effect on crash rate compared to State average	Whether location is designated a State defined Crash Cluster location (HSIP eligible) and the EPDO score assigned by that performance measure, or crash rate compared to State average, other safety concerns		High EPDO score, crash cluster, Top 100 crash locations = 3 Higher than average crash rate/ EPDO score = 2 Lower than average crash rate, but safety concerns are being addressed = 1 No effect on crash rate = 0				Safety; Efficient System Management; Resiliency and Reliability. Contributes to meeting HSIP and Safety Performance Measure Targets for number of fatalities and serious injuries, rates of fatality and serious injury Statewide on all public roads.
B. Effect on bicycle and pedestrian safety	Includes improvements that effect bicycle and pedestrian safety or is detrimental to pedestrian bicycle safety.		Major Upgrade, separate bike lane, or shared use path = 3 Multiple upgrades from list of widening shoulders for bikes; new or improved sidewalks; new pedestrian signals; wheelchair ramps; etc. = 3 to 2 One or two of above upgrades = 2 to 1 No Upgrades = 0 Could use negative scores if detrimental to bike / pedestrian safety		Additional point (not above 3) if improvements are near schools or other areas frequented by bicyclists and/ or pedestrians, or there is a history of crashes involving bikes and/or pedestrians.		Safety; Resiliency and Reliability; Enhance Travel and Tourism. Contributes to meeting HSIP and Safety Performance Measure Targets for Number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries Statewide on all public roads.
TEC Element		Data		Scoring		Additional Notes		Planning Factors/ Performance Measures
Safety and Security (Cont.)
C. Effect on transportation security and evacuation		Is on the NHS. Is a community designated evacuation route. Is within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant.		Will significantly improve travel along an evacuation route = 3 Is an evacuation route within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant, or is on the NHS and improves travel = 2 Is an evacuation route or Is within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant, or in on the NHS = 1 Is not any of the 3 listed in the data column = 0				Security; Safety.
Community Effects and Support
A. Residential effects: ROW, noise, aesthetic, cut through traffic, and other.		Degree of effect on residential aspects.		Improves these aspects: Significantly = 3 Moderately = 2 Slightly = 1 No effect on these aspects = 0 Creates negative effects from these aspects: Slightly = -1 Moderately = -2 Significantly = -3				Environmental Sustainability;

TEC Element	Data	Scoring	Additional Notes	Planning Factors/ Performance Measures
Community Effects and Support (Cont.)
B. Public, local government, legislative, and regional support	Degree of support.	Improves these aspects: Greatly Supported = 3 Moderately Supported = 2 Somewhat Supported = 1 Not Supported, or unknown = 0 Some Opposition = -1
C. Effect on service to minority or low-income neighborhoods. (Title VI and EJ)	Increased or decreased service to Title VI and EJ neighborhoods	Improves service to Title VI or EJ neighborhoods: Significantly = 3 Moderately = 2 Slightly = 1 No effect on Title VI or EJ neighborhood = 0 Slightly decreased service = -1 Moderately decreased service = -2 Significantly decreased service = -3		Quality of Life; Accessibility and Mobility; Resiliency and Reliability; Enhance Travel and Tourism.

TEC Element	Data	Scoring	Additional Notes	Planning Factors/ Performance Measures
Community Effects and Support (Cont.)
D. Other impacts / benefits to minority or low-income neighborhoods. (Title VI and EJ)	Number / degree of positive or negative impacts to Title VI and EJ neighborhoods	Positive Impacts to Title VI or EJ neighborhoods: Significant = 3 Moderate = 2 Slight = 1 No effect on Title VI or EJ neighborhood = 0 Negative Impacts to Title VI or EJ neighborhoods: Slight = -1 Moderate = -2 Significant = -3		Quality of Life.
E. Effect on development and redevelopment of housing stock	Number / degree of positive or negative effects on development and redevelopment of housing stock	Positive Impacts to development / redevelopment of housing stock: Significant = 3 Moderate = 2 Slight = 1 No effect on development or redevelopment of housing stock = 0 Negative Impacts to development/ redevelopment of housing stock: Slight = -1 Moderate = -2 Significant = -3		Economic Vitality; Quality of Life.

TEC Element	Data	Scoring	Additional Notes	Planning Factors/ Performance Measures
Land Use and Economic Development
A. Business effects: ROW, noise, traffic, parking, freight access and other.	Degree of effect on business aspects.	Improves these aspects: Significantly = 3 Moderately = 2 Slightly = 1 No effect on these aspects = 0 Creates negative effects from these aspects: Slightly = -1 Moderately = -2 Significantly = -3		Economic Vitality; Accessibility and Mobility.
B. Sustainable development effects. Consistent with Merrimack Valley Priority Growth Strategy (MVPGS).	Number/ degree of positive or negative effects on sustainable development and proximity to State and/or Regional Priority Development Areas (PDA)	Positive Impacts to sustainable development: Significant = 3 Moderate = 2 Slight = 1 No effect on development or redevelopment of housing stock = 0 Negative Impacts to development/ redevelopment of housing stock: Slight = -1 Moderate = -2 Significant = -3	Additional points, (not above 3) if located in or near a State or Regional Priority Development Area	Economic Vitality; Consistency with State and local planned growth.

TEC Element	Data	Scoring	Additional Notes	Planning Factors/ Performance Measures
Land Use and Economic Development (Cont.)
C. Consistent with regional land-use and economic development plans and Merrimack Valley Priority Growth Strategy (MVPGS).	Degree of consistency with regional plans	Consistent with regional plans: Significantly = 3 Moderately = 2 Slightly = 1 Neutral = 0 Not Consistent with regional Plans: Slightly = -1 Moderately = -2 Significantly = -3	Additional points (not above 3) if located in or near a Regional Priority Development Area	Economic Vitality; Consistency with State and local planned growth and economic development plans.
D. Effect on job creation.	Estimated job creation	Effect on job creation: Significant = 3 Moderate = 2 Slight = 1 Neutral = 0 Elimination of jobs: Slight = -1 Moderate = -2 Significant = -3		Economic Vitality.

TEC Element	Data	Scoring	Additional Notes	Planning Factors/ Performance Measures
Environmental Effects
A. Air Quality / Climate effects	Green House Gas Analysis Results	Effect on Air Quality: Quantified decrease in emissions = 2 or 1 Qualitative decrease in emissions = 1 No effect on emissions = 0 Qualitative increase in emissions = -1 Quantified increase in emissions = -2 or -1 Climate Effects Resiliency: A culvert is being widened = 1 A facility (ex. bridge, road or trail) in a flood prone area is being raised = 1		Protect and Enhance the Environment. Preservation; Resiliency & reliability; Reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts; Contributes to meeting CMAQ Performance Measure Target of 18.3 Annual Hours of Peak Hour Excessive Delay (PHED) per Capita in the UZA
B. Water Quality/ supply effects; wetlands effects.	Number/ degree of positive or negative effects on water quality / supply effects; wetlands effects.	Effect on Water Quality / supply and wetlands: Positive effect: Significant = 3 Moderate = 2 Slight = 1 Neutral = 0 Negative Effect: Slight = -1 Moderate = -2 Significant = -3		Protect and Enhance the Environment; Reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts.

TEC Element	Data	Scoring	Additional Notes	Planning Factors/ Performance Measures
Environmental Effects (Cont.)
C. Historic and cultural resource effects	Proximity / degree of positive or negative effects on historic and cultural resources	Positive effect on historic and cultural resources: Significant = 3 Moderate = 2 Slight = 1 Neutral = 0 Negative Effect: Slight = -1 Moderate = -2 Significant = -3	Often considers improved access to nearby resources.	Economic Vitality; Accessibility and Mobility; Quality of Life; Enhance Travel and Tourism.
D. Effect on wildlife habitat and endangered species.	Location of project in State Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife or State Priority Habitat of Rare Species	Positive effect on wildlife or endangered species in a State designated area: Significant = 3 Moderate = 2 Slight = 1 Not in a wildlife or endangered species area = 0 Negative effect on wildlife or endanger species in a State designated area.: Slight = -1 Moderate = -2 Significant = -3	�	Protect and Enhance the Environment.

The resulting Transportation Evaluation Criteria (TEC) scores for selected projects in the Merrimack Valley region that were derived by applying these criteria are shown in Appendix C. It is the goal of the MVMPO that these criteria ratings, along with information related to the readiness of projects, will make the planning process, and more specifically, the selection and prioritization of projects, more transparent to the general public. A sample project evaluation sheet showing the various criteria is in Appendix D.

The use of these TEC scores also allows the Merrimack Valley MPO to meet FAST Act requirements for programming Transportation Alternatives (TA) funding (similar to TAP funding from the previous legislation). TA funding is a set-aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant Programming (STBG) through a competitive process and, in general, helps to manage performance by focusing available funding on the highest regional priorities. It also helps to draw attention to the reader that FAST Act is a very Performance Measure -oriented piece of legislation.

Part A. 4. Public Participation

The principal objective of this document is the provision of an additional point for public access to and review of the transportation planning process. This FFYs 2022 to 2026 Transportation Improvement Program was developed in accordance with the Public Participation Process established for the Merrimack Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MVMPO). The MVMPO amended its current Public Involvement Process in March of 2017, it is contained in the MVMPO Public Participation Plan as Amended through March 2017 on the MVPC website under Transportation Reports. The Process applies to the development of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The Public Involvement Process endorsed by the MVMPO is also used by the MVRTA as its public involvement process. The notice of public involvement and time established for review and comment for the development of this TIP satisfies the Program of Project requirements established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

The Merrimack Valley MPOs 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 Regional Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs. This document identifies a number of stakeholders to be consulted in developing these documents. In developing the Draft FFYs 2022 to 2026 Transportation Improvement Program, all MVMPO stakeholders were given notice that the process of developing the FFYs 2022 to 2026 TIP was beginning. Stakeholders were also notified of the availability of the draft document for public review and comment.

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. They are defined based on the individual groups 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.

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) members

City/Town Clerks

MVMPO Region Congressional Delegation

MVMPO Region Legislative Delegation

Affected public agencies, including:

Boards of Selectmen / City Councils

Chief Elected Officials

City and Town Engineers

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Transit Administration

Greater Derry-Salem Cooperative Alliance for Regional Transportation (CART)

Local Departments of Public Works

Local Police Departments

Local Traffic and Safety Committees

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

MBTA Commuter Rail Officials

Affected public agencies, including (Cont.):

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

Rockingham Planning Commission

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Representatives of public transportation employees, including:

Truck Drivers Union Local #170

Freight shippers, including:

P.J. Murphy Transportation

JB Hunt

Estes Express

Shaheen Brothers

ABF Freight

PanAm Railways

Bonneys Express

Providers of freight transportation services, including:

United Parcel Service

Federal Express

Private 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)

Other Transportation Providers Identified in the Regional Transportation Plan

The Coach Company

TransCare

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

Northeast Independent Living Program

Merrimack College

Merrimack Valley Hospice

Merrimack Valley Workforce Investment Board, Inc.

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

Representatives of bicyclist and pedestrian advocacy organizations,

Including (Cont.):

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

Department of Mental Health

Massachusetts Commission for the Blind

Area Nursing Homes

United Cerebral Palsy

CLASS Inc.

Fidelity House

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:

State and local planned growth:

Area Planning Boards

Mass Development

Merrimack Valley Transportation Management Association

The Junction Transportation Management Organization

Economic development:

Chambers of Commerce

Economic Development Administration

Local Community Development Directors

Merrimack Valley Economic Development Council

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 almost 650 email addressees representing these groups. Notices were put in newspapers and on cable community television directing the public to the MVPC website which contained the notice and the materials for review.

In addition to these direct mailings, and in accordance with this process, public notice of the Draft FFYs 2022 to 2026 Transportation Improvement Program 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 on the MVPC website from May 5, 2021 through May 25, 2021. It said that comments would be received through May 25, 2021 and that two separate Virtual public hearings on the document would take place on May 19, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The meetings were held Virtually due to COVID-19 Virus restrictions. The MVMPO will summarize comments that are received during the 21-day review and comment period and will include this summary in the Final FFYs 2022 to 2026 TIP.

Public input in developing the TIP was sought at the following meetings in 2020 and 2021:

� December 30, 2020, January 27, 2021, February 24, 2021, March 24, 2021, April 28, 2021 and May 26, 2021 MVMPO Meetings (all held Virtually due to COVID-19 Virus restrictions)

� February 4, 2021, March 4, 2021, April 1, 2021 and May 6, 2021 MVRTA Advisory Board meetings (all held Virtually due to COVID-19 restrictions)

� March 18, 2021, April 15, 2021,and May 20, 2021 Merrimack Valley Planning Commission (MVPC) meetings (all held Virtually due to COVID-19 Virus restrictions)

� May 5, 2021 Merrimack Valley DPW/ Stormwater Collaborative meeting (held Virtually due to COVID-19 Virus restrictions)

The above meetings were held Virtually due to COVID-19 restrictions.

Page intentionally left blank.

Part A. 5. Amendment/ Adjustment Procedures

Adjustments

Minor adjustments to the TIP do not require formal MPO action and can be made via the administrative action of the Merrimack Valley MPO. These minor adjustments are limited to:

� Changing the scope and description of a project as long as they are minor changes;

� Changing funding amounts that are less than a ten percent increase in project cost if project cost is more than $5 million dollars;

� Changing funding amounts that are an increase of less than $500,000 if project cost is $5 million dollars or less;

� Changing funding sources.

Amendments

Major changes continue to require MPO action through the formal amendment process. Major changes would require a twenty-one-day public review and comment period that includes a public hearing. These changes include, but are not limited to:

� Moving a currently programmed project earlier or later than an originally programmed year;

� MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning (OTP) approved ten percent or more increases, or decreases, in the construction cost estimate for a project costing more than $5 million dollars;

� MassDOT OTP approved project cost increase, or decrease, of $500,000 or more, in the construction cost estimate for a project costing $5 million dollars or less;

� Adding a new project;

� Deleting a project;

� Major change in project scope large enough to necessitate an additional review by MassDOTs Project Review Committee (PRC) typically accompanied by major project cost change;

� Exceptions

Although the MVMPO typically holds a 21-day public comment period for amendments, in the event of extenuating circumstances beyond the agencys control, the comment period may be shortened or waived in consultation with FHWA Division Office and/or the FTA Regional Office. Additionally, MassDOT may make exceptions to the procedures outlined above and treat amendments as adjustments and/or adjustments as administrative modifications, but these exceptions will also require coordination with and concurrence by MassDOTs federal partners and the affected MPO.

The above Adjustments and Amendments align with MassDOTs definitions of Adjustments and Amendments. One difference from the MassDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Project Revision Definitions and Procedures is that MassDOT defines an Administrative Modification: A revision to the STIP that is minor enough in nature to require neither a public process nor FHWA/FTA approval, but that does involve a notification to federal partners.

This document does not have an Administrative Modification. The only items that MassDOT defines as Administrative Modifications are minor changes to Project Description and a change in any item listed in the Additional Information column of the STIP not covered in any Amendment or Adjustment procedure. The MVMPO must use the Project Descriptions provided by MassDOT, the only time a Project Description changes is if MassDOT changes it, this would be considered an Adjustment to this document. Any changes to Additional Information not listed in the Amendment/ Adjustment procedures above would be coordinated with MassDOT and would not require action by the MVMPO.

Part A. 6. High Priority Projects

SAFETEA-LU contained a number of earmarked transportation projects that were to receive federal funding. Specific funding amounts were obligated to each of these projects, but no additional funding was included in SAFETEA-LU to complete them. Consequently, states with these projects must implement them within the annual federal authorization limits established in the legislation. The Merrimack Valley region contains eleven such projects which are shown below along with their status:

Highway High Priority Projects	Status
Amesbury/Newburyport Rehabilitation of I-95 Whittier Bridge	Project Complete
Andover Design, Engineering and Construction at I-93 The Junction Interchange, (Andover, Tewksbury, and Wilmington)	Project Deactivated
Haverhill Construct Haverhill intermodal center access and vehicle capacity improvements.	Project Complete
Lawrence Design and construct Canal and Union Street Corridor improvements.	Project Complete
Lawrence Construct access improvements to the Lawrence Gateway Project.	Project Complete
Methuen Design, engineering and construction of Methuen Rotary alternative at I-93 and Routes 110 and 113.	Project Complete
Newbury Rehabilitation and paving of Parker River Road	Project Complete
North Andover Improvements to Mass. Ave., Andover St., Osgood St., Salem St and Johnson St. in the Old Town Center of North Andover	Project Complete
Parker River National Wildlife Refuge Preliminary engineering for Rehabilitation and paving of Sunset Drive in National Wildlife Refuge	Project Complete
Salisbury to Boxford Design, Engineer, Permit and Construct Border to Boston Bikeway rail trail project	Salisbury Section under Construction. Remaining sections under Design.

Transit Projects for Bus and Bus-Related Facilities and Clean Fuels Grant Program	Status
Haverhill Design and Construct Intermodal Transit Parking Improvements.	Project Complete (see above)
Lawrence Gateway Intermodal and Quadrant Area Reuse Project.	Project Complete (see above)
Newburyport Design and Construct Intermodal Facility	Project Complete

Regionally Significant Projects

Community	Project
North Andover	Corridor Improvements on Route 114, between Route 125 (Andover Street) & Stop & Shop Driveway (# 608095)

Part A. 7. Advance Construction

Advance Construction is a Federal-aid fund management tool, which as described by the Federal Highway Administration website:

allows states to begin a project even in the absence of sufficient Federal-aid obligation authority to cover the Federal share of project costs. It is codified in Title 23, Section 115. Advance construction eliminates the need to set aside full obligational authority before starting projects At some future date when the state does have sufficient obligational authority, it may convert an advance-constructed project to a Federal-aid project by obligating the permissible share of its Federal-aid funds and receiving subsequent reimbursements.

In other words, the state pays for the project with non-Federal-aid funds to begin with and can later seek reimbursement of the Federal share of the funding categorys project cost by obligating Federal-aid funding in future years.

Projects must meet the following criteria before they can be designated to use the Advanced Construction (AC) funding mechanism:

1. The projects estimated Federal participating cost exceeds the total regional annual target (i.e. sum of HSIP, CMAQ, TA and Non HSIP/CMAQ/TA), and

2. Construction, based on an engineering review of the project, will take place during all the years for which federal funding is programmed.

The following projects are programmed in the FFY 2022 to 2026 TIP using this Advance Construction (AC) method:

Haverhill-Bridge Replacement, H-12-039, I-495 (NB & SB) over Merrimack River

North Andover-Corridor Improvements on Route 114, between Rt 125 (Andover St) & Stop & Shop Driveway

Haverhill-Bridge Replacement, H-12-040, I-495 (NB & SB) over Merrimack River

Haverhill-Bridge Replacement, H-12-007 & H-12-025, Bridge Street (SR 125) over Merrimack River and the Abandoned B&M RR (Proposed Bikeway)

Andover-Bridge Rehabilitation, A-09-036, I-495 over St 28 (SB), A-09-037, I-495 over B&M and MBTA, A-09-041, I-495 over St 28 (NB)

Lawrence-Lawrence-Manchester Rail Corridor (LMRC) Rail Trail

Salisbury-Reconstruction of Route 1 (Lafayette Road)

Part A. 8. Transportation Funding Programs

Projects listed in the TIP must show the sources of funding that will be used to complete the project. The projects in the FFYs 2022 to 2026 TIP are slated to use funding from the following Federal-aid funding programs identified in the FAST Act federal transportation funding authorization extended through September 2021. Please note that in some cases Federal-aid funding is from older funding programs established in earlier legislation such as SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21. Projects may also receive non-Federal Aid funding which is shown in the project listings.

Highway Projects

Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation ((BR) (continued in FAST Act))-funds replacement and repair of Structurally Deficient or unsafe bridges in urban and rural areas on any public road. Bridges can be on the federal aid system (BR ON) or off system (BR OFF).

Funding: Federal 80%, State 20%

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program ((CMAQ) (continued in FAST Act)�funds projects that reduce congestion and improve air quality.

Funding: Federal 80%, State 20%

High Priority Projects (HPP) (Carryover from SAFETEA-LU)�funds up to 80% of the costs of specific transportation projects identified in SAFETEA-LU. These projects have a separate allocation, but do not receive additional funds, and are therefore subject to the states federal authorization limit.

Funding: Federal 80%, State 20%

Highway Safety Improvement Program ((HSIP) (continued in FAST Act))-funds safety improvement projects at high crash locations and Railway-Highway Crossings.

Funding: Federal 90%, State 10%

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) (continued in FAST Act)-funds projects on all National Highway System Roadways.

Funding: Varies, generally Federal 80%, State 20%, but for the Interstate System, Federal 90%, State 10%

Non-Federal Aid (NFA)-funds construction, reconstruction, and improvement projects on roads and bridges in urban and rural areas.

Funding: State 100% (Transportation Bond Bill), or Private 100%

Transportation Funding Programs-Highway Projects (Continued)

Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) (STP) (also known as the Surface Transportation Program (STP) from previous legislation)-funding for any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals.

STP Enhancements ((STP E) ((SAFETEA-LU; not continued in MAP-21)) a portion of Surface Transportation Program funding for enhancement projects chosen by states and localities.

Funding: Federal 80%, State 20%

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) (MAP-21, replaced in FAST Act with Transportation Alternatives (TA) set aside of STBG funds)-funds for projects which can be defined as transportation alternatives including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, enhanced mobility, community improvements, environmental mitigations, and various other types of transportation alternatives as defined in FAST Act.

Funding: Federal 80%, State 20%

Transit Projects

The Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (MVRTA) provides local and intercity fixed-route bus service, paratransit service for seniors and persons with disabilities, flexible Ring and Ride service is provided in some communities with no fixed route service, commuter service to Boston, one weekday employment bus route from Lawrence to major employers of Raytheon and IRS, and one seasonal bus route to Salisbury and Hampton beaches.

Prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic, in FY 2019 (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019) the MVRTA fixed route services ridership was over 1.9 million, with an additional 44,040 passengers on special routes. EZ Trans paratransit ridership was 60,397 ADA and 6,817 Non-ADA. The commuter buses to Boston carried 60,822 passengers and Ring and Ride provided service to 10,868 passengers, for a total of nearly 2.08 million rides provided by MVRTA in FY 2019.

Federal, State and local subsidies provide the majority of the funding for the MVRTA, for both capital and operating expenses. Any Federal funding and its match, generally State funding, is required to be listed in this TIP.

Projects from the following Federal-aid (FAST Act extended through September 2021) and non-Federal-aid funding categories are shown in the FFY 2022 to 2026 TIP.

Federal Transit Funding

Section 5307 (Capital and Planning) (continued in FAST Act) funds routine capital projects and planning assistance in urban areas. This is an urban formula grant program for MVRTA Preventative Maintenance and ADA costs.

Funding: Federal 80%, State 20% (Bond Issue Funds) (capital and planning expenses)

State funding for the MVRTAs operating budget is provided through an agreement with the Transit Division of MassDOT. Local funds are derived from community assessments based on the number of route miles and special services operated within each community.

The Merrimack Valley Planning Commission will provide the 20% match for the planning activities it will conduct for the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority under its Section 5307 transit planning contract with the Authority.

Section 5309 (continued in FAST Act)-funds capital projects in urban areas which can be characterized as major capital investments in public transportation equipment and facilities. This is a discretionary grant program.

Funding: Federal 80%, State 20% (Transportation Bond Issue)

Section 5310 (continued in FAST Act))-provides capital funds, through the State, to private non-profit corporations and organizations to assist them in providing transportation services to meet the special needs of elderly and disabled persons.

Funding: Federal 80%, Funding Applicant 20%

Section 5339 (continued in FAST Act)-provides capital funds, through the State, for bus and bus related equipment and facilities.

Funding: Federal 80%, Funding Applicant 20%

State Transit Funding

Operating Assistance

State Contract Assistance (SCA) annual State funding which can be used for Federal operating expenses and as part of the match for Federal transit operating funding programs.

State Capital Assistance

Regional Transit Authority Capital Assistance Program (RTACAP) annual State funding which can be used to provide the match for Federal transit capital funding programs.

Organization of Project Listings Highway Projects

The TIP includes sections that identify the MPOs priority road and bridge projects using a format prescribed by MassDOTs Office of Transportation Planning. MassDOT is aligning the FFYs 2022 to 2026 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) with the MassDOT Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The CIP identifies three capital planning priorities: reliability, modernization and expansion investments. The STIP will now align program names with CIP investment priorities as follows:

Reliability

� Bridge program (including investments in inspections, systematic maintenance, on-system NHS bridges, on-system non-NHS bridges, and off-system bridges)

� Interstate pavement program

� Non-Interstate DOT pavement program

� Roadway improvements program

� Safety improvements program

Modernization

� ADA retrofits program

� Intersection improvements program

� Intelligent Transportation Systems program

� Roadway reconstruction program

Expansion

� Bicycles and Pedestrians program

� Capacity program

For the FFYs 2022 to 2026 TIP, the Regional Target funding amounts, distributed via statewide formula to the regions across the state, are initially programmed by the regions as STBG (also known as STP) funding category projects and MassDOT will inform regions if projects are to be partitioned by the HSIP, CMAQ and TAP categories.

Section 1A / Regionally Prioritized Projects

� Federal-Aid STBG Projects Using MVMPO Target Authority (STBG)

� Federal-Aid HSIP Projects Using MVMPO Target (HSIP)

� Federal-Aid CMAQ Projects Using MVMPO Target (CMAQ)

� Federal-Aid TAP (now set aside of STBG funding) Projects Using MVMPO Target (TAP)

Section 1B / Earmark or Discretionary Grant Funded Projects (Provided by MassDOT)

� Federal-Aid Earmark or Discretionary Grant Funded Projects

Section 2A / State Prioritized Reliability Projects (Provided by MassDOT)

� Bridge Program/ Inspections

� Bridge Program/ Off-System

� Bridge Program/ On-System (NHS)

� Bridge Program/ On-System (Non-NHS)

� Bridge Program/ Systematic Maintenance

� Interstate Pavement

� Non-Interstate Pavement

� Roadway Improvements

� Safety Improvements

Section 2B / State Prioritized Modernization Projects (Provided by MassDOT)

� ADA Retrofits

� Intersection Improvements

� Intelligent Transportation Systems

� Roadway Reconstruction

Section 2C / State Prioritized Expansion Projects (Provided by MassDOT)

� Bicycles and Pedestrians

� Capacity

Section 3 / Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs (Provided by MassDOT)

� Planning / Adjustments / Pass-throughs

Section 4 / Non-Federally Aided Projects (Provided by MassDOT)

� Non-Federal Aid

Each highway project in the TIP contains the following information:

Amendment/Adjustment Type used to identify the type of amendment when changes are made to the document.

STIP Program-STIP program names as defined in the Organization of Highway Project Listings section above.

MassDOT Project ID-project identification numbers given by MassDOT for each highway and bridge project.

MPO-identifies the Metropolitan Planning Organization within which the project is located.

Municipality Name-identifies the community where the project is located.

MassDOT Project Description-includes the community, or communities, in which the project is located and a brief description of work to be funded under the project. This description is exactly the same as MassDOT has input to its project information pages.

MassDOT District-MassDOT highway district number (Merrimack Valley MPO is part of District 4);

Funding Source-abbreviation for the funding category from which funding is expected. (Funding categories and abbreviations are explained at the beginning of Part A.8.);

Total Programmed Funds-estimated cost of project in Fiscal Year in which advertising is expected; *

Federal Funds-portion of Total Programmed Funds provided by Federal Funding;

Non-Federal Funds-portion of Total Programmed Funds not provided by Federal Funding, but required as matching funds in order to receive Federal Funds;

Additional Information-a) Planning / Design / Construction; b) total project cost and funding sources used; c) advance construction status; d) MPO project score; e) name of entity receiving a transfer; f) name of entity paying the non-State Non-Federal match; g) earmark details; h) TAP project proponent; i) other information.

* Inflation increases project costs and therefore the project costs have been increased by 4% each future year of the TIP.

Organization of Project Listings Transit Projects

Each transit project in the TIP contains the following information:

Division ID-Transit Project ID from MassDOT

Agency-MVRTA (Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority) is the regional transit authority;

Project Title-the project title from MassDOT

Federal Funds-Portion of Total Programmed Funds provided by Federal Funding;

RTACAP-Regional Transit Authority State Capital Assistance-portion of Total Programmed Funds not provided by Federal Funding, but required as matching funds in order to receive Federal Funds, coming from State source;

SCA-State Contract Assistance-portion of Total Programmed Funds not provided by Federal Funding, but required as matching funds in order to receive Federal Funds, coming from State source;

TDC-Transportation Development Credits, and

Local Funds-portion of Total Programmed Funds not provided by Federal Funding but required as matching funds in order to receive Federal Funds, coming from local funding sources other than State funding sources.

Total-estimated total cost of project.

TIP FFYs 2022 to 2026 Transit Projects

2022

FTA Section 5307

Division ID	Agency	Project Title	Federal Funds	RTACAP	SCA	TDC	Local Funds	Total
RTD0009672	MVRTA	MVRTA Operating Assistance	$644,945	$0	$644,945	$0	$0	$1,289,890
RTD0009669	MVRTA	MVRTA Preventative Maintenance	$2,889,070	$0	$722,265	$0	$0	$3,611,335
RTD0009671	MVRTA	MVMPO Short Range Transit Planning	$80,000	$0	$0	$0	$20,000	$100,000
RTD0009673	MVRTA	MVRTA Replace 9 Model Yr 2009 35 ft. buses delivery 2022	3,269,223	1,188,807				4,458,030
RTD0010053	MVRTA	MVRTA HQ Facility Repairs	$545,600	$136,400	$0	$0	$0	$682,000
RTD0009680	MVRTA	MVRTA Replace 1 model year 2016 supervisory vehicle	39,095	9,775				$48,870
RTD0009670	MVRTA	MVRTA ADA Paratransit Service	$1,441,305	$0	$360,325	$0	$0	$1,801,630
RTD0010107	MVRTA	MVRTA Riverbank Stabilization Construction	$2,036,800	$509,200				$2,546,000
		FTA Section 5307 Totals	$10,946,038	$1,844,182	$1,727,535		$20,000	$14,537,755