Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Participation Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press FHWA/FTA for checklist, measurable public-participation metrics and MUTCD enforcement during Cape Cod MPO review
Summary
Public commenters at the Cape Cod MPO certification hearing pressed federal reviewers for clear, public checklists and measurable metrics for public participation and asked where to raise concerns about compliance with the Massachusetts supplement to the MUTCD; FHWA urged first contacting MassDOT districts and offered follow-up.
Residents used the public comment period of the TMA certification review to press federal reviewers on transparency and measurable outcomes for public participation and to clarify where to raise MUTCD compliance concerns.
A commenter identified as Mr. Buckley asked what checklist or criteria FHWA/FTA use during the desk review and whether the guidance would be publicly available. "What where's your criteria? Like, if if there's something that says, oh, this is what, this is what the MPO should be doing to get recertified," Buckley asked, requesting access to the same checklist reviewers use.
Anthony Jones replied that the review is based on federal regulations (23 CFR) and that FHWA has a TMA certification handbook used as internal guidance. "There is a TMA certification document. It is a handbook that I can't provide to you," Jones said, and offered to follow up with Buckley to share what can be released. He also pointed participants toward the FHWA planning and public-involvement website for public guidance.
Buckley pressed a second point about public-participation performance measures: he said the distinction between ‘performance’ and ‘performance measures’ is often blurred and urged reviewers to look for evidence that participation produced understanding and meaningful outcomes, not merely the occurrence of meetings. "It's more than just compliance... It's measuring your performance," Buckley said, arguing that turnout alone is not a sufficient metric.
A separate commenter, Mr. York, offered a counterpoint, praising the Cape Cod MPO for consistent opportunities for public input and recommending reviewers credit that practice. "The Cape Cod MPO does serve a really important function of providing that public input," York said.
On MUTCD enforcement, a participant identified as Mr. Garg asked whether complaints about signs or practices that depart from the Massachusetts supplement to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices should be raised with FHWA or MassDOT. Jones and Noel advised beginning with the local MassDOT district office and escalating to the FHWA Massachusetts division if the district response is unsatisfactory; Noel recommended starting at the district level to get a technical review.
Next steps: Reviewers invited written comments through the MPO website and offered to make the session recording available. Anthony Jones said the federal team will follow up with participants who requested specific documents or clarification and reiterated a hybrid follow-up meeting on Dec. 15 ahead of the draft and final findings.
No formal motions or votes occurred during the session; comments and agency responses will be part of the reviewers’ desk and site findings.
