STIP DEVELOPMENT MANUAL 2015-2018 STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION

Transcription

2015-2018
STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
STIP DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
OREGON DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION
Active Transportation Office
Salem, Oregon
January 24, 2013
2015 – 2018 STIP DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
January 24, 2013
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this manual is to provide you with guidelines for developing the 2015-2018
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Included herein:
 Program Funding Levels and Regional Percentages
 Programming Guidelines and PCSX Entry Procedures (note: when the STIP/FP application
is released, procedures will follow)
 Project Identification and Prioritization Procedures
 Public Involvement Requirements
The STIP will include all capital (construction) and most non-capital (planning, engineering, operations) transportation projects proposed for funding under Title 23 (highways) and Title 49 (transit)
of the US Code. It must also contain all “regionally significant” transportation projects (a transportation project that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs, including all principal
arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities) requiring an action by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), whether or not funding
from either agency is anticipated.
The STIP must be consistent with the policies and goals adopted in the Oregon Transportation Plan
(OTP), and the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) and its modal plans (public transportation, bicycle/pedestrian, passenger and freight rail, transportation safety and corridor.
If a region contains a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), the STIP must include the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) without modification, either in whole or by
reference. The current practice is to include the MTIP in its entirety, and it is the region’s responsibility to both communicate and coordinate program development schedules with the MPO(s), and to
make sure the MPO(s) correctly enter their projects via the PCSX Data Entry Tool or other approved process.
The Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has stated that the STIP is our
contract with the people of Oregon, FHWA, FTA, and local governments. To the extent the Department has control, projects identified in the STIP will go to contract as planned.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
PROGRAM DEFINITION ................................................................................................................... 3
Overview of the 2015-2018 STIP.................................................................................................. 3
Important Information for the 2015-2018 STIP ............................................................................ 4
MAP-21.................................................................................................................................. 4
Use of Prior Authorized Funds .............................................................................................. 5
Preliminary Engineering, Right of Way, and Utility Relocation .......................................... 5
Funding Categories (Phases) ................................................................................................. 5
Full Federal Oversight (FFO) ................................................................................................ 6
Inflation Factors for the 2015-2018 STIP.............................................................................. 6
Work Types ............................................................................................................................ 6
Work Classifications .............................................................................................................. 8
Archaeology Work................................................................................................................. 9
Transportation Program Development and Planning .......................................................... 10
The Oregon Transportation Investment Acts (OTIA I, II, and III) ..................................... 10
The Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act (JTA) ................................................................. 10
Planning and Project Identification Process ........................................................................ 11
Transportation Program Development Product/Service ..................................................... 12
STIP Process Timeline (General) ................................................................................................ 14
2015-2018 STIP Development Timeline .................................................................................... 17
2015-2018 STIP Funding Allocations......................................................................................... 18
MAJOR FUNDING CATEGORIES ................................................................................................ 20
State Funds ................................................................................................................................... 20
Federal Funds............................................................................................................................... 21
WORK TYPE DEFINITIONS and PROGRAMMING GUIDELINES ....................................... 28
Modernization Program ............................................................................................................... 28
Preservation Program................................................................................................................... 30
Bridge Program ............................................................................................................................ 32
Safety Program ............................................................................................................................ 35
Operations Program ..................................................................................................................... 39
Public Transit, Oregon Transportation Network (OTN) ............................................................. 42
Other Programs Funded in the STIP ........................................................................................... 46
Bicycle/Pedestrian Program................................................................................................. 46
Fish Passage, Large Culvert Improvement, and Stormwater Retrofit Programs ................ 48
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program ......................................... 50
Rail Crossing Safety Improvement Program....................................................................... 51
Other State Programs ........................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX A: ODOT’S Project Naming Convention ................................................................ 55
APPENDIX B: Project Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors ...................................... 58
2015-2018 STIP Project Criteria Summary Report Guidance ............................... 94
APPENDIX C: Public Review Requirements and Process ........................................................ 100
APPENDIX D: Policy on Formation and Operation of ACTs .................................................. 105
APPENDIX E: Data Entry Guidelines and Codes ..................................................................... 124
PCSX Data Entry Guidelines ................................................................................ 126
PCS Project Entry Screen ...................................................................................... 138
APPENDIX F: FHWA Oregon Division and ODOT Oversight Screening Criteria.............. 139
APPENDIX G: Web-Based Quick References ............................................................................ 141
APPENDIX H: Acronyms and Glossary of Terms ..................................................................... 142
January 24, 2013
PROGRAM DEFINITION
The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program is the Oregon Department of Transportation’s
four-year capital improvement program. It is not a planning document, but a project scheduling and
funding program. Projects in the STIP come from data-based transportation management systems
and planning processes involving local and regional governments, Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs), other state agencies, and the public. In the STIP, ODOT assigns resources to those
projects that have been given the highest priority through the STIP update process.
Projects in the STIP are funded primarily through federal and state gas tax revenues, but may also
include local government funding, and other state and federal funding sources. The STIP includes
projects on the state, city, and county transportation systems, as well as projects in the National
Parks, National Forests, and on Indian Reservations. Also included are projects of regional significance, regardless of funding source. The program is updated every two years.
OVERVIEW of the 2015-2018 STIP
ODOT’s 2015-2018 STIP will schedule transportation projects for the four-year period from 2015
through 2018. The 2015-2018 STIP will include a fiscally constrained Development Section.
The 2015-2018 STIP update process will be challenging.
•
•
Inflation continues to reduce the levels of funding available for projects; project costs are increasing due in large part to growth impacts and natural resource issues; and the basic cost
of doing business is increasing, all without a concurrent increase in transportation user fees
or taxes. See page 6 for specific information on the inflation factors for the 2015-2018
STIP.
The Department continues to operate in a very public manner. In addition to federally recognized local government planning organizations, ACTs, and Regional Partnerships are
now involved in the process of program and project prioritization and public involvement.
The Oregon Legislature will be reviewing project delivery reports and Department expenditures on a quarterly basis.
Strategies for efficiently meeting these challenges will be solidified as we move through the process.
Page 3
January 24, 2013
IMPORTANT INFORMATION for the 2015-2018 STIP
The following information is especially important for the 2015-2018 STIP update cycle. Please
make sure you read up on these before entering projects into the PCSX.
MAP-21
MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), was signed
into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012. Funding surface transportation programs at over $105
billion for fiscal years (FY) 2013 and 2014, MAP-21 is the first long-term highway authorization
enacted since 2005.
MAP-21 is a milestone for the U.S. economy and the Nation’s surface transportation program. By
transforming the policy and programmatic framework for investments to guide the system’s growth
and development, MAP-21 creates a streamlined and performance-based surface transportation program and builds on many of the highway, transit, bike, and pedestrian programs and policies established in 1991.1
Major Change – Please note this major change made by MAP-21:
• Under MAP-21, and unlike prior authorization acts, a lump sum is authorized for all apportioned programs each fiscal year. In the past, each program was given a separate authorization.
MAP-21 will maintain the funding splits and match percentages under the prior authorization act.
Fund codes for all funds received from the FHWA changed with the implementation of MAP-21.
Fund codes beginning with Q, L or H (e.g. Q240, H240, L240) are no longer valid. Valid fund
codes now begin with M (e.g. M240). See page 132 for a list of all valid fund codes.
To better reflect ODOT’s multimodal approach to transportation systems, the OTC directed that beginning in FY16, allocations will be primarily distributed between two programs, termed “Fix-it”
and “Enhance”.
Simply put, Fix-it funds will be used for projects, e.g. Operations, Safety, Preservation and Bridge
that will fix or preserve our transportation system.
Enhance funds will be utilized for projects that enhance or expand our transportation system. Some
examples would be Modernization, Scenic Byways, Safe Routes to School and Transportation Enhancement activities.
1
www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21
Page 4
January 24, 2013
USE OF PRIOR AUTHORIZED FUNDS
Funds that were available under prior authorization acts may still be available for obligation even if
the original apportioned program has been consolidated into a new program. So long as the program funds have not been rescinded and the period of availability for obligation has not lapsed,
these funds may still be programmed.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, RIGHT OF WAY, and UTILITY RELOCATION
Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right of Way (RW), and Utility Relocation (UR) are not split out
separately for funding allocation purposes. It is up to the Regions to manage their STIP allocations
in their entirety, keeping track of how much is used for PE, RW, UR, and Construction, and making
sure that the overall allocations are not exceeded.
For your reference, these are historical PE, RW, and UR percentages:
Program
Preservation
Bridge
Modernization
Safety
Operations
Salmon
PE Percentage
6%
16%
18%
15%
15%
12%
RW Percentage
1%
4%
35%
9%
5%
8%
UR Percentage
As necessary
As necessary
As necessary
As necessary
As necessary
As necessary
FUNDING CATEGORIES (PHASES)
Valid funding categories (phases) for the 2015-2018 STIP are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
PLAN – Planning activities (e.g. studies, refinement plans, location EIS, MPO planning,
State Planning and Research).
PE – Preliminary engineering (design for construction projects).
R/W – Right of way acquisition (R/W for construction projects only).
UR – Utility relocation, for stand-alone work done before or during construction. This work
is normally done by a utility company.
CONST – Construction, for construction activities only.
OTHER – Other (non-construction) activities, such as bridge inspection (state bridge inspection/load rating, local agency/other agency bridge inspection), transit (planning, operations,
purchase), TDM, IOF, phase 3 archaeology work, rail relocation, jurisdictional exchanges
where ODOT does not do work before the exchange is completed.
Page 5
January 24, 2013
FULL FEDERAL OVERSIGHT (FFO)
FFO projects require FHWA to review and approve actions pertaining to design, plans, specifications, estimates, right-of-way certification statements, contract awards, inspections, and final acceptance of Federal-aid projects on a project-by-project basis. Full Federal Oversight refers to the
entire project (all phases), not just one phase. Projects are chosen for FFO via collaborative effort
between ODOT Region management and FHWA, utilizing criteria from the recently adopted stewardship agreement (see Appendix F on page 140 for criteria). If the project is a Full Federal Oversight project, make sure the project name begins with FFO. See Appendix A: ODOT’S Project
Naming Convention on page 55 for more information.
INFLATION FACTORS FOR THE 2015-2018 STIP
The inflation rate to be used for the 2015-2018 STIP is 4% for 2015 and 3% for the remaining
years. All projects should be inflated accordingly from 2013 dollars. Also, any additional funds
added to projects that were in the 2012-2015 STIP, due to increased costs or scope, should be inflated by the applicable rates.
The factors used to determine the inflation rate are fuel prices, the Oregon Wage Index for Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction Employees, and the Producer Price Index for Highway and
Street Construction. The factors are updated annually, and forecasted annual increases are averaged
to obtain the estimated inflation rate.
Projects should be scoped in current year dollars. Region STIP Coordinators will increase the project estimates with inflation depending on the STIP year of the phase/project. The inflation rate
should be compounded each year. Please refer to this chart for the appropriate inflation rate to apply for each year:
Annual Inflation Rate
Compounded Rate
Looks Like This
Example
Current
(2013)
100.00%
100.00%
0.00%
$1,000,000
2014
104.00%
104.00%
4.00%
$1,040,000
2015
104.00%
108.16%
8.16%
$1,081,600
2016
2017
103.00%
103.00%
111.40%
114.75%
11.40%
14.75%
$1,114,048 $1,147,469
2018
103.00%
118.19%
18.19%
$1,181,894
WORK TYPES
Pay particular attention to these work types for the 2015-2018 STIP:
Use these work types for Preservation projects:
•
•
•
•
•
•
PRESRV – Bucket of funds where specific use has not been determined
PRE-EX – Preservation, jurisdictional exchange
PR-CHP – Preservation, Chip Seals (preservation funds)
PR-IM – Preservation, Interstate Maintenance
PR-MIM – Preservation, Major Interstate Maintenance
PR-1RF – Preservation, 1R Features
Page 6
January 24, 2013
Use the following work types for Operations projects:
•
•
•
•
•
•
OP-SLD – Slides, Rockfalls
OP-ITS – Intelligent Transportation Systems
OP-SSI – Signals, Signs, Illumination
OP-TDM – Transportation Demand Management (regional)
OPERAT – Bucket of funds where specific use has not been determined
OP-EX – Operations, jurisdictional exchange
Be sure to use the correct work type for the specific type of Operations project you are funding. The
OPERAT work type should only be used for buckets of funds where the specific use has not been
determined.
Use the following work types for Transit projects:
•
•
•
•
TR-PLN – Transit program planning
TR-OPS – Transit program operations
TR-CAP – Transit program capital
TRANST – Bucket of funds where specific use has not been determined
Use the following for work types for other jurisdictional exchanges:
•
•
MOD-EX – Jurisdictional exchange of a modernization project
SAF-EX – Jurisdictional exchange of a safety project
When entering costs for a jurisdictional exchange, enter the funds in the CONST column and
the OTH column if ODOT will be performing work on the project prior to the exchange; use
PSEDOC for the monitor code. If ODOT is not performing work prior to the exchange, enter
the funds in the OTHER column; use NONCON for the monitor code.
Page 7
January 24, 2013
WORK CLASSIFICATIONS
Following are the valid entries for the work category field on page 3 of PCS or the new STIP/FP
application:
01 CONSTRUCTION
A facility constructed in a new location; major additions, such as interchanges, to an existing
facility; or rebuilding an existing facility with significant grade and/or alignment changes.
This type of project will usually require acquisition of considerable right-of-way.
02 RECONSTRUCTION
Rebuilding an existing facility in the same location, possibly with minor grade and/or
alignment changes. Includes widening an existing facility one lane width or more. May require some right-of-way acquisition.
03 WIDENING AND RESURFACING
A resurfacing project that includes minor grading and earthwork to widen the roadbed less
than one lane width. Includes culvert extensions, etc. Small parcels of additional right-ofway may be required.
04 RESURFACING
Resurfacing an existing facility. May include some base corrections, rebuilding and paving
shoulders, curb replacement, manhole and inlet adjustments. Does not include roadbed
widening.
05 STRUCTURES
Projects that are primarily bridge construction, revision, or repair work. Includes roadway
work done in conjunction with the structure work. Does not include structure work that is
part of a larger roadway project. Does not include buildings.
06 MINOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Minor construction or reconstruction projects. Usually require 60 working days or less to
complete. The work is often performed by State forces.
07 LANDSCAPING
Planting trees, shrubs, ground cover, etc. usually within rest areas, interchanges and along
highways in urban areas. Includes irrigation systems.
08 SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
Placement or replacement of guardrail, sign, lighting and other safety or control devices
when performed as a specialty contract. Includes widening for turn refuges, etc.
Page 8
January 24, 2013
09 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The installation or major revision of traffic signals when performed as a specialty contract.
May include some reconstruction of the intersections and other safety and traffic control devices.
10 RAILROAD SIGNALS
Includes all work pertaining to railroad signals that is not a part of a larger project.
11 ROCK PRODUCTION
All work related to projects that are solely rock production.
12 UNIQUE
All projects that do not fit any of the above types (buildings, etc.).
13 ROCKFALL AND SLIDE PROTECTION
ARCHAEOLOGY WORK
Before a project is started, archaeology staff reviews the project to determine if there are archaeological sites that might be important to the state of Oregon or that may be federally protected. When
sites are affected by a project, staff works on possible alternatives to minimize the effects of the project on the site. There are three phases of archaeology work:
Phase 1 is done to identify significant resources and help guide alternatives. Phase 1 involves a
systematic pedestrian survey and/or sub-surface probing to establish the presence or absence of
archaeological material which may be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. Probes are exploratory and would be implemented in areas of high probability of archaeological sites, or areas with low ground visibility. Ground penetrating radar or other noninvasive equipment may also be used to identify archaeological features below the surface. If an
archaeological site is identified within the project’s area of potential impact, and the project team
is unable to avoid it, then Phase 2 testing will be necessary to establish eligibility and site boundaries. Phase 1 could take anywhere from one day to two weeks, depending on location and project size. Phase 1 cost is $5,000 to $15,000.
Phase 2 testing is done to identify site boundaries and determine if a site is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. A project may require testing at multiple sites, and may include excavation of shovel probes (about 50 x 50 centimeters) and test units (1 x 1, 2 x 1, or 2 x
2 meters). This phase also includes the analysis of recovered materials, such as obsidian hydration and blood residue analysis. If a site is eligible for the register, every effort is made to avoid
it during construction. If the site cannot be avoided, then Phase 3 or another mitigation project
will need to be implemented. Phase 2 cost is $10,000 to $65,000, depending on number of sites
to be tested and the location.
Phase 3 is known as data recovery, and is very expensive. Large scale excavation, analysis, and
public involvement may be needed, to be determined on a case by case basis, and may include
block excavation, water screening, extensive lab time, etc. The goal is to gather all of the information about the site before it's destroyed. Phase 3 cost is $50,000 to $250,000.
Page 9
January 24, 2013
Costs for Phase 1 and 2 archaeology work should be incorporated in the PE phase, because the
costs originate during the design phase. Costs for Phase 3 should be entered in the Other line in
PCSX (see #29 on page 132).
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT and PLANNING
Since there is a separate funding category for planning, it is necessary to make a distinction between
transportation program development and project specific development. Transportation program development includes all activities that lead up to selection of a specific location and project. Once a
specific project at a specific location has been chosen, the transition to project development has occurred.
Examples include:
Transportation program development:
• Study
• Refinement plan
• Corridor planning
Project specific development:
• Project specific refinement plan
• Location EIS
Refer to the following pages for more detailed information about the planning and project identification process, and transportation program development products/services.
The 2001 OREGON TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT ACT (OTIA I and II)
(HB 2142, Bonding Program)
The legislation implementing the 2001 Oregon Transportation Investment Act directed $500 million
in bond proceeds to cover specific activities: modernization ($250 million), pavement preservation
on district level highways ($75.3 million), and bridge preservation ($174.7 million).
The 2003 OREGON TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT ACT (OTIA III)
The legislation implementing the 2003 Oregon Transportation Investment Act directed $2.5 billion
in bond proceeds for the following: $1.3 billion to replace and repair state bridges, $300 million to
replace and repair local bridges, $361 million for county and city maintenance and preservation, and
$500 million for modernization projects statewide.
The 2009 OREGON JOBS AND TRANSPORTATION ACT (JTA)
The legislation implementing the 2009 Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act directed $840 million in
bond proceeds, plus fee and tax increases, for $960 million in projects selected by the legislature
and included in the bill. Most of the projects are Modernization in nature.
Page 10
January 24, 2013
Page 11
January 24, 2013
Transportation Program Development Product/Service
1st Level (Bold Normal Font)
This level is a summary/HEADING/WRAP-UP of the 3rd level products/services
2nd Level (I(Normal Font)
3rd Level (Italic)
This is the highest level EA associated with products & services within TPD
Specific work products associated with 2nd level
th
4 Level (Normal Font) subjob level of work products/3rd level
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TDD Admin NOTE: There should be an Admin & Indirect for each
TDD Indirect
of the 4 categories
Transportation Program Development
Statewide and Regional Studies
Strategic Planning & Special Studies
ODOT Strategic Plan
Transportation Surveys
Socio-economic and safety studies
Economic, financial and taxation studies
Cost Responsibility Study
Performance Measures and other strategic planning
Policy and Economic Analysis (moved from Coord & Tech Asst)
Other Financial Analysis
Other Economic Analysis
Freight Mobility Studies
Legislative Impact Analysis
Statewide Planning Projects
Oregon Transportation Plan
Policy Updates
System data updates
Annual Report
Performance monitoring
Highway Plan
Implementation
Modal Plans
Freight
STIP Process Review
Regional Planning
Transportation System Plans
Corridor Plans
Refinement Plans
Development Review
Access Management Plans
Other Planning Efforts
Association of Oregon Counties Contract
Land Use/Transportation Coordination
SPR Program Management
Scenic Byways
TGM Program Management
Coordination, Communication, Public Involvement, and Technical Assistance
Local Government Assistance
Periodic Review
Aggregate Planning (Goal 5)
Code Assistance - TGM
Quick Response - TGM
Local Government Assistance (Non-MPO)
TGM Outreach
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Liaison
MPO Supplemental (program coordination)
Policy Coordination
Immediate Opportunity Fund
National and federal policy coordination
ACT Coordination
CST Coordination efforts
Other policy coordination
New Technology
Trip Reduction Coordination
`
Page 12
January 24, 2013
Transportation Program Development Product/Service
1st Level (Bold Normal Font)
This level is a summary/HEADING/WRAP-UP of the 3rd level products/services
2nd Level (I(Normal Font)
3rd Level (Italic)
This is the highest level EA associated with products & services within TPD
Specific work products associated with 2nd level
th
4 Level (Normal Font) subjob level of work products/3rd level
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Public Involvement
Public involvement project/program assistance
Public involvement training
Public Outreach
Public involvement calendar
Access Management Policy and Coordination
Technology Transfer
Analysis and Research
Policy and Economic Analysis - Move under Statewide & Special Studies
Research Projects
Bridge
Pavement and materials
Construction and Maintenance
Hydraulics/geotechnical
Planning/Socio-economic
Traffic/Safety/Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
Multistate Research Projects
Other Research
SPR Administration
SPR Project Development
SPR Implementation
Unidentified projects
TRB Correlation
State Research Program
SPR Discretionary Projects
Transportation Planning Analysis
Statewide Transportation Modeling
Transportation Management Systems
Bridge Management System
Congestion Management System
Intermodal Management System
Pavement Management System
Public Transportation Management System
Safety Management System
Crash Analysis and Reporting
Traffic Monitoring System for Highways
Transportation Data and Mapping
Maintenance of economic and social data
Functional Classification/National Highway System Admin
Integrated Transportation Info System
Straightline Charts
State Highway Video Log
Mapping/Geographic Information System (GIS)
Highway Performance Monitoring System
Oregon Certified Mileage Report
Natural Resource and Sensitive Area Mapping
STIP Development (Scoping)
OTIA
Applying Criteria
Page 13
January 24, 2013
STIP PROCESS TIMELINE (GENERAL)
ODOT updates its STIP every two years, as allowed by federal regulation. As one STIP finishes up,
the next one officially gets underway. At any point in any year, there is a STIP task being addressed.
The process begins with revenue forecasting.
The Active Transportation Office, STIP Development Group determines the annual forecasted revenue amount to be available for the STIP update. This amount represents all State Highway Fund
revenues, minus mandatory distributions (distributions to cities and counties, to other state agencies
[Parks, Marine Board, and others], to Central Services and other ODOT operations, including
Maintenance, DMV, Motor Carrier, Planning, and more). These funds, added to the projected federal revenue, establish the total amount available for the STIP. For the 2015-2018 STIP, an average
of $308.6 million is forecast to be available for the STIP in each of the four years. This compares to
a forecast level of $249.3 million per year for the 2012-2015 STIP.
The forecast amounts available for the STIP are applied to the investment scenarios presented in the
Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) and its modal plans in order to set draft STIP performance
goals. The draft goals provide a starting point for program funding level discussions between the
Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC), ODOT Regions, MPOs and local governments, Regional Partnerships and Area Commissions on Transportation. Approximately two months after
beginning discussions, the OTC, at its regular monthly meeting, approves the draft STIP performance goals for Preservation, Bridge, Operations, Safety, Modernization, and Special Programs,
weighing input received from the aforementioned stakeholders. The OTC then approves the annual
STIP funding levels for these programs.
The STIP Development Group allocates the annual STIP funding levels to the five ODOT Regions in the manner that supports the OTC’s goals, using integrated computer-based Management Systems to identify and prioritize preservation, bridge, and safety projects. Also available for
identifying and prioritizing projects are:
•
•
•
•
Statewide traffic data (locations, ages, and capabilities of signals, signs, and illumination)
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Freight Movement, and Fish Passage Culvert Strategic or Action Plans
Public Transit, Congestion, Freight Movement, and Intermodal Management Systems
MPO, Local Government, ACT, Regional Partnership, Stakeholder, and public input
Modernization Program funds to date have been distributed to each region using a formula that includes, by county, vehicle registrations, truck ton miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled, population,
gas tax revenue, and highway infrastructure needs (determined through the Oregon Highway Plan
Update).
For further information on how projects are identified and selected, please refer to ODOT’s Project
Delivery Guidebook at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/PDU/pd_guidebook.shtml.
Page 14
January 24, 2013
Using the program goals and funding levels, project teams visit proposed project sites and scope
each project. Cost estimates and project details are determined and the resulting data is entered
into the Project Control System (PCS) by each Region’s STIP Coordinator. The resulting list of
projects makes up the draft STIP, which is then released for a 45 day public review period, in
accordance with state policy and federal regulation.
A minimum of two open public meetings are held per Region during this period. A Region
ACT is invited to host at least one of these meetings. A CST Regional Partnership may also be
asked to host a meeting. In addition, written comments are also received year-round through the
STIP web site (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/STIP/).
Comments from the public review period are summarized by each Region’s STIP Coordinator and forwarded to the STIP Development Manager. They become part of the public record
and are distributed to the OTC, Region STIP Coordinators, program managers, Planning Section,
MPOs, ACTs, and the CST. A project’s relative prioritization or scope may be modified as a result
of the public review period.
The next step is to fiscally constrain the draft program. Fiscally constraining the draft involves
balancing each Region’s individual program to its allotted funding target for the four years, and
each year statewide to available revenue. Each Region’s annual program levels may be adjusted in
order to balance their programs to meet the goals approved by the OTC, as long as the yearly total
statewide does not exceed available revenue. Regions must balance their program to their regional
targets, keeping the funds for each program within that program. The funds for each program are
allocated by the OTC based on meeting specific performance goals (i.e. maintaining pavement condition at a certain percent fair or better). Regional targets are developed by the programs for each
Region, based on analysis of data from the Oregon Transportation Management Systems. Therefore, through the STIP development period, and until a Region can clearly demonstrate that
performance goals have been met, funds cannot be moved from one program to another.
Modernization funding amounts are set by Oregon law, and the OTC has stated that we will do no
more than the minimum required (minimum modernization). Because of this, the modernization
program must be kept separate from all other programs.
Statewide programs are also balanced to the allotted funding targets. At least one month is set aside
for constraining.
Once constrained, the program is ready for air quality modeling. Oregon has nine air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas: Portland Metro, Salem/Keizer, Eugene/Springfield, Grants Pass,
Medford/Ashland, Klamath Falls, Lakeview, Oakridge, and LaGrande. Regionally significant projects in these areas must conform to federal clean air quality regulations. Conformity is determined
by a modeling process that is costly and can take up to four months to complete. MPOs are responsible for modeling the projects within their boundaries (Portland Metro, Salem/Keizer, Eugene/
Springfield, and Medford/Ashland), while ODOT’s Transportation Planning Analysis Unit performs the process for the state’s non-MPO areas. After conformity is determined, the MPO transportation improvement programs (MTIPs) are incorporated into the STIP as required by federal
regulation.
Page 15
January 24, 2013
The document is then prepared for final presentation to the OTC. Area Commissions on Transportation may want to review the final program prior to OTC review and adoption.
After adoption by the Commission, the final STIP is forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), where it is reviewed for
consistency with the USDOT Transportation Planning Regulations, before being jointly approved
by the two agencies. Key elements reviewed by both FHWA and FTA include consistency with
statewide and metropolitan transportation plans, financial constraint, appropriate grouping of smaller projects and, in air quality non-attainment or maintenance areas, demonstration of regional conformity with State Implementation Plans (SIP) for air quality. Projects proposed for Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program funding are reviewed for eligibility before being approved; however, the final eligibility determination for other highway projects is made after STIP
approval (at the time of project authorization). In addition, the Governor must sign each MTIP prior
to FHWA and FTA approval. For urbanized and non-urbanized areas, FHWA and FTA also review
the public participation processes.
Sixty days should be allowed for FHWA and FTA review and approval. However, this time can be
shortened considerably through early coordination of the draft STIP and by insuring that required
federal regional air quality conformity findings and CMAQ program eligibility reviews are
accomplished before the STIP is sent for federal approval.
When federal approval is received, the final STIP is posted on the STIP website. Printed copies of
the STIP are available within two months (the time it takes to prepare the STIP for printing and
mailing). People are encouraged to use the web site instead of the printed document; it is much less
costly to provide information via the web, and the site is kept up-to-date, including amendments.
During the last few months of the final STIP approval process, the next STIP update is getting underway, with ACTs, local governments, and stakeholders providing program and/or policy recommendations.
Page 16
Final STIP development, review
and approval
Begin 15-18 STIP update; programs begin data collection, draft performance goals.
Regions can be scoping projects as warranted through the end of September 2013.
Data collection continues.
April 26 - Letter from Chair Egan to ACT chairs sent. Data collection complete.
OTC reviewed draft application including project benefits (criteria). Update Funding Allocations for
15-18 timeframe.
OTC reviewed recommended scenario.
July 18 - OTC approved moving ahead with Fix-It category process. OTC allows two additional months of
clarifying and vetting of Enhance process.
September 19 - OTC approved Enhance category allocations, application and process.
September 24 - Application period opening announced to project eligible entities and other stakeholders.
Region funding targets distributed.
October 16 - OTC meeting with ACT chairs.
When do the Regions set the 150% target for their ACTs?
November 27 - applications must be to Region by noon.
November 27 to December 5 - regions review applications for eligibility.
Fix-It project information to the ACTs.
December 6 - eligible applications provided to respective ACTs and MPOs.
December 7 - ACTs and MPOs begin application review and project selection for 150% Enhance list.
STIP Development Manual ready for distribution.
March 15 - deadline for ACTs to submit prioritized 150% Enhance list to Region for scoping. Regions will
provide the 150% lists to TDD for compiling and sharing with OTC, OFAC and Joint TE-OBPAC Committe
for their information, review and input.
Compiled 150% lists in April OTC packet and distributed to OFAC and Joint TE-OBPAC.
PCSX open for input of projects.
Regions prepare draft program for review by stakeholders.
June 19 - deadline for OTC, OFAC and Joint TE-OBPAC committee input on 150% lists. Input will be
provided to each region for distribution to their ACTs. Regions complete draft program for review by
stakeholders.
July 22 - Regions complete project scoping for both categories (Fix-It and Enhance). Scoping results for
Enhance category forwarded to respective Area Manager and ACT Chair.
ACTs work to develop their 100% project recommendation list.
Determine process for staff and OTC development of 20% discretionary project list in this general
timeframe.
Targets to actuals process begins.
Oct 4 - deadline for ACTs and Regions to complete 100% prioritized project recommendation list.
Oct 7 - Regions provide their 100% lists to TDD for compilation and inclusion in October OTC
meeting packet as an information item.
Oct 14 - Deadline for Region STIP Coordinators to complete upload of project list into PCSX or new system
application.
Oct 15 to Nov 12 - Salem staff conducts process of constraining the draft STIP.
Nov 13 to Dec 11 - Salem staff develops draft STIP document; draft STIP printed, distributed.
December 18 - OTC releases draft STIP for public review.
Public review process continues.
Jan 2012
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 2013
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 2014
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 2015
Feb
Mar
Apr
MTIP = Metropolitan Transportation ImSTIP = Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
ACT = Area Commission on Transportation
provement Program
MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization
PCSX =
DOT = Department of Transportation
ODOT= Oregon Department of Transportation
OTC = Oregon Transportation Commission
Project Control System Data Entry Screen
Public Review process complete; comments summarized.
Public comments reviewed by OTC, ACTs, MPOs, regions, programs, planning.
Adjust as necessary based on OTC direction and public input.
Air quality conformity determinations and modeling begins (entire draft STIP packet needed to do the
modeling). Metro needs the full four months.
Air quality conformity determinations and modeling continues.
Air quality conformity determinations and modeling continues. PCSX closed to Regions.
August 31 - Add final MTIP data to PCSX. Air quality conformity determinations and modeling complete.
Final STIP prepared for review.
October 1 - Final STIP available for review by ACTs, MPOs, other stakeholders.
November 19 - OTC review and approval of Final STIP. STIP air quality conformity paper due to
STIP office.
Final STIP to USDOT for approval. MTIPs to Governor for approval.
USDOT approval of Final 2015-2018 STIP.
*Note: The STIP is not final until all necessary Federal approvals are received - approximately two
months after OTC approval.
Transition Amendment completed, Final STIP distributed.
Ongoing State and Local Planning Activities
Ongoing State and Local Planning Activities
STATE FISCAL YEAR
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
Final 2010-2013 STIP
Final 2012-2015 STIP
15-18 STIP
CALENDAR YEAR
2012
2013
FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2013
2014
2014
2015
2012
2013 Legislative Session
2014
2015 Legislative Session
Scoping Fix-It
Scoping Enhance
Draft STIP development, review and approval
Discussions with stakeholders on new process
and expanded roles of the ACTs
Appl. review & 150% rec'd
project list development
OTC review of 150%
lists
100% prioritized rec'd list
development
Process review by staff,
stakeholders and OTC
Air quality conformity
and modeling
January 24, 2013
2015-2018 STIP DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
Page 17
January 24, 2013
2015-2018 STIP FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
Does not include OTIA, ARRA, or JTA bond funds. Approved by the OTC on July 18, 2012.
.
2015*
Annual STIP Funding Level (millions)
ENHANCE**
$229.1
$17.7
Major Bridge Maintenance
Bridge Total
Operations
Slides, Rockfalls
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Signals, Signs, Illumination
Transportation Demand Management
Operations Total
Safety (including HSIP)
Section 164 Penalty
High Risk Rural Roads
Work Zone Safety (project specific)
Rail Crossing Safety (federal)
Safety Total
2017
2018
2016-2018
$335.1
$75.9
$335.1
$75.9
$1,005.3
$227.7
$1,234.4
$245.4
$62.2
$13.7
$62.2
$13.7
$62.2
$13.7
$186.6
$41.1
$186.6
$41.1
$211.4
$102.8
$259.2
$97.1
$259.2
$97.1
$259.2
$97.1
$777.6
$989.0
$45.5
$8.2
$43.2
$8.2
$43.2
$8.2
$43.2
$8.2
$53.7
$51.4
$51.4
$51.4
$7.7
$2.2
$3.0
$2.9
$0.4
$1.7
$3.7
$3.5
$6.3
$0.6
$1.7
$3.7
$3.5
$6.3
$0.6
$1.7
$3.7
$3.5
$6.3
$0.6
$16.2
$15.8
$15.8
$15.8
$19.0
$6.8
$1.2
$2.1
$2.1
$18.6
$9.6
$1.2
$2.1
$2.1
$18.6
$9.6
$1.2
$2.1
$2.1
$18.6
$9.6
$1.2
$2.1
$2.1
$31.2
$33.6
$33.6
$33.6
$4.4
$0.0
$2.8
$0.3
$2.2
$2.0
$2.8
$0.3
$2.2
$2.0
$2.8
$0.3
$2.2
$2.0
$2.8
$0.3
$7.5
$7.3
$54.0
$7.3
$54.0
$7.3
$54.0
Special Programs
Fish Passage
Stormwater Retrofit
Large Culvert Improvement
Site Mitigation and Repair
Special Programs Total
Agency Priorities
2015-2018
$335.1
$75.9
Project Selection by ACTs and OTC***
OTC Allocation for State Priorities***
FIX-IT
Preservation
Bridge
2016
$291.3
$129.6
$24.6
$154.2
$5.1
$11.1
$10.5
$18.9
$1.8
$47.4
$55.8
$28.8
$3.6
$6.3
$6.3
$100.8
$0.0
$6.6
$6.0
$8.4
$0.9
$394.1
$175.1
$32.8
$207.9
$12.8
$13.3
$13.5
$21.8
$2.2
$63.6
$74.8
$35.6
$4.8
$8.4
$8.4
$132.0
$21.9
$29.4
$162.0
$162.0
$11.0
$6.0
$11.2
$1.2
Page 18
January 24, 2013
2015-2018 STIP FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
Does not include OTIA, ARRA, or JTA bond funds. Approved by the OTC on July 18, 2012.
.
When referencing the STIP Funding Allocations table on the previous page, remember that:
*2015 allocations are based on OTC-approved targets from the 2012-2015 STIP.
**Enhance for 2015 includes items listed below, less Work Zone Safety and Rail Crossing Safety, which are transfers not included
here in 2015. 2016-2018 are Federal only; match to be paid by recipients (whether local agencies or ODOT).




Safe Routes to Schools - $1.6M
Modernization - $3.5M
Bicycle/Pedestrian - $7.1M
Transportation Enhancement - $9.7M
***Federal share only; match paid by recipients
Page 19
January 24, 2013
MAJOR FUNDING CATEGORIES
STATE FUNDS
State Funds
Fund Codes:
see below
100% Funding (no matching funds required)
Eligible Activities:
 State-only funded projects and match on federally funded projects (Fund Code S010)
 Bicycle/Pedestrian Program projects (Fund Code S080)
 Immediate Opportunity Fund projects (Fund Code S600)
 Lottery Backed Bonds (Fund Code S700)
Jobs and Transportation Act (JTA) Funds
100% Funding (no matching funds required)
 JTA Bond Funds (Fund Code B4A0)
 JTA Wedge Funds (Fund Code B4A1)
Fund Codes:
see below
Page 20
January 24, 2013
FEDERAL FUNDS
NHPP: National Highway Performance Program
Fund Code:
M001
Federal Share:
89.73% (92.22% on the Interstate)
NHPP projects must be on an eligible facility and support progress toward achievement of national
performance goals for improving infrastructure condition, safety, mobility, or freight movement on
the NHS, and be consistent with Metropolitan and Statewide planning requirements. Eligible activities include:
 Construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, preservation, or operational improvements of NHS segments.
 Construction, replacement (including replacement with fill material), rehabilitation, preservation, and protection (including scour countermeasures, seismic retrofits, impact protection
measures, security countermeasures, and protection against extreme events) of NHS bridges
and tunnels.
 Bridge and tunnel inspection and evaluation on the NHS and inspection and evaluation of
other NHS highway infrastructure assets.
 Construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of existing ferry boats and facilities, including
approaches, that connect road segments of the NHS.
 Construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and preservation of, and
operational improvements for, a Federal-aid highway not on the NHS, and construction of a
transit project eligible for assistance under chapter 53 of title 49, if the project is in the same
corridor and in proximity to a fully access-controlled NHS route, if the improvement is more
cost-effective (as determined by a benefit-cost analysis) than an NHS improvement, and will
reduce delays or produce travel time savings on the NHS route and improve regional traffic
flow.
 Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways.
 Highway safety improvements on the NHS.
 Capital and operating costs for traffic and traveler information, monitoring, management,
and control facilities and programs.
 Infrastructure-based ITS capital improvements.
 Environmental restoration and pollution abatement.
 Control of noxious weeds and establishment of native species.
 Environmental mitigation related to NHPP projects.
 Construction of publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals servicing the NHS.
Page 21
STP: Surface Transportation Program
Federal Share:
89.73%
Basically, you can use STP funds for all eligible federal work.























January 24, 2013
Fund Code:
M240
Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, preservation, or operational improvements for highways, and local access roads under 40 USC 14501.
Replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, protection, and anti-icing/deicing for bridges
and tunnels on any public road, including construction or reconstruction necessary to accommodate other modes.
Construction of new bridges and tunnels on a Federal-aid highway.
Inspection and evaluation of bridges, tunnels and other highway assets as well as training
for bridge and tunnel inspectors.
Capital costs for transit projects eligible for assistance under chapter 53 of title 49, including vehicles and facilities used to provide intercity passenger bus service.
Carpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities and programs, including electric
and natural gas vehicle charging infrastructure, bicycle transportation and pedestrian
walkways, and ADA sidewalk modification.
Highway and transit safety infrastructure improvements and programs, installation of
safety barriers and nets on bridges, hazard eliminations, mitigation of hazards caused by
wildlife, railway-highway grade crossings.
Highway and transit research, development, technology transfer.
Capital and operating costs for traffic monitoring, management and control facilities and
programs, including advanced truck stop electrification.
Surface transportation planning.
Transportation alternatives --newly defined, includes most transportation enhancement
eligibilities.
Transportation control measures.
Development and establishment of management systems.
Environmental mitigation efforts (as under National Highway Performance Program).
Intersections with high accident rates or levels of congestion.
Infrastructure-based ITS capital improvements.
Environmental restoration and pollution abatement.
Control of noxious weeds and establishment of native species.
Congestion pricing projects and strategies, including electric toll collection and travel
demand management strategies and programs.
Recreational trails projects.
Construction of ferry boats and terminals.
Truck parking facilities.
Development and implementation of State asset management plan for the NHS, and similar activities related to the development and implementation of a performance based
management program for other public roads.
Page 22
January 24, 2013

Surface transportation infrastructure modifications within port terminal boundaries, only
if necessary to facilitate direct intermodal interchange, transfer, and access into and out of
the port.
 Construction and operational improvements for a minor collector in the same corridor
and in proximity to an NHS route if the improvement is more cost-effective (as determined by a benefit-cost analysis) than an NHS improvement and will enhance NHS level
of service and regional traffic flow.
Page 23
January 24, 2013
TAP: Transportation Alternatives Program
Fund Codes:
M300, M301*
Federal Share:
89.73%
 Construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and other non-motorized forms of transportation.
 Construction, planning, and design of infrastructure-related projects and systems that will
provide safe routes for non-drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with
disabilities to access daily needs.
 Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists,
or other non-motorized transportation users.
 Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas.
 Community improvement activities, including—
o inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising;
o historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities;
o vegetation management practices in transportation rights-of-way to improve
roadway safety, prevent against invasive species, and provide erosion control; and
o archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a transportation project eligible under 23 USC.
 Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution
abatement activities and mitigation to—
o address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention or
abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff; or
o reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity
among terrestrial or aquatic habitats.
 In addition to defined Transportation Alternatives (as described above), the
 The recreational trails program under 23 USC 206.
 The safe routes to school program under §1404 of SAFETEA–LU.
 Planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the rightof-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways.
*Projects awarded within TMAs will use the fund code M301
Page 24
HSIP: Highway Safety Improvement Program
SIP: Safety Investment Program
Federal Share:
92.22%
January 24, 2013
Fund Code: MS30
Highway Safety Improvement Program funds may be used on any public road for the activities set
forth in 23 USC 148 (highway safety improvement activities). For more information on program
administration, contact Tim Burks, Highway Safety Engineering Coordinator, 503-986-3572.
Typical projects include, but are not limited to, signal installations, intersection improvements, pedestrian safety improvements, channelization, curve realignment, grade separation, pavement markings, guardrail or barrier, slope flattening, bicycle safety improvements, sign installation, and other
measures to eliminate or reduce crashes or the severity of crashes.
Safety projects must meet one of the following eligibility criteria:
 Positive Benefit/Cost (B/C) Ratio of 1.0 or greater;
 Top 10% Safety Priority Index System (SPIS); or
 Justified by Risk Narrative.
For further information on the ODOT Highway Safety Program, please visit:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/pages/highway_safety.aspx .
Page 25
January 24, 2013
CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
Federal Share:
89.73%
Fund Code:
M400
ODOT has elected to pass CMAQ funds through to eligible local governments, making the CMAQ
program a local program. Projects eligible for CMAQ funding must demonstrate reductions in air
pollutant emissions and must be approved by FHWA/FTA. For more information on program administration, contact Carol Olsen, CMAQ Program Manager, 503-986-3327.
CMAQ funds may be used by the following eligible local agencies (qualifying areas):
 All city and county governments within the Metro Urban Growth Boundary
 All city and county governments within the Medford/Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area boundary
 The City of Grants Pass (within its Urban Growth Boundary)
 The City of Klamath Falls (within its Urban Growth Boundary)
 The City of Lakeview (within its Urban Growth Boundary)
 The City of Oakridge (within its Urban Growth Boundary)
 The City of La Grande (within its Urban Growth Boundary)
 Transportation activities in an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP)
 Transportation control measures to assist areas designated as nonattainment under the Clean
Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990
 Extreme Low-Temperature Cold Start Programs
 Alternative fuel projects and alternative fuel vehicles
 Congestion Reduction & Traffic Flow Improvements
 Traditional Flow Improvements that demonstrate net emission benefits
 Intelligent Transportation Systems
 Value/Congestion Pricing
 Transit Improvements
 New transit facilities (e.g., lines, stations, terminals, transfer facilities)
 New transit vehicles (bus, rail or van)
 Operating assistance to introduce new transit service or expansion
 Transit fare subsidies
 Bicycle/pedestrian off-road or on-road facilities
 Travel Demand Management aimed at reducing SOV travel and emissions
 Public education and outreach activities to educate about transportation mode choices, traffic congestion, and air quality
 Carpool/vanpool marketing
 Some types of Freight/Intermodal projects and programs
 Diesel Engine Retrofits and other Advanced Truck Technologies
 Idle Reduction projects
 Inspection/Maintenance Programs
 Experimental pilot projects
Ineligible activities:
 As matching funds for other federal funding
 Projects that add new Single-Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) capacity on roadways
 Routine maintenance and rehabilitation projects
 Light-vehicle scrappage programs
Page 26
January 24, 2013
 Stand-alone alternative fuel purchasing projects
 Projects that do not comply with specific Title 23 USC and Title 49 USC eligibility requirements
 Administrative support costs for the statewide CMAQ Program
For further information on project eligibility for CMAQ funding, see the Guidance on the CMAQ
Improvement Program under MAP-21 dated December 12, 2012 at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/index.htm.
Page 27
January 24, 2013
WORK TYPE DEFINITIONS and PROGRAMMING GUIDELINES
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM: Capacity additions.
The intent of the Modernization Program (per ORS 366.507) is to increase highway safety, accelerate improvements from the backlog of needs on the state highways, and fund Modernization of
highways and local roads to support economic development in Oregon. The primary goal is to add
capacity. Projects both on and off the state highway system are eligible.
Projects to be implemented by the Modernization Program are selected by the Oregon Transportation Commission. The project selection criteria are established after public hearings that allow citizens an opportunity to review the criteria. (See page 77 for selection criteria.) The Commission
may elect to use up to one-half of available Modernization funds for projects of statewide significance. Projects of statewide significance are projects that require funding that cannot be achieved
within standard STIP allocations, but that are viewed by the agency as projects of statewide significance. Identified funds would be used to either keep existing work on very large projects current, or
to support development of very large projects (for example, funding an environmental impact
statement (EIS) or updating an existing EIS).
Allowable project types include:
• Addition of lanes: passing and climbing lanes, turn lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes
• High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, new alignments, new facilities (bypasses)
• Grade separations, intersection improvements, intermodal connectors
• Highway reconstruction with major alignment improvements or major widening
• New safety rest areas
• Immediate Opportunity Fund projects
• Widening bridges to add capacity
• Bottom line: if a project adds capacity, it’s Modernization
Figure A: Funding Information
MODERNIZATION (thousands)
Region
Statewide
IOF
Total
2015
Actuals
$0
$3,500
$3,500
2016
Targets
$3,500
$3,500
$7,000
2017
Targets
$3,500
$3,500
$7,000
2018
Targets
$3,500
$3,500
$7,000
Assumptions used for Modernization projects include:
• Modernization projects may take up to 7 years to develop
• Modernization equity splits remain the same through the life of the Development STIP
(DSTIP) (2018)
• Modernization volume remains constant through the life of the DSTIP
• Modernization funding amounts are set by Oregon law, and because of this, the Modernization program must be kept separate, and funds cannot be used for any other purpose
• Match on earmarked projects is counted against a Region’s Modernization target
• Adjustments will be made at the start of each STIP update, as necessary
Page 28
January 24, 2013
Programming Information
When entering the project data into PCSX, use the following fund codes:
Type of Project
Modernization
Modernization Planning (TDD funds)**
Modernization Planning (Region funds)**
Jurisdictional Exchange
IOF Modernization
JTA Modernization*
JTA Modernization (wedge funds)*
Work Type
MODERN
PLANNG
MODERN
MOD-EX
IOF
MODERN
MODERN
Option Code
S
S
S
S
S
S or L
S
Fund Code*
M240
M240
M240
S010
S600
B4A0
B4A1
*B4A0 and B4A1 designate JTA under HB 2001.
**For planning for a Modernization project where the specific location has not been determined,
project would be funded with planning funds (TDD) and have a PLANNG work type. For planning
for a Modernization project where the location has been determined, project would be funded with
Region funds and have a MODERN work type. See pages 9 and 11 for the distinction between
planning and project development.
Page 29
January 24, 2013
PRESERVATION PROGRAM: Improvements to rebuild or extend the service life of existing
facilities, and rehabilitative work on roadways.
Preservation projects add useful life to the road without increasing capacity. Allowable projects include Interstate Maintenance (preservation projects on the interstate); resurfacing projects; and reconstruction to re-establish an existing roadway.
OTC direction regarding pavement conditions continues to focus on high volume roads of statewide
significance, maximizing pavement conditions on the most critical routes while providing a useable
condition on lower volume roads. This means that highways with less than 5,000 ADT (average daily traffic) and low truck volumes will be primarily maintained under the Maintenance Low Volume
program and will be a lower priority for receiving preservation funds.
Funding Information and Regional Distribution
The funding distribution shown below carries forward Preservation Program totals for 2015 as approved in the final 2012-2015 STIP. These allocations do not include the low volume program,
which is included under Maintenance.
The distribution to the regions and the interstate is based on overall system-wide goals set by the
Commission and regional needs as determined by the Pavement Management System. Funding levels are insufficient to maintain current pavement conditions, which are above target on portions of
the system. The minimum recommended lane-mile amounts are the combined total 2016, 2017 and
2018 lane-miles requiring preservation in order to manage the decline in pavement conditions to the
statewide 78% “fair” or better target. The dollar allocations are based on unit costs for Preservation
projects of $220,000 per lane mile in each region and on the Interstate. These allocations may be
adjusted by the Statewide Pavements Committee to ensure that the Draft Program meets Commission goals.
PRESERVATION (thousands)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
Chip Seals
Interstate Maint.
Major Interstate
Maintenance
1R Features
Total
2015
Actuals
$10,300
$18,950
$4,000
$8,950
$2,400
$5,000
$44,200
2016
Targets
$8,700
$15,400
$3,700
$11,000
$1,900
$5,000
$42,404
2017
Targets
$8,700
$15,400
$3,700
$11,000
$1,900
$5,000
$42,404
2018
Targets
$8,700
$15,400
$3,700
$11,000
$1,900
$5,000
$42,404
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
$6,000
$102,800
$6,000
$97,104
$6,000
$97,104
$6,000
$97,104
2016-2018
Minimum
Recommended
Lane Miles
118
210
50
150
26
578
1,132
Page 30
January 24, 2013
CHIP SEALS (thousands)
District
2B, 2C
1, 3, 4, 5
7, 8
9, 10, 11
12, 13, 14
Statewide
Total
2015
Actuals
2016
Targets
$0
$1,675
$425
$1,225
$1,675
$0
$5,000
2017
Targets
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5000
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,000
$5,000
2018
Targets
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,000
$5,000
NOTE: The STIP Chip Seal program does not include funds for preparation work done by Maintenance forces, such as crack sealing or patching, which must come out of the Maintenance budget.
Assumptions used for Preservation projects include:
• Preservation projects may take up to 2 years to develop
• Low volume (less than 5,000 ADT) regional and district highways will continue to be funded through Maintenance at $13.5 million per year
• Regional distribution remains essentially the same through 2018
Type of Project
Preservation on NHS
Preservation non-NHS
Chip Seals (Preservation funds)
Interstate Maintenance
Major Interstate Maintenance
1R Features
Low Volume Program (Maint. funds)
Durable Striping
Work Type
PRESRV
PRESRV
PRE-EX
PR-CHP
PR-IM
PR-MIM
PR-1RF
MAINT
MAINT
Option Code
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Fund Code
M001
M240
S010
M001/M240
M001
S010
M001/M240
M001/M240
M240
Finally – The link to the Pavement Management System web site is below:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/CONSTRUCTION/pavement_management_sys.shtml.
For further information:
Pavement Preservation: John Coplantz, Pavement Management Engineer, 503-986-3119
Interstate Maintenance: Jeff Shambaugh, Pavement Specialist, 503-986-3116
1R Features: Christopher Henson, Senior Roadway Engineer, 503-986-3561
Page 31
January 24, 2013
BRIDGE PROGRAM: Improvements or work needed to rebuild or extend the service life of existing bridges and structures beyond the scope of routine maintenance.
This program is managed centrally by the Bridge Engineering Section. Prioritized project lists generated by the Bridge Management System are distributed to the regions from the central office, along
with a funding target for each bridge. Scoping; localized in-the-field knowledge; opportunities for
combining work with Preservation or Modernization projects; and public input may result in modifying the prioritization or timing of listed projects. Final financial constraining of the project list occurs cooperatively between the regions and the central office through the Bridge Leadership Team.
For a listing of Bridge Section contacts, go to:
http://intranet.odot.state.or.us/tsbbridge/brteamlist.htm
Funding Information
There are no regional splits for the State Bridge Program. Regions are provided with a listing of
projects located in their area, and the region and Bridge Section cooperatively work out the schedule
and funding details. Project budgets remain in the Bridge Section.
The funding distribution shown below carries forward Bridge Program totals for 2015 as approved
in the final 2012-2015 STIP. For the years 2016, 2017 and 2018, the OTC approved a funding level
of $43.2 million per year for State Bridges. An additional $8.2 million per year is allocated to a
statewide pool of funds managed centrally by ODOT’s Bridge Section for Major Bridge Maintenance.
The funding split is based on a sliding scale, 89.73% federal/10.27% match, except on the interstate,
which is 92.22% federal/7.78% match.
It is assumed that bridge projects take 2 years to develop.
BRIDGE (thousands)
Program
Bridge
Total
•
2015
Actuals
$45,500
$8,200
$53,700
2016
Targets
$43,200
$8,200
$51,400
2017
Targets
$43,200
$8,200
$51,400
2018
Targets
$43,200
$8,200
$51,400
State and local on-system road work within minimum touchdown (shortest distance to bring
project back to existing roadway) is funded with M240 funds, or other non-bridge funds
Page 32
January 24, 2013
On
NHS
M001
M001
Off
NHS
M240
M240
Road work outside minimum touchdown PRESRV
S or L
M001
BR-MBM
S
S010
Contact Anna Dunlap at 503-986-3391 for the correct work type for each project.
M240
S010
Type of Project
Bridge
Road work within minimum touchdown
(use 20% if actual % is unknown)
Work Type
BRIDGE
Option
Code
S or L
BRIDGE
S or L
For Major Bridge Maintenance, use the Monitor Code of PSEDOC (not POOL).
Local Bridge Program
The Local Bridge Program will receive approximately $20.7 million annually. This reflects the
funding splits based on the percentage of deficient bridges owned by Local Agencies as stated in
Agreement No. 28906 between ODOT, the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) and the League
of Oregon Cities (LOC).
The sliding scale match percentages of 89.73% federal/10.73% match also apply to the Local Bridge
Program. This will impact the program, since a project costing $1 million will use more federal
funds and less local matching funds, resulting in less federal funding available for projects. See table
above for project programming information.
When you have a bridge project in the middle of an interstate paving project, who pays?
The Statewide Pavement Committee developed the following guidelines in response to OTC direction to pave as many miles as possible with IM funds. The guidelines are provided to help project
teams make sound, cost-effective engineering decisions on all IM project features.
1. On an Interstate Maintenance project, any items that are outside the scope of work for pavement
preservation but are a priority to the Bridge program, will be paid for by the Bridge program.
Examples include:
• Bridge widening: In order to qualify for bridge funding, any bridge widening would have to
be a Bridge program priority. Bridge work required by programs listed in #5 below will be
funded from those programs.
Page 33
•
•
•
•
January 24, 2013
Bridge rail: Funding for non-priority bridge rail will be consistent with barrier replacement criteria for the rest of the project
Bridge end panels
If the item is on the bridge priority list, but not currently high enough (Bridge Section’s
determination) to warrant funding, the work will not be funded by the Bridge program
in this TIP. The work may rank high enough in the next STIP to be funded by the Bridge
program.
If the item is not on the bridge priority list at all, the region or committee will look critically at whether the work should be done. Design exceptions should be sought through
the Department’s Roadway Engineering Unit Manager (Steve Lindland, 503-986-3557).
If you are in doubt as to the priority of the work, please contact the Bridge Section (State
Bridge Engineer Bruce Johnson, 503-986-4200 or Bridge Program Managing Engineer
Bert Hartman, (503-986-3395).
2. Joint repair and minor deck surface repair will be funded by the IM program.
3. Deck overlays will not be funded with IM funding, unless done with a surfacing type that is
consistent with the rest of the adjacent pavement surfacing type. Consult with Bridge Engineering Section regarding any proposed overlay of a bridge deck.
4. Vertical clearances less than 17’4” must not be reduced due to the pavement preservation
work unless coordinated with the Statewide Traffic Mobility Manager (Christy J o r d a n ,
503-378-6192). Where possible, vertical clearance issues would be deferred using design
modifications or the exception process, until bridge replacement is warranted. If the clearance problem is a result of IM surfacing and can’t be modified, the IM program will fund the
correction. The Technical Services Bulletin on Vertical Clearance Standards is available on
the web at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TECHSERV/docs/tech_bulletins/TSB0803b.pdf.
5. All other Modernization, Operations, or Safety improvements beyond the minimum mandatory items will be funded from those programs.
Exceptions.
When a project team has concerns about the impact of these guidelines on project quality, etc.
with regard to bridge work, the team should work with the Bridge Section to document the problems and proposed solution(s) and, if necessary, forward an exception to the Statewide Pavement
Committee for a decision. If the committee can’t reach agreement, the issue(s) will be documented and forwarded to the Highway Division Administrator for a final decision.
State Bridge Program: Anna Dunlap, State Bridge STIP Coordinator, 503-986-3391
Local Bridge Program: Erick Cain, Local Agency Bridge STIP Coordinator, 503-986-3384
Page 34
January 24, 2013
SAFETY PROGRAM: Improvements which address priority hazardous highway locations and
corridors, including the interstate, in order to reduce the number of fatal and severe injury crashes.
The Safety Program focuses funds on state highway sections and spot locations with identified safety problems. Safety Program projects are funded primarily from the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Other eligible state and federal funds make up the balance of the Safety Program.
The Safety Program funds are managed jointly by the Traffic-Roadway Section, which is responsible for guidance and reporting, and the Regions, which are responsible for fund management and
project selection.
Other eligible activities which may be used for funding STIP safety projects are:
•
•
•
High Risk Rural Roads (HR3)
Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S)
Section 164 Penalty Funds
HR3 projects are managed by the Statewide Programs Section , SR2S projects are managed by the
Statewide Programs Section (infrastructure portion) and the Transportation Safety Division (noninfrastructure portion). Section 164 Penalty funds are managed centrally by the Traffic-Roadway
Section.
Identification of Priority Hazardous Highway Locations
There are currently two methods, each with a different focus, for identifying hazardous locations on
the state highway system:
•
•
Safety Investment Program (SIP) Segment Rating
Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) Site Percentiles
The SIP Segment Rating is a high-level categorization based on the frequency of fatal and severe
injury crashes in a five-mile section of highway over the last three years. The SIP Segment Rating
(value of 1-5) is helpful to generally identify problem areas and the level of investment in safety upgrades required on Preservation projects. SIP Segment Rating maps are produced annually for all
state highways. To receive the maps, contact Phil Smith (503-986-3277) with the Geographic Information Services Unit.
The SPIS is a more focused identification of hazardous locations. Every year, each 0.10 mile segment of state highway that has had either one fatal crash or three non-fatal crashes in the last three
years receives a SPIS score (value 0-100). The top 10 percent of these sites statewide are candidate
locations for improvements, although sites in the top 15 percent are sometimes considered. The
SPIS is helpful for developing and prioritizing stand-alone safety projects because of the focus on
smaller highway sections. A computerized SPIS listing for all state highways is produced each
year. Contact Region Traffic for specific listings. Here is a web link which lists the appropriate
Region Traffic contacts: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/spis.shtml.
Page 35
January 24, 2013
Safety Projects Funded With Safety Program Funds
Projects identified for Safety Program funding (formerly HSIP and SIP funding) are developed and
evaluated by each Region's Traffic Manager or Engineer. When developing projects where the major work type is SAFETY, both the SPIS score and the SIP Segment Rating should be considered.
The SPIS is recognized as a better indicator of problem areas at the project level, and projects
should address high priority SPIS locations. For projects with SAFETY as a secondary work type,
the SPIS should be used to identify possible locations to improve within the segment. Refer to the
Project Safety Management System – User’s Program Manual for more information and assistance
with tools for analysis. All Safety Program projects must be on state highways. Projects funded
with Safety Program funding must meet one of the following eligibility criteria:
• Positive Benefit/Cost (B/C) Ratio of 1.0 or greater;
• Top 10% Safety Priority Index System (SPIS); or
• Justified by Risk Narrative.
Projects identified for Safety Program funding must follow the program philosophy and evaluation
process outlined in ODOT’s Highway Safety Program Guide at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/
HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/ODOT_Safety_Program_Guide_2007.pdf. The guide contains criteria tailored to meet the requirements of Title 23 USC Section 148.
Regions will submit documentation for each Safety project to the Traffic-Roadway Section. The
documentation must demonstrate that the project will meet all of the necessary guidelines shown
in the ODOT Highway Safety Program Guide. The Region Traffic office will conduct an investigation and analysis of the eligibility criteria to document the eligibility of the use of Safety dollars
on the project, as well as any other pertinent information. The documentation must be compiled
and submitted to Traffic-Roadway Section for approval by the State Traffic Engineer prior to
inclusion in the Draft STIP. Traffic-Roadway Section staff will review the documentation to assure the project meets ODOT and federal guidelines for Safety projects, and will respond to the
regions with any concerns or an approval. Transportation Program Office cannot include Safety
projects in the Draft STIP without approval of the State Traffic Engineer.
Highway Safety Engineering “Quick Fix” Program
Because safety projects may take anywhere from 2 to 6 years to be programmed into the STIP and
delivered in the form of a highway construction project, the Highway Safety Engineering “Quick
Fix” Program was developed to allow Regions to tackle immediate highway safety concerns with
low-cost engineering countermeasures. The program is funded with Safety Program funding.
The statewide Highway Safety Engineering “Quick Fix” Program is a flexible safety bucket in the
STIP at $500,000 per year.
Projects with High Risk Rural Roads-eligible activities
The HR3 Program is a set-aside of the HSIP Program to be used for improvements on rural roads.
The set-aside is limited to roadways that are functionally classified as rural major or minor collectors or rural local roads. To be eligible, the roadway must have a crash rate for fatal and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide average for those functional classifications. The Local Government Section has responsibility for managing these funds. The funds will be programmed with
Page 36
January 24, 2013
guidance developed jointly with the Association of Oregon Counties, and will be used primarily on
county roads.
Projects with Safe Routes to Schools –eligible activities
The SR2S Program is administered by the Statewide Programs Section (infrastructure portion) and
the Transportation Safety Division (non-infrastructure portion). Guidelines for SRTS infrastructure
are available on the web at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/LGS/srts.shtml, and for SRTS
non-infrastructure at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/saferoutes.shtml.
Section 164 Penalty Funds
States which do not have a Repeat Intoxicated Driver law that meets the minimum federally required penalties have certain Federal-aid highway funds transferred to the state’s Section 402
State and Community Highway Safety grant program. These Section 164 Penalty funds are
listed in the STIP as a bucket of funds to be administered by the Traffic-Roadway Section to address Key Safety Emphasis Areas in the Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan.
The fund distribution shown below carries forward the Safety Program total for 2015 as approved in
the final 2012-2015 STIP. For 2016 to 2018, the OTC has approved a volume of $33.6 million for
the Safety Program. See Other State Programs on page 53 for information on SRTS (noninfrastructure).
MAP-21 has continued the match percentages of 92.22% federal/7.78% match. The exceptions are
Safe Routes to Schools and Section 164 Penalty, which are 100% federal.
SAFETY (thousands)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
Sec. 164
Quick Fix
HR3
Rail Crossing*
Work Zone*
SR2S*
SHSP Strategies
Total
2015
Actuals
$9,050
$5,550
$1,850
$1,300
$750
$6,800
$500
$1,200
2016
2016 to 2018
Targets
Funding Splits
$7,146
39%
$5,497
30%
$2,748
15%
$1,832
10%
$1,100
6%
$9,600
$500
$2,100
$2,100
2017**
Targets
$7,536
$5,797
$2,898
$1,932
$1,160
$9,600
$500
2018**
Targets
$7,536
$5,797
$2,898
$1,932
$1,160
$9,600
$500
$2,100
$2,100
$2,100
$2,100
$33,623
$33,623
$1,600
$28,600
$1,000
$33,623
100%
*SR2S is included in ENHANCE beginning in 2016. Work Zone and Rail Crossing are transfers
which are not included here in 2015.
**2017 and 2018 will be new ”jurisdictionally blind” safety projects and will be included in the
STIP as regional buckets.
Page 37
January 24, 2013
Assumptions used for Safety projects include:
• Safety projects take up to two years to develop
Type of Project
Safety Program (SIP, HSIP)
Safe Routes to Schools (Infrastructure)
Section 164 Penalty
Work Type
SAFETY
SAFETY
SAFETY
SAFETY
SAF-EX
Option Code
S
L
L
S
S or L
Fund Code
MS30
MS30
M300
MS32
S010
Useful Tools for Safety Project Development
To help develop potential safety projects, there are various tools available from the Project Safety
Management System. These tools include the Countermeasure Analysis tool, the Crash Data Graphing tool, and the Crash Summary Database. More information about the Project Safety Management System can be found in the publication, Project Safety Management System – User’s Program
Manual, available on the intranet. Links to these tools and publications, as well as a variety of other
resources for safety questions and tools, can be found at:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/highway_safety.shtml.
Safety Program: Tim Burks, Highway Safety Engineering Coordinator, 503-986-3572
Safe Routes to Schools: Carol Olsen, Safe Routes to Schools Program Manager, 503-986-3327
Page 38
January 24, 2013
OPERATIONS PROGRAM: System management improvements that lead to more efficient and safe
travel and greater system reliability.
•
•
•
•
ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems). Includes ramp metering, Road Weather Information
Systems (RWIS), variable message signs (VMS), incident management, emergency response/traffic management operations centers, mountain pass/urban traffic cameras, curve and
weather warning systems, variable speed limits and advanced signal control
Rockfalls and slides (chronic rockfall areas and slides, not emergency repair work)
Signals and signs, illumination, slow moving vehicle turnouts, and other operational improvements
TDM (Transportation Demand Management). Includes rideshare, vanpool, and park-and-ride
programs
The funding distribution shown below carries forward Operations Program totals for 2015 as approved
in the final 2012-2015 STIP. For the years 2016, 2017 and 2018, the OTC has approved a volume of
$15.753 million for the Operations Program.
TOTAL OF OPERATIONS BY REGION (thousands)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
Statewide
Total
2015
Actuals
$4,630
$3,600
$2,910
$1,730
$2,060
$1,250
$16,180
2016
Targets
$4,086
$4,096
$2,806
$1,660
$1,867
$1,238
$15,753
2017
Targets
$4,086
$4,096
$2,806
$1,660
$1,867
$1,238
$15,753
2018
Targets
$4,086
$4,096
$2,806
$1,660
$1,867
$1,238
$15,753
2017
Targets
2018
Targets
OPERATIONS – SLIDES, ROCKFALLS (thousands)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
Total
2015
Actuals
$1,210
$390
$1,110
$600
$1,050
$4,360
2016
Targets
$681
$722
$980
$526
$918
$3,827
$681
$722
$980
$526
$918
$3,827
$681
$722
$980
$526
$918
$3,827
Page | 39
January 24, 2013
OPERATIONS – INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (thousands)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
Statewide
Total
2015
Actuals
2016
Targets
$290
$520
$230
$210
$150
$1,250
$2,650
2017
Targets
$867
$1,300
$578
$505
$361
$1,238
$4,849
2018
Targets
$867
$1,300
$578
$505
$361
$1,238
$4,849
$867
$1,300
$578
$505
$361
$1,238
$4,849
OPERATIONS – SIGNALS, SIGNS, ILLUMINATION (thousands)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
Total
2015
Actuals
$3,130
$2,370
$1,420
$800
$860
$8,580
2016
Targets
$2,538
$1,754
$1,104
$516
$588
$6,500
2017
Targets
$2,538
$1,754
$1,104
$516
$588
$6,500
2018
Targets
$2,538
$1,754
$1,104
$516
$588
$6,500
OPERATIONS – TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (thousands)
Region
1
2
3
4
5
Total
2015
Actuals*
2016
Targets*
$0
$320
$150
$120
$0
$590
2017
Targets*
$0
$320
$144
$113
$0
$577
2018
Targets*
$0
$320
$144
$113
$0
$577
$0
$320
$144
$113
$0
$577
*Amounts are federal share; match to be paid by grantees.
Assumptions used for Operations projects include:
• Operations projects take up to two years to develop
• Regions can flex funds between the categories within Operations, as long as they do not exceed
their overall Operations target. Regional allocations listed here are suggested distributions,
based on needs, as determined by the Office of Maintenance and Operations.
Page | 40
January 24, 2013
Type of Project
Slides, Rockfalls
Signals, Signs, Illumination
TDM (regional)
Operations Buckets
WorkType
OP-SLD
OP-ITS
OP-SSI
OP-TDM
OPERAT
OP-EX
Option Code
S
S
S
S
S
S
Fund Code
M240
M240
M240
M240
M240
M240
Be sure to use the correct work type for the specific type of Operations project you are funding. The
OPERAT work type should only be used for buckets of funds where the specific use has not been determined or projects that don’t fit in one of the existing program categories.
Flexing Operations Funds to Transit Programs
ODOT regions may elect to supplement Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds with flexible federal STP funds (uses are limited to capital transit investments).
STP flexes (transfers) to Public Transit should be Option Code S, because the state is providing its own
STP funds, and work type TR-CAP. Add the words STP Transfer to the end of the project name (e.g.
Region 4 Transit Support (FY2017) (STP Transfer). Remember to document where the required
matching funds are coming from – the state cannot use its state gas tax revenue on public transportation
projects.
When flexing STP dollars to transit capital improvements, use the following coding:
Type of Project
STP Transfer
Work Type
TR-CAP
Option Code
S
Fund Code
M240
Slides, Rockfalls: Contact your region geologist or Paul Wirfs, Interim Geo-Environmental Program
Manager, 503-986-3526
Intelligent Transportation Systems: Galen McGill, ITS Manager, 503-986-4486
Signals, Signs, Illumination; Traffic Operations: Contact your region traffic engineer
Transportation Demand Management: Alison Wiley, Transportation Options Program Manager, 503986-4031, (Statewide Contact)
Page | 41
January 24, 2013
PUBLIC TRANSIT: Programs related to public transportation in the state, including capital purchases, passenger facilities, transit planning, and operating assistance.
The Public Transit Division is responsible for fiscal management, program administration, project selection, and reporting requirements for designated transit programs.
The transit projects are selected by discretionary or formula distribution process depending on program
or division policy. The projects are awarded to local transit providers on annual and biennial cycles. The
funding is programmed in a bucket. Typically, a transit bucket STIP key will represent year of funding,
program, and a pool of analogous projects. Rural area projects are bucketed by program and year under
a statewide section of the STIP. Urban area projects are found in their respective region in the STIP and
include transit agency name, program and year in the key title.
Federal Transit Administration Funded Programs
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides funding and oversight for the Public Transit programs in the state. Approximately 90% of total FTA funds go directly to transit system operators in Urbanized Areas (UZAs). These projects are developed through the Metropolitan Planning Organization
Transportation Improvement Program (MPO TIP) process. The 2010 Census resulted in a formation of
three new UZAs in Oregon: Grants Pass, Milton-Freewater/Walla Walla and Albany.
Remaining 10% of FTA funds are managed by the state. ODOT is a designated recipient of Section
5303, 5304, 5307, 5310, 5311, and 5339 programs. These programs provide capital and operating funding assistance for services operated by local providers. ODOT does not own or manage any of the public transportation systems in the state.
Federal Highway Administration Funded Programs
The governor, state legislature or ODOT may elect to supplement FTA funds with flexible federal
FHWA Surface Transportation Program (STP) or Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) funds.
For the 2015-2018 STIP, ODOT will provide approximately $12 million per year in STP funds to Public Transit Division programs that support transit to create an Oregon Transportation Network (OTN).
This funding is provided “off the top” of the funds available to ODOT.
ODOT Regions or Area Commissions on Transportation (ACT) may also elect to supplement or directly fund transit or rideshare/carpool or other Transportation Options activities with STP funds. These
projects are included in Region STIP or MPO TIP planning activities.
Funding Information (thousands)
Program
OTN*
Mass Transit Vehicles
Total
2015
2016
2017
2018
Actuals
Targets
Targets
Targets
$10,000
$2,000
$12,000
$10,000
$2,000
$12,000
$10,000
$2,000
$12,000
$10,000
$2,000
$12,000
*Amounts are federal share; match to be paid by grantees.
Page | 42
January 24, 2013
Use the following coding when entering Transit projects into the system:
Type of Project*
Transit Planning
Transit Operations
Transit Capital
STP Transfer
Transportation Options
Work Type
TR-PLN
TR-OPS
TR-CAP
TR-CAP
OP-TDM
Option Code
S, L, T
S, L, T
S, L, T
S
S
Fund Code
See pg. 44-45
See pg. 44-45
See pg. 44-45
M240
M240
*Match required by the program must be added to federal funds as the award amount is in Federal dollars only.
Use Option Code (Opt Code) “L” for local FTA funds and Option Code “T” for ODOT FTA funds.
STP flexed (transferred) to Public Transit should be Option Code “S”, because the state is providing its
own STP funds, and work type TR-CAP. Remember to document where the required matching
funds are coming from – the state cannot use its state gas tax revenue on public transportation projects.
Page | 43
Programming Information – FTA Fund
January 24, 2013
Maximum
Federal
Participation*
Program/Project Type (Fund Code)
5303 Metropolitan Transportation Planning Program
Metropolitan planning projects (FF80)....................................................................................... 50%
5304 Statewide Transportation Planning Program
Statewide planning projects (F260) .............................................................................. 80%
5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program
Operating assistance (FF90) ................................................................................................... 50%
Planning and capital projects (FF91) ........................................................................................................80%
Vehicle-related equipment for ADA or CAAA** compliance (FF92) ................................. 90%
Bicycle facilities (FF92) ............................................................................................................. 90%
Buses meeting ADA or CAAA (FF93) .................................................................................. 83%
STP flexed to 5307 for Capital/Planning (M240) .................................................................89.73%
5307 flexed to 5311 (F181) ................................................................................................... 89.73%
CMAQ flexed to 5307 for Capital/Planning/Operations (M400) ...................................... 89.73%
CMAQ flexed to 5307 for Commuter Ridesharing/Transit Safety projects (M400) .....................
5309 Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Program
Fixed guideway modernization (FF30)...................................................................................... 80%
New starts (FF30) ......................................................................................................................... 80%
Discretionary (FF32) ..................................................................................... 79.66%
5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program
Capital projects (F160)................................................................................................................. 80%
Operating assistance (F161) ........................................................................................................ 50%
State administration (F162)................................................................................................... 100%
Vehicle-related equipment for ADA or CAAA** compliance (F163) ................................. 90%
STP flexed to 5310 for Capital (MK240) ................................................................89.73%
5311 Rural Areas Formula Program
Rural capital projects (F181) ..................................................................................................89.73%
Intercity capital projects (F184) ............................................................................................. 89.73%
Operating assistance (FF18) ...................................................................................................56.08%
State administration/Technical assistance (F182) ................................................................... 100%
Vehicle-related equipment for ADA or CAAA** Compliance (F183) .................................. 90%
Bicycle facilities (F183) ............................................................................................................. 90%
STP flexed to 5311 (M240) ............................................................................................... 89.73%
CMAQ flexed to 5311 (M400) ..............................................................................................89.73%
5311(b)(3) Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP)
Training and technical assistance projects (P180) ................................................................... 100%
5312 National Research and Technology Program
Research and technology projects (FF12) ................................................................................ 100%
5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program .................................. Repealed in MAP-21***
Page | 44
January 24, 2013
5317 New Freedom Program ......................................................................... Repealed in MAP-21***
5320 Transit in Parks Program .................................................................. Repealed in MAP-21***
5329 Transit Safety Oversight Program ................... New in MAP-21(Currently in development)
Transit safety projects (TBD) ........................................................................... 80%
5337 State of Good Repair Program
Planning and Capital projects (FF91) .......................................................................................................80%
5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program
Planning and Capital projects (FF30) ........................................................................................................80%
Operating assistance (FF31) ......................................................................................................... 50%
Vehicle-related equipment for ADA or CAAA** compliance (FF33) .................................... 90%
Bicycle facilities (FF33) ...................................................................................................... 90%
Buses meeting ADA or CAAA (FF34) .................................................................................. 83%
5339 Alternative Analysis Program ........................................................... Repealed in MAP-21***
Investments for Greenhouse Gases and Energy Reduction (TIGGER ARRA)
TIGGER projects (F400) ................................................................................................................................. 100%
*ODOT’s Public Transit Division may have different pro-rata agreements with local transit providers. When entering transit project information, check with the appropriate transit program manager
for applicable pro-rata.
**Two methods exist for equipment purchased to comply with the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA): The grantee may use up to 90% of federal funds to purchase the actual equipment necessary, or the grantee may simply take 83% of the total cost of purchasing a clean air bus.
***Transit programs repealed in MAP-21 may be eligible for funding in other sections. For example: Section 5316 JARC activities are eligible under sections 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants
and 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas. Please refer to the Federal Register for eligible programs
and activities or contact us for more information.
ODOT Public Transit Division
Ivan Presnyy, Transit Programs Analyst, 503-986-4004
Dinah VanDerHyde, Transit Policy Manager, 503-986-3885
Page | 45
January 24, 2013
OTHER PROGRAMS FUNDED in the STIP
In addition to those listed previously, ODOT administers several smaller programs that provide
funds to other Oregon state agencies and local governments. The key programs are listed below:
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM
The Bicycle/Pedestrian Program was established for ODOT to meet the statutory obligation to expend a minimum of one percent of its share of the state highway funds on bicycle and pedestrian improvements (ORS 366.514). The bicycle and pedestrian funds are allocated to three programs:
1. Quick Fix: Minor sidewalk improvements on state highways, up to $100,000 per project, funds
distributed to ODOT Maintenance Districts, funds distributed annually on a first come first
served basis.
2. Grants: Bicycle and pedestrian projects on local streets and state highways, no project limit,
statewide competitive selection process, distributed mostly to cities and counties, funds allocated
on a biennial cycle, grants awarded for the first two years of the new STIP.
3. Sidewalk Improvement Program (SWIP): Pedestrian improvements on state highways, no project limit, funds distributed by the Bicycle/Pedestrian Program.
Due to the additional highway funds ODOT received from OTIA I, II, III, and JTA, the Bicycle/
Pedestrian Program funds have been increased to a total of $7.1 million, $7.4 million, $7.4 million,
and $7.1 million, respectively, in 2015-2018, to ensure ODOT meets its one percent obligation.
Funding Information
SWIP funds are no longer allocated to the regions, but are managed centrally by the Bicycle/Pedestrian Program.
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN (thousands)
2015
2016
2017
Program
Actuals
Targets
Targets
Total
$7,100
**
**
**BikePed and Enhance are included in ENHANCE beginning in 2016.
2018
Targets
**
Assumptions used for Bicycle/Pedestrian projects include:
• These figures do not include federal funds spent on bicycle and pedestrian improvements
administered by ODOT (e.g., Transportation Enhancement and CMAQ funds).
The Statewide STIP Coordinator inputs the Quick Fix, Grants, and SWIP fund amounts in the
“Statewide Programs” section of the STIP. Grant projects are not listed individually. Regions are
responsible for identifying projects eligible for SWIP funds, and must request funds from the Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Manager.
Page | 46
January 24, 2013
Use the following coding when entering Bicycle/Pedestrian projects into the system:
Type of Project
Quick Fix
Grants
SWIP
Work Type
BIKPED
BIKPED
BIKPED
Option Code
S
S
S
Fund Code
S080
S080
S080
For further information: Sheila Lyons, Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Manager, (503) 986-3555.
Page | 47
January 24, 2013
FISH PASSAGE, LARGE CULVERT (NON-NBI)* IMPROVEMENT, AND
STORMWATER RETROFIT PROGRAMS
The OTC has allocated $4.4 million for 2015 and $2.230 million per year, respectively, for 2016,
2017 and 2018 for Fish Passage, to repair or replace culverts that currently do not provide fish passage. The Department has made this commitment as part of The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Providing fish passage along state and federal roads is the Department’s number one priority in supporting the Oregon Plan. Also, the OTC has allocated $2.8 million in 2015 and $2.799
million per year, respectively, for Large Culvert (Non-NBI) Improvements in 2016, 2017 and 2018.
In addition, $1.993 million per year for 2016-2018 is allocated to Stormwater Retrofit as a condition
of the settlement with the Northwest Environmental Defense Center on ODOT’s NPDES MS4
permit.
ODOT will use fish passage funds to repair or replace all identified high priority culverts, followed
by medium and low priority culverts. Culvert priority is established by the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). Some culverts may be rated as high priority, but may be politically
controversial. These culverts will be fixed after all the political issues are resolved and ODFW has
issued a letter identifying support.
On occasion, culverts are identified during scoping as being structurally unsound, having failed, or
having safety and/or maintenance issues. If they are on the Culvert Inventory List, they can be replaced and made fish-accessible using fish passage funds and large culvert funds when applicable.
Those culverts that aren’t on the list still need to be dealt with – check with Region Maintenance or
Region Management for availability of other funding sources. If the culvert is listed as a priority in
the Bridge Management System, Bridge Preservation funds may be available.
Large culvert funds are used to repair or replace Non-NBI culverts and sometimes bridge structures
that are nearing the end of their service life that did not qualify for funding under the Highway
Bridge program. These are culverts or bridges between six and less than twenty feet in length. The
structure length is measured along the highway centerline for both culverts and bridges. The order
of replacement will be based on the condition of the structure, and priority will be given to structures that threaten life, safety, and mobility.
The Stormwater Retrofit Program will fund the selection, design and construction of highway runoff
treatment Best Management Practices. Eligible are stand alone projects in urbanized areas of the
Willamette Valley. Selection of projects will be based on several factors, the most important being
the sensitivity of the receiving water, the presence of ESA listed T&E species, high pollutant loads
in the runoff, and benefit/cost. Whenever possible, ODOT will collaborate with other jurisdictions
to address joint priorities and maximize treatment opportunities. The Stormwater Retrofit Program
is in addition to ODOT’s standard practice of providing water quality treatment on projects that expand or substantially modify its highways.
Because of the federal funding, full prospectuses are needed for stand-alone culvert projects. (A
stand-alone project is one not associated with any other construction project.) The National Marine
Fisheries Service requires documentation (a biological assessment) any time ODOT works in a
stream having anadromous (migrating) fish. Please allow time for this process in project schedules.
*Non-NBI culverts are culverts between six and less than twenty feet in length that are not part of the National Bridge
Inventory Standards, which is a federal registry of roadway bridges over 20 feet long.
Page | 48
January 24, 2013
Program
Fish Passage
Stormwater Retrofit
Total
2015
Actuals
$4,400
$2,800
$0
$7,200
2016
Targets
$2,230
$2,799
$1,993
$7,022
2017
Targets
$2,230
$2,799
$1,993
$7,022
2018
Targets
$2,230
$2,799
$1,993
$7,022
Projects for 2015 through 2018 have not yet been identified, so the funds are listed as annual buckets in the Statewide Section of the STIP. Individual projects, when identified, will be subtracted
from the buckets until the funds are exhausted. Projects may be entered by regions or centrally.
Use the following coding when entering Fish Passage, Large Culvert Improvement, and Stormwater
Retrofit projects:
Type of Project
Fish Passage
Stormwater Retrofit
Work Type
FISH
CULVRT
STORM
Option Code
S
S
S
Fund Code
M240
M240
S010
Fish Passage: Ken Cannon, Aquatic Biology/Fish Passage Program Coordinator, 503-986-3518
Large Culvert Improvement: Alvin Shoblom, Senior Hydraulics Engineer, 503-986-3365
Stormwater Retrofit: William Fletcher, Water Resources Program Coordinator, 503-986-3509
Page | 49
January 24, 2013
CONGESTION MITIGATION and AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program provides federal funds
to eligible areas for air quality improvement projects. Eligible areas either have not attained air
quality goals or must maintain air quality to meet federal standards under the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990.
Projects funded through the CMAQ program must be shown to help qualifying areas achieve
healthy air quality. ODOT, at its discretion, allocates all available CMAQ funds to qualifying local
governments; ODOT does not compete for these funds.
Estimated annual CMAQ funding levels for the 2015-2018 STIP are shown below. The fund distribution considers population of the non-attainment areas, pollutant levels, and highway vehicle emissions. These are federal funds only; non-federal matching funds required at 10.27% are not
shown. Funding levels will also vary depending on annual federal limitation.
METRO
Medford
Grants Pass
Klamath Falls
Lakeview*
La Grande*
Oakridge*
Total
2015
Actuals
$14,004
$2,451
$701
$351
$0
$0
$0
$17,507
2016
Targets
$14,004
$2,451
$701
$351
$0
$0
$0
$17,507
2017
Targets
$14,004
$2,451
$701
$351
$0
$0
$0
$17,507
2018
Targets
$14,004
$2,451
$701
$351
$65
$65
$65
$17,702
*Lakeview, La Grande, and Oakridge each receive $65,000 per year, distributed in one lump sum in
2014 for 2014-2017.
CMAQ projects are proposed by the eligible governmental body. The administering agency
(FHWA/FTA) makes the final determination on CMAQ eligibility. The Region STIP Coordinator
is responsible for inputting the project data into PCSX. Use Option Code L for all CMAQ projects.
Use the following coding when entering CMAQ projects into the system:
Type of Project
Congestion Mitigation
Transit with CMAQ Funds
Work Type
CMAQ
TR-CAP
Option Code
L
L
Fund Code
M400
M400
For further information: Carol Olsen, CMAQ Program Manager, 503-986-3327.
Page | 50
January 24, 2013
RAILROAD CROSSING SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
This is a federally funded safety program designed to improve safety at public railroad/highway
grade crossings. Projects are selected on a priority basis using an accident probability prediction
model. This model uses accident history and the physical characteristics of each grade crossing in
the state to generate a statewide ranking of all at-grade crossings. Those crossings high on the list
have the highest probability of an accident and, therefore, qualify for federal and state funding for
safety improvements.
This program requires the Rail Division’s Senior Crossing Safety Specialist to communicate about
upcoming rail projects with the appropriate ODOT Region STIP Coordinator. Each project requires
both road work to be completed by the appropriate road authority and rail work to be constructed by
the appropriate railroad. The road work associated with these projects is completed just like any
other local agency project, with the exception that the funding is programmed in a bucket to cover
all the projects. When the road work portion of each project involves a state-let contract, the individual projects are entered into the Project Control System by the Statewide STIP Coordinator, so
that the Environmentalists, Project Managers, and Local Agency Liaisons see these projects coming
and can plan their workload appropriately. These funds are provided “off the top” of the funds
made available to the STIP, and are 100% federal, with no match required.
Program
Rail Crossing Safety
Total
2015*
Actuals
$0
$0
2016
Targets
$2,100
$2,100
2017
Targets
$2,100
$2,100
2018
Targets
$2,100
$2,100
* Rail Crossing funding is not included for 2015 as it is a transfer.
This program is listed as an annual bucket in the Statewide Section of the STIP, but needs to have
individual projects identified and entered into PCS to alert affected regions and to track the projects.
The Statewide STIP Coordinator inputs both the bucket and the individual project data supplied by
ODOT’s Senior Crossing Safety Specialist. Information needed includes:
Project name and work description
Estimated let date for road elements of project
Total cost of project and type of funding
• Amount and year for PE
• Amount and year for Right of Way purchase
• Amount and year for Construction
Location information
• Highway name and number
• County
• Route
Type of Project
Railroad Crossing Safety
Work Type
SAFETY
Option Code
R
Fund Code
MS40, MS50
Page | 51
January 24, 2013
Use Option Code R for these projects. At the time of PCS entry, the Statewide STIP Coordinator
will provide the Rail Crossing Compliance Specialist with the project key number. The Rail Crossing Compliance Specialist in turn will notify the affected region of the estimated let date for the project and its key number.
For further information: Myron Arneson, Rail Crossing Compliance Specialist, 503-986-3045.
Page | 52
January 24, 2013
OTHER STATE PROGRAMS
The following programs are managed centrally and funds are not allocated to the regions.
Program
State Bridge Inspection/Load Rating
Local Agency Bridge Inspection
Other Agency Bridge Inspection
Traffic Safety Grant Program (Sec. 164)
Safe Routes to Schools (non-infrastructure)
Workzone Safety Program
Highway/Rail GCPA
Transit Innovation and Improvement*
Local Government STP
Special City Allotment
Special County Allotment
Transportation Growth Management
Transportation Demand Management*
State Planning and Research
Local Technology Assistance Program
State Parks Recreation Trails Program
Federal Lands Access Program
Non-Highway JTA
Fund
Source
TDD
AOC/LOC
AOC/LOC
LAB
LAB
LAB
LAB
OTC/LAB
AOC/LOC
ORS
ORS
TDD
LAB
TDD
TDD
OTC
FHWA
USDOT
OTC
2015
Actuals
$10,600
$2,217
$150
$1,000
$700
$1,900
$700
$800
$22,284
$1,000
$750
$8,916
$900
$30,338
$280
$300
$1,100
$23,000
TBD**
2016
Targets
$0
$2,217
$150
$1,000
$1,000
$1,800
$700
$700
$22,284
$1,000
$750
$0
$800
$30,338
$280
$300
$1,100
$23,000
TBD**
2017
Targets
$10,600
$2,217
$150
$1,000
$1,000
$1,900
$700
$800
$22,284
$1,000
$750
$8,916
$900
$30,338
$280
$300
$1,100
$23,000
TBD**
2018
Targets
$0
$2,217
$150
$1,000
$700
$1,900
$700
$700
$22,284
$1,000
$750
$0
$800
$30,338
$280
$300
$1,100
$23,000
TBD**
*Federal share only, match is paid by locals
**Allocations for Non-Highway JTA to be determined by OTC action
Projects for 2015 through 2018 have not yet been identified, so the funds are listed as annual buckets in the Statewide Section of the STIP. Individual projects, when identified, may be subtracted
from the buckets until the funds are exhausted. Projects are entered centrally.
Use the following coding when entering these projects into the system:
Type of Project
State Bridge Inspection/Load Rating
Local Agency Bridge Inspection
Other Agency Bridge Inspection
Traffic Safety Grant Program (Sec. 164)
Safe Routes to Schools (non-infrastructure)
Workzone Safety Program
Highway/Rail GCPA
Transit Innovation and Improvement
Local Government STP
Work Type
PLANNG
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
SAFETY
SAFETY
SAFETY
SAFETY
TR-CAP
SPPROG
Option Code
S
L
L
S
S
S
R
S
L
Fund Code
M240/M001
M240
M240/M001
MS32
M300
M240
S010
M240
S010
Page | 53
Type of Project
Special City Allotment
Special County Allotment
Transportation Growth Management
Transportation Demand Management
January 24, 2013
Work Type
SPPROG
SPPROG
SPPROG
TR-OPS
Option Code
L
L
S
S
PLANNG
S
Local Technology Assistance Program
State Parks Recreation Trails Program
Federal Lands Access Program
PLANNG
ENVIRO
SPPROG
SPPROG
BIKPED
ENHANC
TR-CAP
S
S
S
O
Fund Code
S010 (50%), OTH0 (50%)
S010 (33%), OTH0 (67%)
M240
M240
M230 (11%)
M240 (39%)
M450 (13%)
M550 (29%)
M560 (8%)
4380, 438E
S010
M940
M210
S
M240
Non-Highway JTA
State Bridge Inspection: Anna Dunlap, State Bridge STIP Coordinator, 503-986-3391
Local Agency Bridge Inspection: Erick Cain, Local Agency Bridge STIP Coordinator,
503-986-3384
Other Agency Bridge Inspection: Erick Cain, Local Agency Bridge STIP Coordinator,
503-986-3384
Traffic Safety Grant Program: Anne Holder, Roadway Safety Program Manager, 503-986-4195
Safe Routes to Schools: Carol Olsen, Safe Routes to Schools Program Manager, 503-986-3327
Workzone Safety Program: Anne Holder, Roadway Safety Program Manager, 503-986-4195
Highway/Rail GCPA: Myron Arneson, Rail Crossing Compliance Specialist, 503-986-3045.
Transit Innovation and Improvement: Ivan Presnyy, Transportation Program Analyst,
503-986-4004
Local Government STP: Colleen Hunter, Program Funding Coordinator, 503-986-3755
Special City Allotment: Colleen Hunter, Program Funding Coordinator, 503-986-3755
Special County Allotment: Colleen Hunter, Program Funding Coordinator, 503-986-3755
Transportation Growth Management: Arlene Santana, TGM Program Coordinator, 986-4126
Transportation Demand Management: Alison Wiley, Transportation Options Program Manager,
503-986-4031
State Planning and Research: Arlene Santana, SPR Program Manager, 986-4126
Local Technology Assistance Program: Barnie Jones, Research Unit Manager, 503-986-2845
Site Mitigation and Repair: Diann Nelson, Procurement & Contract Specialist, 503-986-3064
State Parks Recreation Trails: Michele Scalise, Grants Program Coordinator, 503-986-0708
Federal Lands Access Program, Pat Fisher, TE Program Manager, 503-986-3528
Non-Highway JTA: Peter Alotta, Interim Statewide STIP Manager, 503-986-4123
Page | 54
January 24, 2013
APPENDIX A: ODOT’S PROJECT NAMING CONVENTION
In order to maintain statewide consistency and continuity for staff, contractors, and the general public, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has adopted a project naming convention.
The main goal of a project name is to identify just where that project is taking place. Following are
details of the project naming convention.
The Project Name
•
•
The project name can be up to 50 characters long, and may include abbreviations. Punctuation is optional. The character length is determined by the field length available in the Project Control System (PCS).
It is very important to retain the same name for a project throughout its life. If a project is
named one way in the draft Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), another
way in the final STIP, and something else at the time of contract, it becomes very difficult to
track the project. It also makes it difficult to identify the project for the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), since they use the STIP as a point of reference. There will be
times, however, when changing the name of a project is necessary.
Some examples of valid reasons for changing the name of a project are:
•
•
•
•
When a project moves from the Development STIP to the Construction STIP (i.e., when the
approved milestone changes from Final Plans and/or Right of Way Acquisition to
PSEDOC).
When there is a change in scope of a project.
When two or more existing projects are combined into a new project.
When an existing project is split into two or more new projects.
Changes to project names must be forwarded to your Region STIP Coordinator for review and processing. Region STIP Coordinators will forward approved requests to the Statewide STIP Coordinator, so that the STIP and PCS can be kept current.
Development STIP Projects
Development STIP (D-STIP) projects are those projects approved and funded for development
through specific milestones and within specific timeframes, but which are not approved and funded
for construction. In addition to the guidance for Construction STIP projects, names for D-STIP projects should not identify a solution to a problem. For example, “Brookings Couplet” and “Newberg-Dundee Bypass” are not appropriate D-STIP names, because they describe a way to solve a
transportation problem.
Page | 55
January 24, 2013
Construction STIP Projects
Construction STIP (C-STIP) projects are those projects approved and funded through the construction phase, plus those projects that are NONCON (non-construction) projects (e.g. transit projects,
Transportation Demand Management, Transportation Growth Management, etc.). Use the following guidance when naming C-STIP projects.
The name must begin with the Route Number (I, US or OR) followed by a colon. For example,
“US20: College Way – Greenfield Rd” or “OR99W: Flat Cr Br – W 6th Av (Junction City)”. When
entering the name into PCS, if the name is longer than 50 characters, abbreviate wherever logical.
The space after the colon can be eliminated if necessary. For example, “OR22:College Way –
Greenfield Rd”. If the project name already includes the route number (e.g. “OR99E at X-Road”)
do not repeat the route number. Do not use the Oregon Highway Number. Oregon Highway
Numbers are OTC-approved three digit identifiers (valid range from 1-499) assigned to highways,
and are used internally by ODOT. They are not the same as the route numbers seen on road signs
when driving on the highway.
If the project is not on the state highway system, use the name of the local street instead. For example, “Rose Biggi Avenue: LRT Tracks to Crescent”.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The name should be kept as simple as possible. Do not use acronyms unless they are defined in the project description.
Projects should be named North to South, and West to East. For most highways, this conforms to the direction of the mileposts. However, on a few highways (such as I-5 and the
Lower Columbia River Highway) the mileposts run in the opposite direction. The naming
convention still holds, but don’t reverse the milepoints in PCS to conform to the name.
Names of intersecting roads, rivers, streams, or landmarks should be used instead of milepoints in the project name. If the project is a bridge, name the body of water or structure
under the bridge, or use the commonly known name. Use both if possible, e.g., “US101:
Rocky Creek (Ben Jones) Bridge.” When entering bridge projects into PCS, put the
structure number in the description instead of the project name, because the structure
number will change when the bridge is rebuilt.
If the project is within a city, the city name should be in parentheses at the end of the project
name, as in “OR47: Azalea St – 2nd St (Yamhill)”.
Use geographic limits for the boundaries of the project rather than “city limits,” since city
limits can change over time.
Some projects have small work areas on adjacent highways, roads, or streets called “legs”.
While these will show up on the plans, they should not be part of the project name.
If the project is a building, transit center, interpretive center, etc., name the project by the
name of the site.
If a project is a bicycle/pedestrian trail or facility alongside a highway, the name should be
“ORXX: Point A – Point B, Bike Lanes.” If the project only builds a portion of the bike
path, then handle the same as a multi-unit highway project.
Local agency projects should also follow the project naming convention. Consistency is
necessary in order to avoid redundancy and provide easy reference.
Page | 56
January 24, 2013
Full Federal Oversight (FFO) Projects and STP Transfers
Full Federal Oversight projects are projects that require FHWA to review and approve actions pertaining to design, plans, specifications, estimates, right-of-way certification statements, contract
awards, inspections, and final acceptance of Federal-aid projects on a project-by-project basis. Full
Federal Oversight refers to the entire project (all phases), not just one phase.
•
If a project is a Full Federal Oversight project, the name must begin with FFO, followed by
the route number. For example, “FFO-US20: College Way – Greenfield Rd”.
STP Transfers are projects where Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds (or other applicable
federal funds) will be transferred to FTA for transit activities that are eligible for STP funds.
•
If a project is an STP Transfer, the name should end with the words STP Transfer or STP
Xfer. For example, “Transportation Demand Management 2015 STP Transfer”.
Categories of Projects
There are five basic categories of projects (per Technical Services):
1. Long Single Projects: These are named by the boundaries of the project (“I5: Start Point – End
Point”). “No Work” areas within those overall boundaries should be ignored. They will be
shown on the plans, but should not be called out in the project name.
2. Multi-Unit Projects: These are projects that are split by length. Each unit encompasses the
complete construction of a specific length of the overall project.
3. Multi-Phase Projects: These projects are divided into elements of construction, e.g., grading,
structures, signal work. An example would be “US20: North Rd – South St, Ph 2.” Phase 2
may be structure work, which would be stated in the project description.
4. Spot Locations: Because of their short length, some projects are spot locations, and are named
accordingly. Examples are channelized intersections, signals, railroad crossings, variable message signs, slide repair, etc. For instance, “ORXX: Main Rd @ Secondary Rd (City).”
For two spot locations, use both names with an ampersand (“&”) between them, e.g., “I5:
UPRR X’ing @ First St & SPRR X’ing @ Second St (Eugene).” For more than two locations,
specify the area, e.g., “OR223: Intersection Improvements (Dallas)”. (NOTE: X’ing means
Crossing; O’xing means Overcrossing; and U’xing means Undercrossing.)
5. Other Geographic Area: These are projects that span more than a section of highway or a city
boundary, as in signal loop replacements in a given region or area. An example would be “Reg
2 Signal Loop Replacements 2017”.
Page | 57
January 24, 2013
APPENDIX B: 2015-2018 STIP PROJECT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
AND PRIORITIZATION FACTORS
For the Development STIP, Modernization, Preservation, and State Bridge Programs
Approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission March 21, 2012
Introduction
The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) approves the Project Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors to declare expectations for projects that are recommended for inclusion in the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The STIP is a listing of Oregon’s intended
transportation investments over a four-year period. It is updated every two years and constrained to
ensure that estimated expenditures match expected funds available. This document includes some
basic STIP information, provides guidance for using the included criteria for project prioritization
and selection, and explains expectations for project documentation. The included criteria apply to
projects funded from current revenue sources. If other funding becomes available, it will be allocated in adherence to any funding or selection criteria attached to those new funds.
The STIP Project Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors apply to the Development STIP,
Modernization, Preservation, and State Bridge programs, which cover most of the Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT’s) major transportation investments. The criteria are renewed
with the help of the STIP Stakeholder Committee every two years. The STIP Stakeholder Committee represents a variety of transportation interests including freight, public transit, cities, counties,
state agencies, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Area Commissions on Transportation
(ACTs), and private interests.
The STIP Stakeholder Committee meets to agree on a draft of the new criteria to send out for review and comment. After the comment period, the STIP Stakeholder Committee prepares a revised
draft to forward to the OTC for approval. After approval, the STIP Project Eligibility Criteria and
Prioritization Factors (known as the “STIP criteria”) are distributed for use in STIP project selection. The STIP criteria are used throughout the STIP development process to narrow the list of possible investments.
Upon approval, the STIP criteria are used immediately by ODOT and local jurisdiction staff to decide which projects should be “scoped” in more detail, meaning more information about the cost
and extent of the project is developed. Scoping and project prioritization and selection continue for
about six months until the draft STIP program is complete. The ACTs, MPOs, and local jurisdictions, in coordination with their respective ODOT Regions, use the approved criteria to prioritize
and select investments to fund in the STIP. This activity occurs primarily during the six months of
scoping and project selection for the Draft STIP. Steps between the Draft STIP and Final STIP approval include making sure expected revenues and expenditure totals match, public review and
comment, air quality conformity modeling, and approval and inclusion of the MPO transportation
investment programs in the STIP. Altogether, it is approximately a year and nine months between
the OTC approval of the STIP criteria and the approval of the Final STIP. The OTC (and the Federal Highway and the Federal Transit Administrations) must approve the Final STIP before investments in the recommended projects can go forward.
Page | 58
January 24, 2013
The STIP criteria themselves consist of two parts: Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors. The
Eligibility Criteria list requirements that projects must meet for further consideration. If at any time
during scoping and evaluation of a project, it is found not to meet the Eligibility Criteria, then it is
eliminated from further consideration. Investments that do meet the Eligibility Criteria are then prioritized by ODOT, ACTs, MPOs, and local jurisdictions using the approved Prioritization Factors.
How project comparison and prioritization is done varies by area and region of the state. Some
ACT or MPO areas have project application processes where project proponents fill out an application that relates to the Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors. Other areas may compare projects in a discussion format. They may also choose to add criteria to aid their local project selection,
so long as these additional criteria do not conflict with the approved statewide STIP criteria. In all
cases, Development, Modernization, Preservation, or State Bridge projects or investments recommended for inclusion in the STIP are documented showing how they meet the approved Eligibility
Criteria and Prioritization Factors. This documentation is delivered to the OTC for their consideration and is published on ODOT’s website for stakeholders statewide.
This document clarifies expectations for transportation investments under the Development STIP,
Modernization, Preservation, and State Bridge programs and the STIP decision process for those
programs. This document, as a whole, will be approved by the OTC before it is released for use. It
explains overall expectations and direction for STIP project selection, lists the STIP Project Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors for the 2015-2018 STIP, and describes the documentation necessary to show how a project meets each criterion or factor.
Further descriptions of the STIP development procedures are provided in various documents available on ODOT’s website on the STIP Background Information page. A short summary brochure describes the STIP process in general, and the STIP User’s Guide includes more detailed information
about the processes and procedures for developing the STIP.
The Policy on Formation and Operation of the Area Commissions on Transportation (the “ACT
Policy”) explains the roles and responsibilities of the ACTs. The ACT Policy and other information
about the ACTs can be found on the ACT homepage. See Appendix 2 for links to documents and
resources referenced in this document and other STIP information.
From Plans to Projects
The STIP Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors are used to select transportation investments
to fund for development and implementation, and should be considered from when a need is identified to selection of project for the STIP. This decision process is a transitional point in a project’s
lifecycle. Management system analysis or planning processes are where the problem is identified
and the general idea for a solution is developed. Among the programs covered by these criteria,
management system analysis is used for State Bridge and Preservation projects, and planning primarily applies to Development STIP and Modernization projects. Projects described in plans are
not guaranteed funding in the STIP. Candidate projects must go through the STIP prioritization and
selection process described in this document and be found to meet the criteria in place at the time of
selection in order to be funded in the STIP.
Management system analysis and planning steps come before STIP selection and detailed project
design and implementation come after. See page 11 for diagrams showing how all these steps flow.
The first diagram shows the different levels of planning that help shape a project from policy to faPage | 59
January 24, 2013
cility level plans and how these feed into the STIP. The second diagram shows the steps in the project delivery process, particularly those following the STIP. The others offer information about development of the STIP itself.
The planning processes come first, before the STIP. They start broad and are progressively refined:
• The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) and its mode and topic plans, such as the Oregon
Highway Plan (OHP), describe the vision, policies, and priorities for the statewide transportation system
• Local and regional transportation system plans and ODOT facility plans describe specific
facilities, identify transportation problems or needs, and describe possible projects
The project development processes come after the STIP decisions are made:
1. Environmental documentation is produced and possible alternative designs are evaluated in
detail in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements
2. Environmental and other permits needed to implement the project are sought and so is rightof-way needed for the approved design
3. A detailed construction plan is developed
4. The project is constructed or implemented
Planning and project development are described here as two distinct processes, but there is overlap
between the two. Improving coordination between planning and project development is an area in
which ODOT is continuing to make improvements. For example, ODOT is looking for ways to include and document the broadest levels of NEPA analysis during planning so that some decisions
can be carried forward into the detailed NEPA analysis that occurs during project development.
STIP Program Funding
Not included in the plan to project flow diagrams is a very important step that begins the STIP update process and determines how much funding is available to each of the different STIP programs.
STIP programs are the categories to which funding amounts are allocated. Each STIP program
funds different types of projects and has its own requirements for projects to qualify. The Development STIP, Modernization, Preservation, and State Bridge programs are covered by the criteria
and factors in this document. There are state and federal laws and rules that define each program
and establish its requirements, and sometimes set a specific amount of funding for that program.
For example, the Modernization program is defined and has a minimum amount of funding allocated to it in Oregon statute (ORS 366.507).
Assigning fund levels to programs is actually a process called “program funding allocations” consisting of a few steps:
1. System goals and needs are identified. For example, if the goal is to maintain 78% of state
highway pavement in fair or better condition, then the Pavement Management System will
help ODOT determine how much work needs to be done to reach for this goal.
2. The amount of funding available to the STIP is determined.
3. ODOT recommends program funding levels to the OTC.
4. STIP participants and ODOT partners review and comment on ODOT’s recommended
funding allocations.
5. The OTC approves final program funding allocations.
Page | 60
January 24, 2013
The OTC’s program funding decisions reflect the goals and priorities adopted in the OTP. These
are policy decisions that are made separate from the STIP Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization
Factors and are not part of this document. After the program allocation decisions are made, the
STIP Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors are used to prioritize and select projects for
the Development STIP and Construction STIP (Modernization, Preservation, and State Bridge
programs) to the funding levels approved by the OTC.
Discretionary Projects
The STIP project selection process assigns program funding to specific projects that are then
listed in the STIP. Some projects, especially those that are too expensive to fund with the usual
level of STIP program funding, may be directly assigned funding in state or federal legislation.
These are called discretionary projects or “earmarks”.
Federal discretionary projects are a part of federal appropriations or transportation funding legislation. The OTC has adopted a policy that describes a process to use in developing a coordinated
list of projects to be submitted as earmark proposals. ODOT then submits the coordinated list to
the Oregon Congressional Delegation for consideration during the federal budget process. Projects that receive funding via this process will be included in the STIP.
Local jurisdictions and proponents that pursue earmark funding for projects not submitted by
ODOT or supported by the Oregon Transportation Commission are solely responsible for the required matching funds and any shortfalls. The OTC recognizes that there may be unique circumstances in which proponents have been successful in obtaining federal discretionary projects that
need to be placed in the STIP. These can be brought to the OTC as amendments to the STIP provided they meet the match requirements noted above.
Similarly, specific projects may receive funding via state legislation. These projects will be included in the STIP as legislated. If additional funds are needed for legislated projects, then these projects will be subject to selection for the STIP using these approved criteria.
House Bill 2001 Implementation
There at least three aspects of Oregon’s 2009 House Bill 2001 that affect the STIP decision process.
The first is Section 17 that lists ten considerations for use in developing STIP project selection criteria. The second is Section 6 that defines least cost planning for Oregon and directs ODOT to work
with partners to develop least cost planning for use as a decision making tool. These criteria respond to the ten considerations and start to point towards least cost planning. When the STIP criteria are next updated for the 2015-2018 STIP, they will reflect what has been learned through the
least cost planning development process.
The third is Section 19 that requires ODOT to implement “practical design” procedures allowing for
“maximum flexibility in application of standards that reduce the cost of project delivery while preserving and enhancing safety and mobility.” This is another area where ODOT is currently developing procedures. The new procedures will ensure that practical design is routinely utilized in project development. When the criteria are updated for the 2015-2018 STIP, the new practical design
procedures will be developed and the criteria can be made to better reflect the procedures.
Page | 61
January 24, 2013
The Ten STIP Criteria Considerations
The ten STIP criteria considerations in House Bill 2001 (HB 2001) are:
1. Improves the state highway system or major access routes to the state highway system on
the local road system to relieve congestion by expanding capacity, enhancing operations or
otherwise improving travel times within high-congestion corridors.
2. Enhances the safety of the traveling public by decreasing traffic crash rates, promoting the
efficient movement of people and goods and preserving the public investment in the transportation system.
3. Increases the operational effectiveness and reliability of the existing system by using technological innovation, providing linkages to other existing components of the transportation
system and relieving congestion.
4. Is capable of being implemented to reduce the need for additional highway projects.
5. Improves the condition, connectivity and capacity of freight-reliant infrastructure serving the
state.
6. Supports improvements necessary for this state’s economic growth and competitiveness, accessibility to industries and economic development.
7. Provides the greatest benefit in relation to project costs.
8. Fosters livable communities by demonstrating that the investment does not undermine sustainable urban development.
9. Enhances the value of transportation projects through designs and development that reflect
environmental stewardship and community sensitivity.
10. Is consistent with the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals and reduces this
state’s dependence on foreign oil.
The 2015-2018 STIP criteria directly address the HB 2001 considerations in the following ways:
• New emphasis and project reporting requirements are added to reflect OTP Policy 1.1 and
OHP Policy 1G that prioritize operations, management, and other non-construction improvements first, ahead of capacity construction improvements (considerations 1, 2, 3, 4).
• Explanations and documentation requirements are included to clarify use of off-system improvements (consideration 4) and to better address the prioritization factor addressing freight
(consideration 5).
• New prioritization factors are added to address safety (consideration 2), economic development (consideration 6), the land use and transportation relationship (consideration 8), and
environmental concerns (consideration 9).
HB 2001 considerations 7: benefit-cost comparison and 10: greenhouse gas and foreign oil dependency reduction are included primarily as additional principles to consider as STIP selection choices
are evaluated. Tools, methods, and procedures are currently under development to evaluate benefits
in relation to costs and to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions contributions. These will relate to the
procedures developed for least cost planning and practical design implementation. When the criteria
are updated for the 2015-2018 STIP, they will further reflect and help implement decisions made
during the greenhouse gas planning, least cost planning, and practical design implementation processes.
Another section of HB 2001, HB 2186, and Senate Bill 1059 of 2010 require development of targets
and processes for metropolitan area greenhouse gas planning. This work has begun and will be conducted by ODOT and other state agencies working with metropolitan planning organizations, local
governments, and other stakeholders. Metropolitan-level targets for greenhouse gas reduction were
Page | 62
January 24, 2013
set by rule in 2011. Guidelines for developing and evaluating alternative land use and transportation
scenarios that may reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be developed. A “toolkit” for use in planning for greenhouse gas reductions was published in February 2012 and can be viewed at
www.oregon.gov/odot/td/tp/pages/ghgtoolkit.aspx .
In addition, the practical design implementation process has begun and these procedures will also
address cost-efficiency. The purpose of practical design is to make sure that what are delivered are
the right projects, at the right time, at the right cost, and in the right way. Practical design will help
direct available funds toward activities and projects that optimize the transportation system, develop
solutions to address the specific purpose and need of the project, and design projects that meet but
not necessarily exceed the defined purpose and need.
Least Cost Planning
Following approval of the 2015-2018 STIP criteria, the STIP Stakeholder Committee will continue
to focus its attention on least cost planning and assisting ODOT to continue to develop least cost
planning implementation methods as required by HB 2001. Implementing least cost planning will
require a broad perspective on possible solutions to transportation problems and methods of comparison to find cost-effective options that respect the goals and policies of the Oregon Transportation Plan as well as state targets such as those for greenhouse gas emission reduction. Also, much
of the least cost planning process will likely need to be implemented at the transportation system or
corridor planning levels. Selection of possible transportation solutions for funding and implementation, through application of the STIP criteria, is a later process that follows the transportation system
or corridor planning stages. How these pieces relate is described above in the From Plans to Projects section and the flow of steps is illustrated in Appendix 3. It will be important for least cost
planning work to help complete initial steps to set the stage for practical design and project development activities.
The 2015-2018 STIP criteria continue to reflect the priorities of least cost planning and other current
concerns by setting appropriate eligibility thresholds and prioritization factors. The HB 2001 considerations reflect priorities that the least cost planning process is likely to address, and these STIP
criteria take steps to integrate these considerations in the STIP decision process. The 2015-2018
STIP criteria represent a first step toward a least cost planning perspective.
The least cost planning process will require comparison of possible investments to find the best
transportation solutions, ideally without regard to limitations due to program funding rules and “silos” that allow funding for some types of work and not others. However, at this time, the constraints of various program funding limitations do apply. While the 2015-2018 STIP criteria apply
across programs, they do not change program funding requirements. The grouping of the Modernization, Preservation, and State Bridge criteria indicate broad concerns that all projects may address,
facilitate reading of and reduce duplication in this document, and are intended to encourage prioritizing the best solutions no matter the type of work. However, the application of the criteria does
not change the funding sources or their restrictions. The level of funding allocated for each program
is determined separately by the OTC and various rules and laws.
For several STIP cycles, documentation has been required to show how the Development STIP and
Construction STIP (Modernization, Preservation, and State Bridge) projects meet the approved criteria. This documentation requirement will be strengthened for 2015-2018. Explanation of what
meeting the criteria means will be provided in this document and responses on the reporting “temPage | 63
January 24, 2013
plates” will be expected to be thorough enough to answer the questions posed. This is also an interim step towards identifying future criteria that projects may be expected to meet following development of least cost planning methodologies.
Practical Design
New procedures are being developed to ensure that “practical design” is used routinely. Practical
design is an approach to improving the transportation system with the resources available by making sure solutions are focused on addressing specific problems and are designed to fit their context.
In many places, particularly built-up urban areas, the full solution needed to fix a problem may be
too expensive to be feasible or it may not even fit in the right-of-way available. Practical design
will allow for targeted improvements to be made that help address the specific problem in that area.
(See ODOT’s Draft Practical Design Strategy.) Many of the practical design activities that give
specific shape to a project will occur during project development. Planning can help set the stage
for these later activities by describing the expected function of a facility, transportation problems to
be addressed, and the objectives and the agreed scale of the future solutions.
The procedures to implement practical design are being developed by ODOT separate from the
STIP Stakeholder Committee activities. Much of the project design aspect of practical design will
take place after the STIP funding decisions are made. However, practical design likely relates in
some ways to the least cost planning methodology that the STIP Stakeholders will help ODOT develop. Consequently, efforts will be made to ensure that least cost planning and practical design
procedures complement and supplement one another.
Also, in starting to develop draft practical design procedures, ODOT has identified a new check-in
point at the beginning of the STIP process that is to verify the purpose and scale of possible projects.
When the procedures for conducting that check-in are established, this will be another opportunity
to ensure that the next edition of the STIP criteria reflect the principles/procedures identified.
Additional Principles for STIP Project Selection
There are principles that should be employed during the selection of STIP projects, in addition to
the criteria listed on the following pages. These principles reflect transportation policies described in
the Oregon Transportation Plan, the Oregon Highway Plan and in HB 2001, particularly considerations 7 and 10: benefit-cost comparison and greenhouse gas reduction. ACTs, MPOs, ODOT Regions, advisory committees, and local jurisdictions are expected to consider and discuss these principles as STIP selections are made. If any project information is developed to respond to these principles, it should be included in the project documentation.
OTP / OHP Goals and Policies
One additional principle is the goal context of projects. The Oregon Transportation Plan sets forth
policies that guide decisions and actions of the agency, including project and program funding decisions. The OTP’s goals are:
1. Mobility and Accessibility
2. Management of the System
3. Economic Vitality
4. Sustainability
5. Safety and Security
6. Funding the Transportation System
7. Coordination, Communication, and Cooperation
Page | 64
January 24, 2013
These goals recognize the importance of providing an efficient, optimized, safe, secure, and wellintegrated multimodal transportation system that allows for access and connectivity throughout the
state to enable a diverse economy while not compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs. These goals are implemented through the Oregon Highway Plan and the other mode
and topic plans.
Projects recommended for inclusion in the STIP are expected to be consistent with the Oregon
Transportation Plan and the Oregon Highway Plan. Both plans contain goals and policies; the OTP
has strategies to implement the goals and policies, while the OHP has actions to implement its goals
and policies. These goals and policies set a general framework for projects to advance. The STIP
Project Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors then set specific thresholds to meet and factors
to use for prioritization of possible STIP projects.
In the past, OHP policy support in general was one prioritization factor, but this proved difficult to
apply. For the 2015-2018 STIP, certain policies are called out in the prioritization factors because
they contain ideas that will likely prove important as least cost planning is developed or because
they list ways of implementing these ideas. These include OTP Policy 1.1 and OHP Policies 1B:
Land Use and Transportation, 1G: Major Improvements, and 5A: Environmental Resources. This
does not imply that only these policies apply when considering what solutions to fund in the STIP.
Rather, the goals of the OTP and OHP overall should be furthered by choices made for the STIP.
OTP and OHP goals and policies should be kept in mind during STIP project prioritization and selection and appropriate choices made, even though documentation required will focus on certain
policies.
Long-term Perspective
A second principle is that a long-term broad perspective should be used when choosing solutions to
fund. Whether a project will be effective in the short term or the long term and how well the transportation solution will further transportation goals should be considered in relation to the overall
cost of the project. Similarly, the corridor or system level effects of the project and how well it integrates with other investments and applicable plans should be considered. For example, does the
candidate transportation solution make sense in the context of land use plans and other investments
within the planning area or along the transportation corridor? STIP decisions should reflect consideration of the long-term impacts of the investment.
House Bill 2001 Considerations 7 and 10
Project proponents should expect that these considerations regarding benefit-cost comparison and
greenhouse gas reduction will be included as criteria for future STIPs beginning with 2015-2018.
Methods and measures for evaluating these will be developed through the greenhouse gas reduction
planning, least cost planning, and practical design implementation efforts. Even though formal
evaluation procedures are not yet developed, benefit-cost comparison (or cost-efficiency) and
greenhouse gas reduction should be considered and discussed as part of 2015-2018 STIP project
selection. An appropriate way to consider these would be to try to select solutions that are consistent with and support the ideas described in this document. If interim methods of evaluating and
reporting on these have been developed by affected jurisdictions, then any results of project evaluations should be included in the project documentation.
Cost-efficiency should be considered throughout STIP development and project prioritization. Costefficient or cost-effective refers to achieving maximum or optimum results or return relative to the
Page | 65
January 24, 2013
expenditure. Results considered in a cost-efficiency comparison should not only include funds
saved or spent, but also the progress made toward achieving goals with the investment. Various
goals that transportation projects may help achieve include economic development, community livability, and environmental sustainability.
For the purposes of a transportation project, cost-efficiency is being defined by the effort to implement practical design. Things to consider in determining the cost efficiency of a project include
(from ODOT’s March 2010 Draft Practical Design Strategy):
• Can any elements of the project be eliminated, phased or separated to a more appropriate
project and still address the problem?
• Have we identified the alternatives and the cost/benefit (value) of each in relation to risk?
• What is the return on the investment (quantifying time, money, economic growth, etc.)?
• What is the lifespan of the solution?
• What are the future maintenance/operations costs?
• Is there minimal re-work for future projects/needs?
• What is the minimum fix, and what would trigger a larger, more expensive fix?
Greenhouse gas reduction is another priority for the state and is reflected in HB 2001 consideration
10. Project proponents should be aware of the state greenhouse gas reduction targets and any local
greenhouse gas reduction plans and are encouraged to select investments that contribute to
achievement of the goals described. The state GHG reduction targets are listed in ORS 468A.205:
(a) By 2010, arrest the growth of Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions and begin to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
(b) By 2020, achieve greenhouse gas levels that are 10 percent below 1990 levels.
(c) By 2050, achieve greenhouse gas levels that are at least 75 percent below 1990 levels.
Methods, rules, procedures, and regional targets to evaluate contributions to state greenhouse gas
reduction goals are currently under development in response to House Bills 2001 and 2186 and
Senate Bill 1059. Possible factors to address greenhouse gas reduction in future STIP solution prioritization processes include the following:
• Demonstrate a material contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with
adopted state goals (HB 2001 consideration #10)
• Reduce Oregon’s dependence on imported fossil fuels (HB 2001 consideration #10)
• Reduce vulnerability of essential transportation infrastructure (and of the communities and
commerce that rely upon it) to climate change-associated effects such as flooding and fire
• Project designs that anticipate future needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to climate change
Application of the first two possible prioritization factors in this list will recognize that different
communities and regions within the state, such as urban and rural areas, will have different capabilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption. Such differences will be
acknowledged; while also acknowledging that all areas should be capable of reductions of emissions as compared to their historical record.
Page | 66
January 24, 2013
STIP Project Documentation
Documentation Expectations Overall
The documentation requirements described in this document are more extensive than in the past and
are designed to explain what is needed to sufficiently show that the criteria are met. Explanations in
the documentation are expected to rely primarily on narrative descriptions of anticipated effects,
though project proponents should provide data to support their conclusions where such data is available. More objective and data-based criteria may be implemented in the future, particularly as analysis methods and measures are agreed during the least cost planning methodology development
process.
Here are some overall principles for documentation for 2015-2018 STIP projects:
• Use brief but sufficient explanations; extensive explanations are not required.
• Yes or no without explanation is not an acceptable answer, unless yes or no is the only possible answer, e.g. is the project on a designated freight route?
• If data or other documentation is available to support the explanation, cite or use it. For example, if travel model data is available that shows the impact of the candidate project, describe those results. Or, if a letter of commitment from another partner or investor or an intergovernmental agreement is in place, include those facts in the explanation.
• It is not required that any special study be done to show that the project meets the criteria.
At this time, descriptions of expected effects are sufficient. However, if information from
such a study is already available, describe those results in the explanation.
ODOT staff, stakeholders, and project proponents should develop the information needed to show
how candidate projects meet the appropriate criteria and factors ahead of stakeholder discussions to
prioritize and select STIP projects. This will provide important information to assist those decisions. ODOT staff, stakeholders, and proponents should communicate and share the project documentation and other STIP-related information as early as practicable to enable timely and informed
project prioritization.
ODOT Region staff should share as much of their full STIP programs as is known at the time of the
prioritization discussions to enable a broad understanding of the investments planned. This includes
projects selected from the Safety Management System list and other STIP funding programs and the
level of funding allocated to each program.
Eligibility and Prioritization
This document lists and explains expectations for meeting approved eligibility criteria and prioritization factors for the Development STIP and the Construction STIP (Modernization, Preservation,
and State Bridge programs). Project documentation is expected to show how the selected project
meets the criteria. The information required to show that the project meets the criteria is listed in
this document. There are two types of criteria: Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors.
•
Eligibility Criteria are criteria that must be met in order for the project to be considered further. All of the eligibility criteria listed must be met or the project may not move on to prioritization. The eligibility criteria are a pass-fail test that a project must pass.
•
Prioritization Factors are criteria that are used to choose projects to be funded from among
eligible projects. All prioritization factors may not apply to all projects. Generally, a project
Page | 67
January 24, 2013
that meets more prioritization factors or meets them more fully should be advanced ahead of
a project that meets fewer prioritization factors or meets them to a lesser degree.
The project documentation must clearly show how all the applicable eligibility criteria are met by
providing the information requested. The prioritization factors are designed to be broadly applicable to the different programs, but not all prioritization factors will apply in all cases. This is especially true for Preservation and State Bridge projects that typically maintain the existing system.
For prioritization factors that do not apply, “not applicable” is an acceptable response to that factor.
Documentation for Each Program
Each ODOT Region will submit a cover sheet describing the process for their STIP programs overall. The cover sheet will describe the public involvement and project selection processes, including
the process used to “roll-up” area recommendations to the Region-level program. The cover sheet
will describe any additional criteria applied by the ACT or similar body and include an overview of
ACT or similar body discussions. The description of the discussions should include how costefficiency was considered and how this impacted project selection. In addition, if greenhouse gas
reduction was discussed, the description should include how greenhouse gas reduction was considered and what impact this had on project selection.
The cover sheet will indicate what other programs’ information was shared with the advisory bodies
(such as safety, bike/ped, transportation enhancement, etc.) Projects considered for other STIP programs should be shared with the ACT, MPO, or advisory bodies as much as is feasible during STIP
program development so that the advisory body members can understand the full STIP program
proposed for their area.
Each ODOT Region will also submit summary tables listing Development STIP, Modernization,
and Preservation projects separately to Transportation Development Division Planning staff and
Geographic Information Services Unit. For State Bridge Program projects, the Highway Bridge
Office will submit the summary table broken out by ODOT Region. The summary tables will be
used as an index to the projects and for mapping of the projects. Region staff will be responsible for
ensuring that maps prepared by the Geographic Information Services Unit are accurate and submitting the final maps to TDD Planning staff.
State Bridge projects may be reported on a statewide basis. The overall cover memo prepared by
the Region will describe the public input process and advisory body discussions. The Highway
Bridge Program staff will describe how the proposed State Bridge program meets the appropriate
eligibility criteria and prioritization factors. Where a factor does not apply, the report may indicate
that fact.
Preservation projects may be reported on a region-wide basis. The region-wide report will describe
how the proposed Preservation program meets the appropriate eligibility criteria and prioritization
factors. Where a factor does not apply, the report may indicate that fact.
Candidate Modernization and Development STIP projects will be documented individually. Each
project’s documentation will describe how the candidate project meets the appropriate eligibility
criteria and prioritization factors. Where a factor does not apply, the project report may indicate that
fact.
Page | 68
January 24, 2013
Conditions of Approval
ODOT staff and project proponents should remember that Conditions of Approval may be applied
to projects. Applying Conditions of Approval should be considered where they will assist the project to meet these criteria or overall goals. What Conditions of Approval are applied and what they
are expected to accomplish should be included in the project documentation.
Staff and project proponents should consider whether conditions would benefit the investment in
terms of better meeting the approved criteria or in terms of lengthening the time that the investment
successfully resolves the transportation problem. For example, ODOT regularly requires an Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) that includes binding implementation steps and strategies
with interchange improvements. Would a similar management plan or other type of agreement between affected jurisdictions and ODOT be beneficial for non-interchange projects? If so, applying
such conditions to the project should be considered.
These conditions reflect specific implementation steps that a jurisdiction or ODOT must take to
maintain the integrity of the recommended transportation solution. The Conditions of Approval are
delivered to the OTC for approval as a part of the transportation solution’s final STIP approval.
They are considered a part of the transportation solution and are binding on the jurisdiction and
ODOT.
Intergovernmental Agreements
Intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) are another tool that may be used to specify actions that will
be taken, instead of or in addition to Conditions of Approval. IGAs may be sufficient for some projects or a Condition of Approval can be used to formalize agreements, such as where local jurisdictions have agreed to contribute funds or other resources to the project. Because the OTC approves
the project and conditions together, thereby making the project approval dependent on the condition,
specifying important aspects of intergovernmental agreements in a Condition of Approval may give
them more weight and clarify that they are binding.
Page | 69
January 24, 2013
Development STIP
The Development STIP (D-STIP) is intended for transportation solutions that will take more than
the four years of the STIP to reach construction or implementation. The ACTs, MPOs, and ODOT
Regions determine what financial resources available to their area they will assign to their D-STIP
programs; there is no funding level for the D-STIP set by the OTC. If the ACT, MPO, or Region
determines that a solution needing further development work is a high priority, that work may be
funded in the D-STIP. However, inclusion in the D-STIP does not guarantee future funding in the
Construction STIP (C-STIP). Generally work begun in the D-STIP will go to final completion via
the C-STIP, but the solution must have sufficient priority and funding at the time of development of
the next STIP and meet the adopted criteria for that STIP in order to move on.
D-STIP solutions do not have construction funding assigned to them. Solutions may need to complete further planning steps such as refinement planning or environmental documentation such as an
Environmental Impact Statement. Solutions should remain in the D-STIP through completion of
any necessary environmental documentation phases. In many cases, the final specific solution is not
yet defined at the D-STIP stage. The Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors for Development
STIP projects reflect this special nature of D-STIP work. Also, the term “solution” is used in the
criteria for work in the D-STIP. “Solution” reflects that the final decision developed through DSTIP work may be a modernization or other construction project or another type of transportation
solution such as an operational or management strategy.
Page | 70
January 24, 2013
Development STIP Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors
Development STIP Eligibility Criteria
Development work on major transportation solutions may be eligible for funding if it:
•
Supports the definition of “Development STIP” approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission.1
•
Addresses an unmet transportation need in the applicable acknowledged transportation system
plan(s) (TSP) or, in the absence of an applicable acknowledged TSP(s), the applicable acknowledged comprehensive plan and any applicable adopted TSP(s); or addresses project need, mode,
function and general location for a transportation need identified in an acknowledged TSP; or is
identified as a federal discretionary project.2
•
Has funding adequate to complete the identified milestone. 3
Development STIP Prioritization Factors
Priority shall be given to transportation solution development work that:
•
Implements Oregon Transportation Plan Policy 1.1.4
•
Is suitable for the D-STIP.5
•
Is for a solution that has already completed one or more D-STIP milestones.6
•
Is for a solution that has funding identified for development or construction.7
Page | 71
January 24, 2013
Development STIP Eligibility Criteria Explanations
These eligibility criteria establish what types of transportation solutions are eligible for funding in
the Development STIP. The eligibility criteria are not listed in any particular order nor is there any
implied weighting of the various criteria. Development STIP projects must meet all these eligibility
criteria in order to be eligible for funding.
1
Supports Development STIP Definition
Solutions selected for funding in the Development STIP must meet this definition for D-STIP projects approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission:
Projects approved and funded for development through specific milestones and within specific timeframes, which include the following characteristics:
A. Projects approved for funding through specific milestones such as National Environmental Policy ACT (NEPA) design-level environmental documents, right of
way acquisition, and final plans; or
B. Projects for which needed improvements have been identified but a final solution
either has not been determined or needs further design and analysis.
The types of projects that tend to have one or more of the above characteristics include federal earmark or demonstration projects, modernization or major bridge replacement projects, and discretionary projects (projects eligible to receive federal discretionary funds).
Documentation provided in response to this criterion must:
• Briefly explain how the candidate project meets this definition
2
Addresses an Unmet Need in a Plan
Transportation solutions funded for further development in the D-STIP must:
• Address an unmet need described in a plan,
• Address the general need, mode, function, and location described in an acknowledged TSP,
or
• Be identified as a federal discretionary project.
Projects in the STIP are expected to support and implement state, regional, or local transportation
and land use plans. Projects selected for further development in the D-STIP should develop specific
solutions for needs described in plans, typically transportation system plans or comprehensive plans,
or be identified in legislation as a discretionary project. Occasionally, funding for a specific project
is included in federal legislation as a discretionary project. If such a project is still under development, it will be a high priority to include in the D-STIP.
• Note the federal discretionary project status of the candidate project, if applicable
• Describe the planning history of the solution and the unmet need:
o Identify the plan that describes the need
o Describe briefly how the work will meet the need
Page | 72
January 24, 2013
3
D-STIP Milestone(s) Funded
D-STIP projects must have funding to complete the identified milestone. Partially funded milestones or those with no funding will not be included in the STIP. Possible D-STIP milestones
include those listed below. Not all projects are required to complete all the milestones.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Refinement plan completion and adoption (see ODOT’s Facility Plan Adoption Procedure
for information about plan adoption)
Land use consistency. This may include land use decisions that establish need, mode, function and general location for a project that is included in the acknowledged comprehensive
plan or transportation system plan as a planned facility and that is expected to be constructed
within the next 20 years with available financial resources
Interchange Area Management Plan or Access Management Plan
Location Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD)
Design EIS ROD
Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Right of way acquisition
Advance plans (or any other applicable project development design milestone)
Plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E)
• Identify what milestone(s) will be funded during the four years of the STIP
Development STIP Prioritization Factors Explanations
Use these factors to prioritize among eligible Development STIP projects. These prioritization factors are not listed in any particular order. Not all the Prioritization Factors will apply to all projects,
but D-STIP project documentation should respond to each prioritization factor, indicating any that
do not apply. Work that better meets more of the factors generally should be chosen over work that
meets fewer prioritization factors or meets them to a lesser degree.
4
Implements OTP Policy 1.1
Priority should be given to Development STIP solutions that meet the intent of OTP Policy 1.1:
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to plan and develop a balanced, integrated transportation
system with modal choices for the movement of people and goods.
In particular, see Strategy 1.1.4:
In developing transportation plans to respond to transportation needs, use the most costeffective modes and solutions over the long term, considering changing conditions and based on
the following:
• Managing the existing transportation system effectively.
• Improving the efficiency and operational capacity of existing transportation infrastructure and facilities by making minor improvements to the existing system.
• Adding capacity to the existing transportation system.
• Adding new facilities to the transportation system.
Page | 73
January 24, 2013
This Strategy lists a hierarchy of solution types, giving highest priority to system and demand management solutions, then minor improvements such as including a turn lane, then adding capacity,
and finally adding new facilities. Development STIP work should follow this hierarchy by determining if the need may be resolved by a higher priority solution in this list, or by determining if including a mix of listed types of solutions may minimize the new capacity needed.
Documentation that responds to this criterion should:
• Describe how the candidate transportation solution meets the intent of this Policy and Strategy with respect to the hierarchy of priorities described in OTP Strategy 1.1.4
• Describe whether the solution can be phased in over time, what part of the identified need is
met by the phase, and how the phase will move towards implementing the overall solution
• If the transportation solution will include providing additional highway capacity or adding
new facilities, documentation should:
o Describe whether higher priority solutions as listed in OTP Strategy 1.1.4 have already been considered or implemented, how effective they have been, and whether
evaluation and active management of those solutions are being implemented to improve their performance to meet the short or long-term need
o Describe why higher priority solutions would not be effective, or why they do not
apply to the situation if system or demand management, operations, or minor improvements have not been implemented previously, or are not being evaluated for
inclusion with the current capacity project
o Describe why a capacity increasing solution is likely to be the most effective solution to address the long term need
5
D-STIP Suitability
Candidate solutions recommended for development work should be suitable for inclusion in the Development STIP. Priority should be given to projects for which the milestone funded is expected to
be completed during the four years of the STIP.
Also, D-STIP projects are typically completing planning or preliminary milestones for a transportation solution that is intended to be funded for implementation later in the Construction STIP. Therefore, care should be taken to select solutions for development that will likely be able to meet the CSTIP eligibility criteria and prioritization factors. Solutions that will not be able to meet the intent
of the C-STIP criteria and factors should not be selected. Where solutions are not yet defined, steps
may be taken during development work to help the solution better meet the C-STIP criteria and factors. Remember that future STIP criteria will include factors reflecting what is learned about evaluating greenhouse gas emissions reduction and cost-benefit comparison over the long term, so these
should be considered in selecting work for the D-STIP and in shaping the scope of work to be completed in the D-STIP.
• Indicate whether or not the milestone can be completed in the time period of the STIP, and if
not, how the milestone is to be completed
• Briefly describe how the solution is expected to be able to meet the C-STIP eligibility criteria and prioritization factors
Page | 74
January 24, 2013
6
D-STIP Milestone(s) Completed
D-STIP projects that build on work completed in prior D-STIP periods generally should be given
priority over D-STIP projects just beginning. For example, one D-STIP period may complete a refinement plan; in the next D-STIP period, the milestone may be the required environmental document. However, for each STIP period, the project must be of high enough priority to be chosen
over other projects. It is possible that a different need takes on more urgency in the following STIP
period, or that limited funds available do not allow further work on a project in the next STIP period. Inclusion in the D-STIP does not guarantee further work in future D-STIPs, nor does it guarantee future inclusion in the Construction STIP.
• Indicate any previous milestones completed in a D-STIP
7
Funding has been Identified for Future Development or Construction
Development STIP projects that have funding already identified for future steps to completion
should be given priority over projects that do not have future funding identified.
• Identify the source of funding for future steps and the sufficiency of that funding to complete the future step.
Page | 75
January 24, 2013
Construction STIP
The C-STIP identifies project scheduling and funding for the state’s transportation Modernization,
Preservation and State Bridge programs for a four-year construction period. This program meets
the requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), the federal
act that provides funds to states for transportation projects. For application of these criteria and prioritization factors, C-STIP means Modernization, Preservation and State Bridge projects. Information about other programs in the STIP may be found in the 2012-2015 STIP and the STIP Users’
Guide.
The Construction STIP Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors for the three programs covered
are listed together in one column. In earlier versions of this document, the three construction STIP
program criteria and factors were listed in separate columns. There was an increasing amount of
repetition between the columns, particularly for Modernization and State Bridge; as a result, they
are now combined. This is also to encourage consideration of the best solutions no matter the program. However, each program is still funded separately and all program requirements apply to projects funded under each program. In no way is the listing of the Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors for the three programs together intended to give projects of any one program priority
over projects of the other two programs, and the criteria and factors should not be applied in that
manner.
Page | 76
January 24, 2013
Construction STIP Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors for the Modernization,
Preservation, and State Bridge Programs
Eligibility Criteria for Modernization, Preservation, and State Bridge
A project may be eligible for funding if it:
•
Is identified as a need in a management system, where applicable.8
•
Is consistent with the applicable acknowledged transportation system plan (TSP) or, in the absence of an applicable acknowledged TSP, the applicable acknowledged comprehensive plan and
any applicable adopted TSP.9
Prioritization Factors for Modernization, Preservation, and State Bridge
Priority shall be given in the Construction STIP to projects that:
•
Implement the Oregon Highway Plan Major Improvements Policy (Policy 1G, Action 1.G.1).10
•
Implement Oregon Highway Plan Policy 1B: Land Use and Transportation including support for
applicable land use plans and support for sustainable urban development.11
•
Support state and local economic development plans and goals.12
•
Support freight mobility.13
•
Improve the safety of the transportation system.14
•
Implement Oregon Highway Plan Policy 5A: Environmental Resources.15
•
Leverage other funds and public benefits.16
•
Are ready to go to construction within the four years of the STIP.17
Page | 77
January 24, 2013
Construction STIP Eligibility Criteria Explanations
Eligibility criteria establish what types of Modernization, Preservation, and State Bridge program
projects are eligible for funding in the Construction STIP. The eligibility criteria are not listed in
any particular order nor is there any implied weighting of the various criteria. Projects must meet
all these eligibility criteria in order to be eligible for funding.
8
Identified as a Need in a Management System, Where Applicable
Some STIP programs, particularly Preservation and State Bridge, have management systems to
identify needs. Management systems keep data on the condition of infrastructure and may have
tools to analyze or predict needs and the adequacy of possible solutions. Management system data
shows when pavement or a bridge is falling below acceptable standards and helps identify what solutions are appropriate. Preservation and State Bridge projects must be identified as a need in a
management system to be eligible for Construction STIP funding. Modernization projects generally
are not identified by a management system, though exceptions may include when a major bridge or
safety problem becomes a Modernization project in order to resolve the need or when the project is
identified by the Congestion Management Process of an MPO.
Needs identified by a management system include replacement or rebuilding of existing pavement
or bridges. Construction of entirely new facilities (not replacement) will not be identified by a management system and will likely fall under the Modernization program rather than the Preservation or
State Bridge programs.
Documentation that responds to this criterion must:
• Show that candidate Preservation and State Bridge projects respond to needs that have been
identified by the appropriate management system
9
Consistent with the Applicable Plan
The project must be consistent with the applicable adopted comprehensive plan or transportation
system plan as a planned facility, including land use decisions that have established the need, mode,
function and general location of the project, including goal exceptions, where required. Candidate
projects within MPOs must be identified in fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plans and
must meet air quality conformity requirements.
If consistency cannot be demonstrated, the project documentation will describe how the inconsistency will be addressed, including changes to the project, TSP and/or comprehensive plan and
when they need to be completed. In such cases, the ACT or regional or statewide advisory group
may recommend that the project be included in the D-STIP, and request that Transportation Planning Rule issues be addressed during the D-STIP work.
This criterion is particularly important for Modernization projects. A candidate Modernization project should address the specific needs in the location described in the applicable plan. Preservation
and State Bridge needs are usually not described in a plan unless there is a major need that takes
significant time to prepare for, such as a bridge replacement.
Documentation that responds to this criterion must:
• Describe how the project is consistent with the appropriate plan, or
• Describe how and when the inconsistency is to be rectified
Page | 78
January 24, 2013
Construction STIP Prioritization Factors Explanations
Use these factors to prioritize among eligible projects. These prioritization factors are not listed in
any particular order. Not all the Prioritization Factors will apply to all projects. A project that better
meets more of the factors generally should be chosen over a project that meets fewer prioritization
factors or meets them to a lesser degree.
As Preservation and State Bridge projects typically maintain existing infrastructure, fewer of these
factors may apply to them. Therefore, Preservation and State Bridge project documentation may
respond only to the prioritization factors that apply or were used to help prioritize projects, and use
“not applicable” for the other factors. Modernization projects typically make significant changes to
the transportation system. Therefore, Modernization project documentation should respond to all of
the prioritization factors listed. If a factor does not apply to a particular modernization project, the
documentation may note that fact.
10
Implement OHP Action 1G.1
Projects should implement the intent of the Major Improvements Policy, Action 1G.1, which lists a
hierarchy of types of improvements:
1. Protect the existing system
2. Improve efficiency and capacity of existing highway facilities
3. Add capacity to the existing system
4. Add new facilities to the system
Projects may implement Action 1G.1 by showing that this priority system has been reflected in the
development of the candidate project. This may include higher priority work done earlier, planning
processes such as the relevant TSP that addressed these priorities, or studies that show that work
higher in this priority list will likely not be cost-efficient or effective over the applicable planning
period.
Projects may also implement OHP Action 1G.1 by:
• Implementing access management techniques
• Implementing operational improvements (consistent with any systems or operations management plans for the area and consistent with the MPO’s Congestion Management Process
in MPO areas)
• Implementing demand management techniques
• Using technology or innovative methods to protect the system or improve efficiency
• Making minor improvements such as widening shoulders, adding auxiliary lanes, providing
improved access for alternative modes
• Making off-system improvements consistent with OHP Policy 2B (keeping in mind that
cost-effectiveness should be considered over the applicable planning period.) Policy 2B:
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide state financial assistance to local jurisdictions to develop, enhance, and maintain improvements on local transportation systems when
they are a cost-effective way to improve the operation of the state highway system if:
o The off-system costs are less than or equal to on-system costs, and/or the benefits to
the state system are equal to or greater than those achieved by investing in onsystem improvements;
Page | 79
January 24, 2013
o Local jurisdictions adopt land use, access management and other policies and ordinances to assure the continued benefit of the off-system improvement to the state
highway system;
o Local jurisdictions agree to provide advance notice to ODOT of any land use decisions that may impact the off-system improvement in such a way as to adversely impact the state highway system; and
o Local jurisdictions agree to a minimum maintenance level for the off-system improvement that will assure the continued benefit of the off-system improvement to the
state highway system.
Where needed to implement Action 1G.1 (or Policy 2B: Off-System Improvements), the ACTs,
MPOs, or regional or statewide advisory groups, with ODOT assistance, may negotiate Conditions
of Approval for a project with affected jurisdictions. If such conditions are not met during any Development STIP milestones completed for the project, then the conditions shall be noted in the project documentation and shall be as specific as possible given the stage of development of the project. Conditions of Approval may include the following:
• Interchange Area Management Plan or Access Management Plan,
• Highway segment designations,
• Needed local street improvements,
• Traffic management plans,
• Land use plan designations,
• Other similar conditions.
Conditions of Approval on projects are approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission with
the final STIP and are binding.
• Describe how the candidate project implements or has met the intent of OHP Action 1G.1
with respect to the hierarchy of priorities described
• Describe whether the project can be phased in over time, what part of the identified need is
met by the phase, and how the phase will move towards implementing the overall solution
• If the project adds capacity to the existing system or adds a new facility to the system, documentation should:
o Describe whether higher priority solutions as listed in OHP Action 1G.1 have already been considered or implemented, how effective they have been, and whether
evaluation and active management of those solutions are being implemented to improve their performance to meet the short or long term need
o Describe why higher priority solutions as listed in OHP Action 1G.1 would not be
effective, or why they do not apply to the situation if management, operations, or
minor improvements have not been implemented previously, or are not being evaluated for inclusion with the current capacity project
o Describe why a capacity increasing solution is likely to be the most effective solution to address the long term need
• Clearly specify any Conditions of Approval that apply to the project and the process for coordination and adoption of the conditions with the appropriate jurisdiction
Page | 80
January 24, 2013
11
Implement OHP Policy 1B: Land Use and Transportation
Projects considered for the STIP should be given priority if they help implement OHP Policy 1B.
Policy 1B addresses the integration and interdependence of land use and transportation:
It is the policy of the State of Oregon to coordinate land use and transportation decisions to efficiently use public infrastructure investments to:
• Maintain the mobility and safety of the highway system;
• Foster compact development patterns in communities;
• Encourage the availability and use of transportation alternatives;
• Enhance livability and economic competitiveness; and
• Support acknowledged regional, city and county transportation system plans that are
consistent with this Highway Plan.
Projects may implement this policy by:
• Supporting local community development plans
• Supporting sustainable urban development
• Improving the quality of life of the community
• Supporting development of transportation mode choices
• Supporting industrial land development near adequate infrastructure
• Improving intermodal connectivity and transfer opportunities
• Supporting other state, regional, or local plans such as
o Sustainability plans
o Climate change adaptation plans
o Economic development plans
o Other local approved plans, strategies, or similar documents
• Identify any local, regional, or state plans that are supported by the project and how the project supports the identified plan
• Briefly describe how the project implements OHP Policy 1B
12
Support Economic Development Plans and Goals
Priority should be given to projects that assist implementation or realization of state, regional or local economic development goals and plans, including those from local jurisdictions and special districts such as a port authority or transit district. There are also various state level economic development goals including:
•
Oregon Transportation Plan Goal 3 Economic Vitality: To promote the expansion and diversification of Oregon’s economy through the efficient and effective movement of people
goods, services, and information in a safe, energy-efficient, and environmentally sound
manner.
•
Department of Land Conservation and Development Goal 9: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare,
and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Page | 81
January 24, 2013
Ways in which a candidate project may support economic development plans and goals include:
• Improve transportation access and mobility for freight, businesses, and workers
• Reduce costs of travel for freight, business, and workers
• Improve the operation, safety, or efficiency of the transportation corridor or system
• Improve travel times or reliability
• Reduce delay
• Help maintain or generate long-term and/or living wage jobs
• Serve an Oregon certified industrial site
• Serve an economically distressed community
• Identify the economic development goal or plan that the project will support
• Briefly describe how the project is anticipated to support the economic development goal or
plan
• Briefly describe the likelihood of the anticipated economic benefits being realized
• Briefly describe the likely duration of the anticipated economic benefits
• Use empirical data when available, such as travel model data to document the long-term
outcome of the project and its impact on the transportation system
13
Support freight mobility
Projects should be given priority if they support freight mobility. Projects that support freight mobility are projects on freight routes of statewide, regional, or local significance including:
• Highways on the State Highway Freight System as designated in the Oregon Highway Plan
• Highways or local roads designated as National Highway System intermodal connectors
• Other highways with a high volume or percentage of trucks or which are important for regional or interstate freight movement
• Local freight routes designated in an adopted regional or local transportation system plan
Projects that support freight mobility may:
• Remove identified barriers to the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of goods
• Support multimodal freight transportation movements by improving intermodal connectivity
and opportunities for transfer between modes
• Improve the operation, safety, or efficiency of freight infrastructure
• Improve the condition, connectivity, or capacity of freight infrastructure
• Specify whether the project is on a designated freight route
• Describe the expected benefit to freight mobility including barriers removed, operational or
safety benefits, or enhanced opportunities for improving intermodal connectivity
• Briefly describe the likely duration of the anticipated effects
• Use empirical data when available, such as travel model data to document the long-term
outcome of the project and its impact on the transportation system
Page | 82
January 24, 2013
14
Improves the Safety of the Transportation System
Priority should be given to projects that incorporate improvements to resolve a documented safety
problem. Safety is considered in every transportation investment decision made by ODOT and
most investments are designed to improve safety either directly or indirectly. An eligible STIP project should be given priority if it:
• Incorporates improvements that address a known safety problem, either a Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) site or other documented safety problem
• Incorporates improvements that will reduce the number or severity of crashes
• Identify the documented safety problem the project will address
• Briefly describe the improvements incorporated to address the safety problem
• Briefly describe the overall improvement in safety expected and, where practical and available, use reported crash data to provide estimates of the potential reduction in the number of
crashes and/or severity of injuries expected by the improvements
15
Implement OHP Policy 5A: Environmental Resources
Projects should be given priority in the C-STIP if they help implement Policy 5A of the Oregon
Highway Plan by exceeding minimum environmental requirements, supporting environmental
goals, or implementing innovative techniques to lessen the environmental impact of a transportation
project. OHP Policy 5A:
It is the policy of the State of Oregon that the design, construction, operation, and maintenance
of the state highway system should maintain or improve the natural and built environment including air quality, fish passage and habitat, wildlife habitat and migration routes, sensitive
habitats (i.e. wetlands, designated critical habitat, etc.), vegetation, and water resources where
affected by ODOT facilities.
There are a variety of different environmental requirements set by law or rule that may apply to a
transportation project and different environmental goals adopted by federal, state, regional, or local
jurisdictions. While all projects are designed to meet any applicable environmental requirements, a
project that exceeds minimum requirements or furthers environmental goals should be given priority
over a project that does not.
Environmental impacts considered may include:
• Air quality
• Water quality
• Protected species or habitats
• Climate change mitigation and adaptation
• Explain what environmental plan, goal, or target is furthered by the project or
• Explain how the project will exceed minimum environmental requirements or
• Explain any innovative techniques that will be used to lessen environmental impacts and
why they are expected to be effective and
• Describe the likelihood of the project being constructed as described
Page | 83
January 24, 2013
16
Leverage Other Funds and Public Benefits
ACTs, MPOs, and regional or statewide advisory groups should evaluate whether candidate projects
leverage additional funding, investment, or other benefits. Priority should be given to projects that
do leverage other contributions and benefits, though the capacity of the jurisdictions affected to contribute should be considered as well.
Leveraged funds and benefits may include:
• Additional project funding from public or private sources
• In-kind or other contributions (such as providing labor, equipment, materials, right-of-way,
etc.)
• Additional public or private investment in infrastructure in the affected area or community
that would occur as a result of the transportation investment
• Briefly describe the expected leveraged funds, contributions, or benefits
• Identify whether or not an intergovernmental or other formal agreement is in place or intended that specifies the contributions
• In the case of expected additional investment in other infrastructure or the community, describe the likelihood of that investment occurring in a timely manner and the anticipated
outcome
17
Project Readiness
Projects that are “ready” should be given priority in the C-STIP over projects that are not ready. A
project is ready when it is expected that construction or implementation can begin within the
timeframe of the STIP. Projects that can be considered ready likely have any necessary environmental documentation complete and approved, and other major pre-construction steps are likely
complete or nearing completion. Other major pre-construction steps may include completion of any
necessary management plans or land use approvals.
It is preferred that projects remain in the Development STIP until any required environmental documentation steps are complete. For the C-STIP, projects that have the required environmental documentation steps complete and approvals issued should be considered more “ready” than projects
for which required environmental documentation steps are not complete. The type of environmental
documentation required is determined by project class. Project classes are:
• Class 1: Requires draft and final environmental impact statement (EIS) and the final approval issued is called a Record of Decision (ROD)
• Class 2: Categorical exclusion (requires documentation sufficient to demonstrate Class 2
status)
• Class 3: Requires environmental assessment (EA) or revised environmental assessment and
the final approval issued is called a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or it may be
determined that a full EIS is required
In addition, the hurdles to accomplish each of the following steps (where applicable) must be assessed for major projects that have come through the D-STIP and for which a final ROD for a design level environmental impact statement or a FONSI has been issued:
• Public involvement
• Right of way purchased
Page | 84
•
•
January 24, 2013
Final construction and traffic flow management plans developed
Additional land use requirements such as completing plans for access management, supporting local transportation system improvements and land use measures to protect the function
and operation of the project
For projects that have not gone through the D-STIP or have not been issued a FONSI or ROD the
following must also be assessed:
• Environmental requirements
• Land use requirements
• Applicability of minor improvements and alternative mode solutions
If these steps are not completed at the time of the assessment of project readiness, a plan to complete them must be described to help determine whether they can be addressed and construction can
begin within the projected timeframe. The project budget and timeline must include execution of
the plan.
• Identify whether the project will be a Class 1, 2, or 3 project
• Identify whether the EA or EIS is complete and a ROD or FONSI issued or whether Class 2
status has been approved
• If a ROD, FONSI, or Class 2 approval has not been issued, identify remaining steps and anticipated timeline to complete the remaining steps
• Briefly describe any major pre-construction steps remaining and when they are expected to
be complete
• Identify whether or not the project is likely to go to construction when anticipated
Page | 85
January 24, 2013
Appendix 1: Glossary
Acronym or Word
Definition
ACT
Area Commission on Transportation; advisory organizations chartered
by the OTC and found in most of the ODOT highway regions, they assist in recommending and prioritizing projects for the STIP
Bridge Management System – used to rate bridge conditions and determine priorities for improvements but not necessarily the type of treatment
Code of Federal Regulations
Construction STIP; includes project schedules and funding for nondevelopment projects included in the four-year STIP construction period
Department of Land Conservation and Development
Development STIP; includes projects that require more than 4 years to
develop or for which construction funding is not committed
Environmental Impact Statement
Criteria that must be met in order for the project to be considered further. All of the eligibility criteria listed must be met or the project may
not move on to prioritization. The eligibility criteria are a pass-fail test
that a project must pass.
Federal Highway Administration
Or Fiscally Constrained; this means that the planned expenditures outlined in the STIP must correspond to revenue expected to be available at
the time of expenditure. A project cannot be included in the STIP without corresponding revenue available.
Federal Transit Administration
Interchange Area Management Plan
Intergovernmental agreement
Intelligent Transportation System
A process of comparing direct and indirect costs of demand and supply
options to meet transportation goals, policies, or both, where the intent
of the process is to identify the most cost-effective mix of options
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, the current federal
authorization approved in July 2012.
Modernization program; STIP funding program used to pay for highway improvements that add capacity such as widening a highway
Metropolitan Planning Organization; the forum for cooperative transportation decision-making for a metropolitan area with more than
50,000 residents and responsible for preparing "fiscally constrained"
comprehensive multi-modal regional transportation plans.
National Environmental Policy Act; the federal law that requires an
evaluation of environmental impacts associated with any improvement
project financed in whole or part with federal funds.
Oregon Administrative Rule
Oregon Business Development Department
Oregon Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee
BMS
CFR
C-STIP
DLCD
D-STIP
EIS
Eligibility Criteria
FHWA
Fiscal Constraint
FTA
IAMP
IGA
ITS
Least Cost Planning
MAP-21
Modernization
MPO
NEPA
OAR
OBDD
OBPAC
Page | 86
January 24, 2013
Acronym or Word
Definition
ODOT
OFAC
OHP
ORS
OTC
Oregon Department of Transportation
Oregon Freight Advisory Committee
Oregon Highway Plan; one of the mode plans that are part of the OTP
Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Transportation Commission; the five-person governor appointed commission that oversees ODOT and sets transportation policy for
the state
Oregon Transportation Plan; the comprehensive transportation planning document for the State of Oregon including its mode and topic
plans such as the Oregon Highway Plan and the Oregon Public Transportation Plan
Practical Design is a strategy to deliver focused benefits for the State's
transportation system while working with the realities of a constrained
funding environment. At a minimum, practical design considers safety,
economic development, communities if a project passes through them,
the environment, the overall transportation system (not just highways)
and cost when developing and designing transportation projects.
Preservation program; STIP funding program for pavement preservation
Criteria used to choose projects from among eligible projects. Generally, a project that meets more prioritization factors or meets them more
fully should be advanced ahead of a project that meets fewer prioritization factors or meets them to a lesser degree.
Project Safety Management System
Public Transportation Advisory Committee, makes funding recommendations to OTC and advises on policy to OTC and PTD
Regional Transportation Plan; the official intermodal transportation plan
developed and adopted through the metropolitan transportation planning
process for the metropolitan planning area.
Safety program; STIP funding program for safety improvement projects
usually identified by the PSMS
Safety Priority Index System; part of the PSMS that shows crash history
by highway milepoint
State Bridge program; STIP funding program for rehabilitation and replacement of bridges on state highways
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program; The 4-year statewide
scheduling and funding program for all areas of the state, including federal lands, tribal lands and MPAs, prepared in conformance with 23
CFR 450.216.
Transportation Demand Management; a program that identifies ways to
reduce peak period demand on the highway system, including rideshare,
staggered work hours, and company-sponsored transit passes
Transportation Management Area; an urbanized area (MPA) with over
200,000 residents; eligible for additional federal funding and subject to
federal air quality and congestion management standards
OTP
PMS
Practical Design
Preservation
Prioritization Factors
PSMS
PTAC
RTP
Safety
SPIS
State Bridge
STIP
TDM
TMA
Page | 87
January 24, 2013
Acronym or Word
Definition
TPR
Transportation Planning Rule; Oregon Administrative Rule 660, Division 12 (OAR 660-012), specifies requirements for preparing and complying with local transportation system plans (TSPs)
Transportation System Plan; comprehensive transportation planning
document prepared by city and county governments, including an inventory of the existing system, proposed improvement projects, and
other elements required by the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule
(OAR 660-012)
An organized effort to obtain optimum value by providing the necessary
function at the lowest life cycle cost
TSP
Value Engineering
Page | 88
January 24, 2013
Appendix 2: Internet Resources
Oregon Transportation Plan: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/otp.aspx
Oregon Highway Plan: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/ohp.aspx
Draft and Final STIP: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/STIP/index.shtml
STIP Background Information including Citizen’s Primer and User’s Guide:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/stip_guide.aspx
Project Delivery Guide: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/PDU/pd_guide.shtml
ACT information and Policy on Formation and Operation of the ACTs:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/act_main.shtml
Program Advisory Committees, Community Involvement:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/involvement.shtml
Earmark Policy:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/docs/OTCPolicy10_FederalReauthorization.pdf
House Bill 2001: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2001.en.pdf
House Bill 2186: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2100.dir/hb2186.en.pdf
Senate Bill 1059: http://www.leg.state.or.us/10ss1/measpdf/sb1000.dir/sb1059.en.pdf
MAP-21: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/
Page | 89
January 24, 2013
Appendix 3: Plans to Projects and STIP Process Diagrams
The Integrated Transportation Planning Diagram (or “Planning Hierarchy” diagram)
Page | 90
January 24, 2013
The Project Delivery System (or “Project Delivery Racetrack”)
Page | 91
January 24, 2013
How a Project Gets Into the STIP
Page | 92
January 24, 2013
STIP Development Process, from the STIP Citizen’s Primer Brochure
Page | 93
January 24, 2013
2015-2018 STIP
Project Criteria Summary Report Guidance
I.
Introduction
The following information is provided to assist the development of Project Criteria Summary Reports. The purpose of the Reports is to demonstrate to the Oregon Transportation Commission
(OTC), affected jurisdictions, and interested parties how and why the recommended projects were
chosen and that those projects meet the approved Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) Project Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors. The Reports are delivered to the OTC
with the Draft STIP and are posted on the Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) website
for interested parties to review. Any Report modifications, additional Reports, and Final Conditions
of Approval are delivered to the OTC with the Final STIP.
As the funding available for STIP projects decreases and the number of competing concerns that
transportation must address increases, interest in how ODOT makes its project funding decisions
grows. Therefore, staff and project proponents should expect increasing interest in the documentation developed in response to these criteria and factors.
The 2015-2018 STIP Project Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors were developed with interested parties via the STIP Stakeholder Committee and respond to direction included in state legislation. The criteria, factors, and information requested in response were developed and approved
together as a package by the stakeholders and the OTC. This is a change from past STIP cycles in
which only the criteria and factors were approved. Now the response expected to each factor and
criterion has been approved as well.
II. Project Criteria Summary Reports
The information needed to show that each criterion and factor is met is described in the 2015-2018
STIP Project Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors. See pages 58-93 for a full description of
the criteria and factors and the information expected in the response to each criterion.
While the responses expected are more detailed than in the past, the responses can still be brief and
are still expected to be narrative in nature. Here are some overall principles for documentation for
2015-2018 STIP projects:
• Use brief but sufficient explanations; extensive explanations are not required.
• Yes or no without explanation is not an acceptable answer, unless yes or no is the only possible answer, e.g. is the project on a designated freight route?
• If data or other documentation is available to support the explanation, cite or use it. For example, if travel model data is available that shows the impact of the candidate project, describe those results. Or, if a letter of commitment from another partner or investor or an intergovernmental agreement is in place, include those facts in the explanation.
• It is not required that any special study be done to show that the project meets the criteria.
At this time, descriptions of expected effects are sufficient. However, if information from
such a study is already available, describe those results in the explanation.
Page | 94
•
January 24, 2013
Not applicable is an acceptable answer, where appropriate. For example, all prioritization
factors are not expected to apply to every project and some may not apply at all to Preservation or State Bridge projects. In this case, use “not applicable” to respond to the prioritization factor.
Use the templates provided to fill out Project Criteria Summary Reports for your Region’s projects.
Submit one Region STIP Overview, an individual report for each Development STIP or Modernization project, and one Region-wide report for Preservation Projects. Bridge Program staff in Salem
will submit a statewide State Bridge program report.
The report templates and the Project Summary Tables templates are provided in Excel workbooks.
This enables the listing of documentation expected in the left column while leaving the right-hand
column for responses. Please use the text formatting provided in the tables; you may expand or decrease the row heights to accommodate your text. You may also add rows at the bottom of the table
to reflect your Area Commission on Transportation (ACT) or Region additional criteria, or columns
at the right to reflect your Area’s scoring system. Scores will not be presented to the OTC and published online because they will not be comparable between Regions. The body of the report and any
additional criteria reported will be included.
Note: you do not need to submit reports on House Bill 2001 (sometimes called the Jobs and Transportation Act or JTA) projects unless additional funds are sought for the project. House Bill 2001
projects to the funding level approved in the bill are not subject to the 2015-2018 STIP criteria; see
the Discretionary Projects section of the criteria document (page 61) for more information.
Projects that are simple carryovers from the last two years of the prior STIP, already have a Project
Criteria Summary Report provided for them, and have not significantly changed their scope also do
not need a new report. Original reports are available online and soon, new 2015-2018 STIP project
reports provided to TDD will be posted at:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/stip_reports.aspx. If these are still accurate at the
time of the Draft 2015-2018 STIP, no new report is needed. Your Project Summary Tables and Region-wide Maps should show all 2015-2018 STIP projects subject to Project Criteria Summary Reports. Use the column provided in the Project Summary Tables to indicate which projects are simple carryovers subject to previous Project Criteria Summary Reports.
Include as indicated in the report template:
• Contact person: provide a name and email for a person who can answer questions about the
project summary report.
• Project Name: Ensure that projects are named according to the Project Naming Convention
(see page 55).
• Project Location: As appropriate and available, tie the project to geographic locations such
as intersecting streets. Use milepoints from the Highway Inventory database on the Intranet
at:
http://highway.odot.state.or.us/cf/highwayreports/aml_summary_parms_by_route_no.cfm.
• Project Description: Describe the project and summarize its purpose and need (problem
statement).
Page | 95
January 24, 2013
III. Project Summary Tables
Provide a list of projects using the format in the Project Summary Tables provided. This creates an
index of projects and collects the information needed for the GIS Unit (GISU) to map your projects.
The last table in the workbook is for any Conditions of Approval on your projects. Collecting them
together in the last table will enable the table to be printed in the STIP document, eliminating the
need to collect and deliver them separately to the OTC.
Note: the Features, Attributes, and Conditions Survey-STIP (FACS-STIP) tool is coming available
for use during the time of 2015-2018 STIP development. It may also assist you with locating projects and providing sufficient information for the GIS Unit to effectively create the STIP project
maps.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use the separate tables provided for Development STIP and Construction STIP Modernization, Preservation, State Bridge, and Conditions of Approval.
For the Carryover from 12-15 STIP column, indicate whether the project is a carryover from
the prior STIP and is included in the prior STIP’s Project Criteria Summary Reports accessible here: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/stip_reports.aspx .
For Highway Number and Route Number, see the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), Appendix
D at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/ohp.aspx .
For Highway Classification use the SCS (State Classification System) column in the Oregon
Highway Plan, Appendix D (Statewide, Regional, etc.). Online at:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/ohp/d.pdf .
Indicate in the freight route column if the project is on an OHP designated freight route. A
current map of designated freight routes is available at:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/gis/docs/statemaps/FreightSystem.pdf.
For milepoint location, refer to the Highway Inventory database on the Intranet at:
http://highway.odot.state.or.us/cf/highwayreports/aml_summary_parms_by_route_no.cfm.
In the Conditions of Approval column, indicate whether or not the project has conditions,
and list the project and specific condition in the Conditions of Approval Summary Table.
For geographic coordinate location, go to http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/ for a
link to enter TransGIS, Generic Mapping. From here you can use the zoom tool on the top
right to zero in on the project location. If you hover the cursor over the project endpoints,
the coordinates of those points will show in the bottom left corner of the window. Using
coordinates assists GISU in mapping projects quickly and accurately. This is particularly
important when the project is not on a state highway and no milepoints are available.
Conditions of Approval on projects in your Region should be listed together in the last
summary table in the Excel workbook. This table will be turned in to the Highway Programs Office to be printed in the STIP document and approved with the STIP.
Make sure the Conditions listed reflect any agreements made with affected jurisdictions and
are specific, such that they are enforceable and it is clear when they are met. For example,
do not include “jurisdiction is working on an IAMP” or “jurisdiction will consider providing
matching funds” as conditions. To be included as Conditions of Approval, these should be
similar to “jurisdiction will complete IAMP before...[X time or X next step]” or “jurisdiction
will provide [$X amount or X%] matching funds by…[X time or X next step]”.
Page | 96
January 24, 2013
IV. Project Location Maps
Project location maps are provided by the GIS Unit. Contact Chad Crockett, GIS Data Integration
Project Coordinator, at (503) 986-3298 for mapping assistance. Start the mapping process early to
enable the draft maps to be created well ahead of the Due Date and returned to you for verification.
Modernization projects: Provide a specific location map for each Development STIP (D-STIP)
and Construction STIP (C-STIP) Modernization project, one map of all of your Region’s D-STIP
projects, and one map of all your Region’s Modernization projects.
Preservation projects: Provide one Region-wide map showing all Preservation Projects
State Bridge projects: Provide one Region-wide map showing all State Bridge Projects.
•
•
•
•
The Project Summary Tables will contain the information needed to map STIP projects, but
the table does not have to be complete to begin mapping. To help Chad’s team get a head
start, you are encouraged to submit mapping requests as soon as project locations are confirmed. Chad’s team will ready the map using the template that they have developed, and
fill in the details such as the key number when they become available.
By the deadline for initial mapping requests, provide a copy of your Region’s Project Summary Tables to Chad Crockett. The tables should contain sufficient information for his team
to locate the projects and prepare draft maps. If the tables are incomplete when submitted,
follow up with full information as soon as possible.
Region staff is responsible for verifying the accuracy of maps produced. The GIS Unit team
will provide the draft maps back to Region staff. Region staff should verify the maps and
check that final maps, summary reports, and summary tables all have correct and matching
project names and key numbers.
The deadline for all initial mapping requests to the GIS Unit is June 1, 2013.
V. Modifications and Final STIP Requirements
Your initial reports and summaries will be provided to the OTC with the Draft STIP and will be
made available online. The online record stays available to the public throughout the STIP cycle.
Therefore, when there are major changes such as the deletion or addition of a D-STIP or Modernization project, you should notify TDD to remove the project report from the website or provide a
new report to reflect a new project.
Prior to the Final 2015-2018 STIP being prepared for OTC approval, you must revisit your Reports
and Summary Tables to look for any significant changes. Look at your existing submissions, which
will be accessible under the appropriate STIP dates at:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/stip_reports.aspx and ensure that these still accurately
reflect your Region’s STIP program. Look for any added or deleted Development STIP, Modernization, Preservation, and State Bridge projects, any projects with a significant change in scope, and
any changes to the Conditions of Approval Summary Table.
Page | 97
January 24, 2013
By the Due Date, send to TDD your Final Conditions of Approval Summary Table, your updated
Project Summary Tables and Region-wide maps if there are changes, and any new or modified Project Summary Reports and Project Location Maps.
The Final Conditions of Approval Table will be printed in the Final STIP and approved by the OTC
as part of the Final STIP, so it is important that it be accurate and clearly state conditions to be met.
When approved, the Condition is a part of the project approval and is binding on ODOT and other
affected jurisdictions.
VI. What to Submit and When
Remember that Due Dates are the latest dates for submission of these items. You are encouraged to
send these items prior to the Due Dates as they are completed. (If you send replacement items later,
clearly label them as such in the email.) Finishing the reports early also enables you to provide the
information to your ACTs and MPOs for discussion.
Due Dates are based on the current 2015-2018 STIP Development Timeline. Currently, the Draft
2015-2018 STIP and the Final 2015-2018 STIP are expected to be delivered to the OTC in December 2013 and November 2014, respectively. Due Dates may change if this schedule changes; you
will be notified of any changes.
All information will be due to the OTC coordinator in early October, therefore Transportation Development Division (TDD) must have the final packet of all Regions’ information fully complete by
the end of September. To allow time for TDD to review submissions and for any corrections or
changes, all items’ Due Date to TDD will be October 1. The Due Date for initial mapping requests
to be submitted to GISU will be June 1.
Draft 2015-2018 STIP: Initial Project Criteria Summary Reports and Maps
Due June 1, 2013:
• Project Summary Tables with sufficient information for GISU to begin preparing maps for
your projects. Send these electronically to Chad Crockett, at:
Michael.C.Crockett@odot.state.or.us.
Due October 1, 2013:
• Region STIP Program Overview (ACT discussions, public involvement, etc.)
• Project Summary Tables (D-STIP, Mod, Pres, State Bridge, and Conditions of Approval)
• Project Criteria Summary Reports:
o One statewide report for State Bridge projects (completed by Bridge program staff in
Salem)
o One Region-wide report for Preservation
o One individual report for each D-STIP and Modernization project
• Project Location Maps (specific location maps for D-STIP and Modernization projects provided by GISU and verified by Region)
Page | 98
•
January 24, 2013
Project Vicinity Maps (Region-wide maps, one for each type of project: D-STIP, Modernization, Preservation, and State Bridge, provided by GISU and verified by Region)
Submit these items electronically to Lucia Ramirez, Principal Planner, Transportation Development
Division, at Lucia.L.Ramirez@odot.state.or.us. All items are due no later than October 1, 2013. If
you have any questions about the documentation process, please email or call Lucia Ramirez (503986-4168).
Final 2015-2018 STIP: Modifications, Additions, and Final Conditions of Approval
Due July 1, 2014:
• Requests to GISU for any new or modified maps. Send these electronically to Chad Crockett, at Michael.C.Crockett@odot.state.or.us.
Due September 1, 2014:
• Your Region’s Final Conditions of Approval Summary Table
• Any modified Project Summary Tables reflecting changes to your project list
• Any new or modified Project Summary Reports
• Any new or modified Project Location Maps
• Any modified Project Vicinity Maps (Region-wide)
Submit these items electronically to Lucia Ramirez, Principal Planner, Transportation Development
Division, at Lucia.L.Ramirez@odot.state.or.us. All items are due no later than September 1, 2014.
Remember to request any needed maps from GISU well ahead of this Due Date. If you have any
questions about the documentation process, please email or call Lucia Ramirez (503-986-4168).
VII. Other Websites
Below are some additional links that may be of assistance.
FACS-STIP Tool current site: http://208.109.223.100/facs-stip/home.aspx
TransData (TransGIS, reference maps, etc.):
http://egov.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/index.shtml
Planning Section (Oregon Transportation and Highway Plans, Transportation Planning Online Database, etc.): http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/index.shtml
Page | 99
January 24, 2013
APPENDIX C: PUBLIC REVIEW REQUIREMENTS and PROCESS
There are federal regulations and state policies regarding STIP public involvement. The federal
regulations state that public involvement must be proactive, provide opportunities for early and ongoing involvement, and continue throughout the transportation planning and programming process.
In addition to the articles of 23 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter E (Planning), Part 450 (Planning Assistance and Standards), Subpart B (Statewide Transportation Planning), Section 450.212 that are reflected in ODOT’s policy, the following regulations are also worth noting:
§450.212 Public Involvement
(a) …The processes shall provide for: …
(5) A process for demonstrating explicit consideration and response to public input during the
planning and program development process;
(6) A process for seeking out and considering the needs of those traditionally underserved by
existing transportation systems, such as low-income and minority households, which may
face challenges accessing employment and other amenities…
(d) During development and major revision of the STIP required under §450.216, the Governor
shall provide citizens, affected public agencies and jurisdictions, employee representatives of
transportation or other affected agencies, private providers of transportation, and other interested
parties, a reasonable opportunity for review and comment on the proposed program. The proposed program shall be published, with reasonable notification of its availability, or otherwise
made readily available for public review and comment. The approved program (see
§450.220(c)) if it differs significantly from the proposed program, shall be published, with reasonable notification of its availability, or otherwise made readily available for public information.
And,
(g) The public involvement processes will be considered by the FHWA and the FTA as they make
the planning finding required in §450.220(b) to assure that full and open access is provided to
the decision making process.
ODOT’s Public Involvement Policy
The OTC approved an update to ODOT’s Public Involvement Policy on May 28, 2009. The updated policy states that the OTC will:
1. Abide by all applicable state and federal laws and rules in implementing public involvement
processes for the development and update of the long-range statewide transportation plan (the
Oregon Transportation Plan and its mode/topic and transportation facility plans) and the development of the STIP.
2. Develop the long-range statewide transportation plan and the STIP in consultation and cooperation with affected state and federal land use agencies such as; natural resources agencies and
land management agencies; local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation and historic preservation; and owners of the
transportation system such as Indian tribal governments; and other stakeholders including advisory committees formed under Oregon Revised Statutes or otherwise appointed by the Governor, the OTC or ODOT to assist with specific transportation issues. In addition, develop the
Page | 100
January 24, 2013
long range statewide transportation plan and the STIP in consultation and cooperation with the
providers of transportation systems and services such as MPOs, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan area local governments, special districts such as transit and port districts, and others.
3. Follow the requirements of the Oregon Public Meetings Law (ORS 192.610 to 192.690) for all
advisory committees appointed by or reporting to the OTC, such as holding meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times.
4. Maintain and utilize as appropriate a broad based statewide list of stakeholders including but not
limited to: individuals and organizations that are interested in or affected by transportation decisions such as members of the public; freight shippers; private providers of transportation; representatives of users of public transportation; representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and
bicycle transportation facilities; representatives of the people with disabilities; providers of
freight transportation services; other interested parties; and organizations who are interested in
or affected by transportation decisions including, but not limited to, representatives of: Indian
tribal governments; populations traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems
such as low-income minority populations; and others who may face challenges accessing employment and other services.
5. Provide an ODOT representative to advise the Area Commissions on Transportation during the
development and update of statewide transportation plans and the STIP.
6. During public involvement processes seek out and consider the needs of those populations traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, such as low-income and minority populations, who may face challenges accessing employment and other services.
7. Provide stakeholders with timely information about transportation issues and decision-making
processes and adequate notice of key decision points leading to the development and update of
statewide transportation plans and the STIP.
8. Work with MPOs to coordinate public involvement during the development and update of
statewide transportation plans and the STIP with the development or update by each MPO of
their metropolitan transportation plan and its transportation improvement program.
9. When assisting local governments in the development of their local Transportation System
Plans provide information and guidance with public involvement process as outlined in the
Transportation System Plan guidelines.
10. Document a separate and discrete process for consulting with non-metropolitan local officials
representing units of general purpose local government and local officials with responsibility for
transportation that provides for their participation in the development of the statewide transportation plans and the STIP. Ensure that this process builds upon the established role of the Area
Commissions on Transportation in meeting this need. Solicit and review comments from such
officials and other interested parties regarding the effectiveness of these consultation procedures
at least every 5 years, allowing at least a 60-day public review and comment period.
11. Employ visualization techniques such as maps, photographs, display boards, scenario building
programs and other devices to the maximum extent practicable to describe the proposed
statewide transportation plans and the STIP and supporting planning studies.
12. Provide reasonable public access to technical and policy information used in the development
and update of statewide transportation plans and the STIP, and make such information available
in an electronically accessible format and means such as the World Wide Web, and as required
by the Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.420 to 192.505). Utilize these information distribution mechanisms to the maximum extent practicable for public involvement processes.
Page | 101
January 24, 2013
13. Publish, distribute, and make available including in an electronically accessible format and
means such as the World Wide Web, the adopted statewide transportation plans including
mode/topic and transportation facility plans, and the adopted STIP.
14. Provide at least a 45-day public review and written comment period for proposed statewide
transportation plans, for the proposed STIP, and at least a 45-day public review and written
comment period for an update of either document prior to adoption of plans or program by the
OTC. In addition, transportation facility plans will follow specific requirements provided in the
State Agency Coordination Program (OAR 731-15-065).
15. Provide statewide opportunities for public review and comment on proposed statewide transportation plans and the proposed STIP by scheduling at least two public meetings in each of
ODOT’s five regions prior to adoption of plans or program by the OTC and at least one public
meeting prior to the adoption of a transportation facility plan by the OTC.
16. Notify the Area Commissions on Transportation regarding amendments to the approved STIP
that require Commission approval. Provide ACT members with Transportation Commission
monthly agendas as a venue for this information. Otherwise, significant changes to the STIP
will follow the procedures in this policy and any other requirement in rule or statute.
17. Involve the public and stakeholders to an appropriate and meaningful extent when making
changes to an existing long-range plan. Technical changes may not require input, but substantive changes will. Changes to a specific goal or policy in a plan should be completed only after
consultation with the directly affected stakeholder and advisory groups. Changes to an existing
plan such that it is significantly different than the approved version should be considered an update and follow the procedures in this policy and any other requirement in rule or statute.
18. Consider and respond to public input on proposed long-range statewide transportation plans, the
proposed STIP and transportation facility plans prior to adoption of the plan or program by the
OTC.
19. Provide input received during public involvement processes in the development or update of
statewide transportation plans and the STIP to planning and project teams.
20. Submit the proposed public involvement policy and implementation actions to at least a 45-day
public review before their adoption by the OTC, and submit any major revision of the adopted
final document to at least a 45-day public review and comment.
21. Publish and distribute this adopted public involvement policy and its implementation actions
and provide them in an electronically accessible format and means such as the World Wide
Web.
22. Periodically review the effectiveness of this public involvement policy and implementation actions to ensure that they provide full, meaningful and open access to all interested parties and
revise the process as appropriate.
The complete Public Involvement Policy is available on the web at:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/docs/OTCpolicy11_PIP.pdf
Federal Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Environmental Justice regulations (Presidential
Executive Order 12898, February 1994) further require that states prove they are meeting the intent
of those regulations. For the STIP, these requirements can impact both the public involvement process and the project selection process.
Page | 102
January 24, 2013
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
49 CFR 21.5(b)(3) In determining the site or location of facilities, a recipient [of federal funds] or
applicant may not make selections with the purpose or effect of excluding persons from, denying
them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under any program to which this regulation applies on the grounds of race, color, or national origin.
The Department is required to submit to the federal government an annual report on how it is meeting the goals of the Title VI program. The following questions must be answered in this report. It
therefore becomes necessary to understand Title VI and develop your regional public involvement
process to meet its goals.
Title VI Reporting
Project Selection
• Were any consultant contracts awarded during the last year? What efforts were made to utilize women and minority owned firms?
• How are Title VI considerations addressed through stakeholder involvement mechanisms?
• Describe how minorities and low income populations were provided opportunities to be involved in project selection processes.
• Describe what project selection decisions, if any, were affected by Title VI or Environmental Justice issues.
• How many public hearings, and in what locations, were held prior to adoption of the STIP
or in making other project selection decisions?
Environmental Justice
No group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and
commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.
(EO 12898, 1994)
Unfortunately, there are no specific standards for how environmental justice issues should be identified or addressed. There are, however, five principles to provide guidance. Agencies should:
1. Consider the composition of the affected area to determine if minority/low-income populations are present and if they will be affected, and whether or not the effects are disproportionately high and adverse.
2. Consider the potential for multiple or cumulative exposure to impacts in the affected population and historical patterns of exposure to environmental hazards.
3. Recognize the interrelated cultural, social, occupational, historical, or economic factors that
may amplify the environmental effects of the action. These factors include physical sensitivity of the community or population to particular impacts; the effect of any disruption on
the community structure; and the nature and degree of impact on the physical and social
structure of the community.
4. Develop effective public participation strategies that incorporate outreach to affected groups.
Page | 103
January 24, 2013
5. Assure meaningful community representation in the process. Be aware of the diverse constituencies within any community and endeavor to have complete representation of the
community as a whole, as early as possible in order to be meaningful.
Process
With the incorporation of Area Commissions on Transportation into the STIP process, Regions
should inquire if their ACT(s) would like to host the draft STIP public review meeting(s). Regional
Solutions Teams, an innovative, collaborative approach to community and economic development
in Oregon, may also be asked to attend or host a public review meeting.
The open public review period for the 2015-2018 STIP is tentatively set from the middle of December 2013 to the middle of February 2014. This schedule is subject to change. The ODOT Region
STIP Coordinators are expected to arrange for the meeting dates and locations for their required two
(minimum) public review meetings at least three months prior to December 1, 2013. This allows
time for Oregon Transportation Commissioners to schedule the meetings each will attend and provides for the required advance media notification.
Media notification will be handled by ODOT Communications Division, but the charges for posting
the announcements in local papers will be paid for by the Region.
The STIP Development Group is responsible for developing talking points for Region Managers
and/or Transportation Commissioners.
Public comment on the draft STIP will be accepted over the Internet. We will have a site specifically set up to gather input for the draft 2015-2018 STIP at:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/STIP/2015-2018_STIP.shtml.
In accordance with federal regulations, the Regions should be prepared to respond directly to public
input received on their specific projects. All input and responses are public record and will be
summarized for the OTC, ODOT management, and the Government Relations Section for use with
the Legislature. Each Region’s public comment summaries will be submitted to the STIP Development Group within a month of the end of the public review period. This tight deadline is necessary in order to have the information available to the Commission, ODOT management and ACTs
as the Department moves to fiscally constrain the draft STIP.
Page | 104
January 24, 2013
APPENDIX D: POLICY on FORMATION and OPERATION of
AREA COMMISSIONS on TRANSPORTATION (ACTs)
Approved June 18, 2003 by the Oregon Transportation Commission
INTRODUCTION
The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) established the Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs) to improve communication and interaction between the OTC and local stakeholders
who share a transportation-focused community of interest. That dialogue will include the OTC, local officials, legislators, the business community and appropriate stakeholders and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).
By increasing stakeholder commitment and understanding of transportation programs, funding and
issues, the OTC expects to:
• Broaden opportunities for advising the OTC on policy issues
• Improve project recommendations and coordination at the local level
• Broaden the Regional transportation perspective
• Increase stakeholder support for and commitment to projects
• Control project costs
• Support timely completion of projects
• Meet expectations for quality projects
• Facilitate private sector capital investments
• Maximize ODOT’s capacity to deliver projects
• Improve Oregon’s economy by addressing transportation challenges
The OTC adopted Policy on Formation and Operation of Area Commissions on Transportation2 to
provide answers to common questions about the purpose, formation and function of ACTs and to
encourage a reasonable degree of consistency statewide in their role and operation.3 The document
is intended to provide statewide consistency for the ACTs while balancing local needs for flexibility
and uniqueness. Each ACT will adopt Operating Agreements to further define its operating procedures. Topics addressed include the following:
I. Mission
II. Roles and Responsibilities
III. Authority
IV. ACT Structure and Membership
V. Operations of the ACT
VI. Basis for Decision Making
VII. Coordination
As the need arises, the OTC may review this document and update as appropriate.
2
3
This statement assumes future adoption of this document by the OTC
See Attachment B
Page 105
January 24, 2013
The OTC will give significant weight to recommendations from the ACTs that follow the procedures described in this document. The ACT, however, is an advisory body to the OTC, and the OTC
is the final decision-maker. Geographic areas that do not have an ACT or MPO must adhere to the
same standards of accountability as ACTs and demonstrate to the OTC that recommendations were
developed in accordance with ACT obligations. Prior to starting the process to prioritize project
recommendations, the appropriate ODOT Region and the non-ACT geographic area will reach consensus on the process for determining compliance with this policy. This process could utilize previously adopted documents as appropriate.
In order to clarify the document, a glossary was prepared which defines the terms Region, Regional,
Area, Transportation System and a series of verbs used throughout the document. The verbs convey
varying levels of action or responsibility and include the following: must, shall, will, should, and
may. See Attachment D, Glossary of Terms, for further definition and usage examples.
I. MISSION
The mission of the ACTs is to provide a forum for the discussion and coordination of current and
future transportation issues and to make recommendations to the OTC. An ACT plays a key advisory role in the development of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The
ACTs shall recommend priorities for state transportation infrastructure and capital investments
based on state and local transportation plans related to the geographic boundary of the ACT.
II. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
ACTs have a primary role of making recommendations to the OTC regarding project selection for
projects of local or Regional significance. ACTs may also be requested to provide input to the OTC
on projects of statewide importance and on statewide policy issues.
A. Primary Role of the ACTs
At a minimum, ACTs shall perform the following:
• Provide a forum to advance the public’s awareness and understanding among transportation
stakeholders of transportation issues.
• Establish a public process that is consistent with state and federal laws, regulations and policies.
• Provide recommendations to the OTC regarding program funding allocations for the STIP,
balancing local, Regional and statewide perspectives 4.
• Prioritize Area Modernization project recommendations for the Development STIP and
Construction STIP based on state and local transportation plans related to the Area.
• Make recommendations to ODOT regarding special funding opportunities and programs.
4
Techniques ACTs may use to achieve statewide perspective include: interacting with other ACTs, hosting forums
on statewide issues such as access management and highway segment designations, and having the ODOT Director
or OTC liaison attend and participate in ACT meetings. By using criteria established by the OTC and adherence to
those standards, ACTs achieve a statewide vantage point.
Page 106
•
•
•
•
January 24, 2013
Communicate and coordinate Regional priorities with other organizations, including the following:
o Other ODOT Regions and ACTs
o Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
o Community Solutions Team (CST)
o Regional Partnerships and Regional Investment Boards
o ODOT advisory committees
As applicable, consider all modes and aspects of the Transportation System in formulating
recommendations, taking into account the provision of elements and connections between
air, marine, rail, highway, trucking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The Transportation System includes the following modes and aspects:
o Air, marine, rail (freight and passenger)
o Highway (trucks, buses, cars)
o Transit
o Bicycle/Pedestrian
Provide documentation to the OTC of the public process and resulting recommendations
forwarded by the ACT including alternatives for solutions and outcomes of decisions.
Provide a report to the Oregon Transportation Commission at least once every two years.
B. Optional Activities of the ACTs
In addition to the above, ACTs may choose to provide advice on activities such as:
• ODOT corridor plans or local transportation system plans (TSPs) that contain projects of
Regional significance (for example, a new highway bypass).
• Review projects and policies for other STIP funding programs and categories that have advisory committees or processes in place and advise ODOT on any special circumstances or
opportunities that apply. These programs include Preservation, Safety, Bridge, Operations,
Public Transportation, Freight, Rail, Bicycle/Pedestrian, Transportation Enhancement, Scenic Byways, Federal Lands Highways, and Fish Culverts.
• Advise the OTC on state and Regional policies affecting the Area’s Transportation System,
including proposed ODOT policies & their implementation.
• Input into prioritization of long-range planning projects (especially refinement plans) in the
ODOT Region planning work programs.
• Establishment and monitoring of benchmarks for Regional transportation improvements.
• Other transportation related policy or funding issues relevant to a particular ACT that would
benefit from the coordinated committee discussion afforded by the ACT structure.
See Attachment C for a flowchart showing ACT involvement in the typical process elements for the
STIP.
C. Role of OTC
Success of the ACT is linked to communication with the OTC. The OTC role includes:
• Designating one OTC member as the liaison to the ACT.
• Encouraging the OTC liaison to attend ACT meetings.
• Providing financial support in an amount sufficient to meet OTC expectations.
• Facilitating communication between the OTC and the ODOT representative to the ACT.
• Describing expectations and providing adequate lead time when requesting input from the
ACT.
Page 107
•
•
•
•
January 24, 2013
Providing training opportunities for the ACTs to enhance understanding of statewide programs and issues.
Giving significant weight to recommendations from ACTs that follow procedures and requirements described in this document.
Providing feedback to the ACTs regarding decisions that were made based on the ACT recommendations.
Conducting a biennial review of the ACT Charter and Operating Agreements.
D. Role of ODOT Staff
ODOT staff provides a key role in the successful operation of the ACT. ODOT shall assign a senior
manager with good communication skills as its voting representative to the ACT. The ODOT
representative shall:
• Serve as a communication liaison between the ACT, ODOT Region, and ODOT Director’s
Office.
• Bring a statewide perspective to discussions of local transportation issues.
• Coordinate timely preparation of agenda items for action by the ACT.
• Provide technical and policy information in a timely manner to assist the ACT in carrying
out its roles and responsibilities.
• Provide information on project status.
• Coordinate presentations and education regarding state and federal programs and priorities.
• Advise the ACT of ODOT views during program and project discussions.
• Provide staff support as agreed upon (Section V. B.).
• Advise on technical or policy issues relating to transportation safety, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, passenger rail and freight, trucking, public transportation, scenic byways, motor
carriers and state/local government relationships.
III. AUTHORITY
ORS 184.610 to 184.666 gives the Oregon Transportation Commission the authority to establish the
policies for the operation of the Oregon Department of Transportation and for the administration of
programs related to transportation. The Area Commissions on Transportation are advisory bodies
chartered under authority of the Oregon Transportation Commission. The OTC may charter an ACT
when it demonstrates, and as long as it maintains, a structure consistent with the requirements contained in this document. The OTC retains oversight and final decision making authority to assure
efficient management of the state Transportation System. ACTs provide valuable input and recommendations to that process.
An ACT is a voluntary association of government and non-government transportation stakeholders
and has no legal regulatory, policy or administrative authority. The ACT process and resulting recommendations shall comply with relevant laws, regulations and policies. As an advisory body to the
OTC with authority to make recommendations on policy or administration, ACTs meet the definition of a “Governing Body” and fall under the requirements of the Public Meetings Law. ORS
192.610 to 192.690. An ACT's members shall comply with the requirements of Oregon Government Standards and Practices laws concerning conflict of interest.
Page 108
January 24, 2013
ACTs should apply a statewide perspective to address the Transportation System with primary focus on the state Transportation System (Glossary, Attachment D). ACTs may also consider Regional and local transportation issues. Multi-ACT collaboration may be requested to facilitate consideration of issues that have a broader geographic scope than any one ACT. The needs of urban and
rural areas may be different and discussions may include ACT representatives from more than one
ODOT Region to help focus discussions on corridor or system needs.
IV. ACT STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP
A. Geographic Coverage
Because the ACTs (and, where applicable, the MPOs) are primary advisors to the OTC with regard
to transportation policies and programs which affect them, the OTC strongly encourages coverage
of the State with respect to ACT or MPO representation.
The OTC recognizes that there is strength in member familiarity with Regional issues, and thus, expects that an ACT will encompass an area that geographically represents all its interests. The rationale for ACT boundaries should be consistent with a “geographical community of interest” regarding the state Transportation System and coordinated with existing Regional inter-governmental
relationships. Shared interest might include a similarity of population, economy, land use, infrastructure needs, contiguous boundaries, commute shed, political and programmatic interests, and
collaborative opportunities. The geographic boundaries of an ACT or MPO may change over time
and if this occurs, an amendment to the boundaries will be negotiated and agreed upon by the affected parties, and a formal request for change will be submitted in writing to the OTC for approval.
Each ACT will develop an Operating Agreement (Section V. A.) and this agreement will articulate
the rationale for its specific boundaries.
B. Membership
When establishing the voting5 membership, an ACT needs to consider all modes and aspects of the
Transportation System. An ACT will have a voting membership which is reflective of its population and interest groups and will be broadly representative of those impacted by ACT recommendations. At a minimum, ACT representation will include at least 50% elected officials from the Area.
Representation shall include City, County, and MPO officials within the ACT boundaries. Tribal
Governments, Port officials, and Transit officials6 shall also be invited to participate as voting
members and will count toward the requirement of at least 50% elected officials. The remainder of
the representation should be from interested stakeholders which may represent, but are not limited
to: freight, trucking, bicycle, pedestrian, public transportation system, public interest advocacy
groups, environmental, land use, local citizens, business, education, public safety providers, nonprofit organizations, etc. ODOT will be a voting member on each ACT. Members should be carefully selected so that transportation recommendations are coordinated with other local and Regional
community development activities, creating consensus within the Area on transportation issues and
priorities. The ACT will determine the total number and selection of ACT members.
5
6
Voting may be by consensus or majority, as defined in the individual ACT Operating Agreement (Section V. A.).
In some geographic areas, Port and Transit officials are appointed, not elected.
Page 109
January 24, 2013
In addition to the official membership, each ACT should include appropriate ex officio members
and give full consideration to their comments and recommendations. Ex officio members may include:
• Oregon Transportation Commissioners, state legislators, and local congressional aides
• Community Solutions Team
• State and federal agencies such as US Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife, Department
of Environmental Quality, Department of Land Conservation and Development, Department
of Aviation
• City and county road district or department
• Regional groups that have an interest in transportation issues such as housing advocates,
Regional Partnerships and Regional Investment Boards, law enforcement agencies, etc.
The ACT should encourage participation of adjacent ACTs and consider inviting representatives as
ex officio members. Adjoining ACTs should be included on all mailing lists and be invited to
attend all ACT meetings.
As an ACT experiences membership turnover, it should review representation to ensure continued
balance of all groups the committee represents. When providing reports to the OTC, ACTS will be
asked to describe how they have met the membership guidance. If circumstances within the ACT
(e.g., small population and large geographic area) prevent the ACT from meeting the minimum
membership requirements, the ACT may develop an alternate proposal for approval by the OTC
during its biennial review.
C. Technical Advisory Committee
Although not required, the ACT may establish a technical advisory committee to assist during project or policy discussions. The TAC may be a standing committee to the ACT or formed on an adhoc basis as needed. The ACT will determine membership of the TAC and its role will be defined
in the Operating Agreement.
V. OPERATIONS OF THE ACT
A. ACT Operating Agreements
ACT operating agreements must clarify the roles and processes between members, agencies, ODOT
and the OTC. They are intended to specify how members will be selected and define membership
beyond that required in this document, including the total number and the voting status of each
member. Operating agreements shall provide for a wide solicitation for non-elected membership,
and specify the solicitation process used. In addition, Operating Agreements shall specify when,
where and how meetings will be conducted, officers and terms of office, whether or not alternates
will be allowed, the public involvement processes which the ACT will use, number of members required to constitute a quorum, decision making process (for example, consensus or majority vote),
and whether technical advisory committees will be used and how they will be constituted.
Some ACTs may choose to have an executive/steering committee and if so, the Operating Agreement will describe the committee’s authority and how it meets the requirements of this document,
particularly in regard to membership and public involvement. The Operating Agreement will articulate how the executive/steering committee will communicate with the full ACT.
Page 110
January 24, 2013
The Operating Agreements shall clarify that ACTs are advisory bodies that make recommendations
to the Oregon Transportation Commission.
B. Staffing and Financial Support
An ACT must be staffed either by ODOT or an organization with which ODOT could contract
administrative services. The ACT and ODOT will jointly agree on how the ACT will be staffed.
ODOT will provide planning staff assistance to the ACT and financial support for administration
of the ACT in an amount sufficient to meet OTC expectations. Where it makes financial and logistical sense, the management and technical support services of an MPO and an ACT may be
combined to increase consistency, cost-efficiency, and coordination.
C. Public Involvement
As an advisory body that has authority to make recommendations to the OTC on policy or administration, an ACT must comply with the requirements of Oregon’s Public Meetings Law found at
ORS 192.610 to 192.690. The policy underlying the law is to ensure an open governmental decision making process and so facilitate the public’s awareness “of the deliberations and decisions of
governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made” (ORS 192.620).
The Public Involvement section gives more detail than other portions of this document. Attachment
A provides the minimum and preferred public involvement requirements for different types of ACT
meetings. The ACT may use Attachment A as a template to incorporate into its bylaws. The goal is
to achieve statewide consistency through an open, understandable process that meets state and federal public involvement policies, while continuing to recognize Regional differences in issues and
priorities. In its biennial report to the OTC, the ACT will describe how it meets the minimum requirements. The ACTs must follow all relevant federal laws, regulations and policies for public involvement, including Title VI and Environmental Justice requirements, and all applicable ODOT
policies.
For ACTs to fulfill their advisory role in prioritizing transportation problems and solutions and recommending projects, the ACTs must involve the public and stakeholders in their decision making
processes. As the ACTs consider local, Regional and statewide transportation issues, it is important
that they use the appropriate level of public involvement and/or public information. To comply with
federal Environmental Justice requirements, the public involvement process needs to identify a
strategy for engaging minority and low income populations in transportation decision making.
Meeting materials and facilities shall be accessible to those with disabilities pursuant to ADA standards.
The responsibility for developing agendas, distributing materials, taking minutes, website maintenance and other duties related to ACT public involvement shall be covered in the joint agreement
identified in Section V. B, Staffing and Financial Support.
Page 111
January 24, 2013
VI. BASIS FOR DECISION MAKING
The ACT shall function as an advisory body to the OTC, which has final decision authority. The
ACT process and resulting recommendations shall comply with relevant laws, regulations and policies. When ACTs are considering recommendations relative to the STIP, their recommendations
must comply with the policies and standards adopted by the OTC. When ACTs are providing recommendations on policy, they have greater latitude in formulating their response.
Recommendations shall be based on local, state, and federal adopted transportation plans, policies
and procedures including, but not limited to:
• Oregon Transportation Plan and supporting mode plans (e.g., Oregon Highway Plan and
Oregon Public Transportation Plan)
• Oregon Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.610 to 192.690 (See State of Oregon, Department
of Justice, Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual)
• State corridor and facility plans
• Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660-012
• Transportation system plans
• MPO regional transportation plans
• Federal transportation planning regulations
• Local government plans, regulations, and ordinances
• Project selection criteria and prioritization factors approved by the OTC, including Oregon
Transportation Management System data
• State Agency Coordination Program, OAR 731-15
• Additional criteria established by the OTC
• Oregon Government Standards and Practices, ORS Chapter 244
(See Oregon Government Standards and Practices Laws, a Guide for Public Officials, by the
Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission)
ACTs may use additional criteria to select and rank projects provided the criteria do not conflict
with any criteria established by the OTC7. If an ACT chooses to use additional criteria, they must
inform those developing project proposals about the criteria. ACTs shall apply Regional and
statewide perspectives to their considerations, refining recommendations after consultation with any
affected metropolitan planning organization.
Recommendations to the OTC shall be documented and forwarded to the OTC with the factors used
to develop the recommendation, including any additional criteria used by the ACT in forming its
recommendation. Documentation developed by a member whose recommendations were not incorporated into the final ACT recommendations will be forwarded to the OTC with other materials
documenting ACT recommendations. Recommendations to the OTC will be made in accordance
with the approved STIP Development Timeline (on the web at:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/STIP/).
ODOT has established special committees and processes to apply Oregon Transportation
Management System information for the identification, prioritization and development of bridge
replacement/rehabilitation and pavement preservation projects. If the ACT reviews Bridge or Preservation projects based on OTC approved criteria, the role of the ACT shall be to review the
7
See footnote 3.
Page 112
January 24, 2013
recommended lists of projects and to provide information to ODOT regarding any special
circumstances within the Area that may apply to the prioritized list. Due to the highly technical
nature of the bridge project selection, prioritization is primarily the responsibility of the technical
staff utilizing the Bridge Management System. For preservation projects, the list from the
Pavement Management System is enhanced by ACT knowledge/ information that helps meet state
and local objectives (e.g., leverage funding sources, bundle with other projects, coordinate with
local projects).
Federal regulations require MPOs to select transportation projects within the MPO boundaries from
a limited pool of projects identified in the MPO’s financially constrained regional plan. Selection of
other projects within the MPO boundary requires coordination with the MPO and amendment of the
MPO plan and TIP prior to adding them to the STIP. Outside MPO boundaries, ACTs may draw
from a larger pool of projects found in local transportation system plans, which are not necessarily
financially constrained.
VII. COORDINATION
Because of the fundamental importance placed on recommendations by the ACTs, coordination
shall be a primary obligation and ACTs are expected to meet a high standard in this area. To
ensure that recommendations have been reviewed for local, Regional and statewide issues and
perspectives, ACTs should communicate with others that may have knowledge or interest in the
Area. Working with a broad representation of stakeholder groups should also help provide a balance
between local/Regional priorities and statewide priorities. ACT coordination should include, but
not be limited to the following groups:
• Oregon Transportation Commission
• Other ACTs within and across ODOT Regions
• ODOT Advisory Committees
• Community Solutions Team
• Regional Partnerships and Regional Investment Boards
• Tribal Governments
• MPOs
• Local Governments, Transit and Port Districts
• Stakeholder groups (e.g., environmental, business, state and federal agencies with land holdings within the ACT boundary)
It is recommended that the ACT develop a diagram or flowchart showing the numerous
relationships within the ACT. The diagram should be available at each meeting of the ACT.
A. Oregon Transportation Commission
ACTs will provide a report to the OTC at least once every two years. The report will provide an
opportunity for the Commission to review the ACT charter, operating agreements and proposed
work program. If modifications are required to comply with new or updated OTC direction (e.g.,
revising processes to conform to the revised “Policy on Formation and Operation of Area
Commissions on Transportation (ACT)”), changes will be incorporated at that time. An ACT or the
OTC may initiate additional communication on an as-needed basis.
Page 113
January 24, 2013
ACTs will forward their recommendations and supporting information to the OTC for consideration. The OTC will provide feedback to the ACTs regarding actions taken.
B. ACTs Within and Across ODOT Regions
ACTs will coordinate with other ACTs, as needed for recommendations to the OTC that may have a
Regional impact (e.g., priorities along a specific highway corridor). To facilitate regular
communications, adjacent ACTs should be included on the ACT mailing lists and invited to all
ACT meetings. Meeting agendas and minutes should be provided to adjacent ACTs. The ACT
should consider adjacent ACT representatives for inclusion as ex officio members.
C. ODOT Advisory Committees
ACTs are encouraged to keep ODOT’s specialized standing committees (e.g., Local Officials
Advisory Committee, Rail, Freight, Public Transportation, Bicycle/Pedestrian, Transportation
Enhancement, Scenic Byways and the Tri-Agency Committee for the Forest Highway Program)
informed and to seek their comment on major policies and programs under consideration.
Representatives should be included on the ACT mailing lists and invited to all ACT meetings. The
committees have a mutual obligation to provide information to the ACTs regarding processes,
technical data, and recommendations specific to the program.
D. Community Solutions Team
Since 1995, five state agency directors, serving as the Governor's Community Solutions Team
(CST), have been actively engaged in developing an integrated and collaborative approach to community development. ACTs are encouraged to use the multi agency resources of the Regional
Community Solutions Teams (RCST) early in the project review process to raise and resolve issues
as appropriate. RCST may also help identify opportunities to leverage funds. The standing agencies of the CST include:
• Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
• Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS)
• Oregon Business Development Department (OBDD)
• Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
• Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Representatives of the RCST should be included on the ACT mailing lists and invited to all ACT
meetings
E. Regional Partnerships and Regional Investment Boards
Regional Partnerships and Regional Investment Boards are composed of local partners in two or
more counties and the cities, ports, and tribes within those counties who agree to work together to
provide a forum for coordination of economic and community development planning and investments so that strategies and processes for economic and community development are leveraged to
the greatest extent possible to meet agreed upon priority issues, challenges and goals.
Representatives of Regional Partnerships or Regional Investment Boards should be included on the
ACT mailing lists and invited to all ACT meetings. ACTs are encouraged to either be one and the
same with a Regional Partnership or be organized to work effectively with and contribute to the
work of a Regional Partnership.
Page 114
January 24, 2013
F. Tribal Governments
OTC recognizes that Tribal Governments represent sovereign nations. ACT recommendations will
consider the needs of the Tribal Governments, as well as coordination with the tribal Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and other projects being developed by the Tribal Governments. To
provide this coordination and understanding, a tribal representative shall be invited as a voting
member of the ACT, as applicable.
G. MPOs
While the ACTs provide valuable advice on project priorities and other policy issues, the MPO is
responsible for carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process within urbanized areas
in cooperation with the State and transit operators (23 CFR 450.312). MPOs develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that approves all projects that are regionally significant or that include federal funds, by year and by phase within the MPO planning areas. Before FHWA and FTA
can approve Federal transportation funding for projects or activities within urbanized areas, they
must be consistent with the MPO’s regional transportation plan (RTP) and TIP.
The MPO must have a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process
that results in plans and programs that consider all transportation modes and supports metropolitan
community development and social goals. These plans and programs shall lead to the development
and operation of an integrated intermodal transportation system that facilitates the efficient, economic movement of people and goods (23 CFR 450.312).
ACTs and MPOs should coordinate their efforts to assure a better decision making process which
results in better coordination of projects. The form of coordination should be different depending
upon where MPO and ACT boundaries fall. When ACT and MPO boundaries overlap, a higher
level of clearly defined coordination is needed and it is important that ACT activities fully coordinate with the MPO planning process. The MPO and ACT should jointly agree on a process for
maintaining consistency between ACT recommendations and the MPO Plan and TIP, where this
occurs. An MPO representative shall be included as a voting member on the ACT if within the
same geographic area as an ACT.
For ACTs that are near or adjacent to an MPO, a sufficient level of coordination can be achieved by
simply communicating the priorities of each group. This might be done through ex officio membership on committees or some other mutually agreeable, less formal method.
H. Local Governments, Transit and Port Districts
Transportation recommendations will be coordinated with other local and Regional community
development activities. ACT representation shall include port and transit officials from the Area.
ACT representatives of these groups are responsible for providing regular updates to their respective
organizations on actions and recommendations being considered by the ACTs.
I. Stakeholder Groups
While it may be impractical to include representatives from every stakeholder group on the ACT,
the ACT needs to make a concerted effort to hear the concerns and recommendations of
stakeholders prior to making decisions regarding recommendations to the OTC. The ACT will
provide easy access to technical materials and supporting documentation considered by the ACT
during its decision making process and shall consider and respond to public input received during
the planning and program development process. (Section V. C. and Attachment A).
Page 115
January 24, 2013
Attachment A
Public Involvement
ACT meetings will comply with the requirements of the Oregon Public Meetings Law, ORS
192.610 to 192.690. “Meeting” means the convening of a governing body of a public body for
which a quorum is required to make a decision or deliberate toward a decision on any matter” ORS
192.610(5). Meetings include information-gathering sessions, working lunches and electronic
meetings. All ACT meetings will be open to public attendance and any member of the public may
attend any meeting of the ACT.
A. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS
The ACT will conduct all meetings in accordance with the following minimum requirements and
will strive to meet the preferred standards. The regular meeting requirements will be supplemented
with the methods found in Table 1 if the meeting falls into the following additional categories:
Developing project priorities for Draft STIP using approved criteria
Draft STIP public hearing
Special meetings
Electronic meetings
Meeting Notice
• Advance notice to interested persons and stakeholder groups on ACT mailing list and to
news media which have requested notice.
• Notices must include time, place, agenda (principal subjects) and name of person and telephone number (including TTY number) at the public body to contact to make a request for
an interpreter for the hearing impaired or for other communication aids.
• A good faith effort must be made to provide an interpreter for hearing-impaired persons on
receipt of proper notice. ORS 192.630(5).
Meeting Materials
• For decision items, distribute information to everyone in attendance at the meeting.
• Provide time on the agenda for general public comment.
Meeting Schedule
• If regularly scheduled meetings are not possible, the minimum standard is to provide extra
public notification by following the Preferred method of meeting notification.
Meeting Location
• Meets accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
• No meeting may be held in buildings where discrimination (race, sex, age, national origin,
color, creed, disability) is practiced. ORS 192.630(3).
• Generally held within the geographic boundaries of the ACT’s jurisdiction. Training sessions may be held anywhere.
• Contains adequate seating and facilities to encourage attendance by the general public.
Page 116
January 24, 2013
Meeting Minutes
Minutes shall be prepared for all ACT meetings. Minutes must include at least:
• Members present.
• All motions, proposals and resolutions proposed, and their disposition.
• Results of all votes/decisions. Secret ballots prohibited.
• Substance of all discussion.
• Reference to all documents discussed (confidentiality of records exempt from disclosure
may be protected).
• After each ACT meeting the ACT shall prepare and distribute the minutes prior to the next
ACT meeting.
• As appropriate to the Area, meeting minutes should be provided in languages other than
English.8
• Minutes must be preserved for a reasonable time.
B. PREFERRED STANDARD FOR REGULAR MEETINGS
In addition to the minimum requirements, the preferred standard for regular meetings includes:
Meeting Notice
• One week advance notice.
• Notices posted at local public institutions (city hall, library, community center, etc.).
• Notice posted on ACT website, along with links to meeting agendas, past meeting minutes,
technical materials and documentation.
Meeting Materials
• Provide an advance agenda one week prior to the meeting, either on the ACT website or
through the mail.
• For decision items, provide technical materials and supporting documentation one week prior to the ACT meeting. Materials can be distributed through the ACT website and/or
through the mail.
• Provide copies of all correspondence received prior to the meeting to ACT members and the
public attending the meeting.
Meeting Schedule
• Regular schedule (e.g., meetings at 1:00 p.m. on the last Thursday of each month).
Meeting Location
• Easily accessible by public transportation.
Meeting Minutes
• Post minutes from the meeting on the ACT website.
8
A Governor’s task force is currently working on methodology for meeting the federal requirements for Limited
English Proficiency. Public involvement at the ACTs will need to comply with the guidance developed.
Page 117
January 24, 2013
C. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
The responsibilities of the ACT do not include work permitted in an executive session (ORS
192.660).
D. CONTROL OF MEETINGS
• The presiding officer has inherent authority to keep order at meetings—can “reasonably”
regulate the use of cameras and tape recorders.
• No smoking is permitted at any meeting of the ACT.
E. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Roles and responsibilities of parties engaged in public involvement activities on behalf of ACT will
be designated in the joint agreement identified in Section V.B, Staffing and Financial support.
F. PUBLIC COMMENT
The public shall be provided opportunities to speak to the merits of proposals before the ACT and to
forward their own proposals. Public comment may be taken at any time during the ACT meeting.
Copies of all correspondence received prior to the meeting should be available for ACT members
and the public at the meeting. The ACT public involvement process shall demonstrate explicit consideration and response to public input during the planning and program development process.
Page 118
Type of
Meeting
Developing
Project
Priorities for
Draft STIP
Using
Approved
Criteria
Meeting Notice
Minimum
Preferred
January 24, 2013
Meeting Materials
Minimum
Preferred
Meeting Schedule
Minimum
Preferred
Meeting Location
Minimum
Preferred
-Same as Regular Meetings
plus
-Paid
Advertising
-Same as Regular
Meetings
plus
-In establishing
outreach
activities for
specific projects
or topics
consider
locations that
would be
frequented by
that community
(e.g., social service organizations, schools).
Draft STIP
Public
Hearing
plus
-Paid
Advertising
Special
Meetings
plus
-Minimum 24
hours Notice
-Same as Minimum for meeting type listed
above.
All procedural
and formal
requirements
apply (minutes,
notices, etc.).
ORS 192.670
Same as
Developing
Project Priorities
for Draft STIP
Using Approved
Criteria
-Same as Regular
Meetings
- Same as
Preferred for
appropriate
meeting type
listed above
Same as Regular Meetings
plus
-Room with
“listening”
device
Electronic
Requirements
apply to all
meetings by
electronic means
(e.g., personal
computers)
-Same as Regular
Meetings
Attachment A Table 1
Page 119
January 24, 2013
Attachment B
How an Act Is Established and Biennial Report Structure
In establishing an ACT, local elected officials and staff work together with the ODOT Region Manager and the OTC member representing the Area to develop a proposal for the formation of an Area
Commission on Transportation (ACT). The proposal should address the key questions listed below.
The proposal is circulated among local jurisdictions for comment, revision and eventually expressions of support. The State Community Solutions Team reviews the proposal for coordination with
the Regional Partnership Initiative. The Oregon Transportation Commission reviews the proposal.
Once the Commission accepts the proposal, it adopts a resolution providing a provisional charter for
the Area Commission on Transportation. The ACT selects its members and begins to function as an
official advisory body to the Oregon Transportation Commission.
The Biennial Report should follow a similar process in addressing the questions below and should
be reviewed by the ACT membership before submitting to the OTC.
Key Questions to be addressed in an ACT Proposal
The Oregon Transportation Commission expects that for an ACT to be effective it will represent the
political environment of the Area. Therefore, each ACT may look and function somewhat differently than another. However, each proposal or biennial report for an ACT should address at least the
following questions:
1. What is the rationale for the geographic boundaries of the proposed ACT? If the boundaries
are being modified, why?
2. What are the proposed voting and ex officio membership categories and how do they ensure
coordination with existing Regional public agencies?
3. Is the membership broadly representative of local elected officials and inclusive of other key
stakeholders and interests (see Section IV, Subsection B., Membership)? If key representation is not included, explain the justification.
4. How would/does the ACT coordinate with adjacent ACTs and/or MPOs and involve state
legislators?
5. What is the proposed work program of the ACT?
6. How will/does the ACT meet the minimum public involvement standards as shown in Attachment A of this document?
7. Who would/does help guide the work program and agendas of the ACT? Indicate the general operational structure.
8. How would/does the ACT secure technical assistance on transportation issues?
9. What key work efforts will be /have been addressed by the ACT?
Page 120
January 24, 2013
10. Who would/does provide support staff to the ACT?
11. What will be/is the decision making process used by the ACT?
Page 121
January 24, 2013
Attachment C
ACT PARTICIPATION TYPICAL PROCESS ELEMENTS
STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
NEEDS ANALYSIS & PRIORITIZATION
PLANNING
OTC Priorities
Program Service Levels
Preservation
Safety
Mobility
Adopted Plans
ODOT Strategic Direction
Improve Safety
Move People & Goods Efficiently
Improve Oregon’s Livability &
Economic Prosperity
Management Systems
Public Transportation
Bridge
Pavement
Safety
Congestion
Intermodal
Coordination
Local Governments/MPOs
Modal
Other State Agencies
Oregon Transportation Plan
Mode & Topic Plans*
Corridor Plans
Local & Regional Transportation System Plans
Refinement Plans
Other Long-Range Planning Considerations
(e.g., Freight Moves the Oregon Economy)
State Implementation Plan (Air Quality)
Purpose & Need for
Project
Revenue Identification
Project Identification
Project Prioritization
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
STIP DOCUMENT
DRAFT STIP
Program Levels
Regional Balance
Regional & Department Priorities
Federal & State Regulations
System Performance Goals
Special Programs
Apply OTC
Approved Criteria
FINAL STIP
Financial Constraint
Air Quality Conformity
MPO Transportation Improvement
Programs**
OTC Approval
FHWA/FTA Approval
SOLUTION DELIVERY/
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Right of Way Acquisition
Project Design
Project Construction
ONGOING MAINTENANCE
OPERATIONS & SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
* Bicycle/Pedestrian, Highway, Public Transportation, Rail Freight, Rail Passenger, Transportation Safety Action, Aviation
** MPO TIPS must be included in ODOT’s STIP without modification. To ensure state priorities are considered,
ODOT must be involved in the local planning project selection process.
Bold Text = Primary Role for ACTs
Italicized Text = Optional Role for ACTs
Black Text = Not covered for Formation and Operation of ACTs document
Page 122
January 24, 2013
Attachment D
Glossary of Terms
Area—When capitalized, describes the geographic area of the Area Commission on Transportation.
Region—When capitalized, describes the Oregon Department of Transportation geographic regions.
Regional—When capitalized, includes considerations of other communities, regional movements
and patterns of transportation.
Transportation System—When capitalized, includes the following modes and aspects:
• Air, marine, rail (freight and passenger)
• Highway (trucks, buses, cars)
• Transit
• Bicycle/Pedestrian
To consider all modes and aspects of the Transportation System in formulating recommendations,
ACTs would take into account the provision of elements and connections between air, marine, rail,
highway, trucking, transit, bike and pedestrian facilities.
Verbs
Obligation—This category of terms shows the ACTs’ responsibility to ensure the outcome to the
OTC. The terms that fall within this category include:
• Must
• Shall
• Will
Encouraged—This category of terms provides the ACTs some flexibility with their responsibilities
to the OTC. The terms that fall within this category include:
• Should
Permitted—This is the most flexible category of terms. It allows the ACTs to decide whether or
not to engage in evaluation of the particular situation. Terms that fall within this category include:
• May
Page 123
January 24, 2013
APPENDIX E: DATA ENTRY GUIDELINES and CODES
Pooled Fund Projects
•
•
•
•
•
Use POOL monitor code for funds that are set aside for projects that are yet to be identified.
Funding should be entered in the appropriate phase(s) (e.g. PE, RW, CONST), and not in OTHER phase.
Projects that are broken out of a POOL will have a monitor code of PSEDOC, or other appropriate monitor code.
A bucket of funds that will never have individual projects broken out will be called a project,
not a pool and will use PSEDOC monitor code, not POOL.
Use NONCON monitor code for non-construction projects (e.g. transit, planning for stand-alone
development plans, TSPs, etc.).
When Combining and/or Splitting Projects
•
•
•
Always use a new key number when combining or splitting projects.
Both current and new monitor codes should be changed to COMB (except when combining for
construction only) or SPLIT, but the active project(s) should retain PSEDOC or other applicable
monitor code.
A new work description must be submitted for the new combined or split project(s).
For Projects that are in Local TIPs
•
•
•
Projects that are in local TIPs must go through their local approval process and air quality conformity before they are put in the STIP. Please work with your MPOs to accomplish this prior
to submitting the STIP for federal approval.
All state projects in an MPO area must be included in the TIP.
When you receive an approved TIP, please check it carefully to assure that all projects are entered into PCSX, and that the entries are correct.
For Projects that are Slipping into the 2015-2018 STIP
•
•
•
•
Verify any carryover amounts with the Financial Plan FIRST. If a project is slipping into the
2015-2018 STIP without funding (e.g., the funds were used to cover something else), then the
project is considered a new, unfunded project, and the funds must come from your 2015-2018
targets.
Load the total project cost into PCSX, including carryover amounts. You will need to figure a
percentage on the carryover amounts as if it were another fund type (which it is). You may have
two columns of the same fund code, one new money and one carryover, each with the appropriate percentages. All percentages must add up to 100.
All carryover funds should be entered in the fourth column in PCSX (fund 4). Use the same
fund code that appeared in the 2012-2015 STIP. You must check the CO (carryover) field to
indicate that the funds in the fourth column are carryover funds. Otherwise, the funds will be
counted against your 2015-2018 targets.
If you have more that three current fund codes along with carryover funds, work with the
Statewide STIP Coordinator on how to show them in the STIP.
Page 124
January 24, 2013
For Projects that are Advanced, with Funding from the 2015-2018 STIP
•
•
If you are advancing a project out of the 2015-2018 STIP in a year prior to 2015, it must still
appear in the 2015-2018 STIP. The new monitor code must be ADVANCE.
The new program year must be 15, 16, 17, or 18. Use the year of the funding allocation that the
funds are coming from.
For Cancelled, then Resurrected Projects
•
A cancelled project is a dead project. If a new project arises that has the same or similar scope
as a cancelled project in PCS, a new key number must be created. Cross-reference the new key
number to the old key number.
For Needs Projects that get Funding to Move to Construction
•
•
A NEEDS project is one that remains a priority project, but funding has not been identified or is
not available at the time. Projects in this category are different than those that are cancelled, because they are still valid priorities, while cancelled projects are not.
Use the same key number, and change the new monitor code to PSEDOC or other applicable
monitor code.
For Transit Projects
•
•
•
•
For FTA-funded Transit projects, use option code “T”. This applies to all FTA funds, e.g.,
FF30, F260, P180, etc.
For local STP-funded Transit projects, use option code “L”. This is the money that the local
agencies receive through the Local Officials Advisory Committee agreement, or Metro’s STP
funds. Local governments sometimes opt to flex their STP funds to Transit.
For state STP-funded Transit projects, use option code “S”. This applies to the Oregon Transportation Network (OTN) as well as each Region’s flexed STP funds.
If a Region chooses to flex STP funds to Transit projects, the amount shall be identified as a
bucket for each year funds are to be transferred. When entering into PCSX, use option code
“S”, a section name that says ODOT STP to Transit, fund code M240, and work type TR-CAP.
The pro-rata in PCS must be manually overridden, so that the match is not charged to the state.
Match must be paid by the local/transit agency, because gas tax revenue cannot be used for public transportation projects.
Milepoint Data
•
•
•
Please be as specific and accurate as possible when entering milepoint data, to facilitate mapping of the STIP projects.
Negative milepoints: PCSX and PCS allow an "X" to be entered in the beginning and ending
mile point fields. A user should enter an "X" to represent negative mile points (e.g., X00.25
represents -00.25), when applicable.
Project length will be calculated by the system in miles. If there is a need to override the automated length, be sure to put the new length in miles.
Page 125
January 24, 2013
PCSX DATA ENTRY GUIDELINES
NOTE: This information is a summary of the PCSX Data Entry Guidelines. Detailed instructions
for entering project data into PCSX and for developing the STIP are in the Work Type Definitions
and Programming Guidelines section of this manual. Please follow these instructions when entering
data into PCSX. See page 138 for a diagram of the PCS Project Entry Screen. The first number of
each data element in the diagram refers to the numbers listed below; the second refers to the number
of characters in that field. For example, the number for KEY is 2-5; it is number 2 below, and there
are 5 characters in the field.
1. ACTION CODE
Determines the action to be taken to the project being added or modified.
A – Add, to add a new project to PCS.
U – Update, to update a project that is already entered into PCS.
I – Inquire, to call up a project that is already entered into PCS in order to view or view to
update. You must use “I” to call up a project before you can use “U” to update it.
2. KEY
Key number. A unique number used to identify an individual project. The system will automatically assign a key number when adding a new project.
3. REGION
ODOT Region number – Regions 1 through 5. Use Region 6 for projects that belong to
statewide programs (e.g. Major Bridge Maintenance, Statewide Operations Bucket,
Statewide Vanpool Program). Also use Region 6 for projects that span more than one Region.
4. OPT CODE
Option code. Indicates how the project is primarily funded (who manages the funds and selects the projects). Valid option codes are:
S – State project (funded primarily by state)
L – Local project (funded primarily by local government)
T – Transit project (funded primarily by Public Transit Division, FTA)
O – Other, not state, not local (e.g. Federal Lands Highways, Federal Parks, etc.)
R – Railroad crossing safety project
5. MPO
Identifies the Metropolitan Planning Organization, if any, that the project is in. Project can
be a state, local, or transit project. Valid MPO codes (and the MPO names) are:
P – Portland (Metro)
S – Salem/Keizer (Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments)
E – Central Lane (Lane Council of Governments)
B – Bend (City of Bend)
M – Rogue Valley (Rogue Valley Council of Governments)
C – Corvallis/Albany (Cascades West Council of Governments)
W – Longview-Kelso/Rainier
N – N/A (project is not in an MPO)
Page 126
January 24, 2013
Note: Three new MPOs have been identified as the result of the 2010 Federal Census: Albany,Milton-Freewater/Walla Walla and Grants Pass. Currently, the MPOs have not been
officially formed but updates will be provided as they occur.
Page 127
January 24, 2013
ADMIN BY
Identifies who administers or manages the project. Valid entries are:
LOCAL/CERT – Administered by a Certified Local Agency with oversight from Region
Local Agency Liaison
LOCAL/LAL – Administered by local agency with guidance from Region Local Agency
Liaison
LOCAL/PLN – Primarily administered by local agency with minimal ODOT involvement,
handled by a Planner
OBDP – Administered by OBDP (OTIA Bridge or an OTIA-STIP combination)
OBDP/ODOT – Design phase administered by OBDP, construction administered by ODOT
ODOT – Administered by ODOT’s Project Leader or Consultant Project Manager
ODOT/OBDP – Design phase administered by ODOT, construction administered by OBDP
OTHER – Not administered by ODOT or OBDP (locally-funded or WFLHP projects)
RAIL – Administered by ODOT Rail Division or local rail personnel
TRANSIT – Administered by ODOT Public Transit Division
IDAHODOT – Partially funded by Idaho DOT
WASHDOT – Partially funded by Washington DOT
6. WORK TYPE
Primary type of work being done by the project. Percentage is assumed to be 100%, unless
there are second or second/third work types. Valid work type codes are:
AVIATE – Aviation projects (ConnectOregon)
BIKPED – Bicycle/pedestrian program only
BP-FLX – BikePed, Flexible Funds
BR-MBM – Bridge, major bridge maintenance
BRIDGE – Bridge program project
BRLF – Bridge – Large – Off
BRLO – Bridge – Large – On
BRSF – Bridge – Small – Off
BRSO – Bridge – Small – On
CMAQ – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) improvement project
CULVRT – Non-National Bridge Inventory (NBI) culvert project
EM-REL – Emergency relief project
ENHANC – Transportation enhancement project
ENVIRO – Environmental project (e.g. wetlands mitigation)
FISH – Fish Passage project
IOF – Immediate Opportunity Fund project
MAINT – Maintenance project (non-STIP)
MARINE – Marine projects (ConnectOregon)
MODERN – Modernization project
MOD-EX – Modernization, jurisdictional exchange
OPERAT – Operations project (buckets of funds only)
OP-EX – Operations, jurisdictional exchange
OP-ITS – Operations, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) project
OP-SLD – Operations, slides, rockfalls project
OP-SSI – Operations, signals, signs, illumination
OP-TDM – Operations, Transportation Demand Management
PLANNG – Planning (e.g. refinement plan, corridor planning, location EIS). Specific project location has not been selected.
Page 128
January 24, 2013
PRESRV – Pavement preservation project, including interstate maintenance
PRE-EX – Preservation, jurisdictional exchange
PR-CHP – Preservation, Chip Seals (preservation funds)
PR-IM – Preservation, Interstate Maintenance
PR-MIM – Preservation, Major Interstate Maintenance
PR-1RF – Preservation, 1R Features
RAIL – Rail projects (ConnectOregon)
SAFETY – Safety project [Safety Investment Program (SIP), Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP), High Risk Rural Roads, Safe Routes to School, Railroad Crossing Safety]
SAF-EX – Safety, jurisdictional exchange
SCENBY – Scenic byways project
SPPROG – Special programs (Transportation Growth Management, Federal Lands Highways, Federal Parks, etc.)
STORM – Stormwater retrofit project
TD-FLX – TDM, Flexible Funds
TR-FLX – Transit, Flexible Funds
TRANST – Transit program or project
TR-CAP – Transit program, capital
TR-OPS – Transit program, operations
TR-PLN – Transit program, planning
7. WORK TYPE2
Secondary type of work being done by the project. Use the same work type codes as primary work type.
8. PCT
Percentage of work that is of the secondary work type, determined by percentage of funding
for each work type. Must be less than 50%. The total of all work types must equal 100%.
9. WORK TYPE3
Third type of work being done by the project. Use the same work type codes as primary
work type.
10. PCT
Percentage of work that is of the third work type, determined by percentage of funding for
each work type. Must be less than 50%. The total of all work types must equal 100%.
11. SECTION
Name of the project. ODOT’s approved Project Naming Convention must be used (see
page 54). Thought should be given to naming each project prior to data entry, to avoid confusion and unnecessary changes later. If the project is a Full Federal Oversight project,
make sure the project name begins with FFO. If the project is an STP transfer, add the
words STP Transfer to the end of the project name.
12. FUNC CLASS
Functional classification of the facility. Valid functional classifications are:
1 – Rural Principal Arterial-Interstate
2 – Rural Principal Arterial-Other
Page 129
January 24, 2013
6 – Rural Minor Arterial
7 – Rural Major Collector
8 – Rural Minor Collector
9 – Rural Local
11 – Urban Principal Arterial-Interstate
12 – Urban Principal Arterial-Other Fwy/Exp
14 – Urban Principal Arterial-Other
16 – Urban Minor Arterial
17 – Urban Collector
19 – Urban Local
20 – Bike/Ped
30 – Public Transit
40 – Studies
50 – Fund Exchange
60 – Enhancement, other than listed
70 – Rail (laying tracks)
For definitions of the functional classifications, go to:
http://www.oregon.gov/odot/td/tdata/pages/rics/functionalclassification.aspx
13. APPLICANT
Name of the applicant, usually ODOT or the appropriate city, county, or other third party,
requesting the project.
14. ROAD/STREET
Name of the road or street within the project, when applicable.
15. CURR MONITOR
Current monitor code. The status of the project in the current STIP. Display field only.
This field is automatically populated by PCS.
16. NEW MONITOR (also known as Future Monitor Code)
The status of the project in the STIP under development. Valid monitor codes are:
ADVANCE – Advanced project tracking
CANCEL – Project no longer valid, cancelled (this is different than NEEDS)
COMB – Project combined into another project
CONST – Project under construction
DELETE – Delete due to data entry error (e.g. project entered twice). Project information
remains in the system, but project is no longer valid.
ENVDOC – Funded through environmental documents
FNLPLN – Funded through final plans
NEEDS – Priority project, but has no available funding
NONCON – Non-construction project (e.g. transit, planning for stand-alone development
plans, TSPs, etc.)
PLAN – Planning activity for future construction project
POOL – Bucket of funds set aside for projects not yet identified
PSEDOC – Plans, specifications, and estimates documents complete, project is funded
through construction
ROWACQ – Funded through right of way acquisition
SPLIT – Project split into two or more projects
Page 130
January 24, 2013
STUDY – Study activity, corridor study
UTLREL – Funded through utility relocation
17. PL PGM YR
Planning program year. This is the federal fiscal year during which the funds for this phase
will be obligated.
18. CURR PGM YR
Current program year. This is the federal fiscal year during which the funds for the latest
phase included in the current STIP will be obligated. Display field only. This field is automatically populated by PCS.
19. NEW PGM YR
New program year. This is the federal fiscal year during which the funds for the latest phase
included in the STIP under development will be obligated. If the project is funded for construction, this will be the construction program year. THIS FIELD MUST BE COMPLETED, EVEN IF CONSTRUCTION IS NOT FUNDED.
20. PE PGM YR
Preliminary engineering program year. This is the federal fiscal year during which the funds
for this phase will be obligated.
21. RW PGM YR
Right of way program year. This is the federal fiscal year during which the funds for this
phase will be obligated.
22. UR PGM YR
Utility relocation program year. This is the federal fiscal year during which the funds for
this phase will be obligated.
23. OTHER PGM YR
Other program year. This is the federal fiscal year during which the funds for nonconstruction projects will be obligated.
24. PLAN
Planning activities (e.g. refinement plans, location EIS, MPO planning, State Planning and
Research). See pages 10-13 in the STIP Development Manual for complete information.
25. PRELIM ENG
Preliminary engineering. Design for construction projects. Transit planning is no longer entered in this field.
26. R/W
Right of way acquisition. R/W for construction projects only. Transit operations is no
longer entered in this field.
27. UTIL RELOC
Utility relocation. For stand-alone work done BEFORE construction. This work is normally done by the utility company.
Page 131
January 24, 2013
28. CONST
Construction. For construction activities only. See OTHER category for non-construction
activities. Transit capital is no longer entered in this field.
29. OTHER
Other (non-construction) activities, such as transit (planning, operations, capital), TDM,
phase 3 archaeology work, rail relocation, jurisdictional exchanges where ODOT does not
do work before the exchange is completed.
31-36. COST
Estimated TOTAL cost of a specific phase of the project, in thousands of dollars.
37-42. FUND1
Fund code indicating the primary source of funding for a specific phase. Valid fund codes
are:
State Funds:
S010 – State funds
S080 – Bicycle/pedestrian program
S600 – Immediate Opportunity Fund
S700 – Lottery backed bonds
M010 – Maintenance funds
B4A0 – HB2001 Bond Funds
B4A1 – HB2001 Wedge Funds
Federal Highway Administration Funds:
ACP0 – Advance Construct Program
ACP1 – OTIA III Modernization, Advance Construct
ER60 – Emergency relief funds
MS30 – Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
MS32 – Section 164 – HSIP Activities
MS40 – Rail Highway X’ing Hazard Elimination
MS50 – Rail Highway Protective Devices
MT30 – Highway Use Tax Evasion Projects
M001 – National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)
M002 – NHPP Exempt
M003 – Projects to Reduce Emissions
M004 – Innovative Project Delivery
M020 – Minor Betterment
M030 – Rock Production
M040 – Buildings
M210 – Federal Lands Access Program
M230 – Surface Transportation Program (STP) for populations >200,000
M231 – STP for populations between 5,000 and 200,000
M232 – STP for populations <5,000
M233 – STP for Bridges (Off-system)
M234 – Special Rule for populations <5,000
Page 132
January 24, 2013
M240 – STP-Flexible Funds
M300 – Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) – Flexible Funds
M301 – TAP for populations >200,000
M302 – TAP for populations between 5,000 and 200,000
M303 – TAP for populations <5,000
M400 – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
M401 – CMAQ – Flexible Funds
M450 – Metro Planning
M550 – State Planning and Research
M560 – Research, Development and Technology Transfer
M561 – Future Strategic Highway Research Program
M940 – Recreational trails
09V0 – Emergency relief funds
99A0 – Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank (OTIB)
Federal Transit Administration Funds:
FF12 – Transit Section 5312, National Research and Technology
FF18 – Transit Section 5311, Non-Urbanized Area Formula, operating assistance
FF30 – Transit Section 5309, Bus/Bus Facility, planning and capital projects; Fixed Guideway Modernization; New Starts
FF31 – Transit Section 5309, Bus/Bus Facility, operating assistance
FF32 – Transit Section 5309, Bus/Bus Facility, discretionary funds
FF33 – Transit Section 5309, Bus/Bus Facility, equipment for ADA/CAAA compliance;
bicycle facilities
FF34 – Transit Section 5309, Bus/Bus Facility, buses for ADA/CAAA compliance
FF35 – Transit Section 5309, Economic Stimulus
FF80 – Transit Section 5303, Metropolitan Transportation Planning
FF90 – Transit Section 5307, Urbanized Area Formula, operating assistance
FF91 – Transit Section 5307, Urbanized Area Formula, planning and capital projects
FF92 – Transit Section 5307, Urbanized Area Formula, equipment for ADA/CAAA
compliance; bicycle facilities
FF93 – Transit Section 5307, Urbanized Area Formula, buses for ADA/CAAA compliance
FF94 – Transit Section 5307, Economic Stimulus
F160 – Transit Section 5310, Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities, capital projects
F161 – Transit Section 5310, Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities, operating assistance
F162 – Transit Section 5310, Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities, state administration
F163 – Transit Section 5310, Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities, equipment for ADA/
CAAA compliance
F181 – Transit Section 5311, Non-Urbanized Area Formula, capital/project administration
F182 – Transit Section 5311, Non-Urbanized Area Formula, state administration/technical
assistance
F183 – Transit Section 5311, Non-Urbanized Area Formula, equipment for ADA/CAAA
compliance; bicycle facilities
F184 – Transit Section 5311, Non-Urbanized Area Formula, intercity capital projects
F185 – Transit Section 5311, Economic Stimulus
F260 – Transit Section 5304, Statewide Transportation Planning
F400 – Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gases and Energy Reduction (TIGGER)
P180 – Transit Section 5311(b)(3), Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP)
Page 133
January 24, 2013
Other Funds:
OTH0 – Other funds (third party, not state or federal)
STF0 – Special Transportation Fund (cigarette tax)
TSP0, TSP1 – Transportation Safety Program funds (NHTSA)
43-48. %
Percentage of the total cost of a specific phase that is attributed to FUND1 type funds. Percentage is 100%, unless there are FUND2, FUND3, and/or FUND4 type funds entered for
the project.
49-54. FUND2
Fund code indicating the secondary source of funding for a specific phase. See FUND1 for
valid fund codes.
55-60. %
Percentage of the total cost of a specific phase that is attributed to FUND2 type funds. The
total of all sources of funding must equal 100%.
61-66. FUND3
Fund code indicating the third source of funding for a specific phase. See FUND1 for valid
fund codes.
Page 134
January 24, 2013
67-72. %
73-78. FUND4
Fund code indicating the fourth source of funding for a specific phase. See FUND1 for valid fund codes. If there are carry-over funds being utilized on this phase, they must be entered here, and the carry-over flag must be checked. If the carry-over funds are 100% of the
funds, you will need to enter 1% in FUND1 % and 99% in FUND4 %, because the system
will not let you leave FUND1 at zero.
79-84. %
85-90. CO
Carry-over flag. If the funds entered in FUND4 are carry-over funds from prior STIP years,
this field must be checked. Otherwise, the funds in FUND4 are assumed to be current STIP
funds, and will be counted against region/program targets.
91. HWY #
Four digit ODOT highway number used to identify the highway on which the project is located. If the project is not on a specific highway, use VAR for various. If the project is on a
local road or street, use LOCL. Complete information on highway numbers is available on
the web at:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/otms/OTMS_Quick_References.shtml.
92. HWY NAME
Name of the highway on which the project is located. Display field only. This field is automatically populated by PCS if HWY # is on a state highway.
93. ACT/AREA
ACT or area that the project is in. NONE is not a valid code for this field. You must enter
one of these valid codes:
NWACT – Northwest Oregon ACT
MWACT – Mid-Willamette Valley ACT
CWACT – Cascades West ACT
SWACT – South West Oregon ACT
RVACT – Rogue Valley ACT
LJDACT – Lower John Day ACT
COACT – Central Oregon ACT
SCOACT – South Central Oregon ACT
NEACT – North East Oregon ACT
SEACT – South East Oregon ACT
LANECO – Lane County
METROE – Metro East
METROW – Metro West
VARIOUS – For projects that cover multiple jurisdictions (including Region pools and
buckets)
Page 135
January 24, 2013
STATEWIDE – For Statewide pools and buckets only
94. ROUTE
Route number assigned to the highway on which the project is located, which is different
from the Hwy #. Numbers are entered as follows: I-###, for Interstate highways, US-###
for US routes, OR-### for Oregon highways. If the project is not on a specific route, use
VAR for various. Complete information on route numbers is available on the web at:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/Pages/otms/Route_Hwy_CrossRef.aspx .
95. BEGINNING MP
Starting milepoint of the project, if on the state highway system. Please be as specific and
accurate as possible to facilitate mapping. Enter X to indicate negative mile points (e.g.
X00.25).
96. END MP
Ending milepoint of the project, if on the state highway system. Please be as specific and
accurate as possible to facilitate mapping. Enter X to indicate negative mile points (e.g.
X00.25).
97. PROJ LENGTH
Total project length, which may or may not be equal to the beginning milepoint minus the
ending milepoint. Some projects are only on portions of the roadway, and those “no work
zones” must be subtracted from the length. Therefore, the project length could be less, but
never more than the difference between the beginning and ending milepoints.
98. US CONG DIST
US Congressional district number that the project location is in. Valid entries are 1 through
5. If the project spans more than one district or covers the entire state, use V. A map of the
US Congressional districts is available at:
http://www.sos.state.or.us/bbook/national/reps/map.htm.
99. SEN DIST
State Senate district number that the project location is in. Valid entries are 1 through 30. If
the project spans more than one district or covers the entire state, use V. A map of the state
Senate districts is available at: http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/legis/legis15c.htm.
100. REP DIST
State Representative district number that the project location is in. Valid entries are 1
through 60. If the project spans more than one district or covers the entire state, use V. A
map of the state Representative districts is available at:
http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/legis/legis15b.htm.
Page 136
January 24, 2013
101. COUNTY NAME
Name of the county that the project location is in. If the project spans more than one county
or is region-wide, use VARIOUS. If the project covers the entire state, or is a statewide
program, use STATEWIDE.
102-103. WORK DESCRIPTION
Description of the work to be done. If the description is longer than one line on the screen,
continue typing on the second line. Do not tab down or move down to the next line, or add
additional spaces, as this will add extra space in the text of the description in the printed
document.
104. FOOTNOTE
Any additional information that should be included in the project listing should be entered
here.
Page 137
1-1
2-5
January 24, 2013
8-6
13-1
22-4
21-4
31-5
32-5
33-5
34-5
35-5
36-5
37-4
38-4
39-4
40-4
41-4
42-4
92
43-3
44-3
45-3
46-3
47-3
48-3
49-4
50-4
51-4
52-4
53-4
54-4
55-3
56-3
57-3
58-3
59-3
60-3
99-2
61-4
62-4
63-4
64-4
65-4
66-4
67-3
68-3
69-3
70-3
71-3
72-3
73-4
74-4
75-4
76-4
77-4
78-4
96-6
95-6
98-1
20-4
24-4
17-7
23-4
19
16
104-68
11-2
10-6
15-20
18-4
91-5
94-6
6-15
5-1
4-1
9-2
3-1
7-6
12-50
14-31
100-2
101-2
79-3
80-3
81-3
82-3
83-3
84-3
93-10
97-6
85-1
86-1
87-1
88-1
89-1
90-1
102-45
103-45
Page 138
January 24, 2013
APPENDIX F: FHWA Oregon Division and ODOT
Oversight Screening Criteria
Federal Project Number: ______________________________________
State Key Number: ___________________________________________
Tier I Criteria
Projects on the NHS that change lane or shoulder widths or alter centerline alignment or
include widening or reconstruction of roads or bridges.
Project is environmentally significant; or complex; or represents special interest as defined
in the tier II criteria below.
Check One
Use Tier I Criteria to determine the first line filter for Full Federal Oversight (a check in either box means the
project will proceed to tier 2 and be scored)
Tier II Criteria
Risk (0-3)
Environmental Significance
0-3
• Projects with an EIS / EA
0-3
• Projects with Public Controversy
Project Complexity
0-3
• Interstate projects:
o With design exceptions to any of the 13 controlling criteria
o For new or modified access points
o For major reconstruction and widening
0-3
• Non-Interstate NHS projects:
o For major reconstruction and widening
• Innovative Contracting Methods or Special Experimental Projects (SEP):
0-3
o Projects requiring SEP-14 approval for alternative contracting methods
o Projects requiring SEP-15 approval for public-private partnerships
o Major or unique ITS projects
0-3
• Major Unique or Unusual structures
Special Interest
0-3
• Congressional Interest Projects
0-3
• Demonstration (demo) and pilot projects
0-3
• Major projects as defined by FHWA’s major project criteria (cost ≥ $500 million)
0-3
Other (List other considerations below)
• Consideration one…..
• Consideration two…..
• Etc.
The projects selected should be on the Federal-Aid system to primarily include the Interstate and National
Highway system routes, but non-NHS projects can be selected. There is a desire to have a mix in project
size, scope, and geographical location.
TOTAL SCORE for Tier II
Check One
Full Oversight
State Oversight
Full Federal Oversight projects will generally be selected from the higher scoring projects in the top 10%
range, subject to FHWA work load.
Notes:
Page 139
January 24, 2013
Concurrence by:
ODOT _____________________________________
Date __________________
FHWA _____________________________________
Date __________________
Oversight will be further reassessed upon authorization of the project’s environmental documents:
ODOT _____________________________________
Date __________________
FHWA _____________________________________
Date __________________
Tier I:
Use Tier I Criteria to determine the first line filter for Full Federal Oversight. If a project meets Tier I Criteria,
then further review the project using Tier II for final determination. If Tier I criteria is not met, the project will
be considered as State Administered.
Tier II:
Higher scoring projects in the top 10% will generally be candidates for Full Federal Oversight. Use the project scores for guidance only. The final determination rests with the rating officials. Consider the size and
complexity of the overall program needs as well when rating a project.
Rate each element with a score of 0 to 3, with 3 representing the higher risk or complexity. Enter the total of
those scores in the TOTAL SCORE for Tier II box. Each element receives a rating.
Other:
Examples of the use of the ‘other’ category are: Involvement of other federal or state agencies; Atypical funding; Legislative mandates; or Experimental or innovative technology.
Procedure:
1. The FHWA Field Operations Team Leader and each ODOT Region will meet during STIP updates to
review the list of upcoming projects and assign oversight. Additional meeting may be needed during
interim periods as a result of significant STIP amendments where projects are added or changed that
are candidates for full federal oversight.
2. The FHWA retains responsibility of authorizing environmental documents. The FHWA Field Operations Engineer, in cooperation with ODOT, will further evaluate oversight assignment at this time and
document that determination on the Screening Criteria form or spreadsheet as appropriate.
3. A Screening Criteria form will be filled out for each project that is subject to full federal oversight. All
other projects considered will have their evaluations recorded in a spreadsheet. Each Region will be
required to keep these on file for all projects. The FHWA will keep those that are Full Federal Oversight only. The Criteria will become part of the project records.
Risk Levels Assignment:
The level of risk associated with each element of a project in the Oversight Screen Criteria above varies from
0 to 3. A rating of 0 indicates that the project element has little or no risk associated with it; conversely a 3
would indicate that this project element has a considerable or high risk. An example of a 0 risk level would
be, for instance, an overlay or pavement preservation project where all elements detailed above were considered and no impact to any environmental characteristic (i.e. natural resources, such as waterways, etc.,
cultural resources, such as historical or tribal) was determined; the project complexity was minimal as no geometric or capacity issues were entertained; no special interest groups or issues were identified, or political
interest groups (local or other); no atypical funding was used; and no other regulatory office. e.g. Army Corps,
Federal Lands, State Lands, etc. were impacted by the project.
The project will be reviewed twice at a minimum and the appropriate risk level assigned and final oversight
responsibility developed.
Page 140
January 24, 2013
APPENDIX G: WEB-BASED QUICK REFERENCES
Oregon Transportation Management System (OTMS)
Quick References
These references are available on the OTMS website. Many of these are in ".pdf" format and require Adobe Acrobat Reader to be installed on your computer.
•
Mileage Table for Selected Cities in Oregon
Shortest distances between selected cities over state highways.
•
State of Oregon: NHS Route Summary
NHS route summary for US and Oregon routes.
•
State of Oregon: NHS Route Detail
NHS route detail for US and Oregon routes by beginning and ending milepoints.
•
Functional Classification and NHS Status on Oregon State Highways
Functional classification and NHS status by beginning and ending milepoints for state
highways.
•
ODOT Approved Terms and Definitions
Terms and definitions approved for use at ODOT.
•
Oregon State Highway System
Highway name cross-referenced with highway number both numerically and alphabetically.
•
Posted Route Number Cross-Reference
Highway name and number cross-referenced with the posted route numbers.
•
FHWA Vehicle Classes
The 13 FHWA Vehicle Classes with definitions.
These references are available on the ODOT Internet at:
http://www.oregon.gov/odot/td/tdata/pages/otms/otms_quick_references.aspx .
Page 141
January 24, 2013
APPENDIX H: ACRONYMS and GLOSSARY of TERMS
Acronym or Word
ACT
ADA
ADT
AOC
AP
ARRA
ATS
B/C
BMS
Bridge, State Bridge
C-STIP
CAAA
CE
CFR
CMAQ
CMS
CO
COACT
COG
CONST
CST
CWACT
D-STIP
DLCD
EIS
Eligibility Criteria
EPA
Definition
Area Commission on Transportation; advisory organization chartered
by the OTC and found in most of the ODOT regions; they assist in recommending and prioritizing projects for the STIP
Americans with Disabilities Act
Average daily traffic
Association of Oregon Counties
Highway Performance Monitoring System Analytical Process, used for
determining modernization needs
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Active Transportation Section
Benefit/cost
Bridge Management System; used to rate bridge conditions and determine priorities for improvement, but not necessarily the type of treatment
State bridge program; STIP funding program for rehabilitation and replacement of bridges on state highways, usually identified by the BMS
Construction STIP; identifies project scheduling and funding for the
state's transportation preservation and capital improvement program for
a four-year construction period. This program meets the requirements
of MAP-21.
Clear Air Act Amendments
Construction Engineering
Code of Federal Regulations
Congestion Management and Air Quality Program; a federal transportation program
Congestion Management System
Carryover funds
Central Oregon ACT
Council of governments
Construction phase of a project
Community Solution Team
Cascades West ACT
Development STIP; identifies projects that require more than four years
to develop or for which construction funding needs to be obtained. Projects are funded for development through specific milestones and within specific timeframes.
Department of Land Conservation and Development
Environmental Impact Statement
Criteria that must be met in order for the project to be considered further. All of the eligibility criteria listed must be met or the project may
not move on to prioritization. The eligibility criteria are a pass-fail test
that a project must pass.
Environmental Protection Agency
Page 142
Acronym or Word
ERT
FFO
FHP
FHWA
Fiscal Constraint,
Fiscally Constrained
FLHP
FTA
GIS
HBP
HERS
HOV
HPMS
HR3
HSIP
IAMP
IDAHODOT
IGA
IM
IMS
IOF
ISTEA
ITS
JARC
JTA
LAB
LANECO
Least Cost Planning
LJDACT
January 24, 2013
Definition
Economic Revitalization Team, formerly Community Solutions Team
Full Federal Oversight, FFO projects require FHWA to review and approve actions pertaining to design, plans, specifications, estimates,
right-of-way certification statements, contract awards, inspections, and
final acceptance of Federal-aid projects on a project-by-project basis.
Forest Highways Program
Federal Highway Administration
The planned expenditures outlined in the STIP must correspond to revenue expected to be available at the time of expenditure. A project
cannot be included in the STIP without corresponding revenue available.
Federal Lands Highways Program, an umbrella program for the following: Public Lands Highways, Forest Highways, Indian Reservation
Roads, Park Roads and Parkways, and Refuge Road
Federal Transit Administration
Geographic Information System
Highway Bridge Program
Highway Economic Requirement System, a model upgrade of AP, used
for identifying modernization needs in regions
High Occupancy Vehicle
Highway Performance Monitoring System
Highway Safety Improvement Program
Interchange Area Management Plan
Idaho Department of Transportation
Intergovernmental Agreement
Interstate Maintenance, pavement preservation on the interstate system
Intermodal Management System
Immediate Opportunity Fund, created to stimulate economic growth by
providing quick funds for road construction or improvements for business/industrial projects or districts
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, signed into law on
December 18, 1991, provided regions and states with additional funding and more flexibility in making transportation decisions. The act
placed significant emphasis on broadening public participation in the
transportation planning process to include key stakeholders.
Jobs Access Reverse Commute
HB 2001, Jobs and Transportation Act
Legislatively Adopted Budget
Lane County Area
A process of comparing direct and indirect costs of demand and supply
options to meet transportation goals, policies, or both, where the intent
of the process is to identify the most cost-effective mix of options
Lower John Day ACT
Page 143
Acronym or Word
LOC
LSN
MAP-21
METROE
METROW
Modernization
MPA
MPO
MTIP
MTP
MWACT
NBI
NBIS
NEACT
NEPA
NHPP
NHS
NHTSA
Non-attainment Area
Non-NBIS
NONCON
NPS
NWACT
OAR
OBDP
OBPAC
January 24, 2013
Definition
League of Oregon Cities
Local Street Network
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act was signed into law
on July 6, 2012, and provided guaranteed funding for highways, highway safety, and public transportation for the years 2013 through 2014.
MAP-21 is the first long-term highway authorization enacted since
2005.
Metro East Area
Metro West Area
Modernization program; STIP funding program used to pay for highway improvements that add capacity, such as widening a highway
Metropolitan Planning Area; the area for which a federal metropolitan
transportation planning process must be carried out
Metropolitan Planning Organization; the forum for cooperative transportation decision-making for an MPA; defined by federal transportation legislation as metropolitan areas with more than 50,000 residents
and responsible for preparing "fiscally constrained" comprehensive
multi-modal regional transportation plans
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program; a staged, multiyear, intermodal program of transportation projects consistent with the
metropolitan transportation plan
Metropolitan Transportation Plan; the official intermodal transportation
plan developed and adopted by a MPO for an MPA
Mid-Willamette Valley ACT
National Bridge Inventory; federal registry of roadway bridges over 20
feet long
National Bridge Inspection Standards; federal standards to locate and
evaluate existing bridge deficiencies to ensure the safety of the traveling public
North East Oregon ACT
National Environmental Policy Act; the federal law that requires an
evaluation of environmental impacts associated with any improvement
project financed in whole or part with federal funds
National Highway Performance Program
National Highway System
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
A geographic region of the United States that the EPA has designated a
non-attainment area for a transportation related pollutant(s)
Not a part of the National Bridge Inventory Standards
Non-construction project
National Park Service
North West Oregon ACT
Oregon Administrative Rule
Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners
Oregon Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Page 144
Acronym or Word
ODFW
ODOT
OFAC
OHP
ORS
OTC
OTIA
OTIB
OTMS
OTN
OTP
PCS
PCSX
PE
PL
PMS
Practical Design
Preservation
Prioritization Factors
PSEDOC
PSMS
PTAC
PTD
PTMS
January 24, 2013
Definition
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, jointly manages Fish Passage
program with ODOT
Oregon Department of Transportation
Oregon Freight Advisory Committee
Oregon Highway Plan, a plan that guides how the state highways are
developed and managed over the next 20 years, an element of the OTP
Oregon Revised Statute
Oregon Transportation Commission; the five-person governorappointed commission that oversees ODOT and sets transportation policy for the state
Oregon Transportation Investment Act; special funding legislation
passed by state legislature
Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank
Oregon Transportation Management Systems; collection of bridge,
congestion, intermodal, pavement, public transit, safety, and traffic
management systems used to identify and prioritize projects
Oregon Transportation Network
Oregon Transportation Plan; ODOT’s comprehensive transportation
planning document for the State of Oregon, including its mode and topic plans such as the Oregon Highway Plan and the Oregon Public
Transportation Plan
Project Control System
Project entry screen for PCS
Preliminary engineering
Planning
A strategy to deliver focused benefits for the State’s transportation system, while working with the realities of a constrained funding environment. At a minimum, practical design considers safety, economic development, communities (if a project passes through them), the environment, the overall transportation system (not just highways), and cost
when developing and designing transportation projects.
Preservation program; STIP funding program for pavement preservation
Criteria used to choose projects from among eligible projects. Generally, a project that meets more prioritization factors or meets them more
fully should be advanced ahead of a project that meets fewer
145ecommend145tion factors or meets them to a lesser degree.
Plans, specifications, and estimates documents
Project Safety Management System
Public Transportation Advisory Committee; makes funding 145ecommenddations to OTC and advises on policy to OTC and PTD
ODOT’s Public Transit Division, responsible for administering the
public transit program
Public Transit Management System
Page 145
Acronym or Word
Regionally Significant
Project
RHRS
ROW, RW, R/W
RTAP
RTP
RVACT
SAFETEA-LU
Safety
SCOACT
SEACT
SHSP
SIP
SIP
SMS
SOV
SPC
SPIS
SPR
SR2S
STA
Statewide Significant
Project
STF
January 24, 2013
Definition
A transportation project that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs, including all principal arterial highways and all fixed
guideway transit facilities
Rockfall Hazard Rating System; used to prioritize landslide and rockfall projects
Right-of-way
Rural Transit Assistance Program
Regional Transportation Plan; the official intermodal transportation
plan developed and adopted through the metropolitan transportation
planning process for the metropolitan planning area
Rogue Valley ACT
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users was signed into law on August 20, 2005, and provided guaranteed funding for highways, highway safety, and public transportation for the years 2005 through 2009. SAFETEA-LU builds on
the foundation of ISTEA and TEA-21, supplying the funds and refining
the programmatic framework for investments needed to maintain and
grow our vital transportation infrastructure.
Safety program; STIP funding program for safety improvement projects, usually identified by the PSMS
South Central Oregon ACT
South East Oregon ACT
Strategic Highway Safety Plan, a requirement of HSIP
Safety Investment Program
State Implementation Plan; for complying with the federal Clean Air
Act
Safety Management System
Single occupancy vehicle
Statewide Pavement Committee; a management level committee responsible for providing guidelines for and oversight of the statewide
pavement preservation program
Safety Priority Index System; part of the Safety Management System
that shows crash history by milepoint
Safe Routes to School
Special Transportation Area
Large projects that require funding that cannot be achieved within
standard STIP allocations, but are viewed by the agency as projects of
statewide significance. Identified funds would be used to keep existing
work on very large projects current, or to support development of very
large projects (e.g. funding an EIS or updating an existing EIS).
Special Transportation Fund, used for operating expenses for transit for
elderly, disabled, and other transportation-disadvantaged residents
Page 146
Acronym or Word
STIP
STP
STP
SWACT
SWIP
TAP
TCM
TDD
TDM
TE
TEA-21
TGM
TIP
TMA
TPR
TSAP
TSD
TSP
UGB
January 24, 2013
Definition
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program; a coordinated fouryear statewide transportation improvement program for all areas of the
state, including federal lands, tribal lands, and MPAs, prepared in conformance with 23 CFR 450.216
Statewide Transportation Plan; a statewide transportation plan covering
all areas of the state and addressing the requirements in 24 CFR
450.214
Surface Transportation Program, a program area of SAFETEA-LU
South West Oregon ACT
Sidewalk Improvement Program; one funding category of Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Program
Transportation Alternatives Program
Transportation Control Measure
Transportation Development Division
Transportation Demand Management; a program that identifies ways to
reduce peak period demand on the highway system, including
rideshare, staggered work hours, and company-sponsored transit passes
Transportation Enhancement
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century was signed into law on
June 9, 1998 and authorized highway, highway safety, transit and other
surface transportation programs for the years 1998 through 2003.
TEA-21 builds on the initiatives established in ISTEA, the preceding
authorizing legislation for surface transportation.
Transportation Growth Management program; planning support available to local governments; administered jointly by ODOT and DLCD
Transportation Improvement Program
Transportation Management Area; an urbanized area (MPA) with over
200,000 residents; subject to more rigorous federal air quality and congestion management standards and, as a result, qualified for more federal funding
Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012); requires ODOT to identify a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet
identified state transportation needs and to prepare a TSP
Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan, the safety element of the
OTP, identifies a safety agenda to guide ODOT and the State of Oregon
for the next 20 years, and includes guidance for investment decisions
that will be reflected in the STIP
ODOT's Transportation Safety Division; manages the Transportation
Safety Program
Transportation System Plan; comprehensive transportation planning
document prepared by city and county governments, including an inventory of the existing system, proposed improvement projects, and
other elements required by the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule
(OAR 660-012)
Urban Growth Boundary
Page 147
Acronym or Word
UR
USC
USDA
USDOT
Value Engineering
VMT
WASHDOT
WFLHD
January 24, 2013
Definition
Utility relocation
United States Code
United States Department of Agriculture
United Stated Department of Transportation
An organized effort to obtain optimum value by providing the necessary function at the lowest life cycle cost
Vehicle miles traveled
Washington Department of Transportation
Western Federal Lands Highway Division, the managing agency of the
Forest Highway Program (FHP)
Page 148

STIP DEVELOPMENT MANUAL 2015-2018 STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION

Transcription

Similar documents

On March 2015, The Pusroh Organizer of Maritime

Oregon`s Work Zone Analysis Web Tool - Smith

Creating and Expanding Water Supply - PNWS-AWWA

CitiStreet P.O. Box 5166 Oregon Savings Growth Plan Boston, MA

Gauldin Flyer.indd - Retail Specialists

september 12 high desert swap meet

Residential Care/Assisted Living Facility Notice of Move-Out Oregon Administrative Rule 411-054-0080 (1–5)

Manifest Destiny Lesson