Year: 2009
Type: article
Abstract: Interviews were conducted with ODOT policy makers and key staff, as well as with local government officials, staff and community members.The interview subjects were not selected using a scientific sampling technique, but every effort was made to include a cross-section of interests involved with ACTs and MPOs from geographic areas throughout the state where ACTs have been formed.Interviews were conducted with 36 individuals who currently or historically participate on or interact with Oregon Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs). PURPOSE OF THE ACTSInterviewees correctly identified ACTs as an advisory group to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC).Some interviewees provided a broader view of the purpose of ACTs, while others listed only a few functions when asked to describe their purpose.Interviewees listed some or all of the following areas for ACT input:• Local and regional perspectives on transportation needs and issues • Priorities for projects and funding allocations for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and ConnectOregon• ODOT programs and policies Many of those interviewed also said that ACTs:• Build local support for projects and funding allocations• Provide a forum for local governments and other stakeholders to interact with each other and with ODOT and OTC• Enhance ODOT and OTC relationships with local governments and other stakeholders CRITICAL CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUESInterviewees identified the following critical cross-jurisdictional transportation issues:• Lack of funding for maintenance and new transportation projects (most frequently identified)• The need for increased funding for transit projects and transit operations• The need to understand and address transportation issues from a systems perspective, including:A-3 o Other modes and the relationship between modes o Links and coordination between federal, state, city and county roads o Funding "silos" that make it difficult to take a systems approach• Land use -transportation interactions, including the impact of land use decisions on transportation and the jobs-housing imbalance that drives commuting• The inconsistency between Oregon's Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) and the federal definition of "urbanized area" used to define MPO boundaries--Some felt that MPO boundaries are too small, and MPOs provide an inadequate forum for discussing land use and transportation cross-jurisdictional issues.• Freight transportation • Traffic congestion• Transportation governance (i.e., who has authority, and the need for better cross-boundary coordination)• Specific transportation projects or corridors (I-5 Eugene Beltway interchange; I-5 corridor; major east-west and north-south state arterials (Highway 22, 34, 99,101); Newberg-Dundee bypass; Highway 140 and connecting the Rogue Valley and Klamath and Lane Counties)• ODOT volume/capacity and design standards that may be unrealistic, widening the gap between the transportation facilities that comprehensive plans anticipate and available funding• Project permitting ACT MEMBERSHIP• Many interviewees identified the following interests that should be represented on ACTs: local elected officials; business; transit and other non-highway modes; land use; tribal government; freight; and ODOT.• Other specific interests suggested by individual interviewees were: ports; universities; Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs); citizen "members at large"; education districts; community and neighborhood representatives; emergency services; livability interests; timber; large manufacturing; and the United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.• Some interviewees believe that ACTs generally have a good cross-section of members.Other interviewees identified interests that are not always well represented on ACTs: o Private business interests (although local elected officials on ACTs are sometimes business owners who represent these interests) o Transit and multi-modal interests (air, rail, freight, bike and pedestrian) o Land use interests o Tribal governments A-4 • Some interviewees favor local control over ACT membership.Only one interviewee felt that OTC should decide ACT membership. ACT DECISION-MAKING/VOTING• Differing perspectives were offered on who should vote.Interviewees offered the following comments on ACT voting:o ACTs should determine voting based on the local community and stakeholders.o The principal responsible parties for transportation (elected officials or local government representatives; transit districts or state agencies) should vote.o Elected officials and ODOT should vote.o State agencies and members of the public who attend ACT meetings should not vote.o Ex officio agency members like DEQ, Federal Highways and the Office of Community Development should be allowed to vote to encourage their participation.o Voting should be contingent upon coming to meetings regularly and staying informed.• Interviewees reported that most ACTs make consensus decisions, and most favor this approach. ISSUES CURRENTLY ADDRESSED BY ACTSInterviewees identified the following issues currently being addressed by ACTs:• Project prioritization and funding for STIP and ConnectOregon projects (most frequently mentioned)• ODOT Policy updates• Transportation planning• Freight mobility and freight route designations• Modal plans• Miscellaneous issues: ACT charters and bylaws; congestion on the urban interface; scenic byways; area specific projects; SB 566 and local issues brought to ACTs by citizens. ISSUES NEEDING MORE ATTENTION BY ACTSInterviewees had differing points of view on this question.• Some interviewees answered that there were no issues needing more attention.Some mentioned that ACTs have a full agenda, and that adding issues would strain ACT members and ACT and ODOT staff, and detract from project prioritization and funding allocations.This point of view was common among local elected officials and ODOT staff.o The public would rather talk to their City Council because they do not understand what the ACTs and MPOs are or the issues they deal with.o Transportation is such a technical topic that it is difficult to get the public involved.• Some interviewees felt that ACT public involvement efforts had improved over time.Others commented that there are always opportunities to educate and inform the public better.• ACT members have a responsibility to keep their constituents informed. BEST EXAMPLES OF ACT WORKInterviewees most often identified project prioritization and working with communities to resolve concerns over individual projects as the best examples of ACT work.• A number of examples of good ACT outcomes in prioritization were given, including:o Region 2 ACTs work together successfully to develop regional recommendations.o Rogue Valley ACT (RVACT): contributed funds to a Southwest ACT (SWACT) project in exchange for SWACT's agreement to backfill this contribution in the next STIP cycle; obtained $15 million in local resources for the South Medford interchange project; and reallocated funds from other projects to fund Highway 199 safety improvements.o Lower John Day, Central Oregon, and South Central Oregon ACTs coordinated to prioritize the reroute of Highway 97 through Redmond as the highest regional priority.o In the Mid Willamette Valley ACT, Polk County gave up some local project funding for the Stayton Highway 22 overpass.Polk County and ACT members along Highway 22 allowed the Salem bridge project to move ahead of one of their projects.o The Cascades West ACT worked together to obtain projects to increase Highway 20/34 capacity between Lebanon and Newport.(However, some believed that the money spent on these projects could have been used more strategically on other projects.)o The three counties in the Southeast ACT work together to prioritize projects, most recently for the North Ontario interchange in Malheur County.o The South Central ACT members worked together with limited modernization funds to identify ways to address the length restriction on Highway 140.o Northeast ACT members worked together to address length restrictions on Highway 3.• Other positive examples of ACT work included: recommendations for cutting STIP projects to meet statewide budgets; revising STIP criteria based on consideration of regional priorities; working with representatives of different modes in Connect Oregon 1 and 2; and identifying priority projects to be funded through Oregon Transportation Improvement Act (OTIA).• Some interviewees also cited positive examples of ACTs' work with local communities to resolve individual project concerns, including: working with businesses to resolve concerns A-12 over access limitations; resolving concerns about signal lights; and developing a less costly highway interchange design. INTEGRATING REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE CONSIDERATIONSInterviewees provided the following responses on how ACTs were integrating regional and statewide considerations into project selection and transportation policy:• Regional considerations o Some felt that the ACT process and ODOT's "large project" strategy effectively integrated regional considerations.o Others felt regional considerations were not effectively integrated because:ACT boundaries do not match travelsheds.ACTs lack the land use authority to address some regional considerations.Some highways have statewide and regional significance but are also used for local traffic.Because there is more funding for state highways, ACTs do not consider whether local traffic can be served better by building or improving local arterials.• Statewide considerations o Some interviewees believed the ACT process effectively integrated statewide considerations.Those who specified a reason referenced STIP criteria.o Other interviewees believed that statewide considerations were not effectively integrated or that improvement was needed.Reasons given were:The lack of a system-wide, multi-modal perspective Fragmente
Authors: Susan Brody, Richard D. Margerum
Language: English
Subfield: Transportation
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W1269622023