oregon transportation commission - … computer... · oregon transportation commission agenda...

OREGON TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA

November 20, 2013 Salem, Oregon

November 20, 2013, Oregon Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda Distributed by Jacque Carlisle, Commission Assistant (503) 986-3450 11/8/2013 2:16:13 PM

FORMAL MONTHLY MEETING Transportation Building

Gail L. Achterman Conference Room 355 Capitol Street NE

Salem, OR 97301-3871 (503) 986-3450, Fax (503) 986-3432

Wednesday, November 20 8:30 AM Agenda review and briefing session with ODOT staff in Room 240 – Stuart Foster

Conference Room (second floor).

Note: The Commission may choose to take agenda items out of order, pull, defer or shorten presentation time of agenda item(s) to accommodate unscheduled business needs. Anyone wishing to be present for a particular item should arrive when the meeting begins to avoid missing an item of interest. Website address to view agendas/minutes on the Internet: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/otc_main.shtml The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. A request for an interpreter for the hearing impaired or for other accommodations for persons with disabilities should be made at least 48 hours before the meeting to Jacque Carlisle, Commission Assistant, at (503) 986-3450.

10:00 AM A) Director’s Report. Informational. (10 min., ODOT Director Matthew Garrett)

10:10 AM B) Public Comments. (Up to 15 min.)

(Public testimony is valued by the Commission, and those who wish to testify are encouraged to sign up on the public comment sheet provided at the meeting handout table. Note: This part of the agenda is for comments on topics not scheduled elsewhere on agenda. General guidelines: provide written summaries when possible and limit comments to 3 minutes. If you bring written summaries or other materials to the meeting, please provide the Commission Assistant with 10 copies prior to your testimony.)

10:25 AM C) Receive an informational report on a strategic plan to modernize the computer systems of the Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division. Informational. (40 min., DMV Division Administrator Tom McClellan, DMV Information Systems Manager Dave Franks, and Mathtech Inc. Steven Young)




Wednesday, November 20, (continued)

11:05 AM D) Request approval of the following actions regarding the ConnectOregon IV Port of Portland Terminal 6 Wharf Optimization Project #28695: Receive a presentation from the Port of Portland about its ConnectOregon Request

for Change Order submission to reduce the original scope of work, as approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on August 15, 2012.

Approve the Port of Portland’s Request for Change Order to reduce the scope of its original ConnectOregon IV project. Action. (30 min., Transportation Development Division Administrator Jerri Bohard and Port of Portland Transportation and Land Use Manager Susie Lahsene)

11:35 AM E) Receive an informational presentation from Oregon Travel Information Council’s (OTIC) Chair Gwenn Baldwin and Oregon Travel Experience’s (OTE) CEO Kyle Walker to update the commission on agency services and performance, as well as strategic planning. Also receive an informational report on the collection of fees designated to support the OTIC's responsibility to manage, maintain, improve and develop certain roadside rest areas in Oregon. Informational. (45 min., ODOT Chief of Staff Dale Hormann, DMV Division Administrator Tom McClellan, Oregon Travel Information Council’s Chair Gwenn Baldwin and Oregon Travel Experience CEO Kyle Walker)

12:20 PM Lunch Break (30 min.)

12:50 PM F) Request concurrence with evaluation panel’s recommendation, and director’s acceptance of the recommendation to not move forward the unsolicited proposal of RPS Development Company, Inc. (RPS), for the Interstate 5 Kuebler Interchange and to reject the proposal. Action. (45 min., ODOT Chief of Staff Dale Hormann, ODOT Region 2 Area Manager Tim Potter)

1:35 PM G1) Receive an informational status report on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Enhance and Fix-It 100-percent lists.

G2) Review two potential scenarios for projects to be included into the 2015-2018 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. The list represents those projects that would be funded using the 20-percent discretionary funding ($42m) held back by the Commission. The decision on which projects to include into the STIP will occur at the December Oregon Transportation Commission meeting.

. Informational. (45 min., Highway Division Administrator Paul Mather and Transportation Development Division Administrator Jerri Bohard)

2:20 PM H) Receive an informational presentation about a potential timeline for the 2017-2020 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, and discuss the general direction of the process to develop the 2017-2020 STIP. Informational. (45 min., Highway Division Administrator Paul Mather and Transportation Development Division Administrator Jerri Bohard)




Wednesday, November 20, (continued) 3:05 PM I) Request approval to distribute an additional $5 million of General Funds appropriated

to the Elderly and Disabled Special Transportation Fund program in the September 2013 Special Legislative Session. Action. (15 min., Rail and Public Transit Division Administrator Hal Gard)

3:20 PM J) Consider approving items on the Consent Calendar. Action. (5 min., ODOT Director

Matthew Garrett) 3:25 PM K) ADJOURN

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Approve the minutes of the October 9-10, 2013, Commission meeting in Silverton.

2. Confirm the next two Commission meeting dates:

Wednesday, December 18, 2013, meeting in Portland Thursday, January 16, 2014, meeting in Salem

3. Request approval to adopt a resolution for authority to acquire real property by purchase, condemnation,

agreement or donation. 4. Request approval of the following Oregon Administrative Rules:

a) Amendment of 734-026-0010, 734-026-0020, 734-026-0030 relating to the Roadside Memorial Sign Program, adding fallen heroes.

b) Repeal of 734-055-0017 relating to utility facility permit fees. c) Amendment of 735-050-0120 relating to electronic proof of insurance. d) Amendment of 735-070-0085 relating to proof of DUII treatment completion.

5. Request approval to acknowledge receipt of the Immediate Opportunity Fund Annual Report for State Fiscal

Year 2013. 6. Receive the November 2013 semiannual report on the Oregon Streetcar Project Fund project in accordance

with House Bill 5036, which the 2007 Legislative Session (Chapter 746 Oregon Laws 2007) passed. 7. Request approval to add $188,000 from the Transportation Enhancement discretionary account to allow

construction of additional sidewalk and bike facilities near two schools in Brookings and request approval to amend the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program to add funds to Safe Routes to School project #16067, Kalmiopsis Elementary School: Easy Street: Fern Ave – Pioneer Rd in Brookings.

ODOT DMV Strategic Information System Plan

Strategic Plan for DMV Modernization

Final v3

Contract No. B 30808

September 30, 2013

Clear Direction for Project Success

Strategic Information System Plan – Strategic Plan for DMV Modernization

ODOT DMV Strategic Plan Version 3 Final.docx Page 2 of 61

Table of Contents

1. Introduction & Executive Summary .............................................. 5

1.1 About This Report .................................................................................. 5

1.2 Executive Summary ................................................................................ 5

2. Status of Current ODOT DMV Systems – Structurally Deficient ........... 11

3. Strategic Planning Considerations .............................................. 12

3.1 Business Needs, Future System Blueprint, and Priorities .................................. 13

3.2 Technology Needs ................................................................................ 16

3.3 Guiding Principles ................................................................................ 16

3.4 Peer Analysis & Best Practices ................................................................. 18

4. Options for System Modernization ............................................. 19

4.1 All Custom Development ........................................................................ 20

4.2 Engage “Whole Solution” COTS Vendor ....................................................... 20

4.3 Custom + COTS Approach ....................................................................... 21

4.4 Do Nothing......................................................................................... 21

4.5 Strategy Variations and Combinations ........................................................ 21

4.6 Flexibility Moving Forward ...................................................................... 22

5. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges ................... 23

5.1 Strengths .......................................................................................... 23

5.2 Weaknesses ....................................................................................... 23

5.3 Opportunities ..................................................................................... 24

5.4 Challenges/Risks ................................................................................. 26

6. Approach ............................................................................. 27

6.1 Program of Manageable Projects .............................................................. 28

6.2 Ten Priority Projects............................................................................. 29

6.3 Governance ....................................................................................... 36

6.4 Procurement Document Development ........................................................ 39

6.5 Procurement ...................................................................................... 40

6.6 Vendor Management ............................................................................. 40

7. Data Management Approach to Incremental Expansion .................... 40

7.1 The Role of the Next Generation Database .................................................. 40

7.2 Linking Existing and New Systems ............................................................. 41



8. Project Phases & Time Requirements ......................................... 43

8.1 Schedule Overview ............................................................................... 45

8.2 Business Process Improvement & Requirements Analysis .................................. 45

8.3 Priority Projects .................................................................................. 46

8.4 Core System RFP Development................................................................. 48

8.5 Core System ....................................................................................... 48

9. Staffing Requirements ............................................................ 51

9.1 FTE Staffing Estimates .......................................................................... 51

9.2 Staffing Skill Sets ................................................................................. 53

9.3 Staffing – Dual Burden ........................................................................... 53

10. Cost Estimates ...................................................................... 54

10.1 Staffing Costs ..................................................................................... 54

10.2 New Software Costs .............................................................................. 55

10.3 Cost by Project ................................................................................... 56

10.4 Cost Component Breakdown & Comparison .................................................. 56

11. Cost Benefit Analysis .............................................................. 58

11.1 Business Operations Cost Savings Example ................................................... 59

11.2 Technology Costs ................................................................................. 60

11.3 IS Staffing Costs for Maintenance and Enhancements ...................................... 60

11.4 New Services & Mission Failure ................................................................ 61

Project: Strategic Information System Plan

Document Title: Strategic Plan for DMV Modernization

Document Date: 9/30/2013 Final Version (Version 3)

Change Log 9/28/2013 - Updates and comments applied to Version 2 8/23/2013 to create version 3

For more information regarding this report please contact the author. Steven E. Young, PMP, Sr. Vice President [email protected] Mathtech, Inc. 2465 Kuser Road Suite 200 Hamilton, New Jersey, USA 08690 Phone: 609-689-8511



1. Introduction & Executive Summary

1.1 About This Report

Mathtech, Inc. was engaged by the ODOT DMV to assist in creating a vision for future DMV operations and a plan for moving forward. This included:

Review and Evaluation of Current and Future Business Needs Assessment of Current Environment and Gap Analysis Peer Analysis and Identification of Best Practices Development of a Strategic Plan for DMV Modernization

This document is the final Strategic Plan for DMV Modernization and it was developed in collaboration with senior leadership and user groups representing the following business functions:

Driver Licensing Vehicle Title & Registration Driver Record Management Driver & Vehicle Record Information Sharing

1.2 Executive Summary

1.2.1 Project Background DMV Modernization Goal The DMV operates with substantially antiquated computer systems and sought to begin the planning process to modernize its systems. Modernization processes are complex and include enterprise technology planning, business process modernization, and large scale system development. In short, a large modernization project is an opportunity to transform the organization.

Mathtech, Inc. – Planning Vendor The DMV engaged Mathtech, Inc. to conduct the planning engagement. Mathtech has a 50-year history serving clients with complex projects. Mathtech is active in the AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) community and has experience planning and implementing motor vehicle system modernization projects working with jurisdictions including NJ, MN, WA, WI, MD, and others. Mathtech started work with the DMV in March 2013 and delivered this final report in August 2013.

The project included working with the DMV on-site and off-site to complete the following deliverables:

Business Needs Analysis Gap Analysis Comparing Current Systems to Business Needs Peer Analysis of DMV modernization project in other Jurisdictions Strategic Plan for System Modernization (this document)



1.2.2 Status of the Current System An agency’s primary computer systems must evolve to meet ever changing needs which include:

Legislative changes Improvements in operational effectiveness Expanding customer service requirements Increased security requirements Need to identify and prevent fraud Staff Changes Improvements to available technology over the past 60 years

The DMV’s systems are completely out-of-date and rely on 40+year old technology, often referred to as “Legacy Systems”. The effort required to enhance or expand the current system is substantial and the system’s lack of flexibility effectively keeps the agency “frozen in time” and unable to meet evolving expectations.

Using the Federal Highway Administration National Bridge Inspection Standards that the ODOT Highway Division uses for evaluating conditions of its bridges, the DMV IT systems would be considered STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT based on the following appraisal rating: “2 – Basically intolerable requiring high priority of replacement.”

Problems to Be Solved The following is an abbreviated list of operational challenges which remain continually unaddressed and are basically unobtainable given the status of the current systems. These are significant deficiencies in the systems which prevent the DMV from improving operations, customer service, fraud detection, and general efficiency.

Vehicle title & registration transactions are not handled in real time – they are sent to the headquarters office for processing, rather than being handled in a field office

User interfaces of current systems are out-dated and very difficult to use Web site needs to offer more online services Mail-in transactions are very error prone Operations are very paper-centric Holes in financial reconciliation and cash handling systems, especially in Field

Offices Too many hand-written products (permits, receipts, etc.) Limited tracking of received documents Business rules not sufficiently enforced in system Reporting and analysis limited due to lack of data and reporting tools Staff need to access multiple systems to complete tasks Insufficient transaction auditing tools No complete customer interaction or correspondence log



1.2.3 Vision for the Future Mathtech worked with all levels of employees in the DMV to develop a vision for future operations and expectations of a modernized computer system. The following are highlights of the future vision for operations and technology.

Vision of Future Operations 360 Degree View of Customer Information – Future DMV systems will provide

staff with a consolidated view of all customer information allowing for better customer service as well as fraud detection.

Single Voice – Future DMV systems must sufficiently support the staff so that they can provide consistent guidance and answers to the customers. This includes features ranging from automated assessments of driving records to comprehensive customer interaction logs.

On-line DMV and Full Featured Web Site – Future systems must provide new tools and capabilities for our customers that will let them serve themselves, answer questions, and better understand DMV processes.

Consistent, Integrated Systems – Future DMV systems will be integrated and eliminate the need to re-enter data. The systems will use a consistent technology and user interface that will make them easier to use and easier to train new staff.

DMV “Wikipedia" – Staff will be supported by a comprehensive knowledge repository. It will track policy, procedures, forms, training information, and historical information.

Real Time DMV – Future DMV systems must operate in real time. Real time information is critical for timely and accurate transaction processing and customer support.

Simple DMV – Complex business processes, codes, fee structures, and rules create an unnecessary burden on customer and staff and they must be simplified.

Smart Systems That Enforce Business Rules – Future DMV systems must enforce business rules, check data entry, insure complete transactions and provide appropriate security.

Effective Reporting & Analysis Capabilities – Future DMV systems will provide staff with a suite of tools to access clean and well-defined data to create reports and perform analysis.

Flexible Systems – Future DMV systems must be built to adapt to changes in business rules and allow for new services to be added.

Better Financial Reporting (and More Payment Options) – Future DMV systems must fully track transactions and payments received at the detail level for reconciliation.

Eliminate Paper –Reduce or eliminate the reliance on paper documents for transactions as they negatively impact efficiency and security.

Engage Partners and Customers for Self Service – Future DMV systems must allow partners and customers to complete transactions and perform self service functions to meet their needs.

Future System Blueprint Mathtech and the DMV created a Future System Blueprint which identifies the architecture and capabilities of the modernized systems.



The blueprint describes a modern, flexible system that can expand over time and adapt to the needs of the agency.

The blueprint combines pre-built commercial software packages with custom software to meet the needs of the agency. When available, commercial software packages are easier to implement than building custom software and allow for easier upgrades.

The blueprint describes an “enterprise approach” for building the DMV systems. This approach emphasizes the need to create common components that support and link all business areas. Three examples of common components are Common Customer Information Management – All business operations

and customer related activities are supported by a central customer management system.

Common Web Transactions Site – Customers access one common, consistent web site for all online transactions and access to their account information regardless of whether they are performing vehicle or driver transactions and regardless of access device.

Common Revenue Management Functions – All systems that generate and collect revenue will use a common financial component so the DMV can collect and track revenue.

The blueprint is used as a planning tool to decompose the modernization effort into smaller, manageable projects.

1.2.4 Strategic Planning Considerations The planning effort considered many factors in the analysis including

Business Needs and Priorities – Business needs were identified through Vision Sessions and other collaborative meetings with DMV operations and technology staff

Technology Refresh Needs – The DMV’s aging technology has a number of “ticking time bombs” which must be addressed before the system literally runs out of codes and configurations for new fees, suspension types, and other expansion needs.

Guiding Principles – The process considered a number of ideas that kept the planning on target including: Improve customer service Avoid an “all at once”, “ Big-bang” approach Provide quick and incremental business value Build toward long term vision/blueprint Address high priority needs sooner Plans must be realistic and achievable Leverage commercial software products where available Adopt modern programming environments Solution must be flexible to support future requirements and processes



Leverage/remain consistent with State standards and technology investments

1.2.5 Peer Analysis Findings Other states have found modernization of their DMV Systems very challenging and some have failed. Typical problems include attempting projects that are too large and complex for the agency to handle. Poor performance by implementation vendors was also a problem. Recommendations include having strong project management, thorough planning, attention to business process changes, and complete participation by Business Operations staff.

1.2.6 Options for Moving Forward The following four options were developed to guide the planning process.

No Action – A “wait and see” approach will not address the DMV’s modernization needs and better options are available.

All Custom Software Development – This approach is time consuming and high risk. It best describes the approach used so far.

Whole Solution COTS Vendor – There are vendors in the market who propose to offer a “Commercial Off-The-Shelf” package. These offerings are typically the remarketing of custom built solutions and they have had a very mixed success record. Moving forward additional vendors are entering the market and their solutions may need to be evaluated.

COTS + Custom Software Hybrid Approach – This approach combines smaller software packages with custom software to meet the DMV’s specific needs incrementally over time. This approach offers the most flexibility to the DMV.

Mathtech and the DMV believe that the COTS + Custom Software approach is the desired solution for moving forward. This approach allows the DMV to begin making progress and leaves open the option to later consider a Whole Solution product.

1.2.7 Program of Manageable Projects The DMV needs to move forward at a pace that is manageable by the agency. Others have failed because they have contractually over-committed the agency and vendors to an aggressive schedule.

Mathtech and the DMV propose “A Program of Manageable Projects” to accomplish the full modernization. The projects are grouped into three categories.

Business Process Improvement – All business areas must review existing processes and identify business rules, legislative changes, system requirements, and opportunities for improvement.

Core Systems – The core systems will be replaced including DRIVE, back-office systems, and other supporting systems. Replacement would occur in the following order: Vehicle Title & Registration Dealers Licensing & External Interfaces Driver Licensing & Driver Records



Record Requests Priority Projects – The following projects supplement the core system and

address critical operational needs. Point of Sale System Data Warehouse/Next Generation Database Document Imaging & Workflow MyDMV Online Service (Customer Portal)

1.2.8 Approach Implementing the Program of Manageable Projects is a substantial undertaking that is complex in nature and requires significant resources and funding. The plan developed leverages Mathtech’s and the DMV’s experience with other projects, learns from the challenges of other jurisdictions, and addresses the priorities of the DMV.

Schedule The work effort is scheduled over a 9 year period. Projects have been planned over time so as to consistently deliver business functionality while not creating an overwhelming work effort for the DMV or any contractors.

Project Delivers Results in Year

Business Process Improvement Years 1 & 2

Priority Projects

Point of Sale System Year 2

Data Warehouse/Next Generation Database Years 2 & 3

Document Imaging II Years 3 & 4

MyDMV (customer portal) Years 2 through 9

Core Systems

Vehicle Title & Registration Year 5

Dealers Year 3

Driver Licensing & Driver Records Year 7

Record Requests Year 8

Staffing This project will require a significant, sustained effort by both the DMV business operations and IT staff. Total FTE headcount for the project ranges from 40 to 70 and peaks in year 5. A large portion of the work is expected to be performed by contracted vendor staff but participation by internal staff is critical and the estimated headcount ranges from 20 to 30 FTEs.

Costs The cost for the project includes vendor staff, internal staff, as well as hardware & software. The total cost for the project including all of these components is approximately $90M over a 9 to 10 year period. This cost is consistent with the experiences of other states.

The existing DMV operations have considerable costs associated with them in part due to inefficiencies imposed by the current systems. One example of cost savings showed over $4M annually which could be saved if more modern systems were used. Other



costs are seen continually because even modest changes to the existing systems are very time consuming.

2. Status of Current ODOT DMV Systems – Structurally Deficient An agency’s primary computer system must evolve to meet ever changing needs which include:

Legislative changes, Improvements in operational effectiveness, Expanding customer service requirements, Increased security requirements, and the Need to identify and prevent fraud.

Systems which cannot continually evolve to meet new requirements keep an agency operationally and technically “frozen in time.”

The DMV’s systems are substantially outdated and limit the DMV’s ability to evolve and meet ever changing needs. Taking a page from the Federal Highway Administration Nation Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), the DMV systems would be considered:

Structurally Deficient (SD) – A highway bridge is classified as structurally deficient if the deck, superstructure, substructure, or culvert is rated in "poor" condition (0 to 4 on the NBI rating scale). A bridge can also be classified as structurally deficient if its load carrying capacity is significantly below current design standards or if a waterway below frequently overtops the bridge during floods.

This status is determined for the DMV systems because the Appraisal Rating would be a “2 – Basically intolerable requiring high priority of replacement.” This rating is selected because the current systems cannot be salvaged or sufficiently repaired to allow the agency to properly perform its mission in an efficient manner or to evolve to meet modern expectations. Substantial staff effort is required to work around the deficiencies of the system.

Appraisal Rating

Code Description Comment

N Not applicable

9 Superior to present desirable criteria

8 Equal to present desirable criteria

7 Better than present minimum criteria

6 Equal to present minimum criteria

5 Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is

4 Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left The current system cannot be left “as



in place as is is” because it does not support modern business practices, is difficult to maintain, and uses obsolete technologies.

3 Basically intolerable requiring high priority of corrective action

“Corrective action” implies that there are existing components of the system which can be upgraded or corrected. The age of the system and its overall design do not indicate that this is an option.

2 Basically intolerable requiring high priority of replacement

The systems are intolerable and must be replaced.

1 This value of rating code not used

0 Bridge closed

3. Strategic Planning Considerations Developing the strategic modernization plan has many inputs as described in this section. The planning process must balance all inputs.

Business Needs, Future System Blueprint, and Priorities – Over the course of the planning project, Mathtech has worked with DMV staff and leadership to develop a vision for future operations and a Blueprint for the future systems. These functional needs and goals are the basis for the planning process because they represent “what” needs to be built.

Technology Needs –The future vision includes expectations for flexible, modern technology. The planning process must address this need and also address current technology conditions and system weaknesses.

Guiding

Principles

Peer

Feedback

& Best

Practices

Business

Needs &

Vision

Technical

Needs

DMVModernization

Strategy



Guiding Principles – There are many ways to implement systems and enhance business processes. Guiding principles were developed to guide and help describe the planning approach and resulting strategy.

Peer Analysis and Best Practices – Lessons learned and best practices from other States, the DMV, and Mathtech are important in guiding the planning process and avoiding the mistakes of other projects.

3.1 Business Needs, Future System Blueprint, and Priorities

The scope of the DMV system modernization effort touches all aspects of the agency’s operations including:

Driver Licensing Driver Record Management Vehicle Title & Registration Driver & Vehicle Record Information Sharing

DMV must…

Improve Efficiency Provide New Services Improve Quality Provide 21st Century Tools in order to recruit and retain employees

3.1.1 Future System Blueprint Mathtech worked with the DMV to identify future business needs which were organized into a Future System “Blueprint” describing the expected functions of a new DMV system. The Future System Blueprint consists of conceptual subsystems and serves as a planning tool for the project. It allows the project to define the overall scope of the modernization effort. The blueprint describes a modern, modular approach to building the system. It also describes how the system can be built incrementally and how all functions, over time can be integrated.

The Blueprint is comprised of three layers. Each layer is a logical grouping of subsystems and functions. The three Blueprint layers are:

Business Layer – This layer contains subsystems and functionality which are specific and fairly unique to each business area.

Base Layer – This layer contains subsystems and functionality which are commonly required by most business areas. This includes customer management and offering services on the internet. Subsystems in this layer might be purchased as “off-the-shelf” products or custom developed for the DMV.

Foundation – This layer contains technologies and tools that could be used to consistently build common systems and functions. The creation of a common toolset for system modernization allows IT staff to maximize effort and create a system that is easier to maintain and naturally more integrated.

The following diagram is the initial version of the Blueprint for the DMV. It contains the three layers as described above. Each layer contains a number of subsystems.



From the strategic planning perspective, the project team must determine how to build these components and in what order. Some of these components can be implemented with “off the shelf” commercial products and some must be custom developed.

The Future System Blueprint describes a modern, modular system

that has many benefits.

Customer Manager•Customer Interaction &

Call Center

Base SystemsWeb Based Transaction Center• Customer Profile Manager

• Online Transaction Forms

• Online Transaction Wizards

• Upload/Download of Documents

• Transaction Status tracking

Licensing Manager

Vehicle Manager

Web Based Public Info. Center

Financial Management

Web Based Query Center Knowledge Management

Business Systems

Driver Licensing

Driver Records

Vehicle Title &

Reg.

Record Requests

Point of Sale Cash Management

Foundation SystemsElectronic

Correspond-

ence

Exchange

External

Interfaces &

ETL

Reporting &

Analysis

Document

Composition

Electronic

Forms

Workflow

Management

Business

Rules

Manager

Access

Control

Document Mgmt.Data WarehouseNext Generation Operational Database

Case ManagerKnowledge Tests

Skill Tests & Scheduling

Inventory Management

SmartPhone App

Transaction Processing

Dealer Mgmt.

Image Capture & Facial Recognition

Customer Manager•Customer Interaction






Licensing Manager

Vehicle Manager




Business Systems

Driver Licensing

Driver Records

Vehicle Title &

Reg.

Record Requests



Correspond-

ence

Exchange

External

Interfaces &

ETL

Reporting &

Analysis

Document

Composition

Electronic

Forms

Workflow

Management

Business

Rules

Manager

Access

Control



Skill TestsInventory Management

SmartPhone App


Best suited for custom DMV

business processes – Licensing, Vehicles, Dealers, etc.

Best suited standard business

processes – Financials, Cash Mgmt, Document Management, etc.

• Modern Technologies• Modern Architecture• Modular Design

Benefits:

• Flexible to meet future needs• Creates enterprise capabilities• Allows modules to be upgraded individually

• Can be built incrementally

Weakness:

• Modern software technologies are complex and require the latest skills to design, build, and maintain

Custom Software

Commercial

Software Products



3.1.2 High Priority System Enhancements In addition to replacing the core systems, the planning process identified ten high priority system enhancements to existing system capabilities. If planned properly, these priority enhancements can be part of the larger modernization effort.

Priority Project Description

1. Data Warehouse/ Next Generation Database

Create a data warehouse for reporting and analysis that consolidates important DMV information. Begin to analyze and cleanse the current DMV data in preparation for system modernization.

2. Point of Sale System

Implement a point of sale system at all locations to support electronic payments such as credit and debit cards. The system would allow automate printing of receipts, tracking of funds collected, and end of day reconciliation.

3. Customer Management

Implement a customer information management system that consolidates all customer information and provides a “360 degree view” of all customer information to staff. The system would support tracking of all interactions and correspondence.

4. Document Imaging Phase II & Workflow

Implement document imaging and retrieval at all locations along with automated workflow to route documents to staff for processing. This will significant decrease the amount of physical paper being processed and improve the security and tracking of documents.

5. Correspondence Management

Implement a system to consistently design and produce correspondence and notices. The system would support both individual and bulk documents and support automatic storage of documents in the document imaging system prior to printing or electronic distribution.

All documents would then be available for access via the Customer Management system.

6. MyDMV (Customer Portal)

Implement a framework of tools that allows the DMV to continually offer more services via the internet. This includes allowing customers to check driver license and vehicle information, start and submit transactions, and make payments.

7. DMV Knowledge Base (DMV “Wikipedia”)

Implement a knowledge management system that organizes and consolidates policy, procedures, training information, and other institutional knowledge into one accessible, searchable system for all staff.

8. Record Requests

Implement an online system for customer to submit and pay for record request and have most requests automatically prepared and delivered to the customer electronically rather than manually via paper.

9. Interfaces to External Systems

Upgrade external interfaces between the DMV and third parties to collect more information in an automated, real-time manner. New interfaces would include advanced error correction and rejection of incomplete records back to the source organization for correction.

10. DMV Website Simplify and reorganize the DMV website to provide better access to the most commonly needed information. The website could provide tutorials



and other information needed by new drivers, those interested in commercial driving privileges, and others.

3.2 Technology Needs

This section describes weaknesses in the current DMV Systems which must be addressed. While none of these issues are fully critical the need to address them impacts the overall planning process.

Billing System There are a limited number of record inquiry types remaining in the billing system. The DMV will soon will be unable to accommodate any legislative or federal mandates which require new types.

Unsupported MS Access Systems There are a variety of systems using obsolete technology to which no changes can be made, knowledgeable staff is gone, and/or the system is undocumented and unsupportable.

Configuration of Plate Numbers The current Information Technology team continues to modify and rework the existing system to accommodate additional sequences of License Plates to meet growing demands.

Field Sizes The systems have many data limitations that continually prevent normal business operations or the proper accommodation of new procedures. This includes:

Suspension/Revocation/Cancellation Type Codes Field size for fees Expansion of the types of fees collected (sales tax, donations)

Space for New Fields on Screens The current screens are overcrowded with data fields and provide no opportunity to adapt with new operational needs.

Mainframe Memory and Transaction Configuration The current mainframe software uses antiquated programming techniques which inhibit it from taking advantage of newer mainframe technology.

Age of Microfilm Readers Existing support systems are aging with limited ability for replacement or supplementation.

3.3 Guiding Principles

Over the course of the planning process, these principles have been developed to guide the DMV effort.

3.3.1 Improve Customer Service and Staff Efficiency Without a doubt, the modernization effort must improve customer service and allow the DMV to offer new services. New services which are web based will allow for increases in staff efficiency and reduce errors when communicating with the public.



3.3.2 Planning No “Big-Bang” or Whole Program Contract – The project will avoid bundling all tasks into one large project and awarding the contract to one vendor for a long term implementation period. This type of approach requires the creation of a very detailed and large RFP. It also requires the vendor to create a clear multiyear proposal. As the work effort becomes larger and longer in duration unknown events make the original commitments difficult or impossible to uphold resulting in contract challenges and potential project failures. Additionally, fixed price contracts incent the vendor to move quickly, often at a pace that is unreasonable for the state.

Provide Quick and Incremental Business Value – This principle is critical to addressing DMV business needs and to maintain long term support for the project.

Build Toward Long Term Vision/Blueprint – Disparate, siloed systems are the result of insufficient long-term planning. The blueprint will be used to ensure that all systems are built in an integrated manner that helps to achieve the long term system goal.

Address High Priority Needs Sooner – Some business needs have urgent requirements and will have quick benefit to the business. These projects should be prioritized and implement consistent with the Blueprint.

Plans Must Be Realistic and Achievable – Many states have created elaborate plans on paper and have suffered because, after contracting a vendor, they have found the required effort overwhelming.

Link to Legislative Schedule – Project planning and funding must be coordinate with the legislative schedule and the two year budget cycle. This requires executing and evaluating existing projects while preparing funding requests for the next cycle.

3.3.3 Architecture & Solution When planning for a modern system, the following will be included in the implementation approach.

Leverage COTS Products Where Available – It is easier to implement a pre-built system component rather than building a custom component from scratch. Where possible, pre-built components will be used.

Adopt Modern Programming Environments –The current technical environment at the DMV is consistent with the existing technologies. The modernization effort must plan to modernize the systems and the programming environments.

Solution Must Be Flexible To Support Future Requirements and Processes – Legislative requirements and DMV business needs are constantly changing. New systems must be developed to be flexible and allow for changes in processes and business rules without the need for extensive custom programming or long implementation periods.

Leverage/Remain Consistent With State Standards And Technology Investments – The State has considerable investments in many technologies. These investments represent available technology resources and skill sets. As possible, the modernization effort will leverage these resources to move forward.

Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) – SOA is a modern programming technique and architecture approach for building modern computer systems. Conceptually, it is very



similar to the components of the blueprint presented above in that it organizes the system software into functions or services.

Data Access Services (DAS) – DAS is another programming technique and architecture approach which is used to separate data from system software. This separation allows for the long term maintenance and upgrade of software without always impacting the data. It also allows new system software to access existing data.

3.3.4 Design As the project moves forward to implement each subsystem, the design and approach will continue to focus on the following.

Simplify User Experience – Current DMV systems use 40-50 year old/outdated “user interface” technologies that are not comparable to today’s window and web based systems. This results in increased training, adoption, and productivity issues for staff. Likewise, as more functions are made available directly to the customer, the system must be as easy to use as possible.

Push Data Entry To Customers And Business Partners As Much As Possible – Most DMV business processes are based on paper forms requiring manual processing by DMV staff. New processes and web-based system functions will push the data entry task to the customer and allow the DMV staff to focus on higher value activities.

Move Toward Web-Based Transactions – User groups determined that almost every business transaction can be partially or fully completed using web based solutions.

3.4 Peer Analysis & Best Practices

Modernization projects are complex efforts that are significantly more challenging than a typical IT project. The project team assembled best practices and advice from other states, internally, and from Mathtech.

3.4.1 Strong Project Management is Critical Modernization projects require coordination across many participants and project management is critical to understanding the interdependencies of many efforts as well as the resources requirements necessary. As the project executes there will be many challenges requiring coordination and planning.

Independent Third Party Assistance – Mathtech and other States suggested that getting assistance from a third party project management/oversight vendor proved helpful in managing the project. This is consistent with the DMV’s requirement to have some level of third party oversight involved in the project.

3.4.2 Business Process Improvement is a Requirement Current DMV business processes are tied to the current computer systems. Business processes must also be modernized along with the systems and they must be assessed and improved prior to implementing new systems.

Other States have recommended starting this process early and using knowledgeable facilitators to assist with the work.

There are many examples of business process improvements that will impact external stakeholders and partners or that may require legislative changes to implement. These “details” must be resolved prior to starting work on new systems.



3.4.3 Address Data Early Legacy systems often contain data which is substantially disorganized and in need of “cleaning” prior to converting and loading it into a new system.

Mathtech and other States recommend starting a data assessment and clean-up project as early as possible and this is consistent with the DMV’s internal planning.

3.4.4 Overly Aggressive Schedules Mathtech and other States have advised that it is easy to develop aggressive modernization schedules and vendors will often support and encourage them. Plans must be reasonable in effort and each jurisdiction is different in terms of business and technical staffing capacity.

3.4.5 Be Cautious of Vendor Promises and Performance The DMV modernization market is fraught with fully and partially unsuccessful modernization projects. Challenges are often due to poor vendor performance. Large complex projects are not only challenging for the State but will likely also be challenging for the vendor.

4. Options for System Modernization The following section describes four fundamental options for modernization that must be considered.

All Custom Development Engage “Whole Solution” COTS Vendor Custom + COTS Approach Do Nothing

The following diagram shows these four options.



4.1 All Custom Development

Custom development best describes the software approach currently used at the DMV and many others around the country. All functionality is custom coded. Custom development takes a long time to construct and test new systems. Custom software must be designed “from scratch” and it never gets an upgrade of functionality as would a commercial software product. Many standard functions such as inventory or financial management, reporting, and other functions can be better and more easily implemented by using commercial off the Shelf (COTS) products. These products have been built, refined, and used by many customers.

“All Custom Development” is generally not considered an effective approach for large, complex systems.

4.2 Engage “Whole Solution” COTS Vendor

While it would appear to be generally desirable to buy a pre-built DMV software system, they are not clearly available in the market. Some vendors have custom built unique solutions for a specific jurisdiction and will transfer that solution to a new state and re-customize the system into a new custom solution. Such efforts require the system to be re-customized as much as 50% to meet the needs of the new State. This approach suffers from two perspectives. First, the original system built for the prior State may in fact work, but was likely not developed to the highest software standards and may not have been designed to be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of other States. Second, the process of “ripping apart” and reworking up to 50% of an existing system contains many risks that impact the quality of the project and the resulting system.

A new set of products have begun to emerge and have had general success with the first installations. These products can be reviewed for potential viability and suitability as an enterprise solution for the DMV.

In general, these “complete package” solutions have been marginally successful and are typically large, complex, overwhelming projects for the vendor and the state.

All Custom

Development

Whole Solution

COTS Vendor

Custom + COTS

Do Nothing



4.3 Custom + COTS Approach

This approach combines COTS components with custom development. COTS packages are used for a variety of technical functionality including document imaging, financial management, business rules management, and reporting. The use of commercial software components will reduce the implementation and testing time and naturally result in a more error-free product. Custom software would be developed for many functions where a commercial solution is not available. In these cases, powerful software tools are used to assist in the development.

The blueprint developed by the team describes a modular environment that can be built using this hybrid approach. This approach allows the DMV to move at an appropriate pace over time and achieve quick wins.

4.4 Do Nothing

A “wait and see” approach is always an option. However, the DMV has a variety of technologies which must be replaced. Any movement forward to replace technologies or implement new functions should be done in the context of a larger improvement plan and system blueprint as has been developed by the project.

4.5 Strategy Variations and Combinations

Within the Custom + COTS approach there are multiple strategies for deciding where to start and in what order to implement functionality. This strategy leverages the future DMV system blueprint to identify potential projects and software components for moving forward

Perimeter Approach – This approach focuses on the DMV’s interactions with external groups including other government agencies, third party partners, customers, and businesses. The goal is to begin automating and enhancing our interactions with the groups. For example, by providing additional on-line services to customer the DMV can reduce the amount of paper and manual transactions performed. Also, by automating interfaces with third parties manual work and work associated with returning bad data can be reduced.

Hub & Spoke Approach – This approach focuses on building a new customer information system and database that can serve as the hub for all new functionality. This central customer management function would support all business areas.

High Priority Approach – This approach focuses on specific, critical needs of the DMV and develops an approach for meeting those needs by building components that are part of the larger modernization effort.

The DMV leadership and Mathtech have reviewed these options and developed a hybrid approach that combines aspects from each.



4.6 Flexibility Moving Forward

Moving forward with a Custom + COTS approach does not eliminate the possibility of engaging a whole solution COTS vendor at a later date in time. Engaging a whole solution vendor would take time to complete business process analysis along with the development of an RFP and an implementation support team. During that time, the DMV could accomplish significant projects that address important modernization needs and help prepare for a new system.

The following diagram shows how a Whole Solution COTS product could become one of the major COTS components of a future solution.

All Custom

Development

Whole Solution

COTS Vendor

Custom + COTS

Do Nothing

Perimeter

Approach

Hub & Spoke

Approach

High Priority

Approach

Hybrid Custom +

COTS Approach

All Custom

Development

Whole Solution

COTS Vendor

Custom + COTS

Do Nothing

Perimeter

Approach

Hub & Spoke

Approach

High Priority

Approach

Core Systems

Point of Sale

Customer Mgmt.

Document Mgmt

Data & Reporting

Knowledge Mgmt.

Web Transactions



5. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges This section presents a discussion of issues and considerations which guided the planning process and will need to remain a focus throughout the project.

5.1 Strengths

5.1.1 Project & Portfolio Management Processes The DMV has mature project management processes compared to many other agencies. Processes are documented and implemented for the entire project management life cycle which helps to address consistency in delivery and it supports the creation of necessary documentation.

The current set of DMV projects is similar to the small to medium projects that this modernization plan proposes. Moving forward, a continued effort on project management will be necessary.

As the modernization effort is planned, the DMV must continue to monitor whether its processes are mature enough to manage a large scale program. Options include engaging a third party vendor to assist with project management as well as hiring contract resources to support the effort.

5.1.2 Process Improvement Maturity The DMV has used business process mapping in support of various process improvement efforts. This modernization effort will require that all areas are reviewed and that business processes are assessed to understand how they will be modernized. This scale of process mapping and improvement will likely require assistance from external resources.

5.2 Weaknesses

5.2.1 SDLC and PM Processes The DMV has developed and implemented a variety of processes for project management and the system development life cycle. While these processes support a variety of small to medium projects, they may need to be adapted to support a large scale modernization program.

5.2.2 Experience with Modern Technology Architecture & Planning The current DVM technology staff has spent considerable time supporting the current mainframe environment and the related systems. As such, no significant time has been spend reviewing new technologies, planning for new technologies, or gaining experience by developing more modern systems. This focus leaves the team insufficiently prepared to evaluate options and plan the overall modernization effort. Moving forward, a component of the modernization effort will need to include the addition of some staff with modern technical skills and the training of existing staff.

5.2.3 Existing Technology Foundation Base Almost every component of the DMV’s technology base is outdated. Notable exceptions include the automated testing system and a document imaging system which is currently being implemented. Other than these, the current environment leaves little upon which



to build. This increases the scope of the modernization project which will require new servers, new development tools, new databases, new interfaces, new web based systems, and new application software.

5.2.4 Reliance on Paper The DMV’s operations are substantially dependent upon paper. Paper is used to collect data, to transfer transactions from the front office to the back office, for auditing, and for storage. This approach is very time consuming and means that any modernization effort must begin with basic, paper-based transactions and improve both business processes and technology. Paper is also generally a security risk as the information on paper documents can easily be accessed by staff and such access is not tracked.

5.2.5 Procurement Processes The State of Oregon’s procurement processes are cumbersome and will need to be managed carefully to support DMV’s large modernization effort. The modernization program will need to procure a wide range of consulting services, staff support, software, hardware, and other services. These cannot be combined into one Request for Proposal procurement. The procurement process will be a critical task in every project so effort should be invested to ensure that it is as consistent and efficient as possible.

5.2.6 Process Improvement Staffing Process mapping and improvement efforts will require a substantial effort to cover all business areas. The existing process improvement staff will need to be supplemented in order to complete all of the work in a reasonable time period.

5.2.7 Aging Workforce The current workforce has knowledge of the existing systems and operations that is not sufficiently documented. This workforce is aging and institutional knowledge will be lost as these staff members retire. This can create gaps in knowledge of operations, data, and business rules that will be necessary for the modernization effort.

5.3 Opportunities

5.3.1 Vehicle Transactions Vehicle transactions are collected and paid for in field offices but they are not really evaluated or otherwise processed until they are sent to the headquarters for processing. This results in a significant number of errors and misprocessed transactions. In some cases, vehicle owners have been given a license plate and stickers when their transaction was not complete. The goal is that transactions started in the field will be completed in the field. These field transactions are completed even if the actual title document is produced and issued from a secure central facility.

This process represents a significant opportunity for the DMV to improve the accuracy, efficiency, and customer service of these transactions. A focus of the modernization effort must focus on the improvement of the systems and business processes for vehicles so that all transactions are started and fully processed in the field office to ensure that the transaction is completed with the customer and that an accurate payment is collected.



5.3.2 Web Transactions The DMV does not offer a sufficient number of on-line transactions to customers and businesses. The staff identified a wide range of transactions that could be offered. These transactions will reduce the amount of paper transactions needing to be processed and are inherently easier to automate.

5.3.3 Document Imaging An enterprise wide document imaging, storage, and retrieval system will greatly automate the core of many transactions and provide necessary flexibility to all operations.

Current document imaging capabilities are insufficient to support the DMV’s operations. Employees are not able to scan and store documents from the field offices or the headquarters. This results in all transactions being processed manually using paper forms and manual routing. Additionally, the storage of documents consumes considerable time and space. Documents which are needed remotely in a field office are no longer accessible once they have been stored at the headquarters without manual retrieval and delivery. Some documents are stored on microfiche, a technology that is also obsolete.

5.3.4 Point of Sale Capabilities An automated Point of Sale system would provide needed support to field office operations and allow for better tracking and reconciliation of funds collected each day. The system would also provide the capabilities to print receipts and more easily accept credit and debit card payments and other payment options.

5.3.5 Data Management – Quality/Organization/ Accessibility System modernization and an improved database would provide many necessary data management capabilities to the DMV that includes expanded data collection for transactions as well as expanded reporting and analysis.

Any modernization effort must look at how data is used across the organization and ensure that all needs are built into a new “Next Generation” database. The DMV must improve the data management effort that accompanies a new database to ensure that data needs are properly understood, designed and implemented consistently.

5.3.6 Data Exchange The DMV exchanges data with a variety of partners in both the public and private sector. All data exchanges need to be automated and implemented so that only valid data is accepted from the source. Rather than accepting and manually processing invalid data it should be rejected back to the source for correction.

5.3.7 Operational Efficiencies Many of the DMV’s operations are “frozen in time” and not able to evolve or become more efficient because the systems are not capable of supporting modern processes. This has resulted in a variety of inefficiencies that cost the DMV millions of dollars each year.

New systems would allow new business processes to be implemented and would automate many currently manual tasks.



5.3.8 System Flexibility and Technical Efficiencies The current systems are not flexible and use substantially out-of-date technologies. Modernization would introduce new systems and technologies that should improve the DMV’s ability to respond to business needs and legislative changes more quickly and efficiently.

5.3.9 Improved Customer Service Improved customer service is a significant opportunity for the DMV. Many services are not available on-line and therefore require an on-site visit. Additionally many services are performed with hand written products and manually calculated fee amounts – which is time consuming and error prone. This is inconvenient for the customer if the transaction is performed incorrectly and needs to be reconciled at a later date. Also, payment options are very limited.

5.4 Challenges/Risks

5.4.1 Limited Subject Matter Resources to Support Existing and New Projects

Every jurisdiction planning for a large modernization project must address the staffing needs of the project. Business operation staff must participate in these projects as they are the subject matter experts and end-users of the new systems. The DMV will need to balance the efforts of existing and new projects to ensure that all projects receive sufficient participation. Partial solutions may include limiting unnecessary projects in favor of the modernization effort. Critical business operations staff may be able to be backfilled with new staff to allow them to participate on the modernization project.

5.4.2 Balancing Maintenance with New System Development As with the limited supply of subject matter staff, technical staff will also be stretched to support existing projects and system maintenance as well as participate on the system modernization effort. Again, partial solutions may include limiting unnecessary projects in favor of the modernization effort. Critical technical staff may be able to be backfilled with new staff to allow them to participate on the modernization project.

5.4.3 Documentation of Business Rules The DMV has substantial business documentation that should assist in planning and executing the modernization effort. However, no jurisdiction ever has all of its processes, rules, and calculations fully documented and this effort will be a challenge for staff as the new system will require such information to be documented and explained for implementation. The collection and updating of business rules can be part of an early business process improvement effort.

5.4.4 Managing Vendor Performance and Deliverable Quality Other States and Mathtech have advised that vendor performance on large modernization projects can be a concern. A wide variety of skills are needed to oversee and evaluate the quality of vendor work during a complex system project. Some States have used Oversight or IV&V (Independent Verification and Validation) vendors to support the vendor oversight process.



5.4.5 Architectural Design & Coordination The current DMV technical staff is very focused on supporting the existing technologies and systems. As such, their experience does not include modern system development practices. This will leave the DMV at a disadvantage when moving forward in the planning process as all new projects should implement modern technologies and be consistent with the Future System Blueprint. Training, new hires, staff supplementation, and external support will be necessary to being the necessary skills to the project.

5.4.6 Aging Workforce The DMV’s aging workforce means that institutional knowledge could leave the agency in the next few years. This includes technical system information as well as business process information. These gaps in knowledge could impact the modernization effort which may struggle to understand how certain systems work and why certain process steps exist. Succession planning, knowledge capture, and knowledge transfer plans are the most typical solutions.

5.4.7 Existing System Age & Lack of Flexibility, Years of Patchwork New systems must co-exist and interact with existing systems. Older systems that lack flexibility may be difficult to work with during transition years. Experienced staff with knowledge of the existing systems will be critical for all migration, data conversion, and interfacing activities.

5.4.8 Redesign of Business Processes Business processes must be modernized along with the systems and they must be assessed and improved prior to implementing new systems. This effort will touch all business areas and require coordination and a structured approach. The vision session process performed by Mathtech should be a starting point for this effort as it identified many opportunities for improvement. Governance and active decision making will be critical if the process is to be efficient and effective.

6. Approach This section describes the overall approach for the DMV Modernization Plan and its components.



6.1 Program of Manageable Projects

6.1.1 Break the Project Down into Manageable Pieces Modernization is a complex undertaking involving all aspects of the organization. Modernization is not accomplished with one new piece of software, one contract, one vendor, or a small project team. Modernization will require many different activities and many decisions over multiple years.

The Future System Blueprint outlined in this document defines the functionality of the complete systems and further organizes functions into common layers and subsystems. This allows the DMV to build the new system incrementally in manageable pieces. This approach is different from many other States that have attempted one very large project.

6.1.2 Responsive & Flexible An incremental approach allows the DMV to be responsive to changing needs and priorities. It also eliminates the need to develop a single, comprehensive RFP with one vendor which locks all parties into a pre-defined multi-year commitment with too many unknowns.

The Program of Manageable Projects allows the DMV to build the future system in a flexible manner that adapts to changing needs, conditions, and progress while still achieving the final goal.

6.1.3 Move at a Pace That Is Realistic Flexibility in the approach allows the DMV to speed up or slow down as the project progresses. This allows DMV to also respond to external changes that may also occur in the midst of the project. E.g. new legislative mandates. Many States have contracted

Governance ProcurementPlanning &

RFP Development

Vendor Oversight

Core SystemCore System

Core SystemCore SystemCore System

Projects

Priority Projects

Priority Projects

Priority Projects

Priority Projects

Priority Projects

Priority Projects

Priority Projects

Priority Projects

Priority Function Projects

DMV System ModernizationProgram of Manageable Projects



and committed to a predefined pace with a vendor only to find that either or both the State and the vendor cannot keep up.

The Program of Manageable Projects allows the DMV to develop a plan and incrementally achieve milestones. Once reaching a milestone and delivering business value, the state can assess the pace and adjust the schedule accordingly for the next milestones. This can be done in collaboration with vendors on a milestone and project basis but does not need to be locked in for the entire program.

6.1.4 Minimize Risk The Program of Manageable Projects is intentionally risk averse and places a high degree of control with the State. The Future System Blueprint, project definitions, and schedule are able to evolve over time.

6.1.5 Show Results Incrementally The Program of Manageable Projects is designed to deliver incremental business value by sequencing larger and smaller projects that provide new business functionality and incrementally build the future system.

6.1.6 Address High Priority Business Needs The Program of Manageable Projects allows the DMV to evaluate business needs and prioritize projects. Out of ten specific projects, four have been prioritized to address current needs:

Point of Sale System Data Warehouse/Next Generation Data Base Options Document Imaging II MyDMV (Customer Portal)

Over time, projects can be reprioritized as necessary to meet changing needs.

6.1.7 Impact on Other Plans – Code Freeze The modernization project will require the full dedication of all DMV business and technical resources. DMV should minimize enhancements to the legacy system during the modernization process unless necessitated by audit requirements, or changes in Federal or State laws.

6.2 Ten Priority Projects

Ten priority projects were developed during the planning process. Based on the current prioritization, they will be implemented as follows:

Separate, High Priority Project Incorporated into Core System Replacement

Point of Sale System Data Warehouse/Next Generation

Database Document Imaging II MyDMV (Customer portal)

Customer Management Correspondence Management DMV Knowledge Base (DMV

“Wikipedia”)



Record Requests Interfaces to External Systems DMV Website

6.2.1 Data Warehouse/Next Generation Database Project Description Design and Implement a Data Warehouse/Next Generation Database populated from the existing DMV databases to serve operational reporting, data analytics, and other data access needs. A data warehouse allows transaction level information to be analyzed in an efficient manner without impacting the performance of the operational database. The data warehouse would also be used to provide improved audit data. Business areas will have direct access to the Data Warehouse to meet their reporting needs.

Reporting and analysis tools used with the data warehouse would have the following features:

Standard Reporting – These reports are designed to meet the regular needs of DMV operations. The reports are run and distributed on a regular basis and used to manage DMV operations. Future systems must have tools that will allow these reports to be developed using primarily graphically means and scheduled to process automatically.

Ad-hoc Report – These reports are designed to meet special purpose needs. While similar to standard reports, they may not be scheduled or run repeatedly. Future systems should allow analysts to copy logic and designs from other reports to create new ones quickly.

Analysis – Analytical “number crunching” focuses on accessing and performing unique calculations. Future systems must provide reporting tools that manipulate data and allow it to be extracted for reporting.

Data Dictionary – A comprehensive data dictionary must be available that allows analysts to quickly understand and use the data that is in the system. The future system’s database will contain many tables and fields with complex definitions.

Report Library – The Reporting and Analysis tools must have a function for documenting the library of reports, their purpose and current usage statistics.

Scheduler and Distribution – The future system must be capable of scheduling reports to be run either one time or on a regular basis. In addition, it must have a facility for storing, managing and distributing completed reports electronically for access by authorized staff around the state.

Developing a Next Generation Database for Future Systems The data warehouse could also serve as a guideline for the next generation database that would support future system development. The data warehouse project would support data cleanup activities and the creation of a data dictionary.

Rollout Approach The data warehouse could be rolled out by business areas with the customer information being the logical starting point. The rest of the business areas would follow in some order. Those are Drivers, Vehicles, Records and Business Regulations.



6.2.2 Point of Sale System Project Description The DMV operates many field offices and central groups that collect payments on a daily basis. The DMV field office operations include complete retail functions. The DMV system must support a complete “cash register” function that allows staff to offer and process services and collect appropriate payments for those services. The system must support multiple payment types and mixed types for a single transaction.

The system must interface with the other DMV functions that actually process the transactions and with the financial system that records and allocates all funds.

This project would implement a Point of Sale system to capture the financial portion of transactions performed in the field and headquarters. The system would include a cash drawer and receipt printer.

The system needs to support field and headquarter operations. The system must provide reconciliation functions and produce receipts that match to

the transactions performed. The system should accept all forms of payment including credit/debit card. It should

also support electronic check deposit. One payment can be made for multiple transactions and multiple forms of payment

are accepted for a single transaction. The system would need to interface to the core transaction systems (currently

referred to as DRIVE) to associate payments to base transactions. The system should support end of day reconciliation and bank deposits The system should provide an export of financial data to the central financial systems

for further reconciliation.

Rollout Approach The system should be implemented in a limited number of field offices (3 to 5) and headquarters as a pilot. The remaining field offices would be implemented weekly (5 to 7 per week) until all offices are using the system.

6.2.3 Customer Management Project Description Implement a centralized, comprehensive Customer Management (CM) system that would support all business functions. The system would be capable of accessing existing DMV databases and presenting a unified (360 degree) view of all DMV information and interactions with each customer. The system will manage an expanded set of customer information including the ability to collect and retain:

Longer names Multiple addresses Additional contact information Identity information Customer Interactions Correspondence log linked to document imaging Driver license and vehicle information Alerts for pending/upcoming transactions or expirations



The Customer Management system would allow staff in the field and headquarters to better support the customer and identify potential fraud. The system must have role based security so that staff sees only appropriate information for their position.

Each customer in the DMV system needs to be assigned a unique customer number and the system must assist in managing unique numbers and not issuing duplicates to the same entity. This will allow the DMV to properly track and serve each unique business and individual.

DMV customers will be divided into two distinct but similarly managed categories, businesses and individuals. While specific information will be managed for each type of customer, the same basic functions and services will apply consistently to both. Customer data will be cleansed and organized to eliminate duplicates and other errors.

The system must also support the DMV’s identity verification process and similar functions where identifying documents are collected and tracked. Such documents and other related documents should be scanned and stored in a document management system when that function is available.

Rollout Approach The system would be incrementally rolled out to each functional area. Later phases could add functionality such as the tracking of customer correspondence, tracking of customer interaction and providing alerts to customers and staff for pending actions.

6.2.4 Document Imaging Phase II & Workflow Project Description Provide for up front capture of paper and electronic documents, tracking of documents, routing of documents to staff, and storage of documents for later use. Image capture includes paper documents (mail, fax, hard copy), system generated images, and other related electronic correspondence both in the field and central office. Document management requirements such as retention schedules also will be addressed in this project.

Electronic workflow improves efficiency by routing transactions and documents directly to staff that need to perform a process. This reduces the chance that a transaction might be lost. Workflow also provides a better method of tracking documents received and transaction status along with a transaction’s elapsed processing time. In addition, it allows tasks to be automatically distributed to staff based on their changing availability to support the function.

This project would be considered Phase II of the current document imaging project to replace the microfilm archive system.

When documents are scanned, some amount of data entry will be necessary to identify and index the documents.

This project could include the redesign of existing paper forms for better scanning and data capture. This could result in forms being bar-coded to include Form Numbers, Driver License Numbers, and Transaction Numbers

OCR (Optical Character Recognition) and bar-coded data may be used to automatically capture document data.



Rollout Approach The system would be implemented and rolled out incrementally to the business areas. The Vehicles business area would be a logical starting point to improve transaction processing between the field and central offices.

6.2.5 Correspondence Management Project Description The DMV generates a significant amount of documents and notices which are used for both in-person and batch transactions. These print requests include many legal documents such as Vehicle Titles, Registrations, License Records, and notifications.

This project should build a Correspondence Management system that will merge document templates with appropriate data to produce a finished document. This system will allow the DMV to better manage the layout and consistency of documents and correspondence. It will also allow the DMV to manage production of documents to multiple media including paper, PDF, HTML, email, SMS Text, and fax.

This system will support all future DMV systems that generate documents and will thereby provide a common infrastructure for printing.

The system will enable users to directly modify templates and text. It will include templates to provide consistent correspondence to customers.

As the system becomes further integrated with existing and future systems, correspondence should automatically be generated from the transaction processing screens, and data will pre-fill, based on the application logic and data. Correspondence content could be automatically generated based on checklist and business conditions.

All correspondence will be saved to the document imaging system and linked to the customer. The system will need appropriate controls on edits and tracking for auditing.

Rollout Approach The approach for this project would be to provide Correspondence Management by business area.

6.2.6 MyDMV (Customer Portal) Project Description Design and implement a MyDMV Transaction Center where customers can perform online transactions, maintain their profile, check status, and track their transactions. The system could provide alerts to customers electronically for upcoming renewals or reminders for pending transactions. MyDMV will provide the capability to upload and download documents so that customers can attach documents to transactions. Customers will have a single logon credential and this will be the point of entry for the customer. Transactions will have business rules and data edits applied prior to submission so that applications and forms are submitted accurately and completely.

Implementation of a MyDMV Transaction Center should substantially reduce mail in transactions and potentially provide the opportunity to remove mail in transactions as an option.

A web-based transaction center will allow customers to securely identify themselves and process transactions. These may include:

Create a customer account (that may need to be confirmed with an in-person visit)



Apply for or change driving privileges Title or register a vehicle Request driver or vehicle records View the status of driving privileges and vehicle information Submit required documents & information Check the status of a transaction or application Submit payments for existing transactions Schedule appointments or transactions Request & schedule hearings File a complaint Provide proof of insurance

A similar partner-focused MyDMV could also be used for partners to access or provide information to the DMV. Potential partners and third parties include:

Courts Insurance Companies Law Enforcement Vehicle Dealers Ignition Interlock Device Installers DEQ Medical Professionals Other State Agencies Financial Institutions Instructors (Drivers’ Education, CDL, Motorcycle) Dismantlers/Salvage

Rollout Approach The system would be developed and rolled out incrementally. An initial framework would be developed with a first set of transactions and additional transactions and features would be added over time.

6.2.7 DMV Knowledge Base (DMV “Wikipedia”) Project Description Create and populate a DMV knowledge base to contain and cross reference manuals, procedures, and policy documentation. The information must be searchable and organized so that it is easy to navigate and supports the processing of transactions. The system should also allow staff to capture institutional and historical knowledge of procedures. Training materials could be stored and accessible and linked to manuals. This knowledge base would be used by DMV staff and limited access could be provided to external areas and customers as appropriate.

Features should include:

Robust searchable knowledgebase for processes and system instructions



Framework for creating policies and procedure manuals that are consistent, up-to-date, and searchable

Consolidation of disparate manuals and sources of information including: Policy and procedures Best practices Institutional knowledge and process history Training and tutorial information

The approach to knowledge management must include staffing and support for collecting and maintaining information. The system could also be used to collect suggestions and process improvements and to disseminate process updates.

Rollout Approach After the framework is developed, each business area could migrate information on its own schedule.

6.2.8 Record Requests Project Description Implement a system to provide electronic records to low volume account holders. The records provided need to be easily understood and an explanation should be provided with the records. The requestor should be able to request and receive the records electronically using the DMV website. Records could also be provided overnight via mail if requested.

This project would automate the request, payment, and fulfillment of the records request transaction.

Account holders would be those not currently using the NIC website to order records. This process would replace or be used in addition to Interactive Voice Response. Account holders would order records directly instead of DMV needing to manually enter the order.

Rollout Approach A phased approach could be developed that would incrementally support new request types and customer groups.

6.2.9 Interfaces to External Systems Project Description Create improved (and possibly real-time) data interfaces between the DMV and external partners or third parties (Courts, Insurance Companies, Municipalities, etc.). The interfaces would include, as possible, enhanced validation of the data received. Any data that did not pass validation would be returned for error correction and resubmission.

This project would also begin the implementation of a new, standardized approach for building interfaces which are more consistent, easier to maintain, and easier to implement. This approach would allow the DMV to consistently support flat file, XML, web services and other interface approaches.

The Interface/Data ETL (Extraction/Transformation/Load) function must also manage a data dictionary that is used to support the definition of the fields and tables in the DMV data model.



As possible, the new interfaces which read and provide DMV data could be built to access a new “Next Generation Database”. Once partners are accessing information from the new database it will allow the DMV to implement substantial changes to the core systems without impacting the external parties.

Interfaces with stronger validation prevent partners from submitting incomplete data or data with errors. Such data would come into DMV systems and then need to be reviewed by DMV staff.

Rollout Approach As the new interface approach is built interfaces could be identified, prioritized, implemented and rolled out incrementally.

6.2.10 DMV Website Project Description The DMV’s effectiveness depends upon getting proper information to its customers. A web-based information center will allow anyone to view a variety of important information that is publicly available. No User ID or authentication will be required for this system. The information available will include the following.

License Requirements – The public will be able to view the requirements and process for obtaining various personal and commercial driving privileges.

Consumer Reference Materials – Driving manuals, tutorials and other references will be available for viewing and downloading.

Business Reference Materials – Information for businesses that will allow them to more easily reference procedure guides, understand their responsibilities and easily conduct business with the DMV.

How-To Guide – Simple guides including video for completing transactions and conducting business with the DMV.

Obviously, the DMV has an existing public web site. Feedback from the user groups indicated that the web site either contained too much information or did not have sufficient search capabilities. The objective of this project is to create a “new and improved” version.

An example of new content would be a “So You Want to Be a Truck Driver – CDL Tutorial.” This type of online tool could provide extensive information that may reduce customer calls and questions.

Rollout Approach An initial review of existing web site content would be used to develop a new structure and a plan to incrementally develop and deploy or remove content.

6.3 Governance

Governance is critical for guiding the portfolio of projects and maintaining consistency. In addition, governance must be used to ensure that all projects and systems are part of a greater vision and that each is planned and designed to fit together.

Oversight Governance – Must coordinate with all business areas both operational and administrative to ensure that the impact of each project on each area is addressed.



Project Management – Must ensure that each project is properly planned and organized. Each project will require participation from many groups and tasks must be assigned and progress tracked.

Functional/Change Management Governance – Must ensure that there is functional consistency among all of the systems being developed. It is too easy for one project to design screens or process steps that are not consistent with those of another project. Governance must coordinate and enforce across projects so that common designs and ideas are used consistently. This governance will also coordinate how change is introduced into each area.

Architectural Governance – Must ensure that technical approaches and tools are used in a consistent and maintainable approach and that all systems will “fit together”.

Quality Management – Must ensure that processes are being followed and that quality deliverables are being prepared.

6.3.1 Oversight Governance Oversight Governance must coordinate with all operational and administrative areas and must coordinate the Project Management, Functional, and Architectural Governance.

A strong governance structure is a forum for …

Reviewing, Assessing, Coordinating, Communicating and Approving changes

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6

Project Mgmt.

PMO

Architecture

Governance

Oversight Governance

Functional /Change

Governance

Quality

Management

All Operational &Admin Areas



Governance must evaluate how current projects are being run and identify current strengths and weaknesses in delivery. Project management and delivery must be effective and focused and it must be scaled to address the proposed projects.

6.3.2 Project Management Project management tasks must be consistent across all projects.

A Project Director or Project Management Office (PMO) must be able to consolidate project status and information for overall reporting and management. Responsibilities include:

Evaluate DMV priorities and evolve the project strategy Develop metrics that measure projects and link to operational goals Develop and deploy project management standards Coordinate internal resources Collect status, report, and assess project progress Review the reasonability of project schedules Mentor project managers Serve as change agent to overcome resistance Keep project teams focused Develop procurement documents, such as Statements of Work

6.3.3 Functional Governance/Change Management Functional Governance must ensure consistency across the design of all projects and ensure that the DMV’s functional goals are being met. Responsibilities include:

Develop consistent models for business transactions Standardize the approach for business requirements & business rule

documentation Coordinate operational process changes and the development of new business

requirements Oversee consistent user interface designs across projects Coordinate the development of help files, procedure manuals, and training

documents across multiple projects Assist and mentor operational staff in project participation Coordinate with and guide operational areas to incorporate and implement

process changes

6.3.4 Architecture Governance Architecture Governance oversees the Future System Blueprint and the technology of the project. Responsibilities include:

Oversee and coordinate technology and approach Ensure all projects are consistent with Blueprint Continue to interpret and evolve Blueprint



Provide and ensure that consistent architecture guidelines, design, and development standards are followed on all IT projects

Provide technology direction for the entire division Evaluate new technologies and how they can be applied to the on-going projects

or future projects Guide the projects on use of the new technology, if applicable Quality assurance on the code and design re-usability

6.3.5 Quality Management Quality Management includes both Quality Control (Testing) and Quality Assurance (Process Monitoring). All project work performed by vendors or State staff should be part of a Quality Management process.

Develop Test Plans & Tools Coordinate Testing Efforts Oversee and coordinate reviews of vendor deliverables Reporting and analysis of quality metrics

6.4 Procurement Document Development

It is not possible for the DMV staff to internally implement all of the projects needed to accomplish the modernization goals. Even if some level of new staff are hired, the projects will still require specialized skills and additional staffing levels to complete.

The DMV will need to procure services from various vendors to complete the modernization program. These services could include:

Business Process Mapping & Improvement Project Management & Technical Oversight Development of procurement materials, (RFI, RFQ, RFP, etc) Implementation of COTS products such as Document Imaging & Point of Sale

systems Custom Software Development Whole Solution COTS products Data Architect System Architect

The modernization program depends upon the State of Oregon’s procurement processes to finalize required documents, such as RFPs which are clear and thorough. The program could easily require the development of a range of Statements of Work (SOW) to be used in a variety of procurement bidding documents.

All procurement materials must be clear in terms of:

What Functional & Technical Requirements Deliverables



How Delivery Approach, Process Steps, and Milestones Project Management Testing Training Support

Who Bidder Qualifications

Process Bidding Process Response Format Evaluation Process

6.5 Procurement

In addition to design and development services, the project may require hardware, software, quality assurance, as well as staff supplementation. Whether these are available on existing state price agreements or require an RFP, the procurement process must be:

Efficient: Procurements move quickly and all parties know the process and their role.

Effective: Procurements result in unprotestable awards, without rebidding, including a fair number of qualified bidders.

6.6 Vendor Management

As multiple vendors are engaged to participate in the modernization effort, the DMV must organize the skills, staff, and resources necessary to oversee and coordinate them.

The DMV has organized, capable project management and portfolio management processes which must be supported and applied to each vendor.

7. Data Management Approach to Incremental Expansion As the DMV continues to build new functionality using modern technology, old and new systems must be bridged, able to share data, and co-exist. A preliminary approach has been identified that will allow new systems to exchange data with old systems. This approach is important because it allows the DMV to modernize incrementally, rather than with one giant replacement of all systems.

The opportunity to build incrementally allows the DMV to consider a broader array of strategies when planning the modernization.

7.1 The Role of the Next Generation Database

Currently, DMV data is stored in the mainframe DB2 legacy database as well as other systems. These databases and data structures are not consolidated and not properly organized for expandability. Moving forward, all DMV data will be combined into a “Next Generation” relational database capable of expansion while better supporting operational and reporting needs.



The following diagram shows how multiple existing data sources would be linked to a Next Generation Database. Data could continually flow from existing systems to the New System and both would have up-to-date data.

As this system is architected and implemented, disaster recovery capabilities will be enhanced for both current and future operations. This includes maintaining a separate full copy of customer data and the creation of a database that is designed to be more resilient.

7.2 Linking Existing and New Systems

In the following diagram, existing systems update the existing databases and that information is forwarded to the new database. Also, new systems update the new database. The new systems also update the existing systems so that they stay up-to-date and operational.

• Customer Information

• Vehicle

• Driver License

• More…

Next Generation DB

VSAM

Legacy Database

Other Data Source

Forward flow of

data from existing

systems to the new

system allows both

systems to stay

current and

operational



This approach allows the DMV to build new systems on the new database while allowing existing systems to operate. This allows the DMV to manage the pace of modernization and incrementally build new functions.

• Customer Information

• Vehicle

• Driver License

• More…

Next Generation DB

VSAM

Legacy Database

Other Data Source

Forward flow of

data from existing

systems to the new

system allows both

systems to stay

current and

operational

New Systems

Existing Systems

Data Management Layer

Transactions and

information from new

systems are written to the

new database and the

legacy systems



8. Project Phases & Time Requirements The following 10 project comprise the Program of Manageable Projects.

Project Description

Business Process Improvement & Requirements Analysis

Process Mapping - Map and plan improvements for current business processes. Collect business rules and system requirements. Address legislative, policy, and process changes in preparation for modernization.

Data Warehouse and Reporting

Priority Project/Foundation System - Create a data warehouse for reporting and analysis that consolidates important DMV information. Begin to analyze and cleanse the current DMV data in preparation for system modernization.

Point of Sale Priority Project/Foundation System - Implement a point of sale system at all locations to support electronic payments such as credit and debit cards. The system would allow automate printing of receipts, tracking of funds collected, and end of day reconciliation.

Document Imaging Phase II

Priority Project/Foundation System - Implement document imaging and retrieval at all locations along with automated workflow to route documents to staff for processing. This will significant decrease the amount of physical paper being processed and improve the security and tracking of documents.

MyDMV Priority Project/Foundation System - Implement a framework of tools that allows the DMV to continually offer more services via the internet. This includes allowing customers to check driver license and vehicle information, start and submit transactions, and make payments.

Core System RFP Development

Procurement – Collect system and delivery requirements to develop a Statement of Work for an RFP or other procurement method Custom+ COTS software implementation.

Vehicle Title & Registration

Core System & Foundation – Implement Title & Registration along with many other foundation components. This system will bring substantial change to the current Title & Registration business processes.

Dealers (Business Regulation)

Core System – Implement additional functionality to track Dealers and other Business and to implement Electronic Vehicle Registrations for Dealers through multiple service providers

Driver Licensing & Driver Records

Core System – Build upon the foundation to implement all Driver Licensing functions. The shared foundation results in an integrated DMV system that provides a 360 degree view of customer information and common processes and tools across the DMV.

Record Requests Core System – Build upon the foundation to implement all Record Request functions.



The following diagram shows how the project incrementally builds different subsystems in the Future System Blueprint.

The result is that all of the needed subsystems in the Blueprint are accounted for as shown in this final diagram.

The only systems not specifically accounted for are the Testing Systems which were lower in priority because of their current condition and Knowledge Management which can be addressed with any number of solutions as necessary as the project progresses.


Call Center






Licensing Manager

Vehicle Manager



Web Based Query Center

Business Systems

Driver Licensing

Driver Records

Vehicle Title &

Reg.

Record Requests



Correspond-

ence

Exchange

External

Interfaces &

ETL

Reporting &

Analysis

Document

Composition

Electronic

Forms

Workflow

Management

Business

Rules

Manager

Access

Control




SmartPhone App


Dealer Mgmt.

Knowledge Management




Call Center






Licensing Manager

Vehicle Manager




Business Systems

Driver Licensing

Driver Records

Vehicle Title &

Reg.

Record Requests



Correspond-

ence

Exchange

External

Interfaces &

ETL

Reporting &

Analysis

Document

Composition

Electronic

Forms

Workflow

Management

Business

Rules

Manager

Access

Control




SmartPhone App


Dealer Mgmt.





Call Center






Licensing Manager

Vehicle Manager




Business Systems

Driver Licensing

Driver Records

Vehicle Title &

Reg.

Record Requests



Correspond-

ence

Exchange

External

Interfaces &

ETL

Reporting &

Analysis

Document

Composition

Electronic

Forms

Workflow

Management

Business

Rules

Manager

Access

Control




SmartPhone App


Dealer Mgmt.





Call Center






Licensing Manager

Vehicle Manager




Business Systems

Driver Licensing

Driver Records

Vehicle Title &

Reg.

Record Requests



Correspond-

ence

Exchange

External

Interfaces &

ETL

Reporting &

Analysis

Document

Composition

Electronic

Forms

Workflow

Management

Business

Rules

Manager

Access

Control




SmartPhone App


Dealer Mgmt.





Call Center






Licensing Manager

Vehicle Manager




Business Systems

Driver Licensing

Driver Records

Vehicle Title &

Reg.

Record Requests



Correspond-

ence

Exchange

External

Interfaces &

ETL

Reporting &

Analysis

Document

Composition

Electronic

Forms

Workflow

Management

Business

Rules

Manager

Access

Control




SmartPhone App


Dealer Mgmt.





Call Center






Licensing Manager

Vehicle Manager




Business Systems

Driver Licensing

Driver Records

Vehicle Title &

Reg.

Record Requests



Correspond-

ence

Exchange

External

Interfaces &

ETL

Reporting &

Analysis

Document

Composition

Electronic

Forms

Workflow

Management

Business

Rules

Manager

Access

Control




SmartPhone App


Dealer Mgmt.





Call Center






Licensing Manager

Vehicle Manager




Business Systems

Driver Licensing

Driver Records

Vehicle Title &

Reg.

Record Requests



Correspond-

ence

Exchange

External

Interfaces &

ETL

Reporting &

Analysis

Document

Composition

Electronic

Forms

Workflow

Management

Business

Rules

Manager

Access

Control




SmartPhone App


Dealer Mgmt.





Call Center






Licensing Manager

Vehicle Manager




Business Systems

Driver Licensing

Driver Records

Vehicle Title &

Reg.

Record Requests



Correspond-

ence

Exchange

External

Interfaces &

ETL

Reporting &

Analysis

Document

Composition

Electronic

Forms

Workflow

Management

Business

Rules

Manager

Access

Control




SmartPhone App


Dealer Mgmt.




Data

Warehouse and Reporting

Point of

Sale

Document

Imaging II

MyDMV

Vehicle Title

& Registration

Dealer

Registration & Regulation

Driver

Licensing & Driver Records

Record

Requests


Call Center






Licensing Manager

Vehicle Manager




Business Systems

Driver Licensing

Driver Records

Vehicle Title &

Reg.

Record Requests



Correspond-

ence

Exchange

External

Interfaces &

ETL

Reporting &

Analysis

Document

Composition

Electronic

Forms

Workflow

Management

Business

Rules

Manager

Access

Control




SmartPhone App


Dealer Mgmt.






8.1 Schedule Overview

8.2 Business Process Improvement & Requirements Analysis

The DMV has already begun the effort of business process improvement through its work with Mathtech to create a vision for each business area. These documents describe current challenges and opportunities for improvement. They also describe a general plan for modernizing services. This completed work will guide and structure this project.

This project is expected to be 18 months or less in duration depending upon the availability of staff to participate, the number of facilitators, the experience of the team, and availability of current business rule and process documentation.

Key tasks include:

Review of business processes that have been “frozen in time” due to system inflexibility

Identify opportunities for improvement needed to achieve the operational vision Review and document business rules and process steps for implementation in

new systems Identify operational improvements that may require legislative changes Collect functional requirements for the core system to use in procurement

document development Identify technical requirements that may impact procurement document

development



Consider release of Request for Information (RFI) of existing systems to evaluate potential partial or whole solution COTS products that can support the modernization.

8.3 Priority Projects

Ten priority projects were identified in the earlier planning steps that resulted in this strategy. Each of these projects was described in Section 6.2 of this document. Four projects were prioritized by DMV leadership for early implementation and the others were schedule to be implemented as part of the core systems. The four projects are:

Point of Sale System Data Warehouse/Next Generation Database Document Imaging II MyDMV (Customer Portal)

8.3.1 Point of Sale System The Point of Sale system implementation will begin in Year 1. This project includes requirements analysis and RFP development. It is expected that a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) package will support many necessary functions and will be part of the foundation for the modernization.

This effort could leverage vendor resources to perform the implementation.

8.3.2 Data Warehouse/Next Generation Database . Database The DMV will begin design and construction of a next generation data warehouse in Year 1 of the project. The new database will serve as a staging and cleansing tool for existing data and a base for new system functionality. This project



This effort will be competed using internal resources for the database design but could leverage vendor resources to install and configure data transformation and interface tools and report writers.

8.3.3 Document Imaging & Workflow - Phase II Document Imaging and workflow is a critical component for modernization. The scheduling should be consistent with the ongoing document imaging project but must be completed timely in order to support the Vehicle Title & Registration project.

The system will include workflow management to link them to customer transactions and route documents between staff.

Currently, this project is scheduled to start in year 1 with planning, the actual implementation proceeds after the development of an RFP and procurement which should align it with the current document imaging project.

8.3.4 MyDMV Web based transactions are a critical element of the future vision. This project begins in Year 1 to develop additional services that will interact with the current systems. The approach includes continual iterations that will add new web services supporting the existing systems and then the new core systems.

The DMV will likely leverage external resources to develop the MyDMV framework and build new services. The architecture must be designed so that services can be provided using existing systems and then later, the new systems, once they are implemented.



DMV IS resources familiar with the current systems will be critical in interfacing MyDMV to current systems.

This project will continue iteratively for years as new services are created and deployed.

8.4 Core System RFP Development

As described in Section 6.4, the development of procurement documents will be an important task supporting modernization. This project focuses on the develop of one or more solicitations to implement the core Vehicle Title & Registration and Driver Licensing & Records systems as well as support for Dealers and Record Requests.

The DMV could engage external support to organize the procurement process, facilitate collection of information, draft the RFP, and even assist with the evaluation of proposals.

8.5 Core System

The Business Process Improvement project will collect requirements for the core systems and determine what COTS products are available to be part of the solution. This could result in the identification of a Whole Solution COTS product or smaller components. These findings will shape the implementation of the core systems.

Vehicle Title & Registration will be the first systems to be replaced. In conjunction with this, support for Dealers and Electronic Vehicle Records will be implemented.

Driver Licensing & Driver Records would precede only after successful completion of the vehicle systems is nearing completion.

This schedule includes

4 months for the RFP to be “on the street” and 4 months to

evaluate and award.



8.5.1 Vehicle Title & Registration Beginning in year 3, the DMV will commence development of the Vehicle Title & Registration System. This project will implement all vehicle related functionality and implement a broad range of foundation technologies including Customer Manager, the Rules Engine, and Correspondence Management.

This project begins after two years of preparation including business process improvement, requirements analysis, review of solutions, and the development of an RFP and the award to a vendor.

Overall duration is three years to implement the system. Leverage ODOT system development methodology or a vendor’s methodology

as appropriate Includes substantial reengineering of title & registration processes. Builds on the Point of Sale, Next Generation Database, Document Imaging, and

MyDMV efforts

8.5.2 Dealers There are a number of support functions and smaller systems that must be migrated from the DMV mainframe and client/server environments and integrated into the modernized system. This includes:

Business Regulations System Dealer Business Regulations Dealers License Lookup Internet Dealer Notices EVR - Electronic Vehicle Registration Interface

EVR functionality to support external dealer service providers needs to be developed by September 2016. This requires a new interface that can support both the current system and the future system.

In addition, an RFP must be developed to procure external dealer services. These tasks are scheduled to begin in Year 2 of the project. Year 1 activities will guide the technical approach and help to determine if an RFP is needed for implementation services.



8.5.3 Driver Licensing & Driver Records Beginning in Year 4, the DMV will commence with the design and development of the Driver Licensing & Driver Records systems. This system will build upon the foundation already implemented. Customer management, MyDMV, document imaging, workflow, and many other technologies will have been implemented and will reduce the complexity of this development effort.

From a planning perspective, this project includes both the driver licensing functions and the driver records management functions that perform suspension and restoration of driving privileges along with significant driver correspondence.

This project begins after the vehicle title & registration is significantly underway and entering the testing phases.

Overall duration is three years to implement Includes substantial improvements and automation of the driver licensing

process

8.5.4 Record Requests This project would begin in Year 6 of the modernization program. The goal is to automate all record request functions including request submission, request review, payment, record retrieval, and delivery. This project is scheduled to begin as the driver licensing functions are nearing the end of testing a rollout.

This project has a two year duration for implementation.



As the modernization effort progresses, these functions may be implement through third party vendors or through the MyDMV project.

9. Staffing Requirements

9.1 FTE Staffing Estimates

The work effort required for the modernization projects was based on models developed by Mathtech. The models used input from general software development models as well as specific models used for DMV system development. The following staff levels were used for each project.

Project Name Starts in Year

Duration (Years)

IT FTEs Required

Business FTEs Required

Business Process Improvement 1 1.5 2.00 8.00

Data Warehouse and Reporting 1 1.5 4.00 2.00

Point of Sale 1 1.7 3.00 2.50

Document Imaging 1 4 6.00 3.00

MyDMV 1 9 5.00 2.25

Core System RFP Development 2 1 1.00 2.00

Dealers 3 2 9.00 2.00

Vehicle Title & Registration 3 3.1 18.00 5.50

Driver Licensing & Driver Records 5 3.1 25.00 6.00

Record Requests 6 2.1 8.00 2.00

The following table shows the staffing required for governance.

Governance FTEs Starts in Year

Duration (Years) Gov. FTEs

Project Management 1 9.5 2

Functional Governance 1 9.5 2

Architecture Governance 1 9 2

Quality Management 1 9 2

Staffing levels are dependent upon many factors including skill sets, experience, work quality, definition of scope of work, support tools, and management.

This chart shows the results of totaling the staffing levels for each project and for governance across all active project years. These staffing levels would be difficult to



sustain for the DMV if all resources were filled with internal State employees, especially without substantial new hires.

Most of the projects have been described with some level of vendor support. Vendor staff would replace a portion of the State staff participation in the above model.

The following chart is developed by using the following parameters:

75% of the IT staffing is replaced by vendor staff 0% of the Business staffing is replaced by vendor staff 60% of the Governance staffing is replaced by vendor staff

When this substitution is made, the total count for State staff participation peaks at 29 FTEs.

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 4

1814 13 13 14 11 11

43

1

20

18

38 38

48

40 38

9

5

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

Total IT Staff

Total Business Staff

Total Governance Staff

Staff Levels Based on Generic/Internal Staffing



9.2 Staffing Skill Sets

Another aspect of the staffing challenge is developing the proper skill sets for the project where State staff are participating.

IT Staff – IT staff will require retraining and supplementation to participate on parts of the project using new technologies. Some aspects of the modernization will focus on interfacing new systems with existing systems. In these cases, the existing staff will have the required expertise.

Business Staff – Business staff generally have the expertise required to describe current and future business operations. Vendors cannot substitute for this role.

Governance Staff – State staff may not have the skills or experience necessary to manage such a large project or to oversee vendors. Training in project management, quality management and other skills may be necessary but may not substitute for large project experience.

9.3 Staffing – Dual Burden

An additional burden on staffing is the need to focus on the planning and development of the new systems while also maintaining the existing systems and, in some cases, expand the existing systems to meet legislative and other functional needs.

This issue must always be a consideration when planning and funding the modernization effort and every state deals with this challenge. Some states leverage vendors and staff supplementation, some hire new project staff, and some hire new staff to make existing staff available. In all cases, staffing must be attended to early in the project and it is critical to minimize or completely freeze changes to the existing system. See Section 6.1.7 Impact on Other Plans – Code Freeze.

1814 13 13 14 11 11

4 31

55 10 10

1210 10

21

0

20

18

33 33

41

35 33

12

7

30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Total Vendor Support

Total IT Staff

Total Business Staff

Total Governance Staff

Staff Levels with Vendor Support



10. Cost Estimates

10.1 Staffing Costs

The following cost estimates have been developed using the staffing models presented in Section 9. The following parameters were used:

Staff Hourly Rate

State IT Staff $ 70.00

State Business Staff $ 45.00

State Governance Staff $ 70.00

Vendor IT Staff $ 110.00

Vendor Governance Staff $ 130.00

Annual Inflation Rate: 2.00%

Though not realistic, the following chart shows the staffing costs if only State staff were used. The annual cost peaks at approximately $10M per year.

The following chart shows staffing costs when vendor participation is included. Annual cost peaks at under $14M in Year 5.

1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.7

1.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.10.4

0.30.1

2.82.6

5.5 5.6

7.3

6.2 6.0

1.4

0.8

0.2

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0


Total IT Staff Costs

Total Business Staff Costs

Total Governance Staff Costs

Annual Cost based on Internal Staffing ($1,000,000)



10.2 New Software Costs

The project budget estimates a core amount of COTS software products that will be used to implement some foundation and base subsystems. The overall solution will evolve over the course of the project but these components will need to be satisfied.

The current solution assumes that the mainframe will continue to be the primary database platform.

Project # Project Name

Software Package Costs

Annual Maintenance Costs (20%)

1 Data Warehouse and Reporting 500,000 100,000

2 Point of Sale 450,000 90,000

3 Document Imaging 1,020,000 204,000

4 MyDMV - Electronic Forms 900,000 180,000

Core Customer Information Management 1,400,000 280,000

Core Financial Management 1,000,000 200,000

Core Inventory Management 300,000 60,000

Core Access Control 350,000 70,000

Core Rules Engine 500,000 100,000

Core ETL & Integration Engine 500,000 100,000

Priority Project Software Package Total $ 2,870,000 $ 574,000

Core System Software Package Total $ 4,050,000 $ 810,000

Total Software Package Total $ 6,920,000.00 $ 1,384,000.00

1.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.1

0.7 0.6 1.4 1.4 1.8

1.5 1.5

0.4 0.2 0.0

4.5 4.3

7.8 8.0

9.9

8.7 8.5

3.1

2.1

0.9 -

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0


Total Vendor Costs




Annual Cost with Vendor Support ($1,000,000)



10.3 Cost by Project

The following shows estimated staff costs along with hardware and software for each project. These are approximations only. Some projects do not have software and hardware costs because they are not implementation projects or they leverage hardware and software from earlier projects.

Project Staffing &

Services Software Hardware Business Process Improvement $ 1,982,843 - Data Warehouse and Reporting 2,045,339 $500,000 $75,000 Point of Sale 1,906,613 450,000 420,000 Document Imaging 7,816,692 1,020,000 950,000 MyDMV 18,174,159 900,000 300,000 Core System RFP Development 499,502 Dealers 5,012,784 Vehicle Title & Registration 15,985,394 4,050,000 900,000 Driver Licensing & Driver Records 23,125,972 Record Requests 5,189,890

Totals $ 81,739,187 $ 6,920,000 $ 2,645,000

Grand Total $ 91,304,187

10.4 Cost Component Breakdown & Comparison

The following chart totals the various cost components over the duration of the project. While the “Internal Only” model is shown for comparison, it is not a realistic implementation approach. Other states have used an internal model but the approach is very dependent upon the State’s particular situation.



The following chart shows a comparison with other state plans. These plans vary greatly in approach but have similar total costs in the end.

Idaho did not implement the full system proposed by other States. Some States planned to base their modernization on a conversion of existing

code using internal and vendor staff.

9.5 9.54.5

11.3 9.8

9.8 9.6

38.4

12.6

45.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

OR DMV Vendor Supplemented Model

OR DMV Internal Only Model

Vendor IT Staff Costs

Vendor IT Gov Costs




Hardware & Software Costs

Total Project Costs ($ 1,000,000)Typical vendor

implementation cost.

Typical oversight vendor

cost for 7+ years.

Typical state staffing

costs. Many states do not include internal staff in their estimates.

Typical costs for

software and hardware products other than a core package if part of

the solution.

$

Vendor IT Staff Costs, 45.3 , 50%

Vendor IT Gov Costs, 12.6 ,

14%

Total IT Staff Costs, 9.6 , 10%

Total Business

Staff Costs,

9.8 , 11%

Total Governance Staff Costs, 4.5 ,

5%Hardware

& Software Costs, 9.5,

10%

OR DMV Modernization Cost Model

Chart Shows:Cost Component, Cost Amount ($ 1,000,000), Percentage of Total



Some States do not formally budget the cost of internal staff

11. Cost Benefit Analysis Existing costs have many components.

Business Operational Costs – Cost for current operations and inefficiencies that result from outdated systems

IT Existing Technology Costs – Costs for system hardware and software IT Existing Staffing Costs / Maintenance – Costs to maintain the existing

systems IT Existing Staffing Costs / Enhancements – Costs to modify and enhance the

existing systems

9.5 9.5 9.8 12.9

17.1 11.3 8

17.6

45.3

12.5

42

9.6

38.4

35

9.8

9.8

27

86

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

OR DMV Vendor Supplemented

Model

OR DMV Internal Only Model

Other State Plan NJ Virginia Idaho

General

Business

IT

Vendor

Governance

Software

Comparison of DMV Total Project Costs ($ 1,000,000)



11.1 Business Operations Cost Savings Example

The following table shows error volumes and related activities for one aspect of the Title and Registration operations. The new system would substantially, if not totally, eliminate these activities estimated to reduce costs over $3.6M annually. Other such situations exist at the DMV due to the use of outdated systems.

COST SAVING OPPORTUNITIES Daily Errors with Title & Registration Transactions

SAVINGS

Hourly Cost for FTE $45

Annual Cost for FTE (2000 hrs/year) $ 90,000

FTE Work Hours/Day 6 hours

Operational Work Days per Year 245

Bulk Rate postage per letter $0.20

Daily Error Rate From Field 430 errors

Letter Generation

Daily Letters Generated 350 letters

Minutes per Letter 12 minutes

Letter Minutes/Day 4,200 minutes

Letter Hours/Day 70 hours

FTE/Day for Letter Generation 11.67 FTE

Annual FTE Cost for Letter Generation $ 1,050,000 > 1,050,000

Annual postage for Letters $ 17,150 > 17,150

Refund Processing

Error Rate for Other Error 28%

Error Rate for Incorrect Fees 72%

Error Rate for Insufficient Fees (62% of 72%) 45%

Error Rate for Overpaid Fees (38% of 72%) 27%

Cost of Refund Processing $30

Refunds per year due to Overpaid Fees 28,824

Annual Cost for Refund Processing $ 864,713 > 864,713

Cancellation Processing

Error Rate of Issuance to Ineligible Customers 40%

Annual Customers who should not have received plates/stickers 42,140

No Response to Letters 30%

Annual Customers who keep illegal plates/stickers 12,642

Average Underpayment Uncollected $10

Annual Underpayment Uncollected $ 126,420 > 126,420

Cost to Cancel Plate $ 125

Annual Cost to Cancel Improperly Issued Plates $ 1,580,250 > 1,580,250

$3,638,533



11.2 Technology Costs

The current DMV systems are primarily based on the State’s Mainframe environment for which the DMV pays associated costs. While there are Client/Server based systems they are smaller and have fewer costs associated with them.

Moving forward, the new environment will still leverage the State’s Mainframe for database management but less so for business applications. The new environment will also include a substantial amount of new COTS software that will require annual licensing fees.

The following table includes estimates that show that the transition from the existing systems to the new system environment will not significantly change the annual technology costs.

Cost Component

Initial Purchase for Modernization

Current Annual Technology Costs

Estimated New Annual Technology Costs Note

Mainframe

-

$3,960,000

$1,980,000

Estimated 50% Reduction in Mainframe Costs as transaction processing is moved to new platforms and data storage remains on the mainframe

Non M/F Server Infrastructure

2,645,000

529,000

Initial Purchase Amortized Over 5 Years

Software

6,920,000

120,000

1,384,000 20% Licensing & Support of Software

Total $ 9,565,000 $ 4,080,000

$ 3,893,000 Negligible Reduction in Costs

11.3 IS Staffing Costs for Maintenance and Enhancements

The current DMV IT team consists of 55 staff. The most significant change that will occur in the staffing is that substantially new skill sets will be needed. Over the course of the modernization project, the systems will migrate from the legacy COBOL environment to new programming languages and COTS tools. This will require the IT staff to be retrained in these products. This transition will occur over a ten-year period during which some staff will naturally turn-over and need to be replaced.

The actual skill sets needed in the future cannot fully be determined until particular solutions are selected.



The following table documents current IS staff expenditures. Aside from training costs, a substantial increase or decrease in staffing is not predicted.

Cost Component

Current Annual Staff Costs

Estimated New Annual Staff Costs Note

Personnel Services $ 3,800,000 $ 3,800,000

No Substantial Change in

Headcount

FTEs 55 55

Cost per FTE $ 69,091 $ 69,091

Maintenance & Operations Effort 44%

Maintenance & Operations Costs $ 1,672,000

Modernization & Upgrade Effort 56%

Modernization & Upgrade Costs $ 2,128,000

11.4 New Services & Mission Failure

This document and the preceding work have described significant operational impediments caused by the current systems. In addition, they describe a vision for future operations which is modern, but not groundbreaking relative to private sector business standards.

As the DMV moves forward with its existing system it will continue to face:

Legislative revisions and additions New revenue opportunities, Increased attempts at fraud, Demands for modern service delivery by residents and businesses, and Continued pressure to reduce operating costs.

None of these challenges can be practically addressed with the DMV’s current, outdated systems. Conversely, as time moves on without new systems, the DMV faces an increasing likelihood of failure to successfully conduct its day-to-day mission.

1

Oregon Transportation CommissionNovember 20, 2013

Tom McClellan, DMV AdministratorDave Franks, DMV Information Systems Manager

Steven Young, Mathtech

Inc.

DMV Systems Modernization StrategyDMV Systems Modernization Strategy

2

• Strategy and consulting services firm

Project Consultant & ApproachProject Consultant & Approach

Project Startup Project Startup

Executive VisionExecutive Vision

Research Planning Research Planning

Vision Sessions (By Function)

Vision Sessions (By Function)

State ResearchState Research

Gap AnalysisGap Analysis

Technology AssessmentTechnology Assessment

Modernization Strategic Plan Modernization Strategic Plan

Business Needs Document

Business Needs Document

Peer Review Document

Peer Review Document

Deliverable

Deliverable

Deliverable Deliverable

3

Current systems keep DMV “Frozen in Time”

and prevent addressing substantial operational needs:

• Title and registration not real time –

sent to headquarters and checks not performed in field offices

• User interfaces –

outdated and difficult to use• Website –

need to offer more services• Mail-in transactions –

many errors and rework required• Work processes –paper-centric and cumbersome• Financial reconciliation –

inadequate tools for field offices• Permits, receipts, etc. –

too many hand-written products• Document management –

limited tracking of documents

DMV Current Reality DMV Current Reality –– Frozen in TimeFrozen in Time

4

• Expanded customer number project –

3 years and 8 FTE−

Should have been one database update and revisions to some screens and document layouts

• New plate types –

300+ development hours required for each new license plate−

Substantial custom programming

• New fee and suspension types−

Running out of capacity to add more (problems similar to Y2K)

• Limited ability to interface/support business partners−

Electronic vehicle registration (EVR) providers, courts, record users, e-Government services

DMV Current Reality DMV Current Reality –– Everything is DifficultEverything is Difficult

5

Mathtech

identified a program of manageable projects as part of an overall modernization strategy:

• Business process improvement/redesign−

How best to do business without current system limitations

• Core system replacement−

Vehicle title and registration−

Driver licensing and driver records−

Dealer licensing−

Record requests

• Data warehouse and reporting−

Data cleansing−

Data sharing with business partners (Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS), American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), and Courts)

−

Enhanced reporting capabilities

DMV Modernization ProjectsDMV Modernization Projects

6

• Point-of-sale capability−

Multiple payment options−

Itemized receipting−

Tracking of funds−

End-of-day reconciliation

• Document imaging−

Document imaging and retrieval at all locations −

Automated workflow to route documents to staff for processing

• MyDMV−

Personal DMV accounts offering more services via the internet• Customer Portal• Personal driver/vehicle record lookups• Online transactions

DMV Modernization Projects DMV Modernization Projects (continued)(continued)

7

The modernization effort is designed to execute: • Within a nine to ten-year period• With a cost estimate of $90 million• With a dedicated staffing level of approximately 60 but peaking

to 70 in Year 5

DMV Modernization ProjectsDMV Modernization Projects

ID Task Name Duration

1 Leg Fiscal Office Review 6 mons2 Governance 2300 days6 Core System 1890 days7 Business Process Improvement 360 days8 Vehicle Title & Registration 6 mons9 Driver Licensing 6 mons10 Driver Records 6 mons11 Record Requests 3 mons12 Dealers 3 mons13 Core System RFP Development 180 days23 Core System Proposal Review & Awa4 mons24 Vehicle Title & Registration 770 days32 Driver Licensing & Driver Records 770 days40 Record Requests 510 days48 Dealers 430 days56 Priority Projects 2140 days57 Point of Sale System 410 days66 Data Warehouse/Next Gen. DB 370 days74 Document Imaging II 970 days83 MyDMV 2140 days84 MyDMV Iteration 1 390 days92 MyDMV Iteration 2 290 days100 MyDMV Iteration 3 290 days108 MyDMV Iteration 4 290 days116 MyDMV Iteration 5 290 days124 MyDMV Iteration 6 290 days132 MyDMV Iteration 7 290 days140 MyDMV Iteration 8 290 days

4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 1

8

Oregon DMV Engagement and Observations

Steve Young, PMPSenior Vice President

Mathtech Inc.

MathtechMathtech Inc.Inc.

9

DMV staff and leadership clearly articulated a vision of future systems and operations.

• 360-degree view of customer information • DMV serving customers with a consistent, single voice• Online DMV and full featured Website• Real time DMV• Simple DMV• Smart, flexible systems that enforce business rules• DMV “Wikipedia“• Better financial reporting (and more payment options) • Eliminate paper• Engage partners and customers for self service

Vision SessionVision Session

10

Each business area is substantially different, but the vision and the needs are the same -

this guides our modernization approach.

Converting Vision into a PlanConverting Vision into a Plan

Driver Licensing

Vehicle Title and

Registration

Driver Records Driver and Vehicle Record Sharing

Customer Information X X X X

Case Management X X X X

Vehicle Information X X X

Licensing X X X


X X X X

Web-Based Transaction Center

X X X X

Web-Based Public Information Center

X X X X

Web-Based Query Center X X X X

Revenue Management X X X X

Inventory Management X X

Knowledge Management X X X X

11

This blueprint describes a modern, flexible DMV system that can be built incrementally and evolve over time.

Business Needs and Future System BlueprintBusiness Needs and Future System Blueprint

Customer Manager•Customer Interaction

Base SystemsWeb Based Transaction Center• Customer Profile Manager • Online Transaction Forms• Online Transaction Wizards• Upload/Download of Documents • Transaction Status tracking

Licensing Manager

Vehicle Manager




Business Systems

Driver Licensing

Driver Records

Vehicle Title & Reg.

Record Requests



Correspond-ence

Exchange

External Interfaces &

ETL

Reporting & Analysis

Document Composition

Electronic Forms

Workflow Management

Business Rules

Manager

Access Control

Document Mgmt.Data WarehouseNext Generation

Operational Database


Skill TestsInventory Management

SmartPhone App


ETL is short for extract, transform, load

12

Taking a page from the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), the DMV systems would be considered: Structurally Deficient (SD)

This status is determined because the Appraisal Rating would be:“2 – Basically intolerable requiring high priority of replacement”

• DMV has spent considerable effort to maintain and maximize the current systems but they must be replaced.

• Current systems do not provide a platform to move forward.• IT staff skill sets are focused on the current systems.

Current Computer System StatusCurrent Computer System Status

13

Approach Benefits:

• Break the project down into manageable pieces−

Smaller, obtainable objectives−

Converts into ongoing planning, maintenance, and evolution

• Responsive and flexible−

Adapt to changing needs, conditions, and progress while achieving goals−

Blueprint and schedule evolve over time

• Move at a pace that is realistic−

DMV can speed up or slow down as necessary

• Minimize risk−

Avoid locking into an inflexible, prescribed, multiyear contract−

Avoid over-committing

• Show results incrementally−

Obtainable objectives which support the long term vision and blueprint

• Address high priority business needs

A Program of Manageable ProjectsA Program of Manageable Projects

14

We must be aware of and address challenges

• Redesign business processes−

Collect existing business rules−

Identify opportunities for improvement

• Technical skill sets for planning and oversight−

Significant participation will be needed for planning−

Many new projects will need to interface with existing systems−

Overseeing/guiding all vendors

• Support for ongoing maintenance while building new simultaneously −

Minimize changes to existing systems, unless necessitated by audit requirements or changes in law

−

Both business and technical staff are strained and need supplementation

• ODOT DMV strengths−

Discipline−

Project management

Modernization Projects Are Not EasyModernization Projects Are Not Easy

15

There are some big wins for Oregon ahead…

• Title and registration not real time –

sent to headquarters and checks not performed in field offices

• Mail-in transactions –

many errors and rework required• Work processes –paper-centric and cumbersome• Financial reconciliation –

inadequate tools for field offices• Permits, receipts, etc. –

too many hand-written products• Online vs. in Line –

online world of customer service awaits …

Opportunities for OregonOpportunities for Oregon

16

Modernization ~ a challenging task for all states

• Other states’

experiences−

Many are engaged in similar planning and analysis−

Many are performing requirements and looking toward the future−

Many are preparing project budgets of $70M to $100M−

Many have had failed projects resulting in no new system−

A new generation of products are being marketed with improved outcomes

• Best practices−

Strong project management is critical−

Business process improvement is a requirement−

Address data issues/quality early−

Avoid overly aggressive schedules−

Be cautious of vendor promises and performance

What Are Other States Doing?What Are Other States Doing?

17

• Be an educated consumer• Take ownership of the plan, solution, implementation, and

results• Understand operational changes before implementing software• Align in-house technology skills to the future needs• Don’t commit to move faster than you can• Follow the plan and don’t hesitate to evolve it year to year

Advice for Moving ForwardAdvice for Moving Forward

18

•

Contact Department of Administrative Services (CIO and CFO)

•

Contact Legislative Fiscal Office (IT Analyst)

•

Contact ODOT Procurement Office (contracting options)

•

Requesting information from vendors:

Data cleansing/warehousing

Point of sale

Core system replacement options

Document imaging and workflow

Online customer portal

Steps Taken Since August 2013Steps Taken Since August 2013

19

•

2013-15 Planning and Analysis

Business processes; Point of Sale System; vendor research

•

2013-15 Emergency Board

Increase expenditure authority for credit/debit merchant fees

•

2015-17 Budget package

Increase expenditure authority and establish positions

•

2015 Legislative Session

Establish DMV Technology Fund

Establish Technology Fund Surcharge/Fee

Increase fees for DMV Cost Recovery proposal

Proposed Next StepsProposed Next Steps

20

•

Should DMV move forward with planning for its Systems Modernization Initiative?

•

Should DMV follow a “pay-as-you-go”

funding strategy, or issue bonds repaid with Highway Fund revenues?

•

Should DMV begin to accept credit/debit card payments only if customers pay enough to offset processing costs?

QuestionsQuestions

Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 28695

GRANT AGREEMENT ConnectOregon IV

MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PROGRAM 2012 Project Name: Terminal 6 Wharf Optimization

THIS GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as “Agreement” is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as “ODOT,” and Port of Portland, hereinafter referred to as “Recipient,” hereinafter individually referred to as the “Party” and collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS

1. By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 190.110, 366.572, and 366.576, state agencies may enter into agreements with counties, cities, and units of local government for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers, or agents have the authority to perform.

2. Pursuant to ORS 367.080 through 367.086, there is established the Multimodal Transportation Fund, separate and distinct from the General Fund, allowing for the issuance of lottery bonds for the purpose of financing grants and loans to fund Transportation Projects to public bodies and private entities that involve air, marine, rail or public transit.

3. The Multimodal Transportation Fund Program began through ConnectOregon, a one hundred million dollar ($100,000,000) lottery-bond-based initiative approved by the Oregon Legislative Assembly in 2005 (Oregon Laws 2005, Chapter 816), to invest in air, rail, public transit, and marine transportation projects to ensure Oregon’s transportation system is strong, diverse and efficient. The Oregon Legislative Assembly added an additional one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) in 2007 (Oregon Laws 2007, Chapter 859), one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) in 2009 (Oregon Laws 2009, Chapter 865 – HB 2001), and forty million dollars ($40,000,000) in 2011 (Oregon Laws 2011, Chapter 624, HB 5036. The Multimodal Transportation Fund Program is focused on improving the connections between air, rail, marine and transit modes of transportation to reduce transportation costs to businesses, remove key bottlenecks, and increase connectivity.

4. The receipt and use of Multimodal Transportation Funds and the execution of this Agreement by Recipient are subject to conditions imposed by ORS 367.080 through 367.086 and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Chapter 731, Division 35.

5. The Oregon Transportation Commission approved the projects to be funded under the Multimodal Transportation Fund Program at its August 2012 meeting. The Oregon Transportation Commission has set specific conditions on all approved projects and the inability to meet these Oregon Transportation Commission conditions may result in a loss of Project funding. Final approval for Project is subject to meeting all the Oregon Transportation Commission conditions as stated below.

Port of Portland/ODOT Agreement No. 28695

2

6. Safety is of paramount concern to ODOT. ODOT encourages recipients of ConnectOregon grant funds to have safety as a high priority for all phases of work.

NOW THEREFORE, the premises being general as stated in the foregoing Recitals, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows:

I. TERMS OF AGREEMENT

1. ODOT and Recipient agree that Recipient shall upgrade the crane management system for cranes 6373, 6374, 6375 and PPMX crane travel improvements, hereinafter referred to as “Project”, further described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.

2. Project Cost is estimated at $1,500,000, which is subject to change. The ConnectOregon IV grant funds (“Grant Funds”) are limited to $1,200,000 or eighty (80) percent of the total eligible Project Costs, whichever is less. Eligible costs for this Project will be reimbursed at eighty (80) percent until the $1,200,000 limit is reached. ODOT cannot reimburse Recipient for any work performed, or for Project Costs incurred prior to the effective date of this Agreement.

a. Recipient must provide matching funds in an amount equal to twenty (20) percent of the eligible Project Costs. Matching funds must be used for elements necessary for implementation of Project, including land, excavation, permits, engineering, payroll, special equipment purchase, rental or lease. Recipient is responsible for all costs in excess of the Grant Funds. All Project Costs other than the Grant Funds are hereinafter referred to as “Recipient Contribution.”

b. If Project is not completed in accordance with, or consistent with, the application and documents provided by Recipient to ODOT prior to the execution of the Agreement, incorporated by reference into this Agreement, and this Agreement as they each may be amended, Recipient shall pay back all of the Grant Funds to ODOT. Any funds disbursed but not used for the approved Project must be returned to ODOT. Recipient understands eligibility for Grant Funds applies only to Project costs incurred on or after the effective date of this Agreement.

3. The term of this Agreement is effective on the date all required signatures are obtained and shall expire five (5) calendar years following the date all required signatures are obtained.

II. RECIPIENT OBLIGATIONS

1. Recipient shall perform Project work described in Exhibit A.

2. Recipient shall comply with all requirements of ORS 367.080 through ORS 367.086 and OAR Chapter 731, Division 35.

3. Recipient shall submit to ODOT’s Project Liaison for review and approval monthly invoices and updated monthly progress reports on Project Key Milestones and Schedule in Exhibit A.


3

a. The invoice must adhere to generally accepted accounting principles and will identify Project, Agreement number, Project start and end date, the invoice number or the account number or both, and will itemize all expenses as well as provide a detailed breakdown of funds expended to date and dollars remaining. In the event an invoice is not necessary during a specific period, an updated monthly progress report on Project schedule must be submitted separately each month reflecting continuous progress.

b. The monthly progress report will be prepared using the ConnectOregon Monthly Progress Report (Form 734-2668), attached by reference and made a part of this Agreement, and will be submitted to the ODOT Project Liaison and ODOT’s ConnectOregon Program Manager, by the first Wednesday of each month. The fillable form can be downloaded on-line at the following address:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/LGS/online.shtml.

c. If Recipient anticipates Project key milestones will be delayed by more than ninety (90) days from the key milestones shown in Exhibit A, Recipient shall submit a Request for Change Order (Form 734-2648), which is hereby incorporated by reference, to ODOT’s Project Liaison as soon as Recipient becomes aware of any possible delay. The Request for Change Order must be submitted prior to the milestone completion date shown in Exhibit A. The fillable form can be downloaded on-line at the following address: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/LGS/online.shtml.

d. Any changes to Project scope or delivery schedule must be approved by the ConnectOregon Oversight Committee or assigned designee prior to execution of an amendment to this Agreement. Recipient shall not proceed with any changes to Project scope prior to the Request for Change Order being approved by ODOT and the ensuing amendment executed. A Request for Change Order may be rejected at the discretion of the ConnectOregon Oversight Committee. The ConnectOregon Oversight Committee may choose to request review by the Oregon Transportation Commission.

e. Recipient shall submit a written report to ODOT’s ConnectOregon Program Manager that identifies the number of jobs created or retained both during construction and after Project completion, as a direct result of this Project. The report must also include the number of jobs projected in the application. This report must also include data on the methodology which measures Project's success as described in the grant application. The report must be received within eighteen (18) months after the completion of Project. Recipient’s obligation to provide this report will survive expiration of this Agreement.

4. Recipient must comply with ORS 280.518, which requires any economic development program financed with proceeds from the state lottery to display a sign in a conspicuous location on Project site or specify in the program information that Project is financed with proceeds from the state lottery. ODOT will provide standard signage as appropriate. If Recipient chooses to make a custom sign, it must be


4

approved by ODOT’s ConnectOregon Program Manager and Recipient shall be responsible for the cost of such custom signage. If Project site is remote and a sign would not be visible to the public, then Recipient shall provide proof to ODOT’s ConnectOregon Program Manager that Recipient has specified in its program information that Project is financed with proceeds from the state lottery.

5. Recipient must produce or provide, upon ODOT's request, any documents or information identified or referenced in Project application or in other documents provided by Recipient to ODOT prior to the execution of the Agreement. These may include, but are not limited to, information pertaining to Project key milestones, schedule, budget and cash flow, feasibility, readiness to construct, permits, likelihood of completion within planned time frame, and other items related to completion of promised Project elements.

6. Recipient shall provide documentation of having secured the Recipient Contribution prior to any construction (labor and material) costs being considered eligible for reimbursement and actually being reimbursed from Grant Funds. The Recipient Contribution must be available and committed for the duration of Project. Recipient shall provide this documentation to ODOT’s ConnectOregon Program Manager.

7. Upon execution of this Agreement, Recipient shall require its Contractor(s) performing the work under this Agreement to name ODOT as an additional obligee on Contractor(s) bond.

8. Recipient shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the applicable provisions of ORS 279A, 279B and 279C. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Recipient expressly agrees to comply with (i) Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Title V and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS 659A.142; (iv) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations.

9. Recipient shall, to the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims Act, indemnify, defend, save, and hold harmless the State of Oregon, Oregon Transportation Commission and its members, Oregon Department of Transportation, its officers and employees from any and all claims, suits, or action of any nature arising out of activities of Recipient, its consultant, its contractor, its officers, subcontractors, agents, or employees under this Agreement. If Recipient is a local public agency, then Recipient’s total liability shall not exceed the tort claims limits providing in the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 and 30.300 for “local public bodies.”

10. Notwithstanding the foregoing defense obligations in the paragraph above, neither Recipient nor any attorney engaged by Recipient shall defend any claim in the name of the State of Oregon or any agency of the State of Oregon, nor purport to act as legal representative of the State of Oregon or any of its agencies, without the prior


5

written consent of the Oregon Attorney General. The State of Oregon may, at anytime at its election assume its own defense and settlement in the event that it determines that Recipient is prohibited from defending the State of Oregon, or that Recipient is not adequately defending the State of Oregon’s interests, or that an important governmental principle is at issue or that it is in the best interests of the State of Oregon to do so. The State of Oregon reserves all rights to pursue any claims it may have against Recipient if the State of Oregon elects to assume its own defense.

11. Recipient acknowledges and agrees that ODOT, the Oregon Secretary of State's Office, the federal government, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of Recipient which are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts for a period of six (6) years after final payment. Copies of applicable records will be made available upon request. Payment for costs of copies is reimbursable by the requesting Party.

12. If Recipient enters into a construction contract for performance of work on Project, then Recipient will require its contractor to provide the following:

a. Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless ODOT from and against all claims, suits, actions, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses of any nature whatsoever resulting from, arising out of, or relating to the activities of Contractor or its officers, employees, subcontractors, or agents under the resulting contract.

b. Contractor and Recipient shall name ODOT as a third party beneficiary of the resulting contract.

c. Commercial General Liability. Contractor shall obtain, at Contractor’s expense, and keep in effect during the term of the resulting contract, Commercial General Liability Insurance covering bodily injury and property damage in a form and with coverages that are satisfactory to ODOT. This insurance will include personal and advertising injury liability, products and completed operations. Coverage may be written in combination with Automobile Liability Insurance (with separate limits). Coverage will be written on an occurrence basis. If written in conjunction with Automobile Liability the combined single limit per occurrence will not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each job site or location. Each annual aggregate limit will not be less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.)

d. Automobile Liability. Contractor shall obtain, at Contractor’s expense, and keep in effect during the term of the resulting contract, Commercial Business Automobile Liability Insurance covering all owned, non-owned, or hired vehicles. This coverage may be written in combination with the Commercial General Liability Insurance (with separate limits). Combined single limit per occurrence will not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.)


6

e. Additional Insured. The liability insurance coverage, except Professional Liability, Errors and Omissions, or Workers’ Compensation, if included, required for performance of the resulting contract will include ODOT and its divisions, officers and employees as Additional Insured but only with respect to Contractor’s activities to be performed under this Contract. Coverage will be primary and non-contributory with any other insurance and self-insurance.

f. Notice of Cancellation or Change. There will be no cancellation, material change, potential exhaustion of aggregate limits or non-renewal of insurance coverage(s) without thirty (30) days written notice from Contractor’s or its insurer(s) to ODOT. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of this clause will constitute a material breach of the resulting contract and will be grounds for immediate termination of the resulting contract and this Agreement.

13. Recipient, and its Contractors, shall work as an independent contractor and shall be exclusively responsible for all costs and expenses related to its employment of individuals to perform the work under this Agreement including, but not limited to, retirement contributions, workers’ compensation, unemployment taxes, and state and federal income tax withholdings.

14. All employers, including Recipient, that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers’ Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. Employers Liability insurance with coverage limits of not less than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) must be included. Recipient shall ensure that each of its Contractors complies with these requirements.

15. Recipient and ODOT’s Project Liaison shall, upon completion of all on-site work for Project, perform an on-site review. Once review is completed, the ODOT Project Liaison shall recommend acceptance of Project by signing the ConnectOregon “Recommendation of Acceptance” (Form 734-2649), which will be signed by the ODOT Project Liaison and Recipient and is hereby incorporated by reference. The full text of the above referenced exhibit may be reviewed and downloaded at the following web address:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/LGS/docs/Forms/COProjectAccept2649.doc

16. Recipient shall, at its own expense, maintain and operate Project upon completion and throughout the useful life of Project at a minimum level that is consistent with normal depreciation or service demand or both, subject to the provisions set forth in Section D of Exhibit A. ODOT and Recipient agree that the useful life of Project is defined as twenty (20) years. Recipient has, by submitting its application for this ConnectOregon IV grant, represented and certified to sufficient funds and to its ability to operate and maintain Project. ODOT may conduct periodic inspections following the execution of this Agreement to verify that Project is being properly maintained and continues to serve the purpose for which Grant Funds were provided. This paragraph shall survive any expiration of this Agreement.


7

17. Recipient certifies and represents that the individual(s) signing this Agreement has been authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement on behalf of Recipient, under the direction or approval of its governing body, commission, board, officers, members, or representatives, and to legally bind Recipient and shall provide ODOT proof of such authority upon request.

18. Recipient’s Project Manager is Tim Van Wormer, Senior Planner, 7200 NE Airport Way; Portland; OR 97218; telephone: 503-415-6208; fax: 503-548-5759; [email protected] or assigned designee upon individual’s absence. Recipient shall notify ODOT’s Project Liaison and ODOT’s ConnectOregon Program Manager in writing when any contact information changes during the term of this Agreement.

III. ODOT OBLIGATIONS

1. Based upon the ConnectOregon IV Grant Fund allocation allowed, ODOT agrees to pay Recipient a maximum amount of $1,200,000, or eighty (80) percent of the total eligible Project costs, whichever is less. Eligible costs for this Project will be reimbursed at eighty (80) percent until the $1,200,000 limit is reached.

2. Upon receipt and approval by ODOT of a monthly invoice and updated monthly progress report on Project schedule submitted by Recipient, ODOT shall reimburse Recipient for approved eligible costs.

3. This Agreement is contingent upon issuance and sale of lottery bonds sufficient to fund Project. The Agreement is effective and work may begin upon execution of this Agreement, but ODOT’s obligation to make Project payments is contingent upon the issuance and sale of lottery bonds by the State Treasurer.

4. Each disbursement of Grant Funds by ODOT is contingent upon ODOT receiving appropriations, limitations, allotments or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow ODOT, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this Agreement.

5. ODOT shall monitor Project for compliance and notify Recipient in writing if it appears Recipient is failing to comply with Multimodal Transportation Fund Program requirements as specified in ORS Chapter 367; OAR Chapter 731, Division 35; the terms of this Agreement; or Recipient’s application and documents provided by Recipient to ODOT prior to the execution of the Agreement.

6. ODOT may impose sanctions against Recipient for failing to comply with the requirements governing the Multimodal Transportation Fund Program. Before imposing sanctions, ODOT will send a notice to cure to Recipient if Recipient fails to comply with Program requirements. ODOT will allow fifteen (15) days from the date the notice to cure is sent for Recipient to respond and correct the deficiencies noted. The following circumstances may warrant sanctions:


8

a. Work on the approved Project has not been substantially initiated within six (6) months of the effective date of this Agreement or if continuous progress on Project has not been maintained for six (6) months;

b. State of Oregon statutory requirements have not been met;

c. There is a significant deviation from the terms and conditions of this Agreement or representations of Recipient’s application and documents provided by Recipient to ODOT prior to the execution of the Agreement;

d. Significant corrective actions have been found to be necessary to protect the integrity of the funds for the approved Project, and those corrective actions are not, or will not, be made within a reasonable time;

e. Key Milestones shown in Project schedule are delayed by more than ninety (90) days; or

f. Failure to submit monthly progress reports as required in ODOT Obligations, Section III.3, of this Agreement.

7. One or more of the following sanctions may be imposed if the circumstances listed above are not remedied within the time specified in the notice to cure:

a. Revocation of this grant award;

b. Withholding of unexpended funds;

c. The return of unexpended funds or repayment of expended funds;

d. The barring of Recipient from applying for future assistance; or

e. Other remedies that may be incorporated into this Agreement.

8. The remedies set forth in this Agreement are cumulative, are not exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.

9. ODOT’s Project Liaison and Recipient shall, upon completion of all on-site work for Project, perform an on-site review. Once review is completed, ODOT’s Project Liaison shall recommend acceptance of Project by signing the ConnectOregon Recommendation of Acceptance (Form 734-2649), which will be signed by ODOT’s Project Liaison and Recipient. Upon receipt of signatures by the Parties, ODOT’s Project Liaison shall forward a signed copy to ODOT’s ConnectOregon Program Manager.

10. After execution of this Agreement, ODOT’s ConnectOregon Program Manager shall have authority to execute amendments to this Agreement on behalf of ODOT when the changes provided in the amendments have been approved through the “Request For Change Order Process” described in Recipient Obligations Section II.3.d, of this


9

Agreement. Such authority shall include modification to Project milestones, Project completion date, and the expiration date of the Agreement. Any other modifications, including without limitation to Project scope, Project Cost or grant amount may be effective only upon execution by all original signatories, or their assigned designee’s in their absence.

11. ODOT’s ConnectOregon Program Manager is Carol Olsen, Active Transportation Section, 555 13th Street NE, Salem, OR 97301, 503-986-3327, [email protected], or assigned designee upon individual’s absence.

IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. This Agreement may be terminated effective upon delivery of written notice to Recipient, or at such later date as may be established by ODOT under any of the following conditions:

a. If Recipient fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and within ten (10) days or such longer period as ODOT may authorize, after receipt of written notice from ODOT, fails to correct such failures.

b. The Legislature fails to approve, reduces, eliminates or otherwise interferes with appropriations of state expenditure limitation to the extent that legal authority is insufficient to enable ODOT, in its reasonable discretion, to continue making payments under this Agreement.

c. ODOT, the Department of Justice, or a court of competent jurisdiction determines that state law, rules, regulation or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the activities described in Exhibit A are no longer allowable or no longer eligible for funding proposed by this Agreement.

2. ODOT may impose one (1) or more of the sanctions described in ODOT Obligations, Section III.6, of this Agreement, without prior notice and without opportunity to cure, in the event ODOT determines:

a. Statements, information, or representations in the ConnectOregon IV application and documents provided by Recipient to ODOT prior to the execution of the Agreement, for Project were false, misleading, fraudulent or misrepresentations; or

b. There has been a change in circumstances so that information provided in the application and documents provided by Recipient to ODOT prior to the execution of the Agreement, and relied upon in making the grant or loan, or representations concerning considerations in the selection of Project for ConnectOregon IV, pursuant to OAR 731-035-0060, are no longer true or accurate.


10

3. Recipient may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to ODOT under any of the following conditions:

a. ODOT fails to make payments due under this Agreement, or

b. ODOT fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and within ten (10) days or such longer period as Recipient may authorize, after receipt of written notice from Recipient, fails to correct such failure.

4. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the Parties prior to termination.

5. ODOT and Recipient are the only Parties to this Agreement and, as such, are the only Parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Agreement gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit, direct, indirect or otherwise to third persons unless such third persons are expressly identified by name and specifically described as intended to be beneficiaries of its terms.

6. ODOT and Recipient hereto agree that if any term or provision of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unenforceable, illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions will not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular term or provision held to be invalid.

7a.The laws of the State of Oregon (without giving effect to its conflicts of law principles) govern all matters arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including, without limitation, its validity, interpretation, construction, performance, and enforcement.

b.Any Party bringing a legal action or proceeding against any other Party arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall bring the legal action or proceeding in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Marion County. Each Party hereby consents to the exclusive jurisdiction of such court, waives any objection to venue, and waives any claim that such forum is an inconvenient forum.

c.Notwithstanding Section IV.7.b, if a claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it must be brought and adjudicated solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. This section applies to a claim brought against the State of Oregon only to the extent Congress has appropriately abrogated the State of Oregon’s sovereign immunity and is not consent by the State of Oregon to be sued in federal court. This section is also not a waiver by the State of Oregon of any form of immunity, including but not limited to sovereign immunity and immunity based on the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


11

8. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties, notwithstanding that all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original.

9. This Agreement, Project application and documents provided by Recipient to ODOT prior to the execution of the Agreement, and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the Parties on the subject matter hereof. In the event of a conflict, the body of this Agreement and the attached Exhibit A will control over Project application and documents provided by Recipient to ODOT. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification, or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either Party unless in writing and signed by both Parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of either Party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by that Party of that or any other provision.

THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that their signing representatives have read this Agreement, understand it, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions and that the persons executing this Agreement have been duly authorized to do so.

The Oregon Transportation Commission at its August 2012 meeting approved the ConnectOregon IV project application list and delegated authority to the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation to enter into project agreements.

Signature Page to Follow

EXHIBIT A

13

Agreement No. 28695 Application Number: 1M0215

Project Name: Terminal 6 Wharf Optimization

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project will design, permit, procure and construct crane management system upgrades for Cranes 6373, 6374, 6375 and travel distance improvements for Cranes 6380 and 6381. The Cranes 6380 and 6381 travel distance improvements include replacing the existing above ground power feed equipment with two new power feed vaults, two new power feed flairs, and the necessary conduit runs and conductors to connect back to the existing Crane 6380 and Crane 6381 substations. New computers and crane management software will be purchased and installed on Cranes 6373, 6374, and 6375.

B. PROJECT KEY MILESTONES AND SCHEDULE

Project has six Key Milestones. Key Milestones are used for evaluating performance on Project and determining level of compensation for completed work as described in the Agreement. Key Milestones cannot be changed without an amendment to the Agreement. Recipient may shift the estimated Grant Funds shown below between milestones without an amendment to the Agreement, but shall not, under any circumstances, exceed the “Total Not To Exceed Grant Fund Allocation.” Recipient shall report changes to the Estimated Amounts corresponding to each Key Milestone, shown below, in Recipient’s Monthly Report to the ODOT Project Liaison.

If Recipient anticipates Project Key Milestones will be delayed by more than ninety (90) days, Recipient shall submit a Request for Change Order to the ODOT Project Liaison as soon as Recipient becomes aware of any possible delay. The Request for Change Order must be submitted prior to the Key Milestone completion date shown in this Exhibit.

The anticipated start date of Project is: 11/01/2012

The estimated completion date of Project is: 06/30/2014

EXHIBIT A

14

Table 1: Key Milestones Key Milestone

Description Estimated Due Date

Estimated Amount

1 Scoping and planning N/A $0

2 Right of way and land acquisition N/A $0

3 Permits 10/1/2013 $50,000

4 Final plans/bidding engineering documents

6/1/2013 $300,000

5 Construction contract award 10/1/2013 $1,100,000

6 Project completion 6/30/2014 $50,000

Total Project Cost $1,500,000

Table 2 – Funding Breakdown

A Total Not To Exceed Grant Fund Allocation $1,200,000 B ConnectOregon IV twenty (20) percent required

match $300,000

C ConnectOregon IV Total $1,500,000

D Other Funds In Addition to twenty (20) percent Required Match

$0

E Total Project Funding $1,500,000

C. BUDGET

Total Not To Exceed Grant Funds payable to Recipient is $1,200,000.

Total Project costs are estimated at $1,500,000. The ConnectOregon IV Grant Fund allocation for Project is $1,200,000. Recipient shall be responsible for any unanticipated costs over the identified ConnectOregon IV Grant Fund Allocation.

EXHIBIT A

15

D. ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION

ODOT and Recipient acknowledge and agree:

a. That Recipient has entered into that certain Terminal 6 Lease Agreement with ICTSI Oregon, Inc. (“ICTSI”) dated May 12, 2010 ("Lease"), pursuant to which ICTSI may request the Port to remove any one or more of Cranes 6373, 6374 or 6375 (each, a "Crane") following the 11th year of the Lease ("Lease Requirement");

b. That compliance with the Lease Requirement shall not constitute a violation of the Agreement; and

c. In the event that ICTSI requires the removal of one or more Cranes, then at that time, the following will occur:

i. In the event Crane(s) are removed, but not replaced, and ODOT, at is sole determination, finds that a degradation of service has occurred as a result of the removal, ODOT will require Recipient to repay, and Recipient shall repay, a portion of the Connect Oregon funds, based upon a calculation using a Straight Line Depreciation methodology for the removed grant funded Crane improvements, based on a 20 year useful life; or

ii. In the event Crane(s) are removed but new equipment upgrades or crane installation(s) occur which, in ODOT's sole determination maintain or increase the capacity/service levels of the associated terminal operation after removal of the Crane(s), no repayment will be required. If Recipient cannot demonstrate capacity/service levels as described in this paragraph, then Recipient will reimburse ODOT as described in paragraph (i) above.

1

Funding for Travel Information Funding for Travel Information Council Operated Rest AreasCouncil Operated Rest Areas

Oregon Transportation CommissionNovember 20, 2013

Dale Hormann, ODOT Chief of StaffTom McClellan, DMV Administrator

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Slide #1 -- cover page

Background

• Interagency agreement with Department of Administrative Services for electronic access to driver records

• Agreement established limited exclusive license (11/30/12)

• Requires payment (“fair value”) to use Highway Fund asset

• Revenue identified for specific uses by Legislature in House Bill 1591 (2012)

3

““Fair ValueFair Value”” RevenueRevenue

• “Fair Value” = average of other states’ online driver record fees, less the DMV fee for providing the record

• Current average of other states’ online driver record fees is $6.63 per record

• DMV admin fee is $2.00 per record

• DAS pays ODOT the difference ($4.63 per record)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Slide #2 -- ODOT/DAS exclusive limited license (date signed; scope = online access to driver records; "fair value" requirement) Fair Value is re-calculated biennially

2012 Legislative SessionSB 1591 – Oregon Travel Information Council (OTIC) Transfers for Rest Areas

– $457,000 (April 2012)– $4.96M (January 2013)– $6.55M (January 2014 and subsequent years)

SB 1543 – Sellwood Bridge– $5.0M (2011-13 biennium)

SB 5701 – DMV Systems Modernization– $500,000 (per biennium)

4

““Fair ValueFair Value”” Revenue Legislative Revenue Legislative DistributionDistribution

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Slide #3 -- 2012 Legislative Session (SB 1591 - used LFO revenue forecast & established OTIC transfers; SB 1543 - Sellwood Bridge & Cornelius Pass projects; SB 5701 - DMV Systems Modernization) NOTE: 2013 Session – Legislature shifted $9.5M for Cornelius Pass Road project to other uses and Highway Fund.

5

Online Driver Record Sales VolumeOnline Driver Record Sales Volume

Online Driver Record Sales Volume - Extended View

FY

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Slide #4 -- Online Driver Records Sales Volumes (actuals vs SB 1591 forecast)

6

““Fair ValueFair Value”” RevenueRevenueForecast to Actual through September 2013

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Slide #5 -- Online Driver Records Revenues ("Fair Value" actuals vs SB 1591 forecast)

7

““Fair ValueFair Value”” RevenueRevenueCumulative Forecast to Actual through June 2017

Forecast Revenue

Forecast Difference

Initial Forecast

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Slide #6 -- Fair Value Revenues (cumulative SB 1591 forecasted revenues vs. actuals thru Sept '13 and now forecasted to 6/30/17)

8

““Fair ValueFair Value”” RevenueRevenuePlanned Transfers through June 2017

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17

Mill

ions

DMV Systems Modernization Planned OTIC Transfer June 2013 Forecast FMV Revenue

Chart shows actual revenue and transfer amounts for FY 12 and FY 13

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Slide #7 -- OTIC Transfers (planned per SB 1591) plus DMV Systems Mod estimates vs. June '13 Revenue Forecast thru 6/30/17 NOTE: Sellwood Bridge ($5M) and Cornelius Pass Road not listed as transfers.

Next StepsNext Steps

• Update revenue figures• OTIC consultation• Recommendation (December 2013)

9

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Slide #9 -- Next Steps (December OTC meeting; updated revenue figures; OTIC consultation; recommended action)

Attachment A

OAR 731-070-0195

Contents and Format of Detailed Proposal

(1) A Detailed Proposal shall include the following information, except as expressly waived by the Department, separated by tabs as herein described:

(a) TAB 1: Qualifications and Experience.

(A) Identify the legal structure of the private entity or consortium of private entities or of private and public entities (the “Team”) submitting the proposal. Identify the organizational structure of the Team for the Project, the Team’s management approach and how each Major Partner and Major Subcontractor identified as being a part of the Team as of the date of submission of the proposal fits into the overall Team.

(B) Describe the experience of each private entity involved in the proposed Project. Describe the length of time in business, business experience, public sector transportation experience, PPP experience, development experience, design-build experience and other similarly sized engagements of each Major Partner and Major Subcontractor. The lead entity must be identified.

(C) Provide the names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons within the Team who may be contacted for further information.

(D) Include the address, telephone number, and the name of a specific contact person at a public entity for which the private entity or the Team or the primary members of the Team have completed a development project, public-private partnership project or design-build project.

(E) Include the resumes for those managerial persons within the Team that will likely be associated in a significant way with the Project development and implementation.

(F) Provide financial information regarding the private entity or Team and each Major Partner that includes, if available, the most recent independently audited financial statement of the private entity or Team and of each Major Partner, and which demonstrates their ability to perform the work and Project as set forth in the Detailed Proposal, including ability to obtain appropriate payment and performance bonds.

(G) Submit executed disclosure forms, prescribed by ODOT, for the Team, each Major Partner and any Major Subcontractor.

(b) TAB 2: Project Characteristics.

(A) Provide a detailed description of the Transportation Project or Projects, including all proposed interconnections with other existing transportation facilities or known publicly identified projects. Describe the Project in sufficient detail so the type and intent of the Project, the general location of the

Oregon Transportation Commission February 6, 2013 Page 2 Project, and the communities that may be affected by the Project are clearly identified. Describe the assumptions used in developing the Project.

(B) Identify any significant local, state or federal services or practical assistance that the proposer contemplates requesting for the Project. In particular, identify and describe any significant services that will need to be performed by the Department such as right-of-way acquisition or operation and maintenance of the completed Project.

(C) Include a preliminary list of all significant federal, state, regional and local permits and approvals required for the Project. Identify which, if any, permits or approvals are planned to be obtained by ODOT.

(D) List the critical factors for the Project’s success.

(E) Identify the proposed preliminary schedule for implementation of the Project.

(F) Describe the assumptions related to ownership, law enforcement and operation of the Project and any facility that is part of the Project.

(G) Describe the payment and performance bonds and guarantees that the Team will provide for the Project.

(H) Identify any public improvements that will be part of the proposed Transportation Project that will constitute “public works” under ORS 279C.800(5), the workers on which must be paid in accordance with Oregon’s Prevailing Rate of Wage Law, ORS 279C.800 to 279C.870, and any public improvements the workers on which must be paid in accordance with the federal Davis-Bacon Act, 40 USC sections 3141 to 3148.

(c) TAB 3: Project Financing.

(A) Provide a projected budget for the Project based on proposer’s prior experience on other projects or other cost projection factors and information.

(B) Include a list and discussion of assumptions (e.g., user fees, toll rates and usage of the facility) underlying all major elements of the plan for the Project.

(C) Identify the proposed risk factors relating to the proposed Project financing and methods for dealing with these factors.

(D) Identify any significant local, state or federal resources that the proposer contemplates requesting for the Project. Describe the total commitment (financial, services, property, etc.), if any, expected from governmental sources; the timing of any anticipated commitment; and its impact on project delivery.

(E) Identify any aspect of the financial model for the Transportation Project that implicates or potentially implicates restrictions on the use of highway-related revenues under Article IX, section 3a

Oregon Transportation Commission February 6, 2013 Page 3 of the Oregon Constitution, and explain how the financial model avoids conflicting with those restrictions.

(F) Identify the form of the Private Contribution and the members of the Team that will make the Private Contribution and the proposed compensation for such Private Contribution.

(G) Provide an explanation of how funds for the Transportation Project will be segregated, accounted for and expended in a manner that ensures that any moneys from the state highway fund will be expended exclusively for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of public highways, roads, streets and roadside rest areas in Oregon, as required by Article IX, section 3a(1), of the Oregon Constitution.

(H) Identify, to the extent possible, proposed financing Team members, including banks, investment banks, equity investors, credit enhancement providers, bond trustees and legal counsel to the same.

(d) TAB 4: Public Support/Project Benefit/Compatibility.

(A) Identify who will benefit from the Project, how they will benefit and how the Project will benefit the overall transportation system.

(B) Identify any anticipated government support or opposition, or general public support or opposition, for the Project.

(C) Explain the strategy and plans that will be carried out to involve and inform the agencies and the public in areas affected by the Project.

(D) Describe the significant social and economic benefits of the Project to the community, region or state and identify who will benefit from the Project and how they will benefit. Identify any state benefits resulting from the Project including the achievement of state transportation policies or other state goals.

(f) TAB 5: Special Deliverables.

(A) Provide a statement setting out the plan for securing all necessary real property, including proposed timeline for any necessary acquisitions.

(B) Provide proposed design, construction and completion guarantees and warranties.

(C) Include traffic studies and/or forecasts and related materials that establish Project revenue assumptions, including, if any, user fees or toll rates, and usage of the facility.

(D) Provide such additional material and information as ODOT may reasonably request.

(2) All pages of a proposal shall be numbered. Each copy of the proposal will be bound or otherwise contained in a single volume where practicable. All documentation submitted with the proposal will be contained in that single volume.

Oregon Transportation Commission February 6, 2013 Page 4 (3) A proposal submitted by a Private Entity must be signed by an authorized representative of the Private Entity submitting the proposal.

(4) The proposer shall include a list of any proprietary information included in the proposal which the proposer considers protected trade secrets or other information exempted from disclosure under ORS 367.804 and OAR 731-070-0280 and 731-070-0290.

Attachment B

The following items are recommended as additional conditions for inclusion in Proposer’s Detailed Proposal in order to address issues and concerns raised in their Conceptual Proposal.

(1) Provide references from project owners, local jurisdictions and financial institutions concerning projects on which Proposers have previously worked together as a team managing similar transportation infrastructure projects.

(2) Provide documentation of the legal relationship of the entities submitting the Detailed Proposal, and the duties and obligations of each. If a separate legal entity has been created, describe what that entity is, the structure under which it has been formed and any organization documents. Also, identify which entity or entities will execute a final contract with ODOT.

(3) Provide detailed financial information on all entities connected to the proposal, sufficient to determine each entity’s capability to fulfill their individual obligations and their collective obligations to complete the proposal and meet contractual requirements.

(4) Disclose any potential liabilities or responsibilities that may have a deleterious effect on successful completion of the project such as litigation, judgments or other sanctions.

(5) Describe the commitment by the Proposers to using minority, women-owned and emerging small businesses (ESBs) in implementing the Project. Include a diversity plan for the Project that includes how such businesses will be used on the Project and how Proposers will encourage such use. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals may be established on this Project; indicate an ability to comply with DBE requirements. ODOT will require its advance approval of any subcontractors.

(6) The Detailed Proposal must propose a construction methodology other than design/build. The Detailed Proposal should explain the various stages of the project and ODOT’s role in review and approval of design and construction, maximizing opportunities for competitive procurement of work, services, materials and supplies. The proposal should obtain design approval by ODOT prior to starting construction.

(7) Describe how the proposing team plans to coordinate federal involvement in the project due to its location on the Federal Interstate System including securing the primary federal permits required and interfacing with federal and state regulatory agencies.

(8) The Detailed Proposal must indicate how the Proposers will carry the project financing until project completion and acceptance of the project by ODOT. The Detailed Proposal must include a letter of commitment from a financial institution; or other guaranteed method to finance the Project. In addition, the Detailed Proposal shall provide a plan for obtaining required payment and performance bonds in the amount of the final contract.

(9) Articulate clearly the proposers’ business objectives and reasons for pursuing the project including a quantitative, forward-looking description of the economic and ancillary benefits.

Oregon Transportation Commission February 6, 2013 Page 2 (10) Provide documentation from affected local jurisdictions of support for the project and preference for the proposed Diverging Diamond over the project currently under design by ODOT.

(11) Describe a clear strategy for informing and educating the public and for obtaining community input and support of the Detailed Proposal.

(12) Describe how the Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) affects performance, safety and mobility for the interchange, I-5 and Kuebler Blvd. Also, describe how the DDI design will achieve and improve upon the performance, safety and mobility goals of the project currently under design by ODOT. The performance information must be accompanied by a complete traffic analysis, including traffic flow and volume information in sufficient detail to analyze future performance from day of opening through a 20 year period. If deficiencies are found in future year performance, describe how the DDI could be modified to account for those deficiencies.

(13) The Detailed Proposal will require an update and amendment to current Facility Plans, and ODOT’s Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP), with which the current ODOT project is consistent. Describe the changes necessary and how the project will comply with changes to the Facility Plan and IAMP.

(14) The ODOT design for the southbound on ramp is designed to accommodate a potential future widening of I-5 to 3 lanes southbound. The Detailed Proposal must also account for that potential.

(15) The Detailed Proposal shall provide a detailed cost breakdown of the project so that a cost comparison can be conducted by ODOT comparing the proposed project to the current ODOT project. The cost breakdown must meet all the requirements of a public improvement project, including but not limited to, compliance with applicable prevailing wage rates. (16) The Conceptual Proposal expressed intent to avoid impact to the NW quadrant of the interchange, but suggests there may be impacts at other locations. The Detailed Proposal must provide a commitment from the Proposers to donate right of way needed in the NW quadrant. In addition, the Detailed Proposal shall provide expected quantities, timeline and cost of acquisition of additional properties in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Land Acquisitions Act. (17) The Detailed Proposal shall provide a comprehensive schedule from contract execution to completion including, but not limited to:

Design evaluation review timeline for FHWA approval, necessary for the required Interchange Modification agreement;

Design evaluation review timelines for ODOT review and approval; Right of Way acquisition process for those parcels not in the proposers’ control (per 14 above);

and Public outreach schedule to educate and inform the appropriate public and government entities

affected by the project.

(18) The Conceptual Proposal indicated that environmental impacts will be dramatically reduced. The Detailed Proposal must include specifics on environmental avoidance, and where contact with the

Oregon Transportation Commission February 6, 2013 Page 3 stream or wetland is unavoidable, provide documentation from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife concurrence with the solution and reduced impact design. (19) The Conceptual Proposal is substantially different than the ODOT project that has gone through the land use processes including the Oregon Transportation Plan under ORS 184.618. The Detailed Proposal shall provide documentation from the necessary government agencies (city, county, state and Federal) to assure that the land use findings in each case are still valid and the proposed project modification can proceed. Documentation from each agency is required agreeing with the ongoing validity. (20) Similarly, the ODOT project has met the requirements of a re-evaluation of the Environmental Impact Statement. The Detailed Proposal must provide documentation from the Federal Highway Administration that the EIS is still applicable, or if not, what additional requirements must be included to meet the necessary elements of the EIS. (21) The Detailed Proposal shall provide a commitment to a guaranteed, Not-to-Exceed price as of the time of execution of the contract. (22) The Detailed Proposal shall provide a commitment to comply with the Highway Design Manual, Highway Construction Manual and the ODOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction as supplemented, or obtain any required design exceptions or other exceptions from ODOT.

720 SW Washington St. Suite 500 Portland, OR 97205 503.243.3500 www.dksassociates.com

MEMORANDUM DATE: August 9, 2013 TO: Tim Potter, ODOT Area 3 Manager Art James, ODOT Office of Innovative Partnerships FROM: John Bosket, P.E. Ray Delahanty, AICP SUBJECT: I-‐5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange Unsolicited Proposal Independent Consultant Evaluation P#09042-‐029-‐003

This memorandum summarizes key findings from the independent consultant evaluation of two improvement concepts for the I-‐5/Kuebler Boulevard interchange in Salem, Oregon. The first concept is an unsolicited private proposal for a diverging diamond interchange (DDI), and the second concept is an ODOT design for a partial cloverleaf interchange (ParClo).

Enclosed with this memorandum, you will find:

1) a copy of the evaluation framework matrix developed in consultation with the evaluation panel that includes recommended scores for select criteria based on our review of both proposals, and

2) supplemental worksheets documenting the findings that led to scores for each criterion. 3) technical appendix containing documentation of independent consultant evaluation

The independent consultant team was tasked with evaluating the two concepts, scoring them on a set of 24 different parameters related to project characteristics such as traffic performance, safety, and multimodal elements (other parameters remain to be scored by evaluation panel members). Most of the scoring of these 24 parameters shows little or no difference between the two concepts. The table below highlights the areas where the performance of the two concepts differs significantly.

Scoring Parameter Which Concept Scored Better? DDI ParClo

Most Significant Differences

2c. Interchange Ramp Intersection Operations ✓ 2f. Travel Time on Kuebler Boulevard ✓

2u. Ability to Widen I-‐5 ✓

Somewhat Significant Differences

2a/2b. I-‐5 Merging Operations ✓ 2k. I-‐5 Merging Safety ✓ 2s. Bicycle Travel Convenience ✓ 2t. Pedestrian Travel Convenience ✓ 2v. Ability to Widen Kuebler Boulevard ✓ 3i. Impacts to Streams/Wetlands ✓

I-‐5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange Independent Consultant Evaluation August 9, 2013 Page 2 of 2

The intersection most in need of improvement under existing and future traffic conditions is I-‐5 Southbound/Kuebler Boulevard, which operates at a volume/capacity (v/c) ratio of 1.30 in the 2035 PM peak hour. Under the DDI, this intersection improves to only a 1.22 v/c, while the ParClo allows it to operate under capacity, at 0.97 v/c.

The difference in intersection operations relates directly to travel time on Kuebler Boulevard. Under the ParClo, the two ramp terminal signals offer significantly more green time to westbound traffic than under the DDI. This allows traffic traveling from 36th Avenue to 27th Avenue to achieve travel times that may approach about three minutes. With the DDI providing much less green time for westbound traffic and experiencing serious congestion at the I-‐5 Southbound ramp terminal, this same trip could take more than ten minutes.

I-5/Kuebler Boulevard Unsolicited Proposal: Independent Review August 9, 2013

DKS AssociatesOBEC Consulting Engineers

Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

Pass Pass

Notes

Sources

Location of Interest

(figure to be inserted) (figure to be inserted)

Evaluation Score

Qualitifications and Experience

Commitments

Ongoing compliance with Highway Design Manual, Highway Construction Manual and Panel Standard Specifications for Highway Construction

1e: Pass/Fail

Unsolicited Proposal: DDI ODOT Proposal: ParClo

Reference Detailed Proposal for the Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange, Tab 1 for resumes.

Scoring Explanation

Resumes provided show team is qualified, with experience delivering projects for ODOT using the referenced standards.

Designed by ODOT team. ODOT sets the standards for design.

Both teams are capable of complying with the specified criteria.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

2 3

Notes

Sources

Project Characteristics

Mobility/Traffic Performance

Freeway Operations: Mobility of freeway movements (merging, diverging, and basic segments) surrounding the interchange in the design year. 2a: Volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Comparision will be with the Highway Design Manual standard of a minimum v/c ratio of 0.75


In the southbound direction, the DDI includes only one merge point compared to the two merge points included in the ParClo design. However, the southernmost merge of the ParClo will be more congested than the northern merge and, therefore, will be the bottleneck. Because the controlling southernmost merge of the ParClo operates at the same v/c ratio as the southern merge of the DDI, southbound operations between the two designs will be similar.

“Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange,” RSP Development Company, Inc., Kerr Contractors Oregon, Inc., and David Evans and Associates, Inc. (Tables 11-‐14)



Evaluation Score

Key Parameter: 2035 PM peak v/c ratios on I-5 Northbound merge

Scoring Explanation

The DDI consolidates all northbound merging traffic onto one northbound on-ramp, resulting in operations at the HDM v/c threshold (0.75).

The ParClo maintains separate ramps for traffic coming from the east and west, resulting in two merges that operate below the HDM v/c threshold.

V/C = 0.75 V/C = 0.64

V/C = 0.68 V/C = 1.04 V/C = 1.04

V/C = 1.01



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

2 3

Notes

Sources



Freeway Operations: Mobility of freeway movements (merging, diverging, and basic segements) surrounding the interchange in the design year. 2b: Number of years beyond the design year that Highway Design Manual mobility standards are met.


In the southbound direction, freeway operations generally fail to comply with the HDM standard in 2035 to the same degree.

In the northbound direction, the ParClo design provides for seven more years of freeway operations within the HDM mobility standard that the DDI.




Evaluation Score

Key Parameter: Latest year that PM peak v/c ratio meets HDM

standard (0.75) at I-5 NB merge

Scoring Explanation

2035 2042

Merges, diverges, and basic segments generally operate the same for the DDI and the ParClo. The northbound merge, however, operates differently for the two concepts. The ParClo maintains the two existing on-ramps, splitting the merging volume and creating operations that meet the 0.75 standard until 2042. The DDI consolidates merging volume on one ramp, and this movement fails to meet the design standard after 2035.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

1 3

1.22 0.97

Kuebler/I-5 SB 2035 AM Peak 1.09 0.96(No-Build v/c = 1.31)

Kuebler/I-5 NB 2035 PM Peak 0.99 1.09(No-Build v/c = 1.09)

Kuebler/I-5 NB 2035 AM Peak 0.87 1.28(No-Build v/c = 1.28)Notes

Sources



Interchange Operations: Mobility of interchange ramps and interchange ramp terminal intersections on Kuebler Blvd. in the design year.2c: Volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Comparision will be with the Highway Design Manual standard of a minimum v/c ratio of 0.75


Additional Information

The DDI outperforms the ParClo in the northbound direction, with lower v/c ration in the 2035 AM and PM peak hours. However, it is not the purpose of the ParClo concept to address the northbound ramp terminal, which operates well under capacity in the PM peak hour (0.40 v/c) today. A project (a second northbound right turn lane) has been identified to address future operational issues at this intersection, and will be constructed when needed.


(figure to be inserted)(figure to be inserted)


Evaluation Score

Key Parameter: 2035 PM peak v/c ratio at I-5 southbound/Kuebler

intersection

Scoring Explanation

The DDI improves modestly on the 2035 PM peak No Build condition, which has a v/c ratio of 1.31. It does not meet the HDM standard (0.75) and is well over capacity, resulting in significant congestion.

The ParClo improves significantly on the 2035 PM peak No Build condition. While the ODOT proposal does not meet the HDM standard in 2035, it does perform under capacity. The ParClo outperforms the DDI in the AM peak hour as well.

(not improved by project)

(not improved by project)



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

1 1

0 0

Notes

Sources



Interchange Operations: Mobility of interchange ramps and interchange ramp terminal intersections on Kuebler Blvd. in the design year.2d: Number of years beyond the design year that Highway Design Manual mobility standards are met.


Refer to parameter 2c for more information on design year operations of the two interchanges.

“Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange,” RSP Development Company, Inc., Kerr Contractors Oregon, Inc., and David Evans and Associates, Inc. (see Traffic Analysis appnedix, Figures 13-‐14); ODOT Technical Memo #3 (Alternative Analysis Results)



Evaluation Score

Key Parameter: years beyond 2035 that I-5 southbound/Kuebler

intersection will meet HDM standard (v/c <= 0.75)

Scoring ExplanationNeither concept meets the HDM mobility standard in the design year

(2035) during the PM peak at I-5 Southbound/Kuebler Boulevard.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

1 1

Kuebler/27th: LOS E

Kuebler/36th: LOS F

Kuebler/27th: LOS E

Kuebler/36th: LOS F

Kuebler/27th 2035 AM Peak LOS E LOS E

Kuebler/36th 2035 AM Peak LOS D LOS D

Notes

Sources



Local Street Operations: Mobility of Kuebler Blvd. segment and local intersections on Kuebler Blvd. at 27th Ave. and 36th Ave.2e: Local intersections evaluated according to applicable local agency mobility standards.



The DDI and ParClo have identical configurations and forecast volumes at these two intersections. Traffic operations results are identical as well.

“Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange,” RSP Development Company, Inc., Kerr Contractors Oregon, Inc., and David Evans and Associates, Inc. (see Traffic Analysis appnedix, Figures 13-‐14); ODOT Technical Memo #3 (Alternative Analysis Results)



Evaluation Score

Key Parameter: 2035 PM peak LOS at 27th Ave. and 36th Ave.

intersections

Scoring ExplanationThe DDI does not comply with the City of Salem standard of LOS D at either intersection.

The ParCo does not comply with the City of Salem standard of LOS D at either intersection.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

1 4

(27th Ave. to 36th Ave.)

HCM Intersection Delay at I-5 SB at I-5 NB at I-5 SB at I-5 NBWestbound 6.2 min 7.7 min 1.4 min 26 sec

No-Build total: 2 min

Eastbound 24 sec 7 sec 8 sec 23 secNo-Build total: 3.2 min

Notes

Sources

(lower design speed)61 seconds 53 seconds



Local Street Operations: Mobility of Kuebler Blvd. segment and local intersections on Kuebler Blvd. at 27th Ave. and 36th Ave.2f: Travel time measured from west of 27th Avenue to east of 36th Avenue. Comparison will be made between alternatives.



Both concepts operate on a 130-second signal cycle at the two ramp terminals, but they provide significantly different amount of effective green time for westbound traffic. The DDI provides 42.0 seconds at I-5 southbound and 43 seconds at I-5 northbound, while the ParClo provides 63 seconds and 92 seconds, respectively.

Both build concepts provide improved travel time for vehicles traveling eastbound.

Kuebler Interchange Detailed Proposal Traffic Analysis, Appendix B (Synchro HCM reports), David Evans and Associates, 2013.



Evaluation Score

Key Parameter: 2035 PM peak westbound travel time from 36th Ave. to 27th Ave., accounting for signal delay at ramp terminals

Scoring Explanation

Signals at the ramp terminals under the DDI impose significant delay on westbound traffic. The total travel time suggested by the HCM analysis, 10-15 minutes, is significantly higher than the 6 minutes under No Build conditions.

Ramp terminal signals under the ParClo concept provide more green time for westbound through movements that the DDI or No Build. This results in improved westbound travel times.

10-15 minutes 3 minutes

Free-Flow Travel Time



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

3 3

Notes

Sources



Local Street Connectivity: Changes in local street network that impact need for out of direction travel.2g: Increases in needed out of direction travel on local network are scored negatively, while decreases are scored positively.


DDI CAD files and ParClo CAD files provided by ODOT.



Evaluation Score

Scoring Explanation The local street network is unaffected by either concept.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

Pass Pass

Notes

Sources



Access to properties: All properties surrounding the interchange must be accessible. Convenience of access (directness) will be compared between alternatives.

2h: All properties surrounding the interchange can be safely accessed (pass/fail).





Evaluation Score

Scoring Explanation

All properties that are adjacent to the interchange do not currently have direct access from Kuebler Blvd. The DDI does not change access to adjacent properties.

All properties that are adjacent to the interchange do not currently have direct access from Kuebler Blvd. The ParClo does not change access to adjacent properties.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

3 3

Notes

Sources



Access to properties: All properties surrounding the interchange must be accessible. Convenience of access (directness) will be compared between alternatives.2i: Change in distance from I-5 ramp terminals to major access points will be compared between alternatives.


Difference in interchange accessibility for area properties is negligible.




Evaluation Score

Scoring Explanation

The DDI does not introduce significant changes in the distance from I-5 ramp terminals to major access points.

The Parclo shifts the I-5 SB ramps approximately 250 feet west of their current location. Traffic accessing Kuebler Blvd from I-5 SB would be slightly closer to destinations to the west, but slightly further from destinations to the east.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

5 5

Notes

Sources



Evaluation Score



Freight Mobility: Geometry must accommodate the appropriate design vehicle for an interstate facility. Freight delay is assumed to be accounted for as part of the overall mobility evaluation2j: All movements accommodate the appropriate design vehicle for an interstate facility (WB-67)


Microstation design files provided by ODOT and DEA for the ParClo and DDI alternatives, respectively. AutoTurn design software by Transoft.

Scoring Explanation


See Freight Mobility exhibits for AutoTurn movements demonstrating compliance.

The vehicle movements for a WB-67 work for all movements related to the ramp as demonstrated in the autoturn exhibit provided in the technical appendix.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

4 3

SouthboundDiverges = 1Merges = 1

NorthboundDiverges = 1Merges = 1

SouthboundDiverges = 1Merges = 2

NorthboundDiverges = 1Merges = 2

Notes

Sources


Safety

Freeway Safety: Safety of movements along the freeway mainline surrounding the interchange.2k: Number of merge/diverge points and quality of operation of merge/diverge points.


The DDI also has fewer merge points (two) than the No Build condition (three).




Evaluation Score

Key Parameter: Number of merge/diverge points and quality

of operation of merge/diverge points (v/c ratios)

Scoring Explanation

The two northbound merges under the ParClo concept generally perform better than the single northbound merge under the DDI (0.68 and 0.64 v/c compared to 0.75 v/c). However, the DDI has just two of these potential conflict points, while the ParClo has four. In this evaluation, the number of conflict points was deemed a more important consideration than the small difference in operations.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

5 5

Kuebler/I-5 SB 2035 AM Peak 200 ft queue / >1,900 ft storage 325 ft queue / >1,900 ft storage(No-Build queue > 1500 ft)

Kuebler/I-5 NB 2035 PM Peak 425 ft queue / >1,200 ft storage 900 ft queue / >1,200 ft storage(No-Build queue > 2000 ft)

Kuebler/I-5 NB 2035 AM Peak 425 ft queue / >1,200 ft storage 375 ft queue / >1,200 ft storage(No-Build queue = 500 ft)Notes

Sources



Interchange Safety: Safety of ramps and ramp terminal intersections with Kuebler Blvd.2l: Vehicle queues on off-ramps. Queues extending into the portion of off-ramps needed for deceleration from freeway speeds will be rated poorly.



The southbound off-ramps for both designs will have more than sufficient storage available to accommodate vehicle queues through 2035. The northbound off-ramps for both designs will also have sufficient storage to accommodate vehicle queues through 2035. While the ParClo design does not improve the northbound ramps, ODOT has identified improvements that could be constructed in the future that would improve northbound ramp operations and shorten ramp queue lengths.

“Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange,” RSP Development Company, Inc., Kerr Contractors Oregon, Inc., and David Evans and Associates, Inc. (see Traffic Analysis appnedix, Figures 13-‐14)



Evaluation Score

Key Parameter: 2035 PM peak 95th percentile SB queue at I-5

southbound/Kuebler intersection

Scoring Explanation

The I-5 southbound off-ramp will be fairly long under either design, providing at least 1,900 of queue storage. This is far more than needed for either design. Queuing for other ramps and time periods is described below.

Queue length = 275 ft Available storage > 1,900 ft

Queue length = 500 ft Available storage > 1,900 ft



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

3 3

550' 550'

Meets requirements Meets requirements

Notes

Sources

Both designs provide adequate distance for signing and necessary lane changes.

Microstation design files provided by ODOT and DEA for the ParClo and DDI alternatives, respectively; Highway Design Manual

Horizontal Curvature meets HDM standards


Safety

Local Street Safety

2m: Adequate distance to allow for signing and lane changes to reach desired destinations

Unsolicited Proposal: DDI ODOT Proposal: ParCloLocation of Interest


Evaluation Score

Key Parameter: Decision Sight Distance: 495' Minimum



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

2 2

Notes

Sources


Safety

Safety for non-motorized travel (bicycles): Conflict areas and protection provided by facility type.2n: Number and potential severity of conflict areas. Relative degree of separation from auto traffic provided by facility. Visibility of cyclists.


Both concepts increase conflicts compared to No Build, which has five conflict areas total, four of which are controlled. The number of conflict areas is greater under the DDI design, but the number of uncontrolled conflict areas is greater under the ParClo design. The overall number and severity of conflict areas is considered comparable. Both concepts create a greater number of conflict areas between motor vehicles and bicycles than under No Build conditions.

Microstation design files provided by ODOT and DEA for the ParClo and DDI alternatives, respectively.



Evaluation Score

Scoring Explanation

The DDI has a total of eight conflict areas between vehicles and cyclists. Six of the conflict points are controlled (signal or stop sign) and two are uncontrolled.

The ParClo has a total of six conflict areas between vehicles and cyclists. Three of the conflict points are controlled (signal or stop sign) and three are uncontrolled.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

2 2

Notes

Sources


Safety

Safety for non-motorized travel (pedestrians): Conflict areas and protection provided by facility type.

2o: Number and potential severity of conflict areas. Relative degree of separation from auto traffic provided by facility. Visibility of pedestrians.


Both concepts increase conflicts compared to No Build, which has five conflict areas total, four of which are controlled. The number of conflict areas is greater under the DDI design, but the number of uncontrolled conflict areas is greater under the ParClo design. The overall number and severity of conflict areas is considered comparable. Both concepts create a greater number of conflict areas between motor vehicles and pedestrians than under No Build conditions.




Evaluation Score

Scoring Explanation

The DDI has a total of eight conflict areas between vehicles and pedestrians. Six of the conflict points are controlled (signal or stop sign) and two are uncontrolled.

The ParClo has a total of six conflict areas between vehicles and pedestrians. Three of the conflict points are controlled (signal or stop sign) and three are uncontrolled.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

3 3

Meets requirements Meets requirements

Lane Widths: Meets requirements Meets requirementsShoulder Widths: Meets requirements Meets requirementsHorizontal Curvature: Meets requirements Meets requirementsAccess Spacing: Meets requirements Meets requirements

Notes

Sources


Safety

Compatibility with Applicable Design and Safety Criteria

2p, 2q, 2r: Highway Design Manual, Highway Construction Manual, ODOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction



Both designs are expected to comply with applicable standards and specifications.

“Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange,” RSP Development Company, Inc., Kerr Contractors Oregon, Inc., and David Evans and Associates, Inc.; ODOT Technical Memo #3 (Alternative Analysis Results); Microstation design files provided by ODOT and DEA for the ParClo and DDI alternatives, respectively;AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets



Evaluation Score

Key Parameters: Driver and Pedestrian Safety based on

Layout

Scoring Explanation

The DDI is a newly accepted interchange type. The design elements meet or exceed all geometric standards

The ODOT design for a ParClo is well accepted and understood by the traveling public. The design elements meet or exceed all standards.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

2 3

Notes

Sources


Bicycle Compatibility

Bicycle travel convenience: Will consider gaps in the system, directness of travel, and overall travel time.

2s: Number of gaps per direction of travel through the interchange area. Overall distance of travel required. Estimated travel time considering assumed average delay through signalized and unsignalized crossings.


Both concepts feature complete bike facilities, with no gaps, and both have comparable travel distance for bikes.




Evaluation Score

Scoring Explanation

Cyclists traveling westbound would encounter more signal delay in the DDI concept. The I-5 SB/Kuebler Blvd. intersection is red for westbound traffic for about 40 minutes per hour. Eastbound delay would be comparable to the ParClo design.

Cyclists traveling westbound would encounter less signal delay in the ParClo concept. The I-5 NB/Kuebler Blvd. intersection is red for westbound traffic for about 29 minutes per hour. Eastbound delay would be comparable to the DDI design.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

2 3

Notes

Sources


Pedestrian Compatibility

Walking convenience: Will consider gaps in the system, directness of travel, and overall travel time.

2t: Number of gaps per direction of travel through the interchange area. Overall distance of travel required. Estimated travel time considering assumed average delay through signalized and unsignalized crossings.


The pedestrian network for each concept is complete, with no gaps in facilities. Travel distance is slightly longer for the DDI, and there is potential for greater delay under the DDI due to an additional signal in each direction.




Evaluation Score

Scoring Explanation

Under the DDI concept, a pesestrian encounters three signals when walking westbound, and two when walking eastbound. Delay for pedestrians is asumd to be greater under the DDI design.

Under the ParClo concept, a pesestrian encounters two signals when walking westbound, and one when walking eastbound. Delay for pedestrians is assumed to be less under the ParClo design.



Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

2 4

Notes

Sources


Long-term Viability

Future Modifications Possible (e.g., I-5 Widening)

2u: Evaluation by Panel members based on information presented



Evaluation Score

Key Parameter: Adequate right of way for future improvements

Significant work required to add lanes on SB I-5

Relatively easy to add lanes on SB I-5

Scoring Explanation

No improvements to I-5 are included in the DDI design. If future modifications are required full construction of widenings will be required in both directions.

The ParClo is compatible with future improvements. The ramps have been positioned so that widening of I-5 can be accomplished. Portions of the ramp merges will be adequate to require only restriping for the addition of another lane to I-5.

Addition of lanes on I-5 will require full widening for the northbound lanes for both concepts. For the I-5 southbound, the new ramps are being reconstructed to be compatible with potential future I-5 widening. Ramps under the DDI would likely need to be reconstructed depending on where the widening occurs.




Category

Objective

Criterion

Parameter

1 2

Notes

Sources


Long-term Viability

Ease and cost of future modifications to add capacity

2v: Evaluation by Panel members based on information presented



Evaluation Score

Key Parameter: Ease of Future Improvements

Significant work required to add lanes

Some work required to add lanes


Scoring Explanation

The existing configuration consists of two lanes in each direction. Widening will be required for additional lanes on either side of Kuebler. R/W is not available for addition of lanes in 3 quadrants. R/W will need to be obtained and lanes will need to be constructed.

The ParClo layout includes a third lane in the westbound direction in the ramp area and over the existing bridge. Widening will not be required for the addition of a westbound lane, but will be required for the westbound transitions, as well as the eastbound lanes. R/W will not be required for this alternate.

The DDI widening will require widening or replacement of the existing bridge to accommodate two additional lanes, whereas the ParClo future bridge will need to accommodate one additional lane.



CategoryObjectiveCriterionParameter

5 4

Notes

Sources

Wetland mitigations have been identified and a joint permit application submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers and DSL. Score: 4

Impacts under the Endangered Species Act

Plant survey and no effect memo needed, but likely no impact. Score: 4

No impact according to No Effect memo of 4/4/2012. Score: 5

Public Support/Project Benefit/CompatibilityEnvironmental ImpactsImpacts to identified resources (stream, wetlands)3i: Environmental analysis


Please see the supplemental Environmental Evaluation Memorandum (August 2, 2013) detailing impacts to water resources and the required permits for each proposed design.

“Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange,” RSP Development Company, Inc., Kerr Contractors Oregon, Inc., and David Evans and Associates, Inc.; ODOT I-‐5 @ Kuebler document.


Evaluation Score

Impacts to West Fork Pringle Creek

No Impacts. Score: 5Impacts 0.124 acres; permits for stream relocation have been acquired. Score: 4

Impacts to Wetlands

Does not directly impact wetlands as identified by OR Department of State Lands (DSL). Score: 5

I-‐5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange Unsolicited Proposal Independent Consultant Evaluation – August 2013

Technical Appendix

1. DDI Autoturn Exhibit

2. ParClo Autoturn Exhibit

3. Environmental Evaluation Memo

AJones

Rectangle

AJones

Text Box

I-5: KUEBLER BLVD INTERCHANGE FREIGHT MOBILITY DDI AUTOTURN EXHIBIT

AJones

Rectangle

AJones

Text Box

I-5: KUEBLER BLVD INTERCHANGE FREIGHT MOBILITY PARCLO AUTOTURN EXHIBIT

MEMORANDUM DATE: August 2, 2013 TO: DKS Associates FROM: OBEC Consulting Engineers SUBJECT: I-5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange, Environmental Evaluation Memorandum

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the potential impacts to identified water resources (wetlands and streams) for the two proposed I-5/Kuebler Interchange designs. Project activities which may directly or indirectly impact water resources are discussed below. Background information is provided to detail the water resources within the project area. Impacts to West Fork Pringle Creek Background: West Fork Pringle Creek (WFPC) is an intermittent stream flowing east and north through the project area in the northwest interchange quadrant. If not already available, more information may be required to determine stream hydrology as well as the presence, type and life history stages of fish within WFPC. These details would clarify the jurisdictional status of the stream. Coordination with the ODFW district biologist to determine WFPC's characteristics is recommended, if not already complete. WFPC is not identified as critical salmonid habitat by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.1 According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, WFPC within the project area is listed as essential fish habitat.2 Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) maps indicate that WFPC is not classified as essential salmonid habitat.3 According to the Oregon Department of Transportation GIS, no barriers to fish passage have been identified along WFPC from the project area to its confluence with Pringle Creek.4

Habitat Regulatory Agency Status Essential Fish Habitat NMFS Yes

Essential Salmonid Habitat DSL/ODFW No Critical Salmonid Habitat USFWS No

1 US Fish and Wildlife Service. Critical Habitat Mapper. Web Accessed July 30, 2013. http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/ 2 National Marine Fisheries Service. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Web Accessed July 30, 2013. http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/index.html. 3 Oregon Department of State Lands. Essential Salmonid Habitat Maps. Web Accessed August 2, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/PERMITS/docs/maps/marion.pdf. 4 Oregon Department of Transportation. FAHP Web Mapper. Web Accessed July 30, 2013. https://gis.odot.state.or.us/FAHP_ESA_Programmatic/.

• ParClo: Construction of the southbound on and off ramps will impact approximately 0.124 acres of WFPC requiring relocation of a segment of the stream.5 The initial design proposes easement acquisition from the northwest (NW) landowner for stream relocation. Consultation with ODFW has taken place for the proposal, and all necessary permits for stream relocation have been acquired.6

• DDI: The DDI design does not require relocation of WFPC. In addition, it does not appear that fill/removal activities will take place within the regulated work area below ordinary high water of WFPC. The proposed DDI design will not directly impact WFPC and, therefore, it is not anticipated that fill/removal permits from USACE and DSL will be needed. 7

Impacts to Wetlands Background: According to the 1999 DSL Wetlands Inventory, wetlands are located in the NW interchange quadrant.8 The map indicates that the wetlands in this area were not field-verified. US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory maps indicate no wetlands within the project area.9 If not already complete, verification of all potential wetlands resources within the project area is recommended. Wetland delineation by a professional wetland scientist is required for verification.

• ParClo: Construction will impact areas identified by DSL as wetlands, and offsetting mitigation is therefore required. The initial design proposes easement acquisition from the NW landowner for wetland mitigation.10 A Joint Permit Application was submitted to DSL/US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in February, 2012 for authorization of impacts to wetlands.11

• DDI: The proposed DDI design does not directly impact areas identified by DSL as wetlands within the project area.12 Therefore, fill/removal permits from USACE and DSL are not anticipated to be needed.

Impacts to ESA Species

• ParClo: According to the No Effect Memo dated 4/4/2012, no rare plants were found in the project area and the project area does not overlap with the occurrence of listed terrestrial species or their critical habitat. SLOPES IV consultation with NMFS and USACE has been completed regarding aquatic species and water quality impacts.13

5 Information taken from the RPS Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange, page 89. 6 Information taken from the ODOT I-5 @ Kuebler Rd. Interchange Project Evaluation document, page 3. 7 Information taken from the RPS Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange, page 89. 8 Oregon Department of State Lands. Local Wetlands Inventory: Salem/Kizer. Web Accessed July 30, 2013. http://docs.dsl.state.or.us/PublicReview/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=863320&&dbid=0. 9 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. Web Accessed August 2, 2013. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html. 10 Information taken from the ODOT I-5 @ Kuebler Rd. Interchange Project Evaluation document, page 3. 11 Information taken from the RPS Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange, page 89. 12 Information taken from the RPS Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange, page 89. 13 Information taken from the RPS Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange, page 89.

• DDI: A plant survey will need to be completed for the project area, and a No Effect

Memorandum will be submitted to cover terrestrial species.14 The project is anticipated to satisfy either the FAHP or SLOPES programmatic biological opinion for listed aquatic species and water quality.15

Impervious Surface

• ParClo: Net impervious surface within the project area will increase, although the total increase was not quantified for this evaluation. Design drawings indicate stormwater conveyance and water treatment facilities will be located within the existing right-of-way (ROW).16 A more in-depth evaluation of stormwater treatment for the proposed design will require a Stormwater Management Plan.

• DDI: Net impervious surface within the project area will increase, although the total increase was not quantified for this evaluation. Design drawings indicate that stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities have been proposed.17 According to the DDI design proposal, no stormwater runoff will go into WFPC.18 A more in-depth evaluation of stormwater treatment for the proposed design will require a Stormwater Management Plan.

Erosion Control

• ParClo: This design will comply with ODOT's Erosion Control Plan. A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 1200-C permit has already been obtained.19

• DDI: This design will comply with ODOT's Erosion Control Plan. Construction activities will be covered under the existing 1200-C permit.20

14 Information taken from the RPS Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange, page 48. 15 Information taken from the RPS Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange, page 89. 16 Information taken from ParClo Microstation design file 16858_Hydro.dgn. 17 Information taken from the RPS Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange. Preliminary Figures - Drainage Concept Plan, page 110 (Sheet 4). 18 Information taken from the RPS Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange, page 87. 19 Information taken from the RPS Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange, page 48. 20 Information taken from the RPS Detailed Proposal for Interstate 5/Kuebler Boulevard Interchange, page 48.

ODOT Area 3, Sept. 2013

ODOT Design Concept

PROPOSED 4‐LANE KUEBLER DDI

TRAFFIC

2

Enhance 100% List - November 2013 OTC Meeting

Reg. Applicant Project NameEnhance Project

CostMatch &Leverage

EnhanceFunded Amt.

Description

#1 1 Canby S Ivy Street (Canby) $ 2,188,816 20% $ 1,751,053 Pedestrian and intersection improvements

#2 1 Forest GroveOR8 & OR47: Pacific Ave and Quince St

$ 4,171,381 46% $ 2,341,382 Construct and improve turn lanes and pedestrian improvements

#3 1 HillsboroUS 26: Cornelius Pass Rd ‐ NW 185th Ave (PE Phase)

$ 2,000,000 10% $ 1,794,600 Add a travel lane in each direction

#4 1 King City King City Sidewalk Infill $ 1,036,427 12% $ 913,839 Sidewalk infills

#5 1 Lake Oswego Boones Ferry Rd: Oakridge Rd/Reese Rd ‐ Madrona St

$ 13,433,361 70% $ 4,000,000 Bicycle and pedestrian improvements

#6 1 Molalla OR211: OR213 ‐ S Ona Way (Molalla) $ 1,947,022 14% $ 1,683,911 Bicycle and pedestrian improvements

#7 1 PortlandConnected Cully (bike/ped facilities, traffic calming)


#8 1 PortlandDowntown I‐405 Ped. Safety & Operational Improvemts

$ 2,240,000 10% $ 2,009,952 Bike, pedestrian and operational improvements

#9 1 PortlandSt. Johns Truck Strategy Phase II (Portland)

$ 3,345,990 10% $ 3,002,357 Freight mobility, bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements

#10 1 SandySandy Transit Operations Center Phase II Bus Barns

$ 570,000 11% $ 510,000 Construct bus barns

#11 1 SandyUS 26: Ten Eyck Rd/Wolf Dr ‐ Vista Loop Dr (Sandy)


#12 1 WilsonvilleKinsman Rd: SW Boeckman ‐ SW Barber (Wilsonville)

$ 4,730,000 53% $ 2,230,000 Extend road to provide north‐south connection

#13 1 Clackamas County OR213 at S Union Mills Road $ 900,484 10% $ 808,004 Intersection improvements

#14 1 Hood River CountyAGA Rd: S Eagle Creek Loop ‐ Davis Dr


#15 1 Hood River CountyOR281: Gignard, Orchard & Country Club: Barrett Dr

$ 3,064,395 10% $ 2,749,323 Intersection improvements

#16 1 MetroWillamette Greenway Trail: Columbia Blvd Bridge

$ 2,612,381 39% $ 1,580,511 Constuct a bicycle and pedestrian bridge

November 2013 1



CostMatch &Leverage

EnhanceFunded Amt.

Description

#17 1 Multnomah CountyNE 238th Dr: NE Halsey St to NE Glisan St

$ 7,307,490 10% $ 6,549,187 Multimodal roadway improvements

#18 1 ODOT Region 1HCRH State Trail: Shellrock Mountain Crossing

$ 6,100,000 10% $ 5,473,530 Construct a new trail segment

#19 1 ODOT Region 1 I‐5: NB Lower Boones Ferry Exit‐ramp $ 1,258,406 10% $ 1,129,168 Widen exit ramp

#20 1 ODOT Region 1I‐5: SB Aux Lane at Lower Boones Ferry Rd

$ 4,405,776 10% $ 3,953,303 Auxiliary lane between SB exit ramp and SB entrance ramp

#21 1 Port of PortlandNE Columbia Blvd: Cully Blvd & Alderwood Rd

$ 5,527,534 10% $ 4,959,856 Intersection improvements

#22 1 TriMetOR99W: Corridor Safety & Access to Transit

$ 3,605,000 10% $ 3,234,767 Improve safety, active transportation access and transit operations

#23 1 TriMet OR8 Corridor Safety & Access to Transit $ 1,614,000 10% $ 1,448,242 Improve safety, active transportation access and transit operations

#24 1 TriMetPowell‐Division Safety & Access to Transit

$ 2,800,000 10% $ 2,512,440 Improve safety, active transportation access and transit operations

#25 1 Washington CountyOR217: Allen‐Denney Southbound Split Diamond

$ 5,940,871 10% $ 5,330,744 Consolidate the SB Allen Blvd on‐ramp with the SB Denney off‐ramp

#26 2 Lincoln CityUS101: NE West Devils Lake Road ‐ Logan Road

$ 3,051,500 13% $ 2,661,500 Construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities and improved crosswalks

#27 2 Depoe BayUS101: South of Bridge Streetscape (Depoe Bay)

$ 498,200 16% $ 420,979 Construct sidewalks, bike lanes, and pedestrian crossings

#28 2 NewportUS101: SE 32nd Street ‐ SE 35th Street (Newport)

$ 3,512,700 44% $ 1,978,200 Rebuild and signalize 35th I/S, with bike lanes, sidewalks, and local circulation impvs.

#29 2 WaldportUS101: SW Waziyata St ‐ SW Maple St (Waldport)

$ 243,800 10% $ 218,762 Reconfigure US 101 cross‐section and con‐struct adjacent multiuse path (Bridgeview Trail)

#30 2 ODOT Region 2I‐5: South Jefferson I/C ‐ Santiam Hwy I/C

$ 2,400,000 17% $ 2,000,000 Complete PE and begin ROW purchase

#31 2 Benton CountyCorvallis to Albany Trail: Scenic Dr ‐ Springhill

$ 2,434,000 17% $ 2,029,500 Complete NEPA and ROW purchase, construct off‐highway multiuse path

November 2013 2



CostMatch &Leverage

EnhanceFunded Amt.

Description

#32 2 Corvallis Marys River‐Crystal Lake Multiuse Path (Corvallis)

$ 791,700 10% $ 710,392 Complete NEPA, ROW purchase, PE, and construct shared use path

#33 2 Sweet HomeShea Point Shared‐Use Path: 54th Ave‐Riggs Hill Rd

$ 1,576,500 19% $ 1,276,965 Construct multiuse path with raised, planted median and one‐way lane with parking

#34 2 HalseyOR 99E: American Drive to F Street (Halsey)

$ 544,100 10% $ 488,221 Construct curb and sidewalk

#35 2Cascades West Council of Govts.

CWCOG: Regional Park & Ride Plan $ 85,000 10% $ 76,270 Develop regional park and ride plan to support transportation demand management objectives

#36 2 SpringfieldOR126 & McVay Hwy: Mississippi Ave. ‐ UPRR Tracks

$ 15,570,500 65% $ 5,400,000 Construct bicycle, pedestrian, turn lane, transit, and safety improvements

#37 2 ODOT Region 2 OR126: Ellmaker Road ‐ Terry Street $ 4,525,000 41% $ 2,691,900 Construct bicycle, pedestrian, turn lane, and safety improvements

#38 2Lane Transit Dist. (Point2Point )

SmartTrips Regional Residential Program

$ 415,518 10% $ 372,845 Develop Smart Trips Regional (implementation) Program

#39 2 EugeneAmazon Active Corridor: Sprague St. ‐ 33rd St.

$ 1,977,400 22% $ 1,536,708 Construct extended Amazon multiuse path to south Eugene with enhanced safety features

#40 2 EugeneNE Livable Streets: Multiple Roadways (Eugene)

$ 1,142,000 30% $ 803,002 Construct various transit, bicycle, and pedestrian safety improvements and amenities

#41 2 ODOT Region 2 US101: 12th Street ‐ Redwood Street $ 532,100 16% $ 448,650 Construct pedestrian crossings with flashing beacons at three locations

#42 2 Lane Transit DistrictMutiple Routes: Echo Hollow & Irving Rd. ‐ Lane CC

$ 2,250,000 11% $ 2,000,000 Complete NEPA process for possible BRT expansion

#43 2 CoburgCoburg Lp Path Seg 3 Coburg Bottm Loop‐N Coburg Rd

$ 615,925 34% $ 408,000 Construct multiuse path with associated intersection improvements

#44 2 Lane County Bob Straub Pkwy: Mt. Vernon Road Intersection

$ 387,790 59% $ 159,450 Construct improved croswalk and hybrid pedestrian beacon

#45 2 EugeneJessen Multiuse Path: Terry Street ‐ Beltline

$ 2,582,800 26% $ 1,898,662 Construct bicycle and pedestrian path

November 2013 3



CostMatch &Leverage

EnhanceFunded Amt.

Description

#46 2 VenetaFern Ridge Path: Territorial ‐ Green Hill Rd.

$ 175,000 20% $ 140,000 Complete NEPA and PE for multiuse path

#47 2Northwest Oregon Transit Alliance

NW CONNECTOR Transit Access Project

$ 385,000 12% $ 340,000 Bus stop improvements incl. shelters, pullouts, ADA, and pedestrian safety improvements.

#48 2 MonmouthOR51: Heffley Street ‐ Main Street East (Monmouth)

$ 1,453,400 10% $ 1,304,136 Construct turn lanes, bike lanes, sidewalk, and landscape buffers

#49 2 Polk County OR18: Fort Hill Road to AR Ford Road $ 3,343,363 10% $ 3,000,000 Update existing EA, develop PE to DAP, conduct ROW and utility surveys, and purchase ROW

#50 2 Carlton OR47: Main Street ‐ W. Lincoln Street $ 2,228,909 10% $ 2,000,000 Construct improved intersection alignment, pedestrian crossing, sidewalks, and bike lanes

#51 2 Yamhill CountyYamhill County Transit: Bus Replacements

$ 1,050,000 10% $ 942,165 Purchase three new category A‐1 buses

#52 2 Salem Minto Brown Bike & Pedestrian Bridge $ 7,997,000 80% $ 1,581,815 Construct bicycle and pedestrian bridge from Riverfront park to Minto‐Brown Island

#53 2 Marion CountyHayesville Dr: NE Happy Dr‐Fuhrer St Bike/Ped Impvs

$ 2,535,600 22% $ 1,985,600 Widen roadway with shoulders, curbs, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, and ped amenities

#54 2 SilvertonOR214: Smith St‐Pioneer Dr Sidewalk & Bike Lanes

$ 2,190,847 10% $ 1,965,847 Construct sidewalks and bike lanes

#55 2 DallasGodsey Rd: SE Miller Avenue ‐ Clow Corner

$ 1,671,682 10% $ 1,500,000 Construct sidewalks and bike lanes

#56 2 Newberg OR219: Aldercrest ‐ Foothills Drive $ 2,670,600 10% $ 2,396,329 Construct bike lanes, sidewalks, curbs, drainage and landscape buffers

#57 2 AstoriaOR202: High School ‐ Hanover Sidewalks (Astoria)

$ 2,500,000 10% $ 2,243,250 Construct sidewalk and bike lane along OR202, including retaining wall and drainage

#58 2 Tillamook County US101: Cloverdale Bus Stop & Wayside $ 784,200 10% $ 703,663 Construct rest rooms, shelters, pedestrian features, park and ride, and off‐street parking

November 2013 4



CostMatch &Leverage

EnhanceFunded Amt.

Description

#59 2 TillamookUS101 & OR6: Streetscape & Bikeways (Tillamook)

$ 1,600,500 10% $ 1,436,129 Construct alternative bike route, transit shelters, and traffic calming & safety features

#60 2 ODOT Region 2US101: Avenue G ‐ S Holladay Dr Section (Seaside)

$ 3,649,600 10% $ 3,274,786 Construct a new center lane on US101 with bicycle and pedestrian improvements

#61 2 Columbia County Gable Rd: US 30‐Columbia Blvd Sidewalk (St Helens)

$ 3,136,100 10% $ 2,814,023 Complete sidewalk and bike lane construction

#62 2 ODOT Region 2US101: Sunset Beach Ln ‐ Cullaby Lake Ln, J‐Turn

$ 548,400 10% $ 492,079 Construct intersection improvement at Sunset Beach Lane of a J‐turn at a nearby location

#63 2Columbia County Rider

US30 @ Walnut St Park‐N‐Ride (Scappoose)

$ 1,558,800 10% $ 1,398,711 Purchase land & build park & ride

#64 2 FlorenceMunsel Creek‐Siuslaw Estuary Tr, Unit 2 (Florence)

$ 1,641,400 70% $ 489,549 Complete construction of multiuse path, including trailhead and parking areas

#65 3Jackson County &Medford

Lozier Lane: West Main to Stewart Ave. (Medford)

$ 7,500,000 90% $787,000Widen Road, add turn lane, two travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks

#66 3Jackson Co, Medford& Central Point

Table Rock Road: I‐5 to Biddle $ 4,018,000 11% $3,575,000Widen the roadway, add bike lanes, sidewalks and storm water system.

#67 3 Central PointTwin Creeks @ OR‐99 Rail Crossing (Central Point)

$ 3,970,000 33% $2,670,000New access route into the Twin Creeks development from OR 99

#68 3 Eagle PointLinn Road: OR 62‐Buchannan (Eagle Point)

$ 2,098,000 10% $1,882,000Widen Road. Add bike and ped facilites with illumination.

#69 3Rogue Valley Transportation Dist

RVTD Passenger Fare Collection $ 1,386,000 51% $686,000 Adds electronic fare boxes

#70 3 ODOT Region 3 OR 140: Exit 35 to Blackwell Road $ 5,775,000 13% $5,000,000Add center turn lane, wide shoulders, add bike path.

#71 3 Coos County Transit Station (Coos Bay) $ 625,000 23% $480,000 Construct a bus transfer center.

#72 3 BrookingsRailroad Street:Wharf to Oak Street (Brookings)

$ 3,010,000 33% $2,010,000Adds medians,sidewalks and bike lanes, illumination, bus stops.

#73 3 RoseburgOR‐138E: Roseburg Bike and Pedestrian Improvements

$ 1,923,000 10% $1,725,000Sidewalk modification, illumination, railing and signing.

#74 3 Riddle City of Riddle Fourth Ave Enhancement $ 1,457,000 10% $1,307,000 Construct sidewalk and improve drainage.

November 2013 5



CostMatch &Leverage

EnhanceFunded Amt.

Description

#75 3 Douglas County Umpqua Transit Bike‐Ped Access $ 39,000 13% $34,000 Improve access to transit.

#76 3 Curry County Curry County Replacement Vehicles $ 206,000 11% $184,000 Purchase new transit vehicles.

#77 3 ODOT Region 3I‐5: Roberts Mountain Southbound Climbing Lane

$ 8,510,000 29% $6,019,000Construct a southbound climbing lane between MP 116.3 and 117.7.

#78 4 ODOT Region 4US97: J Street Intersection (Madras South Y)

$ 1,568,000 10% 1,406,966Highway/Intersection realignment and bike/ped improvements

#79 4 ODOT Region 4 US97: Sunriver Interchange ‐ OR 31 $ 450,000 15% 384,519Pavement Preservation (travel lanes, rumble strips, durable markings) and bike/ped improvements

#80 4 ODOT Region 4 US20 @ Barclay Drive (Sisters) $ 1,632,000 10% 1,464,394 Intersection improvements

#81 4 BendS 3rd Street: Franklin Ave‐Murphy Rd (Bend)

$ 3,000,000 13% 2,600,000Bike and ped improvements from Franklin to Murphy Road

#82 4 ODOT Region 4 OR126 @ Tom McCall Road (Prineville) $ 4,500,000 41% 2,649,009 Intersection improvements

#83 4Mid‐Columbia Council of Govts.

The Dalles Transportation Center $ 1,783,000 10% 1,599,886Construct a new transit facility in the City of the Dalles

#84 4 The Dalles The Dalles Riverfront Access $ 8,050,000 83% 1,350,000Ped improvement from Union to Laughlin & ped plaza & tunnel under UPRR @ Washington Street

#85 4 ODOT Region 4 Fossil Heritage Trail (Fossil) $ 900,000 16% 753,424Multi‐use paths and sidewalks within the City of Fossil

#86 4 Klamath Falls OR140: Brett Way Extension (K Falls) $ 4,150,000 11% 3,700,000Intersection improvements, traffic signal, road construction

#87 4 ODOT Region 4 US97 Passing Lanes $ 3,700,000 24% 3,320,010Passing lanes in Klamath County (MP 210) & Sherman County (MP 43.4)

#88 5 Cove Haefer Lane: OR HWY 237 ‐ Conklin St $ 425,723 10% $382,001 Construct multi‐use path

#89 5 UnionFulton Street: 3rd St ‐ Main St Sidewalks (Union)

$ 787,185 11% $697,185 Construct sidewalks

November 2013 6



CostMatch &Leverage

EnhanceFunded Amt.

Description

#90 5 La Grande 20th Street Reconstruction (La Grande) $ 3,457,762 37% $2,164,700 City street reconstruction

#91 5 Morrow County Laurel Lane Intersection (Boardman) $ 473,726 47% $251,222 Widen turn radius for safety and mobility

#92 5 ODOT Region 5OR414: Halfway Flood Control (Pine Creek)

$ 459,000 10% $411,861 Alleviate flooding issues at bridge #02836A

#93 5 EchoHWY 320 ‐ Thielson Street Bike Ped (Echo)

$ 930,623 10% $835,048 Cemetary Rd to Main St Bike/Ped improvements

#94 5 Hermiston & Umatilla County

W Highland: SW 23rd ‐ SW 11th Bike Lanes (Hermiston)

$ 663,255 23% $513,255 Shoulder widening and striping to construct new bike lanes

#95 5ODOT Region 5 & six local partners

Region 5 Enhanced Connectivity Buses $ 688,500 10% $617,791 Bus purchase for rural connectivity

#96 5 ODOT Region 5OR82: Joseph/Wallowa Lake Bike/Ped Improvements

$ 1,673,055 42% $962,855 Construct multi‐use path from Joseph to Wallowa Lake

#97 5 ODOT Region 5 OR82: Minam Curve $ 4,113,393 43.2% $2,335,127 Easement purchase and curve correction

#98 5 Nyssa, Malheur Co. & ODOT Reg. 5

Commercial Ave ‐ Stringer Rd (Nyssa) $ 1,973,700 17% $1,641,001 Construct new section of truck route with multi‐use path

#99 5 OntarioSE 2nd Street: SE 14th Ave ‐ E Idaho Ave

$ 3,439,058 16% $2,893,500 Roadway reconstruction to add bike lanes, sidewalks, landscape strip and roadway drainage

#100 5 John DayUS395: Sidewalks Improvements (John Day)

$ 839,970 10% $753,705 Roadway reconstruction to widen bike lanes, add new sidewalks and install roadway drainage

#101 5 BurnsUS20/US395: Burns Pedestrian Improvements

$ 1,014,558 10% $910,362 Sidewalks, flashing beacon and bus shelter

#102 5 ValeD & F St: Cottage St ‐ Viking Dr Sidewalks (Vale)

$ 391,298 10% $351,111 Construct new sidewalks and roadway drainage

November 2013 7

Region Route Project Name Cost Est. Description

Pavement Preservation

1 OR99E OR‐99E: SE Harold St. to SE Harrison St. $8,246,000 This is a 3R section with high traffic.

1 OR99EOR‐99E: Pine St ‐ SW Berg Pkwy (Canby) Sec. (PE Only)

$300,000 Road condition is poor. This section is 3R or 4R.

1 OR99E OR‐99E: SW Berg Pkwy to Pudding River $1,866,000 This is crucial to keep it in the 1R category out to 2018.

1 OR211OR‐211: Hwy 213 to Meadowbrook (PE Only)

$255,000Good candidate for 1R treatment to keep it from falling into the 3R category and increasing costs.

1 OR212 OR‐212: Richey Rd to OR‐26 $2,666,000Maintenance patch has held this section together but will need a 3R treatment.

1 OR213 OR‐213: Mulino to Blackman's Corner $2,876,000 Maintenance patching is needed to keep in the 1R category.

1 OR213 OR213: Lindy to King $2,500,000 Road condition is fair to poor.

1 US26US‐26: NW Mountaindale Rd to NW Glencoe Rd

$2,080,000 Cost to repair will be significantly higher and fall out of the 1R category to 3R.

1 US30 US‐30: NW Bridge Ave to McNamee Rd $4,691,000 Pavement condition is poor and starting to deteriorate.

1 I‐84I‐84: Corbett ‐ Multnomah Falls Interstate Maintenance

$8,400,000 Single Lift Inlay (Lanes only, no shoulder)

1 I‐84I‐84: Jordan Rd ‐ Corbett Interstate Maintenance


1 I‐205I‐205: Johnson Creek ‐ Glenn Jackson Bridge Interstate Maintenance

$10,500,000 Single Lift Inlay (Lanes only, no shoulder) 2" OVLY (BARE CRC)

1 I‐5I‐5: Marquam Bridge ‐ Capitol Highway Interstate Maintenance


1 Region 1 Pavement Reserve $620,0001 US101 US101: Dooley Bridge ‐ Jct US26 $2,400,000 Pavement overlay2 US30 US30: Wonderly Rd ‐ Swedetown Rd $7,200,000 Pavement inlay (travel lanes)

100% PROJECT LIST 2015‐2018 STIP

Page 1


2 US30 US30: Gnat Creek Rd ‐ Burnside Loop Rd $3,700,000Pavement inlay (travel lanes) (total proj cost w/Bridge funds is 8.59M)

2 OR99W OR99W: McDougall Jct ‐ McDonald Way $14,600,000Pavement overlay, incl. McDougall Jct ‐ Riverside Dr & Riverside Dr ‐ OR 18

2 US20 US20: Clem Rd ‐ Mouse Mtn $11,000,000 Pavement Inlay/overlay2 OR126 OR126: Torrence Rd ‐ W 11th Street $10,000,000 Pavement inlay (travel lanes)

2 OR58OR58: Black Cannon ‐ Middle Fork Willamette River

$2,400,000

2 Region 2 Preservation Projects Development $1,000,000 PE funding to develop four shelf projects

2 US26US26: NW Mountaindale Rd to NW Glencoe Rd

$1,400,000 Region 2 portion of Region 1 project

2 US199 US199: Slate Creek ‐ Cave Junction $6,318,014 1R Grind and Inlay

2 I‐5I‐5: N. Albany ‐ Halsey Interstate Maintenance

$15,000,000 1R Diamond Grind & Patch Concrete Preservation

2 I‐5I‐5: S. Jefferson ‐ N. Albany NB Interstate Maintenance

$2,000,000 1R Grind/Inlay of NB Lanes

2 I‐5I‐5: Willamette River (Boone) Bridge ‐ Woodburn Interstate Maintenance

$15,000,000 1R Grind/Inlay & Diamond Grind Rut Repair

3 OR38 OR38: US101 ‐ Dean Creek $2,868,015 1R Grind and Inlay3 Preservation PE/ROW in 2017 $397,0003 US101 US101: Sixes ‐ Port Orford $2,223,016 Overlay

3 OR140OR140: Green Springs Int ‐ K Falls/Malin Hwy 3R

$6,763,000

3 I‐5I‐5: Medford ‐ N. Ashland Interstate Maintenance

$7,358,000 Grind/Inlay

3 I‐5I‐5: Ashland ‐ California State Line Interstate Maintenance


3 I‐5I‐5: N. Grants Pass ‐ Evans Creek Interstate Maintenance


3 I‐5I‐5: Roberts Creek ‐ S. Umpqua River Interstate Maintenance


4 US97 US97: Wickiup Ave ‐ Bowery Ln ‐ 1R $4,306,000

Page 2


4 US97US97: Chemult ‐ Spring Creek Intermittent Paving

$4,356,000

4 US97 US97: Sunriver Interchange ‐ OR31‐1R $8,039,0004 US97 US97: Moro ‐ Madras $4,800,0004 US97 US97: Diamond Lake Jct ‐ MP 221‐3R $4,149,0004 US20 US20: Jack Lake Rd ‐ Pine St (Sisters) 1R $3,441,0004 US97 US97: Culver Hwy ‐ PSO State Park ‐ 1R $1,082,000

4 OR39OR39: Klamath Falls/Lakeview Jct ‐ Matney Rd 1R

$3,626,000

4 US20 US20: Jct OR126 ‐ Deschutes River Bridge $4,208,000

4 US97 US97: Romaine Village Way ‐ Weigh Station $2,491,000

4 US20 US20: Powell Butte Jct ‐ Arnold Ice Cave $3,597,000

4 US730 US730: Southshore Drive ‐ McNary $3,140,0002012 rating shows rapid deterioration. Accelerate 2016 funding and combine with US 395 project

4 I‐84I‐84: Hood River to Mosier ‐ 1R Interstate Maintenance

$3,700,000

4 I‐84I‐84: Mosier‐Rowena ‐ 1R Interstate Maintenance

$5,800,000

4 I‐84I‐84: Rowena ‐ The Dalles ‐ 1R Interstate Maintenance

$7,300,000

4 I‐84I‐84: The Dalles ‐ Fifteen Mile Creek Interstate Maintenance

$18,000,000

5 US395 US395: US 730 ‐ SE 4th Street $6,050,000 Funded in current STIP for 20155 OR82 OR82: US30 ‐ Riddle Road $1,010,000 2012 rating shows rapid deterioration. Construct in 20175 US20 US20: Black Canyon ‐ Malheur River $2,450,000

5 I‐84I‐84: Poverty Flats ‐ Meacham Interstate Maintenance

$55,500,000

5 I‐84I‐84: Pendleton ‐ Cabbage Hill Interstate Maintenance

$4,360,000

Page 3

Region Route Project Name Cost Est. DescriptionBridge

1 I‐5I‐5: Hwy 1 over NE Hassalo St & NE Holladay St Bridge #08583

$1,432,000 Deck Overlay, Joints, End Panels

1 I‐5I‐5: Morrison Interchange Ramp Bridges #08589A, 08589B

$1,008,000 Deck Seals

1 I‐84 I‐84: Tanner Creek Bridge #02062A $1,159,000 Deck Overlay, Joints, End Panels1 US26 US26: Boring Road Bridge O'xing #09381 $6,351,000 Vertical Clearance, Deck Overlay

1 US26US26: Willamette River (Ross Island) BR #05056

$29,000,000 Paint

1 US26US26: Hwy 3 NB over Hwy 1 & Conns (Ross Island Intchg) Bridge #08194

$1,261,000 Deck Overlay, Joints

1 I‐5 I‐5: Margquam Bridge ‐ Capitol Highway $1,770,000 Deck Seal, Joints Br 08591C, Deck Seal Br 08590C

2 OR47FFO‐OR47: Beaver Creek Bridge Replacement

$2,372,000 Replace Bridge

2 US101 US101: Farmer Creek Bridge #04659 Rehab $1,207,000 Rehab Bridge

2 US101 US101 Siuslaw R Br (Florence) $37,250,000 Bridge Cathodic Protection

2 US101US101: Columbia R (Astoria‐Megler) Br Painting, Ph2

$22,428,000 Phase 2 painting project

2 OR58OR58: Coast Fork Willamette River Bridge Repair

$963,000 Deck Overlay, Concrete Repair, Bearings, Joints

2 OR18OR18: Yamhill River & Yamhill R O'Flow Br Repair

$1,858,000 Deck Seal & Overlay, Joints, Timber Repair, Spot Paint, Rails

2 OR22 OR22: Tumble Creek Bridge Repair $1,308,000 Deck Overlay, Bridge Rail

2 I‐5I‐5: Salem Area Bridge End Panel Replacements

$4,252,000 End Panel Replacement

2 OR569OR569: Willamette R & River Ave & Scs Clan & Uprr Brs

$4,917,000 Rail, Seismic, Deck Overlay, Joints, Concrete Repair, Spot Paint

2 I‐105I‐105: 1st St to 7th Ave Viaduct Eb & Wb Br Repairs

$10,140,000 Rail, Deck Overlay, Joints, Concrete Repairs

Page 4


2 OR99WOR99W: Ash Swale & Plum Creek Bridge Replacements

$6,892,000 Replace Bridge

2 US101US101: Columbia R (Astoria‐Megler) Deck Truss Paint

$22,326,000 Paint Deck Trusses

2 US101US101: Devils Lk Outlet, Schooner Cr & Siltcoos R Brs

$11,782,000 Cathodic Protection, Concrete Repairs, Bearings, Bridge Rail

2 US101US101: Columbia R (Astoria‐Megler) Br Repairs

$3,122,000 Bridge Repairs

2 US101US101: Youngs Bay (New Youngs Bay) Bridge Repair

$12,436,000 Cathodic Protection, Deck Overlay

2 I‐5I‐5: Over Taylor Avenue End Panel Replacement

$726,000 End Panel Replacement

2 OR99W OR99W: Lake Slough Bridge Replacement $2,520,000 Replace Bridge

3 US101 US101: Thomas Creek Bridge Repair $1,963,000SFC Overlay, Rail Retrofit, Joint Repair, Possible seismic retrofit, Painting and Corrosion Repair

3 US101US101: Over Coos Bay Rail (N. Bend) Bridge #01950

$108,160PE ONLY PROJECT. [total project cost estimated to be $1,000,000]. Rails, Seismic, Deck Overlay, Joints, Concrete Repairs

3 US101 US101: Rinehart Creek Bridge Replacement $1,622,000 Paint Truss Section. Overlay Deck

3 OR38OR38: Umpqua River (Scottsburg) Bridge Rehab

$6,450,000Paint Truss, Deck Overlay, Rail Retrofit, Joint Repairs, Concrete Repair, Bearing Replacements, and Seismic Retrofit

3 199 Rogue River, Hwy 25 SB (6th St. Caveman) $3,300,000 Bearing, Rail Replacement, Deck and Structure Repair

3 I‐5I‐5: South Umpqua River Bridge Repairs (Vets)

$11,400,000 Paint Truss, Replace Bearings, Deck Overlay

3 OR42 OR42: Lookingglass Creek Bridge Repair $353,000 SRC Overlay, North Rail Retrofit, Repair Sidewalk

3 US101US101: McCullough Bridge (Coos Bay) BR #01823

$811,200PE ONLY Project [total project cost estimated to be $30,000,000] Bridge Painting

4 I‐84 I‐84: John Day River Bridge $2,482,000

Page 5


4 US30US30: Mosier Cr & Dry Canyon Cr Bridge Repairs

$1,641,000

5 I‐84 Wolf Creek Hwy 6 WB & EB Bridge $1,626,000 Scour, Deck Overlay, Joints, End Panels5 I‐84 Baldock Slough, Hwy 6 WB5 I‐84 Baldock Slough, Hwy 6 ED

5 I082Columbia River Bridge, (Umatilla) Hwy 70 EB Deck Replacement

$8,737,000Replace Bridge Deck. Washington DOT will coordinate work, ODOT providing half of funding

Safety

1 OR8 OR8: at SE 44th and SE 45th Ave $504,000 Upgrade crossing with RRFB.

1 OR8 OR8 @ OR219 (Hillsboro) $500,000Systematic intersection improvements include signing, additional signal heads, and striping improvements.

1 OR8 OR8: MP 1.5 ‐ 16.67 $1,857,000Systematic intersection improvements at 37 intersections which may include signing, signals, reflectorized back boards, red extension, enforcement assistance light, and striping improvements.

1 OR213 OR213: NE Couch St ‐ SE Pine Street $1,140,725No widening of existing roadway width. Rebuilding corners to meet ADA standards

1 OR213 OR213: SE Clay ST ‐ SE Mill St $1,087,928Full signal rebuild. Pavement repair on Mill St. to address tripping hazards for pedestrians. Also constructing new sidewalk along Mill St.

1 OR213 OR213 @ S Union Mills Rd $634,000 Rebuild and square up the intersection to reduce all crash types.

1OR244/OR281

OR244/OR281 Rural Systematic Improvements

$558,750 Signing and striping improvements. Minor shoulder widening.

1 US26 US26: SE 20th Ave ‐ 33rd Ave $3,407,655Signal upgrade at 21st and 26th and 33rd will require ADA ramps. New crosswalk string and additional signing.

1 US26 US26 MP 1.81‐24.61 $1,406,250Systematic intersection improvements at 20 locations. Include signing, signals, and striping improvements

1 US30B US30B: NE 103rd ‐ 107th Ave $504,000Upgrade traffic signal to reduce turning/angle crashes. Upgrade ADA access at intersection.

$427,000 Bridge Rail Retrofit

Page 6


2 OR551 OR551 @ Ehlen Rd $6,985,000Install TLT's on Ehlen (sig. intersect) & Restrict county rd access to Ehlen near signal

2 Various Region 2 Safety Reserve $15,374,000 Poor for 'Jurisdictionally Blind' Projects

2US30/OR99W

US30 (Astoria) & OR99W (McMinnville) Signal Upgrades

$854,000Upgrade Signals with new features for conspicuity, turning, and pedestrian protection

2 OR221OR221 (Salem) Signal/Ped Crossing Improvements

$500,000Upgrade Signals with new features for conspicuity, turning, and pedestrian protection. Install 4 new pedestrian activated beacons

3 Various Regionwide Rumble Strips $1,824,000 Various jurisdictions run‐off the road improvements

3 Various Region 3 Signalized Intersection Upgrades $330,000 Upgrade Traffic Controllers, Pedestrian Heads, etc., as needed

3 OR99 OR99: Ashland‐Talent $250,000 Extend Road Diet from Ashland to Talent3 Various Region 3 Local Safety Improvements $877,014 Various Run Off the Road Projects ‐ Local Roads Only3 Various HSIP Safety Projects in 2017 $2,898,000 Various Jurisdictions Run‐off the Road Improvements

3 Various Roadway Departure Safety Projects in 2017 $1,824,000 Various Jurisdictions ‐ Roadway Departure Improvements

3 Various Intersection Safety Improvements in 2017 $330,000 Various Safety Upgrades at Intersections

3 Safety PE/ROW in 2017 $500,0003 Various Bicycle/Pedestrian Upgrades in 2017 $442,015 Various Safety Upgrades for Bike/Ped Facilities3 I‐5 I‐5: Exit 58 6th & Morgan $4,055,000 Modify Ramp Alignment & Intersection Configuration3 Various HSIP Safety Projects in 2018 $2,898,000 Various Jurisdictions Run‐Off the Road Improvements

3 Various Roadway Departure Safety Projects in 2018 $1,824,000 Various Jurisdictions ‐ Roadway Departure Improvements

3 Various Intersection Safety Improvements in 2018 $330,000 Various Safety Upgrades at Intersections

3 Safety PE/ROW in 2018 $495,0003 Various Bicycle/Pedestrian Upgrades in 2018 $442,016 Various Safety Upgrades for Bike/Ped Facilities4 Various R4 2017 Safety Bucket $1,932,0004 Various R4 2018 Safety Bucket $1,932,0004 US26 US26: Sisters to Prineville $154,0004 US97 US97: Madras to LaPine $160,0004 Various Region 4 Signalized Intersections $160,000

Page 7

Region Route Project Name Cost Est. Description5 I‐84 I‐84 Baker Valley VSL Section $1,450,000 Added Safety Funds to Meet Project Needs

5 Various Intersection Improvement Bucket 2016‐2018 $390,000Construct Systematic Safety Improvements In Accordance with New Federal Guidelines 2016‐2018

5 Various Ped/Bike Improvement Bucket (2016‐2018) $720,000 Upgrade Bike/Pedestrian Safety Improvements

5 US395 US395 Region 5 Rumble Strips (ROR) 2016 $612,000 Construct Rumble Strips

5 US395 US395 Region 5 Rumble Strips (ROR) 2017 $612,000 Construct Rumble Strips

5US395/US26

Region 5 Rumble Strips (ROR) 2018 $612,000 Construct Rumble Strips

5 OR82 OR82: Minam Curve $500,000 Additional Match for Enhance Project

Culverts

2 OR 53 OR53 @ MP 11.32 Drainage Improvements $470,000 Replace Culvert

2 OR99WOR99W @ MP 20.85 Drainage Improvements

$860,000 Rehab/replace

2 OR18 OR18: Culvert (MP 27/75) $750,000 Rehab Culvert2 OR22 OR22: Culvert (MP 1.20) $500,000 Replace2 Various Region 2 Culvert Lining Projects $338,679 Culvert Lining Projects Throughout Region 23 OR42 OR42: Grey Creek Culvert $1,686,000 Replace Culvert3 I‐5 I‐5: Landfall Creek Culvert $2,856,000 Repair culvert, Add CIPP Liner3 OR38 OR38: Culverts Near MP 6.0 $1,460,000 Replace Culvert3 I‐5 Vandine Creek, Hwy 1 $159,016 PE ONLY PROJECT Add CIPP Liner

4 I‐84I‐84: Three Mile Creek Culvert ‐ Bridge 09192

$5,350,000

4 US395 US395: Cogswell Creek Culvert 03921 $1,616,000

5 I‐84I‐84: Ladd Creek Culverts I‐84, Hwy 6 MO 270.05‐270.51

$3,000,000 Replace Two Culverts at $1.5M each

5 I‐84 I‐84 Brush Creek, Hwy 6 @ MP 271.45 $7,770,000Micro Tunnel Option for Full Replacement, Seek Exemption for Fish Passage ‐ Freight Route

Page 8


Operations

1 I‐5 I‐5: Denver, NB Tunnel, Illumination $321,000Install 88 luminaries to bring tunnel lighting closer to current standards

1 I‐84 I‐84: Farley Slide (PE Only) $500,000 Stabilize slide to reduce damage to I‐84

1 OR8OR Operational Improvements, Full Signal Upgrade

$964,500Upgrade signal or beacons. Locations are Cedar Hills Blvd, SW Hall, SW Hocken, SW Watson

1 99E99E: Railroad Pedestrian Tunnel in OR City, Illumination

$1,940,000 Install approximately 50 luminaries to reduce maintenance costs

1 OR212 OR212 @ N. Fork Deep Creek Culvert $1,000,000 Replace Existing Culvert

1 OR213OR213 Operational Improvements, Full Signal Upgrade

$5,676,000Upgrade signals to improve safety of the traveling public. Locations are Burnside, NW Wasco, SE Flavel, SE Foster, SE Mill, SE Raymond, SE Woodstock, SW Yamhill

1 OR217OR217: Allen and Denny Interchanges, Illumination

$205,000 Install 44 poles and fixtures, improving visibility and safety

1 LED Replacement Bucket $200,000 Purchase LED's1 Loop Replacement Bucket $300,000 Update loops

1 Misc Hardware/Software Bucket $500,000Update hardware and software used by the region for TMOC operations

1 Operations quick Hit Reserve $350,000 Unanticipated operational needs for the region

1 Region 1 Striping Bucket $200,000Various projects throughout the region to update or address striping needs

1 Rockfall Scaling Project $3,607,000 Project will provide scaling and rockfall mitigation at various sites

2 OR99WOR99W (Adams & Baker) at 2nd (McMinnville) Signal Rebuilds

$500,000 Signal rebuilds

2 US101US101 @ Bay Street (Depoe Bay) Signal Rebuild

$681,800 Signal rebuilds

2 OR126E OR126E: MP 10 (Cogswell Hill Slide) $750,000 Slide repair2 OR200 OR200: MP 30.8 & MP 34.9 Slide $1,600,000 Slide repair

2 US30 US30: Clatskanie Bluffs Rockfall Remediation $1,000,000 Trees & Rocks falling on road from bluff above

Page 9

Region Route Project Name Cost Est. Description2 US101 US101 Jetty Creek Slide (MP Z47) $500,000 Slide repair2 US101 US101 @ Beaver Slide Repair $825,000 Slide repair

2 US20US20 Toledo Exit Slide Repair and Drainage Improvements

$1,650,000 Replace culvert and repair slide

2 Region 2 Durable Striping Projects $300,000 Various durable striping projects throughout Region 2

2 Region 2 Electrical Improvement $1,050,000Regionwide electrical improvements, signal heads, loops, illumination, signal upgrades etc

2 Region 2 Signal Technology Upgrades $300,000 Region 2 Signal Technology Upgrades2 Region 2 Pavement Markers $600,000 Pavement marking throughout Region 2

2 Region 2 Rockfall Screening $900,000Rockfall screening improvements in various locations throughout Region 2

2 Region 2 TDM/Rideshare $1,102,000 Funds to be transferred to TDM/Rideshare2 Region 2 Sign Replacements $500,000 Replace signs throughout Region 2 in various locations2 Region 2 Operations Project Reserve $418,600 Project Reserve3 TDM Rideshare in 2016 $150,000 TMD Rideshare Program for RVTD

3Powers‐Agness Hwy: Burma Slide Sec (MP 4.4‐8.4)

$1,000,000 Matching Funds for Curve Realignment & Slide Repair Project

3 FLAP: Rogue/Umpqua Hwy $200,000 Matching Funds for Safety Improvements & Byway Enhancements

3 TDM Rideshare in 2017 $150,000 TDM Rideshare Program for RVTD3 US101 US101: Coal Point Slide Repair $5,852,000 Slide repair3 Operations PE/ROW in 2017 and 2018 $400,000

3 OR273 OR273: Preacher Landslide (MP 5.90‐6.00) $277,906 PE ONLY PROJECT

3 OR38OR38: Scottsburg Bridge E. Approach Realignment

$370,000 PE ONLY PROJECT

3 TDM Rideshare in 2018 $150,000 TDM Rideshare Program in RVTD3 OR99 OR99 & Laurel, Signal Upgrade $626,500 Upgrade traffic signal3 Regionwide Striping Bucket $461,139 To add to IM projects for tape

3 I‐5 Rogue Valley VMS Replacement Project $700,000 Replace boards: I‐5/Mtn Ave, I‐5/Table Rock, Hwy 199

3 OR66 OR66 Harley Landslide $717,569Shear key buttress switch catch at centerline of road, Rebuild Road Section

Page 10


4 US20US20 Signals ‐ Bend: O.B. Riley Road, River Mall Avenue

$1,060,000

4Central Signal System Upgrade 3A (OB Riley Road)

$136,000

4Central Signal System Upgrade 3B (Empire Avenue)

$175,000

4 High Priority Culvert Replacement $500,0004 Region 4 RWIS & Cameras Upgrades $270,0004 Region 4 Rockfall & Slide Mitigation $704,0004 Region 4 Material Source Development $500,0004 Region 4 TDM Program 2016 $110,3684 Region 4 TDM Program 2017 $110,3684 Region 4 TDM Program 2018 $110,3684 Region 4 Transit Support 2016 $200,0984 Region 4 Transit Support 2017 $200,0984 Region 4 Transit Support 2018 $200,098

4 US97US97 (Bend Parkway) Incident Response Cameras

$400,000

4 I‐84 I‐84 (Durable Markings) Bucket $382,0004 I‐84 I‐84 Sign Replacement Bucket $500,000

4 I‐84I‐84 @ Brewery Grade and the Dalles Bridge Illumination

$300,000

4 I‐84 I‐84 @ Rufus WB VMS Upgrade $400,0004 US26 US26 @ MP 71 WB (Wapinitia Jct) VMS $400,0005 US95 McDermitt VMS VMS to warn motorists of conditions ahead5 US95 Marsing Junction VMS Construct VMS to warn motorists of conditions ahead

5 I‐82 I‐82 EB VMSInstall VMS in WS or at border for all incoming traffic. Would aid operations of I‐82 and 730

5 OR331 OR331 Mission VMS Replace drum SZ sign with VMS for I‐84 traffic

5 I‐84 I‐84 Ramp GatesReplace gate for on‐ramp to aid in more quickly closing freeway to traffic 216, 193, 188 priorities for D12 ‐ various others in Region

5 I‐84 Encina RWIS & 2 Cameras

$1,110,000

$400,000

Page 11


5 US 395 Wind Warning System Wind monitoring system accessible to public. Trucks blow over.

5 OR86 OR86 MP 40 ‐ MP 70 Guardrail Phase III $650,000 Continuation of 2013 Guardrail Replacement Project 5 US395 US395 Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation $1,000,000 Additional match for Enhancement Project

5 US26 US26 Slope RepairExisting slope pushing down toward hwy to existing edge of oil requiring yearly maintenance

5 OR244 OR244 Slope Repair Repair slope failure behind guardrail areas5 US730 US730 Erosion Repair5 OR204 OR204 Philips Creek Erosion Repair Continuation of Erosion Control along Phillips Creek 750L.

5 I‐84 Region 5 Material Source Development Material sources along the I‐84 Corridor to form strategic network of available sources

5 Various Region 5 Material Source Development Set up and/or expand 2 material sources along the US95 corridor to form strategic network of available sources

5 Various Region 5 Material Source Set up and/or expand 3 material sources along the OR 82 & OR 3 corridors to form strategic network of available sources

5 Various Region 5 Material Source Development Set up and/or expand 3 material sources along the OR205 and OR 78 corridors to form strategic network sources

5 Various Region 5 Material Source Development Set up and/or expand 3 material sources along the US 26 corridor to form strategic network of available

5 OR204 OR204 Snow Fence

5 I‐84 I‐84 Cabbage Hill Snow FenceInstall cable rail and snow fence to reduce freeway closure and visibility issues

5 Various Region Culvert Repairs $300,000Culvert repairs, slip line, etc on non‐interstate and non‐corridor highways

5 Various Region Sign Upgrades $632,267 Region Sign upgrades. Saves Maintenance material costs5 Various ITS Upgrades $500,000 Upgrades to existing fixtures5 Various Durable Striping $500,000

$250,000

$750,000

$1,150,000

Page 12


2016 ‐ 2018 Bridge Program

2 US101US101: Cathodic Protection and Concrete Repairs Bridges #01113, 01114, 01175, 02723

$22,600,000 Rehab project

2 OR18 OR18 Spur: South Yamhill River Br 06758 $7,000,000 Replacement requested by City of McMinnville

3 US101US101: Hwy 9 over CBRL (North Bend) Br 01950

$1,000,000 Fix‐it Priority Corridor

3 US101 US101: Coos Bay McCullough Bridge 01823 $30,000,000 Bridge Painting

2016‐2018 Culvert Program

1 US26 US26 West Fork Beaver Creek $1,000,000 Culvert Replacement1 OR281 Trout Creek $750,000 Culvert Replacement1 OR281 Trout Creek $750,000 Culvert Replacement2 US101 Thiel Creek $3,505,700 Culvert Replacement2 OR99W Ash Swale Creek $2,623,500 Culvert Replacement3 I‐5 Vandine Creek $1,971,000 Culvert Replacement4 US97 Scott Creek $1,490,000 Culvert Replacement4 US395 South Fork Crane Creek $1,646,000 Culvert Replacement4 OR 140 Beatty (Brown Creek) $1,766,000 Culvert Replacement5 OR 244 Marley Creek $1,000,000 Culvert Replacement5 US 26 Little Pine Creek $500,000 Culvert Replacement

2016‐2018 Pavement Program

1 I‐5 I‐5 Interstate Hassalo $17,900,000 3R project to fix rutted/raveled section of I‐5 2 OR18 OR18: Ash Road ‐ McDougall Juntion $4,200,000 This is a high speed route with major rehab needed4 US26 US26: Gumwood ‐ Earl Street $3,000,000 Structural overlay of poor pavement near Madras

2016‐2018 $150 Million Shelf Program

Page 13


4 US97US97: N. Klamath Falls Interchange ‐ Midland Hwy

$6,600,000 Resurface 20 year old section of multi‐lane US97

5 US20 US20: Malheur River ‐ Harper $3,500,000 Overlay 25 year old pavement that is rapidly deteriorating5 I‐84 I‐84: Huntington ‐ Farewell Bend $11,600,000 Overlay to protect 45 year old concrete that is starting to deterioriate

Various 1R Pre‐230 Safety Feature Upgrades $5,000,000 Traffic barrier and end treatment upgrades

Operations

1 US30 LombardSignal Replacements $4,000,000 Traffic signal upgrades2 UR58 OR58 Rock Fall Remediation (MP 54.2) $2,000,000 Rock Fall Remediation2 US101 US101: Arch Cape Tunnel Lighting $650,000 Tunnel Lighting Upgrade

2 US101 US101: Spencer Cr & Johnson Creek Slides $1,350,000 Slide Mitigation

3 OR273 OR273 Preacher Slide $1,800,000 Slide Mitigation3 OR38 OR38: Scottsberg Curve Realignment $2,200,000 Realign Curve to Improve Safety4 US20 US20 at Empire Ave Signal Rebuild $353,000 Signal system improvements4 US97 US97 Central Signal System 3C ‐ Cooley $490,000 Signal system improvements

4 US20 Central Signal System 3D‐Comm to Robal $280,000 Signal system improvements

4 US20Central Signal System 3E ‐ Comm to Division Street to Revere On‐ramp

$250,000 Signal system improvements

4 Various Data Warehouse $200,000Develop a data warehouse in conjunction with the Bend MPO to store performance data such as travel time reliability, travel

4 US97US97: Baker Road to Lava Butte Median Barrier (Unit 2)

$1,300,000 Median Barrier Placement

4 VariousRegion Roadway Departure and Intersection Safety Plan Implementation

$200,000 Safety improvements

5 I‐84 Meacham Snow Zone Variable Speed Limit $2,000,000 Variable Spped automation and signs through snow zone

5 Various Region 5 Slope and Rockfall Mitigation $2,000,000 Slope Stabilization

Page 14

1

Update on Enhance Update on Enhance and Fixand Fix--ItIt

November 2013

2

EnhanceEnhance Region 100% ListsRegion 100% Lists

3

Enhance Projects by Region

R2

4

Enhance Amounts by Region

Enhance Funds $185.3 M

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Total Enhance Eligible Project Costs by Region: Region 1 - $88.0 Region 2 – $86.3 Region 3 - $40.5 Region 4 - $29.7 Region 5 - $21.3 Total

5

Enhance Projects by Applicant Type

City

6

Enhance Projects by System Type

7

Enhance Projects by Size

8

FixFix--ItIt 100% and Shelf Lists100% and Shelf Lists

9

Fix-It Strategy

• Fix-It: Fixing or preserving the state system

• Management system driven• Guiding principles

10

Selected Funding Scenario June 2012

(A) 10%

Additional to Fix-It

(B) 2012-2015 STIP Ratios

(C) 10%

Additional to Enhance

Funding Level 1:Additional $

Approved Baseline Scenario

Funding Level 2:2012-2015 STIP Level

Funding Level 3:Reduced $

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Funding Level 1: This level is based on a Congressional Budget Office estimate assuming potential Congressional actions adding $10B-$15B annually to the Highway Trust Fund. This estimate represents an approximate 20% increase over 2012-15 funding levels. Funding Level 2: This level represents a continuation of current funding levels (2012-15) extended to 2015-18. This level is based on 2009's SAFETEA-LU numbers, inflated by 5% and then flat lined for 2012-15. Funding Level 3: This level assumes no additional revenues go into the Federal Highway Trust Fund and no Congressional actions. This level represents an approximate 20% decrease from 2012-15 funding levels. Category Allocation 1: 10% increase in the amount allocated to Fix-It compared to the current allocation percentage, resulting in a 10% decrease in the amount allocated to Enhance. Category Allocation 2: Extending the current allocation percentages to both Fix-It and Enhance Category Allocation 3: 10% increase in the amount allocated to Enhance compared to the current allocation percentage, resulting in a 10% decrease in the amount allocated to Fix-It.

11

$952M

Enhance Fix-It$229M $723

OTC Regions $42M $187

Draft STIPJanuary OTC Meeting

Enhance and Fix-It Allocations September 2012

Seeking OTC approval at December meeting

Enhance 100% Lists –

Information item at November OTC meeting

Fix-It 100% Lists – Information item at November OTC

meeting

Fix-It Shelf Project List:

developed should additional funds become available

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Notes: These amounts are three-year figures for 2016-2018 numbers are rounded all numbers are based on Federal ESTIMATES

12

Fix-It Guiding Principles

Balance Regulatory Compliance

Maintain relative balance between programs taking into account risks (safety) and magnitude of investment

Ensure minimum environmental, federal, state and local compliance is maintained on the transportation system

Leverage Economy

Leverage existing funding to attract more revenue opportunities

Maximize economic opportunities and minimize economic hardships as a result of transportation investments

Maintenance Cost Effectiveness

Focus on investments on features that are difficult and expensive to maintain

Allocate funding in a way that maximizes return on investment

Safety System Continuity

Maintain or enhance transportation safety on the system

Fund investments that minimize risk of transportation system failure

13

Priority Corridor Approach

• Strategy focuses on holding conditions on higher priority routes, lower priority drop.

• 20% of Fix-it funds• Select priority corridors

– OTIA III routes (stages 1-3)– Seismic routes

14

Strategic FixStrategic Fix--It CorridorsIt Corridors

15

Program Recommendation $ / Year

Culverts Culverts on priority corridors. $6 M

Operations Reduce ongoing maintenance costs $4 M

Safety Pedestrian safety and intersection safety. Also $1M/yr for ADA sidewalk $9 M

Bridge Upgrade bridges on the corridors. $15 M

Pavement Preservation

Includes $2M/yr for sidewalks and bike lanes that ODOT owns $15 M

Shelf Project Program

Design funds for $150 million of projects. $5 M

20% Recommendation

16

Fix-It Spending

2012‐2015 Funding

Operations

Culvert

Bridge

Safety

Pavement

2015‐2018 Funding

Culvert, 2%

Operations, ‐4%

Bridge, 4%

Safety, 4%

Pavement,‐6%

Percentage shown represents percentage of change from 2012-2015 to 2015-2018 Funding

by category.

17

Projected Bridge Condition

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Percent N

on‐Distressed

Target: 80% Non‐Distressed

Projected conditionSalt Creek Ash Swale

Distressed

Little Muddy CreekNon‐Distressed

17

18

Bridge Program 2015-2018 STIP

• Transitioning from replacement to preservation program.

• 72 bridges included in 43 projects. Eight bridges are currently rated as structurally deficient (SD) and 34 are cusp.

• Funding for 2012-2015: $217M, 15-18: $261M.

• Project 57 newly SD bridges by 2020. Projects in 2015- 2018 STIP will prevent or correct 36. Net increase of 21 SD bridge in 2020.

• “Bridges not deficient” will fall 78% to 77%.

19

Projected Pavement Condition

Poor

Good

Projected Condition

Target: 78% fair or better

Percen

t Fair or Better Co

ndition

20

Pavement Program 2015-2018

• Funding for 2012-2015: $409M• Funding for 2015-2018: $430M • Funding is 30% less than 10 years ago• $90M/yr short of optimal level • Pavement conditions will decline to below target by

2020• Declining pavement shifts burden to maintenance

program• With decline, more extensive treatments will be

needed

21

Equivalent Resurfacing Interval

22

Pavement Condition by Highway Class

23

Culvert NeedsCulvert Needs

Culvert Category Annual 2012-2015

Annual 2015-2018

Large Culvert Program $2.3M $2.3M

Priority Route Culverts$0M $6.0M

Fish Barrier Culverts $4.2M $4.2M

Total $6.5M $12.5M

Annual Gap = $82.5M

24

Projected Culvert ConditionProjected Culvert Condition

25

Shelf Projects

• Simple projects ready for uncertain funding.• Dedicate $5M per year for design work.• Projects including:

(4) Bridge $58M (7) Pavements $52M (11) Culverts $17M (16) Ops/Safety $20M

• Need OTC action for construction funding.

Region Project NameProject Type

(C‐STIP or D‐STIP)Requested Enhance

FundingScenario A

(Shelf Project Focus)

Recommended

Transit (R1/R2) North I‐5 Corridor POINT Bus Services C‐STIP $587,136 $600,000

1Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail: Summit Creek to Lindsey Creek

C‐STIP $5,000,000 $5,000,000

1 I‐205 SB/Auxiliary Lane: I‐84 to Stark/Washington C‐STIP $11,000,000 $700,000

1 OR224/OR212 Corridor ITS C‐STIP $820,000 $850,000

1 US26: NW 185th Ave ‐ Cornelius Pass Rd C‐STIP $14,500,000 $6,900,0001 I‐5 Rose Quarter Development D‐STIP $5,000,000 $5,000,000

1 US26 Corridor ITS C‐STIP $3,700,000 $3,700,000

2 I‐5: Aurora‐Donald Interchange (Exit 278) IAMP & EA D‐STIP $3,000,000 $3,000,000

2 US101: Spencer Creek EA & Geologic Reassessment D‐STIP $3,500,000 $3,500,000

2 OR18: Ft. Hill Rd to AR Ford Road D‐STIP $1,500,000 $1,500,0003 I‐5: Medford Viaduct Environmental Study D‐STIP $4,000,000 $4,000,000

3I‐5: Southern Oregon Truck Climbing Lanes (Roberts Mountain)

C‐STIP $2,000,000 $2,000,000

4 US97: O'Neil Jct/Prineville Jct Intermodal D‐STIP $300,000 $300,000

4US97: South Century Drive ‐ USFS Boundary 4 Lane Extension

D‐STIP $300,000 $300,000

4US97 @ Powers Rd Pedestrian Crossing (South Bend Parkway)

D‐STIP $300,000 $300,000

4 US97 Bend ‐ La Pine Variable Speed Limits C‐STIP $1,900,000 $1,900,0004 US 97: Redmond to Bend Safety Corridor D‐STIP $300,000 $300,000

5I‐84/US395B Interchange Improvements ‐ Pendleton (Ph1 PE)

D‐STIP $690,000 $700,000

5 US395 Canyon Creek Flood/Road Closure Mitigation C‐STIP $1,407,061 $1,450,000

TOTAL $42,000,000

Original Region RequestOTC Enhance 20% Discretionary Funds ‐ Scenario A

2I‐5: Albany Knox Butte SB Ramp & Mainline Improvement

C‐STIP $19,000,000

2 US101: Camp Rilea Corridor C‐STIP $2,500,0002 OR126W Spot Improvements C‐STIP $1,500,0002 US30: Westport Ferry Access Rd C‐STIP $4,471,784

3 I‐5: Southern Oregon Truck Climbing Lanes Development D‐STIP $1,500,000

3 OR140: I‐5 to OR 62 Upgrade D‐STIP $900,000

4 US97 Chemult–Spring Creek Hill Variable Speed Limits C‐STIP $2,800,000

4 US97 Wickiup Jct C‐STIP $14,000,000

5 SW Perkins Avenue Extension (Pendleton) C‐STIP $1,058,939

5I‐84/US395B Interchange Improvements ‐ Pendleton (Ph1 RW)

D‐STIP $1,578,000

TOTAL $49,308,723

Non‐recommended

Region Project NameProject Type

(C‐STIP or D‐STIP)Requested

Enhance FundingScenario B

(Large Project Focus)

Transit (R1/R2) North I‐5 Corridor POINT Bus Services C‐STIP $587,136 $600,000


C‐STIP $5,000,000 $5,000,000

1 I‐205 SB/Auxiliary Lane: I‐84 to Stark/Washington C‐STIP $11,000,000 $700,0001 US26: NW 185th Ave ‐ Cornelius Pass Rd C‐STIP $14,500,000 $8,000,0001 I‐5 Rose Quarter Development D‐STIP $5,000,000 $1,500,000

2 I‐5: Aurora‐Donald Interchange (Exit 278) IAMP & EA D‐STIP $3,000,000 $3,000,000

2 OR18: Ft. Hill Rd to AR Ford Road D‐STIP $1,500,000 $1,050,000

3 I‐5: Medford Viaduct Environmental Study D‐STIP $4,000,000 $4,000,000


C‐STIP $2,000,000 $2,000,000

4 US97 Wickiup Jct C‐STIP $14,000,000 $14,000,000


D‐STIP $690,000 $700,000

5 US395 Canyon Creek Flood/Road Closure Mitigation C‐STIP $1,407,061 $1,450,000

TOTAL $42,000,000

Original Region Request

Recommended

OTC Enhance 20% Discretionary Funds ‐ Scenario B

1 OR224/OR212 Corridor ITS C‐STIP $820,000

1 US26 Corridor ITS C‐STIP $3,700,000

2 I‐5: Albany Knox Butte SB Ramp & Mainline Improvement C‐STIP $19,000,000

2 US101: Spencer Creek EA & Geologic Reassessment D‐STIP $3,500,000

2 US101: Camp Rilea Corridor C‐STIP $2,500,0002 OR126W Spot Improvements C‐STIP $1,500,0002 US30: Westport Ferry Access Rd C‐STIP $4,471,784

3 I‐5: Southern Oregon Truck Climbing Lanes Development D‐STIP $1,500,000

3 OR140: I‐5 to OR 62 Upgrade D‐STIP $900,000

4 US97: O'Neil Jct/Prineville Jct Intermodal D‐STIP $300,000


D‐STIP $300,000


D‐STIP $300,000

4 US97 Bend ‐ La Pine Variable Speed Limits C‐STIP $1,900,0004 US 97: Redmond to Bend Safety Corridor D‐STIP $300,000

4 US97 Chemult–Spring Creek Hill Variable Speed Limits C‐STIP $2,800,000

5 SW Perkins Avenue Extension (Pendleton) C‐STIP $1,058,939


D‐STIP $1,578,000

TOTAL $108,525,784

Non‐recommended

Region Project Name Scenario A Scenario BTransit (R1/R2) North I‐5 Corridor POINT Bus Services Y Y


Y y

1 I‐205 SB/Auxiliary Lane: I‐84 to Stark/Washington Y Y1 OR224/OR212 Corridor ITS Y N1 US26: NW 185th Ave ‐ Cornelius Pass Rd Y Y1 I‐5 Rose Quarter Development Y y1 US26 Corridor ITS Y N

2 I‐5: Albany Knox Butte SB Ramp & Mainline Improvement N N

2 I‐5: Aurora‐Donald Interchange (Exit 278) IAMP & EA Y Y

2 US101: Spencer Creek EA & Geologic Reassessment Y N

2 US101: Camp Rilea Corridor N N2 OR126W Spot Improvements N N2 US30: Westport Ferry Access Rd N N2 OR18: Ft. Hill Rd to AR Ford Road Y Y

3 I‐5: Medford Viaduct Environmental Study Y Y


Y Y

3 I‐5: Southern Oregon Truck Climbing Lanes Development N N

3 OR140: I‐5 to OR 62 Upgrade N N

4 US97: O'Neil Jct/Prineville Jct Intermodal Y N


Y N


Y N

4 US97 Bend ‐ La Pine Variable Speed Limits Y N4 US 97: Redmond to Bend Safety Corridor Y N

4 US97 Chemult–Spring Creek Hill Variable Speed Limits N N

4 US97 Wickiup Jct N Y


Y Y

5 US395 Canyon Creek Flood/Road Closure Mitigation Y Y

5 SW Perkins Avenue Extension (Pendleton) N N


N N

OTC Enhance 20% Discretionary Funds ‐ Quick View

OTC Enhance 20% Discretionary Funds Region Recommended Projects

Regions: Please complete this form for each project identified as a priority for the 20% Enhance funding. This information will be used for projects being recommended for funding at the November 2013 OTC meeting.

Region 1 Construction or Development Project (C-STIP or D-STIP)

C-STIP

Region Priority # Requested Enhance Funding $5,000,000

Project Name Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail: Summit Creek to Lindsey Creek

Identify how the project meets the criteria, as approved at the September 2013 OTC meeting:

Criteria Yes No Comments

Consistent with priorities of the Area Commissions on Transportation (ACT) in the region

X

This project has support of the local communities in the Gorge, Oregon Parks, USFS, and the Historic Columbia River Highway Advisory Committee.

Consistent with statewide plans and policy direction, such as the Oregon Transportation Plan and the Freight Plan

X

The Historic Columbia River Highway (HCRH) State Trail implementation is consistent with Oregon Transportation Plan Strategy 1.1.4. This trail responds to the existing transportation need to access the Gorge by multiple modes. The project provides a cost effective solution that will have long term benefits by providing access to abandoned highway segments and providing access to under-developed State Parks. The State Trail also is consistent with Oregon Highway Plan Action 1G.1 as it protects the existing system and provides alternative access for cyclists and pedestrians through the Gorge. In addition, this project improves the efficiency and capacity of Interstate 84 (I-84) by providing parallel bike and pedestrian facilities and by taking advantage of the abandoned highway segments, where feasible.

Located on either a statewide or interstate route, or justify why it is of statewide importance

X

The HCRH State Trail parallels I-84 and provides access to bicyclists and pedestrians where no facility currently exists. In addition, the Oregon State legislature has directed ODOT to complete the trail through joint resolution.

Located on a freight route or part of the National Highway System (NHS)

X This improvement provides the seamless, separated, multi-modal bike and pedestrian facilities adjacent to Interstate 84.

Has the appropriate planning work been completed and the proposed project been vetted as a priority, provide a description of those efforts:

The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA) Act of 1986 directed the State of Oregon to reconnect the abandoned portions of the Historic Columbia River Highway as a pedestrian and bike trail. In 1987, the Oregon Legislature directed the Oregon Department of Transportation to plan for the reconnection on this scenic route as the State Trail. The project has been identified as Project of Statewide Significance and has extensive local and regional support. The Preliminary Engineering work is funded and is being managed by the Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The environmental planning work associated with the 10-mile the HCRH State Trail corridor is funded by a grant to the United States Forest Service (USFS) through the Paul Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program. This project is listed in the 2012-2015 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). WFLHD is managing the project, which includes the development of bid-ready plans for the trail segment in the Spring of 2015. This project is considered a continuation of that work. The project will be classified as a Categorical Exclusion and resource surveys are in process. Geotechnical investigations will commence in the Fall 2013, and WFLHD will submit for a Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Permit in the Summer of 2014. The Trail is an identified project in the CRGNSA Management Plan as well as the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department’s Gorge Management Unit Master Plan. Environmental clearances are antipcipated in the Winter of 2015.

Describe how the benefits of the proposed project, primarily an assessment of economic benefits, go beyond the area in which it is located:

The project will complete a critical portion of the HCRH State Trail, which directly supports tourism and economic development efforts in nearby towns and communities by attracting heritage tourists and recreational users. Once complete, the State Trail will be a world class destination for cyclists and hikers. The plan aims to develop trailheads and trail hubs in urban areas to encourage cyclists and hikers to visit these Gorge communities on their way to discover and explore the nearby recreational resources. Trail users will be drawn into these urban areas after recreating for food, beverages, and supplies that will enhance tourism and recreational opportunities. Cycling is an important and growing sector in Oregon Tourism. Jerry Norquist, Ride Director for Cycle Oregon, stated:

“The Columbia Gorge is one of the most scenic areas in the state to tour by bicycle. If the trail sections of the Historic Columbia River Highway were complete, I believe the route would draw out-of-state and international bicycle tourists more than any other route in Oregon”.

Many of these small towns are economically distressed from having to shift away from a resource-based economy and this additional recreational amenity will bring welcomed tourism opportunities and improved economic vitality. Travel Oregon is conducting a study in 2013 to quantify the economic benefit and potential of the State Trail to these Gorge communities. Use of the Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail is anticipated to increase exponentially as the effort to create uninterrupted State Trail corridor comes closer to completion. In 2011, the HCRH State Trail saw 360,000 visitors and recreational users --- a nearly 200% increase over the State Trail's annual usage in 2004. For additional information about the economic and recreational benefits of the project, please visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-m3HOY7W3w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-m3HOY7W3w

Describe how the proposed project benefits safety and all modes of transportation:

Interstate 84 is a major interstate freeway with over 22,600 average daily trips (2010, MP 54). With speed limits of 65 miles per hour on Interstate 84 and a high volume of heavy trucks, access to the Columbia River Gorge in a mode other than a motor vehicle is dangerous and often too daunting for the average rider or hiker. To currently access many sections of the Columbia Gorge, cyclists from nearby Portland, Hood River and other communities must use the shoulder of Interstate 84 for a portion of their journey. Providing a trail through the Gorge will eliminate the need to ride on the shoulder of I-84, increasing safety for non-motorized users in the Gorge.

Additionally, the Historic Highway provides secondary access for emergency vehicles or fire trucks in event of an emergency. The design will be in accordance with the Historic Columbia River Highway Design Guidelines which maintains a maximum grade of 5% with limited exceptions identified in the Guidelines.

This project contributes to the development of a seamless and properly separated multi-modal transportation system along the Columbia Gorge, which includes shipping lanes on the River, Union Pacific Trains, an Interstate Highway for trucks and cars and a State Trail for cyclists, pedestrians and mobility impaired individuals. Instead of having to ride on an unsafe and unpleasant system where cyclists and pedestrians are forced to use the shoulder of I-84 trail users will be safely on a multi-use path parallel to I-84.



Region 1 & 2 Construction or Development Project (C-STIP or D-STIP)

Vehicle Purchase

Region Priority # Requested Enhance Funding $600,000

Project Name North I-5 Corridor POINT Bus Service (Cascades POINT Thruway Bus service)




X X

Project encompasses Portland Metro, Mid-Willamette Valley ACT, Cascades West ACT, and Lane County ACT. The service supported by this project stops at the Portland Amtrak Station, Woodburn Park & Ride, Salem Amtrak/Greyhound Station, Albany Amtrak Station, Eugene Amtrak Station and the University of Oregon in Eugene. Project characteristics and ACT priorities are both consistent with OTP. However, ACTs did NOT determine that the project lined up well enough with their priorities to include it among their funded projects.


X

Consistent with OTP; “Strategy 1.1.2 Promote the growth of intercity bus, truck, rail, air, pipeline and marine services to link all areas of the state with national and international transportation facilities and services. Increase the frequency of intercity services to provide travel options.” (also Strategy 1.2.1, and 3.2.3) Consistent with the Oregon Public Transportation Plan; “Goal 1 the public transportation system should provide mobility alternatives to meet daily medical, employment, educational, business, and leisure needs without dependence on single occupant vehicle transportation….” Consistent with the Oregon Freight Plan;

(Section 5.3 Potential Actions) “Improved transit also may help reduce congestion on major truck routes, thereby potentially contributing to reduced truck emissions.”


X

Project is in the I-5 Corridor (Portland – Eugene) one of the more densely populated areas of the state. Project will increase the efficiency of the Eugene – Portland segment of the I-5 (a critical part of the Oregon road network). Project will result in some drivers shifting to transit with all the attendant benefits; more efficient use of existing roadway capacity, more personal transportation related expenditures staying in Oregon (local/regional multiplier effect of money spent on transit many times that of money spent on driving alone), less pollution/GHG emissions as a result of mode shift to transit. Project will take advantage of and support ODOT investments in transit, passenger rail, the Salem multi-modal transit center (Amtrak Station) and the Woodburn Park & Ride.


X Project is in the I-5 Corridor (Portland – Eugene)


RPTD staff have reviewed the service in the Portland – Eugene corridor and compared service levels in the Salem – Portland (25ish round trips per weekday) corridor to the Boulder – Denver corridor (85+ round trips per weekday) and it is their judgment that with higher frequency service, bus and rail ridership in the corridor will increase significantly. Higher service frequency will result in better connections to other existing transit services, strengthening the overall transit network. The last Flex Fund grant cycle provided a bus now in operation that sets the stage for increased service. The second bus requested under the Enhance-it program, will support higher frequency service in the corridor.

Describe how the benefits of the proposed project, primarily an assessment of economic benefits, go beyond the area in which it is located: Higher frequency transit service in the Portland – Eugene corridor will:

• provide better mobility to the transit dependent

• stimulate mode shift away from the SOV

• free roadway capacity in I-5 corridor

• increase physical activity, reduce health care costs of those switching from automobile to transit

• shift personal expenditures made for SOV use with a low economic multiplier to higher multiplier uses

• reduce GHG emissions


SafetyBenefits -

• Transit has about 1/10 the fatality rate of automobile travel. So shifting users from automobile to transit is a net safety benefit

• Lower levels of pollution and GHG emissions imply reduced health risk

• Generally using transit results in more walking than driving does; more physically active people are healthier than less active people

• Lower congestion levels imply lower crash rates Benefits All Modes –

• Switching road users from SOV use to transit results in more available road capacity, benefiting all other roadway users (freight, transit, personal vehicle, etc.)




D-STIP

Region Priority # 1 Requested Enhance Funding $700,000

Project Name I-205 SB/Auxiliary Lane I-84 to Stark/Washington




X

This project was recently added to the RTP with unanimous support from JPACT and was on the Region 1 STIP Project Selection Committee’s 150% list.


X

In a period of constrained revenue forecasts ODOT Region 1 developed a Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study (CBOS) to identify major congestion bottlenecks on freeways and develop cost effective, small-scale operational improvements. CBOS will implement Oregon Transportation Plan Goal 2- Management of the System, OHP Major Projects Policy, and the Oregon Freight Plan. In addition, the project will address FHWA Localized Bottleneck Reduction Program objectives.


X

The project is located at the intersection of Interstate-205 and Interstate 84 within the Portland Metro area. This project will reduce congestion, improve lane balance and travel time reliability, and sustain stable traffic flow on I-205.


X I-205 is a freight route and part of the NHS


This operational improvement was presented to Metro’s JPACT and TPAC, the Oregon Freight Committee, and the Portland Freight Committee as part of the ODOT Region 1 Corridor Bottleneck Operations Study (CBOS). It was also recently unanimously approved for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan.


The objective of CBOS was to develop low cost, highly effective, and immediate solutions to improve safety and operations of this recurring bottleneck and others identified in the region. The study determined that congestion occurs on average for a three hour period between 3:00 and 6:00 PM daily and that travel speeds can drop to 20 mph during this time. The congestion begins at the Stark/Washington St. entrance-ramp and Hwy 26/Division St./Powell Blvd. exit ramp. The contributing factors to the congestion are the high volumes from I-84 EB merging with I-205 SB mainline traffic. Conflicts between entrance-ramps create turbulence at merge points with the mainline, and difficult weaving movements. Constructing the project will help manage growing demand and congestion to minimize any increase delay, costs and uncertainty for businesses that rely on this corridor for freight movement. Freight traffic comprised approximately 8% or 6,500 trucks of the annual daily traffic on I-205 SB in the area. The travel time savings based on speed and delay is estimated at $1.36 million annual for freight and auto users. The project also facilitates economic development by improving access to commercial centers and medical facilities, such as the Portland Adventist Medical Center Describe how the proposed project benefits safety and all modes of transportation:

Between 2007 and 2011, 112 crashes occurred at the project location. The construction of the auxiliary lane is anticipated to reduce mainline crashes by 30% based on comparable auxiliary lane improvements. Such a reduction would benefit over 96,000 annual users.




C-STIP


Project Name OR-224/OR-212 Corridor Intelligent Transportation Systems




X The project was part of the Region 1 STIP Stakeholder Committee’s 150% list


X

The project is consistent with goals of Oregon Transportation Plan - specifically Goals 2 (Management of the System), 3 (Economic Vitality), 5 (Safety and Security), and 7. (Coordination, Communication, and Cooperation). The project also is consistent with Oregon Freight Plan.


X OR-224/OR-212 is a highway of Statewide significance


X OR-224/OR-212 is a freight route and part of the NHS


The OR-224/OR-212 Corridor Intelligent Transportation System project would implement the Regional Transportation Plan Goal 4 – to emphasize effective and efficient management of the transportation system – and Goal 5 - to enhance safety and security. In addition, the project is listed in ODOT’s ITS Implementation Plan developed in partnership with traffic engineers from cities, counties, TriMet, Metro, and the Port of Portland.


The project will improve travel times, stabilize traffic flow, and facilitate travel time reliability for freight and workforce mobility on multiple inter-city, regional and statewide freight routes, including OR-224, OR-212 as well as I-205, US-26 and OR-99E.


The OR-224/OR-212 Corridor Intelligent Transportation System project will provide multiple safety benefits to all users. First, the project will reduce crash rates and improve mobility by providing users real-time information about conditions ahead, anticipated travel times and alternative routes. Second, the project will reduce the frequency and severity of secondary crashes at several high crash locations in the corridor. Reducing crashes will improve safety for all modes. Finally, the project would improve emergency vehicle response times along the corridor and in the surrounding areas.




D-STIP

Region Priority # 4 Requested Enhance Funding $5,000,000

Project Name I-5 Rose Quarter Development




X The Rose Quarter Plan was adopted unanimously by the OTC, City of Portland, JPACT and the Metro Council


X The Rose Quarter project is consistent with Goal 2 of the Oregon Transportation Plan and the Oregon Freight Plan


X The project is on Interstate 5 with connections to Interstates 405 and 84

Located on a freight route or part of the National Highway System (NHS) X

Interstate 5 is a designated freight route, on the NHS and is a federally designated Corridor of the Future.


In partnership with the City of Portland, ODOT Region 1 conducted a two year, $1.2 million planning study that resulted in land use and local transportation recommendations as well plans for the reconstruction of the section of I-5 between the I-84 and I-405 interchanges. The project, designed to improve safety and operations on I-5, received unanimous approval of the Portland City Council and from the OTC.


The expected delay savings for users of the system is projected to be between $10.25 and $11.85 million annually. Additional benefits will accrue from the increased efficiency of freight movements to local businesses, rail, sea, air, marine, and intermodal terminals. For example, businesses whose shipments are time and delay sensitive will see greater predictability leading to better on time delivery/reduction in shipping delays.

This funding will be used to complete additional environmental work, refine designs and develop a buildable phase of the project to consider for construction funding in a future funding cycle or legislative package.


The proposed project area is home to the highest crash rates in the State of Oregon. Once constructed, the project would reduce mainline crashes by 35-70 percent. In addition, the I-5 overcrossings will feature seismic upgrades and safer pedestrian and bicycle facilities.




C-STIP


Project Name US-26 Corridor Intelligent Transportation Systems




X The project was part of the Region 1 STIP Stakeholder Committee’s 150% list.


X

The project is consistent with goals of Oregon Transportation Plan - specifically Goals 2 (Management of the System), 3 (Economic Vitality), 5 (Safety and Security), and 7. (Coordination, Communication, and Cooperation). The project also is consistent with Oregon Freight Plan.


X US-26 is a non-Interstate Freeway of Statewide significance


X US-26 is a freight route and part of the NHS


The US-26 Corridor Intelligent Transportation Systems project was identified in the Corridors Bottleneck Operations Study (CBOS), which addresses the Federal Highway Administration’s Localized Bottleneck Reduction Program objectives. The project would implement would implement the Regional Transportation Plan Goal 4 – to emphasize effective and efficient management of the transportation system – and Goal 5 - to enhance safety and security. In addition, the project is listed in ODOT’s ITS Implementation Plan developed in partnership with traffic engineers from cities, counties, TriMet, Metro, and the Port of Portland.


The project will improve travel times, stabilize traffic flow and facilitate travel time reliability on multiple freight routes, including I-5, I-405, OR-217, US-30 and other key regional facilities. The project will also improve access for goods and services to and from employment centers located along US-26 and OR-217.


The US-26 Corridor Intelligent Transportation System project will provide multiple safety benefits to various users. First, the project will reduce crash rates and improve mobility by providing users real-time information on anticipated travel times and alternative routes. Second, the project will reduce the frequency and severity of secondary crashes near the Vista Ridge Tunnel and other high crash locations on the corridor. The project would improve emergency vehicle response times along the corridor and in the surrounding areas. In addition, the project would improve safety and access by warning drivers on US-26 of conditions at the Zoo/Washington Park off-ramp as well as directing drivers to off-site parking during congested periods.




C-STIP


Project Name US-26: NW 185th Avenue - Cornelius Pass Road




X The Region 1 STIP Project Selection Committee recommended $2m for PE through the Region Enhance allocation.


X The project is consistent with goals of Oregon Transportation Plan and the Oregon Freight Plan.


X US-26 is a non-Interstate Freeway of Statewide significance


X US-26 is a freight route and part of the NHS


Widening US:26 to three lanes in each direction between 185th and Cornelius Pass Road is consistent with Metro’s 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (Project # 10873) and the City of Hillsboro’s Transportation System Plan (TSP). This project is consistent with OTP Strategy 1.1.4 in that it (1) manages the existing transportation system effectively by allowing US 26 to continue to operate as a main mobility corridor; and (2) adds capacity to the existing transportation system with the widening. It is also consistent with OHP Major Improvements Policy Action 1.G.1 in that it adds capacity to the existing system (priority 3) to allow for the continual efficient operation of US 26.

In addition to the $2m recommended by Region 1 Project Selection Committee for design, Region 1 recommends an additional $14.5m of State enhance discretionary funding be made available for construction, contingent on the transfer of sufficient JTA, or other local funds, to complete construction. The City of Hillsboro and Washington County support making uncommitted JTA funding in the US:26 corridor available to leverage with STIP funds to complete the $25m-30m improvement.


Sunset Highway is an important route that serves residents, commuters, businesses, tourists, and freight linking the “economic engine” of Washington County to the world marketplace. With the growth of the surrounding residential and employment areas, this portion of US-26 is expected to carry close to 120,000 vehicles per day (within the current Urban Growth Boundary). Westbound widening, in conjunction with arterial widening improvements, would facilitate the safe and efficient flow of morning commute traffic off of the freeway to employment in north Hillsboro. Eastbound widening would improve freight mobility for Silicon Forest industries and agricultural, timber, and tourism industries of northwest Oregon.

It is estimated that the high-tech cluster, anchored in the Silicon Forest by Intel, accounts for approximately 65% of Oregon’s trade sector revenue. The Intel Ronler Acres campus will support approximately 15,000 to 16,000 jobs when the proposed expansions are complete. EcoNorthwest has estimated that every Intel job in Oregon creates approximately three additional jobs elsewhere in the state.


Widening US-26 from Cornelius Pass Road to NW 185th Avenue would improve safety on the Sunset Highway in several ways, which include:

1.) Providing relief of westbound bottleneck. The existing third through lane currently ends at the 185th Avenue interchange. Traffic volume destined to Cornelius Pass Road is high and is projected to increase. The lane reduction at 185th Avenue creates a bottleneck in traffic and congestion that can lead to increased accidents. Extending the lane to the Cornelius Pass Interchange would reduce lane changes at the 185th Avenue exit ramp and mitigate potential congestion related accidents.

2.) Improving the roadway. The project would provide vehicle breakdown shoulders for both the inside and outside lanes. By widening the shoulders emergency responders will experience reduced travel times to and from incidents.

3.) Improving lane balance. The proposed lane extensions would be made in conjunction with westbound exit ramp improvements at the Cornelius Pass Road Interchange, which is occurring as part of the Intel development. The additional lane would balance lane requirements to utilize the two westbound exits. Balancing the lane would smooth out traffic weaving maneuvers and reduce the number of conflicting vehicle movements on the highway.

4.) Improving mobility. An additional lane would reduce vehicle densities on a highly congested segment of the highway. Decreasing vehicle densities would minimize accident potential by reducing conflict and speed differential. Improved mobility would make the system more reliable and improve transit times in the corridor.




C-STIP


Project Name I-5/Albany Knox Butte SB Ramp and Mainline Improvements




X Project is consistent with ACT priorities.


X Ongoing capacity and safety improvements and upgrades to I-5 are a priority in the OTP and Freight Plan.


X Project is on I-5.


X I-5 is part of the NHS.

Has the appropriate planning work been completed and the proposed project been vetted as a priority, provide a description of those efforts? :

The project concept was developed in an ODOT Facility Plan prepared for this corridor segment. An Environmental Assessment (EA) addressing a variety of improvements along this corridor segment is also close to completion and the remaining planning activities (IAMP and verification of project consistency with the local TSP) would be fairly simple. The project is consistent with the recently adopted Albany TSP. The IAMP will also be consistent with the TSP. There will be no need for a plan amendment. The project is also consistent with the Area 4 ACT priorities. Linn County has indicated they are willing to provide up to $1,000,000 in support of the project.


I-5 is by far the most important highway in the state of Oregon and along the west coast of the U.S., both in terms of passenger and freight movement. It is the primary travel facility from Mexico to Canada. Reducing congestion and increasing safety along this segment of I-5 will contribute to lowered travel costs and improved flow of intra- and interstate commerce.


This four lane section of I-5 has had few changes to its configuration from its original design in the 1960’s. Consequently, there are numerous sub-standard features throughout the segment including partial interchanges, inadequate ramp design and inadequate interchange spacing. The configurations are important since the segments are currently experiencing traffic volumes much higher than they were designed to accommodate.

The OR99E (North Albany/Knox Butte) Interchange is a combined hybrid “Y”/diamond interchange with only 3 of the four movements provided at Exit 234. The interchange design features two southbound off-ramps, one each for eastbound and westbound Pacific Boulevard (OR99E). However, there is no southbound on-ramp provided at this intersection. Southbound traffic from Pacific Boulevard is routed down Airport Road (a frontage road that also provides access to neighborhoods and businesses) to the US 20 interchange intersection. Northbound movements are handled through a one free-flow ramp from Pacific Boulevard northbound and through a diamond style slip ramp for the off-ramp movement.

The purpose of this project is to add a new southbound on-ramp, remove the southerly southbound off-ramp (234A), provide an auxiliary lane/collector-distributor (C-D) road to improve entering and exiting the freeway, and remove southbound freeway trips (from Pacific Boulevard) from the frontage road between the Knox Butte and Santiam interchanges. This package of improvements provides a variety of benefits. It removes trips from the Santiam Highway interchange, improving both safety and operations at that location. It eliminates the need for drivers to determine which southbound exit they need to use to access Pacific Boulevard. It reduces out of direction travel for all vehicles. It will also standardize the southbound freeway movements at Exit 234 and reduce speed differential conflicts for vehicle exiting or entering freeway traffic. In short, this project benefits the freeway system and its users by eliminating sub-standard freeway design elements and better meeting driver expectations.

Specifically, a review of the 5-year crash history in this segment of I-5 showed 42% of crashes were rear-enders and 19% were sideswipe overtaking. The rear end and sideswipe overtaking crashes are typical of a multi-lane section that is operating at or close to capacity. The improvements in traffic flows that will result from this project should help reduce the rear-end crashes, while better definition of freeway access points and addition of an auxiliary lane/C-D road (which will allow merging and diverging speed differentials to resolve in a non-through lane) should reduce side-swipe crashes. The addition of the southbound on-ramp should improve the safety and operations by removing the second off-ramp (eliminating a confusing driver choice) and replacing it with an on-ramp that enables the interchange to better meet driver expectations. This change also eliminates statewide and regional traffic conflicts with local businesses and neighborhoods (particularly truck freight and non-local passenger vehicle conflict with local traffic, including bicyclists and pedestrians).




D-STIP


Project Name I-5/Aurora-Donald Interchange (Exit 278) IAMP and EA






X Ongoing capacity and safety improvements and upgrades to I-5 are a priority in the OTP and Freight Plan.


X I-5 is an interstate highway and a designated freight route.


X I-5 is on the NHS.


The deficiencies at this interchange were documents in the I-5 Conditions Report completed in 2000. This project will develop an IAMP and Environmental Assessment (EA) for this outdated interchange. Addressing problems at this interchange is consistent with the Area 3 ACT priorities.


I-5 is by far the most important highway in the state of Oregon and along the west coast of the U.S., both in terms of passenger and freight movement. It is the primary travel facility from Mexico to Canada. Addressing the interchange design issues at this interchange will benefit the hundreds of freight vehicles that use this interchange every day.


This is the worst unsignalized interchange on I-5, both geometrically and operationally. Site distance, ramp lengths, facility spacing, access spacing, and overall operating capacity are all substandard. This

funding would be used to develop shelf documents (IAMP and EA) to position the interchange for a future funding package. Because there are several trucking service businesses in the vicinity of this interchange, it is a major stopping point for hundreds of long-distance truck freight vehicles every day. This interchange also serves significant regional heavy truck freight volumes as the crossroad, Ehlen/McKay Road, is a critical link to OR219, OR 99W, OR 18, the City of Newberg, and Yamhill County, and Lincoln County. Like many roads in North Marion County, Ehlen/McKay Road also serves a high number of recreational bicyclists.




D-STIP


Project Name OR 18/Fort Hill Road to AR Ford Road






X

Ongoing capacity and safety upgrades and improvements to statewide freight routes are a priority in the OTP and Freight Plan. OR 18 is also a lifeline route, serves coastal commerce and tourism, and serves bicycle travel between the Willamette Valley and the Oregon Coast. These are also OTP and Freight Plan priorities.


X OR 18 is a is statewide significant highway, a designated expressway, and a designated freight route


X OR 18 is on the NHS.


This project is partially funded through the OTC approval of the Mid-Willamette Valley ACT (MWACT) and Region 2 Enhance 100% recommendation in October 2013. The already approved Enhance funding is expected to support updating previously approved EA information and preliminary design efforts. Approval of this additional funding request would restore full funding to the original Enhance request and support strategic ROW acquisition for the eventual construction of a variety of improvements to OR 18 through the Fort Hill/Grande Ronde area. This project is fully supported by MWACT, is consistent with the Polk County Transportation System Plan (TSP), and has an approved Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for an Environmental Assessment (EA) completed in 2003. As noted above, part of this project activity (with the Enhance funding already approved) would be to update the data and assumptions in that previous FHWA approval and validate the previous project recommendations.

This project is a continuation of a previous STIP project (Key #14291, OR18: Fort Hill – Wallace Bridge) which was constructed as Phase 1 of the EA and widened OR18/22 from two to four lanes from Fort Hill to the Wallace bridge and constructed the Fort Hill Interchange. Construction of Phase 1 was completed in 2010 with no budget remaining. Phase 2 is the identified next step to improve safety and mobility of this vital link between the Willamette Valley and the central Oregon Coast.


When constructed, the project elements identified in the approved EA will improve traffic flow and safety for all modes within this segment of the OR 18 corridor. The recurring congestion on OR 18, the extended traffic delays that occur when crashes take place on the two-lane highway segments, and the lack of adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities, are all impediments to economic activity between the Willamette Valley and the Oregon Coast and also within the Grande Ronde area. The eventual construction of these improvements will benefit all types of coastal commerce and tourism by increasing the safety and reliability of travel within this segment of the OR 18 corridor.


OR 18 is a statewide expressway and freight route, a lifeline route, and a primary coastal feeder route that experiences significant congestion in the summer months, along with numerous safety problems, including inadequate intersection design, inadequate bicycle facilities, and a lack of pedestrian facilities. Left turning movements in this section are increasingly difficult and have a higher accident severity. There have been significant cross over and rear end collisions. Highway freight traffic is seeking alternate non-highway routes on unsafe and inadequate local roads to avoid congestion and safety issues at the Valley Junction at grade intersection. Development in the Grand Ronde area and the attraction of the Oregon Coast is drawing more alternate modes of transportation creating the need for better pedestrian and bicycle facilities attached to the highway. The proposed project elements for eventual construction will include widening the existing two lane highway and extending the four lane section from Fort Hill past the Valley Junction (OR 22) intersection. A grade separated interchange will be constructed to replace the existing intersection at Valley Junction (OR 22). Two bridges over South Yamhill River will also be replaced and widened. Median barrier improvements will be installed to prevent crossover accidents in multiple locations. Polk County’s Rowell Creek Road, the Spirit Mountain Casino, and other private property access will be modified to support the proposed highway improvements. While area residents will enjoy an better operating and safer transportation system, when constructed, this project will ultimately benefit mostly statewide and regional travelers by providing a safer and more reliable travel experience for freight and passenger vehicles, and well as for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling to or through this segment of the OR 18 corridor.




C-STIP


Project Name OR 126W/Spot Improvements






X

Developing low-cost solutions to improve safety and efficiency on statewide routes for freight, emergency routing, coastal commerce, tourism, transit and bicycle travel are OTP and Freight Plan priorities.


X OR 126 is a statewide significant highway.


X OR 126W is on the NHS.


This project would implement several improvements identified in the OR 126W Fern Ridge Facility Plan. Each possible project has independent utility, would require minimal environmental work and is consistent with local plans. Several of the projects identified in the Facility Plan have been approved for Enhance funding based on a Region 2 project application, although the funding ultimately requested was less than identified in the original application. This funding request would fund more of the individual project components identified in the original application.


OR 126W is the major E/W Route between the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area and the Central Oregon Coast. It also serves as the commuting route between the Metro Area and the cities of Veneta and Noti. As a major coastal connector route, OR 126W also serves as an economic and emergency

lifeline route for many Central Oregon Coast communities. Continuing to improve safety and operations in this busy corridor segment will benefit all OR 126W users in Lane County.


This project would fund a number of the short term recommendations outlined in the OR 126W Fern Ridge Facility Plan that would not be funded through the approved Enhance application. Possible projects include walking and biking improvements, such as crossing improvements, adding sidewalk connections from marked cross walks to bus stop locations, and adding street lighting. In addition, this project would work closely with the Lane Transit District to relocate bus stops, and add bus pull outs, landing pads, benches, and shelters. Motor vehicle improvements may include installation of traffic control devices, addition of right/left turn lanes, and advanced intersection warning signs. The final mix of project components for this additional funding will be determined based on an Area 5 review of the previous 150% Enhance scoping effort.




C-STIP


Project Name US 30/Westport Ferry Access Road






X

This project would meet multiple policy objectives including providing for more reliable interstate freight movement, improving bicycle and pedestrian safety, supporting economic development, and providing access to recreational facilities.


X

Project provides improved access between US 30, a statewide significant highway and Freight Route in Oregon, and State Route 4, a statewide significant highway in Washington.


X US 30 in Oregon and Washington State Route 4 are both on the NHS.


The Clatsop County Transportation system Plan (TSP) was amended September 12, 2012 to include a new road that “would connect the Westport Ferry and Highway 30, and replace the Westport Ferry Road as the primary access between the ferry dock and Highway 30.”

The US 30 Corridor Plan was completed by ODOT Region 1 and 2 through a cooperative process with local and regional governments, agencies, and various stakeholders. It was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) as an element of the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP). The purpose of this plan was to develop a long term plan for management and improvements to the US 30 Corridor, with an emphasis on alternate modes. The Cathlamet-Westport Ferry is identified as one of the three connections between US 30 and the Washington State Highway System. The corridor plan objective A5.1 for waterborne transportation indicates that ferry service should be maintained between Cathlamet and Westport.

The Westport Corridor and Community Plan is an economic and development plan that identifies multiple development and infrastructure improvement projects in Westport, Oregon. The new ferry access road construction is listed as one of the priority projects identified by Clatsop County and the Community of Westport.

Implementing this project will require some additional planning and coordination with state agencies and other partners. Clatsop County will apply for grant of access with ODOT for the proposed access of US 30. Once the grant of access is approved, the county will purchase access rights based on an ODOT assessment of the increased value of the properties served by the proposed access location. The property used for the new collector roadway will be an in-kind contribution from Teevin Bros. in Westport. The county will work with Teevin Bros. to complete this transaction. Clatsop County and their consultants will work with ODOT Rail regarding the new at-grade rail crossing and the potential closing of the existing at-grade rail crossing on Westport Ferry Road. Additional wetland and environmental mitigation planning will also be required.


The Westport Ferry is one of three connections between the two statewide significant highways (US 30 and SR 4) that parallel the Columbia River between Portland and Astoria. The proposed new collector road would serve a variety of economic purposes. It would facilitate economic/industrial development by providing better access to industrial lands between the Ferry and US 30. It would support bi-state commerce by providing a route that is geometrically and structurally adequate for heavy trucks and freight vehicles between the Ferry and US 30. It would provide better access to recreation opportunities adjacent to the Ferry (a new public park is currently being developed adjacent to the Ferry), and it would improve the safe and efficient operation of US 30 through the construction of an improved intersection at US 30 and the new Ferry Road alignment.


In addition to improving access to the Westport Ferry and the associates economic development benefits, this project would provide a variety of safety benefits including improved local road intersections with US 30 (reduced traffic at the existing access road locations and better access – with left and right turn lanes – at the proposed new access road. This project would also serve and improve safety for other modes, including bike and pedestrian, through providing a cross-section with appropriate bicycle facilities on the proposed new access road and by eliminating existing heavy truck conflicts within the neighborhood through which the existing Ferry access route runs. The existing route is narrow (between neighborhood homes and Plympton Creek and cannot practically be widened), does not provide for safe bicycle or pedestrian travel, and is prone to seasonal flooding. The new road would be engineered to eliminate the possibility of flooding in all but the most extreme circumstances. Maintaining Ferry access is often most critical during extreme weather events.




C-STIP


Project Name US 101/Camp Rilea Corridor






X

Developing low-cost solutions to improve safety and efficiency on statewide routes for freight, emergency routing, coastal commerce, tourism, transit and bicycle travel are OTP and Freight Plan priorities.


X US 101 is a statewide significant highway.


X US 101 is on the NHS.


This project would implement several improvements identified in the Camp Rilea Facility Plan. Each possible project has independent utility, would require minimal environmental work and is consistent with local plans. One of the projects identified in the Facility Plan is already being developed for implementation through a previous allocation of funds and another has been recommended for Enhance funding through the Region 2 allocation. Remaining project options include improved shoulders, turn lanes, roadway geometric improvements and intersection sight distance improvements.


US Highway 101 is the principle roadway along the Oregon Coast. It serves as the major economic and emergency lifeline for all coastal communities. Continuing to improve its safety and operations in this corridor segment will benefit all US 101 users along the North Oregon Coast.


Implementation of these small projects would benefit bike, pedestrian, transit and highway modes of travel on US 101 and address a variety of existing safety and operational issues like narrow shoulders, poor geometric design, lack of proper turn lanes, and restricted sight distances.




D-STIP


Project Name US 101/Spencer Creek EA/Geologic Reassessment






X

Finding a solution to correct this slide and keep US 101 operational supports statewide travel, freight, emergency routing, coastal commerce, tourism, transit and bicycle travel.


X US 101 is a statewide significant highway.


X US 101 is on the NHS.


Work has been ongoing for many years in search of a solution to a chronic slide area on US 101 just north of Newport. This project would update previous environmental documentation and provide for a comprehensive geologic assessment of the slide and surrounding area.


US Highway 101 is the principle roadway along the Oregon Coast. It serves as the major economic and emergency lifeline for all coastal communities. Supporting freight, tourism, recreation such as the adjacent Beverly Beach State Park and commerce of all kinds, US 101 also serves as Main Street for nearly every coastal community. If US 101 were to fail in this location, it would disrupt all manner of freight and commerce north and south of the slide area and significantly affect travel patterns back into the Willamette Valley. The economic consequences of a long-term failure that cut-off north-south travel on US 101 would be severe in terms of fuel cost and emissions from out of direction travel, costs to business in shipping and receiving goods, impacts to tourism, and inconvenience to local residents.


This project could help better determine the necessary geotechnical solutions to a chronic slide problem on US 101 and address the question about what approach is really practicable with respect to the extremely high cost (financial and environmental) of attempting to relocate US 101 inland versus addressing continuing erosion in order to implement a long-term repair to the slide and keep US 101 in its current location. Either way, agreeing to a method and providing an accurate cost to keep US 101 open to north-south travel and is implementable will benefit all modes of travel by ensuring that it does not become necessary for users to take trips that go a couple of hundred miles out of direction.




C-STIP (Roberts Mountain; 2M) and D-STIP (1.5M)


Project Name I-5: Southern Oregon Truck Climbing Lanes




x The Rogue Valley and South West ACTs both support truck climbing lanes


x

This project is consistent with all statewide plans. By improving safety and mobility on I-5, this project supports numerous policies and actions contained within the OHP and Freight Plan.


x Located on Interstate 5

Located on a freight route or part of the National Highway System (NHS) x

Located on I-5, both a freight route and a part of the NHS.


The truck climbing lanes are consistent with the I-5 Truck Passing Lanes Study, the I-5 Corridor Plan, and the Oregon Freight Plan. The I-5 Corridor Plan was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan. The climbing lanes are identified as a high priority in the Plan and Passing Lanes Study.

The Roberts Mountain section of I-5 is identified in the I-5 Corridor Plan as the most congested rural section of interstate in Region 3. The Southwest ACT selected the I-5: Roberts Mountain Southbound Climbing Lane as one of the Region Enhance projects. The 20% discretionary funds would leverage the Enhance, Region 3, and Interstate Maintenance funds to complete construction of the Roberts Mountain climbing lane ($2M of request).

Both ACTs have expressed support of climbing lanes as STIP projects and would like to continue design and development of additional climbing lanes (1.5M request) along the southern I-5 corridor.


I-5 is the West Coast's major trade corridor and one of the top freight routes in the nation. Some of the steepest grades anywhere in the nation are on I-5 in southern Oregon. According to the FHWA’s 2005 freight bottleneck report, five of the top 25 steep-grade truck bottlenecks on the nation's freeways (including Roberts Mountain) are located on this section of I-5. These five steep grades together cause nearly 1.3 million annual hours of delay for trucks. These steep grades slow trucks significantly, often to under 30 miles per hour, slowing other vehicles that can’t get around. The speed differential between trucks passing and passenger vehicles also causes significant safety problems.

The Oregon Office of Economic Analysis estimates that Oregon is the ninth most trade-dependent state in the nation. With truck traffic anticipated to rise substantially in the future, roadway congestion issues, transport reliability and road access issues will be exacerbated. Improving congestion on Southern Oregon’s worst steep grade passes on I-5 will result in faster travel times for all freight travelling throughout the Oregon to Canada and Mexico. This will allow freight to move more efficiently to ports and airports improving commerce and keeping the economy moving.

Improving Southern Oregon Truck Climbing Lanes will meet the purpose of the Oregon Freight Plan to “improve freight connections to local, state, regional, national and global markets in order to increase trade-related jobs and income for Oregon workers and businesses.”


The proposed construction and development project will improve safety and mobility on segments of I-5 for all motorists. Freight traffic, transit providers, and non-freight traffic will benefit from designated climbing lanes. The project will improve safety by planning for and constructing climbing lanes to allow trucks to avoid slowing in the primary travel lanes, thereby reducing the likelihood of mainline congestion and rear-end crashes. These locations have crash rates much higher than the statewide average because faster-moving vehicles frequently run into slow-moving trucks and other passenger vehicles slowed by trucks.

Trucks have long used the I-5 shoulders, designed to provide a safe refuge for disabled vehicles, to navigate southern Oregon’s mountain passes. Trucks using the shoulder cause significant pavement damage which requires frequent repair. Designated truck climbing lanes will improve safety by allowing vehicles to use the shoulder in case of emergency, as it is intended.




D-STIP


Project Name I-5: Medford Viaduct Environmental Study (PE)




x

The Rogue Valley and South West ACTs support this as the highest priority. Members of the Rogue Valley ACT requested that ODOT begin a study.


x

This project is consistent with all statewide plans. By improving safety and mobility on I-5, this project supports numerous policies and actions contained within the OHP and Freight Plan. This project is identified in the I-5 Rogue Valley Corridor Plan, an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan.


x I-5, an interstate route, between the North (mile point 30.6) and South Medford (mile point 27) Interchanges


Located on I-5, both a freight route and a part of the NHS.


The I-5 Rogue Valley Corridor Plan, adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan in June 2012, recommended additional study and analysis of the Medford Viaduct (Viaduct). The Plan identified possible solutions including: enhanced local arterial/collector connections, expansion, stacking the opposing lanes of traffic, and safety enhancements to increase the function, safety, and capacity. More than 50 years of residential and commercial growth has developed next to Interstate 5 (I-5), creating environmental challenges and expensive right of way costs. The Rogue Valley ACT supports the Environmental Study as the Region’s highest priority for the 20% Enhance funding. The South West ACT supports the request for enhance funds for the study. Discussions with the City of Medford indicate that it will be a partner in the study, with ODOT as lead

agency. An article published in the September issue of ‘Moving Ahead with ODOT’ on the Viaduct to develop a 20-year plan has been well received by the public, and many citizens have requested to be a part of any study.


The Viaduct is a 3,229 four lane bridge located on I-5 between two major exits – the south Medford interchange at exit 27 and the north Medford interchange at exit 30. I-5 is the primary economic corridor on the West Coast and supports the flow of people and goods across Washington, Oregon, and California. It serves as the primary economic link for the Rogue Valley. The Viaduct is a vital link for not only Medford city residents, but also interstate travelers. Improvements to the Viaduct would have positive economic benefits to all commercial and industrial activities and support recent investments along the I-5 corridor.

The Oregon Transportation Commission has approved numerous construction projects in and around the Rogue Valley, including: the OTIA I, II and III Bridge Delivery Projects, Oregon 62 Expressway, ConnectOregon grants to the Rogue Valley International airport and Combined Transport/Blackwell Trucking railroad switchyard, and north and south Medford interchanges. Once the Oregon 62 Expressway is completed, the Medford area will have more than a quarter of a billion dollars of new transportation investment in a little more than a decade.

All of those improvements rely on a safe and efficient I-5 and Viaduct. Given the high project costs associated with any Viaduct project, it is imperative to look at improvements that optimize public dollars. An environmental study of the Viaduct is vital to protect transportation investments and plan for the future of the Viaduct and its vital role in the economy of the Rogue Valley, Oregon and the U.S. A project completed in 2003 rehabilitated the deck, provided scour protection of the vertical supports in Bear Creek and added a Phase 1 seismic retro-fit so that the Viaduct could better withstand an earthquake. At that time, it was calculated that the economic delay to narrow the interstate to one lane in each direction was roughly $60,000 per day; however, this did not factor in the disruptive cost to the community.

An Environmental Study of the Viaduct is critical to identify improvements that would continue to support investments into the Region and I-5 throughout Oregon. Each of these projects improve safety, reduced congestion and provide the transportation infrastructure that is vital for freight, mobility, job growth, and commerce, and livability.


The proposed environmental study will examine safety and mobility of all modes of transportation, and identify cost-effective and environmentally-sensitive solutions. As noted above, the Medford Viaduct is the primary economic corridor for the Rogue Valley and West Coast.

The Medford Viaduct passes over approximately one-half mile of the City of Medford. The Medford Viaduct is located adjacent to downtown Medford, Hawthorne Park, Bear Creek and the Bear Creek Greenway. The Bear Creek Greenway is a bicycle and pedestrian pathway running from the City of

Ashland to the City of Central Point, with plans to ultimately link it to the Rogue River Greenway and Grants Pass nearly 30 miles north.

The Medford Viaduct is used by transit providers, is approximately one mile southwest of the Rogue Valley International Airport, and provides a freight link from industries in the southern Rogue Valley to the railroad switchyard in the northern Rogue Valley.

Any eventual improvements and/or replacement of the Medford Viaduct will necessarily require consideration of the safety and mobility needs of auto, freight, bicycle, pedestrian and transit. In addition, such a project would also have a significant effect on Interstate 5 traffic and north-south connectivity in Rogue Valley.




D-STIP


Project Name OR-140: I-5 to OR-62 Upgrade




x The Rogue Valley and South West ACT support the project.


x

This project is consistent with all statewide plans. The project is identified in the OR 140 Corridor Plan adopted as part of the Oregon Highway Plan.


x OR 140 is statewide route

Located on a freight route or part of the National Highway System (NHS) x OR 140 is a freight route


The project has been identified in the OR 140 Corridor Plan: I-5 Exit 35 to Brownsboro-Eagle Point Road (Plan). The Plan was recently adopted as part of the Oregon Highway Plan. The Rogue Valley ACT selected a phase of OR 140 as (Exit 35 to Blackwell) an Enhance Project and support improvements to rest of OR 140.


The project will benefit and encourage economic vitality in the Rogue Valley by enhancing the connection between I-5 and OR 62. The project provides a low cost improvement to an alternative freight route between OR 62 and I-5. OR 140 is regularly used as an alternative means for traffic, especially freight from the White City industrial area to I-5. These improvements may provide the facilities needed for future development of the Tolo industrial Area. The area has been identified as an

Urban Reserve in the 2011 Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. This would include 544 acres of employment lands.

The Oregon Office of Economic Analysis estimates that Oregon is the ninth most trade-dependent state in the nation. With truck traffic anticipated to rise substantially in the future, roadway congestion issues, transport reliability and road access issues will be exacerbated. Improving OR 140 will meet the purpose of the Oregon Freight Plan to “improve freight connections to local, state, regional, national and global markets in order to increase trade-related jobs and income for Oregon workers and businesses.”


The proposed project will improve safety on OR 140 by resolving geometric deficiencies, providing protected turn-lanes, widening shoulders, and widening lanes. These improvements will likely result in fewer conflicts and crashes.

The project will benefit all modes of transportation by providing the opportunity to connect bicycle and pedestrian facilities with the Bear Creek Greenway Trail located near OR 14 and Blackwell Rd. OR-140 is regularly used for aggregate trucks and other freight, school buses, and local commuters. Transit route stops could be added to highway to better serve the industrial facilities. Modal connections would be improved to The Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad and the White City Terminal and Utility Railway Company adjacent to the project. A truck/rail intermodal facility constructed with ConnectOregon funds is also adjacent to the project.



Region 4 Development Project (D-STIP) Development


Project Name US97 Redmond – Bend Safety Corridor




x


x


x



Refinement/Access Management planning work has been conducted and the approach to frontage road systems and the “4-Phase” approach to the US 97 corridor strategy is included in the current Deschutes County TSP. The approach is ready for project development.


This project will add capacity to existing system. ODOT will be adding frontage roads and consolidating access points to an existing Freight Route/Expressway which will enhance the movement of freight, thus enhancing economic viability within the region and throughout the State. Additionally, it will improve the reliability of travel times on this segment.


Here is an example of a priority segment to address for this D-STIP project: There have been a number of head-on crashes in this area. There is a top 15% SPIS site at MP 127.1 to 127.2 and a top

20% site at MP 127.9 to 128.1 and MP 128.4 to 128.7 (Gift Rd) and MP 128.9 to 129.1 is also a SPIS site. An analysis of the 2000-2002 crash record between milepoints 127.0 and 130.1 indicates 36 crashes four of which occurred at the intersection of US 97 and Gift Road. 25% of crashes involved head on collisions in the project limits. Some of the head-ons may be alleviated by the centerline rumble strip being installed on the Wickiup-Bowery Lane Project (2003).

So as commuter traffic continues to grow between Bend and Redmond and recreational traffic in Central Oregon increases, limiting full movement crossings of US 97 will increase the safety of the highway. Extending the median barrier north from the Deschutes Market Road Interchange, and providing access to this area would be provided by the interchange. Installation of the median barrier will also reduce head-on crashes.





Project Name US97 S. Century Drive – USFS Boundary 4 Lane Extension




x


x


x



The 2012 Deschutes County TSP identifies adding travel lanes to US97 between South Century Drive and La Pine State Park as a high priority.


This project will add capacity to existing system. ODOT will be adding lanes to an existing Freight Route/Expressway which will enhance the movement of freight, thus enhancing economic viability within the region and throughout the State. Additionally, it will improve the reliability of travel times on this segment. The project is also in the middle of Forest lands, and this part of the corridor provides access into recreation areas, providing tourism and economic benefits.


The Highway Safety Manual indicates that a crash modification factor of 0.65 (or a 35% reduction) in crashes will be achieved with a short four lane section. Additionally, it will provide benefits downstream from the passing lanes. It will allow vehicles to pass more safely, particularly cars and light trucks passing heavier trucks, reducing the number of sideswipe and head-on type crashes.



Region 4 Construction (C-STIP) Construction

Region Priority # 1* Requested Enhance Funding $14,000,000*

Project Name US97 Wickiup Jct




x High priority for all 3 ACTs in Region 4.


x Consistent with statewide plans


x Statewide route


US97 is both part of NHS and on a freight route


Project is in both the Deschutes County and City of La Pine TSPs, and is the highest priority At-Grade Rail crossing in the Central Oregon Rail Plan. The project is also a high priority for BNSF and UP Railways and the ODOT Rail Division. The Project will be construction ready in 2014, matching funding for PE and R/W including Deschutes County, Federal Earmark, and ODOT Rail Division Crossing Safety funds.


This project helps locally and regionally for interstate and intrastate traffic (US97 is a multi-state freight corridor). The project will resolve the last remaining at-grade rail crossing on the US 97 corridor in Oregon. This project will significantly improve rail and truck freight movement through the area (US 97 carries a high volume of freight and tourist traffic from Washington to California, this is the BNSF trunk-line in Oregon).


High level of multiple user/modal benefits, including those which would be addressed by safety for public school busing, bike / ped safety, and highway/railway safety.

*Although this project is well beyond the Region 4 allocation, it is submitted for consideration as a project of statewide significance, has the full support of all 3 ACTs among many interested stakeholders (provides significant benefits to multi modes), and is construction-ready.





Project Name US97 @ Powers Road/Pedestrian Crossing (South Bend Parkway)




x


x


x



The Powers Road project is identified in the City of Bend’s TSP and Bend MPO’s MTP, and is a high priority for both. The pedestrian safety issue is a major priority for the City and MPO.


This project helps locally and regionally for interstate and intrastate traffic (US97 is a multi-state freight corridor). Upon 2015 completion of the JTA US 97/Murphy Road project, the Powers Road intersection will including the last remaining US 97 signal on the south half of the Bend Parkway, and this project will allow removal of the signal. This section of the Parkway is considered one of the “bottleneck” points identified as a priority to address in the TRIP97 partnership effort (La Pine, Bend, Redmond, Madras, Deschutes County, Crook County, Bend MPO, ODOT).


As notes above, the project will remove the last traffic signal on the Parkway and there will be no at-grade local street/US 97 intersection, significantly improving Safety. High level of multiple user/modal benefits, including those which would be addressed by safety bike / ped crossing. This project will also improve Cascades East Transit access for the area, and will significantly improve freight movement through the area (US 97 carries a high volume of freight and tourist traffic from Washington to California).





Project Name US97/O’Neil Jct/Prineville Jct Intermodal




x


x


x

This project provides a vital connection of US 97 to O’Neil Hwy. It will provide a connection of the US 97 freight route with the BNSF and City of Prineville railways, increasing statewide opportunities for freight mobility via central Oregon.


This project is adjacent to US 97 and connects US 97 to a railway truck to train loading facility.


Project is currently in development and planning, and is including in the Central Oregon Rail Plan, and the additional funding would get a “Phase 1” to PS&E by 2015. The project has been vetted as a top priority by the Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation.


O’Neil Highway is also the primary roadway link to the BNSF/COPR rail yard facility at Prineville Junction. The City of Prineville recently expanded this rail yard with ConnectOregon III funding and has future plans to improve the railyard by constructing a state of the art bulk transfer facility consisting of storage tracks, pumps, washouts, conveyors and storage areas. This facility could handle both liquid and dry bulk material. Funds have yet to be identified for this expansion.

COPR is pursuing these plans to provide the three-county (Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook) area of Central Oregon with the necessary multimodal transportation infrastructure to sustain current industries and attract and support new industry. It will provide a wide-ranging boost for the Central Oregon region’s economic well-being, where creating and sustaining jobs is the primary goal. Central Oregon is fortunate to have the COPR short line railroad with access to both the BNSF and Union Pacific railways. This type of setup is exceedingly rare and desirable from a competitive standpoint. It provides the region an excellent opportunity to gain access to these railways and national and international markets. The O’Neil Highway improvements specifically will help support safe and efficient freight access to the expanding rail yard from US 97 via the interchange on the north end of Redmond. This is fitting with the Central Oregon Rail Plan, which states: “Focus decision-making and funding priorities (for at-grade crossing improvements) on multi-stakeholder benefits, beyond public safety and roadway traffic congestion, such as: rail freight mobility and industrial business recruitment (rail-served), short and long term issues with freight trucking (e.g., fuel costs, roadway impacts), rail operational needs, etc.”

O’Neil Highway is one of Central Oregon’s major aggregate haul routes from large multiple quarries in Crook County, which are important to the regional economy. The length restrictions have forced long loads (over 52 feet) to use Smith Rock Way as the alternate route for access to US 97, resulting in economic impacts (to trucking and tourism), recreation (e.g., Smith Rock State Park), and safety along Smith Rock Way. Smith Rock Way is a narrow County road and was not intended to accommodate the weight and volumes of trucks now using it and 17th Street to reach destinations in Redmond. Also in Terrebonne, truck access to and from US 97 is a safety hazard, as long, slow-moving trucks attempt to turn onto the highway, they often swing across multiple lanes. These same sharp curves along the route also pose a challenge to the traveling public.


This project improves the safety on US 97 and the O’Neil highway by eliminating the at-grade connection of the O’Neil Highway with US 97 and eliminating 6 at-grade highway/ rail crossings.

A regional rail planning effort was completed for Central Oregon in 2009, with primary focus on resolving public at-grade railroad crossing safety and congestion issues. The BNSF railway runs north-south through Madras, Redmond, and Bend. With the rising volumes of rail traffic and the expanding lengths of trains coupled with a limited number of bridge crossings, the BNSF railway has effectively become a barrier to east-west travel for motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. This combination of increasing rail and roadway traffic poses an increase in safety hazards for at-grade crossings. Central Oregon jurisdictions have made improvements at Prineville Junction among the highest priorities for a grade-separated crossing. The ranking for future grade-separated crossings was based on a series of considerations including safety, emergency services, traffic congestion, economic opportunities, local jurisdiction priorities, railway company needs, land use / environmental, road

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION4/central_oregon_rail_plan/central_oregon_rail_study_summary_report_final_11-04-09.pdf

classification, cost, and phasing / financing. This project is a high priority because: 1) it eliminates two multi-line at-grade crossings with O’Neil Highway (safety), 2) it resolves a freight truck length restriction for one of the most important aggregate haul routes in Central Oregon, 3) it re-orients the aggregate haul route from O’Neil Highway to the new interchange at the north end of the US 97 Redmond Reroute, replacing an at-grade intersection with a grade-separated interchange making a much safer access to a high-speed rural highway, and 4) it matches well with the expansion of the BNSF/COPR rail interchange for increased rail and multi-modal freight service. The project will also benefit emergency services, reduce delay on the O’Neil Highway, and improve access to both the BNSF and COPR

There is a history of crashes at the intersection of O’Neil Highway and US97 with many resulting in severe injuries. The current intersection of the O’Neil Highway and US97 allows movements in all directions. US 97 is five lanes wide at this location, and there are large volumes of traffic flowing at high speeds. Use of this intersection will increase over time as the City of Redmond implements their TSP to utilize this intersection. This project will eliminate this safety problem.



Region 4 Construction Project (C-STIP) Construction

Region Priority # 4 & 6 Requested Enhance Funding $4,700,000*

Project Name US 97 Variable Speed Limits (Bend–La Pine, Chemult–Spring Creek Hill)




x

Safety is the top priority of the COACT commission. VSL allows speeds on the systems to be managed in inclement weather situations.


x

The Deschutes County ITS plan specifically lists this project. Deschutes County’s TSP also has language that support the use of ITS solutions to improve safety and operations.


x Is of statewide importance, as it is located on US Highway 97 a statewide facility with Freight/Expressway designations.


Is part of the NHS system and located in a freight route.


This ITS project has been identified and reviewed in the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan, and is consistent with the Klamath County Transportation System Plan (both of the TSP's have language that support the use of ITS solutions to improve safety and operations). For the Deschutes County section, the original plan as well as the update that included this project had input from the County, MPO and the Cities within Deschutes County as well as emergency service providers. Also, Deschutes County has an ITS Plan which has vetted and supports the identified project. The project is consistent with the Oregon Highway Plan.

The Office of Maintenance and Operations hired a consultant to work with Region and Headquarters staff to do detailed scoping.


Variable speed zones on US97 will reduce crash frequency and severity and improve operations during other traffic events. Both of these will result in fewer system delays and highway closures which in turn will improve the efficiency of the highway.


This proposed variable speed zone is in response to a high roadway departure crash rate during inclement driving conditions and will reduce crash frequency and severity and improve roadway operations in these conditions and during other roadway events. The variable speed limit system will also provide improved travel time information as well as enhance traveler information travel time reliability.

There will be significant benefit to freight haulers.

*Because the project covers two segments, the Bend-La Pine segment is the higher priority and can be delivered for $2,800,000, if the project needs to be divided into phases.




D-STIP (PE Funds)

Region Priority # 1 Requested Enhancement Funding $690,000

Project Name I-84/US395B Interchange Improvements Pendleton (Phase 1)




X

Project application was for enhancement funds, but wasn’t forwarded to construction because of the $9 million price tag.


X

Project is identified in IAMP for I-84/US 395 Interchange and, as such, is consistent with the transportation plan and associated modal plans.


X Project is located at the interchange of a statewide highway and the interstate. City streets are involved as well.


Both Interstate 84 and US 395B are on the NHS system and are freight routes.

Has the appropriate planning work been completed and the proposed project been vetted as a priority, provide a description of those efforts: This project was identified and vetted through an Interchange Area Management Plan process that concluded a couple of years ago. There were three phases of work identified in the plan and this is the first phase.

Describe how the benefits of the proposed project, primarily an assessment of economic benefits, go beyond the area in which it is located: This project increases level of service for the I-84/US 395B interchange and its connection with the city of Pendleton and US 395B. Freight and commerce transportation to and from the interstate will be enhanced, which is an economic benefit for the City of Pendleton and the rest of the state.

Describe how the proposed project benefits safety and all modes of transportation: The project will be designed to accommodate auto, freight, bikes, pedestrians and possible transit improvements. Currently the ingress and egress from I-84 to US 395B is congested with extended queues of traffic on both US 395 and the ramps of I-84. While serious accidents are few, there are several low speed accidents in the area. This project will help with traffic flow and reduce accidents.




D-STIP (R/W Funds)

Region Priority # 4 Requested Enhancement Funding $1,578,000

Project Name I-84/US395B Interchange Improvements Pendleton (Phase 1)




X

The Project application was for enhancement funds, but wasn’t forwarded for construction because of the $9 million price tag.


X

Project is identified in IAMP for I-84/US 395 Interchange and, as such, is consistent with the transportation plan and associated modal plans.


X Project is located at the interchange of a statewide highway and the interstate. City streets are involved as well.


Both Interstate 84 and US 395B are on the NHS system and are freight routes.

Has the appropriate planning work been completed and the proposed project been vetted as a priority, provide a description of those efforts: This project was identified and vetted through an Interchange Area Management Plan process that concluded a couple of years ago. There were three phases of work identified in the plan and this is the first phase.

Describe how the benefits of the proposed project, primarily an assessment of economic benefits, go beyond the area in which it is located: This project increases level of service for the I-84/US 395B interchange and its connection with the city of Pendleton and US 395B. Freight and commerce transportation to and from the interstate will be enhanced, which is an economic benefit for the City of Pendleton and the rest of the state.

Describe how the proposed project benefits safety and all modes of transportation: The project will be designed to accommodate auto, freight, bikes, pedestrians and possible transit improvements. Currently the ingress and egress from I-84 to US 395B is congested with extended queues of traffic on both US 395 and the ramps of I-84. While serious accidents are few, there are several low speed accidents in the area. This project will help with traffic flow and reduce accidents.




C-STIP


Project Name SW Perkins Avenue Extension (Pendleton)




X Project was on ACT’s 150% list and was dropped to get to the 100% list.


X

Project serves to provide additional connectively between Tutuilla Road and US 395B in Pendleton. This serves to reduce trips and congestion on that section of US 395B just south of the interchange with I-84. This project is in the city’s TSP and this needed connectively was discussed in the IAMP for the I-84/US 395B Interchange. US 395B is a statewide freight route.


X

Perkins Street is not on the state wide highway system, but provides local connectivity that serves to reduce trips on US 395B, which is a statewide NHS freight route.


Perkins Street is not on the statewide highway system, but provides local connectivity that serves to reduce trips on US 395B, which is a statewide NHS freight route.

Has the appropriate planning work been completed and the proposed project been vetted as a priority, provide a description of those efforts: Yes, this project went through the vetting process for both the City’s TSP and was scoped as part of the 150% enhancement list. Project serves to provide additional connectively between Tutuilla Road and US 395B in Pendleton. This serves to reduce trips and congestion on that section of US 395B just south of the interchange with I-84. This project is in the city’s TSP and this needed connectively was discussed in the IAMP for the I-84/US 395B Interchange.

US 395B is a statewide freight route. The total cost of the project is just under $3 million dollars and the City of Pendleton will provide these matching funds towards the project if it is selected.

Describe how the benefits of the proposed project, primarily an assessment of economic benefits, go beyond the area in which it is located: There are two economic benefits to the project. The first has to do with the statewide benefit of easing congestion and increasing safety on a NHS freight route. The second is Perkins Street accesses residential development property that is critical for the City of Pendleton’s economy since its supply of residential housing does not meet its current needs thus restricting Pendleton’s economy.

Describe how the proposed project benefits safety and all modes of transportation: Reducing trips on US 395B in the Pendleton area will enhance safety to all modes of traffic in the area (transit, bike, pedestrian, auto, and freight) by reducing the number of local trips that contribute to the safety problem on this system. Perkins Street itself will provide a safe bike / pedestrian friendly street connection between Tutuilla Road and US 395B.




C-STIP


Project Name US 395C Canyon Creek Flood/Road Closure Mitigation




X Project was on ACT’s 150% list and was dropped to get to the 100% list.


X

Project’s scope is to realign and raise the grade of a section of US 395C just south of the city of John Day and to keep this statewide freight routes from closing every spring due to flooding of Canyon Creek. This is consistent with the Transportation Plan and its associated modal plans.


X US 395C is a statewide highway.


X US 395C is on the NHS system and is identified as a statewide freight route.

Has the appropriate planning work been completed and the proposed project been vetted as a priority, provide a description of those efforts: The project scope is to realign and raise the grade of a section of US395C just south of the city of John Day, and to keep this statewide freight route from closing in the Spring due to flooding of Canyon Creek. The project was on the 150% enhancement list and is on the 100% fix-it list for partial funding of fix-it eligible items. During the reduction of the 150% enhancement list to the 100% list, the project was dropped. This project was priority 5 out of 23 for the 150% enhancement list. A scoping report was completed for this project, which indicated the project is ready to move forward into Project Delivery. Total cost of project is about $2.4 million with $1 million coming from Fix-it operations funds and we are asking for just over $1.4 million from enhancement funds to cover the realignment portion of the project.

Describe how the benefits of the proposed project, primarily an assessment of economic benefits, go beyond the area in which it is located: US395C is on a Statewide NHS freight route and serves to move people, bikes and freight north and south on the US 395 corridor between Washington and California, which facilitates economic growth for Oregon and the Nation.

Describe how the proposed project benefits safety and all modes of transportation: It is a safety issue for adjacent residences (access to the highway is lost because of flooding), bicyclist, trucks and autos that try to cross the flooded highways before the total closure is established.

DRAFT WORK PLAN TIMELINE FOR 2017‐2020 STIP Attachment A

Year Month Legislative A* B* C* 2017‐2020 STIP Activity 2015‐2018 STIP Activity

Jul OTC approves Enhance process and funding allocationAugSep 2015‐2018 STIP Enhance application releasedOctNov Enhance applications dueDecJanFebMar 150 percent lists dueAprMay

JunOTC & statewide committees provide input, Regions scope

JulAugSep STIP Enhance evaluation project completeOct OTC review results of STIP Enhance evaluation 100 percent lists due

NovOTC review Draft 2017‐2020 work plan

OTC review 100 percent lists and allocate 20 percentDecJan OTC releases Draft 2015‐2018 STIP for review Feb Draft STIP Public Review Mar Draft STIP Public Review process complete

Apr Compile comments, adjust STIP as appropriateMay Conduct air quality conformity determinations

Jun

Compile info from

Statew

ide Co

mmittee

JulAug

Sep Finalize

crite

ria OTC review revised Enhance process and

recommended funding allocations

Oct

OTC

app

roval of

fund

ing scen

ario and

criteria OTC approve revised enhance process and funding

allocationsODOT provides mode priorities, criteria and guidance from SSC and statewide committees to ACTs

Final STIP available for reviewNov 2017‐2020 STIP Enhance Application released Dec OTC approves final 2015‐2018 STIPJanFeb Enhance applications DueMar USDOT approves Final 2015‐2018 STIPAprMay

Jun150 percent lists due, Regions begin scoping 150 percent lists

JulAugSepOctNovDec 100 percent lists dueJan OTC review 100 percent lists and allocate 20 percentFeb OTC releases Draft 2015‐2018 STIP for review Mar Draft STIP Public Review Apr Draft STIP Public Review process complete

MayCompile comments, adjust Draft STIP if necessary

JunJulAugSepOctNov Final STIP available for reviewDecJan OTC approves Final 2017‐2020 STIPFebMarApr USDOT approves Final 2017‐2020 STIPMayJun

Statew

ide

Committees

Fund

ing Scen

ario Plan Develop

men

t

2016 Session

STIP Stakeho

lders

Committee

2017 Session

2013 Session

2015 Session

2013

2014

2015

2014 Session

2016

2012

ODOT work with SSC, etc. on Enhance refinements for 2017‐2020, ODOT work with statewide committees on mode priorities, ODOT work on Fix‐It program goals, targetsODOT work on funding allocations process, Regions work with potential applicants

ACTs develop 150 percent list

Regions scope 150 percent lists

ACTs develop 100 percent list

Conduct air quality conformity determinations

2017

ACTs develop 100 percent lists

ACTs develop 150 percent lists

Regions scope 150 percent lists

* Reference DRAFT WORK PLAN FOR 2017‐2020 STIP

Attachment B

DRAFT WORK PLAN FOR 2017‐2020 STIP

A* – Funding Scenario Plan Development OTC and Staff

(6 months; January – June) I. Scenario Development

a. Financial Assumptions i. State Revenues ii. Federal Revenues iii. Fix It/Enhance Split

1. Do programs in each remain the same?

2. Does OTC continue to set aside a percentage for their discretion and if so, when should that action take place?

b. Decisions by OTC i. Amount of Fix It Funds ii. Amount of Enhance Funds iii. Amount of Discretionary funds and when to establish that list iv. Approval of criteria/attributes v. Engagement with ACT Chairs

B* ‐ STIP Stakeholder Committee (6 months; January – June)

II. STIP Stakeholder Committees

a. Emphasis development of criteria that cuts across modes

i. Leverage ii. Economic benefit iii. Project Readiness iv. Benefit to state system v. Attributes for highway projects

b. Development of Definitions i. Statewide significant ii. Regionally significant iii. Local project

c. Roll up information from statewide committees of attributes for good bike/transit/highway projects (June)

d. Send out All Criteria/ Attributes out for review by ACTs and MPOs (July/August)

e. Revise as appropriate in September f. Application available in October

C* ‐ Statewide Committees PTAC & OBPAC/TE and OFAC (SRTs)

(3 months; February – April) III. Roles and Responsibilities

a. Statewide Committees i. PTAC ii. OBPAC/TE iii. OFAC

b. Development of Attributes/Criteria i. What makes a good project? ii. Relationship to other modes iii. Highway projects describe

relationship of OHP 1G1 and OTP 1.1.4

Intermodal Leadership Team (Ongoing)

IV. A. Process Needs

a. Develop Exception Process (R5 preservation issue)

b. Assist in development of scenarios c. Assist in development of attributes

for highway projects d. Develop where we need consistency

with process and where there is region flexibility

e. Provide clarification and role of Super ACTs

f. Timeline – assess need for pre‐application or Notice of Intent

B. Fix It Program a. Amount to each program b. Corridor effort c. Availability of list to ACT and location

governments by September 2014

ACT Preparation (January –September)

V. A. Local and State Needs

a. Discussion of needs in Region and by mode

B. Process b. Review survey results c. Preparing applications with

clarifying, need, partnerships, etc

C. Statewide Data Needs

Reference DRAFT WORK PLAN TIMELINE FOR 2017‐2020 STIP

ODOT Rail and Public Transit Division

Eldery and Disabled Special Transportation Fund Agency Name

Proposed Distribution

Baker County 30,000$ Basin Transit Service 75,743$ Benton County 98,492$ Burns Paiute Tribe 30,000$ Columbia County 56,382$ Confederated Tribes of Coos, et al 30,000$ Confederated Tribes of Siletz 30,000$ Confederated Tribes of Umatilla 30,000$ Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 30,000$ Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde 30,000$ Coos County 71,374$ Coquille Indian Tribe 30,000$ Cow Creek Tribe of Umpqua Indians 30,000$ Crook County 30,000$ Curry County 30,000$ Deschutes County 181,743$ Douglas County 122,791$ Gilliam County 30,000$ Grant County Transit District 30,000$ Harney County 30,000$ Hood River County Transit District 30,000$ Jefferson County 30,000$ Josephine County 93,941$ The Klamath Tribes 30,000$ Lake County 30,000$ Lane Transit District 401,982$ Lincoln County 52,540$ Linn County 133,958$ Malheur County 35,630$ Morrow County 30,000$ Rogue Valley Transit District 232,235$ Salem Area Mass Transit District 450,692$ Sherman County 30,000$ Sunset Empire Transit District 42,207$ Tillamook County Transit District 30,000$ TriMet 1,898,654$ Umatilla County 87,523$ Union County 30,000$ Wallowa County 30,000$ Wasco County 30,000$ Wheeler County 30,000$ Yamhill County 114,114$ SUB TOTAL 4,900,000$ Veteran's Pilot Activities 100,000$

TOTAL 5,000,000$

Proposed 2013‐2015 distribution of $5 million addition to the Elderly and Disabled Special Transportation Fund program

November 2013 ODOT Rail and Public Transit Division

1

HB 5101 Implementation Elderly and Disabled

Special Transportation Fund Program

November 2013 Oregon Transportation Commission Presentation

Hal Gard, Administrator Rail and Public Transit Division

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=oregon bus riders&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=BfTO2wJmh2lPIM&tbnid=W3HBrGEWGi7g5M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.ridesmart.com/index.aspx?page=23&ei=WtgUUuH3OumbiQKGxIHwDw&psig=AFQjCNFDol4jp7sT2W46irl-VAc31XhsGw&ust=1377184119049087

2

September 2013 Special Legislative Session

• Added $5 Million general fund for Elderly and Disabled Special Transportation Fund program.

• ODOT promised to put the funds to good use quickly.

• OTC determines:

– annual minimum base

– priorities for any remaining balances

2

3

Elderly and Disabled Special Transportation Fund Purpose

Support seniors and people with disabilities by:

• Maintaining existing transportation programs and services.

• Expanding existing programs and services.

• Creating new programs and services.

• Planning for and developing transportation for those who are not currently served.

3

4

History of Minimum Base

• Administrative rule sets a biennial minimum of $30,000, and the law and rule allow OTC to increase.

• Historically, OTC has increased the minimum when additional funds were made available.

• The current biennial minimum is $110,000.

• 16 counties and all nine federally-recognized tribes currently receive a minimum allocation.

4

5

2013-2015 Options Explored

A. Allocate all funds by population, increase minimum base by $30,000 ($15,000 per year). The biennial result is $30,000 for smallest entity to $1.9M largest entity.

B. Allocate 75 percent of funds by population, increase minimum base by $30,000 ($15,000 per year). Biennial result is approximately $600,000 discretionary funds; an allocation is $30,000 for smallest entity and $1.6M largest entity.

C. Allocate all by population, with no additional base. Biennial result is $240 for smallest to $2.2M largest.

5

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Add note Courtney requested that $100,000 be set aside for continuing the veterans pilot project. Three STF agencies conduct extra activities to test ways to provide accessible transportation for veterans.

6

PTAC Stakeholder Input

19 Public Transportation Advisory Committee (PTAC) members preference for Options were surveyed:

– 17 members responded

– 13 members favor option A

– 4 members favor option B (of these the majority could accept A)

• Members appreciated Option A for speedy deployment

6

7

Discussion/Recommendation

Staff recommend Option A based on results:

• Stakeholder Input

• Gives all 42 governments a meaningful amount to make service improvements

• Can be implemented immediately

7

ADVANCE COPY ~ SUBJECT TO REVISION

OREGON TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Minutes of the Formal Monthly Meeting October 910, 2013 Silverton, Oregon

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, at 8:30 a.m., the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) staff met to hold the annual workshop and formal monthly meeting in the Orchid Room of the Main Lodge at the Oregon Gardens, 895 West Main Street, Silverton, Oregon. That evening, the OTC held a orking dinner with the ODOT Executive Staff, Region Managers, and OTC members in the w

Lotus Room. n Thursday, October 10, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., the OTC and ODOT staff continued the Annual O

Workshop in the Orchid Room at the Oregon Gardens. otice of these meetings was made by press release of local and statewide media irculation throughout the state. Those attending part or all of the meetings included: Nc Commission Chair Pat Egan

n ayer

Commissioner Dave LohmaCommissioner Mark Frohnm

Commissioner Mary OlsonCommissioner Tami Baney Director Matthew Garrett Central Services Deputy Director Clyde Saiki

Chief of Staff Dale Hormann Trans. Development Div. Admin. Jerri BohardCommunication Div. Admin. Patrick Cooney DMV Division Administrator Tom McClellan Highway Division Administrator Paul Mather

Public Transit/Rail Div. Administrator Hal Gard ator Gregg Dal Ponte

oy Costales Motor Carrier Div. Administr Transportation Safety Div. Admin. Tr

g Region 1 Manager Jason Tell

ering

Region 2 Manager Sonny ChickRegion 3 Manager Frank ReadinRegion 4 Manager Bob Bryant

olt Region 5 Manager Monte Grove

Imhson

Government Relations Manager Betsy echnical Services Manager Cathy Nelommission Assistant Jacque Carlisle

TC

Wednesday, October 9

hair Egan called the meeting to order at 8:36 a.m. C

October 9-10, 2013 Oregon Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Prepared and Distributed by Jacque Carlisle and Roxanne Van Hess (503) 986-3450 100913_OTC_MIN.doc

1


Workshop Item 2

20152018 STIP Enhance Process Evaluation Results The Commission received an informational presentation from the Oregon Department of Transportation and JLA Public Involvement regarding the results of the 2015‐2018 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Enhance process evaluation. Each of the region managers spoke afterward to provide information on their specific region's 100‐percent list, egion potential use of 20‐percent funds, and additional regional transportation needs. Background materials in Director/Commission/History Center File, Salem.) r( Background: The Oregon Transportation Commission approved the new Enhance process for the selection of 20152018 STIP projects in order to allow for a more flexible process that ensures a holistic approach to financing the transportation system. This process also aims to help the department meet important multimodal and intermodal goals. In preparation for the 20172020 STIP, the department engaged in an evaluation process on how the Enhance process worked for STIP participants, including both applicants and reviewers. The department worked with JLA Public Involvement to conduct an online survey and targeted interviews. JLA Public Involvement outlined the overall results of the survey and targeted interviews in an executive summary, and prepared summaries of the interviews and survey results The 20152018 STIP Enhance process evaluation highlighted five issue areas that merit further discussion prior to pursuing specific modifications and improvements as part of the next STIP cycle. The five issue areas, with potential department activities, include:

Training: Although generally content with the information provided by the department staff, the results of the surveys and interviews show that both applicants and reviewers desire more guidance and technical assistance to help prepare and review applications. Therefore, the department should explore ways to assist applicants and reviewers more effectively through additional outreach or technical assistance opportunities. Process: In terms of process improvements, some recommendations to consider include the development of a preapplication or the issuance of a notice of intent. In addition, the results of the evaluation show that the role of the Oregon Freight Advisory Committee and the joint Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian and Transportation Enhancement Committees requires modification to ensure the productive involvement of these committees. Lastly, the surveys and interviews highlighted the regional differences in the application review process. The department should explore this issue further and identify where flexibility is warranted, and consistency is needed. Clarifying Key Terms: Due to confusion over terminology, the department should also consider defining key terms used in the Enhance process. This may include outlining the differences between projects of statewide, regional, and local importance.


2


Criteria: Comments related to criteria varied widely. However, many applicants and reviewers felt that some type of criteria, whether in the form of specific priorities or general guidance, helps ensure transparency and provide structure. Despite the wide range of responses related to criteria, it is evident that the department should explore ways to address the issue of criteria. Timing: Although the amount of time provided to complete the Enhance application seemed appropriate, the evaluation results suggest that reviewers may benefit from some additional time. The department should consider ways to facilitate the review process better by providing additional time, more resources, and/or more guidance to those involved in the review process.

Based on the evaluation results, the department proposes to work with the staff and the STIP Stakeholder Committee to pursue the five issue areas further. As the Commission is aware, the STIP Stakeholder Committee plays an integral role in improving the STIP process to make it more transparent and accessible to stakeholders. The department proposes to engage the STIP Stakeholder Committee this fall and anticipates a sixtoeight month process to address the issue areas comprehensively in order to improve the next STIP cycle. Presentation: Transportation Development Division Administrator Jerri Bohard introduced Jeanne Lawson and Sylv of the 2015

ia Ciborowski of JLA Public Involvement, who gave the presentation on the results ‐2018 STIP Enhance process evaluation. Highlights of the presentation were:

o project selection process the purpose of the evaluation was to assess how well the

o

worked, how the process could be improved, and whether it should be continued statewide review committees – interviews and surveys

o criteria, benefits, projects of statewide significance, timing, overall key messages – onlack of fu

o interviewnding, ODOT support

e process s key messages

hanc

support for continuing En

mixed perspectives on criteria

ds lack of funding and time

l needs versus local neeide review committees

statewide and regionaof statew unclear role

o survey kepraise for ODOT staff y messages

background on who responded – Regions averaged 16.25 percent, with the cent, and cities lead the high response at 39 exception of Region 2 at 35 per

percent, with statewide review committees at the low end with 6 percent mixed perspectives on criteria

overall mix of projects – most felt ok with the mix of projects, but there were a number of people who thought there were too many local system projects, as opposed to state system projects


3


challenges with combined ACT process – some feel the super‐ACTs are ay, it’s too political, and placed some changing what the local ACTs have to s

in uncomfortable position

o recommeneed to clarify level of detail required ndations and issues to address

training: for applicants on how to use benefits, for reviewers on how to make choices

wide process: set balance of flexibility and consistency, consider roles of statecommittees, allow for idea vetting and jurisdictional collaboration

gional clarify key terms such as enhance, criteria, benefits, statewide/resignificance

ifferent types for different modes, a few des, provide examples

criteria: is it necessary, d

o recommefundamental criteria that apply to all mo

ndations for next steps

reconvene STIP Stakeholder Committee

eration process increase deliberations with and among ACTs establish clear set of questions for stakeholder delib

identify issues that the OTC and ODOT will address Discussion: Chair Egan took a moment to thank the region managers for their hard work and dedication. articipants in the process felt there was true engagement from the managers and the positive Poutcome is owed a lot to their efforts. Commissioner Baney said she really appreciated the process, and we’re finding that balance needed to make this work. She asked if there were any concerns around capacity, especially in the smaller areas, in getting applications out or being able to make time. Were there comments about phasing projects? Are the ACTs having problems getting the right people to attend the meetings? Jeanne Lawson said the challenge of keeping people engaged is always more difficult where people are spread out, like across the mountains, but having a meaningful role like this is helping to keep people engaged. In regard to phasing, she said some of the ACTs developed their own criteria specifically about the ability to phase, and one of the main things mentioned, when asked what additional information could be made available in the application, was if the project could be phased. In regard to capacity, many felt it was doable, ut ODOT’s technical assistance was vital and they would not have been able to do it without bODOT’s staff support. Commissioner Olson said she loves the process and thinks everyone has done a great job. But, we need to have a “best‐possible, worst‐case” discussion about the future and funding to give the ACTs a sense and a vision of what will be needed. We need more support from the ACTs to ngage legislators and bring them into that conversation. Where we are going is dependent on e


4

funding sources. Commissioner Lohman said the line between public involvement and local decision making is evolving, and this has been a big step in starting to define that line. A lot of work is still needed, but he noted he was surprised at the extent to which local people did recognize there


are statewide needs and considered that even if they ultimately chose a local project. He appreciates that perspective. In regard to criteria, there are a lot of different perspectives, and he agrees with the thought that there is so little money, it doesn’t make sense to talk about criteria. However, one comment he did find interesting, was that it would be helpful if there were criteria for each mode. He said scoping was a definite issue, because, while the ACTs are expected to be somewhat off because the process is new to them, ODOT was even off on some of its pricing, so costs on the final list went way up. Commissioner Frohnmayer said if we look at this from a problem‐solving basis, and aximizing the limited dollars we have today, we’ve got to start looking at potential problem m

fixes before getting into a list of projects. Paul Mather set the stage for the 100‐percent list discussion by saying the region managers were asked to talk briefly on three topics; how the 100‐percent list turned out, where they are utting the 20‐percent recommendation together, and discuss what major needs never got on he table. pt Region 1 – Jason Tell The Region 1 STIP committee finalized its 100‐percent list with the unanimous support of the entire group. The most significant change resulting from the new process is that about half of he money is going to local projects, a shift from past emphasis toward state projects or local tprojects that have a benefit to the state system. Region 1 staff received praise for the intensive work done with local government staff on scoping. Because there were no criteria around readiness in the new process, there were a lot of applications submitted that were actually concepts. This is an issue that hadn’t occurred in the past, and there’s going to be a higher level of risk going forward when scoping a project that is really a rough concept. Another issue was determining where regional projects and projects of statewide interest fit in. Jason Tell pushed back on the idea that you can’t pick statewide significant projects if the program size is very small, by giving the past example of the Wilsonville Interchange/I‐5 project which took about a quarter of the whole pot for that ne project. It had a lot of economic development benefits to the local jurisdiction, but also obenefited the state system as well. In regard to major needs that were not considered, Jason Tell said Region 1 still has the ‐5 Rose Quarter project, the Sunrise Corridor on the east side, the I‐205 Corridor, the Historic olumbia River Highway, and orphan highways. IC


5

Region 2 Sonny Chickering Scoping was an issue with local entities, and while they didn’t have the experience of errors in estimates by ODOT, there were surprises. Three of the four ACTs took applications back to the applicants to look at the original request and decide if they could cover the additional costs, find the additional match money, or phase the project. ODOT staff helped influence the conversation by providing a straw proposal to the super‐ACT members which, they believe held true to the intent and desires of the list received from the ACTs, while filtering it through


the lens of regional and statewide significance. Ninety percent of the final proposal was taken from the straw proposal. Region 2 made it clear that ODOT was just another applicant for the money, with no more consideration given for its projects than given to local projects. The results show that of the 39 rojects on the final 100‐percent list, 50 percent of those were applied for by local agencies, pbut were actually projects on the state system, and account for 63 percent of the dollars. Region 2 is considering two strategies for the potential use of the 20‐percent funds. One thing that was very apparent in the 100‐percent list was that only two of the final 39 projects exceeded $3 million, making Region 2 a poster‐child for small projects. One preference would be for the OTC to consider allocating the 20‐percent dollars to the larger projects in the $10‐20 million range rather than putting more in these smaller projects, which are adequately represented at this point. One of the proposals staff is presenting to the ACTs is a “go big or go home” method of nominating one or two significant projects to be financed. If feedback from the ACTs is negative, or there isn’t a good project that fits that criteria, there are some smaller D‐STIP projects that could be submitted in preparation for the next STIP process. There are some real needs in the areas of U.S. 101 near Newport, and an I‐5 interchange project. Region 2 has developed two groupings of needs. The first is the large projects list ($25‐100 million) that consists of twelve project totaling $585 million. The other is the mega‐project list (over $100 million) with five projects totaling $2.5 billion. Region 5 – Monte Grove The two ACTs in the northeast area came together to develop the 150‐percent list. One ACT was comfortable evaluating projects across the entire region, while the other ACT was uncomfortable rating projects not in its area, which is appearing to be a consistent theme around the state. We need to continue to encourage ACTs to look more regionally because the roduct is better, and as the groups get closer together and build relationships, that discomfort pand tension will go away. Subgroups of the two ACTs met and developed the 100‐percent list, which consists of about wo‐thirds local projects, the feeling being that this was the only way those projects would

. tever get funded, while projects of statewide significance were sure to be funded at some point Scoping was actually a pretty big success in Region 5. A lot of the projects put forward by the locals did not have a lot of credibility because they were done by people just trying to identify a problem and a solution. Staff were able to put some validity to those projects and keep them on the table by working with the locals to define the scope so it made sense. The biggest reason some projects were low in cost in the first place was because 2007 and 2008 estimates ere used, and costs increased by 30 percent going out to 2015. Even current 2013 estimates w


6

rise by 15 percent going out to 2016‐17. The process was very transparent, so there was a lot of buy‐in to the final results. It would be very difficult at this point to find any kind of political steam in the region to change anything. Early on, the ACT composition was changed by the addition of transit and bike/ped advocates, which was a little contentious at the time. However, that proved to be very valuable by the end


of the process because those people had a lot of impact on the projects that were selected. One of the negative aspects of the process was that it was very fast paced and you had to be active and present, or you would fall behind. Another was the ACT’s inability to change course once he initial priorities were established, and then the OTC had the conversation about projects of

. tregional or statewide significance. That conversation goes on the front end of the process Projects recommended for the 20‐percent funds include the I‐84/U.S. 395 Interchange at endleton, U.S. 395 south of John Day, the Perkins Street project in Pendleton, and starting Psome of the right‐of‐way on U.S. 395/I‐84 project mentioned above. Region 5 has two larger projects totaling about $50 million on its needs list, I‐82/U.S. 730 port of entry relocation, and climbing lanes up the canyon on the interstate just south of La Grande. There are about $100 million in other projects on the list for the next ten years. One of the ain things you will hear from the ACTs in this region is not the need to enhance the system, ut the need to preserve the system. mb Region 3 – Frank Reading This was not an easy process. The early conversations included projects of regional or statewide significance which did complicate the discussion. One of the big issues was just the high cost of highway projects. The competing needs of local jurisdictions are hard on ACT members faced with going back to their councils or boards and saying they voted for a highway project versus a local project. Also, scoping measurements were off the mark by about 40 percent overall. A lot of the elements that have to be added as requirements of funding, like contingencies or inflating the cost out to a certain year, really drive the cost up, and the locals don’t consider them. Staff worked with the ACTs to come to a 100‐percent list and look at some of the things missed in the initial applications, like the substantial geological ssues to be dealt with, or environmental issues that don’t surface without the right people out iin the field. The region’s intention for the 20‐percent funds would be to put development (D‐STIP) dollars into the Medford viaduct. This will be a substantial planning endeavor that will require a lot of time and public involvement to determine what type of alternative or fix is needed. The region will also like to invest some dollars in furthering the climbing lanes for the mountain areas hroughout the region, both construction and development dollars. Finally, it will ask for

ge. tfunds for Highway 140 at Exit 135 to do design work for a future funding packa The region’s future funding needs list is substantial, with about $250 million in onmegaprojects (less that $100 million) and two megaprojects (more than $100 million) otaling an additional $250 million. nt


7

Region 4 – Bob Bryant Bob Bryant talked about the work the ACTs in the region did to develop the 150‐percent list and then narrow it down to the 100‐percent list. What the ACTs and ODOT staff saw was that the balance, that went across all modes in the 150‐percent list, began to shift. Many of the highest priority projects in the 150‐percent list were projects that had been previously programmed in the STIP for gap funding, and that changed the balance in the modes. The


ACTs applied some discretion in looking at the prioritized list and made some changes, in response to feedback from the OTC on the 100‐percent list. This brought some projects that were below the line, up into the 100‐percent list and resulted in a 100‐percent list that reflected local needs and lacked the regional significance. All the ACTs recognized, given the common thread that the highest priority for the region is the U.S. 97 corridor, that the outcome f the process lacked in meeting the needs and demands within that corridor and adjusted to omeet some of those needs in the final list. The ACTs then discussed a strategy on how to optimize all the available funding to achieve their highest priority goals. This shaped the recommendation for the 20‐percent funds, which is to augment those projects for Highway 97 which would add capacity and improve safety, such as passing lanes. In addition, move forward any projects on the Transportation System Plan (TSP) would further that same long‐term strategy to separate the north and southbound lanes, where there are significant crossover crashes and high volumes of traffic. And last, some of the 20‐percent funding could be used for a number of projects on the U.S. 97 Corridor that would benefit from being shelf ready. Region 4 has a couple of larger D‐STIP projects already dentified on the shelf for Highway 97 and it added the Dallas Transit Center as a nonhighway roject. ip Public Comments:

Westside Economic Alliance Executive Director Pam Treece provided written and verbal comments in support of the widening project on U.S. 26 between 185th Avenue and Cornelius Pass Road. She also presented the Commission with letters from Intel NW Region Government Affairs Manager Carly Riter, and Greater Hillsboro Area Chamber of Commerce resident Deanna Palm. The letters voiced Intel’s and the Hillsboro Chamber’s support for the ity of Hillsboro’s application for funding to widening U.S. 26. PC

City of Hillsboro Transportation Planning Manager Don Odermott presented the Commission a map detailing transportation improvements in the North Hillsboro area, and asked for the ommission’s support to fund the bidirectional widening of U.S. 26, and to consider using ome of the 20‐percent money for that project. Cs

Hillsboro Assistant City Manager Rob Dixon said it’s not just about roads and vehicle capacity, ut a commitment to balanced transportation alternatives, and is reflective of their mmitment to see state money staying on state highways rather than the local system.

bco

Workshop Item 3


8

20172020 STIP Process The Commission participated in a discussion about the development of the 2017‐2020 STIP process. The discussion included whether to continue to use the FixIt/Enhance process, and


if so, what improvements should be addressed? (Background materials in Director/Commission/History Center File, Salem.) Background: The OTC approved the new FixIt/Enhance process for the selection of 20152018 STIP projects in support of the agency’s multimodal and intermodal goals. An earlier agenda item included information on the evaluation of the 20152018 STIP, and highlighted potential areas of improvement in the areas of training, process, terminology, criteria and timing of the various steps in the process. The intent of the agenda item is to get direction from the Commission in how to move forward with preparing for the next STIP cycle. Examples of areas of discussion include:

Should the OTC continue to use a similar FixIt/Enhance process for the 20172020 STIP? If yes, what areas should be identified as needing some modifications or changes?

o Scenario Building Does the Commission want to see another series of potential scenarios based on possible revenues at both the state and federal levels?

o What type of information does the Commission want to see relative to the FixIt portion of the STIP, and what are the system goals for bridge, preservation, etc?

o Training and Communication What should be the expectations of staff with regard to outreach and training for this STIP process?

o Overall Process For example, should the next STIP consider a Preapplication or Notice of Intent as part of the process?

o Criteria What are the overall expectations of the Commission around modifications

to the existing project benefit language? The STIP Stakeholder Committee’s (SSC) responsibility in the past has been

development of criteria. Should that committee help in the development of this work? If so, what might be the main components of a work plan for this committee?

Additional members have been added to the SSC including bike/ped expertise and public health. Are there additional needs for this committee?

What role should the modal advisory committees have in this next process? o Timing

What areas of the process in particular might require more time? Recognizing that some potential improvements to the process may require

additional time for development and review, such as the development of criteria and the application submittal, and review process, are there any concerns with the potential that this becomes the 20182021 STIP?

Other influences that effect the process for the next STIP cycle?


9

Discussion: Transportation Development Division Administrator Jerri Bohard set the stage for development of the 2017‐2020 STIP process by asking if we keep this process knowing there are improvements needed, or is there something else they would like to do. Is there a role for the STIP Stakeholder Committee, and if so, what areas should it cover? Where does the condition of the system fall into this conversation?


Chair Egan said we need to talk process, but first pause and talk about the types of projects talked about, and the needs that have come out of this process. They aren’t mutually exclusive, ut if we have input that suggest not all projects have been identified, and we’re talking about bthe process at the same time, we have to recognize that. Commissioner Lohman said so many comments were made by the ACTs about just wanting to preserve the system they already have, that he wondered if there is enough in the FixIt category, or if we’ve defined FixIt broadly enough. The same thing might apply to IT projects. In some sense those “operations” issues are really making use of what we have, and not uilding new. Are the definitions correct, or should we define FixIt a little broader and put bmore money in there? Commissioner Baney said she likes the idea of sticking with our agreements. Local government would welcome as many dollars as possible to fix the local systems, but that doesn’t help with the statewide system. She suggested setting up something that is not necessarily findings, but that are essentially the percentages, unless you can determine through economic or safety, or some other, that there are added categories that would allow using one pot versus another at a higher percent rate that would be unique to a local area, versus an overall change within definition. Commissioner Frohnmayer said in any realistic scenario there will still be way more work to do than resources to do them with. He feels the biggest priority is making sure we are identifying the benefit and cost appropriately as we go in, and putting as much science and discipline as possible behind that. As we engage the legislative discussion, another component is how to make seismic sexy, or make it something that we absolutely have to tackle as soon as ossible. Until the issue of key lifeline routes is solved, he will lose sleep every time there is pdiscussion about funding projects, and that’s not the number one priority. Commissioner Frohnmayer said that from a process perspective, we hit the points of engaging the statewide pieces early in the process so we are informing the local folks who are deliberating before making their project list. Another part of that, in terms of the scoping and roblem selection, is can we have a lighter‐weight local process, up front, that’s more about pproblem identification and leans more heavily on ODOT for scoping and solution finding? Commissioner Baney said that during the next funding opportunity, we need to ask if those projects are also being cross‐pollinated by other state agencies to be looked at for IOFs, or usiness Oregon funds, etc. Are we looking at ways that aren’t necessarily transportation to Bhelp match or leverage those funds to get those projects done faster? Director Garrett said it is incumbent upon us, as members of the Regional Solutions Team, to artner with our sister agencies to look across all agencies and the various funding streams. p


10

We need to sync up and integrate those opportunities. Chair Egan said next time around there will be more time to work the process. Even though there is a lot to be critical of, that needs to be changed in the process, he is encouraged and


thinks we did a great job of identifying projects, and because of the scant funds available, really good quality projects. But, going forward, he doesn’t have the same conclusion as Commissioner Lohman that the legislature won’t be interested in maintenance projects because they aren’t sexy. It’s on us to make that argument, and make it better than the engineering‐centric conversations of the past. We need to say specifically that this is what Enhance funds means for that community and this is why this is a good investment for now. Preservation has got to be in our next legislative package. Going into the 17‐20 STIP, we have to show that we know our business, and that we know what needs to happen in maintenance and preservation. Our local government partners have done a great job identifying for us what those benefits are. We know what the projects of statewide significance are, and if we don’t do them, here are the consequences. And if we do, here are the benefits. And lastly, there are opportunities out there, be it ITS or private industry opportunities, and Chair Egan is not onfident that we have all that input to build a really good list. That’s a harder nut to crack, but cfrom a process standpoint, how we get that engagement has to be on our list. ommissioners Lohman and Frohnmayer discussed objective ranking or categorizing of Cprojects and criteria. Paul Mather said the survey shows we have the right process, but it needs refining. There are some things we need to talk about in our process around how we sequence statewide ACTs. But we also need to talk about the roles and responsibilities of those different groups. Right now we are asking the ACTs to do two things simultaneously that they are struggling with. One is asking them to prioritize the needs, but then also to balance across the modes. Those two things are difficult for them to do simultaneously. Some of the prework could be done for he ACTs up front to help with the prioritization question, and then let them focus on what the tbalance is in their community. Paul Mather said another sequence question for the Commission is around the 20‐percent concept. The concept is good, but he worries about it being at the back half of the process. He recommends putting that at the front end, with the understanding that the Commission will ake “X” amount off the top, and then for the rest of the needs it will be very clear there is no tother money coming, so here is what you have for statewide issues and local issues. Chair Egan said the 20‐percent should be used for D‐STIP or pre‐engineering. We’ve consistently heard there is a good array of relatively small dollar projects in the 80 percent. We need to recognize the 2015‐2018 STIP for what it is; it is not an aspirational STIP, it’s a process STIP. But going forward, we need more money, and we need to make our arguments better. We need better arguments for maintenance, and prime the pump for what’s next on some of these bigger projects on the D‐STIP. He asked staff to help develop an option, among he 20‐percent, for pre‐engineering and a D‐STIP. What’s it going to cost, and give two or three t


11

options? Chair Egan said we need to start putting some shape around the 2017‐2020 STIP process for he region managers to communicate out to the ACTs what we will ask them to do. We need to ecognize they are already doing a lot, and we don’t want to burn them out. tr


Commissioner Olson reconvened the meeting for a working lunch. Chair Egan and Director arrett left the meeting for other obligations. G

Workshop Item 1

Keynote Speaker HyunA Park Over lunch, the Commission received a presentation by Hyun‐A Park. (Background materials in Director/Commission/History Center File, Salem.) Background: Understanding the implications of emerging scientific innovations, sociodemographic changes, and technological megatrends on state departments of transportation (DOTs) will enable the Oregon Transportation Commission to make policy decisions today that will result in a stronger Oregon transportation system that meets the needs of Oregon travelers in the future. State DOTs, already challenged by congestion, funding shortages, shifting demographics, and other issues, face an increasingly dynamic world where scientific, technological, and demographic changes present both challenges and new opportunities. This presentation will share some visions of our future (20+ years from now) and the implications for today’s policymakers. HyunA Park is president of Spy Pond Partners, LLC. She works with public agencies at the federal, state, and local levels providing her unique skills in the areas of strategic planning, performance management, asset management, and facilitating organizational change to meet new objectives. Ms. Park works closely with transportation agency executives and managers in finding solutions to problems involving people, process, and data. Ms. Park is currently working with AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Performance Management in its effort to ensure that state departments of transportation (DOT) needs are represented in the MAP21 rulemaking process for national performance measures and to better prepare state DOTs for MAP21 requirements. Ms. Park also supports AASHTO and FHWA’s asset management capacity building efforts through webinars and peer exchanges. Ms. Park is a member of FHWA’s Asset Management Expert Task Group. Throughout her career, Ms. Park has worked directly with state DOTs on strategic planning and business improvement efforts. Ms. Park is the Chair of the TRB Management and Leadership Section and is the incoming Chair of the Policy and Organization Group. She recently served on the panel for NCHRP 2024(84) State DOT CEO Leadership Forum 2013: Leading the 21st Century DOT. She organized and facilitated the 2012 AASHTO Leading in Lean Times Workshop for state DOT executives. Ms. Park is the cochair of the Public Art Committee of WTS Boston. She also is an active volunteer at MIT, serving as her class president, member for the Council for the Arts, and having served as a trustee on its corporation. Ms. Park received both a Master’s degree and a Bachelor’s degree in Urban Planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


12


Presentation: Hyun‐A Park gave a presentation titled, “Tomorrow is Built Today: Opportunities and Challen n Commission.” Highlights of the presentation were: ge for the regon Transportatio

o tions

s Oo budget trends

20th and 21st century pr

o

edico transportation predictions

o

science and technology implications for transportation

o health, agriculture, mobility, adapting for climate change

Road Usage Charge Program

The Commission received an informational status report on the Road Usage Charge program, and considered approval of a determination, under the authority of ORS 367.804 and OAR 731‐070‐0240, that the transportation project specified herein has the potential to promote nnovative approaches to carrying out the road usage charge system project. (Background aterials in Director/Commission/History Center File, Salem.)

im Background: ORS 367.804 gives the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) authority through the Oregon Innovative Partnerships Program (OIPP) to solicit concepts or proposals for transportation projects from private entities and units of government. OAR 7310700240 allows ODOT to solicit proposals or enter into direct negotiations with a legal entity for a publicprivate partnership approach, as approved by the Commission. Before ODOT can solicit in this manner, however, OAR 7310700240 requires a determination from the Oregon Transportation Commission that a transportation project has the potential to accelerate costeffective delivery or promote innovative approaches to carrying out the project. As a result of Senate Bill 810, approved by legislative vote and signed into law by Governor Kitzhaber on August 14, 2013, ODOT is required to implement a voluntary road usage charge system for up to 5,000 vehicles to be fully operational by July 1, 2015. The system, through two successful demonstration projects conducted under the direction of the legislative guiding body, the Road User Fee Task Force (RUFTF) between 2001 and 2013, demonstrated potential for expediting costeffective project delivery and promoting innovative approaches to project financing through public/private partnerships. Senate Bill 810 requires that ODOT enter into agreements under the Oregon Innovative Partnerships Program to undertake a project consisting of a road usage charge system that includes:

1. The application of technology standards to determine whether to certify technology, 2. The collection of metered use data, 3. Tax processing, and 4. Account management.


13


Senate Bill 810, the Road Usage Charge Program (RUCP) authorizes the Oregon Department of Transportation to assess a charge of 1.5 cents per mile for up to 5,000 cars and light commercial vehicles participating in a road usage charge program and issue an equivalent gas tax refund to those participants. The bill calls for the system to be operational by July 1, 2015. ODOT is currently planning implementation of the legislation in order to meet deadlines, and next steps include organizing vendor conferences and issuing requests for proposals so ODOT can consider a variety of marketprovided strategies and solutions to meet the requirements of the legislation. SB 810 requires ODOT to design the Road Usage Charge Pilot Program to access the open marketplace to provide mileage reporting technologies; tax processing and account management functions. The procurement of these services from the marketplace will require an innovative procurement based on an indefinite duration and indefinite quantity; in essence the procurement will remain open to fulfill the requirements of SB 810 for an open system. The OIPP authority will facilitate the innovative procurement practices necessary to meet the requirements of SB 810. Presentation: Innovativ tive Funding Manager Jim Whitty gave the presentation on Oregon’s re:

e Partnerships and Alterna

o

Road Usage Charge program. Highlights of the presentation we

o

legislation, Senate Bill 810

o

mileage reporting methods: basic, advanced, and switchable

o d payment options options for electronic mileage reporting

ng ano plan

payment of road usage charge: invoici and billing

o

choice of mileage reporting

o

Oregon’s platform for per‐mile charge

o

standard mileage message privacy solutions under Senate Bill 810

o 5, and the Oregon Road Usage Charge what’s next: implementation by July 201Summit

o Western Road Usage Charge Consortium Discussion: Jim Whitty said this is an exciting program that is getting a lot of interest from other states and from Capitol Hill legislators in Washington. He recognized a two individuals who were instrumental in helping pass the legislation in Oregon, Ann Hanus of the Association of Oregon Counties, and Craig Honeyman of the League of Oregon Cities. Action: Commissioner Baney moved to approve determination, under the authority of ORS 367.804 and OAR 731‐070‐0240, that the transportation project specified herein has the potential to promote innovative approaches to carrying out the road usage charge system project. Commission members Olson, Lohman and Frohnmayer unanimously approved the motion.


14


Senate Bill 408

The Commission received an informational briefing on ODOT’s preparations to implement Enrolled Senate Bill 408 (Access Management) from Region 4 Manager Bob Bryant. Governor Kitzhaber signed the bill on June 24, 2013, and it becomes effective on January 1, 2014. (Background materials in Director/Commission/History Center File, Salem.) Background: The 2011 Legislative Assembly established the Access Management Oversight Task Force in SB 264. SB 264 authorized the task force to recommend legislation regarding management of access to state highways, as needed, until January 2, 2016. During 2012, the task force work culminated in Enrolled SB 408, which establishes new laws governing access management procedures on state highways in four areas:

o existing approaches without written permission from ODOT o highway facility plans o highway improvement and modernization projects (project delivery) o restriction of turning movements at an approach

ODOT has rulemaking obligations stipulated by the bill and has begun preparations to implement SB 408, which include the following:

o communicating with staff and businessline teams about changes required by the legislation,

o organizing a Rules Advisory Committee, appointed by the Director, consisting of representatives of local governments, the Oversight Task Force, business, freight and development communities, and ODOT staff,

o working with the consultant who performed a major rewriting of access management rules for implementation of SB 264 to provide rule writing services for SB 408, and,

o identifying areas of the Oregon Highway Plan and other department manuals, guidelines, and policies that need to be revised to align with SB 408A and new access management rules.

The department will update the Commission periodically as this process moves forward, and expects to bring permanent rules for OAR 734051 to the Commission for adoption no later than June 2014. The Commission may need to adopt temporary rules before adoption of permanent rules. Presentation: Region 4 t, and answ

Manager Bob Bryant gave a presentation on Senate Bill 408 and access managemenered q n were:

o Access reas of access: uestions from the Commission. Highlights of the presentatio

rities address three a T

Management Oversight Task Force prio


15

existing approaches without written permission from ODOaccess management in facility planning

access management in project development and delivery


o changes to policy, rules, and procedures include a presumption that written permission from ODOT is established if highway project documents show ODOT’s

n shows the approach meets intent to issue an approach permit, or if documentatiospecifi

o new rec criteria on when the approach was built or existed quirements for highway facility plans include:

“key principles” to evaluate how abutting properties may retain or obtain access during and after plan implementation

ith safety and a methodology that balances economic development objectives w

ss access management objectives a timeline for implementation of future actions that affect acce

establishes a review and dispute process for property owners

o new rereinforces collaboration with local governments quirements for highway improvement or modernization projects include:

collaboration with all interested parties to identify highway deficiencies within project limits, and to establish a long‐term vision for the highway segments impacted

o Strategy changes to project delivery requires development of an Access Managementfor each project

o requirements of SB 408 implementation, which is effective January 1, 2014 Discussion: Commissioner Olson requested a status report about every six months to keep the Commission in the loop as to how this is rolling out, what kind of issues are arising, and what rethinking is happening as a result of those issues. Commissioner Lohman expressed concern about the number of hours in staff work this would require, and said he wished there was an easy way to track the tremendous amount of work the staff has done. Commissioner Olson added that we need to go back to the legislature regularly to let it know the effect these laws create.

Consent Calendar

The Commission considered approval of the Consent Calendar. (Background materials in Director/Commission/History Center File, Salem.)

1. ission meeting in Ashland.

ber 9-10, 2013 Oregon Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Prepared and Distributed by Jacque Carlisle and Roxanne Van Hess (503) 986-3450 100913_OTC_MIN.doc

16

Approv

2. Confirme the minutes of the September 18‐19, 2013, Comm the next two Commission meeting dates:

Wednesday, November 20, 2013, meeting in Salem Wednesday, December 18, 2013, meeting in Portland

3. real property by purchase,

Octo

Request approval to adopt a resolution for authority to acquirecondemnation, agreement or donation.

4. Request approval of the following Oregon Administrative Rule:


a. Amendment of 741‐100‐0005, 741‐100‐0020, 741‐100‐0030, 741‐100‐0040, 741‐110‐0030, 741‐110‐0040, 741‐110‐0050, 741‐110‐0060, 741‐110‐0070, 741‐110‐0080, 741‐115‐0010, 741‐115‐0020, 741‐115‐0030, 741‐115‐0040, 741‐115‐0060, 741‐115‐0070, 741‐120‐0020, 741‐120‐0040, 741‐120‐0050, 741‐125‐0030, 741‐200‐0020, 741‐200‐0050, 741‐200‐0060 relating to Highway‐Rail crossings.

5. Request approval to submit the attached, proposed proclamation to Governor Kitzhaber for Month” in his signature designating December as “Drinking and Drugged Driving Awareness

Oregon. 6. Request approval of a draft report to the Oregon Legislature on the 2009 Jobs and

Transportation Act. 7. Request permission for the Major Projects Branch, Highway Division, to appear before the

November 2013 Interim Joint Ways and Means Committee to seek an increase in the Federal Capital Construction limitation by $2,148,448 for a First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Commerce National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA). The Ways and Means Committee gave approval for the Oregon Department of Transportation to apply for this grant during the 2013 Session.

8. Request approval to amend the 2012‐2015 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to add a construction phase to the Interstate 84: Nelson Point – Lime project in Baker County, which is currently in the STIP as a developmental project. Funding for this construction will come from savings realized in the Interstate Maintenance Program. The total estimated cost of this project is $9,845,000.

9. Request approval to amend the 2012‐2015 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to add the U.S. 101: Neahkahnie Mountain Rock Screen Repair project in Region 2. The project funding will come from the Region 2 Operations Reserve fund in the Region 2 Financial Plan. The total estimated cost of this project is $1,000,000.

Action: ommissioner Lohman moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioners Olson, Baney nd Frohnmayer unanimously approved the motion. Ca

Workshop Item 5 OTC Work Plan

The Commission received a status update on items identified in the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) Work Plan approved in April 2012, and modified in October 2012. Based on this discussion, items may be added or deleted from the existing Work Plan. (Background materials in Director/Commission/History Center File, Salem.) Discussion: Transportation Development Division Administrator Jerri Bohard gave a summary of items in the OTC Work Plan.


17


o Policy Development t Planning Least Cos

OTP Implementation

o Stra s Rail Plan

rogramtegic Projects and PColumbia River Crossing ConnectOregon V High‐Speed Rail Analysis Innovative Pilot Projects

ement Program

Multimodal Transportation System Managn

Operations Innovation and DemonstratioyOSTI ‐ Statewide Transportation Strateg

Revisions to the OHP Mobility Standards zation Initiative

and Knowledge DMV Systems Moderni

o FiduSuccession Planning‐ Managing the Risk of Losing People

018 Timeframe ciary Responsibilities Fundin r 2015‐2Transportation Funding for the Future

g Allocation Priorities fo

Road User Fee Initiative

ds DMV Fee Initiative

Project Delivery Contracting Methoo Partner and Stakeholder Relationships

rships ce Issues

Expand and Enhance Partnesis of Governan

tions Policy Analy

o OngStrategic Communicaoing Work Policy Development Strategic Projects and Programs Fiduciary Responsibilities Partner and Stakeholder Relationships

Commissioner Frohnmayer said we need to ask what the ideal funding mechanism looks like for the department for the next 20 years. What are the mechanics of the funding stream? As we engage the legislative discussion around funding, can we start talking about a long‐term, ustainable funding plan for the broad mission and vision we want to achieve? What will be the simplications of technology on the future? Jerri Bohard said it would be helpful to know if there was anything staff could be doing to set he stage for the next conversation. There may be things the Commission might want staff to tstart tackling toward that future direction. Commissioner Olson said it would be helpful for a technology “guru” to present the Commission the most promising technology on the horizon for a discussion on what is really going to happen as a result of that technology, in what timeframe, and will people accept it?


18


Jerri Bohard said there were times in the past when panels were brought together before the Commission started discussion on where it wanted to take the work plan. Today, she’s hearing that there are two discussions, one around public health, and the other around technology. There are a lot of things going on right now, from the Transportation Options Plan, to the Rail Plan, to what is happening with FixIt/Enhance. The Commission will have to decide how much further we will take some of these, recognizing that we can’t do everything. Panel iscussions could be helpful in determining what information is needed to make those types of ecisions. dd

Commissioner Olson adjourned the meeting at 3:52 p.m. At 5:30 p.m. that evening, the Commission held a working dinner with the ODOT Exec. Staff, egion Managers, and OTC members in the Lotus Room, of the Main Lodge, at the Oregon RGardens. Director Garrett asked division administrators and region managers to give their thoughts on wo questions: how do we ensure ODOT is an agency that is always getting better in achieving ur mission; and what are the critical relationships that drive our success? to

Thursday, October 10 On Thursday, October 10, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) staff held a briefing session and agenda review in the Lotus Room at the Oregon Gardens Main Lodge, 895 West Main Street, Silverton, regon. The regular monthly meeting began at 9:30 a.m., in the Orchid Room. Highlights of O

the briefing session were:

hair Egan called the meeting to order at 9:48 a.m. C

Workshop Item – Transportation

The Commission received an informational presentation on transportation needs across the arious modes, including transit, rail, aviation, marine, bicycle, pedestrian, and highway, which cludes freight and local government’s perspectives on their needs.

Needs

vin Background: In preparation for the panel discussions on the needs of the modes, each of the panel members received the following two questions to consider as they discuss their specific needs. The needs will span maintenance, preservation and enhancement needs of that particular mode.


19


1. Given today’s funding scenario how are you expending funds and what are the

implications for that decision? 2. If there were more funds available, how would you prioritize the allocation this new

investment and what would the change or benefit be to the mode and overall transportation system?

After the panel discussion, the Governor’s Transportation Advisor Karmen Fore, the OTC, and ODOT Executive staff engaged in a discussion of next steps. The discussion included identifying additional information about transportation needs, how to assemble the information provided, and what steps might be needed to engage in a revenue package discussion. Discussion: Chair Egan started the discussion by framing what the Commission was looking for from the individual panels. He asked panel members to talk about each of the individual modes, and connectivity between modes. He asked them to talk, retrospectively, about funding packages like ConnectOregon and other investments, and then looking forward, put themselves in a legislator’s or the department’s shoes, and talk about the needs. What are the needs? How are they identified? What’s the process for identifying them? What are the projects and opportunities out there that we’re missing? If we had the funds, what would they be? He said it’s premature to talk about revenue or any expectations with legislators if we can’t say with a traight face that we know what the projects and opportunities are and we know how we swould deliver on those projects.

anel m P embers participating in the discussions include: Hal Gard ‐ Public Transit and Rail Division Administrator

ttee Chair, Rogue Valley TD or of Fed. Affairs

Julie Brown ‐ Public Transportation Advisory Commi Brock Nelson ‐ State Rail Plan Steering Committee, Union Pacific Direct r ry Committee Chair

Mac Lynde ‐ Active Transportation Section Managetrian AdvisoJenna Stanke ‐ Oregon Bike and Pedes

Mitch Swecker ‐ Director, Department of Aviation Mark Gardner ‐ Aviation Board Chair

ness Oregon ittee Chair, Port of Portland

Dave Harlan – Ports Program Manager for Busimr

Susie Lahsene ‐ Oregon Freight Advisory ComtoPaul Mather ‐ Highway Division Administra

Ann Hanus ‐ Association of Oregon Counties n Cities

Administrator Craig Honeyman ‐ League of Orego

-10, 2013 Oregon Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Prepared100913_OTC_MIN.doc

20

and Distributed by Jacque Carlisle and Roxanne Van Hess (503) 986-3450

ahsene started with some statistics that are the foundation of the d facilities:

o 80 percent of the world’s consumers reside outside of the United States

Jerri Bohard ‐ Transportation Development DivisionMatthew Garrett ‐ ODOT Director Karmen Fore ‐ Governor’s Transportation Advisor

Marine Panel Susie Lahsene and Dave Harlan

Susie L iscussion about marine

October 9


o tap into that Oregon and the nation’s economic future depends on our ability to

o customer base 490,000 direct, indirect, and influenced jobs are tied to trade in the state

o total employment between 2004 Oregon’s trade‐related employment grew faster than

o and 2011 $18 billion of Oregon’s goods were exported in 2012

o 90 percent of those Oregon exporters are small and medium sized businesses

All of these products move through a freight system network of not just one mode, but multiple modes. Their challenge is having adequate funds to ensure that network is modernized and connected. Oregon is a small market, and has to have a transportation system that overcomes that disadvantage and allows us to connect beyond our small market base. If we don’t think about the transportation system for moving freight as an interconnected ystem, and really understand what we are trying to move, we are setting ourselves back, and sthe transportation system can become a hindrance for our economic future. The marine facilities in Oregon are diverse, but provide significant economic benefit at the egional, local, and statewide level, and many communities in the state rely on those ports as rtheir economic development engine. Susie Lahsene said one of the top needs is that most of the port system in antiquated. Many of the docks were built in the 1940s, and replacement is a real challenge. Marine facilities rely on the rail system and the road network for access and connection, and often that part of the system is an orphan system, and local jurisdictions have other priorities and aren’t concerned about that aspect of the system. The ConnectOregon program has been very effective and successful for other modes, but the criteria often don’t work in the marine world, which has ore of a “if‐you‐build‐it‐they‐will‐come” approach for these older facilities where potential ustomers can’t be attracted without modernizations. mc

Dave Harlan said the Oregon Port System has one of the broadest port statutory authority in the nation, and great diversity in scale and nature of activities. The port system has a very significant impact on the economy, with one‐in‐six Oregon jobs tied to Oregon ports, either directly or indirectly. Oregon is very dependent on trade and the port system, but is overlooked in the large public mind. Ports in Oregon are underfunded compared to other states, and have significant capital needs to address deferred maintenance and changing markets. And a very critical part is that the ports are just one component of Oregon’s marine ransportation system that includes numerous private docks, terminals and related businesses t


21

that also have economic and employment impacts. It is hard to categorize Oregon ports because the characteristics, (inland, coastal, deep draft, etc.), and activities are so broad and diverse. Activities can include cargo, industrial development, commercial fishing, recreation and tourism, to name just a few, and some ports overlap into numerous activities. It is a struggle to administer port policy because of this significant overlap and the hazy line straddled between economic development and


transportation. ConnectOregon has been a boon for port projects, but they tend to be a combination of the two agencies’ efforts. Dave Harlan talked about the economic impacts of projects like the Port of Morrow Industrial Park or dredging at the Port of Bandon. One of the recommendations of the Statewide Port Plan was development of a Marine Transportation Plan, which would help further identify key investments and priorities, links between the marine system and the larger transportation system, and help with advocacy. Louisiana has a marine plan which would be a good basis for the Oregon plan because of the similarities between the two states. In response to questions from the Commission, Dave will provide the OTC with information on the cost to develop the ouisiana Marine Transportation Plan into a plan for Oregon, and examples of how other Lstates fund their ports. The main need is revenue, and to generate revenue, they need low‐cost capital for revenue projects. They need access and last‐mile improvements, and in many instances, they need grade separations. Continued and expanded planning assistance, which brings both public and rivate investment, and regulatory streamlining and advocacy would be one of the functions of he Statewide Marine Transportation Plan. pt Public Transit Panel – Hal Gard and Julie Brown

Hal Gard said the fragility of the transit system, particularly for elderly and disabled people and rural providers, was really emphasized by the events of the last two weeks. The larger metropolitan transit providers, like Lane Transit District, TriMet, or Salem/Keizer, have sufficient funds to weather a government shutdown, though it does eat into their general fund. But the small providers are within weeks of needing to truncate or stop service if we’re not able to provide them funds. It’s a stark reminder that, in some parts of the state, we are on the agged edge with regard to being able to get some of our most disadvantaged citizens where rthey need to go. The vast majority of the Public Transit Division’s $80 million biennium budget is federal funds, and 92 percent of that operating money is distributed to local government or to service providers to provide rides or vehicles for the elderly, disabled, or folks in rural routes. The single greatest issue for providers is the ability to provide match for federal funding. Capital money used to buy facilities or equipment like a bus has an 80‐90 percent match, but for perating funds it’s a nearly 50 percent match. So you can buy equipment to provide a service, ut you can’t provide that service because you can’t afford the match. ob


22

Julie Brown said match is very difficult for rural providers. When the opportunity for federal funds comes up, often the funds are left on the table because the match can’t be met. The federal government gives DD Services 60 percent of the money needed to provide transportation for people who are developmentally disabled. The state asks the locals to match the remaining 40 percent. She said the Department of Human Services (DHS) has a budget that exceeds most of the budgets in the state, and we should go back and demand they


match funds because this is, after all, their program. Funds taken from the Special ransportation Fund could certainly be put to other uses. T Rail Panel – Hal Gard and Brock Nelson

Hal Gard said passenger rail service is funded from gas tax not used by motor vehicles and vanity plate fees. With a change in federal legislation and with the purchase of new trains, rail is looking at a minimum $14 million deficit. The state is at a crossroad of whether it wants to ontinue to provide passenger rail service in Oregon. The current funding situation is woefully cinadequate. Three areas of concern are no funds available for federal match, no funding available for rojects started with ARRA funds that need a federal match to build out and complete, and inally, there is no means of preserving critical short‐line infrastructure. pf

Brock Nelson said rail transportation is very important in the movement of freight, and is a very green and environmentally friendly mode of transportation. It also provides nfrastructure for passenger rail service. He talked about some of the rail projects currently ibeing worked around the state. Commissioner Lohman asked how the state would benefit by putting public money into the Blue Mountain capacity improvement project, given the degree to which Oregon is a pass‐through state for freight. Brock Nelson responded that capacity projects improve our ability to move freight, and could potentially add more trains to what we are moving today, which benefits customers like the Port of Portland by making it more attractive to potential new customers. He said the best example of where those kind of public investments make the most sense is the I‐5 corridor, where a passenger network is run. Everything done under ConnectOregon in that corridor has had a public benefit through increased passenger speed and efficiency. It’s harder to justify public benefit for the Blue Mountain project outside of ncreased capacity, increased fluidity, and giving potential shippers access to rail they may not icurrently have. To tell that story better, Commissioner Baney asked staff to dig a little deeper and find the connection between ConnectOregon dollars going into those projects, and where we can show specifically how a local company benefitted from increased fluidity or capacity. We need to be ble to tell the story to our legislators in a way that brings home the importance of continuing a


23

that investment. Commissioner Frohnmayer said the Harrisburg Bridge project tells that story very well. He also said he is embarrassed to live in a state that has train service in real jeopardy. What can we do to get a sustaining source of operating funds for the trains that begins to really build on it as a key component of a sustainable transportation system? Brock Nelson responded that defining what the public truly wants is where you start. We will continue to invest to move freight as efficiently and as fluidly as possible, and passenger rail will continue to benefit. Hal


Gard noted that our partnership with Union Pacific results in 15 percent better on‐time erformance rating than our partners in Washington State. Oregon’s performance rating is psignificantly better, and a lot has to do with the attention Union Pacific has put on the line. Hal Gard said a significant issue facing rail is the fact that federal ARRA dollars are being left on the table because we do not have matching funds. Once the work is done, projects are identified, improvements are noted, and federal money is available, we currently have no means of matching that federal money. Bicycle and Pedestrian Panel – Mac Lynde and Jenna Stanke

Mac Lynde said biking and walking to work has increased nationally by 57 percent in the last decade. Pedestrian deaths account for 14 percent of fatalities in Oregon, but they only represent around four percent of the mode share. For a small amount of the population using it, this mode has high rate of serious injuries and fatalities, with 62 percent of those occurring on major arterials. Many of the investments for this mode are for initiatives that promote afety, and specifically target those key pedestrian and bicycle countermeasures for those smajor arterials and intersections. Mr. Lynde talked briefly about some of the projects completed around the state, and about what needs exist if more funds were made available. The Bike/Ped Plan starting up will be the hared vision and policy framework for how funds would be invested. Needs are categorized n three groups: safety on major arterials, regional trails, and community livability. si

Jenna Stanke talked about some of the funding gaps for the mode. One is Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps. There are ADA ramps on about 80 percent of the system, but 88 percent of those are not up to standard. The Transportation Enhancement (TE) and Bike/Ped grant programs are very oversubscribed, demonstrated in the 2012 round when only 11 projects were funded, at a total of $8.9 million, from the 155 notices of intent originally submitted. She did clarify that about 50 percent of the original 155 applications were not moved forward because they just weren’t ready. Jerri Bohard said one of themes heard about the TE program is around planning, which is problematic for developing bike projects. The TE program doesn’t have the planning staff for project development, and that is one of the areas harder on the local systems. Mac Lynde said that oversubscription was the precursor to orming the Active Transportation Section with the intent of bringing those programs together nd having one solicitation effort with a set of timelines and criteria. fa


24

Aviation Panel – Mitch Swecker and Matt Maass

Mitch Swecker talked about the Oregon Department of Aviation’s (ODA) roles and responsibilities, its mission, and its revenue sources. ODA owns and operates about 28 percent of the 97 public use airports in Oregon, with the remainder divided between city, county, port, the U.S. Forest Service, and private ownership. Of the 97 public use airports, 55 are federally funded. These airports are used as a transportation mode for business/economic


development, statewide access, tourism, agriculture, government agencies, emergency services, and recreation. Issues facing aviation include sequester impacts and the potential to ut funding to air traffic control tower contracts, aviation industry cluster, and unmanned caerial vehicles (UAV/drones). ODA’s Pavement Maintenance Program (PMP) divides the state into three sections, with one section being done each year, which extends the life of the runway by 20 years. Work is paid for with a fuel tax fund established by the PMP in 1999. The annual net revenue for the agency flattened out with the recession in 2009, and a change in commercial operations versus the number of passengers has kept it that way. The model has changed to where aircraft now fly completely full, creating a steady decline in the number of commercial operations, a figure used to determine fuel revenue. The FAA model has changed also due to more efficient jets, ore efficient flight patterns, and airlines’ decision to operate fewer airplanes, by offering m

fewer flights but sending them out full. Oregon has one of the lowest fuel taxes at $0.01 cent per gallon compared to other western states that have fuel taxes ranging from $0.02 to $0.11 cents per gallon. ODA had a policy option package the last legislative session for $6.4 million per biennium, and would like to raise the fuel tax to $0.02 cents per gallon. Those funds are to help supplement cities and counties around the state to offset the grant match amount, which raised from five percent to en percent in 2012. This would help the general funds in those cities and counties that have tstruggled to meet the 10 percent match. Commissioner Olson said the Forest Service is starting to look for alternatives to the aging heavy‐lift helicopter fleets current being used. That alternative is thought to be fixed‐wing aircraft. Airports in strategically located areas around the state will need to be able to ccommodate those aircraft used for firefighting. She suggested ODA keep a finger on the apulse of this with the Madras Airport because it could easily become a very critical area. If planning dollars were made available, the next step would be to first update the system plan to make sure needs have been identified appropriately. From there, look for funding pportunities for commercial air service, airport infrastructure to support fixed‐wing ofirefighting, or any of those things that are key elements of a robust and capable air system. Commissioner Baney said we are just starting to see some of the safety opportunities UAV’s might offer for fire suppression or search and rescue, and asked what planning has been done for something along those lines. Matt Maass responded that the FAA needs to be pulled along a little bit more. Right now, the FAA is still very constrained on the use of UAVs. He is on the Board of Directors for the UAV industry, and said they are just scratching the surface of the benefits of this economical way to use air as a mode for a number of those key things that enefit land owners, agriculture, the Forest Service, etc. There is also an ongoing political truggle between the federal FFA and local states around the regulation of UAVs. bs


25


Highway Panel – Paul Mather, Ann Hanus, and Craig Honeyman

Paul Mather started the discussion by talking about ODOT construction programs versus the highway budget. What is the overall need? What are we doing to be efficient with the money we have, and to manage within the resources we have? What would we do with a little more money to address those problems? The Commission received a packet with information on freight bottlenecks, bridge needs and the Seismic Options Report, Enhance and FixIt ategories, pavement needs, potential jurisdictional transfers, culvert needs, and overall

nancecmainte and operations needs. On the FixIt side, bridges have a dire future. Over the next several decades, Oregon bridge conditions will drop from today’s ranking of 20 percent of bridges deficient. By 2050, that number will flip to 80 percent of Oregon bridges being deficient in some way. This is caused in part by the large number of bridges built during the baby‐boom generation that are nearing the end of their useful life, and in part because during that same time period, we used a lean design to build bridges. The next step for bridges would be to provide some modest level unding to help gain as much life as possible out of the bridges. There is a similar story for fculverts. The most glaring need is pavement repair and maintenance. We prioritize to the highest level of service roadway, with the interstate being the highest priority because of its high speeds and high truck volumes. Having potholes in the middle of a freeway where there is congestion and high speed is a safety issue, and not just an investment protection issue. As we continue to get tighter and tighter in the pavement budget, we continue to focus more and more on those higher end facilities, causing the district level highways to get left behind. This becomes a point of conflict between ODOT and local government. However, this also creates an pportunity to target investments back into pavement for those roadways critical to ocommunities, and open discussion on who should have jurisdiction of those roadways. The maintenance side has focused purely on the inflation factor. Over the last ten years, the maintenance budget has gone up about four percent. During that same time period, inflation alone has risen by eight percent. Highway’s biggest cost driver is fuel, which has risen by 24 rcent. During that same time period, there has been a four‐five percent reduction in both estaff and equipment to try and offset the inflation numbers. The operations side is composed of features, like reader boards, variable message signs, red ight camera, etc. Over the last five years, the amount of features has doubled, but we’re not dding the resources to maintain them. la


26

Ann Hanus said the Association of Oregon Counties has an interest in a partnership with all the modes discussed today, but states, counties and cities are all part of an interconnected road system. Collectively, counties manage about 40 percent of the roads in Oregon. With the decline of timber payments from $270 million in 2007 to $90 million this year, and other financial problems counties are facing, it’s not surprising to hear that counties are in a financial


crisis that impacts the transportation system. The other issue facing counties is that county personnel have declined significantly, from 2,000 in 1995, to 1,600 recently. That impacts not only the people out there to fill the pot holes and remove snow, but it also affects the ability to administer and apply for grants. The counties don’t have the capacity to leverage as many unds as it would like. In addition, like all the other modes, they have seen significant cost fincreases, such as the cost of asphalt, which has doubled since 2006. Overwhelmingly, the top county spending priority is maintaining what it has, which is getting increasingly difficult. Ann Hanus gave samples of what’s happening in counties across the state, like Wheeler County, which has reduced its road crew from eight to two, or Baker ounty, which is in the process of determining which of its currently paved roads will be ounded to a gravel road to reduce maintenance costs. Cp

Craig Honeyman said the League of Oregon Cities agrees that all the modes are critical to the transportation system. Quite simply, cities are in need of more money for simple road and street maintenance and repair. As these roads wear out, the result is injury and sometimes death, increased emergency response times, and lost opportunities in terms of economic development.

Chair Egan said he is encouraged after all this discussion that there are opportunities. owever, we have to make quick work now to compile that story before there is legislative H

discussion on a request for funds. Director Garrett said the reality is that the needs, across all disciplines, foster what revenue there is. We will gather all this information, identify all needs and concerns, and then have the conversation about who we need to continue to engage and involve as we start the refinement process. We heard quite clear that we have to tell a better story, and explain what would be one with additional money, and why. We will continue to work on that with the right people daround the table, and identify potential exposures to the conversation. Karmen Fore said the meetings have been extremely helpful. Getting our arms around all the needs is going to be difficult. As we tell the story, it’s important to put a marker much further out in time to craft a picture of where we want to be as a state, and push our investments in that direction. She applauded the fact that all the modes were at the table, and we are not fostering the artificial divisions that are created by levels of government. The charge for this group is to help the governor and legislative leaders find a path to what that vision is going to be. Where is Oregon going to be 50 years down the road? How do we position ourselves between two very economically dynamic states? How do we position ourselves on an international seaboard where the economies of the world are shifting right now? And in that mix, how do we make our cities livable and make transportation investments that are better for the environment? How can we best take advantage of new technologies, equipment, and fuel sources?


27



28

Chair Egan adjourned the meeting at 1:47 p.m. Pat Egan, Chair

Tammy Baney, Member

David Lohman, Member

Mark Frohnmayer, Member

Mary Olson, Member

Roxanne Van Hess, Commission Support

2013 OTC MEETING DATES.DOC Current revisions in red 6/26/2013

OREGON TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

2013 MEETING DATES/LOCATIONS

OTC MEETING

LOCATION

ATO DEADLINE

AGENDA DEADLINE

AGENDA HUDDLE

Wed., January 16 Salem

Region 2 Tues., Dec. 11 Tues., Dec. 18 Thurs., Jan 3

Wed., February 20 Salem

Region 2 Tues., Jan. 22 Tues., Jan. 29 Thurs., Jan. 30

Wed., March 20 Salem

Region 2 Tues., Feb. 19 Tues., Feb. 26 Thurs., Feb. 28

Wed., April 17 Salem

Region 2 Tues., Mar. 19 Tues., Mar. 26 Thurs., Mar. 28

Wed., May 15 Salem

Region 2 Tues., Apr. 16 Tues., Apr. 23 Thurs., Apr. 25

Wed., June 19 Portland Region 1

Tues., May 21 Tues., May 28 Wed., May 29

Wed., July 17 Silverton Region 2

Tues., June 18 Tues., June 25 Thurs., June 27

Tues. and Wed., August 20 and 21

Burns Region 5 Tues., July 23 Tues., July 30 Thurs., Aug 1

Wed. and Thur., September 18 and19

Ashland Region 3

Tues., Aug. 20 Tues., Aug. 27 Thurs, Aug. 29

Wed. and Thurs, Oct. 9-10 Annual Workshop and Mtg

Silverton Region 2

Tues., Sept. 10 Tues., Sept. 17 Mon, Sept 23

Wed. November 20 Salem

Region 2 Tues., Oct. 22 Tues., Oct. 29 Thurs., Oct. 31

Wed., December 18 Portland Region 1

Tues., Nov. 19 Tues., Nov. 26 Mon., Dec 2

January 2014 Salem

Region 2 Tues., Dec. 10 Tues., Dec. 17 Thurs., Jan. 2

Note: Generally, the out-of-town, two-day meetings are formatted as: Day One: 1 to 9 p.m. (Possible Tour or Workshop and Dinner) and Day Two: 8 to 2 or 3 p.m. (Formal Meeting). Salem meetings are usually scheduled from 8 a.m. to around 3:00 p.m.

Text to be added in bold Text to be deleted in [italics]

Roadside Memorial Sign Program – Adding Fallen Heroes Amendments

734-026-0010 Purpose and Scope

The purpose of the Roadside Memorial Sign program is to provide an opportunity for citizens of the State of Oregon, through individuals or organizations identified as “Applicant” in Division 26 rules, to commemorate police officers killed in the line of duty or those who were killed in action or who died as a result of wounds received in action while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States with a sign installed along the State Highway System in accordance with Chapter 668, OL 2011, and to request a preferred location for such sign.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 184.616, 184.619, Ch. 668, OL 2011, Ch. 381 and 391, OL 2013 Stat. Implemented: Ch. 668, OL 2011, Ch. 381 and 391, OL 2013

734-026-0020 Definitions

As used in Division 26 rules, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Applicant” means the individual or organization seeking to commemorate a police officer killed in the line of duty or person killed in action or who died as a result of wounds received in action while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, and named in and signing the application.

(2) “Department” means the Oregon Department of Transportation.

(3) “MUTCD” means the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as adopted in OAR 734-020-0005.

(4) “Region Traffic Engineer” means a professional engineer employed by the Department who by training and experience has comprehensive knowledge of the Department’s traffic engineering standards, policies, and procedures.

(5) “Roadside Memorial Sign” means a sign including the name of the police officer killed in the line of duty or person killed in action or who died as a result of wounds received in action while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States and complying with the requirements of the MUTCD.

(6) “State Highway System” means the public way for vehicular travel that is under the jurisdiction of the Department. It also includes medians, highway shoulders, improvements appurtenant to the highway, such as support or tunnel structures, bicycle ways or sidewalks, and right of way used for the operation of the roadway.

(7) “State Traffic Engineer” means a professional engineer, or designated representative, employed by the Department in charge of the Department’s traffic engineering standards, policies, and procedures.

1

(8) “Armed Forces of the United States” has the meaning given that term in ORS 348.282.


734-026-0030 General Requirements

(1) The Applicant shall submit a written request to the State Traffic Engineer containing the following information:

(a) Name, address, and telephone number of the Applicant;

(b) A brief description of the concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislative Assembly recognizing the police officer killed in the line of duty or the measure adopted by the Legislative Assembly recognizing the person killed in action or who died as a result of wounds received in action while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States;

(c) The preferred location on the State Highway System for a Roadside Memorial Sign to commemorate the police officer killed in the line of duty or person killed in action or who died as a result of wounds received in action while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States; and

(d) Payment of the fee specified in OAR 734-026-0045.

(2) [The Applicant, if] If the request meets the requirements of Chapter 668, OL 2011, or Ch. 381 or 391, OL 2013, and Division 26, the Applicant shall be granted placement of a single Roadside Memorial Sign on the State Highway System.


2

Utility Facility Permit Fees Repeal

This rule to be repealed in its entirety.

734-055-0017 Utility Facility Permit Fees

(1) Utility Facility permit fees will be assessed when a permit or permit amendment for a Utility Facility is issued. Utility Facility permit fees are based on the nature, size and extent of the Utility Facility and the Department's costs of reviewing plans and administering the construction of such facilities. Utility Facility Permit Fee Schedule 'A' and Utility Facility Permit Fee Schedule 'B', hereby adopted and made a part of this rule, establish the criteria for determining the permit class and project category upon which permit fees are based.

(a) The following fees apply to a Utility Facility permit or permit amendment that is not related to construction which is initiated by the Department, based on the criteria established in Utility Facility Permit Fee Schedule 'A':

Class -- Fee (A) 1 -- $150 (B) 2 -- $400 (C) 3 -- $1,000 (D) 4 -- $3,000

(b) The following fees apply to a Utility Facility permit or permit amendment which is required because of actions under OAR 734-055-0045, based on the criteria established in Utility Facility Permit Fee Schedule 'B':

Class -- Project Category: 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- 4 (A) A -- $250 -- $500 -- $750 -- $1,000 (B) B -- $500 -- $1,000 -- $1,500 -- $2,000 (C) C -- $1,000 -- $2,000 -- $4,000 -- $6,000 (D) D -- $4,000 -- $7,000 -- $10,000 -- $15,000

(2) Maintenance of, including replacement in kind, and service connections that can be made without crossing the road from existing permitted installations require 48 hour prior notification to the District Office but are exempt from a permit fee.

(3) The department may, as a condition of the permit, require independent inspection or testing that is in addition to the Utility Facility permit fee.

(4) Activities allowed under existing permits where only notification of the ODOT District Office is required can be performed without an additional Utility Facility permit or permit amendment and without cost. Additionally, District Managers may waive fees for any permit where less than a minimal amount of staff time is required for all ODOT time related to issuance and administration of the permit.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 184.616, ORS 184.619, ORS 374.305, Sec. 2, Ch. 664, OL 2001 & Sec. 1 and 2, Ch. 820, OL 2001 Stats. Implemented: ORS 758.010, Sec. 2, Ch. 664, OL 2001, Sec. 1 & 2, Ch. 820, OL 2001

3

Electronic Proof of Insurance Amendments

735-050-0120 Proof of Compliance With Financial Responsibility Requirements [in Lieu of an Unexpired Insurance Card]

[The following list establishes what constitutes “other current] For purposes of ORS 806.011 and 806.012, any of the following constitutes proof of compliance with financial or future responsibility requirements[” under ORS 806.011, and “proof of compliance with financial responsibility requirements” under ORS 806.012] that must be carried in the motor vehicle covered by such proof:

(1) A current motor vehicle insurance card issued by the insurer either as a paper card or electronically for display on a personal electronic device.

[(1)] (2) An unexpired motor vehicle liability insurance policy for the particular vehicle that meets the standards set forth in ORS 806.080;

[(2)] (3) An unexpired motor vehicle liability insurance binder issued by the insurance carrier or its authorized insurance producer (agent) for the particular vehicle that meets the standards set forth in ORS 806.080;

[(3)] (4) A letter signed by a representative from an insurance carrier or its authorized agent, on the insurance carrier’s or agent’s letterhead, that verifies current insurance coverage;

[(4)] (5) A certificate of self insurance issued by the Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division of the Department of Transportation (DMV) under ORS 806.130 naming the owner of the particular vehicle; or

[(5)] (6) A displayed Oregon dealer plate unless the vehicle dealer [dealership does not sell motorized vehicles and has completed a “Certificate of Exemption from Vehicle Liability Insurance for Vehicle Dealer,” DMV Form 735-7024] is exempt from the requirement to file a certificate of insurance under ORS 822.033. If the vehicle dealer is exempt from the insurance requirements under ORS 822.033, one of the proofs of compliance with financial responsibility requirements described in sections (1) to (5) of this rule must be carried in the vehicle displaying the Oregon dealer plate.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 184.616, 184.619, 806.011 & 806.012 Stats. Implemented: ORS 806.011 & 806.012

4

Proof of DUII Treatment Completion Amendments

735-070-0085 Proof of Treatment Completion Required for Reinstatement of DUII Suspension

(1) Except as provided in section (3) of this rule, a person whose driving privileges are suspended due to a conviction in an Oregon court of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) must provide as proof that the person completed a treatment program to which the person was referred under ORS 813.021, [the following as proof that the person completed the required treatment: (a) A] a DUII Treatment Completion Certificate (Certificate), DMV Form 735-6821.[,] The Certificate must be completed by an authorized representative of an Oregon DUII treatment program approved by the Director of the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) or by an authorized representative of OHA on behalf of an Oregon DUII treatment provider or an out-of-state DUII treatment provider.

[(b) A copy of the report to the referring court, or to an agency authorized to receive the report, from an authorized representative of the agency or organization that conducted the person’s screening interview stating that the person has successfully completed a DUII treatment program.

(c) A letter from a referring court stating that the court has determined that the person has completed the DUII treatment program to which the person was referred under ORS 813.021.]

(2) If the person has more than one suspension of driving privileges resulting from DUII convictions, the [proof]Certificate required under section (1) of this rule is sufficient for reinstatement of all DUII suspensions with arrest dates that were before the date treatment was completed. For purposes of this section, the [proof ]Certificate must show the date treatment was completed.

(3) If the person does not provide the proof described in section (1) of this rule, DMV will not reinstate driving privileges following a suspension for DUII unless:

(a) The person submits an order from the circuit court of the county in which the person was convicted showing that the person has taken sufficient steps to satisfy the requirement under ORS 813.021 to complete a treatment program;

(b) It has been 15 years or more since the person’s last DUII conviction in an Oregon court; or

(c) The suspension of driving privileges resulted from a conviction in another jurisdiction for the statutory counterpart to ORS 813.010 (DUII).

[(3) DMV may waive the requirement to provide proof upon showing of good cause. A person requesting a waiver must submit the request in writing and provide an explanation satisfactory to DMV as to why there is good cause to waive the requirement. Upon such request, DMV may find good cause when all of the following occur:

(a) Seven years have elapsed since the person’s last DUII conviction;

5

6

(b) The person’s Oregon driving record and a search of the National Driver Register/Problem Driver Pointer System (NDR/PDPS) show no alcohol or drug-related convictions, suspensions or diversion agreements in the past seven years; and

(c) The person provides documentation, acceptable to DMV, showing the person does not have a problem condition involving alcohol, inhalants or controlled substances as described in ORS 813.040. Documentation may be, but is not limited to, the following:

(A) A certificate or letter showing completion of an alcohol or drug dependency treatment program after the person’s last DUII; or

(B) An assessment finding the person does not have a problem condition involving alcohol, inhalants or controlled substances, from a person qualified to perform assessments for the treatment of alcoholism, drug dependency or dependency on inhalants.]

Stat. Auth.: ORS 184.616, 184.619, 802.010, ORS 809.380, OL 2012, Ch. 9 Stats. Implemented: OL 2012, Ch. 9; OL 2013, Ch. 233

IMMEDIATE OPPORTUNITY FUND ANNUAL REPORT

SFY 2013 Origin and Purpose of the Fund The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) established the Immediate Opportunity Fund (IOF) in cooperation with Business Oregon. The purpose of the IOF is to attract and/or retain business and industry developments through the construction and improvement of highways, streets, and roads. The OTC approved the program on July 15, 1988 and the first IOF projects on August 16, 1988. The IOF is designed to meet the following objectives:

A. Provide needed road improvements to influence the location or retention

of a development or firm in Oregon.

B. Provide procedures and funds for the OTC to respond quickly to economic development opportunities.

C. Provide criteria and procedures for Business Oregon, other agencies,

local governments and the private sector to work with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in providing road improvements needed to ensure specific job development opportunities for Oregon, to revitalize business or industrial centers, or to prepare Oregon Certified Project Ready Industrial Sites.

The use of the Immediate Opportunity Fund is limited to:

Type A: Specific economic development projects that affirm job retention

and job creation opportunities. Type B: Revitalization of business or industrial centers to support economic

development and livability. Type C: Preparation of Oregon Certified Project Ready Industrial Sites that

are appropriate for at least one of Oregon’s strategic key industries.

Funding Beginning with the 2004-05 biennium, the Legislature has set aside $7 million per biennium in ODOT’s budget for the IOF. Before that time, IOF funding levels were set by the OTC.

1

As a guideline, the maximum amount available for a Type A project is $1,000,000. Also as a guideline, the maximum amount available for a Type B project is $250,000. The maximum guideline amount for a Type C project is $500,000. Project proposals are normally expected to commit to match IOF funds on a one-to-one basis. Program Status through State Fiscal Year 2013 148 IOF projects have been approved by the OTC 12 projects were Type B projects, two were Type C projects, and 134 were

Type A projects 19 of these projects have been withdrawn 119 projects have been completed 10 other projects are in various stages of work Approximately 37,800 jobs have been created or retained, although some

have since been eliminated due to changed business conditions Excluding withdrawn projects, the regional distribution of approved projects is: 36 projects or 27.9 percent in Region 1 39 projects or 30.2 percent in Region 2 9 projects or 7.0 percent in Region 3 18 projects or 14.0 percent in Region 4 27 projects or 20.9 percent in Region 5 Again excluding withdrawn projects, the OTC has approved $54,205,791 in IOF expenditures since the program’s beginning. At the time of project approval, these expenditures were expected to eventually result in the creation or retention of approximately 43,200 jobs. However, during the early years of the program, pre-project job creation/retention estimates were higher than the actual numbers of jobs created or retained. Therefore, actual job creation/retention will be lower than this figure. Finally, measured performance for all approved projects is 797 jobs per $ million of IOF commitment. This is slightly greater than measured performance for completed projects, which is 791 jobs per $ million of actual IOF expenditures. Summary Data Data summarizing the location of IOF projects, expenditures or planned expenditures by region and county, and project-specific characteristics are presented in tables below.

2

APPROVED IOF PROJECTSSFY 1989 - SFY 2013

CountyNumber of Projects

IOF $ Approved

Region 1Clackamas 8 $4,242,390Columbia 3 $1,065,073Hood River 3 $434,412Multnomah 9 $4,394,000Washington 13 $8,440,825

Subtota l 36 $18,576,700

Region 2Benton 3 $1,010,000Clatsop 2 $345,034Lane 10 $8,500,000Lincoln 5 $1,612,915Linn 7 $3,514,371Marion 10 $3,371,568Polk 1 $15,632Yamhill 1 $286,191

Subtota l 39 $18,655,711

Region 3Douglas 3 $1,430,000Jackson 5 $2,120,000Josephine 1 $500,000

Subtota l 9 $4,050,000

Region 4Crook 1 $297,680Deschutes 6 $1,693,189Jefferson 3 $838,478Sherman 3 $989,311Wasco 5 $1,343,628

Subtota l 18 $5,162,286

Region 5Baker 1 $37,500Grant 1 $500,000Malheur 2 $567,500Morrow 5 $2,129,243Umatilla 14 $4,015,968Union 4 $510,883

Subtota l 27 $7,761,094

Grand T ota l 129 $54,205,791

Initia lly Expecte d Jobs Per $ Million 797

Note: Excludes withdrawn projects (19).

3

COMPLETED* IOF PROJECTSSFY 1989 - 2013

CountyNumbe r of Proje cts

IOF $ Expended

Re gion 1Clackamas 6 $3,242,390Columbia 3 $1,065,073Hood River 3 $434,412Multnomah 8 $3,749,107Washington 11 $7,190,938

Subtota l 31 $15,681,920

Re gion 2Benton 3 $919,501Clatsop 2 $345,034Lane 10 $8,500,047Lincoln 5 $1,612,915Linn 7 $3,514,371Marion 10 $3,270,987Polk 1 $15,395Yamhill 1 $286,191

Subtotal 39 $18,464,441

Re gion 3Douglas 3 $1,430,000Jackson 5 $2,108,178Josephine 1 $500,000

Subtota l 9 $4,038,178

Re gion 4Crook 1 $146,938Deschutes 5 $1,311,189Jefferson 1 $347,358Sherman 3 $948,350Wasco 5 $1,343,628

Subtota l 15 $4,097,463

Re gion 5Baker 1 $37,500Grant 1 $500,000Malheur 2 $567,500Morrow 4 $1,129,243Umatilla 13 $2,870,767Union 4 $509,273

Subtota l 25 $5,614,283

Gra nd T ota l 119 $47,896,285

Actua l Jobs Cre a ted Per $ Million 791

*Either the road improvement is complete orthe associated development is complete.

4

5

ALL IOF PROJECTSSFY 1989 - 2013

OTCApproval Authorized Jobs Created

Region Project Name County Date Amount Comments or Retained*1 PAYLESS CORP HQTRS (WILSONVILLE) Clackamas 03/15/94 1,000,000.00$ -1 SHIMADZU SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS, INC (CANBY) IOF Clackamas 12/18/97 500,000.00$ 591 Seismic Engineered Support Sys/Seubert Machining (Estacada) Clackamas 08/19/98 170,400.00$ 301 Mollala - Four Corners Industrial Park Clackamas 05/24/06 281,990.00$ 1051 Coca-Cola (Wilsonville) Clackamas 12/07&9/10 500,000.00$ Now fully approved 3461 Pioneer Industrial Park (City of Canby) TYPE C Clackamas 06/23/09 290,000.00$ f irst Type C -1 Oregon Iron Works (Clackamas County) Clackamas 09/22/10 1,000,000.00$ 601 120th Avenue Industrial Site (Clackamas County) Type C Clackamas 06/19/13 500,000.00$ Type C -1 PORT OF ST HELENS (ST HELENS) Columbia 12/19/89 70,250.00$ 321 BROKENHILL PROPRIETARY LIMITED, RAINIER Columbia 05/09/95 500,000.00$ project cancelled -1 UNITED STATES GYPSUM CORP (RAINIER) IOF Columbia 08/19/98 494,823.00$ 1701 Summit Westward (power) & Cascade Grain (ethanol) w/Columbia Columbia 06/18/03 500,000.00$ 1091 ODELL HWY INCHGE @ AGA ROAD Hood River 11/13/90 43,000.00$ 281 HOTEL AND CONFERENCE CENTER (PORT OF HOOD RIVER) Hood River 08/20/97 500,000.00$ project cancelled -1 Humanities Software-Wasco Business Park (HOOD RIVER) Hood River 09/17/03 141,412.00$ 241 Improved Industrial Access (Port of Hood River - Type B) Hood River 03/19/08 250,000.00$ -1 NE PORTLAND HIGHWAY @ NE 181ST AVENUE Multnomah 07/25/89 480,000.00$ 11001 PACIFIC GAS TRANSMISSION Multnomah 03/15/94 414,000.00$ 1501 LSI LOGIC CORPORATION (GRESHAM) IOF Multnomah 10/11/95 500,000.00$ 4981 MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD (PORTLAND) Multnomah 06/18/97 500,000.00$ -1 FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION (PORTLAND) IOF Multnomah 05/14/98 500,000.00$ project cancelled -1 DUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC (GRESHAM) IOF Multnomah 12/17/97 500,000.00$ -1 VESTAS (Wind Energy) N Lombard & N Heineman @ Rivergate Multnomah 05/14/02 500,000.00$ project cancelled -1 Project Silver Dollar N Lombard & N Heineman @ Rivergate Multnomah 01/15/03 500,000.00$ project cancelled -1 Townsend Business Park NE Sandy & 223rd (Truck Parts Distr.) Multnomah 04/27/06 500,000.00$ 1681 East Burnside/Couch St Couplet (Portland) TYPE B Multnomah 09/20/06 250,000.00$ -1 FedEx Ground (Port of Portland & Troutdale) Multnomah 03/19/08 1,000,000.00$ 5921 I-205/Killingsworth Ramp (Portland) Type B Multnomah 06/19/13 250,000.00$ -1 INTEL & TOSHIBA EVERGREEN ROAD (HILLSBORO) Washington 05/16/89 720,700.00$ 20001 INTEL JONES FARM BLDG 3 OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS Washington 09/15/93 500,000.00$ 75001 FAB IV (HILLSBORO) Washington 08/17/94 500,000.00$ 1001 INTEL CORP/RONLER ACRES TEC. & MAN. CAMPUS Washington 10/19/94 500,000.00$ 14001 KOMATSU (HILLSBORO) IOF Washington 09/13/95 500,000.00$ 1991 NIKE CORPORATION (WASHINGTON COUNTY) IOF Washington 04/16/97 500,000.00$ project cancelled -1 PORTLAND GENERAL CORP. (PROJECT NIAGARA) Washington 05/08/97 470,125.00$ 351 INTEL CORP JONES FARM EXPANSION (HILLSBORO) IOF Washington 08/20/97 500,000.00$ 8001 TEKTRONICS TEKTRONICS (WASHINGTON COUNTY) IOF Washington 09/10/98 500,000.00$ 2401 Genentec (Hillsboro) Washington 08/24/06 1,000,000.00$ 2271 Columbia Sportswear (Washington County) Washington 06/21/07 1,000,000.00$ 7111 Intel (City of Hillsboro & Washington County) Washington 06/15/11 1,000,000.00$ 6351 Federal Match (Beaverton) Type B Washington 06/19/13 250,000.00$ -1 Intel, Ronler Acres Expansion (Hillsboro) Washington 06/19/13 1,000,000.00$ 500



Region Project Name County Date Amount Comments or Retained* 2 HEWLETT PACKARD US-20 @ CIRCLE BLVD (CORVALLIS) Benton 01/20/93 450,000.00$ 10002 HEWLETT PACKARD (CORVALLIS) IOF#2 Benton 02/14/96 500,000.00$ 70002 S2F CORPORATION, VALLEY LANDFILL (BENTON COUNTY) IOF Benton 02/18/98 60,000.00$ 122 US-30 @ SOUTH TONGUE POINT Clatsop 07/21/92 530,000.00$ project cancelled -2 COMING ATTRACTIONS, INC (ASTORIA - TYPE B) Clatsop 03/18/99 66,406.00$ 152 Astoria Business Park (ASTORIA) Clatsop 04/29/04 278,628.00$ 432 WALNUT STREET - MILL STREET (EUGENE), NORTH UNIT Lane 08/16/88 3,060,557.00$ -2 WALNUT STREET - MILL STREET (EUGENE), PH 1 (S UT) Lane 08/16/88 1,696,852.00$ 2502 WALNUT STREET - MILL STREET (EUGENE), WEST UNIT Lane 08/16/88 242,592.00$ -2 MCKENZIE - GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT (QUALITY BOWLING) Lane 03/15/94 500,000.00$ 602 MCKENZIE - GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT (SONY) Lane 04/20/94 500,000.00$ 3452 HYUNDAI ELECTRONICS AMERICAN (EUGENE) IOF Lane 10/11/95 500,000.00$ 6002 COTTAGE GROVE INDUSTRIAL PARK (COTTAGE GROVE) IOF Lane 04/15/98 500,000.00$ 92 ROSEN, INC (EUGENE) IOF Lane 08/19/98 500,000.00$ 502 ALBERTS DEVELOPMENT, LLC (CRESWELL & ODOT) IOF Lane 05/11/00 500,000.00$ 602 COUNTRY COACH (JUNCTION CITY) IOF Lane 1/16/01&5/19/04 500,000.00$ expanded project 4602 US-101 - OREGON COAST AQUARIUM (NEWPORT) Lincoln 09/21/89 500,000.00$ 752 BAY SHEET METAL (TOLEDO) Lincoln 10/12/94 32,250.00$ 152 SEA TREASURE (DEPOT BAY) IOF Lincoln 08/14/96 30,665.00$ 62 GEORGIA PACIFIC (TOLEDO) IOF Lincoln 07/09/97 50,000.00$ 5002 NOAA (SE Marine Science Dr., NEWPORT) Lincoln 04/21/10 1,000,000.00$ 2272 PALM HARBOR HOMES Linn 09/28/94 370,532.00$ 2182 TARGET STORES DISTRIBUTION CENTER Linn 01/17/95 295,000.00$ 3002 PENNINGTON SEED, LEBANON Linn 05/09/95 500,000.00$ 262 KROPF SEED, HARRISBURG Linn 05/09/95 348,839.00$ 212 WILLAMETTE IND,MOEX CRP,WESTERN TRAILER(ALBANY)IOF Linn 11/08/95 500,000.00$ 3382 DISCOVERY PLASTICS, MILLERSBURG Linn 06/18/97 500,000.00$ 2322 Lebanon - Lowe's Distribution Center Linn 08/71/05 1,000,000.00$ 6022 PepsiCo (Albany) Linn 10/10/06 1,000,000.00$ project cancelled -2 HILLSBORO-SILVERTON HWY @ WOODLAND AVE (WOODBURN) Marion 10/17/90 241,000.00$ 862 REDMAN INDUSTRIES ACCESS ROAD Marion 03/17/93 160,000.00$ 422 WAREMART DISTRIBUTION CENTER (WOODBURN) IOF Marion 08/14/96 285,000.00$ 6002 OREGON GARDEN (MARION COUNTY) IOF Marion 05/11/00 300,000.00$ 442 Garmin Industries (Salem) Marion 08/24/06 325,000.00$ 932 Heritage, Wedge & Kuenzi (Silverton) Marion 09/20/06 160,568.00$ 352 Woodburn Revitalization (Type B) Marion 07/18/07 250,000.00$ -2 Sanyo Solar Cells (City of Salem) Marion 04/23/08 540,000.00$ 2182 Pacific Building/Valley Rolling (City of Hubbard) Marion 01/21/09 226,500.00$ 472 Santiam Memorial Hospital, 10th Ave. (Stayton) Marion 03/16/11 883,500.00$ 502 SHELTON ST EXTENSION, (WESTVIEW PRODUCTS) Polk 03/17/93 15,632.00$ 62 Climax Machine Tools (Newberg) Yamhill 09/12/07 286,191.00$ 49

6



3 WINCHESTER INTERCHANGE (NB RAMPS) Douglas 08/15/89 450,000.00$ 1503 TERRAIN TAMERS (O'XING SPRR - I-5) Douglas 09/18/90 480,000.00$ 2503 INGRAM BOOK COMPANY (ROSEBURG) IOF Douglas 10/11/95 500,000.00$ 3503 ERICKSON AIR-CRANE INC (JACKSON COUNTY) IOF Jackson 01/17/96 500,000.00$ project cancelled -3 ORECAL TRADE CORP (FOREIGN TRADE ZONE MEDFORD) IOF Jackson 05/22/96 500,000.00$ -3 CERTAINTEED (WHITE CITY) IOF Jackson 12/17/97 415,000.00$ 753 SABROSO COMPANY (MEDFORD) IOF Jackson 10/14/98 355,000.00$ 303 BEAR CREEK CORPORATION (MEDFORD) IOF Jackson 07/22/99 500,000.00$ 8353 BOISE CASCADE (MEDFORD) IOF Jackson 09/02/99 350,000.00$ 3503 ESAM (GRANTS PASS) IOF Josephine 03/08/00 500,000.00$ 2494 MILL POWER, RYCO, AIRCRAFT RUBBER (PRINEVILLE) IOF Crook 04/17/96 297,680.00$ 1254 POZZI WOOD PRODUCTS BRINSON BLVD EXTENSION (BEND) Deschutes 12/15/92 271,629.00$ 454 LANCAIR, REDMOND Deschutes 02/08/95 437,250.00$ project cancelled -4 CHASE-DURUS (REDMOND) IOF Deschutes 12/12/95 114,400.00$ 504 EAGLE CREST II (DESCHUTES COUNTY) IOF Deschutes 07/25/96 326,495.00$ 2034 PACIFIC AVIATION COMPOSITES/LANCAIR (BEND) Deschutes 11/19/96 30,940.00$ project changed -4 PACIFIC AVIATION COMPOSITES/LANCAIR (BEND) Deschutes 11/17/03 317,603.00$ 3474 T-Mobile (REDMOND) Deschutes 09/17/03 260,872.00$ 7504 Epic & Cessna Aircraft (Deschutes County & Bend) Deschutes 04/23/08 196,813.00$ project cancelled -4 Redmond NE Hemlock Ave / US 97 / SE 9th St (COTC) Deschutes 09/21/11 371,250.00$ 474 Butler Aircraft (MADRAS) Jefferson 07/23/09 347,358.00$ 84 Industrial Park Rehabilitation (Madras) Type B Jefferson 02/20/13 250,000.00$ -4 Airport Industrial Park (Madras) Jefferson 03/20/13 241,120.00$ 174 Industrial Park/Auscrete (Rufus) TYPE B Sherman 03/22/07 242,469.00$ -4 Azure Standard (Moro) Sherman 12/12/07 632,842.00$ 574 Auscrete (Rufus) TYPE A Sherman 04/21/10 114,000.00$ 284 GORGE DISCOVERY CENTER (THE DALLES) IOF Wasco 04/17/96 489,038.00$ 604 THE DALLES DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PROJECT TYPE B Wasco 09/20/00 250,000.00$ -4 THE DALLES Union Street Undercrossing of I-84 TYPE B Wasco 07/24/02 250,000.00$ -4 Blue Rock Road, Maupin, Assisted Living Facility Wasco 11/13/02 104,590.00$ 224 Maupin Sidewalk/Bike Path TYPE B Wasco 09/10/08 250,000.00$ -

Shaded rows contain projects approved during SFY 2013.

7



Region Project Name County Date Amount Comments or Retained*5 BEHLEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY (BAKER CITY) IOF Baker 12/12/95 37,500.00$ 425 STEP FORWARD ACTIVITIES, INC (BAKER CITY) IOF Baker 03/20/97 37,500.00$ project cancelled -5 D STREET IMPROVEMENTS (BAKER CITY) Baker 08/09/01 500,000.00$ project cancelled -5 Central Park street access (Baker City) TYPE B Baker 04/25/07 75,931.00$ project cancelled -5 Winners Choice, Grant County Industrial Park (JOHN DAY) Grant 11/17/03 500,000.00$ 425 WESTERN TREASURE VALLEY CULTURAL CTR (ONTARIO) Malheur 08/14/96 67,500.00$ 315 VALE INDUSTRIAL PROJECT (VALE) IOF Malheur 07/15/98 500,000.00$ 565 HEPPNER HWY @ KINZUA PROPERTY Morrow 03/17/92 126,000.00$ 1005 LOGAN INTERNATIONAL, PORT OF MORROW (BOARDMAN) IOF Morrow 02/14/96 273,000.00$ 1005 OREGON ETHANOL CORPORATION (PORT OF MORROW) IOF Morrow 09/17/97 409,872.00$ -5 STANFORD CHEMICAL (BOARDMAN) IOF Morrow 07/13/00 500,000.00$ project cancelled -5 RDO Foods/Pacific Ethanol (Port of Morrow) Morrow 03/22/07 410,640.00$ project cancelled -5 Greenfields Data Center (Port of Morrow) Morrow 08/21/08 320,371.00$ 105 ConAgra Foods/Columbia Avenue (Port of Morrow) Morrow 03/20/13 1,000,000.00$ 1305 NORPAC FOODS INC (HERMISTON) Umatilla 08/15/89 300,000.00$ 4805 MARLETTE HOMES HWY 54 - N 1ST PLACE (HERMISTON) Umatilla 01/20/93 200,000.00$ 895 WILD HORSE GAMING RESORT Umatilla 08/17/94 289,005.00$ 3055 OREGON TRAIL INTERPRETIVE INSTITUTE Umatilla 08/17/94 234,000.00$ -5 WAL MART DISTRIBUTION CENTER, HERMISTON Umatilla 02/08/95 400,000.00$ 205 GUERDON HOMES, PENDLETON Umatilla 05/09/95 141,186.00$ 2505 SYKES ENTERPRISES INC. (MILTON-FREEWATER) IOF Umatilla 10/14/98 283,433.00$ 5405 LIPPERT COMPONENTS, INC. (PENDLETON) IOF Umatilla 08/13/99 57,362.50$ 605 Keystone RVs (PENDLETON) Umatilla 04/29/04 107,475.00$ 2505 CTUIR - Accenture & Cayuse (Umatilla County) Umatilla 12/12/06 698,550.00$ 2505 Noble Panels (Umatilla County) Umatilla 08/16/07 117,619.00$ 75 Pioneer Hi-Bred International (City of Hermiston) Umatilla 01/21/09 357,500.00$ 255 Vestas & NW Crane (Bensel Road, City of Umatilla) Umatilla 07/23/09 79,837.00$ 155 Port of Umatilla, Beach Access Road & certified industrial site Umatilla 08/25/10 1,000,000.00$ project cancelled -5 Pendleton - 37th St / US 395 (St Anthony Hospital) Umatilla 05/16/12 750,000.00$ 3405 JOSEPH TIMBER (UNION COUNTY) IOF Union 07/09/97 15,850.00$ project cancelled -5 UNION GOLF COURSE (UNION) IOF Union 04/21/99 132,223.00$ 95 Comfort Dental Lab (La Grande) Union 05/18/05 73,900.00$ 115 Union County Airport Industrial Park - Miller Truss Plant Union 09/15/05 53,102.00$ 195 VA Outpatient Clinic (La Grande) Union 11/14/07 251,658.00$ 155 KML Corp./Baum Industrial Park - Union County Union 07/18/12 87,406.00$ project cancelled -

Shaded rows contain projects approved during SFY 2013.*For completed projects, the figures are estimates of the number of direct jobs actually created or retained. For projects that are not yet complete, the figures reflect the number of direct jobs promised to be created or retained.

8

November 2013 Oregon Streetcar Project Fund Report

NOVEMBER 2013 OREGON STREETCAR FUND SEMIANNUAL REPORT

Report: This is the third annual project report and the second of two semiannual reports in 2013. This report covers jobs created in the period of January 2012 to December 2012. The final project report will include jobs created January through December 2013 and be available in spring 2013. Legislative History: Chapter 746, Oregon Laws 2007, passed by the Oregon Legislature and signed by the Governor on July 3, 2007, created the Oregon Streetcar Project Fund, allowing for the issuance of $20,000,000 in lottery funds for the purpose of financing grants through the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to municipalities to provide for the purchase of streetcars from an Oregon-owned and Oregon-based manufacturer for use in public transit systems. By entering into and enhancing participation in the emerging streetcar vehicle market, Oregon manufacturers will create jobs for Oregon residents. The department is to report progress on jobs development to the Oregon Transportation Commission. Administrative History: On April 23, 2008, the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) approved Oregon Administrative Rule 732-035-0010 through 732-035-0080 relating to the Oregon Streetcar Project Fund Program. The rules established the Oregon Streetcar Project Fund Program, definitions, eligibility standards and application requirements. Grant History: On September 15, 2008, ODOT informed the City of Portland that their application for a grant to purchase streetcars using funds from the Oregon Streetcar Fund was approved. City of Portland/State Agreement No. 25414 was executed on July 28, 2009. Agreement No. 25414 called for the procurement of up to seven fixed guideway, electric streetcars, as well as all necessary safety and street use equipment, spare parts, special tools and equipment for the streetcars, service and safety manuals, training, and cost for consultant or staff inspection of the design and manufacture of the streetcars. It includes all related materials, services and equipment necessary to outfit the streetcars for City of Portland service. Contract History: City of Portland authorized a contract with Oregon Iron Works, Inc. (OIW) for the production and delivery of Portland Streetcar vehicles that are compatible with the existing Portland Streetcar fleet and able to be operated on the present Portland Streetcar system, as well as on the expanded system following completion of the Portland Streetcar Loop Project. Progress: In July 2010 the city updated ODOT on the status of the design changes being contemplated regarding a major component of the streetcars, the propulsion and electrical system. The original proposal was to provide a propulsion system similar to the one installed at that time on the Portland Streetcar Prototype, funded by the Federal Transit Administration through its National Research Program. After completing an analysis of available alternatives, city staff, city consultants and TriMet’s systems management staff all concurred that proceeding with propulsion/electrical system provided by Elin EBG Traction (Elin), a subsidiary of Siemens AG, was preferred. This change came at a cost of time and money. The base order was reduced from six (6) streetcar vehicles to five (5) and non-recurring engineering costs to make the Elin change were added. The milestone payment schedule was updated and it has been agreed that five streetcars will be purchased.

ODOT Public Transit Division November 20, 2013

November 2013 Oregon Streetcar Project Fund Report

ODOT Public Transit Division November 20, 2013

Current Progress: In September 2013 the new streetcar loop was initiated using the prototype car. A ridership survey for the first quarter Loop service with one car shows: 2900 weekday, 3500 Saturday, 2100 Sunday trips. Car 21 Delivery: On January 21, 2013, car #021, the first production vehicle, was delivered to the Portland Streetcar Maintenance and Operations Facility. Since that time the vehicle has proceeded through final low speed and high speed testing, including several high speed tests on TriMet’s Banfield light rail line. This testing of the propulsion and control system, the braking system and all functional aspects of the vehicle proceeded very well. To complete these tests, OIW adds sandbags as weight to the vehicles in order to test propulsion and braking a various load conditions. One potentially significant issue arose after the vehicle was loaded to its highest weight limit. The secondary suspension on the vehicle settled significantly under the heavy load, as expected; however, the springs did not return to their original height after the vehicle was unloaded. This was addressed by OIW, ODOT and several outside parties, with an emphasis on review of the design of the springs and the material characteristics of the metal in the springs. OIW also continued to address a number of mechanical and “fit and finish” issues with the vehicle. The issue was resolved and delivery of the vehicle to the City for acceptance was completed on June 11, 2013. Delivery of Balance of Cars: Delivery of Car 022, Car 023 and Car 024 have been completed and are in Revenue Service. Car 025 is scheduled to be delivered by the first week of November 2013. Jobs: In 2010, four full-time equivalent jobs at United Streetcar were supported by the streetcar project, primarily professional and management positions. The actual number of unique individuals contributing their efforts was higher and included some hours by administrative and production staff as well. In addition, over $190,000 dollars was paid to Oregon based subcontractors or suppliers. In 2011, development and production activity increased significantly, supporting 41 full-time equivalent jobs at United Streetcar. The number of production/shop workers in the fabrication group increased as the physical fabrication of the streetcars began. Over $1.4 million was paid to Oregon based subcontractors or suppliers. In 2012, production continued to increase with hours that supported 47.5 full-time equivalent jobs. This effort included full or part time work for over 218 workers. Additionally, over $1.3 million was paid to Oregon businesses for related materials and supplies. Status reports for 2013 continue to reflect more shop labor, quality control, and testing related hours and jobs. Future Jobs Development: OIW has an order for seven vehicles from the City of Tucson, Arizona and an order for three vehicles for City of Seattle. These orders are valued at $40 million in current contracts. Project Completion: The Portland Streetcar Project agreement has been amended for time and is currently scheduled to terminate December 2013. Final payment will not be made until all the supporting safety information, maintenance manuals, and final inspections are fully complete and documented.

Attachment 1

Transportation Enhancement Discretionary Account (Funded through the Transportation Alternatives Program)

Transportation Alternatives Activities Paraphrased list—for complete text see Section 1103(13) of MAP-21 legislation at:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112QdAPZg:e1691:

A) Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities On-road and off-road trail facilities, sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting, other safety-related infrastructure, and ADA compliance

B) Safe Routes for Non-drivers Infrastructure and systems that help children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities access daily needs.

C) Rails-to-Trails Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other nonmotorized transportation users.

D) Scenic Viewpoints Turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas.

E) Community Improvement Activities (i) inventory, control, or removal of outdoor

(ii) litation of historic

(iii) nvasive species, or provide

(iv) pacts from eligible transportation projects.

F) nvironmental Mitigation

advertising preservation and rehabitransportation facilities vegetation management to improve roadwaysafety, prevent ierosion control archaeological activities relating to im

E

Any mitigation activity, including:

(i) Stormwater management and control, water pollution prevention or abatement,

(ii) Reducing vehicle-caused wildlife mortality, restoring and maintaining connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/%7Ec112QdAPZg:e1691

PACIF

IC A

VE

RAILROAD ST

EASY ST

FE

RN

AV

E

PIO

NE

ER

RD

OA

K S

T

RANSOM AVE

SPRUCE ST

LUNDEEN RD

ELK DR

OL

D C

OU

NT

Y R

D

HEMLOCK ST

FIR ST

MARINE DR

MAPLE ST

WH

AR

F S

T

REDWOOD ST

ALD

ER

ST

ME

MO

RY

LN

CH

ET

CO

RIV

ER

RD

KE

VIN

PL

SIX

TH

ST

FAW

N D

R

HAZEL ST

DE

L NO

RT

E LN

BIRCH ST

CO

TTAG

E S

T

MENDY ST

PINE ST

NORTH BANK

£¤101

£¤101

STIP PROJECT LOCATIONODOT REGION 3

PRODUCED BY ODOT - GIS UNIT (503) 986-3154 - OCTOBER 2013

GIS No. 23-52

0 0.1 Miles"This product is for informational purposes and maynot have been prepared for or be suitable for legal,engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this

information should review or consult the primary dataand information sources to ascertain the usability

of the information."

KALMIOPSIS ELEM SCHOOL:EASY ST:

FERN AVE - PIONEER RDKEY NO. 16067

PROJECT LOCATION

STATE HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION

INTERSTATE

STATEWIDE

REGIONAL / DISTRICT

REGIONAL BOUNDARY

COUNTY BOUNDARYACT BOUNDARY

LEGEND

PROJECT LOCATION

South West ACT

Curry CountyBrookings

OREGON

q

\\S6000E\GISWORK\GIS23_52_OTC_maps_and_graphics\OTC_MAPS\OTC_13_MAPS\REGION3\MXD

COAST HWY. NO. 009

Che

tco

Riv

er

Douglas

Jackson

Coos

Curry

Lane

Josephine

§̈¦5

£¤101

£¤199

£¤101

£¤101

£¤199

ÄÆ

140

ÄÆ

138

ÄÆ

238

ÄÆ

58ÄÆ

38

ÄÆ

230

ÄÆ

255

ÄÆ

62

ÄÆ

42

ÄÆ

46

ÄÆ

42S

ÄÆ

234

ÄÆ

542

ÄÆ

66

ÄÆ

260

ÄÆ

227

ÄÆ

540

ÄÆ

241

ÄÆ

250

ÄÆ

62

ÄÆ99

ÄÆ

138

ÄÆ

273

ÄÆ

251

ÄÆ

42

ÄÆ

99

ÄÆ

99

ÄÆ

62

§̈¦5

ÄÆ

38

ÄÆ

38

§̈¦5

HWY. NO. 9

UMPQUA

NORTH

NO. 270

JACKSONVILLE

ELKTON-SUTHERLIN

HWY. NO. 231

POWERS HW

Y.

NO. 242

OREGON CAVESHWY. NO. 38

SISKIYOU

COQUILLE-

BANDON

HWY. NO. 244

REDW

OO

D

TILLER-TRAIL

HWY. NO

. 230

CARPENTERVILLE

HWY. NO

. 255

ROGUE VALLEY

COOS RIVER

HWY. NO. 241

NO. 22

CRAT

ER

LAKE

HWY.

NO. 273HWY.

LAKE OFTHE

WOODS HWY.

HWY.

NO. 25

ROG

UE

RIV

ERLO

OP

HW

Y. N

O. 2

60

HWY.

NO. 272

SAMS VALLEY

HWY. NO. 271

HWY. N

O. 63

UMPQUA HWY.

NO. 138

NO. 45

HWY.

NO. 35

ROSEBURG

COO

S BAY-

HWY.

ORE

GO

N

COA

ST

COAST

HWY.

NO

. 9

OR

EGO

N

PACIFIC

HWY.

NO. 1

PACI

FIC

HWY.

NO. 1

Medford

Roseburg

CoosBay

GrantsPass

CentralPoint

Ashland

STIP PROJECT VICINITYODOT REGION 3

PRODUCED BY ODOT - GIS UNIT (503) 986-3154 - OCTOBER 2013

GIS No. 23-52

0 10 Miles"This product is for informational purposes and maynot have been prepared for or be suitable for legal,engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this

information should review or consult the primary dataand information sources to ascertain the usability

of the information."

q

\\S6000E\GISWORK\GIS23_52_OTC_maps_and_graphics\OTC_MAPS\OTC_13_MAPS\REGION3\MXD\

STATE BOUNDARY

COUNTY BOUNDARY

STATE HIGHWAY

PROJECT LOCATION

LEGEND

Project Location

Reedsport

KALMIOPSIS ELEM SCHOOL:EASY ST:

FERN AVE - PIONEER RDKEY NO. 16067

OTC Summary of STIP Program Status for 2012-2015 STIP Cycle (Period ending: Sept 30, 2013)

STATE STIP 2012-2015 Projects Data Sources: TEAMS, CPS, PCS

Summary of Construction:Previous Change Current Previous Change Current

Projects not started: 35 -1 34 $151,694,000.00 (22,090,000)$ $129,604,000.00Projects in design: 136 2 138 $703,165,000.00 9,906,000$ $713,071,000.00

Projects in construction: 70 2 72 $527,243,328.32 (10,390,781)$ $516,852,547.59

Projects completed: 184 0 184 $521,080,514.13 514,690$ $521,595,204.29Total Construction Projects: 425 3 428 1,903,182,842$ (22,060,091)$ 1,881,122,752$

Summary Non-Construction:

Previous Change Current Previous Change Current Projects for design work only or Utility Relocation: 39 7 46 $76,136,000.00 10,682,000$ $86,818,000.00

Projects for right of way only: 15 0 15 $10,631,000.00 (44,000)$ $10,587,000.00Total Non-Construction Projects: 54 7 61 86,767,000$ 10,638,000$ 97,405,000$

Grand Total State STIP '12-'15 Projects: 479 10 489 1,989,949,842$ (11,422,091)$ 1,978,527,752$

Local STIP 2012-2015 Projects Data Sources: TEAMS, CPS, PCS

Summary of Construction:Previous Change Current Previous Change Current

Projects not started: 49 -2 47 $88,758,000.00 (12,761,000)$ $75,997,000.00Projects in design: 93 4 97 $184,293,000.00 16,595,000$ $200,888,000.00

Projects in construction: 66 2 68 $158,018,044.20 893,715$ $158,911,759.20Projects completed: 121 0 121 $132,501,445.52 109,523$ $132,610,968.81

Total Construction Projects: 329 4 333 563,570,490$ 4,837,238$ 568,407,728$


Previous Change Current Previous Change Current Projects for design work only or Utility Relocation: 41 5 46 $36,222,000.00 20,134,000$ $56,356,000.00

Projects for right of way only: 11 -2 9 $20,754,000.00 (633,000)$ $20,121,000.00Total Non-Construction Projects: 52 3 55 56,976,000$ 19,501,000$ 76,477,000$

Grand Total Local STIP '12-'15 Projects: 381 7 388 620,546,490$ 24,338,238$ 644,884,728$

Grand Total State & Local STIP '12-'15: 860 17 877 2,610,496,332$ 12,916,148$ 2,623,412,480$

Project Count Project Cost

Project Count Project Cost

OTC Summary of STIP Program Status for 2012-2015 STIP Cycle (Period ending: Sept 30, 2013)

Format Rev 4.0

Methodology: - Includes projects with funding in the '12-'15 cycle, and projects with a commission approval date or a Bid-Let date in the biennium - Projects "with Design not started" are defined as projects against which no charges have been placed. - Projects "in Design" are defined as PSEDOC projects which have received charges for design. - Construction projects are defined as projects in Construction or Award. - Completed projects are defined as projects with a status of FILE or FINAL - Rail, Transit, Maintenance, and Other projects not included. - Only includes Major Work Types and Major Status categories. - This data does not include OTIA I, II, or III projects. Projects with mixed OTIA / Regular STIP funding are also not reported on. - Milestones reported in this report may lag actual events by a month or more in some cases. - Project cost is the total expected cost of both Design and Construction. - Cost for projects in Design is based on the region's projected project cost. - Cost for Completed projects is based on Actual Costs. Some charges may still be pending.

Note: 1) Projects may be included or dropped when they move into or out of this report's parameters. Due to these adjustments project counts may not always sum between phases.

OTIA III Modernization Program Update – September 2013

As of September 30, 2013, the OTIA III Modernization Program has 71 active projects:

3 are right-of-way only 7 are in design or are design only 5 are in construction 56 are complete

Although the program was projected to be completed by December 31, 2012, three significant projects will continue into 2013. These projects are being closely tracked and do not put delivery of the program at risk. To date, $445.6 million of the $500 million budget has been spent.

Program Fund Balance Management and Allocation The OTIA Steering Group (OSG) maintains primary oversight of the following OTIA funding categories:

OTIA III Modernization Program $80 million of Large, Statewide Significant Projects $200 million of Advance Construction/Earmark Projects $100 million Freight Mobility/Industrial Access/Jobs Creation Projects $20 million of Public-Private Partnership Projects $100 million Modernization Equity Projects*

* The OTIA III Modernization Equity funds are allocated based on historical modernization equity splits and are managed by ODOT regions with oversight by the OSG. As funds become available, they are added to the Total Program Fund Balance by category. Only projects on the OTC Approved List for these categories qualify to receive funding. When a region requests additional funding, the OSG evaluates factors such as regional equity, project priority and project status. All requests for new projects, cancellations or major changes in scope must be approved by the OSG and the Oregon Transportation Commission.

OTC Summary of OTIA III Modernization Program (Period ending: September 30, 2013) Data Sources: TEAMS, PCS, OTIA Baseline, Includes Depreciatio

STATE OTIA III Modernization Projects

Summary of Construction:Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month

Projects in design: 5 0 5 * 16,470,276$ (166,852)$ 16,303,424$ Projects in construction: 3 0 3 * 26,570,612$ 8,435,050$ 35,005,662$

Projects completed: 36 0 36 * 320,791,949$ 26,582$ 320,818,531$ Total Construction Projects: 44 0 44 363,832,837$ 8,294,780$ 372,127,617$

Summary Non-Construction:Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month

Projects for design work only: 2 0 2 * 4,589,837 -$ 4,589,837$ Projects for right of way only: 3 0 3 * 7,477,098$ 520,352$ 7,997,450$

Total Non-Construction Projects: 5 0 5 12,066,935$ 520,352$ 12,587,287$

Grand Total State OTIA III Mod Projects: 49 0 49 375,899,772$ 8,815,132$ 384,714,904$

LOCAL OTIA III Modernization Projects

Summary of Construction:Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month

Projects in design: 0 0 0 ** -$ -$ -$ Projects in construction: 2 0 2 ** 12,274,748 (1,163)$ 12,273,585$

Projects completed: 20 0 20 ** 48,633,071$ -$ 48,633,071$ Total Construction Projects: 22 0 22 60,907,819$ (1,163)$ 60,906,656$

Summary Non-Construction:Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month

Projects for design work only: 0 0 0 ** -$ -$ -$ Projects for right of way only: 0 0 0 ** -$ -$ -$

Total Non-Construction Projects: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$

Grand Total Local OTIA III Mod Projects: 22 0 22 60,907,819$ (1,163)$ 60,906,656$

Grand Total State & Local OTIA III Mod: 71 0 71 436,807,591$ 8,813,969$ 445,621,560$

Program Target: 500,000,000$ Program Reserve: 2,349,482

Format Rev 3.1

Project Count Project Expenses

STATE REPORT SYNOPSIS) * No changes in state projects.LOCAL REPORT SYNOPSIS) ** No changes in local projects.

Note: 1) The "Change" column reflects the difference in projects from the previous month to the current month. If the number of projects moving into a category equals the number of projects moving out of a category, no change will be reported.


OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program Update – September 2013 This update on the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program is based on the Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners Bridge Reporting System as of September 30, 2013. Of the 365 bridges in the program being managed by OBDP and ODOT, 264 are complete. Ninety-four bridges have been moved to “no work” (no construction) status. Design-Bid-Build There are seven bridges active in different phases of the design-bid-build delivery method:

Six bridges are under construction. One bridge is sufficiently complete and open to traffic.

Design-Build All bridges delivered using the design-build method are complete. Program Highlight While replacing two bridges in Bundle 210, Interstate 84: Sandy River to Jordan Road, we took advantage of the opportunity to simultaneously improve the safety and accessibility of a junction for several popular bike and pedestrian paths on the edge of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Formerly, cyclists and pedestrians had to negotiate a single narrow tunnel and local roadways with blind corners and no bike lanes, or ride alongside motor vehicles traveling at highway speeds. Now, both east- and westbound cyclists can ride on a 16-foot-wide multi-use path separated from the eastbound interstate bridge by a barrier railing that meets design guidelines for projects in the scenic area. Below the new bridges, two tunnels will allow access between the U.S. Forest Service Thousand Acres Park, north of the I-84 bridges, and Lewis and Clark State Park and its parking and picnic facilities south of the bridges; they are parallel to but separate from Jordan Road, for safety. Final paving of all paths will take place in summer 2014, as construction on the westbound bridge winds down. Program Fund Balance Management and Allocation Any unallocated bond proceeds remaining at the completion of the bridge program will be reallocated as set forth in House Bill 3415. Seventy-five percent will go to highway projects of statewide significance that are on the list adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission in May 2002, and 25 percent will go to freight projects that the Freight Advisory Committee considered under section 11 (1)(a), chapter 618, Oregon Laws 2003.

4_OTIA_III_OTC_Narrative_093013_FINAL.doc Prepared in Oct 2013

Preliminary Report

OTIA III Design/Bid/Build Projects (includes CM/GC)

Bridge Count Bridge Budget

Summary of Design: Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month

Bridges Remaining to Begin Design: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$

Bridges in Design: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$

Total Design: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$

Summary of Construction: Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month

Bridges in Construction: 6 0 6 86,643,194$ -$ 86,643,194$

D/B/B Bridges Open to Traffic: 1 0 1 201,179,700$ -$ 201,179,700$

Bridges with Construction Complete: 202 0 202 599,393,257$ (459,675)$ 598,933,582$

Total Construction: 209 0 209 887,216,151$ (459,675)$ 886,756,476$

Design/Bid/Build Bridges moved to No Work: Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month

D/B/B Bridges with Scope Changed to No Work: 84 0 84 5,095,093$ -$ 5,095,093$

Total D/B/B Bridges moved to No Work: 84 0 84 5,095,093$ -$ 5,095,093$

Grand Total Design/Bid/Build: 293 0 293 892,311,244$ (459,675)$ 891,851,569$

OTIA III Design/Build Projects

Bridge Count Bridge Budget

Summary of Design/Build Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month

Bridges Remaining for Design & Construction: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$

Bridges in Design & Construction: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$

D/B Bridges Open to Traffic: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$

D/B Bridges with Construction Complete: 62 0 62 352,279,008$ -$ 352,279,008$

Total Design/Build: 62 0 62 352,279,008$ -$ 352,279,008$

Design/Build Bridges moved to No Work: Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month

D/B Bridges with Scope Changed to No Work: 10 0 10 1,292,026$ -$ 1,292,026$

Total D/B Bridges moved to No Work: 10 0 10 1,292,026$ -$ 1,292,026$

Grand Total Design/Build: 72 0 72 353,571,034$ -$ 353,571,034$

Grand Total OTIA III Program Budget (w/o PM): 365 0 365 1,245,882,278$ (459,675)$ 1,245,422,603$

Program Target: 1,300,000,000$ OTC Allocation - Pioneer Mt. Eddyville Project Phase 2: (45,000,000)$

Program Reserve: 9,577,397$

Summary of OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program (Period ending: September 30, 2013)

Data Source: OBDP Bridge Reporting System (BRS)

OTC Narrative – September 30, 2013 ConnectOregon I, II, III, and IV

ConnectOregon I

The ConnectOregon I program has a total of thirty-seven projects. Thirty-seven are complete during this reporting period.

0 projects are in design 0 project is in construction 0 projects are started 37 projects are complete

Of the projects that are completed or ongoing, twenty-eight have expended 100% of the ConnectOregon funds assigned. On July 19, 2006, the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) directed that in the event additional ConnectOregon funding becomes available due to the inability of a project on the approved list to go to contract, the $750,000 for the Winchester Freight Rail Yard (075-06), Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, would be restored. At its March 2009 meeting the OTC moved to cancel the ConnectOregon grant award for Winchester Freight Rail Yard project with the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad, Inc., Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 23475. On February 25, 2010, the Oregon Department of Transportation agreed to reinstate funding to ConnectOregon grant award for Winchester Freight Rail Yard project with the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad, Inc., Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 23475. The Settlement Agreement was executed on March 17, 2010. The original grant agreement was reduced by $1,020,000 due to changes in the scope of the project as a result of the settlement. This project is complete as of the 10/31/10 report. The Port of Arlington/Gilliam County Barge Intermodal Transportation Facility Project was cancelled during in June 2013. ConnectOregon II The ConnectOregon II program has a total of twenty-nine projects. One project is active. Twenty-eight projects are complete.

0 project is in design 1 projects are in construction 0 projects are started 28 projects are complete

Of the projects that are completed or ongoing, 18 have expended 100% of the ConnectOregon II funds assigned. If additional funding becomes available due to the inability of a project on the approved list to go to contract, the OTC will be given concurrence to move funds to the next project on the prioritized list.

Page 1 of 3

The City of Salem requested ODOT to cancel the Project Runway/Safety Area Extension at McNary Field in January 2013. ConnectOregon III and Rural Airport Projects The ConnectOregon III “regular” program has a total of forty projects. Ten projects are active. Thirty projects are complete.

3 projects are in design 5 projects are in construction 2 projects are started 30 projects are complete

Of the projects that are completed or ongoing, twenty have expended 100% of the ConnectOregon III funds assigned. The Sunset Empire Transportation District requested that ODOT cancel the Construct South County Transit Center Project in April 2011. The ConnectOregon III Rural Airport Projects (CORA) program has a total of fifty-six projects. Six projects are active. Fifty projects are complete. Six projects received CORA round two funding. Of those, three existing projects were amended to add funds and three new projects were added.

6 projects are started 50 projects are complete

Of the projects that are completed or ongoing, twenty-seven have expended 100% of the ConnectOregon III funds assigned. If for any reason a grant agreement with ODOT is not entered into within the prescribed 180 days, or if funds allocated to an Approved Project are not dispersed or are returned to ODOT for any reason, the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) will consider and may select “Replacement Projects” for subsequent assignment of funds. In the case of Rural Airport projects, the funds will be held for a second round of applications for Rural Airport projects receiving Federal Grants as prescribed in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 731-035-0040(3) and OAR 731 035-0060(12). The OTC may select a “Replacement Project” that is appropriate for the funds available (OAR 731-035-0070(2) from the “Final Review Committee’s prioritized report. To determine the project that is most appropriate, the OTC will consider the minimum regional allocation requirement, project priority order, amount of funds available, project timelines, or other project-related information.

Page 2 of 3

of 3

ConnectOregon IV The ConnectOregon IV program has a total of thirty-eight projects. Thirty are active, and eight are complete.

14 projects are in design 16 projects are in construction 0 projects are started 8 projects are complete

If for any reason a grant agreement with ODOT is not entered into within the prescribed 180 days, or if funds allocated to an Approved Project are not dispersed or are returned to ODOT for any reason, the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) will consider and may select “Replacement Projects” for subsequent assignment of funds. Of the projects that are completed or ongoing, six have expended 100% of the ConnectOregon IV funds assigned.

ConnectOregon I OTC Report (Period ending: September 30, 2013) Data Sources: TEAMS, Local Program Database

Summary of Construction:

Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month Projects not started 0 0 0 $ - -$ $ - Projects in design: 0 0 0 $ - -$ $ -

Projects in construction: 0 0 0 $ - -$ $ - Projects completed: 34 0 34 87,460,372$ -$ 87,460,372$

Cancelled 0 1 1 1,041,182$ 1,041,182$ Total Construction Projects: 34 0 34 88,501,554$ -$ 88,501,554$


Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month Projects Started: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$

Projects completed: 3 0 3 5,877,516$ -$ 5,877,516$ Total Non-Construction Projects: 3 0 3 5,877,516$ -$ 5,877,516$

Administration: 1,050,897$ 345$ 1,051,242$

Grand Total Connect Oregon Projects: 37 0 37 95,429,967$ 345$ 95,430,312$

Program Target: 100,000,000$ Program Reserve: -$

Format Rev 3.1


Explanation of Program Changes: All projects are complete.


ConnectOregon II OTC Report (Period ending:September 30, 2013) Data Sources: TEAMS, Local Program Database


Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month Projects not started 0 0 0 $ - -$ $ - Projects in design: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$

Projects in construction: 1 0 1 5,980,009$ -$ 5,980,009$ Projects completed: 27 0 27 75,160,276$ 9,552$ 75,169,828$ Projects cancelled: 0 0 0 480,753$ 480,753$

Total Construction Projects: 28 0 28 81,140,285$ 9,552$ 81,630,590$


Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month Projects Started: 0 0 0 $ $ $

Projects completed: 1 0 1 3,600,000$ -$ 3,600,000$ Total Non-Construction Projects: 1 0 1 3,600,000$ -$ 3,600,000$

`Administration: 625,170$ 671$ 625,841$

Grand Total Connect Oregon Projects: 29 0 29 85,365,455$ 490,976$ $85,856,431


Format Rev 3.1


Explanation of Program Changes: No changes were made during this reporting period.


ConnectOregon III OTC Report (Period ending:September 30, 2013) Data Sources: TEAMS, Local Program Database


Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month Projects not started 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$ Projects in design: 3 0 3 483,520$ 137,045$ 620,565$

Projects in construction: 5 0 5 6,836,069$ (32)$ 6,836,037$ Projects completed: 29 0 29 57,819,765$ 164,593$ 57,984,358$ Projects cancelled: 1 0 1

Total Construction Projects: 37 0 37 65,139,354$ 301,606$ 65,440,960$


Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month Projects Not Started 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$

Projects Started: 2 0 2 6,652,218$ -$ 6,652,218$ Projects completed: 1 0 1 451,670$ -$ 451,670$

Total Non-Construction Projects: 3 0 3 7,103,888$ -$ 7,103,888$

Administration: 562,651$ 9,296$ 571,947$

Grand Total Connect Oregon Projects: 40 0 40 72,805,893$ 310,902$ 73,116,795$


Format Rev 3.1




ConnectOregon IV OTC Report (Period ending: September 30, 2013) Data Sources: TEAMS, Local Program Database


Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month Projects not started 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$ Projects in design: 22 -8 14 743,677$ (233,528)$ 510,149$

Projects in construction: 8 8 16 2,347,642$ 2,535,912$ 4,883,554$ Projects completed: 7 0 7 1,879,628$ -$ 1,879,628$ Projects cancelled: 0 0 0

Total Construction Projects: 37 0 37 4,970,947$ 2,302,384$ 7,273,331$



Projects Started: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$ Projects completed: 1 0 1 148,400$ -$ 148,400$

Total Non-Construction Projects: 1 0 1 148,400$ -$ 148,400$

Administration: 264,047$ 30,889$ 294,936$

Grand Total Connect Oregon Projects: 38 0 38 5,383,394$ 2,333,273$ 7,716,667$

Program Target: $39,536,333Program Reserve:

Format Rev 3.1


Explanation of Program Changes: Eight projects moved from Design to Construction during this reporting period.


ConnectOregon V OTC Report (Period ending: September 30, 2013) Data Sources: TEAMS, Local Program Database


Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month Projects not started 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$ Projects in design: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$

Projects in construction: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$ Projects completed: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$ Projects cancelled: 0 0 0

Total Construction Projects: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$



Projects Started: 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$ Projects completed: 1 0 1 -$ -$ -$

Total Non-Construction Projects: 1 0 1 -$ -$ -$

Administration: -$ 5,684$ 5,684

Grand Total Connect Oregon Projects: 1 0 1 -$ 5,684$ 5,684$

Program Target: $42,000,000Program Reserve:

Format Rev 3.1


Explanation of Program Changes:


ConnectOregon III Rural Airports Projects (CORA) - OTC Report (Period ending: September 30, 2013) Data Sources: TEAMS, Local Program Database


Previous Month Change Current Month Previous Month Change Current Month Projects not started 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$

Projects started: 6 0 6 626,310$ 15,669$ 641,979$ Projects completed: 50 0 50 $ 2,036,260 13,705$ $ 2,049,965

Project Cancelled: 4 0 4

Total Construction Projects: 56 0 56 $ 2,662,570 29,374$ $ 2,691,944

Administration: $ 136,324 1,860$ $ 138,184

Grand Total Connect Oregon Projects: 56 0 56 2,798,894$ 31,234$ 2,830,128$


Format Rev 3.1


