APPENDICES OREGON’S ACTS, CROSS- JURISDICTIONAL COLLABORATION AND IMPROVED TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SPR 671 OREGON’S ACTS, CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL COLLABORATION AND IMPROVED TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Final Report APPENDICES SPR 671 by Susan Brody National Policy Consensus Center, Hatfield School of Government Portland State University Portland, OR 97207 and Richard D. Margerum Department of Planning, Public Policy & Management University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403 for Oregon Department of Transportation Research Unit 200 Hawthorne Ave. SE, Suite B-240 Salem OR 97301-5192 and Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590-0003 January 2009 DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Oregon and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the view of the authors who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the material presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Oregon Department of Transportation or the United States Department of Transportation. The State of Oregon and the United States Government do not endorse products of manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A: Summary of Interview Responses Oregon Area Commissions on Transportation Study Appendix B: Results of the ODOT Area Commission on Transportation Online Survey Appendix C: Case Studies of the Mid-Willamette Valley, Rogue Valley, and Northeast Area Commissions on Transportation Appendix D: State Comparative Studies Appendix E: Literature Review Appendix F: ACT / MPO Descriptions APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES OREGON AREA COMMISSIONS ON TRANSPORTATION STUDY Prepared by: Oregon Consensus Program, National Policy Consensus Center Portland State University P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 Phone: 503-725-9070 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES OREGON AREA COMMISSIONS ON TRANSPORTATION STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... A-1 2.0 INTERVIEW RESULTS: AREAS WITH ACTS...................................................... A-2 2.1 SCOPE OF INTERVIEWS................................................................................................. A-2 2.2 PURPOSE OF THE ACTS................................................................................................ A-2 2.3 CRITICAL CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES ..................................... A-2 2.4 ACT MEMBERSHIP ...................................................................................................... A-3 2.5 ACT DECISION-MAKING/VOTING ............................................................................... A-4 2.6 ISSUES CURRENTLY ADDRESSED BY ACTS.................................................................. A-4 2.7 ISSUES NEEDING MORE ATTENTION BY ACTS ............................................................ A-4 2.8 FACTORS LIMITING ACTS FROM ADDRESSING OTHER ISSUES .................................... A-5 2.9 INTERACTION BETWEEN ACTS AND MPOS.................................................................. A-5 2.10 ACT AND MPO BOUNDARIES...................................................................................... A-6 2.11 BENEFITS OF ACTS...................................................................................................... A-6 2.12 WHAT ACTS DO WELL ............................................................................................... A-7 2.13 POTENTIAL AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT.......................................................................... A-8 2.14 INTERNAL ACT COMMUNICATION............................................................................... A-8 2.15 COMMUNICATION AMONG AND ACROSS ACTS ........................................................... A-9 2.16 RESOLVING CONFLICTS OVER STIP PRIORITIES ........................................................ A-10 2.17 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................... A-10 2.18 BEST EXAMPLES OF ACT WORK ............................................................................... A-11 2.19 INTEGRATING REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE CONSIDERATIONS ................................... A-12 2.20 IMPROVING PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR COMMUNICATION .......................................... A-13 2.21 PRIORITIZING PROJECTS ACROSS JURISDICTIONS....................................................... A-13 2.22 LEVERAGING INVESTMENTS....................................................................................... A-13 3.0 INTERVIEW RESULTS: LANE COUNTY & JPACT.......................................... A-14 3.1 SCOPE OF INTERVIEWS............................................................................................... A-14 3.2 BACKGROUND ON STRUCTURE OF DECISION MAKING ............................................... A-14 3.3 REASONS JPACT AND LANE COUNTY DID NOT FORM ACTS ................................... A-15 3.4 CRITICAL CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES.................................... A-16 3.5 ISSUES CURRENTLY ADDRESSED & NEEDING MORE ATTENTION.............................. A-17 3.6 LIMITING FACTORS .................................................................................................... A-18 3.7 BOUNDARIES AND COMMUTING PATTERNS................................................................ A-18 3.8 BENEFITS OF CURRENT STRUCTURE; WHAT WORKS WELL ....................................... A-19 3.9 CHALLENGES & POTENTIAL AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT............................................ A-19 3.10 COMMUNICATIONS AMONG KEY STAKEHOLDERS ..................................................... A-20 3.11 RESOLVING CONFLICTS OVER STIP PRIORITIES ....................................................... A-21 3.12 PRIORITIZING PROJECTS ACROSS JURISDICTIONS....................................................... A-22 3.13 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................... A-22 3.14 INTEGRATING REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE CONSIDERATIONS ................................... A-23 3.15 IMPROVING PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR COMMUNICATIONS......................................... A-24 3.16 COMMUNICATIONS WITH OTHER ACTS ..................................................................... A-25 3.17 EXAMPLES OF BEST PROJECTS OR WORK................................................................... A-25 A-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This appendix summarizes interviews completed as part of an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) research study titled, “Oregon’s ACTs, Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration and Improved Transportation Planning.” The research was conducted for ODOT by the Oregon Consensus Program, National Policy Consensus Center at Portland State University and the University of Oregon’s Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management. The study examines how local jurisdictions, different levels of government and the public and private sectors collaborate to address transportation issues. The research focused on the role of Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs), but it also examined the interactions between the ACTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The project had several components: interviews, an on-line survey, and case and comparative studies. The purpose of the interviews was to identify and document key issues and themes that should be addressed in the study. The interview results were also used to inform the development of the on-line survey and the case studies. Section 2 of this appendix summarizes the first 36 interviews that were conducted. Section 3 contains a summary of 12 additional interviews conducted with officials in Lane County and Portland Metro (JPACT), where Area Commissions on Transportation have not been formed. A-2 2.0 INTERVIEW RESULTS: AREAS WITH ACTS 2.1 SCOPE OF INTERVIEWS Interviews were conducted with ODOT policy makers and key staff, as well as with local government officials, staff and community members. The interview subjects were not selected using a scientific sampling technique, but every effort was made to include a cross-section of interests involved with ACTs and MPOs from geographic areas throughout the state where ACTs have been formed. Interviews were conducted with 36 individuals who currently or historically participate on or interact with Oregon Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs). 2.2 PURPOSE OF THE ACTS Interviewees correctly identified ACTs as an advisory group to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). Some interviewees provided a broader view of the purpose of ACTs, while others listed only a few functions when asked to describe their purpose. Interviewees listed some or all of the following areas for ACT input: • Local and regional perspectives on transportation needs and issues • Priorities for projects and funding allocations for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and ConnectOregon • ODOT programs and policies Many of those interviewed also said that ACTs: • Build local support for projects and funding allocations • Provide a forum for local governments and other stakeholders to interact with each other and with ODOT and OTC • Enhance ODOT and OTC relationships with local governments and other stakeholders 2.3 CRITICAL CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Interviewees identified the following critical cross-jurisdictional transportation issues: • Lack of funding for maintenance and new transportation projects (most frequently identified) • The need for increased funding for transit projects and transit operations • The need to understand and address transportation issues from a systems perspective, including: A-3 o Other modes and the relationship between modes o Links and coordination between federal, state, city and county roads o Funding “silos” that make it difficult to take a systems approach • Land use – transportation interactions, including the impact of land use decisions on transportation and the jobs-housing imbalance that drives commuting • The inconsistency between Oregon’s Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) and the federal definition of “urbanized area” used to define MPO boundaries--Some felt that MPO boundaries are too small, and MPOs provide an inadequate forum for discussing land use and transportation cross-jurisdictional issues. • Freight transportation • Traffic congestion • Transportation governance (i.e., who has authority, and the need for better cross-boundary coordination) • Specific transportation projects or corridors (I-5 Eugene Beltway interchange; I-5 corridor; major east-west and north-south state arterials (Highway 22, 34, 99,101); Newberg-Dundee bypass; Highway 140 and connecting the Rogue Valley and Klamath and Lane Counties) • ODOT volume/capacity and design standards that may be unrealistic, widening the gap between the transportation facilities that comprehensive plans anticipate and available funding • Project permitting 2.4 ACT MEMBERSHIP • Many interviewees identified the following interests that should be represented on ACTs: local elected officials; business; transit and other non-highway modes; land use; tribal government; freight; and ODOT. • Other specific interests suggested by individual interviewees were: ports; universities; Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs); citizen “members at large”; education districts; community and neighborhood representatives; emergency services; livability interests; timber; large manufacturing; and the United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. • Some interviewees believe that ACTs generally have a good cross-section of members. Other interviewees identified interests that are not always well represented on ACTs: o Private business interests (although local elected officials on ACTs are sometimes business owners who represent these interests) o Transit and multi-modal interests (air, rail, freight, bike and pedestrian) o Land use interests o Tribal governments A-4 • Some interviewees favor local control over ACT membership. Only one interviewee felt that OTC should decide ACT membership. 2.5 ACT DECISION-MAKING/VOTING • Differing perspectives were offered on who should vote. Interviewees offered the following comments on ACT voting: o ACTs should determine voting based on the local community and stakeholders. o The principal responsible parties for transportation (elected officials or local government representatives; transit districts or state agencies) should vote. o Elected officials and ODOT should vote. o State agencies and members of the public who attend ACT meetings should not vote. o Ex officio agency members like DEQ, Federal Highways and the Office of Community Development should be allowed to vote to encourage their participation. o Voting should be contingent upon coming to meetings regularly and staying informed. • Interviewees reported that most ACTs make consensus decisions, and most favor this approach. 2.6 ISSUES CURRENTLY ADDRESSED BY ACTS Interviewees identified the following issues currently being addressed by ACTs: • Project prioritization and funding for STIP and ConnectOregon projects (most frequently mentioned) • ODOT Policy updates • Transportation planning • Freight mobility and freight route designations • Modal plans • Miscellaneous issues: ACT charters and bylaws; congestion on the urban interface; scenic byways; area specific projects; SB 566 and local issues brought to ACTs by citizens. 2.7 ISSUES NEEDING MORE ATTENTION BY ACTS Interviewees had differing points of view on this question. • Some interviewees answered that there were no issues needing more attention. Some mentioned that ACTs have a full agenda, and that adding issues would strain ACT members and ACT and ODOT staff, and detract from project prioritization and funding allocations. This point of view was common among local elected officials and ODOT staff. A-5 • Other interviewees identified the following as issues needing more attention: o Transit and multimodal issues, such as state modal plans or alternatives for providing mobility and access o Involving ACTs in the broader vision for the transportation system o Land use and transportation integration (e.g., addressing the jobs – housing imbalance) o Transportation policy and transportation planning (i.e., transportation system plans (TSPs), regional or corridor planning issues or identifying road system bottlenecks) o Highway preservation and maintenance o Educating the public on transportation needs o Freight mobility and port issues o Revenue sources o Safety 2.8 FACTORS LIMITING ACTS FROM ADDRESSING OTHER ISSUES Interviewees identified the following factors that limit ACTs from addressing other issues: • ACT authority (some noted that ACT charters may need to change to allow ACTs to look at a broader range of issues) • Lack of time, funding and staff resources 2.9 INTERACTION BETWEEN ACTS AND MPOS Although there is variation across the state, interviewees indicated that interaction between ACTs and MPOs is generally good. Some commented that interaction between ACTs and MPOs will increase in the future as new MPOs are created. • Interviewees identified the following factors that promote good ACT/MPO interaction: o Shared membership and staff support o Guidelines for interaction (for example, Cascade West ACT bylaws and Corvallis MPO policies and guidelines describe how the ACT and MPO will interact on decision- making) o Information sharing, like annual presentations by MPOs to keep ACTs informed o Time for ACTs and MPOs to understand their relative roles and responsibilities, understand each other’s perspective and learn how to work together effectively • Other factors interviewees identified that affect interaction between ACTs and MPOs: o A perceived imbalance of power (majority of projects go to the MPO) A-6 o Overlapping boundaries and jurisdictions that can create confusion over roles 2.10 ACT AND MPO BOUNDARIES Interviewees provided the following comments related to commuting and travel shed issues: • MPO boundaries o MPO boundaries do not coincide with commuting and travel patterns in Portland, Salem, Corvallis, Bend and Eugene. o The Medford MPO boundary coincides best with commuting patterns. o MPO boundaries are small because of the inconsistency between Oregon’s UGBs and the federal definition of “urbanized area” used to define MPO boundaries. • ACT boundaries o ACT boundaries coincide better with commuting and travel patterns than MPO boundaries. o However, commuting occurs across ACT boundaries along the I-5 corridor between Portland-Salem-Albany-Eugene, and between Yamhill County and Portland. o Some ACT boundaries (like the Cascade West ACT boundary which includes Corvallis and Newport) are larger than needed to coincide with commuting and travel patterns. • Problems created by boundaries that do not coincide with commuting and travel patterns: o Transportation problems that originate outside ACT and MPO boundaries can impact transportation within ACT and MPO boundaries. o However, ACTs and MPOs have little or no ability to address these problems. It is difficult for MPOs to provide for transit or other projects outside the MPO boundary. Because MPOs can’t plan outside their boundaries they can’t address cross-jurisdictional land use and transportation issues like the jobs-housing imbalance that drives commuting. Several interviewees pointed out that since boundaries will never coincide perfectly with commuting and travel patterns, a cross-boundary coordination mechanism between and among ACTs and MPOs is needed. 2.11 BENEFITS OF ACTS Most interviewees expressed support for ACTs and recognized that ACTs have improved the project prioritization and funding allocation decision-making process, making them more open and transparent. Interviewees noted the following benefits of ACTs as a forum for interaction between local interests, ODOT and the OTC. • Communication and Coordination A-7 o Provides ODOT and OTC with a local sounding board o Gives local interests a greater collective voice with ODOT and the OTC o Brings elected officials together to discuss their jurisdiction’s transportation issues o ACT members communicate information to their constituencies o Provides opportunities for public involvement o Serves a networking function • Support and Partnerships o Builds broad based support and local buy-in for project priorities and funding allocations, which makes ODOT’s and OTC’s job easier o ACTs can play an advocacy role o Provides opportunities for leveraging • Education and Information o ODOT and OTC learn about local perspectives, desires and needs o Decision-making is more open and transparent o Local interests learn about ODOT and OTC interests, and transportation needs and issues from a regional or statewide perspective o Jurisdictions learn about transportation problems and competing demands within the ACT or within the region 2.12 WHAT ACTS DO WELL There was considerable overlap in interviewees’ responses about the benefit of ACTs and what ACTs do well. Items interviewees mentioned most frequently were: • Reaching agreement and getting local buy-in on recommendations for project priorities and funding allocations o STIP, ConnectOregon and OTIA (Oregon Transportation Investment ACT) o Some interviewees observed that ACTs help to level the political playing field for smaller jurisdictions by providing parity and balance in funding allocations. However, others felt that making strategic investments was more important. • Providing a forum for communication, coordination and education o Bringing elected officials together to discuss their jurisdictions’ transportation issues o Communicating local perspectives, desires and needs to ODOT and OTC o Local interests learn about ODOT and OTC interests, and transportation needs and issues from a regional or statewide perspective A-8 o Communicating within the ACT • Promoting discussion on the interconnectivity between local, state and federal roads • Fostering partnerships and leveraging funds across jurisdictions 2.13 POTENTIAL AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT Interviewees offered the following suggestions for potential areas of improvement. Suggestions for improvement primarily focused on involving ACTs in a wider range of issues, such as: • Other modes (transit, rail, bike and pedestrian) and the relationship between modes • Statewide transportation issues (Some interviewees wanted ACTs more involved in statewide issues, while others questioned whether ACTs were the right forum.) • Integrating land use and transportation (e.g., by addressing the jobs-housing imbalance) • Strategic investments • Some interviewees commented that ACTs do not focus enough on strategic investments because: o the decision-making process separates planning and funding decisions; o funds are in “silos” and ACTs primarily consider funding available for state highways; o there is no strategic investment plan at the ACT level, and ACTs lack authority to develop one; o ACTs only trade off timing and priority for STIP projects, and do not discuss whether alternatives to identified projects would be a better use of limited public funds. 2.14 INTERNAL ACT COMMUNICATION Many of the interviewees responded that communication among the various stakeholders and sectors at the ACT table was generally effective. • Interviewees mentioned these factors as contributing to effective internal communication: o Willingness to listen to each other’s needs and interests o Freedom to express opinions and objections o Consensus decision-making o Professional staff support o The ability to “take turns” on projects, which builds trust between jurisdictions. o Good ACT charters A-9 o The skill of the ACT chair o Adequate time for deliberation and education of new members • However, other interviewees expressed these concerns about internal ACT communication: o Not all stakeholders are represented at the ACT table. o Interest groups don’t always feel heard on ACTs with many local government members. o ACT chairs with strong personalities can discourage others from speaking up. o Communication difficulties occur between some stakeholders (e.g., between highway and rail interests or between business representatives and local elected officials). o Video conferencing, although a good tool, can be a barrier to communication. o There is sometimes frustration that communication does not happen often or quickly enough or that there is not enough time in meetings. 2.15 COMMUNICATION AMONG AND ACROSS ACTS Interviewees’ responses regarding communication among and across ACTs varied from “none” to “needs improvement” to “very effective”. Interviewees offered the following comments: • Communication among ACTs occurs in the following ways: o Personal interaction between ACT members through contacts between ACT chairs to discuss issues, through informal rural networks, or during other meetings. o ACTs coordinate with adjacent ACTs. For example, Southwest ACT and Rogue Valley ACT steering committees hold conference calls to discuss larger regional issues. o ODOT Statewide ACT meeting a few years ago to discuss STIP updates o ODOT Region 2 “All Area” meetings where ACT chairs and co-chairs meet to reach agreement on Region 2 STIP priorities. Before this meeting, ODOT staff discusses the priorities of each Region 2 ACT with other Region 2 ACTs and distributes ODOT’s priority recommendations to all Region 2 ACTs. o ODOT staff keeps ACTs informed of work by other ACTs. o Connect Oregon I and II. Some interviewees mentioned that the process used to identify priority Connect Oregon projects was very effective. ACTs within each ODOT region came together as “Super ACTs” to develop regional priorities. Each ACT then designated a representative to attend a statewide meeting to prioritize projects. • Some interviewees suggested creating more opportunities for ACTs to meet together, such as: o Statewide meeting of ACT chairs convened by the ODOT director o Bringing ACTs together within or across ODOT Regions to discuss issues (e.g., highway corridors) A-10 2.16 RESOLVING CONFLICTS OVER STIP PRIORITIES Most of the interviewees responded that ACTs were resolving disagreements over STIP priorities. Some interviewees identified this as an ACT strength. Interviewees offered the following comments: • Jurisdictions resolve conflicts over priorities by making “trade-offs” o Some expressed support for this approach. Some observed that the process of “taking turns” builds trust among ACT members. o Others favored a more strategic approach for identifying project priorities, commenting that the “trade off” approach results in limited funds being used for lower priority projects over higher priority projects because it is a jurisdiction’s “turn” for a project. o Conflicts over large projects must often be resolved outside of the ACTs at a regional or state level since building one large project could delay another large project for decades. • ACTs apply STIP criteria to select project priorities o Some interviewees commented favorably on how ACTs apply STIP criteria. o One interviewee commented that, for most ACTs, it is not clear that the OTC criteria have changed ACTs’ project priorities, and that ODOT staff needs to provide clear guidance to ACTs on how to apply these criteria. 2.17 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Interviewees offered the following comments on public involvement in the ACT process: • ACTs provide a public forum, offer opportunities for public involvement through public notice of meetings and time for public comment. • Public involvement in ACT meetings varies by locality and the issues being discussed. However, the general public has limited involvement in ACT meetings except through their elected local government representatives. Only a few interviewees said ACT meetings were well attended by the public. • Reasons given for lack of public involvement were: o Meetings are held during working hours. o People with energy and passion for the issues are already on the ACTs. o ACTs address the timing of projects that have already been planned. What the public cares about are the priorities established during the planning stage. o The public does not become concerned until an immediate issue directly affects them. o The public loses interest in projects that come back for consideration several times. A-11 o The public would rather talk to their City Council because they do not understand what the ACTs and MPOs are or the issues they deal with. o Transportation is such a technical topic that it is difficult to get the public involved. • Some interviewees felt that ACT public involvement efforts had improved over time. Others commented that there are always opportunities to educate and inform the public better. • ACT members have a responsibility to keep their constituents informed. 2.18 BEST EXAMPLES OF ACT WORK Interviewees most often identified project prioritization and working with communities to resolve concerns over individual projects as the best examples of ACT work. • A number of examples of good ACT outcomes in prioritization were given, including: o Region 2 ACTs work together successfully to develop regional recommendations. o Rogue Valley ACT (RVACT): contributed funds to a Southwest ACT (SWACT) project in exchange for SWACT’s agreement to backfill this contribution in the next STIP cycle; obtained $15 million in local resources for the South Medford interchange project; and reallocated funds from other projects to fund Highway 199 safety improvements. o Lower John Day, Central Oregon, and South Central Oregon ACTs coordinated to prioritize the reroute of Highway 97 through Redmond as the highest regional priority. o In the Mid Willamette Valley ACT, Polk County gave up some local project funding for the Stayton Highway 22 overpass. Polk County and ACT members along Highway 22 allowed the Salem bridge project to move ahead of one of their projects. o The Cascades West ACT worked together to obtain projects to increase Highway 20/34 capacity between Lebanon and Newport. (However, some believed that the money spent on these projects could have been used more strategically on other projects.) o The three counties in the Southeast ACT work together to prioritize projects, most recently for the North Ontario interchange in Malheur County. o The South Central ACT members worked together with limited modernization funds to identify ways to address the length restriction on Highway 140. o Northeast ACT members worked together to address length restrictions on Highway 3. • Other positive examples of ACT work included: recommendations for cutting STIP projects to meet statewide budgets; revising STIP criteria based on consideration of regional priorities; working with representatives of different modes in Connect Oregon 1 and 2; and identifying priority projects to be funded through Oregon Transportation Improvement Act (OTIA). • Some interviewees also cited positive examples of ACTs’ work with local communities to resolve individual project concerns, including: working with businesses to resolve concerns A-12 over access limitations; resolving concerns about signal lights; and developing a less costly highway interchange design. 2.19 INTEGRATING REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE CONSIDERATIONS Interviewees provided the following responses on how ACTs were integrating regional and statewide considerations into project selection and transportation policy: • Regional considerations o Some felt that the ACT process and ODOT’s “large project” strategy effectively integrated regional considerations. o Others felt regional considerations were not effectively integrated because: ƒ ACT boundaries do not match travelsheds. ƒ ACTs lack the land use authority to address some regional considerations. ƒ Some highways have statewide and regional significance but are also used for local traffic. Because there is more funding for state highways, ACTs do not consider whether local traffic can be served better by building or improving local arterials. • Statewide considerations o Some interviewees believed the ACT process effectively integrated statewide considerations. Those who specified a reason referenced STIP criteria. o Other interviewees believed that statewide considerations were not effectively integrated or that improvement was needed. Reasons given were: ƒ The lack of a system-wide, multi-modal perspective ƒ Fragmented funding streams ƒ The lack of a strategic investment plan, and the ACT’s tendency to spread funding around among jurisdictions ƒ Parochialism--elected officials tend to focus on local needs ƒ Reluctance to use local funding for projects of statewide significance, and a belief that the state or federal government would find a way to provide for these projects ƒ ACTs are not consistently or effectively applying STIP criteria ƒ ACTs are brought in too late in the policy-making process to affect policy A-13 2.20 IMPROVING PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR COMMUNICATION • Some interviewees indicated that ACTs were improving communication between the public and private sectors, although others identified it as an area for improvement. Interviewees focused in their comments on communication with private industry and business interests. • Some interviewees said that it is difficult to get private industry representatives to participate in ACTs because business people are busy and don’t have time for slow, bureaucratic meetings, and because business people will not become involved unless they see value. 2.21 PRIORITIZING PROJECTS ACROSS JURISDICTIONS • Most of the interviewees said ACTs were improving coordination on project prioritization across jurisdictions. The STIP, Connect Oregon 1 and 2 and OTIA were cited as examples. • Some interviewees pointed out that while coordination across jurisdictions was improving for highway projects, this is not necessarily the case for other modes. • Some interviewees also noted that ACT members struggle to bring money to their own areas and it can be difficult for local elected officials to explain why they supported another jurisdiction’s project. 2.22 LEVERAGING INVESTMENTS • Interviewees gave the examples of sharing or leveraging of investments across jurisdictions or sectors as a result of the ACTs. Most examples involved leveraging across jurisdictions (e.g. city and counties jointly providing funding or sharing road equipment). Some interviewees noted that increased local match is becoming the norm because the OTC allows projects to move up on the priority list based on the amount of local match. • Interviewees mentioned these obstacles to leveraging resources across jurisdictions and sectors: o The timber revenue decline, making it harder for rural counties to contribute to projects o Local governments’ desire for development may cause them to not ask developers to contribute to needed transportation improvements A-14 3.0 INTERVIEW RESULTS: LANE COUNTY & JPACT 3.1 SCOPE OF INTERVIEWS Interviews were conducted in two of the areas in Oregon where Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs) have not been formed—Lane County and Portland Metro. This summary highlights key findings from interviews with a subset of elected officials and staff from these two areas of the state. These interviews were conducted by NPCC at Portland State University as part of a larger ODOT research study on how local jurisdictions, different levels of government and the public and private sectors collaborate to address transportation issues. Twelve interviews were conducted in the non-ACT areas, six in Lane County and six in the Portland Metro area. The interview subjects were not selected using a scientific sampling technique, but every effort was made to include a cross-section of interests The topic areas in this summary correspond to specific questions that were asked in the interviews. The bulleted points listed are individual perspectives and do not necessarily represent shared viewpoints. Thus, there are comments under some topics that express different and opposing points of view. 3.2 BACKGROUND ON STRUCTURE OF DECISION MAKING Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) is a 17-member committee that provides a forum for elected officials and representatives of agencies involved in transportation to evaluate transportation needs in the region and to make recommendations to the Metro Council. JPACT recommends priorities and develops the transportation plan for the region based on input from the Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee (TPAC). This plan is forwarded to the Metro Council, which must adopt JPACT's recommendations before they become the transportation policies of the metropolitan region. Regional transportation decision making is accomplished through a combination of JPACT and Metro. JPACT plus the Metro Council is the MPO. There is also a Metropolitan Policy Committee. Metro can’t overrule JPACT, but Metro and JPACT have to reach consensus – the process requires give and take. JPACT/Metro adopt the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the MTIP. Recommendations for the State STIP are made by JPACT to ODOT. The membership of JPACT includes one representative each from: Multnomah County, Washington County, Clackamas County, the City of Portland, Cities of Multnomah County, Cities of Washington County, Cities of Clackamas County, the Oregon Department of A-15 Transportation, TriMet, Port of Portland, and Department of Environmental Quality. In addition, JPACT includes three Metro councilors and three representatives from Washington State. Clark County is a voting member of JPACT even though it is not part of Metro. In addition to Clark County, other jurisdictions from Washington include the City of Vancouver and their transit district. Lane County The Board of County Commissioners provides recommendations on transportation priorities to Region 2 of ODOT. They do this based on recommendations from the MPO (Metro Policy Committee--MPC) for the Eugene-Springfield area. For the rest of the county, the Board of County Commissioners make their determinations on priorities based on recommendations from their Roads Advisory Committee and public testimony. In the end, the County submits one priority list for the whole county, incorporating the MPO recommendations. For those portions of Lane County outside of the MPO area, the Board has established a Roads Advisory Committee (RAC) to advise the Board on road issues. The RAC has seven members: one member appointed by each commissioner and two members at large. Current RAC members include: a trucking company owner from Coburg, a person from the local electric cooperative, a local engineer, a neighborhood group leader, a representative from the bicycling community, a farmer from Noti, and a representative from the Coast. The RAC helps Lane County develop their capital improvement program. Staff presents a draft CIP, and the RAC votes on it. The RAC also holds hearings on STIP projects. The Metro Policy Committee (MPC) includes: two representatives from Eugene, Springfield and Lane County and one representative from ODOT, Lane Transit District (LTD) and Coburg. To get MPO approval, there must be one vote each from Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. The MPO boundary does not include Veneta and Junction City. The County interacts with the MPO on multiple levels: County transportation planning staff participates on the MPO technical advisory committee and the MPO transportation planning committee. The MPO transportation planning committee makes recommendations to the MPC. Two County Commissioners and the County Administrator (non-voting) sit on the MPC and two Road Advisory Committee members are members of the MPO Citizen Advisory Committee. 3.3 REASONS JPACT AND LANE COUNTY DID NOT FORM ACTS JPACT According to the interviewees, JPACT did not form an ACT because the Metro region already had a long history of working together to collaborate on regional decision making on land use and transportation. There was also concern about the OTC requirement for ACT membership, including representation from non-elected officials. JPACT started more than 20 years ago and had been in place for years before ACTs were formed. For the most part, JPACT members were A-16 comfortable with what they had established, including direct control. Some argued that there was no great need to create an ACT, since JPACT was performing the duties of an ACT. Lane County Interviewees said that the Lane County Board believes that appointed officials should not be allowed to have the same decision making authority as elected officials. The Board felt it was already doing a good job through its existing process and the formation of an ACT could add more bureaucracy. 3.4 CRITICAL CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES JPACT: • Funding • Balancing Safety, Economy, Sustainability • Understanding and responding to the different needs of rural and urban areas—Urban needs/problems focus on access; rural needs/problems focus on mobility. • Relationship between land use and transportation • Effect of global warming and post-peak oil on the transportation system and users • Governance issues related to responsibility for the state transportation system as a whole • Need for cooperation and collaboration in the complex political context of a multi- jurisdictional region Lane County: • Funding, including problems relating to decline in timber receipts • Funding for transit, both capital and operations • Seamless service delivery across jurisdictions • Need for regional transportation planning • Dependence on petroleum-based transportation system; reducing carbon footprint • Commuting patterns—jobs/housing imbalance • Bottlenecks on the state highway system A-17 3.5 ISSUES CURRENTLY ADDRESSED & NEEDING MORE ATTENTION JPACT Currently addressed: • Updating the Regional Transportation Plan • MTIP—4 year budget • Annual funding request to Congress • Columbia River Crossing • Climate change issues • Land use & transportation connections Needs more attention: • Transportation issues as they affect business and industry. • Transportation issues from the perspective of transportation system owners and operators • Oregon-Washington cross-border issues • Facility maintenance and upgrades • Neighboring areas outside of Metro, but part of the larger transportation travelshed • Role of the Portland area as a strategic part of the larger statewide transportation system • Demand management and traffic reduction • Innovative transportation approaches that reduce oil consumption. Lane County Currently Addressed: • Funding • Aligning the Regional Transportation Plan with TransPlan • Completion of I-5 Beltline Interchange • Citizen participation and citizen’s advisory committee Needs more attention: • Increasing input from user groups, such as small cities, freight interests, bike and pedestrian interests, etc. • Co-locating and consolidating facilities; creating a seamless transportation system • Increasing funding of transit and other alternative modes • Regional planning A-18 • How issues in one jurisdiction affect other jurisdictions in the county • East-West transportation connections; West 11th land use & transportation; Franklin Blvd in Glenwood; Delta-Beltline intersection; • Developing higher density land use/transportation nodes 3.6 LIMITING FACTORS JPACT • Lack of adequate funding; it is easier to be regional when funding is adequate, otherwise people default to parochialism. • Clark County is part of JPACT, but not Metro; though JPACT can share information and talk to Clark Co., JPACT has no authority to coordinate policy • Need for more innovative thinking. • Politics and philosophy limits JPACT from spending funds on needed roads and highways • Lack of a unified funding source for the region Lane County • Constitutional limitations on expenditures of gas tax for alternative modes • Current MPO voting structure • Jurisdictions have differing philosophies about growth and development and their role in regional growth that makes reaching agreement difficult • The absence of an ACT • Inadequate participation by the private sector 3.7 BOUNDARIES AND COMMUTING PATTERNS JPACT • Commute sheds extend beyond the JPACT and METRO boundaries. • From a freight perspective, the jurisdictional boundaries of JPACT don’t represent the ‘market shed’. Lane County • MPO boundary does not coincide with commuting patterns; there is a lot of growth in the smaller communities surrounding Eugene-Springfield in Creswell, Cottage Grove, Junction City and Veneta; only Coburg is now represented on the MPO. • The Lane Transit District boundaries go outside of the MPO boundary. A-19 • The county boundary generally encompasses commuting and other travel patterns, except for commuting to Salem. 3.8 BENEFITS OF CURRENT STRUCTURE; WHAT WORKS WELL JPACT • Rich, tangible outcomes to date; compared to other Metro regions in the U.S., there have been impressive accomplishments • Improvements in transportation-land use coordination and integration • JPACT serves as a convener for discussion among the jurisdictions • Significant funding for transit • TPAC functions well • JPACT adopted policies to coordinate maintenance and preservation projects with local projects Lane County • Simple, nimble and efficient to have a small group (the five County Commissioners) make the final decisions on project priorities with input from MPC and Roads Advisory Committee • Board of County Commissioners, and MPC, deal with both land use and transportation issues • Only elected officials get the final say on recommendations • The County boundaries include commute sheds • Operational relationships work well (reciprocal maintenance agreements, for example) • United front trips to Washington D.C. in which all three jurisdictions join together to lobby for transportation and other needs 3.9 CHALLENGES & POTENTIAL AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT JPACT • Identifying and prioritizing the most critical and strategic regional projects • More attention to safety issues • More attention to the economic impacts of transportation • Need for new funding sources • Determining the right balance between Metro and JPACT A-20 • With less money and a growing region, it is getting harder for JPACT to reach agreement; Need to overcome parochialism when things get difficult • Coordinating projects to capture efficiencies. • Making sure that there is time and opportunity to tackle the tough issues • Addressing project backlogs on highway projects • Need for more innovation • Need to establish regional responsibility for the transportation system (e.g., Multnomah Co. bridges that benefit the whole region) Lane County • MPC meets monthly so sometimes cannot make a decision on short notice—this presented a problem for Connect Oregon II where MPC endorsed the recommendation after the fact • MPO (MPC) decision making requires one vote each from Eugene, Springfield and Lane County; Any of the three jurisdictions has veto power if they don’t agree on an issue • Friction among jurisdictions at the political level; conflicts about land use planning issues can interfere with consideration of transportation issues • Need to make sure that staff is able to attend All-Area meetings at Region 2 to assist County Commissioners when they participate • Possible formation of an ACT or increasing the representation on the County Roads Advisory Committee so that smaller cities and other interests have more opportunity for participation 3.10 COMMUNICATIONS AMONG KEY STAKEHOLDERS JPACT • Some stakeholders are more effective at using the current process than others to get results. • More time is needed to allow for the difficult conversations to occur. • JPACT is made up of government agencies that implement or oversee transportation development. • Some business community interests are missing from the JPACT table; however, as part of the RTP, a 30-member freight and business committee has been created. • Communication between JPACT members could be improved. • Some issues of trust exist between Metro and the local governments. A-21 Lane County • Communication among smaller cities and the County can be problematic; the cities don’t always feel that their priorities are given adequate consideration. • Communication is sometimes effective, sometimes not. • At MPC, differing philosophies about growth and development among the three jurisdictions are sometimes a significant obstacle to successful negotiations. • Communication at the staff level is often good. There is a cross-jurisdictional group of technical staff that works well between meetings. 3.11 RESOLVING CONFLICTS OVER STIP PRIORITIES JPACT: • STIP deals with only part of the available funding. The STIP process is reactive and dollars are limited. • Conflicts about priority setting are usually resolved at JPACT. It works because the person who loses their STIP project is promised another project as long as everyone agrees that both projects are equally valid. • Conflicts are often not resolved at JPACT. • The STIP process is not open enough; there is not enough JPACT input and discussion of STIP priorities. • The money is in ODOT’s hands and ODOT goes through a list of what ODOT needs. There is no looking at the region as a whole and asking what is the best way to spend the available money. • ODOT identifies highest priority projects; JPACT only gets to comment. Lane County • There is an unwritten practice on the part of the county of not reordering the MPO STIP priorities; this helps maintain a good working relationship between the MPO and County. The County can rank other county priorities higher than the MPO list, but it has agreed not to reorder the MPO’s project list. • The Lane County process does not always resolve disagreements, but generally the final recommendation to ODOT from Lane County includes a good mix of projects. • It is beneficial that there is a cross-jurisdictional group of technical staff that help to resolve disagreements at the staff level. A-22 3.12 PRIORITIZING PROJECTS ACROSS JURISDICTIONS JPACT • JPACT improves coordination on project prioritization through: --The Regional Transportation Plan. A sub-allocation of federal dollars goes to larger MPOs. The RTP establishes priorities for spending this money. --The list of regional projects taken to Washington, DC --JPACT’s comments to ODOT on STIP projects. • JPACT also improves coordination on project implementation • Metro’s technical staff helped focus the discussion on multimodal projects, and JPACT was supportive. This has worked out over time, but coordination could be improved. • Both RTP and MTIP force the issue of project prioritization. The big issue is the number of regional “mega projects” (like the Columbia River Crossing or the I-5 99 W connector). All agree these are high priority projects even though they may not help all jurisdictions equally. • Philosophical divides have created difficulties and some projects are not getting built. Lane County • Some smaller cities within the County want to have more of a voice; however, some jurisdictions are so small they may not want to be as actively involved. • At the planning level, the Board of County Commissioners adopts the transportation system plans of the small cities. The rest of the coordination happens at public hearings at the Roads Advisory Committee and at the Board. • There is room for improvement in the information flow. • LCOG meetings provide an opportunity for coordination. • Some Commissioners meet regularly with their cities and try to advocate for their needs. • The city managers/administrators for all the cities in Lane County get together every few months and communicate effectively across their boundaries to talk about infrastructure and transportation issues. This form of communication is important. LCOG helps to foster that communication. 3.13 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT JPACT • The public at large has limited knowledge about JPACT and rarely attends meetings. • Certain stakeholders fare better than others. Advocacy groups and paid advocates don’t miss meetings, but very few citizens show up. A-23 • JPACT holds a public comment period on MTIP and STIP and these are pretty well attended. • Metro has a public involvement advisory committee; its public involvement effort is exemplary and JPACT benefits from it. Lane County • There are many opportunities in the MPO and County process for public comment, but meetings are not well attended • A Citizens Advisory Committee was formed for the MPO to improve citizen access. • Lane County now televises meetings to give the public more opportunities. 3.14 INTEGRATING REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE CONSIDERATIONS JPACT • There is not enough consideration of regional and statewide needs. Even when applying STIP criteria, there tends to be a focus on smaller geographic areas and smaller projects instead of projects that require major investments. • ODOT tends to focus on whether the part of the transportation system they have responsibility for works well; statewide issues have not always been well defined. • Funding availability and service standards are far out of line. We need to have a simultaneous discussion about funding availability and service standards in order to have a rational discussion about state or regional interests. Lane County • The primary method for integrating state and regional perspectives is through the application of STIP criteria. MPC has added additional criteria related to livability/sustainability issues. However, because only the mandatory STIP criteria are considered when the recommendations go to ODOT Region 2, MPC must be careful to justify their recommendations based on the mandatory state criteria. • It is unfair to expect local officials to integrate a statewide perspective. It is up to a higher body like the OTC or legislature to decide on the state priorities. • ODOT Region managers are critical to identifying and advocating for the state/regional perspective. A-24 3.15 IMPROVING PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR COMMUNICATIONS JPACT • Freight committees that have been established show that there is both concern and passion about transportation projects among the business community. The Oregon Freight Advisory Committee and Portland Freight Committees are both chaired by private sector reps and they function well. Metro also has a freight advisory committee. • The JPACT Freight/Business task force is an example of improving communication, along with JPACT’s role in Connect Oregon. This region pushed hard on other regions to have Connect Oregon focus on freight and business, not local projects. Having private sector representatives on JPACT may make things too complex. In addition, private sector representatives might come in with too narrow of an agenda. • Some believe that JPACT needs more business representation, a key customer base. This can also make it difficult to communicate with a broader audience of businesses. • There is room for improvement and for more innovative approaches. The economic development perspective is critical and is often left out of the transportation policy and development perspective. • In regard to high tech industries on the west side, JPACT needs to consider the following questions: o Are we linking land use and transportation effectively? o Is transit servicing your needs? o Are there investments you could make on the private side like employee shuttles or a flexible hours program to get folks off the highway? o Are there things we could bring to you to make you a more viable employer and benefit transportation as a whole? Lane County • There is room for improvement in communications between public and private sectors. • Public-private sector communication is accomplished primarily through one-on-one contact and through testimony at public meetings. • Consideration should be given to expanding the Roads Advisory Committee to include more private sector groups. • Cooperation and communication between the two sectors is important, partly because contributions from the private sector will become an increasingly important source of funding. A-25 3.16 COMMUNICATIONS WITH OTHER ACTS JPACT • Little communication currently takes place between JPACT and adjacent ACTs. • Some communication happens between Metro councilors and other MPO elected officials through the meetings of the Oregon Metropolitan Planning Organization Consortium (OMPOC). Lane County • The only interaction is at the All-Area meetings for Region 2 that occur when the STIP process is underway, or for the Connect Oregon process. 3.17 EXAMPLES OF BEST PROJECTS OR WORK JPACT • The Federal priority agenda--going to Washington, DC with a list of regional priorities for federal funding. This process has been less effective on the state level, but is starting to be more effective. • Regional light rail--JPACT was able to reach consensus and look at things from a regional perspective and reach agreement. Metro staff was very effective at helping JPACT reach consensus. • 2040 Plan—establishing a land use framework/hierarchy and then the regional transportation plan to implement the plan. But now, it is muddy. JPACT is trying to be all things to all people. And it doesn’t seem very effective anymore. Prioritizing is difficult. • Regional Transportation Plan. It is ambitious and successful. It involved technicians, politicians and the community working together to define a 30-year plan. Metro effectively integrates the viewpoints of a wide variety of stakeholders. It’s a transparent process, with an opportunity to participate. Relationships and trust have been built. Even people who disagree are thinking of the best interests of the region. • MTIP. Sometimes has worked well, but is less successful. Expectations and outcomes do not match. Lane County • I-5/Beltline Interchange—all the jurisdictions worked well together, along with some business interests. Funding came from multiple sources—federal state and local, plus contributions from the major hospital. • Bus Rapid Transit • Bob Straub Parkway. Springfield said the parkway was important to orderly development in an undeveloped part of the UGB, and offered to work with Lane County on the project. A-26 Lane County agreed to build the first two-lane phase of the parkway if landowners would agree to provide right of way at no cost to the County. Springfield helped property owners by giving them SDC credit for giving the County the right of way. ODOT gave the County some right of way from the old abandoned project. The County agreed to take over several miles of state highway in return for ODOT’s help in processing ODOT permits needed for the parkway. ODOT also agreed to forgive some money the County owed ODOT in exchange for the County building the parkway. APPENDIX B: RESULTS OF THE ODOT AREA COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION ONLINE SURVEY Prepared by: Community Planning Workshop Community Service Center 1209 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1209 Phone: 541.346.3889 Fax: 541.346.2040 Email: cpw@uoregon.edu http://www.uoregon.edu/~cpw APPENDIX B: RESULTS OF THE ODOT AREA COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION ONLINE SURVEY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... B-1 1.1 METHODS .............................................................................................................. B-1 1.1.1 Sample composition....................................................................................................................B-2 1.1.2 Survey administration.................................................................................................................B-3 1.1.3 Survey response ..........................................................................................................................B-3 1.2 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................... B-4 2.0 SURVEY FINDINGS.............................................................................................. B-7 2.1 ACT EFFECTIVENESS............................................................................................. B-7 2.2 ACTS..................................................................................................................... B-9 2.2.1 ACT Structure and Commitment...............................................................................................B-10 2.2.2 ACT Process .............................................................................................................................B-14 2.2.3 ACT Outputs and Outcomes .....................................................................................................B-15 2.3 ACT-ACT COORDINATION.................................................................................. B-17 2.3.1 Issues requiring coordination...................................................................................................B-19 2.4 ACT-MPO COORDINATION................................................................................. B-19 2.4.1 Communication and coordination ............................................................................................B-20 2.4.2 Improving coordination and communication with MPOs ........................................................B-21 2.4.3 Issues requiring coordination...................................................................................................B-21 2.5 ACT STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES................................................................... B-22 2.5.1 Strengths:..................................................................................................................................B-22 2.5.2 Weaknesses:..............................................................................................................................B-23 3.0 SURVEY INSTRUMENT .................................................................................... B-25 4.0 ALL RESPONDENT COMMENTS ................................................................... B-37 B-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION A key objective of this study was to assess the current role and experience of ACTs and MPOs, and their interactions with each other, in addressing travel-shed, cross-jurisdictional and cross-sector (public-private) issues. One of the primary methods for achieving the research objectives was an online survey. During April and May 2008, the Community Planning Workshop (CPW) administered an online survey to approximately 350 ODOT, ACT, and MPO officials as well as other appropriate individuals. This appendix summarizes findings from the online survey. 1.1 METHODS The online survey was designed to study attitudes and opinions of individuals regarding various aspects of the ACTs. The survey presents a snapshot of perceptions at a single point in time. The purpose of the online survey was primarily to address objectives 1 and 3 of the research objectives: • Assess the current role and experience of ACTs and MPOs, and their interactions with each other, in addressing travel-shed, cross-jurisdictional and cross-sector (public-private) issues. • Research best practices (including collaborative processes and governance approaches) in Oregon and elsewhere in the nation for effectively bridging jurisdictional and institutional barriers. • Develop and assess options (in both policy and process) available to ODOT, ACTs, and MPOs for improving coordination of transportation and land use across jurisdictions, corridors and travel-sheds. Figure 1.1 shows the structure of the survey. The survey started with respondent characteristics, then moved to a general set of questions that asks respondents to rate how well the ACT they are most familiar with is implementing their roles as defined by the OTC ACT Policy. The next section addressed perceptions of various operational aspects of the ACTs. The survey included a special set of questions for those ACTs that have MPOs within them. Finally, the survey concludes with some general questions about the ACT system and provided a place for respondents to provide comments. Most questions used a Likert scale (e.g., ratings on a scale of 1-5 or strongly disagree to strongly agree) but some allowed respondents to write brief comments. A copy of the survey is included at the end of this Appendix. B-2 All Respondentsll espondents Act Voting Member?ct oting e ber? Section 1: •Contact info •Respondent characteristics ection 1: • ontact info • espondent characteristics Section 2: •ACT Roles as defined by ODOT ection 2: • T oles as defined by T External Perceptionsxternal erceptionsInternal PerceptionsInternal erceptions Section 3: •Perceptions of Collaboration; “ Cross jurisdictional, etc. ection 3: • erceptions of ollaboration; “ ross jurisdictional, etc. Yes No Section 4: •Perceptions of MPO Collaboration ection 4: • erceptions of ollaboration MPO within ACT? ithin ? Yes No Section 5: General perceptions of the ACTs; final comments ection 5: eneral perceptions of the Ts; final co ents Figure 1.1: Online survey structure 1.1.1 Sample composition The research project proposal called for the survey to include officials from ODOT, ACTs, MPOs and others as appropriate. The work program, however, did not specify which groups of people within these organizations to include. We structured the sample in a manner that allowed analysis of both internal and external perspectives of ACTs. The internal perspective is from individuals that participate directly in the decision making process of an ACT. The external perspective is from all other groups included in the sample. Table 1.1 lists the groups of respondents included in the survey and their perspective. The survey did not include officials connected with Lane County, the Eugene-Springfield MPO, or the Portland metropolitan region. B-3 Table 1.1: Groups included in the survey sample Membership Internal or External Perspective ACT Voting Internal Ex-Officio (ACT only) External ACT advisory committee External MPO Policy Board External Support Staff (ACT and MPO) External One of the issues CPW confronted in developing the sampling methodology was identifying the size of the population to be sampled. Research identified about 240 voting members of ACTs; the size of the external groups is unknown. Thus, CPW structure the sample to ensure that we included as complete and representative sample of external groups as possible. While we do not know the exact size of this population, we feel that the number of individuals included in the sample population is a large percentage of individuals in the total population of these groups. 1.1.2 Survey administration CPW administered the survey online using the commercial vendor Survey Monkey (surveymonkey.com). CPW used survey methodologies developed by Dr. Don Dillman in Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. The tailored design method emphasizes the use of multiple contacts to boost survey response rates. Consistent with the tailored design method, CPW used an administration method that included four contacts with each survey participant. The survey administration methods are described in more detail below. • Initial Survey Contact: The participants initially received another email with the survey weblink. The survey notice included a letter from ODOT Transportation Development Division Administrator Jerri Bohard describing the purpose of the study and encouraging individuals to respond. • Thank You and Reminder Contacts: The first follow-up was sent out one week after the initial survey contact. Additional follow-ups were sent at 14 and 21 days. CPW sent a final email notice the last day the survey was administered. • Contact ODOT Area Managers: CPW also requested ODOT Area Managers to send an email to their ACT and MPO officials, urging them to participate in the survey. 1.1.3 Survey response The survey was sent to 349 ODOT, ACT, and MPO officials and 178 responded; however, the number of people answering each question varied because not everyone answered every question, some people stopped the taking the survey midway through, and there were two skip sequences in the survey. A key concern of organizations that conduct surveys is statistical validity. If one were to assume that the sample was perfectly random and that there was no response bias, then the survey would have a margin of error of ±6% at the 95% B-4 confidence level. In simple terms, this means that if survey were conducted 100 times, the results would end up within ±6% of those presented in this report. However, there was some response bias. First, respondents are not equally distributed among all ten ACTs; overall response rates for the ACTs varied from 7% to 15%. Moreover, the number of voting and non-voting respondents varied by ACT (Table 1.2) 1.2 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS The survey generated responses from all ten ACTs. Table 1.2 shows the number of responses by ACT, the response rate by ACT, the percentage of respondents who were voting members, and the percent of total responses each ACT accounts for. All ACTs had at least 10 respondents. Interestingly, half of the ACTs had response rates above 67% and the other half all had response rates below 32%. Voting membership was also well represented in the responses; for every ACT except Lower John Day, at least 45% of the responses were from voting members. Table 1.2: Survey response by ACT (Q5) ACT Respondents ACT Response Rate % of Respondents Who Are Voting Members Percent of Total Respondents Cascades West 18 31% 50% 11% Central Oregon 14 67% 64% 9% Lower John Day 12 20% 17% 7% Mid-Willamette Valley 16 94% 69% 10% North East 11 31% 45% 7% Northwest Oregon 18 69% 83% 11% Rogue Valley 24 30% 46% 15% South Central Oregon 11 32% 45% 7% South East 15 100% 60% 9% South West 14 93% 64% 9% Other 9 - - 6% Total 162 - - 100% Overall, 55% of all respondents were voting members and 15% were staff for ODOT or another entity, such as a COG or city (Table 1.3). Alternates and ex-officio members were also well represented in the responses. B-5 Table 1.3: ACT membership status of respondents (Q8) Status Respondents % of Total Respondents Voting member 88 55% Alternate 16 10% ODOT staff 15 9% Ex-officio member 12 8% Other Staff 10 6% ACT TACs 4 3% OTC 3 2% Other 12 8% Total 160 100% Almost a third (32%) of all the survey respondents represent city government, another quarter (23%) were affiliated with state government, and 14% were affiliated with county governments (Table 1.4). Over three quarters of the respondents affiliated with state government were from ODOT (77%) and another 20% were from DLCD. Private sector respondents represented diverse interests, including construction, development, Chambers of Commerce, legal, banking and trucking industries. Table 1.4: Affiliation of all respondents and voting respondents (Q4) Agency All Respondents % of All Respondents Voting Respondents % of Voting Respondents City Government 56 32% 34 40% State Government 39 23% 8 9% County Government 25 14% 15 17% Private Sector 15 9% 12 14% MPO 7 4% 0 0% Port Authority 5 3% 3 3% Economic Development 5 3% 1 1% Transit District 4 2% 4 5% Tribal Government 4 2% 3 3% COG 3 2% 0 0% Citizen 3 2% 3 3% Other 7 4% 3 3% Total 173 100% 86 100% Among all respondents who are voting members of ACTs, 40% were from city government, 17% from county government, and 14% represented the private sector. Many respondents were also affiliated or closely involved with an MPO; they were well distributed between Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS), Rogue Valley MPO, Corvallis Area MPO, and Bend MPO (Table 1.5). This survey did not include Lane County or the Portland metropolitan region so most were affiliated with the other four MPOs in Oregon. The six respondents that identified with Portland or Eugene-Springfield were likely staff support for those MPOs who inadvertently received the survey. B-6 Table 1.5: MPO affiliation of respondents (Q7) MPO Affiliation Respondents % of Total Respondents Portland Area 4 3% Eugene-Springfield 2 1% Salem-Keizer 13 9% Medford-Ashland 18 12% Corvallis Area 13 9% Bend Area 15 10% Unaffiliated 86 57% Total 151 100% On average, respondents have been affiliated with ACTs for 5.2 years. There is a noticeably higher average length of service among respondents from ACTs with an MPO (6.2 years) than respondents from ACTs without an MPO (4.4 years). B-7 2.0 SURVEY FINDINGS The remainder of this report summarizes findings from the online survey. 2.1 ACT EFFECTIVENESS The survey asked four broad questions about the effectiveness of ACTs in addressing cross- jurisdictional and cross-sector issues. Table 2.1 shows the results of these questions. Table 2.1: Respondent opinions on ACT effectiveness (Q33-36) How effective are ACTs in addressing… Effective or Very Effective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Ineffective or Very Ineffective Not sure n Regional transportation issues 65% 21% 10% 4% 135 Cross-jurisdictional issues among different local jurisdictions 45% 32% 12% 11% 134 Cross-jurisdictional issues between different levels of government 47% 26% 17% 10% 133 Cross-sector issues between public and private organizations 37% 28% 21% 14% 132 One of the purposes of ACTs is to improve the regional decision making on transportation issues. Almost two thirds of survey respondents indicated that ACTs are effective or very effective (65%) in addressing regional transportation issues and a relatively small portion of all respondents (10%) indicated that ACTs are ineffective or very ineffective. Most respondents gave positive reviews of ACTs in addressing regional transportation issues. Respondents from ACTs without MPOs were 10% more likely to indicate that ACTs were effective or very effective in addressing regional transportation issues (75%) than all respondents (Figure 2.1). On the other hand, respondents from ACTs with MPOs had more responses that were neither effective nor ineffective (25%) or ineffective and very ineffective (17%). B-8 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Very Effective or Effective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Very Ineffective or Ineffective Not sure All ACTs ACTs With MPO ACTs Without MPO Figure 2.1: Respondent opinion on ACT effectiveness in addressing regional issues (Q33, n=135) All ACTs bring together local stakeholders to address issues on a local and regional level. Stakeholders come from many jurisdictions at differing levels of government (city, county, and state) and from differing sectors (government, quasi-government and private enterprise). Under half of respondents felt that the ACTs are effective or very effective (45%) at addressing issues among different local jurisdictions (Figure 2.2). Almost a third indicated that ACTs are neither effective nor ineffective (32%). Respondents from ACTs with MPOs were slightly more likely to indicate that ACTs are ineffective or very ineffective at addressing issues among different jurisdictions (19%). 0% 20% 40% 60% Very Effective Or Effective Neither Effective Nor Ineffective Very Ineffective Or Ineffective Not Sure All ACTs ACTs With MPOs ACTs Without MPOs Figure 2.2: Respondent opinion on ACT effectiveness in addressing issues among different local jurisdictions (Q34, n=134) B-9 Nearly half (47%) of respondents asserted that the ACT was effective or very effective in addressing issues across different levels of government. However, fewer respondents (37%) asserted that the ACT was effective or very effective in addressing issues across the public and private sectors (Figure 2.3). Over a fourth (28%) of respondents indicated that ACTs were neither effective nor ineffective in addressing issues across sectors. If a respondent was from an ACT with an MPO in its boundaries, then there was a noticeable 12% increase in the number of respondents who indicated that the ACT was ineffective or very ineffective at addressing issues across sectors. A slight majority from this segment of respondents indicated that it was ineffective or very ineffective (total of 33%) in addressing issues across sectors. 0 % 1 5 % 3 0 % 4 5 % 6 0 % V ery E ffect ive O r E ffect ive N e it h e r E ffect ive N o r In e ffect ive V ery In e ffect ive O r In e ffect ive N o t S u re A ll A C T s A C T s W ith M P O A C T s W itho u t M P O Figure 2.3: Respondent opinion on ACT effectiveness across sectors (Q36, n=132) 2.2 ACTS The review of collaboration literature for this research project highlights the benefits of collaborative decision making. These benefits include greater satisfaction with the process, greater ownership and commitment to outcomes, and overall better outcomes. To evaluate how well an organization is collaborating, the literature review identifies four evaluative elements worth examining: structure, commitment, process, and outputs and outcomes. These elements are described more fully in the literature review but are summarized below: • Structure: Scope of group and participants in relation to the problems • Commitment: Participants are committed to the group and its decisions • Process: The group operates with good information flow, decision making and agreement • Outputs and outcomes: Achievements in group in relation to mission; quality of products; influence: spin-offs B-10 The survey asked nine questions about ACTs as an organization and how well they collaborate. These questions tried to evaluate the respondents’ perceptions on ACT roles, boundaries and the four evaluative elements. 2.2.1 ACT Structure and Commitment The survey asked five questions about the structure of ACTs and the commitment of organizations and individuals to the ACT. Important elements of structure and commitment include ACT boundaries, roles, scope of work and authority, and commitment. 2.2.1.1 Boundaries Overall, 71% of respondents believe boundaries coincide with commute patterns (Q10, n=151). Those that do not agree that ACT boundaries and commute patterns align noted that some commute sheds extend beyond the ACT boundaries, and some connect two locations that both lie outside the ACT boundaries. Perceptions of the effectiveness of ACT boundaries did not vary considerably in the MPO and non- MPO subgroups or the voting and non-voting subgroups. 2.2.1.2 Roles An important element of structure is the role that ACTs play; the survey asked questions both about the roles that ACTs fulfill and how effectively they are fulfilling them. The survey asked three questions about the ACTs’ role in Oregon’s transportation system. Overall, respondents were positive about their ACTs ability to effectively achieve its roles. Almost three quarters (71%) of respondents say ACTs are effective or very effective in achieving their roles (2.4). Respondents from an ACT with an MPO feel slightly less positive about the ACT’s effectiveness; 61% thought ACTs were very effective or effective and almost 40% thought they were only somewhat effective. The perception of ACTs effectiveness did not vary considerably for the voting and non-voting subgroups. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% All ACTs ACTs with MPO ACTs without MPO Figure 2.4: Overall effectiveness of ACTs in achieving their roles (Q9, n=150) B-11 The survey asked respondents to evaluate how effective ACTs are at achieving their roles as spelled out in the OTC policy document guiding the creation of ACTs. Respondents were generally positive regarding ACTs performance of their OTC-defined roles (Table 2.2). Table 2.2: Respondent rating of ACT effectiveness in implementing OTC roles (Q11) Effective or Very Effective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Ineffective or Very Ineffective Not sure n Provide a forum to advance the public’s awareness and understanding of transportation issues 56% 27% 14% 4% 147 Establish a public input process that is consistent with state and federal laws, regulations, and policies 76% 16% 4% 3% 148 Provide recommendations to the OTC regarding program funding policies for the STIP 83% 12% 2% 3% 147 Prioritize area modernization project recommendations for the STIP 83% 12% 1% 3% 147 Make recommendations to ODOT regarding special funding opportunities and programs. 76% 16% 4% 4% 146 Communicate and coordinate regional priorities with ODOT advisory committees 67% 18% 7% 8% 148 Communicate and coordinate regional priorities with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) 37% 22% 9% 32% 134 Communicate and coordinate regional priorities with the Economic Revitalization Team (ERT) 48% 25% 5% 21% 146 Communicate and coordinate regional priorities with Regional Partnerships and Regional Investment Boards 47% 24% 10% 20% 146 Communicate and coordinate regional priorities with other ODOT ACTs 44% 28% 10% 17% 145 Communicate and coordinate regional priorities with other organizations not listed above 32% 37% 7% 25% 146 Consider all modes and aspects of the Transportation System in formulating recommendations 69% 16% 10% 5% 147 Integrating land use and transportation issues 42% 27% 19% 12% 147 Respondents were overwhelmingly positive about ACTs’ abilities related to the STIP; 83% said ACTs were effective or very effective at “Provid[ing] recommendations to OTC regarding program funding policies for the STIP” and “Prioritiz[ing] area modernization project recommendations for the STIP.” B-12 Many respondents were “Not sure” about the effectiveness of ACTs’ coordination and communication with MPOs, Economic Revitalization Teams, Regional Partnership sand Regional Investment Boards, ACTs, and “other organizations not listed,” ranging from 17% to 32%. These roles also tended to have fewer positive responses than the rest of the roles. Less than half (44%) of all respondents felt coordination with other ACTs was effective or very effective. Other ACT roles that generated diverse results from respondents include the integration of transportation and land use, and the inclusion of all modes in transit planning. ACT voting members were more likely to feel that ACTs are effective or very effective at integrating transportation and land use than non-voting members (Figure 2.5), although overall this role received lower effectiveness ratings than most roles (42%). ACT voting members also believe ACTs are more effective at considering all modes and aspects of the transportation system than non-voting members (Figure 2.6). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Effective or Very Effective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Ineffective or Very Ineffective Not Sure All ACTs ACT Voting Members ACT Non-voting Members Figure 2.5: Integration of transportation and land use by voting status 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Effective or Very Effective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Ineffective or Very Ineffective Not Sure All ACTs ACT voting members ACT non-voting members Figure 2.6: Consideration of all transit modes and aspects of the transportation planning system, by voting status B-13 2.2.1.3 Additional Roles In addition to the roles outlined by the OTC, respondents were asked if there are other primary roles or activities ACTs should be engaged in (Q12, n=148). Almost a quarter said yes (22%), 42% said no and 36% were not sure. Those that answered “yes” identified additional roles, which included: • Transportation policy, • Urban/rural equity, • Economic development, • More focus on other modes and alternative transportation, and • More public outreach 2.2.1.4 Scope, Authority, and Commitment The survey included a series of statements about ACT activities that respondents were asked to rate on a scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree. Table 2.3 shows respondent perceptions of the structure and role of ACTs. The results show that there is general agreement with the statements. Table 2.3: Respondent perceptions of the structure and role of ACTs (Q13) Agree or Strongly Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree or Strongly Disagree Not Sure n The scope of ACT responsibilities is appropriate for the problems facing the ACT’s geographic region 67% 13% 13% 7% 140 The ACT is structured so that all appropriate interests are represented 70% 16% 11% 4% 138 The roles of the ACT are clear 60% 23% 12% 4% 139 The ACT participants are committed to the group and its mission 80% 17% 1% 2% 139 The organization that I represent is committed to the ACT 83% 12% 3% 3% 138 The ACT is composed of members who have adequate experience needed to represent their organization 77% 15% 4% 4% 138 The ACT has sufficient authority to accomplish its roles 54% 19% 19% 8% 139 However, 24% of respondents from ACTs with MPOs disagreed with the statement “The scope of ACT responsibilities is appropriate for the problems facing the ACT’s geographic region”; no respondents from ACTs without MPOs disagreed with this statement. B-14 Compared to the rest of the statements, respondents were less positive about “The ACT has sufficient authority to accomplish its roles.” Over half agreed or strongly agreed (54%), but almost a fifth disagreed or strongly disagreed (19%). According to survey respondents, member organizations and ACT participants are committed to their ACTs. Almost half of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement “The organization that I represent is committed to the ACT” (49%) and another 34% agreed with the statement. 2.2.2 ACT Process Questions regarding the effectiveness of the ACT process asked for input on the quality of assistance provided by facilitators and staff, the quality of information received by members, and the working relationships between ACT members. Respondents were generally positive about the quality of the ACT process and leadership (Table 2.4). The only aspects of the process that less than 50% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with were that “There are adequate financial resources to support the ACT” (45%) and “The ACT produces creative and innovative ideas” (47%). In retrospect, the question about financial resources could be interpreted two ways: it could be referring to funding for transportation projects that ACTs are involved with or to financial resources for the ACT process. Table 2.4: Respondent perceptions on the leadership and meeting process of ACTs (Q14) Agree or Strongly Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree or Strongly Disagree Not Sure n The ACT meetings are well facilitated 88% 7% 2% 3% 137 There are adequate financial resources to support the ACT 45% 17% 26% 13% 137 The ACT has adequate staff support to implement its roles 69% 13% 8% 10% 136 Transitions and turnover have not affected the ACTs ability to implement its roles 63% 19% 9% 9% 137 People in the ACT communicate openly with each other 85% 8% 3% 4% 137 The ACT has access to high quality information 73% 15% 8% 4% 137 The decision making process is very clear 60% 23% 12% 4% 137 The ACT effectively resolves differences and conflicts that arise during meetings 70% 19% 7% 4% 137 The ACT produces creative and innovative ideas 47% 31% 15% 7% 137 The leadership keeps the ACT focused on relevant tasks 74% 19% 4% 3% 137 ACT members understand the roles and legal authority of the ACT 67% 16% 9% 8% 137 All members of the ACT are heard and understood by one another 80% 9% 4% 7% 137 The ACT meetings are not dominated by agency staff 75% 15% 7% 4% 136 B-15 2.2.2.1 Facilitation and Staffing Respondents felt that ACT meetings were well facilitated and focused, the amount of staffing is adequate and staff do not dominate meetings. Respondents agreed and strongly agreed to these statements at least 70% of the time. Interestingly, ACT voting member respondents agreed more strongly with that staff did not dominate meetings than non-voting respondents (83% to 64% respectively). 2.2.2.2 Quality of Information Almost three fourths (73%) of respondents reported that the “The ACT has access to high quality information.” When asked to provide input on significant issues, several respondents noted that the clarity and volume of the information received can be a challenge. They requested more concise executive summaries. 2.2.2.3 Quality of Interaction The quality of relationships within the ACT was one of the subjects that respondents identified with most positively. Over 80% of respondents believe “People in the ACT communicate openly with each other” (85%) and that “All members of the ACT are heard and understood by one another” (80%). Almost three fourths (70%) agreed or strongly agreed that “The ACT effectively resolves differences and conflicts that arise during meetings.” 2.2.3 ACT Outputs and Outcomes The survey asked respondents to evaluate a series of statements about the outputs and outcomes from ACTs. The results show that there is general agreement with most of the statements (Table 2.5). The results from this line of questioning, however, show more disagreement than with the others. Most notably, significant minorities of respondents indicated they disagreed that ACTs have a “significant influence” on the decision making of the OTC, ODOT, and other organizations. B-16 Table 2.5: Respondent perceptions on the outputs and outcomes of ACTs (Q15) Agree or Strongly Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree or Strongly Disagree Not Sure n The ACT has produced high quality products 64% 26% 6% 5% 137 Communication among organizations has improved as a result of the ACT 67% 20% 5% 8% 137 The participants’ understanding of issues and problems has improved 84% 9% 3% 4% 137 The ACT has a significant influence on the decision making of other organizations within the region 39% 26% 18% 17% 137 The ACT has a significant influence on the decision making of the OTC 53% 19% 16% 12% 137 The ACT has a significant influence on the decision making of ODOT 55% 17% 18% 10% 136 The ACT has a significant influence on the decision making of my organization 45% 32% 19% 4% 136 The ACT creates opportunities for communication between the public and private sectors 64% 23% 10% 3% 137 The ACT provides opportunities for public input and involvement 69% 23% 7% 1% 137 The ACT adequately considers public input 64% 24% 7% 5% 135 Information/materials provided to the ACT are adequate to make informed decisions 77% 10% 7% 6% 137 The ACT has improved cross- jurisdictional coordination on transportation issues among the jurisdictions included in the ACT 70% 15% 8% 7% 136 2.2.3.1 Influence on Decision Makers A cornerstone of an effective collaborative process is that the collaborative has a strong influence in decision-making processes. Table 2.6 shows respondents’ perceptions concerning the influence of ACTs over various decision-making groups broken down by respondent subgroup. Respondents from ACTs with MPOs consistently disagreed at a much higher level than respondents from ACTs without MPOs about ACTs’ abilities to influence decision makers. Interestingly, respondents who were ACT voting members were not as positive about ACTs’ influence on ODOT as respondents who were non-voting members of ACTs. B-17 Table 2.6: Respondent perceptions on ACTs’ influence on decision making (Q15) Agree or Strongly Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree or Strongly Disagree Not Sure n The ACT has a significant influence on the decision making of ODOT All ACTs 55% 17% 18% 10% 136 ACTs with MPO 55% 10% 29% 6% 62 ACTs with no MPO 54% 23% 10% 13% 69 ACT Voting Members 47% 21% 23% 9% 77 ACT Non-Voting Members 66% 10% 12% 12% 59 The ACT has significant influence on the decision making of OTC All ACTs 53% 19% 16% 12% 137 ACTs with MPO 45% 18% 26% 11% 62 ACTs with no MPO 57% 20% 9% 14% 70 All ACTs 39% 26% 18% 17% 137 ACTs with MPO 34% 27% 27% 11% 62 ACTs with no MPO 43% 24% 11% 21% 70 The ACT has a significant influence on the decision making of other organizations in the region 2.2.3.2 Communication All respondents were positive about the ACTs as a forum for communication. Over 60% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with statements regarding improved communication among organizations (67%), opportunities and consideration for public input and involvement (69%), and communication between the public and private sectors (64%). Respondents overwhelmingly agreed or strongly agreed that “The participants understanding of the issues and problems have improved” (84%). 2.3 ACT-ACT COORDINATION The survey asked six questions about ACT to ACT coordination, including whether and how well they coordinate, the key issues that require coordination. Over a third of respondents responded positively when asked if their ACT coordinates with other ACTs (37%), but 45% didn’t know if their ACT worked together with any others (Q18, n=137). Respondents said they coordinated with ACTs within their shared region, often through the ConnectOregon/SuperACT process and region meetings. More than two thirds of respondents said their ACT coordinates with other ACTs through their ODOT staff, who communicate with ODOT staff for one or more other ACTs (Table 2.7). Interestingly, this response was more common among respondents from ACTs with MPOs (86%) than with those from ACTs with an MPO (62%). Another common method of coordination was that the ODOT liaison attends other ACT meetings; over 40% of respondents said this was true. Around one fourth of participants thought their ACT coordinated with other ACTs through joint meetings, cross-attendance of ACT members, and ACT staff person cross-attendance. B-18 Table 2.7: Respondents’ perceptions of how their ACT coordinates with other ACTs (Q19) All ACT w/ MPO ACT w/o MPO Joint meetings 26% 21% 31% One or more ACT representatives attend other ACT meetings 26% 29% 26% The ODOT liaison attends other ACT meetings 43% 43% 45% The ACT staff person attends other ACT meetings 22% 18% 24% ODOT staff with this ACT coordinate with ODOT staff with one or more other ACTs 71% 86% 62% Total Responses 72 28 42 The totals in each column exceed 100% because respondents could check all that apply. Respondents could also submit additional methods their ACT used to coordinate with other ACTs. Some of these included email exchanges of agendas and minutes, communication between ACT chairs, and ODOT connections of some type. Other respondents didn’t know how their ACT coordinated with other ACTs. Some of the respondents mentioned group meetings facilitated by ODOT, and one comment noted that often these region-wide meetings are forced collaboration and actually create a competitive environment between ACTs competing for funding. The survey asked participants to evaluate the effectiveness of their ACT’s coordination and communication with neighboring ACTs. Very few (2%) respondents said it was very effective and 36% weren’t sure how they would describe the communication (Figure 2.7). There were differences between members of ACTs with MPOs and members of ACTs without MPOs. Respondents from ACTs without MPOs were more positive about the effectiveness of ACT to ACT communication and coordination, whereas the respondents from ACTs with MPOs were more unsure or believed it was not effective. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Very effective Effective Somewhat effective Not effective Not sure All ACTs with MPO ACTs without MPO Figure 2.7: Respondent opinions on the effectiveness of ACT-ACT communication (Q20, n=132) B-19 2.3.1 Issues requiring coordination Table 2.8 shows what respondents thought were the key issues that require coordination between their ACT and neighboring ACTs and MPOs. Many issues were viewed as bigger issues by respondents from ACTs with MPOs, including freight mobility, funding issues, congestion, modernization issues, enhancement projects, and transit issues. Other key issues requiring coordination that respondents listed were the implementation and creation of plans, money for special projects, federal earmarks, and multi-region projects. Others said that rail issues are important. Table 2.8: Perceptions on issues requiring coordination between ACT and neighboring ACTs / MPOs (Q22, n=122) All ACTs with MPO ACTs without MPO STIP 72% 74% 72% ConnectOregon II 66% 59% 74% Freight mobility 65% 74% 57% Funding issues 58% 67% 54% Modernization issues 55% 67% 44% Planning 48% 54% 44% Safety 43% 50% 38% Enhancement projects 34% 41% 28% Transit issues 32% 39% 23% Congestion 32% 44% 20% Scenic byways 25% 24% 25% The survey also asked what key issues that require coordination between neighboring ACTs and/or MPOs were not being addressed (Q23, n=53). Some of the more common responses were related to funding and the limited funding available, as well as regional needs and regional project prioritization. Respondents also mentioned: • Safety • Highways and congestion • Economic development • Scenic byways • Private sector involvement • Specific highway and bridge problems • Land use and master planning • Alternative transportation modes including mass transit 2.4 ACT-MPO COORDINATION The survey asked participants about ACT-MPO coordination, including how they coordinate, on what issues, and how coordination can be improved. To ensure responses from respondents who were familiar with ACT-MPO coordination, the survey included a logic B-20 sequence that limited responses to people who indicated they were from ACTs with MPOs (Q24) and also indicated that their ACT coordinates with the MPO (Q25). Anyone who answered “no” to either of these questions did not answer the following questions. Almost half (48%) of the respondents belonged to an ACT with an MPO within it (Q24, n=114). An overwhelming majority (85%) of respondents from ACTs with MPOs indicated their ACTs were coordinating with the MPO (Q25, n=48). These 41 respondents that said their ACT coordinates with the MPO are the sub-sample for the rest of the ACT-MPO coordination questions. All but one represents one of the four ACTs with an MPO, although the distribution between the ACTs is not equal (Table 2.9). Over half (59%) are voting members of their ACT and not quite half (44%) are from city government (Table 2.10 and 2.11); the OTC member is not affiliated with a single ACT. Table 2.9: ACT representation of the ACT-MPO coordination sub-sample (n=40) ACT Percent Cascade West 18% Central Oregon 18% Mid-Willamette Valley 23% Rogue Valley 43% Table 2.10: ACT membership role of the ACT-MPO coordination sub-sample (n=41) ACT Role Percent Voting member 59% City or COG staff 15% Ex-officio member 10% Alternate 7% ODOT staff 7% OTC 2% Table 2.11: Agency affiliation of the ACT-MPO coordination sub-sample (n=41) Agency Percent City government 44% State government 22% Private sector 10% County government 7% MPO 7% Council of Governments (COG) 5% At-large representative 2% Transit district 2% 2.4.1 Communication and coordination A majority of the sub-sample respondents (59%) felt the communication and coordination between their ACT and the MPO was effective or very effective (Q26, n=39). About one in five (21%) thought ACT-MPO coordination and communication was neither effective nor B-21 ineffective and 8% felt it was ineffective; no one thought it was very ineffective. However, 13% of respondents were not sure how effective their ACT and MPO were communicating. 2.4.2 Improving coordination and communication with MPOs The survey asked participants how they would improve coordination between ACTs and MPOs (Q27, n=17). The three most common themes of the responses were: • Better identification of roles and relationships between ACTs and MPOs • Increase the information sharing between the two, including reporting ACT/MPO activities at meetings and joint meetings • More or better cross staff utilization between ACTs and MPOs, Some of the comments regarding roles and responsibilities were very critical of the status quo. One respondent wrote “…the interests of the ACT are primarily focused on ODOT's modernization program as it is embodied in the STIP… On the other hand, the MPOs plan for the whole transportation system. So, unless this basic difference in the roles and responsibilities of the two are changed, there will always be a disconnect and therefore friction between the two types of groups.” Respondents perceived cross representation of ACT and MPO members as the primary method ACTs are using to coordinate with MPOs (Table 2.12). One interesting comment was that joint meetings occur when there is a disagreement between the ACT and MPO. Table 2.12: Coordination methods between ACTs and MPOs (Q28, n=35) Coordination Percent MPO representation on ACT 80% One or more ACT representative attend MPO meeting 60% The ODOT liaison attends MPO meeting 57% ODOT staff coordinate with other ODOT and MPO staff 46% The ACT staff person attends other MPO meetings 37% Joint ACT/MPO 11% 2.4.3 Issues requiring coordination Table 2.13 shows the issues that the sub-sample respondents perceive as requiring coordination between ACTs and MPOs. The top issues were modernizations issues, the STIP, and funding issues; all were above 70%. B-22 Table 2.13: Issues requiring coordination between ACTs and MPOs according to ACT-MPO coordination sub-sample (Q29, n=34) Issue Percent Modernization 76% STIP 74% Funding 71% Congestion 59% Freight mobility 53% Planning 53% ConnectOregon II 50% Enhancement projects 44% Safety 41% Transit 38% Scenic byways 12% The total exceeds 100% because respondents could check all that apply. The survey asked the ACT-MPO coordination sub-sample whether the coordination between ACTs and MPOs “enhance[s] the ability of MPOs and ACTs to address transportation issues within the MPO boundary” (Q30, n=39). Almost half (44%) said yes, 13% said no, 21% partially, and 23% didn’t know or were not sure. 2.5 ACT STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES The survey asked respondents to write in three strengths and three weaknesses of their ACT (Q16: strengths, n=108; Q17: weaknesses, n=101). The common themes are included below, roughly in order of popularity. 2.5.1 Strengths: • Communication: Respondents commented that one of the strengths of ACTs is that it is a forum for open discussion and dialogue across jurisdictions, both horizontally (e.g. county to county) and vertically (e.g. local to county to state). A typical comment: “Bringing jurisdictions together to discuss regional transportation issues.” • Members: Respondents commonly praised ACT members; some of the words they repeatedly used to describe the ACT participants include: committed, cooperative, involved and engaged, knowledgeable, respectful, open, and team players. A typical comment: “Members work extremely well together.” • Coordination and collaboration: Respondents praised the cooperation and coordination between agencies, governments, ODOT, and the ability to reach consensus. A typical comment: “All of the various interests within the ACT come to the meetings willing to work together.” • Regional view: Many respondents think their ACT is able to take a regional view and keep the big picture in mind when making decisions. A typical comment: “Regional consideration of transportation issues.” B-23 • Staff: In addition to ACT members, respondents also had high praise the staff that support the work ACTs do. They referred both to ODOT staff and local staff. A typical comment: “Staff members are truly dedicated to making the process work.” • ODOT perspective: Respondents commented that a strength of their ACT was helping the public understand the policies of ODOT, the constraints they work under, and their overall role. A typical comment: “Better understanding of ODOT's role.” • Understanding: In addition to helping open communication, ACTs have also increased the understanding of regional and local transportation issues. A typical comment: “Ability to understand each other's problems within the ACT.” Some of the other commonly listed strengths include good information, diverse membership, their ACT’s prioritization process, well run meetings, and strong leadership. 2.5.2 Weaknesses: • Lack of influence: Many respondents commented that one of the weaknesses with their ACT is that it has little impact on both ODOT and OTC decision making. Some feel that decisions have already been made before going to the ACT and others commented that OTC listens to ODOT staff more often than ACTs. A typical comment: “Difficult to actually influence ODOT or OTC decisions/policy.” A sub-section of these comments included many perceptions that the working relationship with ODOT and the OTC could be improved. Some believe communication needs to be improved with OTC and others commented that ODOT skews the information to support the staff view. A typical comment: “I feel the information is sometimes manipulated to prove the point that ODOT wants proved.” • Public involvement: A common concern among respondents was that their ACT does not involve the public as much as they should. A typical comment: “The ACT needs more community awareness and outreach.” • Meetings: Respondents had many comments about the ACT meetings as a weakness. Many mentioned difficulties with traveling to meetings, such as weather or especially the time involved. There were comments about the infrequency of meetings, the informal structure of meetings, the lack of strong leadership, and not getting information in time to prepare. A typical comment: “Time demands for local government and state - too much to do and hard to commit time to the ACT.” • Funding: Many respondents listed a need for more funding, both for projects and for planning, as an ACT weakness. A typical comment: “Lack of resources to adequately support the ACT and the issues it wants to address.” • Issue complexity: The complexity of transportation issues addressed by ACTs challenges many ACT members. Some wished there was a formal orientation for new ACT members and others commented that they don’t have the knowledge to critically analyze the information from ODOT. Others don’t understand the ACT’s role in the process. A typical comment: “I often feel I do not have the understanding to know if there are other solutions than the one presented.” B-24 • Members’ parochialism and commitment: Many respondents feel that members of their ACT are more parochial and less interested in thinking regionally. A few comments were specific to project prioritization and how their ACT makes decisions based on fair share, rather than regional need. The lack of member attendance and commitment also garnered a few complaints. A typical comment: “Parochial interests trump greater good.” Respondents listed many other weaknesses of their ACTs, including their boundaries, lack of private sector participation, lack of ACT to ACT coordination, and the lack of a longer term goal or plan to help guide decision making. B-25 3.0 SURVEY INSTRUMENT B-26 B-27 B-28 B-29 B-30 B-31 B-32 B-33 B-34 B-35 B-36 B-37 4.0 ALL RESPONDENT COMMENTS This section includes all fill-in-the-blank answers from the online survey. All names were removed and basic editing (spelling, capitalization, and grammar) was completed as detected by Microsoft Word’s Spelling and Grammar check. If the meaning of a comment was unclear during editing, it was left unedited. 4. Please indicate the agency or organization you represent. Other (please specify): • Economic Development Council of Tillamook County • Private enterprise • Private Sector, formerly Port • Economic Development District (5 Counties) • SE Regional Alliance - ACT Malheur, Grant & Harney Co. • ACT staff • Private senior citizen individual • Staff for ODOT • Economic Development District • Council of Government (regional) • Council of Governments • Economic Development District staffing an ACT • Council of Governments • Road Department • Citizen of Josephine county • Housing Authority • Visitor Industry - Destination Marketing Organization • City Owned Railroad • Citizen at large • School District • NW Oregon Area Commission on Transportation • MWACT 5. Please indicate the ACT with which you are affiliated or most closely involved. (Check only one). Other (please specify): • I am involved with all of them • Both the SW and RV ACTs in Region 3 • None • My role demands engagement with all ACTs • Central Oregon, Lower John Day, and South Central • Statewide -- all ACTs at various times • N/A • As well as South East • Ontario Oregon B-38 8. Please indicate your primary role with the ACT. If you checked other, please explain: • No ACT • Technical advisory committee • Substitute for … • I have been an alternate for City Council member. • Another City Representative is voting member • Attend when appointed delegates do not attend. • Observer for Economic Development Interests • CWCOG employee staffing CWACT • Observer • Oregon Transportation Commission member • Legislature • Technical Advisory Committee member • Exec Dir. of COG that staffs the ACT • ODOT Commissioner • Staff • Staff-contracted through both ODOT and SEACT • Alt, and Tech Committee member • Alternate • CWCOG Staff • I am not involved with an ACT • I am a new member of the OTC and have not yet attended either MPO or ACT meetings. Hence, by responses should probably not be counted. • Tech Committee • Chair and voting member • Program manager seeking ACT input on project priorities • N/A • Attend - Non-voting • Tribal Transportation Staff, and Alternate member • City staff • County Consultant • Inactive • Alternate voting • We have a councilor who attends, but as a staff person I do not • Alternate • Staff • Board member on Economic Dev, sit on ACT as guest • Member • City staff • First alternative • Alternate • Regular attendee • Staff the NWACT • Alternative to … • Alternate • Chair of Lower John Day ACT • Voting member alternative • Alternate • Alternate • MPO staff that works with MWACT • I am new to this job, so not sure B-39 10. Do you believe the ACT boundaries coincide with commuting and travel patterns in your area? If no, please explain any problems the boundaries create. • There is no ACT in Lane County • There are commutesheds within the ACT. There are commutesheds having one trip end in the ACT and another outside the ACT. There are also areas within the ACT boundaries with no identified commuteshed. • Re. 5 extends to Riley Junction (West of Burns) where Region 4 starts with its eastern boundary. Maintenance on Hwy. 20/395 is therefore split between 2 Regions. I get more complaints about the lack of maintenance on the Hwy. than any other in the Region. Southern Grant County is in Region 5 while the Northern part of the County is not. This doesn't create a large problem for ODOT but makes it difficult for local governments to participate in both ACTs. • The ACT covers Marion, Polk, and Yamhill Counties. Commuting and travel patterns in Yamhill County are probably a fairly even split between Salem and Portland where Marion and Polk Counties are highly concentrated on the Salem area. • Partially - While there is a demonstrable connection between the Corvallis, Albany, Lebanon areas, there are also people who live in Albany (Linn Co) who commute to Salem or Eugene. The same is true for folks in south Linn and Benton Counties that commute to Springfield/Eugene. There is also a strong connection between Lincoln City and Salem via the OR18/22 corridor • We have had discussions on boundaries outside of our three counties that sometimes don't coincide. Malheur, Grant, and Harney. Harney has some issues between Deschutes and Lake county boundaries and service areas. • Depending on which ACT, the boundaries don't match. For example, Benton County and Corvallis are in an ACT with Lincoln County. Polk County, from which many people commute to Corvallis. • I believe the traffic is more north-south (I-5 and 99W) than east-west (Hwy 20/34) through our area. We tend to focus on traffic to and from the coast, but it seems that more of the traffic is actually between Corvallis/Albany and Salem, and perhaps further north. • It encompasses many commuting and traffic patterns. • Because we include I-5, much of our commute traffic has a destination or origin in either Salem or Eugene. Both are outside of our ACT boundary. • We are close to Lincoln City and Lincoln County, however, they are in a different ACT. This may be why we have limited contact with them. • The Albany-Salem travel pattern is not reflected; the southern portion of Linn and Benton Counties also interact strongly with Junction City and the Eugene-Springfield area • Combining Klamath and Lake creates meeting problems due to the travel distance between us, however our issues are more often than not common and we work well as a team. • Travel sheds extend past ACT boundaries as well as ODOT Region boundaries. • Other than the NWACT, most ACT boundaries are based on political boundaries (county lines or ODOT regions) instead of regional economic or travel-based areas • What commuting patterns? As far as travel it is more appropriate to argue that folks from Harney County travel to the West. But, we are more a part of the Grant and Malheur base so feel like we are correctly positioned. • I represent a coastal area, and often the needs in the valley don't match the needs on the coast. • The NW ACT is divided between two ODOT regions. Although the communities involved are mostly rural, the transportation issues vary substantially with the coastal communities and those closer to Portland. • Some areas are fine as Salem to McMinnville and Dallas, Monmouth, Independence and Woodburn etc. However, to the north, the Wilsonville and further are not involved nor to the south in Albany. • The ACT that our county belongs to does not include the west-east corridor of Hwy 199 to I-5, because the section of Hwy 199 our residents’ access goes through California. It is not something that can be changed, but merely noted here since most of the travel and business impacts to the southern end of our county is from that route. • I live in Lincoln City. The travel patterns of central Lincoln County, Benton County and Linn County have very little impact or relevance to my area. • County boundaries clearly do not reflect travel patterns. It is unlikely that any simple division would, but the arbitrary use of county boundaries is particularly unhelpful in dealing with regional problems. B-40 • Eastern Oregon Visitors Assn. represents 11-counties, and therefore the travel patterns cross the boundaries of the ACTs. However, the scenic byways of the region are one way that we are noting travel patterns within the entire region, and these work well as breakdowns - to a certain extent, within the boundaries of the ACTs. • Unfortunately it seems like two distinct boundaries separated by County line. Also, the road with the highest significance, I-5, is of west coast importance and this is where a majority of the money is spent. Further, Hwy 62 and 199 are both significant corridors that serve regional and statewide importance but have different travel patterns. The upside has been a very cooperative ACT for the most part that has recognized each area's difficulties and appears to keep a good balance of funding projects between the two Counties. • A significant portion of our traffic is to/from the Portland area. Another significant portion is through traffic to the coastal areas. While we consider needs within the tri-county area, we also attempt to include traffic generated by those two additional sources. A very strong case in point is at Newberg/Dundee. The funding for road maintenance and modernization is very low compared to the through traffic generated by Portland which is outside our jurisdiction. • Since Shady Cove is outside the MPO and the regional problem solving for Jackson County (as are Butte Falls and Gold Hill, two other small, rural incorporated cities in our County), we have our mayor or a councilor attend RVACT meetings, but the bulk of the discussion centers around members of the MPO and substantial transportation improvement projects; even though we are located on Highway 62, a gateway to Crater Lake, Roseburg and Bend, because of our distance from major population centers, we do not have the magnitude of transportation projects that more populated areas have. Hence, while the meetings are interesting, it is rare of improvements to Highway 62 in or near Shady Cove, to be a topic of conversation. • But - as a two county ACT, there are other issues • While the current boundaries reflect the traditional alliance of a three county area that works well together, the commuting and travel patterns of the mid-Willamette Valley are more extensive and complicated than the simplified ACT (or MPO) boundaries. There is significant travel interaction between the MWACT area and the surrounding areas - especially Yamhill County and Salem/Keizer with the Portland area. There is also interaction with the coast, Albany, Corvallis, and Eugene- all of which are outside the MWACT area. As the home of the Spirit Mountain Casino, Woodburn Outlet mall, and the seat of state government, the MWACT area has much to attract outside traffic to it. I assume that this is similar to the rest of the Willamette Valley, as I think the entire valley is closely intertwined and it would be hard to divide it up to make any more sense. • Includes two counties with limited connectivity or economic interrelationships • Though most South Columbia County commuters travel to the Portland Metro area and our boundaries end at Columbia/Multnomah County line. Still, it seems to work quite well because there are enough problems within our boundaries to keep us busy. • I believe Klamath Falls commute traffic is predominately North and South along Hwy 97, with the second tier traffic pattern to the West (Medford). However, I do believe from Lake County's perspective, the commute is probably west toward Klamath. • We are a pass through from Portland to the coast and Portland south on I-5. We have to provide road and safety upgrades that are used by a majority of passer through. Portland and Lincoln City area should be sharing the expenses of the Newberg / Dundee bypass. If it wasn't for that additional pass / through traffic there would not be a congestion problem. • Our ACT is composed of three counties, ranging from Brookings in Curry County to Drain in Douglas County. I suspect that many of the people from Southern Curry County tend to travel either south to Crescent City or other cities in California or east (through California then back in to Oregon) to the Medford/Grants Pass area for most of their shopping. All in all, though, I do not sense that this is a problem for our ACT, which seems to be very good at taking these distances and differences into account. • Too big. It is difficult to remember the road systems in areas that I do not normally travel. • The nearest ACT to the Portland Metro area is the Northwest ACT. Including Banks and North Plains in an ACT with Astoria and Scappoose makes no sense. There is little or no commuting between these areas. • Columbia County is a part of Region I, but is included as members of the Region II ACT. A majority of our commuters travel to Portland Metro Area. B-41 • While the ACT boundaries in my area probably coincide with commuting and travel patterns in our area, I said NO because I'm not confident such patterns represent actual needs or matters of concern. • I think the Yamhill county commuting patterns are more associated with the Portland area than the Mid- Willamette Valley. 12. Are there other primary activities or roles you think the ACTs should be engaged in? If yes, please describe: • Rural vs. urban planning priorities More concentration on demand management issues • Advise on policy issues • ODOT and local governmental agency cooperation. ODOT has a heavy handed approach to local buy-in and thoughts. They need to get local buy-in/input. • The relationship and responsibility of State transportation policies and investments to economic development efforts and affects on local populations. • The timeliness of state wide ODOT policy issues should be better. We get the policy discussion too late to give a good recommendation. Land use and transportation challenge does not get enough time to state the challenge we face with the groups being in conflict with some of their policies. This is a good forum to bring regional voice to state wide problems. This is a good forum to bring conflicts to state policy that affects local governments like funding for state projects that affect land use decisions. • I believe that we should make an even greater attempt to reach out to the members of our communities on a continual basis. We do a good job on specific issues, but fall down a little in making the public aware of our routine activities. • ACT should be one of the participants in the discussion of overall statewide transportation funding, which is now seriously underfunded. • Stronger role in representing rural interests and problems to ODOT and Legislature rather than let the I-5 corridor consume most of the resources. • Role of transportation and economic development. Airports and air service. • Prioritization of ODOT projects for the greatest good. • ACTs generally focus on immediate policy issues and STIP update priorities. Involvement in long-range transportation planning is limited to reviewing and commenting upon ODOT initiated plans. It would be good for all ACT members to have a part in looking at the long-range transportation planning issues in their particular ACT area. This involvement would inform and influence the members’ decisions about current priorities and policies. • Perhaps an annual meeting of the chairs of all the ACTs to improve communication between ACTs. • The ACTs need to be specifically charged to address and advise on priorities on all modes, not just highway. • Policy review prior to adoption by the OTC • Impact on economic development • There should be more substance to the decision making process regarding mod project prioritization. There are many competing needs and very limited funding. There should be a better process to most effectively expend these limited funds. The process should consider benefit/cost, economic impact, etc. It now is primarily an ODOT staff led process. • ACTs should be engaged in consistent equity and opportunity for ALL counties and their communities. • ACTs must communicate to the driving public the importance of funding a total multi-modal transportation system. • Budget Review and Master plan regional transportation • More effective relationship with various local media within the communities served by the ACT. Let them know what is being recommended. • There are things that should not be part of our transportation planning. • Perhaps more effort in the STF funding and process. B-42 • ACTs need to enhance their role in overarching transportation policy discussions. Enhanced role in Multimodal finance and prioritization. Enhance role in the integration of land use and transportation. Enhanced role in balancing the economic and environmental impacts of transportation investments. • I think we do plenty, presently. • More coordination with owners of other road systems and roadside attractions within their area, such as Forest Service, BLM, State Parks • The ACTs should be engaged more with the OTC. I know the NWACT recently met with the OTC and believed that was very successful in terms of identifying the challenges, issues and opportunities and for the OTC to hear first hand from the ACT members. • I think those involved in alternative modes and on ACTs should occasionally meet to discuss common concerns and meet with their technical/rating groups. • There should be greater interaction with other ODOT advisory committees, including freight, rail and planning. However there is not enough staff at ODOT to implement this type of interaction. • Looking beyond concrete, asphalt and gasoline. • I feel tourism representatives, and specifically scenic byway representatives should be included and involved with every ACT. • The ACTs have already taken steps to improve communications and cooperation through OMPOC. We have recognized that we have the same common problems and are more likely to find solutions together than separately. • Would, obviously, appreciate more focus on how small, less populated areas could more easily get into the mix for funding of projects that are of benefit, but not of benefit to as many people as more populated communities. • Transit funding and prioritization, ERT and OECDD prioritization or at least a check off for significant transportation projects and to offer additional funding elements. • STIP priorities • Have the OTC actually be respectful of the ACTS and demonstrate they really consider our recommendations. • more rail road, air line, marine transportation • As fuel prices increase, greater connectivity for public transit between regions will be needed. Perhaps the ACTs could somehow be involved with this....of course this would require money...and not just talk. 16. Please list the three greatest strengths of the ACT with which you are involved: • 1. Ability to leverage other funds, 2. Regional look, 3. Understanding of transportation (both public and private sector) • 1. Support of local government, 2. Good forum to discuss regional transportation issues, 3. Ensures transportation project funding equity for all member jurisdictions • 1. Group cohesion, 2. Concern for regional issues, 3. Willingness to compromise one county needs for the welfare of another • 1. Forum to discuss plans and issues, 2. Information • 1. Collaboration between members, 2. Communication on issues, 3. Solid Leadership of Co-Chairs • 1. Forces some local participation and ownership of difficult decisions, 2. Opportunity to build relationships with ODOT personnel. • 1. Forum for discussion for two counties, 2. Places an importance on public participation. • 1. Excellent ODOT Staff, 2. Cooperative and reasonable participants, 3. Free interchange of ideas and priorities • 1. Forum for discussing transportation issues for the entities that have no access to such a forum, 2. Coordination of Modernization projects • 1. Communication, 2. Consensus, 3. Information • 1. Needs of the Area are put ahead of local needs, 2. Members work extremely well together, 3. Staff support is highly professional • 1. Set priorities of projects for our region, 2. All of the various interests within the ACT come to the meetings willing to work together, 3. Staff provides good information before and at the meetings B-43 • 1. Communication between local governments & State, 2. Better understanding of ODOT's role, 3. Greater support for the state's transportation system needs • 1. Cooperation between agencies and local government, 2. Good communication with LOCAL ODOT staff, 3. Ability to prioritize needs • 1. Collaboration, 2. Willingness to address problems across the area, 3. Understanding of ODOT limitations (esp. funding) • 1. Work well together, 2. ODOT listens to us, 3. We come up with consensus on important projects • 1. Good Communication, 2. Good Information, 3. Good Coordination • 1. They tend to be very inclusive of local jurisdictions within their geographic boundary, 2. They care about multi-modal issues, 3. They care about the link between the economy and transportation • 1. As a tri-county ACT we look at the greater picture, 2. It provides a voice for true Eastern Oregon Issues, 3. We can speak to ODOT issues and projects in our areas • 1. Passion for transportation for the area, 2. Listening and communicating to each other, 3. Setting priorities • 1. Very interested in System-Wide concerns/projects, 2. Large geographic area so all areas learn about each other, 3. Meetings begin and end on time so people are on time • 1. Very good, widespread representation over our area, 2. Members’ commitment to being successful, 3. We cover territory in two different ODOT regions • 1. Bringing jurisdictions together to discuss regional transportation issues, 2. The ACT sees itself as an equal partner of the OTC, 3. Maintains a high level of participation by the members • 1. Communication, 2. Overall view of Area • 1. Competent staff, 2. Open communication, 3. Commitment to improvements • 1. Statewide outlook, 2. Involved members, 3. Good staff backup • 1. Private sector involvement/leadership, 2. Bringing other resources to the table, 3. Agreement on the priorities • 1. Provides regular setting for interjurisdictional discussion/coordination, 2. Provides some opportunity for members to better understand issues facing other jurisdictions, 3. Clearly identifying the transportation system funding issues facing our region • 1. Staffed by local staff rather than ODOT staff, 2. Commitment of ACT members, 3. Willingness to look at a range of issues • 1. Opens communications lines between counties, 2. Raises awareness of other jurisdictions needs, 3. Educates members on issues and opportunities • 1. Ongoing communications among pertinent stakeholders, 2. Sincere cooperation among the various government agencies related to the limited amount of financial resources, 3. 100% participation among participants. • 1. Increased agency cooperation, 2. Increased influence of Rogue Valley, 3. Prioritization of transportation projects • 1. Coordination of all governments in area • 1. Communication between jurisdictions, 2. Shared priorities, 3. Communication between jurisdictions and ODOT • 1. Inter-agency communication, 2. Committed ODOT staff • 1. Good, open dialog, 2. Modernization funding equity resolution between Jackson and Josephine counties, 3. Solid consensus building • 1. Leadership of Cascade West staff is excellent, 2. Each member is allowed full voice on any issue, 3. Small Cities are treated fairly on project consideration • 1. High level of participation by local jurisdictions, 2. Involved ACT staff, 3. Local agency cooperation • 1. The give and take from members, 2. Regional equity • 1. Coordination of hwy 34 improvements, 2. Coordination of ODOT improvements with local governments • 1. Commitment of members, 2. Open communication, 3. Strong leadership • 1. Leadership, 2. Strong support for the ACT, 3. Listen to all input first before making decisions • 1. All members agree on area needs, 2. Rural area, 3. Great ODOT • 1. Effective team work B-44 • 1. Focused engagement on transportation issues, 2. Collaborative approach to decision-making, 3. Have better informed the overall transportation debate • 1. Input from everyone, 2. Federal reps come to our meetings, 3. Good help from ODOT staff • 1. Made up of mix of community members and government, 2. Meets on a regular basis, 3. Meets with the best interest of a particular region • 1. Cooperation, 2. Focus on regional issues, 3. Cross section of regional interests • 1. Experience of ACT members • 1. Communication, 2. Coordination, 3. Consensus • 1. Originally the ACT provided input to ODT & it was taken, 2. We had an evaluation system to identify the job that would improve the tran. system in our area • 1. Provides a means for local priorities to be heard, 2. Exchange of info with neighboring agencies, 3. Regular meetings improve knowledge of transportation issues • 1. Provides common forum for ideas, 2. Simplifies communication paths, 3. Exposes regional preferences • 1. Consensus building, 2. Mutual respect among representatives, 3. Meetings are fairly well focused on agenda • 1. Partnerships, 2. Participation, 3. Allowances for other agendas • 1. Willingness to advance projects of other members, 2. Pragmatic approach to sharing resources, 3. Participation by majority of members/attendance • 1. Project Prioritization and Coordination (STIP), 2. Voice of Community, 3. Educated Transportation Body • 1. Has brought a better of understanding of ODOT rules, 2. Has brought better understanding of ODOT constraints, 3. Has generated discussion among agencies • 1. Openness in listening to new ideas, 2. All members are aware of transportation issues, 3. Sharing of funding resources • 1. Communications, 2. Selection Process, 3. Visibility • 1. Many of the members are very knowledgeable • 1. SWACT uses a multimodal approach for improving the state and regional transportation system, 2. SWACT members work diligently to identify projects that provide the greatest benefit for the regional and the communities, 3. SWACT members are willing to work toward consensus for project approval. • 1. I, 2. Can’t, 3. Think of any • 1. Organizational Structure, 2. Commitment of those that participate and attend, 3. Strong staff support and ODOT support • 1. Scenic Byways are a priority on every agenda, 2. Cross-county communication, 3. Opportunity to keep the tourism industry part of the process • 1. Communication within members, 2. Meetings are to the point, 3. Members follow thru with information • 1. Engaged participants, 2. Ability to resolve tough issues, 3. Respect amongst members • 1. Stakeholder/public understanding & involvement w/ODOT, 2. Informed Decision-makers and Decision- making, 3. Inter-jurisdictional Coordination • 1. Ability to understand each other's problems within the ACT, 2. Ability to reach a consensus within the ACT, 3. Very good staff. • 1. Effective representation of regional issues, 2. Forum for regional transportation issues, 3. Vehicle to promote regional transportation interests • 1. Cooperation between jurisdictions, 2. Members and staff of the MPO are also on the ACT, 3. Placing safety issues as a top priority • 1. Improved prioritization process, 2. Broad representation of transportation interests, 3. Willingness to listen to all points of view • 1. Informed decisions about regional transportation improvements, 2. Substantial info available for review prior to meetings, 3. Supportive of the Upper Rogue overall • 1. Very good discussion, 2. Excellent review by local gov. & ACT members, 3. Force local ODOT employees to re-think issues • 1. Open communication and discussion, 2. One voice on transportation decisions, 3. Better focus on regional transportation decisions B-45 • 1. Generally works well together, 2. Establishes regional priority lists, 3. Brings "decision making" closer to the local level • 1. Kept informed of planned and current projects, 2. Direct input to the decision makers on all issues, 3. Staff members are truly dedicated to making the process work • 1. Elected officials better informed, 2. Transportation needs get publicity, 3. ODOT processes more transparent • 1. Ability to establish priorities, 2. Cooperation, 3. Great ODOT staff • 1. Unity, 2. A voice that is heard, 3. Understanding ODOT • 1. Better dialogue between State & Local stakeholders, 2. Provides a way for local stakeholders to voice their issues, 3. All parties work more cooperatively as a result • 1. Collaboration, 2. Regional representation, 3. Relationships across organizations • 1. Information, 2. Communication of Problems, 3. Communication among counties • 1. Good leadership, 2. Well informed members, 3. Unbiased decision making • 1. Open Communication, 2. Ability to Make Difficult Decisions, 3. Focus on the issue at hand • 1. Regional Consideration of Transportation issues, 2. Deliberative Prioritization, 3. Attempts fairness & equality • 1. Collaboration, 2. Natural Attributes (unique features of the area), 3. Leadership and Volunteerism (a common agenda) • 1. Excellent leadership (Executive committee), 2. Committed members, actively engaged, 3. Quality and timely decision-making • 1. Klamath & Lake Counties work well together, 2. Commonality of needs, 3. I sense that we all feel we are in this together • 1. Partnership, 2. Communication, 3. Brings representation of several modes of transportation to the table • 1. Both Counties are focused on Hwy 140 • 1. Shared information, 2. Good cross section of members • 1. Tri - County Communication and idea sharing, 2. Upcoming opportunities, 3. Clarification of projects • 1. Communication with one another, 2. Works with support staff and ODOT well, 3. Represents the region fairly. • 1. Statewide outlook, 2. Generally consider other areas' needs, 3. Good staff backup • 1. ODOT/Local Jurisdiction Cooperation, 2. Funding Important Projects, 3. Improved Communication • 1. Coordination, 2. Big picture • 1. Location, 2. Very similar needs • 1. Diversity of participants, 2. Knowledge of participants, 3. Quality of ODOT staff involvement • 1. Information on ODOT construction projects, 2. Information on ODOT policies, 3. Information on general transportation issues • 1. Coordination among cities and counties, 2. Working with ODOT, 3. Good information • 1. Allows agencies in all jurisdictions to meet to discuss transit issues, 2. Provides a forum, 3. Provides public involvement • 1. Assistance to small cities is sufficient, 2. Tries to fund projects in all jurisdictions, 3. RVACT members get along relatively well • 1. Involvement, 2. Coordination, 3. Goals • 1. Meetings well run, organized, 2. Chair allows input and discussion, 3. Good representation of local areas • 1. Input from all members, 2. Improved ODOT County cooperation, 3. Improved ODOT information on projects • 1. Members are committed to solve problems, 2. Good Information presented by staff, 3. Members treat each other with respect • 1. Better area and regional cooperation, 2. Opportunity to obtain support for projects of importance, 3. Future planning and prioritization being accomplished • 17. Please list the three greatest weaknesses of the ACT with which you are involved: • 1. Only two counties - one significantly more populous than the other • 1. Too much influence by ODOT, 2. Not enough public input, 3. Caters to special interests and political influences B-46 • 1. Feeling that ODOT's opinion will trump ACT's opinion, 2. The distances which make it hard to attend all meetings, 3. Need to include airports with ODOT issues • 1. Too much process orientation, 2. Decisions or outcomes seem predetermined, 3. Lack of emphasis on local transportation needs versus protecting the State "system" • 1. Members seem to be at cross purposes, 2. Despite the opportunity and notification, low public interest, 3. Members who don't seem to understand the ACT's purpose • 1. The voting is such that one county, Josephine, gets out voted on projects and majority of the funding goes to Jackson County, 2. I often feel I do not have the understanding to know if there are other solutions than the one presented, 3. I feel the information is sometimes manipulated to prove the point that ODOT wants proved. • 1. Difficulty is dealing with the dominance of one county over the other, 2. Does not identify clear direction for the participants, 3. With the conflicts of 2 counties tries to over extend to reach compromise. • 1. Spending time and energy on issues for which they cannot effect change, 2. Not having a real understanding of their role • 1. Private does not want to participate, 2. State driven decisions need more input, 3. Liked OTC involvement • 1. Concern the area is not well represented at OTC level, 2. Region boundaries don't meet the needs of the ACT, 3. Funding inadequacy • 1. The ACT needs more community awareness and outreach, 2. ACTS should receive more information on transportation project outside the scope of the ACT, within our region, 3. Does not clearly advise members on advisory opportunities and research between meetings • 1. Too many members uninterested in transportation, 2. Large distances to travel make membership difficult, 3. We know little about the other ACT's • 1. Tend to rubber stamp ODOT staff suggestions, 2. Lack of private business participation, 3. Lack of communication to the public - no press, no newsletter • 1. Failure to recognize high statewide priorities (e.g., I-5 improvements), 2. Lack of coordination with/understanding of MPO issues • 1. Turnover, 2. Attendance • 1. General Public not heavily involved. • 1. Very bureaucratic, final decisions lay with ODOT not us • 1. Leadership is prescribed to rotate between the County Commissioners, 2. Very minimal private sector participation as members or in general, 3. Because they are so inclusive - they tend to advance projects based on whose turn it is rather than objective criteria - there needs to be a clearer way to identify cost- benefit of projects or strategic investments • 1. Our sheer volume of highway miles to cover, 2. Our small population in comparison to the square miles, 3. Local match is often very hard to get • 1. The ability to focus on statewide needs, 2. Coordination with other ACTs, 3. Connecting county city transportation system with state • 1. Can’t think of any • 1. We cover territory in two different ODOT regions, 2. Ineffective representation of a particular locale from time to time, 3. Ineffective leadership at times in past years • 1. Does not have long-range plan for regional transportation, 2. Limited staff funding, 3. Sometimes ODOT does not work with ACTs as equal partners • 1. Lack of unified vision, 2. Lack of adequate information, 3. A feeling that we have little influence • 1. Long distances between areas represented, 2. A few members tend to think locally rather than regionally, 3. Need more exec. committee members from non-highway modes • 1. Members (other than the private sector) are too limited or guarded toward their interest area. Not enough people looking beyond their interest area (bikes, transit, jurisdiction . . .) and at what is best for the system, 2. Links to other decision making processes for the rest of the system. The ACT is just focused on decisions on the state highway system and not the whole system. • 1. Lack of resources to adequately support the ACT and the issues it wants to address, 2. Role of ACT not clearly defined, 3. Lack of clear public process B-47 • 1. Lack of funding to staff local planning needs, 2. Lack of direct, frequent communications with OTC, 3. Region 2 staff efforts to blend priorities of all R2 ACTs • 1. Not equitable between the two counties, 2. Skewed information provided by ODOT, 3. No accountability for mismanaged money • 1. Not enough private sector representation, 2. General public is clueless as to the job ACTs perform, 3. No statewide interaction between ACTs. • 1. Jackson-Josephine County funding conflicts, 2. Large agency influence over smaller agencies, 3. Lack of funds • 1. Lack of master planning and budget review • 1. N/A • 1. Lack of participation by city/county transportation departments, 2. Lack of commitment of some ACT members • 1. Some tension between Jackson and Josephine counties • 1. There is no clear measurable basis to determine success, 2. The ACT is advisory only and has no clear basis of authority • 1. Limited financial resources, 2. Difficult to actually influence ODOT or OTC decisions/policy, 3. Transportation issues exceed area boundary • 1. One Commissioner pushing his agenda, 2. One Representative pushing his agenda, 3. ODOT caving in to Commissioner and changing projects • 1. Decisions made in Salem being forced on local government, 2. Pushing mass transit in rural areas • 1. NWACT is split over two ODOT Regions, 2. Different requirements from Regions are confusing to members, 3. Geographical alignment of counties makes it difficult for some members to attend meetings. • 1. Diversity of opinion, 2. Somewhat territorial, 3. Personal agendas • 1. Getting everyone to the table, 2. Population of our area • 1. Growth outside ACT boundary complicates conversations, 2. Land use issues don't seem to be a top tier issue • 1. Covers large geographical area, 2. Could use more funding • 1. Lack of money to advance critical transportation issues • 1. At times ACT lives in the past • 1. Size of the group, 2. Lack of project funding, 3. Time availability and travel • 1.ODOT makes decisions and expects agreement, 2. Small counties & cities do not get a proportional part of funds, 3. Medford & MPO get a lion share of funds • 1. Voting members from agencies that will benefit financially from ACT decisions, 2. Turf-guarding instead of regional outlook, 3. Focus on road construction instead of all means & modes • 1. Lacks top level mgmt. audience, 2. Insufficient implementation authority, 3. Needs more budgetary knowledge • 1. I lack adequate information into the extent of our role, 2. Sometimes there is not adequate critical assessment of proposals • 1. Coast range, 2. Informal meeting structure, 3. Infrequency of meetings • 1. Resources available for big Projects, 2. We have the Newberg Dundee bypass in our area, 3. ODOT doesn't have resources for alternate modes • 1. Sometimes the ACT does not get information timely to make the best decision • 1. NE is very large area with different needs, 2. City Councils know little about NEACT, 3. Projects far exceed funding • 1. Insufficient time to read documents handed • 1. Little or no orientation for new members • 1. There needs to be more private sector participation in the SWACT steering committee, 2. The public does not show a great amount of interest in the efforts of the SWACT. • 1. They, 2. Are, 3. Irrelevant • 1. Not all communities involved, 2. Participation depends on location of meetings R1 or R2, 3. Bi-state issues with Washington B-48 • 1. Communication of the representatives back to their constituents & staff, regarding the activities of the ACT, 2. Greater communication between land ownership agencies, 3. Communication to the public regarding the current state of maintenance needs for all Oregon's transportation/road systems • 1. Haven’t been there long enough to say • 1. Politics, 2. Difficult to obtain a quorum at times when there are not issues that involve funding, 3. ? • 1. Meeting frequency (only every other month for full board) • 1. Ability to get funding for our projects (not enough to go around), 2. Ability to get all of our projects on the C-STIP, 3. Ability to get projects on the D-STIP. • 1. Unable to influence ODOT decision-making process, 2. Difficult to be recognized in rural/urban discourse, 3. Sparse population, time and distance • 1. The OTC NEVER shows up, 2. ODOT decisions are made in advance (not the fault of the area manager, who is great to work with!), 3. Public input will never happen, no matter how many ways we try. No one outside of government knows who we are! • 1. Need for technical advisory committee for fact finding, 2. Some members need more regional perspective, 3. More emphasis needed on public/legislative outreach • 1. Really no weaknesses, RVACT is accomplishing its overall mission and improving transportation through a collaborative process, 3. Would like to see more $$ for small rural communities • 1. OTC does not give enough time to respond, 2. OTC tries to make rules for the ACTS that don't work well and force them on to the ones that work very well • 1. Governance and decision making not clear, 2. Decisions are only for STIP prioritization, 3. Need greater focus for all transportation funding decisions • 1. Primarily based on political considerations, 2. No real transportation planning, 3. No long-range vision of what today's decision will take them • 1. Not really sure what our role is. Advisory, suggestions, concurrence?, 2. Don't think we are seeing how fit into the "big" picture, 3. We are kept informed but not engaged. • 1. Parochial interests trump greater good, 2. Emphasis on fair share rather than need, 3. Too much overlap with MPO authority • 1. Travel difficulty during winter months, 2. Good meeting locations (rooms) • 1. Time schedules from ODOT • 1. Not all ACTs are equally heard by ODOT & OTC, 2. Appears ODOT management favors Staff opinion over ACT on some things, 3. Some tasks have seemed like busy work, but most of that was in the distant past. • 1. Limited resources, 2. Leadership recruitment • 1. Public input, 2. Lack of funding • 1. Distance from Salem • 1. Uncertainty over time of Transportation funding • 1. Economic Diversification, 2. Sustainable Land Management (public and private), 3. Transportation • 1. Public outreach/information could be improved • 1. Often I feel that it is ODOT show & tell - need more participation and information from locals - we are working on it, 2. Time demands for local government and state - too much to do and hard to commit time to the ACT, 3. Distance - poor weather and time sometimes limits participation • 1. Lack of participation by smaller cities and the Tribe • 1. Private sector input (not fault of ACT necessarily), 2. As a newcomer understanding all of the procedures, 3. Funding • 1. Not much impact on OTC, 2. No solid linkage with ACTS regarding funding joint projects, 3. Can't get the attention of legislators to fund at acceptable levels • 1. Geographic distances, 2. Lack of transportation funding generally, 3. A few members think primarily locally • 1. Certain Local Jurisdictions Choose not to Participate • 1. Lack of public input - public doesn't attend, 2. Plan of planning only - no dollars • 1. Geographic distances, 2. Local government support, 3. Complexity of issues • 1. ODOT still make most decisions, 2. Limited public input • 1. Lack of real clout B-49 • 1. There is no coordination between the Portland metro area and surrounding ACTs • 1. No clear direction or authority, 2. A lot of meetings with no real actions completed, 3. ACT has no clout with OTC. • 1. Orientation of new member • 1. Not sure how much weight is carried to upper ODOT?, 2. Not sure about regional equality, (Valley gets all) • 1. Lack of training for new members, 2. Concise worksheets or executive summaries from ODOT on projects, 3. Lack of a precise overview of ODOT goals in easily assimilated format--perhaps it does exist as I am fairly new. • 1. Public input, 2. Are the ACT recommendations followed, 3. ACT members attendance • 1. No sense of long-range role, 2. Haven't tried to address issues in common with Portland area • 1. Large area, not all participants can regularly/always attend, 2. Some local parochialism remains, 3. Don’t agree with consensus decisions 18. Does the ACT coordinate with other ACTs? If yes, please indicate which ones: • SWACT • No ACT in County • Upper John Day Region and State Commission • My answer is "don't know." • If it happens it is through the chair or more likely through ODOT. • south central and John Day • Only during regional prioritization meetings in Salem. • Only when the SuperACT meets to prioritize Connect Oregon Projects • Southeast ACT • I believe all of them • Central Oregon and Northeast Oregon • Central Oregon and Rouge Valley • I work with all of the ACTs. I see good coordination in Region 4 and Region 5. The coordination in Region 2 doesn't seem very good. Coordination in Region 1 doesn't exist. Coordination across regions, e.g. Regions 1 and 2, doesn't exist even in areas where it is needed. • Rogue Valley ACT • Generally the coordination is done through Region 2 meetings of ACT Chairs/Vice Chairs (MWACT, NWACT and Lane County) • As part of our area covers territory in ODOT Region I, we have staff that is knowledgeable about activities in the Metro region. It helps to have some understanding of Metro's needs and how that affects us. • RVACT • The others in Region 3 (SWACT RVACT) • As needed (for Connect Oregon funding, etc), it coordinates with the Lower John Day ACT and the South Central (Klamath-Lake) ACT. • We have sometimes coordinated with adjacent ACTs when appropriate regional projects arise. • It does with all the ACTs in Region 2 - but only when the Region 2 Engineer calls the ACTS together to negotiate a final prioritized project list for the STIP - so, this really isn't "coordination" in the usual sense of the word. • Region 4 ACTs • NEACT, but only on specific projects/issues. The SEACT does not regularly coordinate with other ACTs. • South East • Salem • CWACT, MWACT • Central • SEACT • NWACT, Lane County, CWACT • The 3 ACT's in ODOT Region 4 - Lower John Day, Central, and South Central coordinate as needed on Region wide issues. B-50 • NEACT and SEACT • Lane, NW and Cascade or whatever Linn, Benton and Lincoln are. But most cooperation is limited to those attending the all area meeting. • RVACT • Rogue Valley ACT • Have herd discussion of communication with others, don't know which ones. • When needed, we have coordinated with SWACT. • NWACT, CWACT and Lane County. • Other rural • The only "inter-ACT-ion" I know of is through OMPOC. The rest, I have to assume, is through ODOT staff. We have a slight advantage in being in the capital, so the flow of information tends to be toward Salem. • Only when we have a regional • don't think so • With other ACTS in region 2 at all-area meetings, but otherwise very superficially • But only with major decisions like with Connect Oregon II. • JPACT, Central Oregon, Oregon Coast • Very little to my knowledge. As the new Area Manager I know that the Chair has discussed work related to Connect Oregon II with members of the Central Oregon ACT and have them as Co-Sponsor for an application • Northeast • All bordering ACTs • I believe there are representatives that do coordinate with other ACTS, but we never hear that anything ever happens or that the coordination helps our issues. • Lower John Day Central Oregon • NW ACT 19. Please indicate how your ACT coordinates with other ACTs. (Check all that apply). Other (please specify): • No ACT in County • My answer is "don't know." • It would be good if other ACT members came more often and reported their activities • I don't see any routine interaction between ACTs. And, I don't know how that could be accomplished given the fact that ACT members are a combination of people with full-time jobs and those who are volunteers. Perhaps, ODOT personnel could provide this "bridge". • shares agenda and minutes and has ex officio members - Meeting of the ACT Chairs and Vice Chairs for regional prioritization of modernization program • I am not as familiar with this part. Our SE Regional Alliance chair, judge from Harney County, is very involved statewide and through the Eastern Oregon Alliance, which involves 7 counties, and through the STIP processes for sure. • Letters, Chairman sometime calls the other chairmen, Communication between Area Managers • Agenda and minutes exchanged by email to the chair of each. • ODOT Area Managers that represent other ACTs in Region 2 are ex officio members of the CWACT. There is occasional informal communication between CWACT staff and staff of other ACTs. • ODOT staff from Region I regularly attend our meetings and are all involved in activities in their own region. From time to time, our officers and area manager attend Region II meetings and interact with two other ACTs and Lane County representatives. • I'm uncertain about any of the above activities. I am not aware that they happen. • It is very hard to tell what check box fits with which topic. Does one check the box above the words, or the box next to the words? I decided that it is the box above the words that apply, so that is what I did. • As needed for Connect Oregon funding decisions, etc. B-51 • Only at Region 2 all ACT meetings to consolidate the priorities of all ACTS within Region 2. This is forced collaboration and actually creates a competitive environment rather than a collaborative environment. • Connect Oregon - development of regional priorities • SEACT members works with NEACT members only on such issues as developing an ODOT Region 5 ConnectOregon priority list. • There has been coordination between the ACTs for decisions on the Connect Oregon I and II programs. • There is little, if any, interaction between ACT Members with other regional ACT Members. A state ACT Conference once a year might provide more interaction. • Both ACT are3 in Region 5 and funding is usually for the Region • I believe we do some coordinating, however, I'm unsure of who other than the Chair and the clerk. • Representatives from all three ACTs meet as needed. • Not sure about whether coordination is conducted and at what level? • As an Ex-O member of the NEACT, I attend the SEACT on a semi-regular basis, representing the tourism industry and scenic byways. • Not sure • Not sure what an "ODOT liaison" is. ODOT Area Managers are full voting members of ACTs. • All Area meetings with the Chair and Vice-Chair of each ACT, along with ODOT Management. • Chair and vice chair meet periodically with counterparts in region • Since I am involved at the citizen level, I do not get involved to the degree that I am working with other ACTs • Don't know • Share meeting notices and member information • See comment on #18 • On some matters we meet jointly with the Rogue Valley ACT • Not sure 21. How do you think the communication and coordination between ACTs and MPOs could be improved? • Almost every community on the ACT is in the MPO. Good understanding and good working relationship. • Have the MPOs staff the ACTs (take ODOT out of the staff role). • No ACT in County • Not sure • Meet in full twice a year so members have the chance to connect with each other, then stay in contact with email transmissions. SuperACT is what we call it, but only the Chair of our ACT and Staff Person regularly have contact. • My answer is "don't know." • Reports at each respective meeting on what the other is doing. This may be happening now. • More respect that each has some authority and should not be considered subservient to the other. The MPO represents fewer cities however they are the more populated cities. • Development of agreements that grant equal status to each entity with regards to the coordination of Modernization project priorities. • ACT needs more reporting and understanding of the function of the MPO. I am not sure how they work together • ACTs providing their meeting minutes to each other would be an easy start. • The following idea may already exist, which explains part of the problem with coordination with other ACTs: Use of the internet for news and issues between ACTS. • Re-institute practice of inviting members of adjacent ACTs to periodically make presentations on area issues. This was a very effective practice early in the ACTs life but has not been continued. About the only time ACT members get together these days is the all-area meetings to prioritize projects for statewide initiatives such as the STIP, OTIA, and ConnectOregon • ACT chairs should meet regularly. B-52 • This is a hard one. There is such a difference in our needs. The MPOs typically have the core population and dollars to back up their needs. Rural Oregon does not. I rely on our ODOT representatives to make our case with the input given at our meetings and from our communities. • Area Commission should do Regional Meetings once a year. Also I think it would be good for Area Commissions Chairs and Vice Chairs meet with the OTC once a year. I don't think the OTC meet often enough this would help to represent statewide goals and needs. Regional meeting would help commission have a big picture and understanding of priorities and needs like South Central does not have a good picture of Rogue Valley or coastal needs which is important to their growth. • Fundamentally I am inclined to think that separate ACTs should not exist where there are MPOs. We need to figure out how to enlarge the MPOs to include logical additional areas that are included in ACTs. • Annual joint meeting of at least the chair and ACT staff with all ACTs. • I think that our coordination with the Corvallis Area MPO is generally good. MPO policy board members are also members of the CWACT and the MPO Director is an ex officio member of the CWACT. • Obviously attending meetings of each other ACTs would be helpful. Time and costs make this very difficult to achieve. Perhaps an exchange of meeting minutes would be useful for some members. Otherwise we meet from time to time at Regional ODOT meetings. This proves to be pretty helpful, actually. • On a state-wide scale between ACTs and MPOs. That is where it is needed most. Competing interests for extremely limited project dollars tends to isolate the groups and discourage coordination. • I think communication and coordination with the MPO is fine. The with other ACT could be but to what end or benefit. It seems that this is the role of the OTC. The ACTs have enough trouble understanding all the issues in their area. Asking them to understand issues in another area, region, statewide is unrealistic and of little value. • Not sure, and also am not at all sure we need more coordination and communication with other ACTs or MPOs. We get along OK with the Jackson/Josephine ACT, which is the only one we seem to be involved with. It is my understanding that Lane County is not part of an ACT, and it would be good to coordinate with Lane County on East-West highway issues. • The role between the ACT and MPO with regard to ODOT modernization funding needs to be clearly defined. To date, ODOT has had that discussion with the ACT. The MPO has had to request that ODOT discuss the issue with the MPO. The general role/purpose of the ACT needs to be clearly defined. Historically, the ACT focused solely on modernization needs. The ACT is now trying to morph into a planning-like entity. While I support a broader approach to planning and collaboration within our region, it is very unclear how these broader planning efforts will ultimately be adopted and/or implemented. • We could be provided with a brief update once or twice a year of projects, accomplishments and challenges of adjacent ACTs. • Such efforts are in no way encouraged by ODOT at this point in time. That is a system of a systemic problem - ODOT staff are too central to the staffing of each ACT, so they control the interaction rather than local staff and ACT members. This problem is not a fault of the ACT Charters, but is rather an outcome of the fact that ODOT staff control the process - to insure that ACTs essentially view as choices and needs only projects that ODOT has as high priorities. Therefore the whole process is focused on state highways rather than the multi-modal transportation system of a region including all modes and facilities "owned" by all levels of government. • You tell me! Funding is the key. They must all be chasing the same carrot and it must be fair if you want to unite the stakeholders. • Our MPO is represented well and I don't know of between ACTs is necessary • N/A • In this area, it is an all-day commitment to attend any meeting, including within our own ACT. Other than ODOT staff, ACT members have neither the time nor interest in attending other ACT meetings. Meeting minutes of other ACTs are available, but I don't think anyone takes the initiative to read them. • The RVACT and RVMPO have pretty good communication and coordination. Several of the members are on both committees. As for coordination with other ACTs, I'm not sure if this necessarily needs to be stronger. I am sure this coordination would occur if needed, but I don't believe the need has arisen in the past. It might be a good idea to attend several of the other ACT meetings just to see how they do business, and what their concerns are. B-53 • Cascade West ACT communication is good, since the Corvallis MPO representative is part of the ACT group meeting. • Eliminate the MPOs; it is just another layer that holds up progress. • Don't have an MPO but within ACTs many of the members serve on other organizations with ACT members such as League of Oregon Cities, Governor's Economic Revitalization Teams, Association of Oregon Counties and so on. This results in a lot of cross ACT communications. • Perhaps e-mail newsletters, joint meetings, etc. • Ensure both have representatives engaged at the respective meetings. Occasional joint meeting may be an option to promote cross pollination. • To use technology better--video conferences, phone conferences instead of traveling each month. • More joint meetings, produce joint regional plans • ODOT can create a greater understanding of the relationship and help in recognizing the role of MPO's for identifying priorities within the MPO area, and then facilitate collaboration on how the MPO priorities fit in with the regional ACT priorities for the available STIP funding. A similar collaboration and ACT support for Earmark priorities within the MPO area. • In an area with only one MPO they are the big gorilla. Their input is rated very high and recently it seems they are dictating the agenda • In most cases statewide, there seems to be good cross-over between ACT representatives and MPO committees • We know it happens, just not what comes out of it. • Both agencies should be addressing similar problems in a coordinated effort to achieve "in the dirt" results on urgent, not theoretical, issues. There are substantial transportation needs throughout the State that require expedited direction and implementation of planning and construction. • We might try having meetings together. As far I know only the representatives communicate. It would mean a large meeting but everyone would not necessary attend. The MPO's are trying to have meetings to advance their issues. There is some crossover on the participants. I am not sure how people in Lane county feel as they don't really have an area ACT... the commissioners do it all. • Not certain if communication and coordination is maintained, so it would be impossible to say if it can be improved. • The Region 3 ACTs should have at least one joint meeting per year to discuss projects important to the region. Due to the importance of the Interstate 5 corridor, Lane County should also be engaged in the efforts of the SWACT and RVACT. • Out moded way of doing things. • These organizations are formed based on different funding sources, which doesn't make much sense. MPOs ought to be in charge of metropolitan areas and ACTS of areas outside of MPOs with some structure for coordination. It would be better to give the MPOs some real responsibility for state money, since 60% of the state's population is located inside MPOs. • Perhaps even a commitment to have members attend the near-by ACTs once a year would be a helpful step. • I am not sure, we do a pretty good job at RVACT... • Attend each other's regular meetings. • MWACT has a distinct advantage in that member jurisdictions have chosen to, as much as possible, assign the same representative to both MWACT and SKATS, our local MPO. In addition, the Council of Governments has the same staff assigned to both. • Perhaps minutes of meetings could be made available to those interested in reading them. • I do not see much need in more communications with the other ACT's in our region. • There needs to be a clear definition on decision making authority and the differences between the two organizations. Again - the focus of the need is governance. There should be better communication between the ACT and MPO, what the ACT needs from the MPO to make better decisions and how the ACT can better facilitate the MPO needs. There also needs to be a link with the transit portion and transit funding. Perhaps look broader to the land use OECDD piece and other funding options. • MPO members are also members of the ACT, so there is the opportunity for ongoing communication and coordination built in. The MPO members are not satisfied with this level, as they frustrated by the politics B-54 of the ACT and find the selection of projects based on the planning activities of the MPO to be a preferred process. • Find a common ground that is mutually beneficial. • Areas of responsibility more clearly delineated • More coordinated long term planning for the future. Making sure projects support the long term plans. • Inclusion of some of the same staff and policy makers on the TAC's and Policy Committees of Both Organizations. • Joint meetings between the ACTS. • Not sure there is a practical way to improve the communication/coordination. • As the Area Manager I would think that responsibility falls to me and I have not performed. It is something I will discuss with both the RVACT and COACT Area Managers in the near future. • Our local representatives do a good job of keeping involved with the communication and keeping us up to date. One recent concern is that with the recent loss of the Office of Rural Development how this will impact the continued efforts to maintain the lines of communication. • Mandatory joint funded mega projects. • Not sure • Don't Know • A summary report on each others' meetings may help understand what each group is doing. • Periodic coordination meetings between elected leadership organized by ODOT leadership. • I'm not sure it matters; we don't have the same issues that Eugene/Springfield has. • more joint meetings • MPO's are set up to look at long-range forecasts of population and transportation issues, wherein the ACT is not. The ACT has no long-term vision, unlike a Metro 2040 type plan. Inter-city commuting is a major segment of VMT growth, critical in the discussion of global warming, but ACT has yet to address the issue. ACT needs assistance in some long-term visioning and strategy. 22. What are the key issues that require coordination between you and your neighboring Area Commissions on Transportation and/or Metropolitan Planning Organizations? (Check all that apply). Other (please specify): • Implementation of MPO Regional Transportation Plan and land use / transportation strategies. • This question's boxes are messed up • they are all important, you travel between ACTs and they need to be aware of the actions by others and have more coordination • Rail issues • Be careful not to stretch the ACTs to far geographically. Their value is locally. I would focus them on their strength, which is local knowledge, and make that role deeper rather than looking to spread them thinner. • It is very hard to tell what check box fits with which topic. Does one check the box above the words, or the box next to the words? I couldn't tell, but I ended up checking the box above the words, rather than the box next to the words • Eliminate the MPOs • Federal Earmarks • The money and modernization for special projects. Bridge program and OTIA were not listed. • Thank you for including scenic byways! • Prioritizing All-Area projects, as well as projects that are in more than one ACT's area. • ALL issues impact both levels of planning!! • Regional problem solving. • I am answering #22 as the need to communicate with the other ACTs from #21. • Big Look, Governor's Transportation Vision, Global Warming Commission recommendations. 23. What key issues require coordination between you and your neighboring ACTs and/or MPOs but are not currently being addressed? (please provide one issue per line, up to five issues) B-55 • 1.Safety, 2. Transit, 3. Land use • 1.Intermodal transportation, especially air, 2. Projects which create jobs • 1.This is a non issue since the neighboring ACT and MPO are too far away. • 1.More understanding of MPO goals and mission, 2. Challenges faced by other ACTs, are they similar?, 3. How are our projects prioritized with limited resources • 1. Astoria to Portland Hwy. 30 corridor issues, 2. Astoria to Portland Hwy. 26 corridor issues • 1.Intercity bus transportation, 2. Freight rail preservation and facility improvement, 3. Highway planning - i.e. between inland valley and the coast, 4. Discussion of plans for ports in the various ACT jurisdictions, marine and air, 5. Funding • 1.Maintenance/construction funding & responsibility between adjoining ACT's, 2. West side/East side differences, both in need and cost • 1.Biggs bridge closure, 2. Uniform enforcement of truck speed and littering along US 97 • 1.Coordination with adjacent ACTs to advocate for important projects that cross area boundaries, 2. ACTs and MPOs need to do a better job of communicating on their shared issues. • 1.MPO has desire to look at multi-modal issues within a corridor that extends outside of its boundary • 1.Reduced Funding • 1.Connection from Coos Bay to destination east using Hwy 140, 2. Expanding US 97 to four lanes from California to The Dalles, 3. Improving US 395, 4. Improving OR 138, 5. High Priority needs in Central Oregon • 1.How to get more private sector involvement, 2. How to get more emergency sector involvement • 1.I-5 improvements • 1.Alternative modes, 2. Prioritization of funding, 3. State-wide needs/impact • 1.Be careful not to stretch the ACTs to far geographically. Their value is locally. I would focus them on their strength, which is local knowledge, and make that role deeper rather than looking to spread them thinner, 2. I think communication and coordination with the MPO is fine. The with other ACT could be but to what end or benefit. It seems that this is the role of the OTC. The ACTs have enough trouble understanding all the issues in their area. Asking them to understand issues in another area, region, statewide is unrealistic and of little value. • 1.Commuting, 2. Short line Rail support, 3. Vision for Willamette Valley transportation system • 1.Multi-modal system, 2. Funding system that is fair and takes inflation into account, 3. Must bring business community into the ACTs, 4. Better press coverage, 5. More contact with our congressional delegation. • 1.Master planning • 1.Don't know • 1.State Highway work priorities, 2. Bridge Work priorities, 3. Long term planning, 4. Funding priorities • 1.Local decisions, this is not good or bad • 1With current funding levels for modernization projects ACTs should get together and formulate regional priorities. • 1.Shared Highways, 2. Dollars fairly allocated, most bang for our buck • 1.Congestion, 2. Planning, 3. STIP • 1.Funding partnerships with development community/private sector, 2. Relationship between local land use decisions and transportation, 3. Inherent conflict between local economic development goals and transportation goals, 4. Partnering opportunities between local jurisdictions • 1.More consistent process or criteria for deciding on ranking or priorities, 2. Recognition of previously adopted plans in decision making • 1.I-5 long term planning, 2. East / West interstate connectivity, 3. Coastal access • 1.Issues where one area provides congestion to our area and not part of solution, 2. Commuter rail, 3. All emphasis on transit should not be in Portland and Eugene, 4. There are a lot of small towns that are going to need alternatives/not addressed • 1. Funding of transportation projects, 2. Prioritization of transportation projects • 1. ACTs can't really deal with transit, 2. Funding priorities are not consistent between MPO and ACT • 1. Funding opportunities for scenic byways, and coordination of implementation with ODOT on some obligated grant awards, 2. Issue of Forest System Roads eligibility for federal scenic byway funding B-56 • 1. I-5, 2. Hwy 140 • 1. MPO projects within the ACT's area, 2. MPO needs vs. ACT needs. • 1. Congestion, 2. Planning, 3. Modernization, 4. Transit, 5. Freight • 1. Need for regional approach of all ACTs on addressing our funding needs, 2. Better system for prioritizing projects at the regional level • 1. We have only used the Connect Oregon! & II to communicated and I think that is fine • 1. STIP Prioritization and how that is presented to the OTC, 2. Funding mechanisms and how to leverage other state funding, 3. How do bigger issues (freight, rail, etc) impact adjoining/neighboring ACTs, 4. How would a more unified approach help gain funding for better utilization • 1. Inter-jurisdictional commuting • 1. Modernization of Hwy 97 from California to Washington, 2. Removing Truck restrictions on Hwy140. • 1. Larger Transportation Vision, 2. Lack of understanding by ACT members on how transportation is a state issue • 1. Unsure, 2. Unsure, 3. Unsure, 4. Unsure, 5. Unsure • 1. Freight Mobility, 2. Funding issues, 3. Difficulty in attracting capital to the region due to the limited number of viable economic investment opportunities especially when compared to flourishing markets, 4. Regulatory issues and environmental challenges affecting the use of public/private lands, 5. Aging physical infrastructure and lack of capital to maintain or expand • 1. Coordination of activities beneficial to both parties, 2. Connect Oregon projects that are for the greater good of the entire region • 1. Large cross jurisdictional projects • 1. Connect Oregon decisions, 2. Allocation of Region funds • 1. Mass transit • 1. Affect of highway improvements on land use patterns, 2. Affect of land use decisions on adjacent land uses • 1. Spreading the wealth. • 1. Not sure • 1. ? • 1. Connect Oregon 2 need better coordination, 2. HW 97 Border to Border better coordination • 1. See above 27. How would you improve the communication and coordination [between your ACT and MPO]? • Have the MPO provide staff support to the ACT. • I really have no interest in the MPO or its needs other than how they compete for limited funding that our jurisdiction needs or feels would be more appropriately spent elsewhere. • Time set aside at each respective meeting for information sharing. • MPO report to the ACT or supply their minutes for review and comment • We do not have an MPO in our jurisdiction. • Provide more information to each group about what the other is working on. Hold occasional joint meetings, or at least compile a side-by-side document detailing each group's activities. • Eliminate MPOs • See previous answer • I think it is effective, primarily because of much common membership. • Clarify relationship, improve collaboration on STIP development. • Why do we need an MPO and an ACT with only one MPO in the District? • Coordinate timing of decisions so that results from MPOs can be considered in ACT decision process • Identify mutual goals and objectives and restrict problem solving to these issues • An occasional meeting to share the tip. It would educate some of the outlying areas about projects in the MPO. B-57 • (The yes/no answer on 25 was poorly designed - there should have been some choices. ACTs and MPOs represent very different interests and I'm not sure that improving communication and coordination is the highest priority. • Increase reporting between the two. Clarify roles and responsibilities of the two. • Not sure • Our MPO is so new that there has been very little need to communicate • While the ACT and MPO need to coordinate certain activities, the interests of the ACT are primarily focused on ODOT's modernization program as it is embodied in the STIP. Other that other minor funding packages like ConnectOregon, the ACT's role is relatively restricted to modernization projects on the state highway system. Projects like bridge, pres, safety all come from the management systems and get no real input from the ACT. Transit projects get no ACT input. On the other hand, the MPOs plan for the whole transportation system. So, unless this basic difference in the roles and responsibilities of the two are changed, there will always be a disconnect and therefore friction between the two types of groups. • Don't ask both to make the same decisions/recommendations • Keep this group going so we don't lose what we have all given our time for this last 5-6 years. • I think it is adequate in our region. • Some of the same staff from ODOT and COG are staff-support for both the MPO and ACT, however rarely have I seen ACT issues brought to the MPO attention. That may be appropriate in many cases, but in the long term there are issues that need to be addressed jointly and it is not currently happening. 28. Please indicate how your ACT coordinates with the MPO. (Check all that apply). Other (please specify): • Joint ACT/MPO meetings only when disagreement • There may be more ways, I simply do not know. • Not involved with an MPO • I don't know if the area manager attends, I know other ODOT staff does. In addition the ACT staff and the MPO staff are one in the same. • Some of these things happen, but I'm not sure that which are required or a quirk of membership on the two bodies. • We already do all of these things because of reasons stated above. • Same group of people on both • MWVCOG staff are key staff for both ACT and MPO 29. Please indicate issues upon which the ACT and MPO coordinate (check all that apply). Other (please specify): • Should read: modernization. • I did not check any of the above issues because I don't see the two groups coordinating. The above issues are discussed at the meetings of each group but I can't say there is any formal coordination. • Federal Earmarks • Let us be serious. Unless you are in Portland very little emphasis at the ACT deals with opportunities for transit. Possibly in Lane County but nowhere else is transit on the agenda much because there is no money. As we get further into the global climate change and carbon footprint issues, the Transportation Commission, the Governor and the US Congress need to get real about resources for transit. 31. Please indicate which state agency you represent: Other (please specify): • Legislature • Employment Dept • State Senate 32. Please indicate which industry you represent. • Construction B-58 • Chamber of Commerce • Legal and general public • Citizen of Josephine County • Auto Dealerships • Chamber of Commerce • marina/recreational • Timber / Logging • Banking • Legal and general public • Development (Real Estate) • Electric Utility • Trucking 37. Please share any additional comments you have in the space provided below. • ACTs should only be serving the non-MPO areas. MPOs are designated to be the regional transportation planning entities in their respective metropolitan areas. ACTs are not needed in MPO areas and only create confusion on who is responsible for addressing transportation issues. I believe that ACTs are designed to take away the MPO's authority and put it in the hands of ODOT and the OTC. • Generally, I have been pleased with participation in the ACT. I had low expectation for influencing the decisions of ODOT given past experiences. • I think most of this work would happen outside the meetings and helped by the relationships made in RVACT. • ODOT is so horribly underfunded that maintaining infrastructure is almost impossible. It is hard to be serious about recommendations when you feel there is little chance for funding. • Regional transportation issues require development of a transportation vision and planning tools for the region. The ACTS are neither authorized to exercise nor are they equipped with such skills. • Private does not want to take the time to engage as much as they should. I do not know enough about MPO's to give good answers. The ACTs are a great improvement to what we had before which was none. We have good ODOT staff in our ACT and that makes a big difference. Our regional partners understand how to work together to benefit the region. The ACT is the most important and effect regional government group that we have. Land use issues that affect transportation need to have more attention through the ACT process. There is a disconnect in policies between ODOT and DLCD. • I am to pleased to see that the OTC is now apparently taking more interest in visiting with the various ACTs throughout the state. Funding is totally inadequate. The OTC and ODOT must find ways of both making highway improvements in a more cost effective manner and of obtaining additional funding. • Note: The check boxes and text alignment in these last few pages was scrambled - made my best guess as to which box went with the text. • CWACT is chartered under the OCWCOG and in many ways is an extension of that body in policy and approach to regional problem-solving. I believe the structure is the biggest barrier to integrating the private sector into decision making. The members do try to be collaborative with the private sector representatives but have a hard time keeping them interested. In general, with the overall funding issues it is becoming more difficult to keep all members engaged and feeling like their participation is meaningful. • Confused about questions 33-36. I only assumed how other ACTs function, not how my ACT functions. I would rate my ACT as very effective for each of these questions. • I believe there are overlapping and conflicting interests present in the current ACT/MPO model. Each region and area tends to focus on its own needs with no framework or incentive for understanding and improving the bigger picture. However, the largest problem seems to be such a shortage of funds that most effort is seen as inconsequential to the group as a whole. Here and there the needs of a small portion of the ACT/MPO membership is addressed but these advances are seen as localized benefits. It may be time to change the model itself. It seems that what is needed is unified planning (without jurisdictional overlap) by local representatives committed to inter-regional improvements, combined with more substantial (realistic to the task) funding. B-59 • I gave up trying to figure out which boxes fit with which questions, and did not answer the questions after 33 • I sometimes feel that the ACT is a front, using its members as a tool for promoting predetermined ODOT agendas. • ACTs need ODOT participation - but need to have independent staffing to effective fulfill their full potential. They need to become an important piece of the policy and decision making structure for Oregon's transportation system linking up, when appropriate with each other and with the OTC as the final arbitrator and manager of the system. ACTs should be dominated by local stakeholders and not simply a piece of the ODOT public involvement process and a cover for controversial ODOT decisions ("the ACT made this decision" when in fact only presented to the ACT options that lead to the decision ODOT had decided upon). • Thank you for allowing me to share my views. • The ACT needs to be more responsive to economic development put forward as a priority of local governing bodies rather than goals put forward by Salem. • Once again, ACTs are not as well attended by the public as they could be. I'm not sure how to improve attendance other than more communication via newsletters, TV, radio, e-mail, etc. • I don't think we do much between public and private. • ACT's have been very effective for me in ODOT Region 4. The diversity of our ACTs and jurisdictions from frontier rural to rural to urban to metro-urban has always been our greatest challenge in terms of weighing priority needs across the Region. However, it's incredible how respectful and considerate the folks are when they understand each others' needs and have some responsibility for balancing the priorities and available funding. (I was around when it wasn't that way...) We still have work to do to strengthen the roles and relationship between the COACT and the Bend MPO primarily with STIP development, but it's not been a significant problem since we have folks that sit on both. More money to argue over would help!! Thanks for the opportunity to comment! • From my perspective as a statewide program manager, the ACTs vary greatly in their willingness to take a regional approach to issues, priorities and decisions. Some do it very well, and others just "slice the pie" so each jurisdiction at the table gets something (and those without a voting member get left out). I recommend that all ACT members be required to abstain from any vote that would bring funds to their own agency. • I need to take time from my already overloaded schedule to review the details of our responsibilities and assess how we are or are not meeting those responsibilities. • I was on the original organization and had a hiatus for two years on the same ACT. The cooperation between our area is quite good. Sure there are always some who flog the same issue but we get past that. The real concern for me is the lack of balance for funding for transit and alternate ideas. At least I have a platform to advance the ideas. • It's time for a different way of handling Oregon's transportation issues. The ACTS are outdated and very old fashioned. It's time for something different. • I believe the NWACT works well and the OTC should be utilizing them more. With the increase emphasis on other modes of transportation, it would be helpful for the ACTs to get stakeholders or ODOT staff of the other modes involved (bike/ped, rail, marine, air, transit). Most of the focus seems to be on highway or roadway issues. • The ACT works hard to ensure the needs of our area are identified and prioritized. With little or no funds to move projects forward and zero interaction with the OTC, the relevance of the work or our input into the state process becomes difficult to discern. • We have a great ACT and a good MPO. We need to get out of parochial stovepipes and look at unified funding requirements that benefit the region, not just the big guy in the local neighborhood. We need to look at overall regional land use/transportation issues, but bring that to the context of the ACT responsibilities. Thanks for doing this. • The ACT has provided me with an understanding of how the state transportation system works. I have passed information on to others. The more all of us communicate and cooperate, the more we are able to accomplish. • The underlying priority in the counties within the Southeast Regional Alliance region is to build economically viable communities. To achieve this goal, the Alliance focused its attention on recreating B-60 and building an economic foundation that is enduring and viable in the new economy of the 21st century. However, due to the lack of funding of the Regional Investment Funds, this priority will not be attainable as the Alliance will not have the means to help the private or public sector. • As a new Area Manager what I see an importance for the ACT's - however with the current funding levels for ODOT and the reduction/elimination for secured rural school funding effecting County and then City governments, the money for projects just is not there. That being said enthusiasm for improvements is what you'd expect - and folks are always looking for funding opportunities. • On a regular basis, ODOT or OTC needs to brief ACTs on the role and responsibility as seen by OTC. The membership changes as elected officials and public and private sector volunteers come and go. • With more experience and continued contact with the representatives understanding and communication is improving. Not always sure of whom the contacts are for local or regional information and which program applies. • I assume this survey is anonymous. Please remove my name if that is not true. • There should be an orientation for new members of the ACT that includes purpose, process, funding etc. etc. I also think there should be a consistent release of e-mails to members of that SWACT regarding ongoing projects (rather than just the agenda for the next meeting). There is too much time between meetings to stay interested or informed. The meetings should occur monthly and be moved around from location to location to minimize travel. Overall, I think our SWACT is pretty good. • I believe the Medford area is the model for how to structure the relationship between an MPO and an ACT. The MPO has a confined geographic area of responsibility and the ACT covers the broader commute shed. The MPO is much like a city within the ACT territory. The equivalent model for the Portland area would have an ACT that covers the broader commute shed around Metro, including Woodburn, Newberg, North Plains, Banks, Scappoose, Hood River, Sandy, Estacada and Molalla. Such as organization created by ODOT would facilitate coordination without having the surrounding jurisdictions being dominated by Metro and the Metro region. • Sorry, I left most of the questions unanswered: I'm too new and inexperienced to provide reliable feedback. • Since I have only been on the ACT under a year, many of my answers were truthfully "not sure" or "don't know." That doesn't mean it isn't being done by my ACT, it just means I haven't been on board long enough to hear about it. Right now I'm still getting used to all the acronyms! I have impressed by the regional outlook all of the members bring to the table. I think everyone looks for the "greatest good" in projects and is willing to be supportive of other's municipalities in order to further that goal. • Compared to OTC or MPOs, the ACTs role is fairly limited, in my opinion. There are cross jurisdictional issues of transportation congestion, but most of the discussion focuses on the fact that there are limited funds and how can the ACT best compete for these funds. There needs to be some long-term strategic planning either within the ACT, as well as between our adjacent ACTS, headed by ODOT. [Somebody] put this best at a fall retreat of OMPOC (Oregon MPO Consortium) when he showed that there are super- regional issues between the Portland area and the mid-valley area that are not being addressed. APPENDIX C: CASE STUDIES OF THE MID-WILLAMETTE VALLEY, ROGUE VALLEY, AND NORTHEAST AREA COMMISSIONS ON TRANSPORTATION Prepared by: Community Planning Workshop Community Service Center 1209 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1209 Phone: 541.346.3889 Fax: 541.346.2040 Email: cpw@uoregon.edu http://www.uoregon.edu/~cpw APPENDIX C: CASE STUDIES OF THE MID-WILLAMETTE VALLEY, ROGUE VALLEY, AND NORTHEAST AREA COMMISSIONS ON TRANSPORTATION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... C-1 1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................. C-1 1.2 METHODS .................................................................................................................... C-1 1.2.1 Case Study Structure..........................................................................................................................C-2 1.3 HIGHLIGHTS................................................................................................................. C-2 2.0 MID-WILLAMETTE VALLEY ACT CASE STUDY.............................................. C-4 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ C-4 2.1.1 Decision Making................................................................................................................................C-5 2.1.2 Membership .......................................................................................................................................C-5 2.2 ACT TO MPO COLLABORATION.................................................................................. C-6 2.2.1 Collaboration with SKATS ................................................................................................................C-7 2.2.2 Collaboration with JPACT ................................................................................................................C-7 2.3 ACT TO ACT COLLABORATION................................................................................... C-7 2.3.1 Regional Meeting Structure...............................................................................................................C-8 2.3.2 Common Interpretation of Criteria....................................................................................................C-8 2.3.3 Give-and-Take Funding.....................................................................................................................C-8 2.4 MWACT ISSUES AND PRACTICES................................................................................ C-9 2.4.1 Prioritization Criteria........................................................................................................................C-9 2.4.2 Project Equity ....................................................................................................................................C-9 2.4.3 ACT Boundaries ................................................................................................................................C-9 2.5 MWACT AUTHORITY ............................................................................................... C-10 2.5.1 Authority in Relationship to other Regional Decision Makers ........................................................C-10 2.5.2 Authority in Relationship to the OTC ..............................................................................................C-10 2.6 HIGHLIGHTS............................................................................................................... C-11 3.0 ROGUE VALLEY ACT CASE STUDY................................................................... C-13 3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... C-13 3.1.1 Membership .....................................................................................................................................C-14 3.1.2 Decision Making and Leadership....................................................................................................C-15 3.2 ACT TO MPO COLLABORATION................................................................................ C-15 3.3 ACT TO ACT COLLABORATION................................................................................. C-16 3.3.1 ConnectOregon................................................................................................................................C-17 3.4 RVACT ISSUES AND PRACTICES ............................................................................... C-17 3.4.1 Equity...............................................................................................................................................C-17 3.4.2 STIP Prioritization...........................................................................................................................C-18 3.4.3 Communication Forum....................................................................................................................C-18 3.4.4 Membership .....................................................................................................................................C-19 3.4.5 Effects of private sector involvement ...............................................................................................C-19 3.4.6 RVACT Boundaries..........................................................................................................................C-19 3.5 RVACT’S ROLE AND AUTHORITY............................................................................. C-19 3.6 HIGHLIGHTS............................................................................................................... C-20 4.0 NORTHEAST ACT CASE STUDY.......................................................................... C-22 4.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... C-22 4.1.1 Decision making ..............................................................................................................................C-23 4.1.2 Membership .....................................................................................................................................C-23 4.2 COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE ACT AND OTHER REGIONAL DECISION MAKERS .... C-23 4.2.1 Collaboration with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation...........................C-23 4.2.2 Collaboration with Tourism and Recreation Organizations ...........................................................C-24 4.3 ACT TO ACT COLLABORATION................................................................................. C-24 4.3.1 ConnectOregon................................................................................................................................C-25 4.4 NEACT ISSUES AND PRACTICES................................................................................ C-25 4.4.1 STIP Prioritization...........................................................................................................................C-25 4.4.2 Sub-Committees ...............................................................................................................................C-26 4.4.3 Collaboration with ODOT...............................................................................................................C-26 4.4.4 Boundaries.......................................................................................................................................C-26 4.4.5 Common Priorities...........................................................................................................................C-26 4.5 NEACT’S ROLE AND AUTHORITY ............................................................................. C-27 4.6 HIGHLIGHTS............................................................................................................... C-27 C-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This appendix presents case studies of three Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs) in Oregon conducted as part of a larger research project examining ACTs and collaborative decision-making. The case studies are of the Mid-Willamette, Northeast and Rogue Valley ACTs. They provide an analysis of how these ACTs collaborate with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), other ACTs, and regional organizations. 1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goal of the case studies is to highlight best practices of the ACTs with a special focus on the implementation of collaborative approaches and lessons learned. The case studies address all three objectives of the ACT project: 1. Assess the current role and experience of ACTs and MPOs, and their interactions with each other, in addressing travel-shed, cross-jurisdictional and cross-sector (public- private) issues. 2. Research best practices (including collaborative processes and governance approaches) in Oregon and elsewhere in the nation for effectively bridging jurisdictional and institutional barriers. 3. Develop and assess options (in both policy and process) available to ODOT, ACTs, and MPOs for improving coordination of transportation and land use across jurisdictions, corridors and travel-sheds. 1.2 METHODS The Mid-Willamette, Northeast and Rogue Valley ACTs were chosen for the case studies in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) because they present a geographic, political, and economic cross-section of Oregon. They encompass eastern and western geographies, urban and rural environments, all sectors of the economy, and tribal issues. To collect information on these ACTs, the research team used both primary and secondary research methods, including survey data, key informant interviews, focus group meetings, and document review. The team reviewed meeting minutes, biennial reports, and ACT charters for each ACT, as well as interview summaries of key informants affiliated with each ACT.1 The team also conducted additional phone interviews for both NEACT and MWACT. To include a broader view of ACT perceptions and experiences in the case studies, the team analyzed survey 1 See Appendix A for the full Key Informant Interview Report. C-2 data from the larger ODOT Area Commission on Transportation Online Survey2 for each ACT (referred to as the Online Survey in the case studies). Lastly, the Community Planning Workshop (CPW) facilitated in-person focus groups with the Mid-Willamette and Rogue Valley ACTs and a conference call focus group with Northeast ACT. Participation at the focus groups varied between 3-9 ACT representatives. Each meeting lasted approximately two hours and provided an opportunity for in-depth discussion about each ACT. 1.2.1 Case Study Structure The case studies begin with an overview of the ACT geography, decision-making process, and membership profile. The bulk of the case studies are dedicated to describing: • How the ACT coordinates with other ACTs • How the ACT coordinates with MPOs or other decision-making bodies in the ACT region. • Important ACT issues and practices, including STIP prioritization, equity, and boundary issues • ACT authority • ACT highlights 1.3 HIGHLIGHTS The case study research identified several practices that were present in at least two of the ACTs. These include: • Focus on the qualitative aspects of prioritization: ACTs recognize that their role requires more than an interpretation of OTC prioritization criteria. Ways ACTs do this include considering project equity, maintaining organizational transparency and developing the regional perspective of members. • Continuous improvement of prioritization process: ACTs showed a desire to continually improve their processes through amending their bylaws and considering the lessons learned through the experience of members. For example, Rogue Valley ACT created a formalized “Reconciliation Process” for working out differences in priorities with the Rogue Valley MPO. • ACT to MPO coordination through shared membership: ACTs and MPOs with overlapping jurisdictions primarily coordinate through shared policy board membership. In both the Rogue Valley and Mid-Willamette Valley ACTs and their respective MPOs, most MPO policy board members are also members of the ACT. 2 See Appendix C for the full ODOT Area Commission on Transportation Online Survey Report. C-3 • Ability to leverage funding: As a result of their broad membership, ACTs have helped to leverage funds from the private sector and tribes for transportation projects. C-4 2.0 MID-WILLAMETTE VALLEY ACT CASE STUDY The Mid-Willamette Valley Area Commission on Transportation (MWACT) is one of Oregon’s ten advisory bodies chartered by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). MWACT’s primary focus is on prioritizing projects for the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and other funding programs. MWACT considers regional and local transportation issues as they affect the state system, and collaborates with other local organizations dealing with transportation-related issues. 2.1 INTRODUCTION MWACT is located in the central Willamette Valley and includes Marion, Polk, and Yamhill Counties (Figure 2.1). Large cities within MWACT include Salem, McMinnville, Newberg, Woodburn, and Dallas. MWACT’s central location makes it susceptible to congestion originating outside its region. Travelers between locations such as Portland, Eugene-Springfield, Spirit Mountain Casino and the Oregon Coast pass through MWACT boundaries. Figure 2.1: Area map for Mid-Willamette Valley ACT and MPO C-5 2.1.1 Decision Making MWACT promotes collaborative problem solving through consensus decision-making. Consensus is the only decision-making method documented in MWACT’s Charter. However, voting protocol has evolved over time and was last used in September 2005. 2.1.2 Membership MWACT’s Charter was adopted in November of 1996 and last updated in 2007. The MWACT Chair has two primary roles: presiding over meetings and leading the Steering Committee that creates the work program and agendas for MWACT’s monthly meetings. The Steering Committee is composed of six MWACT voting members, including the Chair; the Vice-Chair, the previous Chair and the ODOT manager. The complete MWACT voting membership includes 17 members (Table 2.1). Table 2.1: MWACT Voting Membership Affiliation SKATS Member Affiliation SKATS Member County Representatives Transit Representatives Marion County Commissioner 3 Salem-Keizer Transit 3 Polk County Commissioner 3 Yamhill County Transit Area Yamhill County Commissioner Private Sector Representatives City Representatives Marion County OR 22/99W/52 Corridor Polk County I-5 Corridor Yamhill County OR 99E/213 Corridor Other Representatives OR 22E Corridor Grand Ronde Tribal Government OR 99W/18/47 Corridor ODOT Region 2 Area Manager 3 Salem City Councilor 3 Keizer City Councilor 3 Source: ODOT Area Commissions on Transportation website 2.1.2.1 Shared SKATS Membership The Salem Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS) is the MPO for the cities of Salem and Keizer. SKATS was in existence before MWACT and its jurisdiction lies entirely within MWACT boundaries. When MWACT was created, founders gave voting membership to all SKATS members except Salem School District 24J. MWACT founders hoped the shared membership would facilitate coordination of transportation C-6 priorities and incorporation of MPO project priorities into MWACT’s STIP recommendations. 2.1.2.2 Corridor Membership Most ACTs have city representatives on their policy boards. MWACT grouped the 34 cities within its jurisdiction into five transportation corridors, based upon the following: • The OR-18/OR-99W/OR-214/OR-47 Corridor in Yamhill County • The OR-22/OR-99W/OR-223 Corridor in Polk County • The I-5 Corridor • The OR-22 Corridor in Marion County • The OR-99E/OR-214 Corridor in Marion County One MWACT policy board member is elected from each of the corridors. The board member is an official from one of the cities within the corridor, but is held responsible for representing the transportation issues of all cities within their corridor. 2.1.2.3 Private Sector Membership MWACT’s voting membership includes one private sector representative from each of the three counties in MWACT. Public sector members perceive that the participation of these private sector members is most effective when the organization they represent is involved in freight, timber or general transportation issues.3 2.1.2.4 Tribal Membership The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde tribe are a voting member of MWACT. Focus group participants stated that they valued tribal input at meetings and financial support of MWACT projects. The Tribe has provided financial support of the Newberg- Dundee Bypass project4 and matching funds for projects to relieve congestion around their Spirit Mountain Casino, the most visited tourist destination in the state. 2.2 ACT TO MPO COLLABORATION MWACT, SKATS and The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) all play a significant role in shaping the transportation structure of the mid-Willamette Valley. MWACT is largely focused on prioritizing the funding for highway modernization projects; while SKATS is responsible for all the MPO federal requirements including transportation planning, transit funding and environmental quality. JPACT is the ACT-like body that advises Metro, the Portland MPO. 3 Member informant interview #1: Spring 2008 4 Focus Group Discussion: 08 May 2008 C-7 2.2.1 Collaboration with SKATS MWACT focus group participants noted that, in spite of the shared membership, there is no official SKATS representative on MWACT. All SKATS members serve as representatives of a home jurisdiction when they participate on MWACT. When the ACT is prioritizing projects, these members are more likely to represent their home jurisdiction than SKATS as a whole; in some cases, this means they vote against SKATS projects in favor of projects in their own jurisdiction.5 Focus group participants appreciated the broad perspective that the SKATS representatives brought to the table, but expressed a desire for a SKATS representative whose sole purpose was to represent the perspective of the MPO. A little over 60% of MWACT respondents described “communication and coordination between your ACT and your Metropolitan Planning Organization” as “effective.” Other methods that SKATS and MWACT use to coordinate include shared staffing and annual presentations. MWACT and SKATS share staff through the Mid-Willamette Council of Governments (MWCOG). This arrangement was made in the MWACT Charter and also facilitates collaboration between the organizations. MWACT focus group participants noted that staff members are knowledgeable of both ACT and MPO agendas and can help the organizations share information and coordinate. According to a key informant interview, in past years a SKATS representative has made an annual presentation to MWACT. This presentation has included an update on MPO issues and plans, and an overview of transit district issues throughout the ACT region. Focus group participants commented that the annual presentation has not occurred in recent years, but that they would like the practice to resume. 2.2.2 Collaboration with JPACT The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) is the ACT-like body in the Portland metropolitan area. MWACT and JPACT do not share jurisdiction, but coordination between the organizations is important because a significant amount of travel within the MWACT boundaries originates within or is destined for the Portland Metro area. JPACT is an ex-officio member of MWACT, but is not frequently represented at MWACT meetings. MWACT is not given representation on JPACT or any of its subcommittees. Focus group participants did not feel that they could address the root causes of congestion in some MWACT communities without coordinating with JPACT on regional travel issues. 2.3 ACT TO ACT COLLABORATION Every STIP funding cycle, Mid-Willamette ACT, Northwest ACT, Cascades West ACT, and Lane County participate in Region 2 area meetings where all improvement projects within the region are prioritized and ranked for funding. The ACTs6 went through the same process for ConnectOregon I and ConnectOregon II, initiatives, focused on integrating non-highway, multi- modal infrastructure with the larger transportation system. 5 MWACT focus group 6 Even though Lane County is not an ACT, any references to the ACTs within Region 2 includes Lane County. C-8 2.3.1 Regional Meeting Structure Performing a majority of the project prioritization prior to the Region 2 meeting has proven to help the meeting proceed the most smoothly. Prior to the meeting, staff help each ACT create a prioritized list of projects within their area, then staff sends these lists to the rest of the ACTs so that all participants are better informed before the meeting begins. MWACT focus group participants noted that this process makes decision-making more transparent and meetings take less time even though more members are involved. MWACT focus group participants felt that there is still room to improve the structure of the regional meetings. They also noted that Lane County’s dissimilarity with ACTs appears to make their representatives less able to relate and integrate when they come to joint meetings. Some focus group participants would prefer that Lane County organize an ACT.7 2.3.2 Common Interpretation of Criteria ODOT provides standard project prioritization criteria for the ACTs to use in making their recommendations for the STIP list. However, when the Region 2 ACTs first came together, they found that each organization interpreted the criteria differently. Regional prioritization is also complicated because what is most important in one area may not have the regional impact of priority projects from other areas. Focus group participants indicated that even if a combined score that considers all criteria existed it would not resolve the issue because of the difficulty in assigning values to each element of the criteria.8 Currently the criteria includes miles traveled, traffic counts, and number of fatalities. MWACT focus group members said projects in rural areas generally have a lower benefit to cost ratio than urban projects, but the ACT will support a rural project with lesser benefit than urban projects if it is needed to preserve equity. 2.3.3 Give-and-Take Funding For MWACT members, it is important to maintain an equitable distribution of work projects. Member organizations are able to achieve a considerable degree of equity through “give-and- take” funding agreements sustained through informal institutional memory. Give-and-take funding is the idea that MWACT representatives will support funding for a project within another ACT in the region, because they know that the other ACT representatives will support a project for MWACT in the future.9 The success of give-and-take funding depends on informal agreements through institutional memory. The average length of time that MWACT survey respondents have been involved with MWACT is about 6 years. Over this time period, MWACT members accumulate experiences and perceptions that new members do not have. They also understand which ACTs have informal project preference according to the give-and-take funding system. Senior MWACT members and the ODOT area manager play a key role in passing on institutional memory to new ACT members. 7 Focus Group Discussion: 08 May 2008 8 Focus Group Discussion: 08 May 2008 9 Member informant interview #3: Spring 2008 C-9 2.4 MWACT ISSUES AND PRACTICES Not only must MWACT members coordinate effectively with the other Region 2 ACTs, they must also manage collaboration within their own organization. In general, coordination within the ACT requires MWACT to address many of the same issues that they face in external coordination among Region 2 members; different locales have different interpretations of prioritization criteria, and all locales want equity in project distribution. 2.4.1 Prioritization Criteria MWACT prioritizes projects within its boundaries using the OTC criteria used for STIP prioritization, but with special emphasis placed on safety and congestion criteria. Currently, the project prioritization information is provided to the jurisdictions in matrix form with criteria and explanations and examples of the criteria. Staff creates the matrix so members will consider it a more objective document. Prior to the formal prioritization matrix, the OTC criteria were being interpreted differently by each jurisdiction. All jurisdictions had their own critical projects and wanted to interpret the prioritization criteria in a manner that gave preference to their project. The formal matrix has minimized that practice and improved member’s regional, long-term perspective on MWACT issues. 2.4.2 Project Equity It is impossible for MWACT to achieve an equitable distribution of projects among jurisdictions within a single funding cycle, but the organization strives to maintain long-term equity. The amount of money allocated through MWACT is small compared to the transportation need identified in the area. This requires MWACT to fund large projects like the Newburg-Dundee Bypass and the Woodburn I-5 interchange over multiple funding cycles. The scope of these projects means there is little money left for additional projects. MWACT does its best to allocate the leftover money to areas not receiving major projects because jurisdictions feel little incentive to participate in the ACT process if there are no highway projects being recommended within their locale. MWACT has also improved information sharing with members so that they can develop a regional perspective on issues and take more pride in the success of the large projects regardless of their geographical position within the ACT. These two methods help keep all members content with the distribution of projects within the ACT. 2.4.3 ACT Boundaries MWACT’s jurisdiction includes many highways that are used to access attractions outside its boundaries. Trip origins and destinations external to the region contribute to congestion. Survey data shows 50% of MWACT respondents believe current ACT boundaries coincide with commuter and travel patterns. In the MWACT focus group, members stated that the amount of funding they prioritize limits them from addressing the statewide travel patterns that cause boundary issues. They feel they can only address the results of inter-regional travel patterns – C-10 congestion in MWACT communities.10 In the focus group and meeting minutes, members expressed a desire for Region 1 (Portland metro area) to play a more significant funding role in projects that alleviate travel impacts originating from that region.11 One example of a project that addresses the congestion caused by trip attractors both inside and outside MWACT boundaries is the Newburg-Dundee Bypass. MWACT deliberation on the Newberg-Dundee Bypass project began in 1989 and is ongoing. The bypass is meant to alleviate a bottleneck on Oregon highway 99W and reduce congestion in the rural communities of Newburg and Dundee. It will also reduce travel time between Portland and locations like Spirit Mountain Casino and the Oregon Coast.12 MWACTs funding support has helped stimulate $20 million in federal earmarks for the project. Currently, MWACT members generally support the Newburg-Dundee Bypass project. 2.5 MWACT AUTHORITY Thirty percent of MWACT respondents to the survey agreed or strongly agreed that the ACT has sufficient authority to accomplish its roles and only 15% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the ACT has a significant influence on the decision making of other organizations within the MWACT and broader regional travelshed (including the Portland Metropolitan area). Specifically, MWACT members desire greater authority in their relationship with SKATS, JPACT and the OTC. 2.5.1 Authority in Relationship to other Regional Decision Makers MWACT focus group participants expressed a desire for increased consideration of the MWACT perspective in SKATS. Key informant interviews and a review of meeting minutes showed that the SKATS board discussed the MWACT perspective when they need its approval to fund a project within the MPO through the ConnectOregon program. The focus group noted the degree that JPACT incorporates the MWACT perspective into their decision-making was unclear. There is no MWACT representation on JPACT or any of its subcommittees. JPACT is an ex-officio member of MWACT, but representatives do not attend often. 2.5.2 Authority in Relationship to the OTC Focus group participants suggest there is inadequate coordination between the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) and MWACT. MWACT members feel unaware of what happens to their project recommendations after they are sent off to the OTC. They noted that 10 Focus Group Discussion: 08 May 2008 11 Focus Group Discussion: 08 May 2008 12 Survey responses: Spring 2008 C-11 they do not receive feedback on OTC’s review process, and are often surprised when the recommendations that they sent out are different from the projects included in the STIP.13 In the focus group, MWACT members said that they would prefer to receive feedback from the OTC during their review process. They feel this would give them greater impact on OTC’s final decisions. They also want more OTC representation at MWACT meetings. OTC members have attended MWACT meetings in the past, but only on a few occasions. 2.6 HIGHLIGHTS Some of the characteristics and processes of the MWACT are worth highlighting. These highlights are discussed below: • Corridor membership. Most ACTs have city representatives on their policy boards. MWACT grouped the 34 cities within its jurisdiction into five transportation corridors. One MWACT policy board member is elected from each of the corridors. The board member is an official from one of the cities within the corridor, but is held responsible for representing the transportation issues of all cities within their corridor. MWACT members consider this method of representation effective and note that it increases accountability for an area perspective and decreases the amount of preference given to the member’s home jurisdiction. • Region 2 area meetings. The Region 2 ACTs, (Northwest ACT, Cascades West ACT, Mid-Willamette ACT, and Lane County) are the only ACTs in Oregon that perform regional project prioritization for the STIP. The Chairs and Vice-Chairs of these ACTs meet to determine what Region 2 projects should be submitted to the STIP list. Over time, Region 2 ACTs have learned that this process proceeds most smoothly when all ACTs interpret the OTC’s STIP prioritization criteria in the same way and ACTs share their prioritization rankings prior to the regional meeting. • Boundaries don’t match travel patterns. MWACT’s central location makes it susceptible to congestion originating outside its region. Travelers between locations such as, Portland, Eugene-Springfield, Spirit Mountain Casino and the Oregon Coast all pass through MWACT boundaries. MWACT members feel their area is particularly susceptible to congestion from trips originating from the Portland metropolitan area. Without improved regional coordination, MWACT can only address individual points of congestion. Focus group participants recognized a need for increased coordination with JPACT in order to develop the regional transportation perspective and address the root causes of congestion within MWACT boundaries. • Institutional memory. The average length of participation on MWACT is about six years. This allows member jurisdictions to develop trust and reciprocity with each other. This informal element of the ACT facilitates the development of collaborative funding solutions and a regional, rather than jurisdictional, perspective on transportation project 13 Focus Group Discussion: 08 May 2008 C-12 prioritization. Institutional memory facilitates decision-making in the Region 2 meetings as well as within MWACT. • Desire for improved coordination with SKATS. MWACT members planned for coordination with SKATS from the organization’s inception by designing overlapping membership between the organizations. Currently, the overlapping membership of the two organizations is not providing input on SKATS’ STIP priorities as well as MWACT members would like. They believe coordination would be improved through: o A SKATS representative whose sole purpose is to represent the perspective of the MPO o Reinstating the discontinued yearly SKATS presentation o Holding joint meetings o Encouraging cross attendance of meetings o Sharing meeting minutes o Participating in joint projects C-13 3.0 ROGUE VALLEY ACT CASE STUDY The characteristics of the Rogue Valley Area Commission on Transportation (RVACT) provide interesting insights into ACT operations and collaboration. RVACT is one of four ACTs with an MPO but it is relatively isolated and its boundaries closely reflect local travel patterns. This case study first introduces RVACT’s regional context and continues with a discussion of ACT to MPO and ACT to ACT collaboration. It concludes by outlining some of RVACT’s internal processes and highlighting some of the more unique elements of RVACT. 3.1 INTRODUCTION The Rogue Valley Area Commission on Transportation (RVACT) is in Southwest Oregon within Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) Region 3 and consists of Jackson and Josephine Counties. Local population and freight movement in RVACT is concentrated along the I-5 corridor, which is the major thoroughfare in RVACT and runs through both counties (Figure 3.1). Most of the population, however, resides in Jackson County. In 2007, there were about 202,000 people living in Jackson County and 82,000 in Josephine County.14 More than half of Jackson County’s population is within the Rogue Valley MPO planning area (almost 129,00015) and more than half of Josephine County’s population is in rural, unincorporated areas (almost 49,000 people).16 The difference in population is reflected in the number of incorporated cities in each county; Josephine County has two and Jackson County has eleven. Seven of Jackson County’s cities and one unincorporated community (White City) are in the RVMPO. The MPO also follows the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) boundary. 14 Population Research Center at Portland State University, 2008 15 RVMPO, 2008 16 Population Research Center at Portland State University, 2008. C-14 Figure 3.1: Area map for Rogue Valley ACT and MPO 3.1.1 Membership RVACT has 26 voting members. The RVACT Bylaws require that at least half of the voting members are elected officials and that eight of the voting members are from the private sector. The disparity in population and incorporated cities between Jackson and Josephine Counties is reflected in RVACT membership. Of the 26 voting members, 18 are from Jackson County. The county, each incorporated city, the MPO, the Rogue Valley Transit District, and four private sector representatives all have voting members on the ACT. Josephine County has seven voting members; one each from the county and the incorporated cities, and four private sector representatives. The ODOT Area Manager is also a voting member in RVACT (Table 3.1). C-15 Table 3.1: RVACT voting members by county Jackson County Josephine County ODOT Jackson County* Phoenix* Josephine County Area Manager* Eagle Point* Central Point* Cave Junction RVMPO* Gold Hill Grants Pass Medford* Rogue River Private Sector (4) Ashland* Butte Falls Jacksonville* Shady Cove Talent* Private Sector (4) Rouge Valley Transit District* * cross-member in RVMPO Source: RVACT bylaws, RVMPO, and Community Planning Workshop There is one RVACT member accountable for representing the RVMPO perspective. The rest of the RVMPO members represent their home jurisdictions (Table 3.1). 3.1.2 Decision Making and Leadership The RVACT bylaws require 50% of the membership plus one member for a quorum for decision-making. RVACT’s goal is to reach consensus on all of its decisions. If consensus cannot be reached, the decision is made by a majority vote. At any time, a member can call for a decision to require a 2/3 majority. RVACT has two co-chairs—one from each county—who preside over the meetings. Although it is not explicitly stated in the bylaws, members understand that at least one of the chairs must be a private sector representative.17 According to some, this helps to avoid government politicking and parochialism in ACT. RVACT has frequently amended its charter in order to increase its responsiveness to issues that have surfaced during the history of RVACT.18 This increases the ACT’s capacity to improve how it involves its local stakeholders, including those affiliated with an MPO. 3.2 ACT TO MPO COLLABORATION The structure of RVACT’s membership was designed to institutionalize coordination and collaboration between RVMPO and RVACT. Every RVMPO member serves as a member of RVACT as a representative of their home jurisdiction, not the MPO. Additionally, there is one member position on RVACT for a representative of the MPO; currently, the chair of the RVMPO Policy Committee directly represents the MPO at the RVACT meetings. This joint- membership for the MPO members facilitates coordination and collaboration between RVACT and RVMPO.19 17 RVACT Focus group 18 RVACT Focus Group 19 RVACT Focus Group C-16 Evidence suggests that this structure is effective in facilitating coordination and collaboration in the region. Results from the online survey indicate that a majority of RVACT members think coordination between RVACT and RVMPO is working; 59% of RVACT survey respondents rated the coordination and communication between RVMPO and RVACT as “very effective” or “effective” (out of 17 responses). Only 6% said it was ineffective. Cooperation between RVACT and RVMPO occurs in many forms in addition to joint membership, including sharing of information, cross staff meeting attendance, and joint decision making. In the event of a disagreement on project selection, the ACT and MPO settle disputes using a pre-defined reconciliation process. The process involves a meeting of the chairs and a representative from both the ACT and the MPO Policy Board to discuss key issues and propose a compromise. The proposed compromise is brought back to the ACT and MPO for final approval. They have only used the reconciliation process once. Not all participants in RVACT, however, have a positive view of the MPO-ACT relationship. For example, one survey respondent stated that ACTs should only serve non-MPO regions because the ACT creates confusion regarding responsibilities. Moreover, this respondent felt that the ACT takes authority away from the MPO and transfers it to ODOT and the OTC. The lack of clear lines of responsibility and decision making was echoed by a few other survey respondents. Another survey respondent stated that the MPO has a very strong influence on the ACT and it has recently dominated the agenda of the ACT. 3.3 ACT TO ACT COLLABORATION Generally, RVACT members don’t perceive a need to collaborate with their neighboring ACTs on an on-going basis. This is partly a reflection of the general consensus that RVACT boundaries match the regional travel patterns relatively well.20 Despite this perception, RVACT has worked closely with the Southwest ACT on a few occasions. In one STIP funding cycle, SWACT lacked sufficient funding for a project and RVACT filled the gap with some of their STIP funds; the expectation was that SWACT would return the favor during a later STIP cycle.21 RVACT has also coordinated with other ACTs in the ConnectOregon process. The coordination between RVACT and neighboring ACTs primarily relies on ODOT staff coordinating across ACT boundaries. Interestingly, 76% of RVACT survey respondents didn’t know whether RVACT coordinates with other ACTs. Members of the RVACT believe that future cross-ACT collaboration might be beneficial in some cases. For example, collaborating with other ACTs on federal earmark project selection could influence the ACTs’ capacity to leverage more money and/or select better projects. Focus group participants mentioned that RVACT might want to collaborate with other ACTs on the 20 This is largely a function of geography and population centers. The Rogue Valley is relatively isolated from other population centers and, with the exception of freight travel, a lot of the travel patterns are contained within the ACT. 21 RVACT Focus Group. This may be in part because Region 3 approaches STIP funding differently--Region 3 does a sub-allocation of STIP funds to its ACTs. As a result, the inter-area “borrowing” can be accounted for in Region 3. C-17 Coos Bay Pipeline Project (with SWACT) and a Freight Movement Strategy (with SWACT and/or SCOACT); almost 90% of survey respondents identified freight as an issue that requires ACT to ACT collaboration. 3.3.1 ConnectOregon ConnectOregon is a transportation initiative focused on integrating non-highway, multi-modal infrastructure with the larger transportation system. The initiative is funded by lottery-backed bonds and has had two $100 million rounds: 2005/06 and 2007/08. ODOT required ACTs to join with neighboring ACTs to form SuperACTs in order to participate in the ConnectOregon funding cycles; RVACT joined with Southwest ACT (SWACT) to prioritize projects. The process started with RVACT jurisdictions submitting project proposals to RVACT. RVACT prioritized these projects internally before bringing them to the SuperACT meeting. The SuperACT meeting consisted of the two RVACT chairs meeting jointly with the SWACT chairs to select the best projects across both ACTs; both ACTs had a chance to review the list of projects before they were sent to the OTC. The OTC made the final decision of which projects to fund from across the state. RVACT focus group members stated that the ConnectOregon process worked very well for them as they had good dialogue at the SuperACT meetings. 3.4 RVACT ISSUES AND PRACTICES This section discusses unique and interesting issues that RVACT faces and some of the practices it has created to address these issues and common ACT roles. 3.4.1 Equity Equity is the biggest issue that RVACT faces. As discussed earlier, Jackson County has over twice the population and six times the number of cities than Josephine County, and it has the only MPO in the region. Jackson County jurisdictions and representatives make up more than 50% of RVACT membership. Addressing equity in project prioritization between the two counties was a consistent theme throughout the focus group, on the survey, and in the key informant interviews. The issue was sometimes described as a “regional battlefield,” and as “dominance of one county over another.” To help address equity issues between the counties, RVACT adopted the Equity Resolution in 2002 to establish a fair basis for project funding allocation between Josephine and Jackson Counties. In this resolution, RVACT created a target split in funding between the counties that is based on population, vehicle miles traveled, ton miles traveled, vehicle registration and modernization needs for each county.22 Using these numbers, the resolution calls for RVACT to allocate 70% of modernization funds to Jackson County projects and 30% of funds to Josephine County projects, averaged over ten years. 22 RVACT Equity Resolution C-18 The focus group discussion indicated that the Equity Resolution has not totally resolved equity issues and that maintaining the 70/30 funding split is still a difficult task for RVACT. According to focus group participants, members are still unclear how to make the 70/30 split work and over what time frame it should be measured—despite the relatively clear language in the resolution. The recent STIP cycle demonstrates how the ACT is still dealing with these issues. RVACT had equitably prioritized their projects for the STIP but the legislature changed the amount of money available after their initial prioritization. The lower available funding required RVACT to remove projects from their STIP list. It came down to a project in Jackson County that could not have continued without making it on the STIP list and a project in Josephine County that lacked matching funds but would continue to exist. The ACT removed the Josephine County projects from the list, leaving the County with no projects on the list. Not surprisingly, Josephine County representatives were not happy about this situation; one even commented that there were discussions about whether it really was beneficial for Josephine County to be a part of RVACT. Events like this lead to tension between the two counties and its jurisdictions as Jackson County jurisdictions can dominate the process.23 Despite the larger issues of equity in RVACT, it has been adaptive to accommodate the smaller members of its region. Small communities have difficulty meeting fund-matching requirements. RVACT has dealt with this difficulty by allowing smaller communities match with in-kind contributions.24 Though this particular flexibility is very helpful to smaller communities, RVACT cannot accommodate all projects in this manner. 3.4.2 STIP Prioritization Focus group participants indicated that the STIP prioritization process that RVACT uses, works well and survey respondents agreed; 90% of RVACT respondents thought the ACT was very effective or effective at providing recommendations to the OTC. RVACT use OTC scoring criteria that have been adapted to their regional perspective to develop their initial list. It creates a transparent forum for the public to observe the process and for members to debate the merits of projects; one key informant interviewed indicated that “nothing happens behind the scenes.” RVACT focus group members asserted that the OTC has not reversed any of RVACT’s recommendations in the past 5 years. 3.4.3 Communication Forum Even with the tension surrounding county equity, members still perceive RVACT as an effective and important forum for communication and relationships. The ACT created communication lines between the counties and helped foster a more regional perspective. Survey respondents had the opportunity to list the three strengths of their ACT; most respondents included some element of communication, collaboration, respect and openness between members. The focus group participants echoed this sentiment and emphasized the greater knowledge elected officials now have about the transportation system since the ACT was created. Over 77% of the RVACT 23 RVACT Focus Group 24 RVACT Key Informant Interview #3 C-19 survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they are committed to the ACT; no one disagreed. 3.4.4 Membership The average tenure of MWACT members who responded to the online survey is a little over six years. The average tenure of all ACT members is about five years. Almost a third of RVACT survey respondents believe that the membership structure does not adequately represent all appropriate interests. One informant interviewed for the study suggested more involvement from ex-officios, such as the Department of Environmental Quality, Federal Highway Administration, and the Community and Economic Development Department. It is interesting to note that while 63% of the RVACT survey respondents indicated that ODOT’s participation in the ACT did not dominate the process, there were some very strongly worded comments contrary to this. One survey respondent wrote, “I sometimes feel that the ACT is a front, using its members as a tool for promoting predetermined ODOT agendas;” this comment reflects the comments of a few other respondents as well. 3.4.5 Effects of private sector involvement RVACT has member positions for eight private sector representatives—four from each county. This has had many benefits for RVACT. The Chamber of Commerce and the private sector in general are much more educated about the transportation system, and the private sector has become more involved in transportation efforts. According to the focus group, the ACT has been able to leverage over $25 million in private sector support for transportation projects. Private sector involvement and membership has provided unprecedented private sector stakeholder perspective and buy-in for RVACT, which were unforeseen benefits.25 3.4.6 RVACT Boundaries A general consensus of focus group participants and 77% of survey respondents believed RVACT boundaries accurately reflect regional travel patterns. RVACT’s focus group affirmed that they discussed boundary issues, but that the boundaries were a very good reflection of commuter activity and any future changes would be minor.26 However, one key informant interviewed for this study asserted that as the communities in RVACT continue to grow, boundaries may become a more prominent issue in the future. 3.5 RVACT’S ROLE AND AUTHORITY Of the ten roles designated to ACTs in the OTC Policy on the Formation of ACTs, their primary roles are to recommend projects and prioritize area modernization projects for the OTC. Generally, RVACT members are satisfied with these roles and don’t believe ACT roles or responsibilities should be expanded. This was reflected in the focus group discussion, one of the 25 RVACT Focus Group 26 RVACT Focus Group C-20 informant interviews, and in the survey results. Only 18% of the RVACT survey respondents thought that ACTs should have additional roles and the rest were split (at 41%) between “No” additional roles and “Not sure.” The four respondents that indicated ACTs should take on additional responsibilities suggested they should be more focused on representing smaller communities, get involved in budget review, and incorporate transit more fully. RVACT focus group participants didn’t believe ACT’s should take on planning because it would create yet another layer of transportation planning. RVACT indirectly deals with other related issues such as air quality and land use. Though it does not have a lead role in these areas, it does consider these issues in its actions.27 Coordination and collaboration with other organizations that deal with these related issues may be an effective way to address some of these issues in the ACT’s process.28 Members of the focus group stated that while many organizations may deal with issues related to ACTs, such as air quality and land use, there are no requirements for those organizations to work with the ACT. As a result, RVACT is not forming key linkages with other organizations that have ties with transportation, such as the regional problem solving process. The current policy framework does not fully encourage joint-projects that address the goals of more than one organization (for example, the ACT and regional problem solving process).29 Some survey respondents echoed this sentiment, as nearly a quarter (23%) of them felt that their ACT was ineffective or very ineffective at communicating and coordinating regional priorities with other organizations. 3.6 HIGHLIGHTS When compared to other ACTs, RVACT has unique characteristics and processes worth highlighting. These highlights are discussed below: • The RVACT Equity Resolution. To deal with challenging issues of equity between the two counties in RVACT, they created an Equity Resolution. The Equity Resolution calls for 70%/30% split in modification project funding recommendations between Jackson and Josephine Counties. However, the resolution has not fully solved these issues. • Evolving bylaws. RVACT continues to revise its bylaws and operations to improve its prioritization process and build in institutional memory; the Equity Resolution and reconciliation process with RVMPO are two examples of this. • Flexible funding strategies. RVACT occasionally allows smaller communities to meet matching fund requirements though in-kind contributions. Using this strategy, RVACT has become able to recommend projects that would not normally obtain funding from the OTC. 27 RVACT Focus Group 28 RVACT Focus Group 29 RVACT Focus Group C-21 • Joint ACT/MPO membership. The joint membership of RVMPO members in RVACT and an RVMPO position on RVACT facilitate regional coordination between the ACT and the MPO. Through joint-membership, the stakeholders have a more unified vision in addressing transportation issues at a regional scale. On the other hand, the high level of the MPO’s involvement in the ACT has lead to a few complaints that the MPO dominates the ACT process. • Tenure of ACT members. The longevity of membership in RVACT has helped to preserve the organization’s institutional memory. Transportation planning is a challenging field and by having many members involved in the ACT for many years, RVACT is able to rely on the experience and knowledge of the membership to address less frequent issues. However, the majority of the members are elected officials, which could pose a challenge if many were not re-elected. • Private sector involvement. RVACT’s private sector involvement has given a voice to the private sector and it has provided private sector participants with a greater understanding of the transportation system. Requiring at least one RVACT chair to be from the private sector helps to diminish the political nature of the ACT. This has also improved cross-sector collaboration as members of the private sector have increased their role and support in transportation projects. C-22 4.0 NORTHEAST ACT CASE STUDY This case study first introduces Northeast ACT’s (NEACT’s) regional context and continues with a discussion of ACT collaboration with other regional decision makers and ACT to ACT collaboration. It concludes by outlining some of NEACT’s internal processes and highlighting some of the more unique elements of NEACT. Of the three case studies, the NEACT is the only ACT without an MPO in its boundaries and location east of the Cascades. These differences provide contrasts to the other case studies. 4.1 INTRODUCTION The Northeast Area Commission on Transportation (NEACT) makes recommendations to the Oregon Department of Transportation for transportation projects in five counties in northeast Oregon. NEACT must prioritize projects for a large geographic area while maintaining a regional perspective. NEACT successfully prioritizes projects through coordination and collaboration made possible through the ACT framework. The Northeast Area Commission on Transportation (NEACT) is located in the northeast corner of Oregon and is composed of five counties: Morrow, Baker, Union, Umatilla, and Wallowa (Figure 4.1). The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) is within NEACT’s boundary. NEACT also has 37 incorporated cities within its boundaries, all less than 20,000 people, and there is no MPO within NEACT. Interstate-84 is the primary transportation corridor through the region. NEACT faces the challenge of having a small population spread across a large and varied landscape. Figure 4.1: Area map for Northeast ACT C-23 4.1.1 Decision making NEACT requires a quorum of at least 51% of the voting members in order to make decisions. When a quorum is present, decisions are made by consensus. When NEACT cannot reach consensus, members take a vote and the staff records why the members could not reach consensus.30 4.1.2 Membership NEACT has 18 total voting members (Table 4.1), half of which are elected officials and half are private sector or non-elected city representatives. Each of the five county commissions selects two representatives—one county commissioner and one at-large member. Each county commissioner must assure membership “includes representation from the mandated constituencies and [provides] a well-balanced perspective on transportation in their county.”31 The cities within each county elect a representative from one city to represent all the county’s cities. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation appoint two members, and the ODOT Region 5 area manager is the final voting member. Table 4.1: NEACT Membership Position Number Distribution County Commissioner 5 One from each county City Representative 5 One from each county; mix of elected officials and city staff At-large Representative 5 One from each county Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 2 ODOT Area Manager 1 Source: NEACT bylaws 4.2 COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE ACT AND OTHER REGIONAL DECISION MAKERS NEACT does not contain an MPO within its boundaries, but it collaborates with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Eastern Oregon Visitors Association, and the U.S. Forest Service. 4.2.1 Collaboration with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Prior to the formation of the ACT, NEACT jurisdictions did not have much interaction with members of the Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation. The focus group 30 NEACT Bylaws 2006 31 NEACT Bylaws 2006 C-24 participants stated that the ACT has increased tribal involvement in the transportation planning process. The ACT and the tribe do not always agree on the issues, but the focus group participants believe that better decisions are made because of the perspectives that the tribal representatives present. No tribal members participated in the NEACT focus group. 32 A Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation representative on NEACT, however, said that the tribes have not yet fully engaged in NEACT. They primarily receive transportation funding through federal sources, and also work directly with Umatilla County, the City of Pendleton, and ODOT Region 5. They are currently too busy coordinating projects with these funding sources to be fully involved in NEACT. Although the tribes are content with their current level of involvement, they are excited about the opportunities provided by NEACT membership and want to gain a more complete understanding of the ACT process before they begin lobbying for projects within the Reservation.33 4.2.2 Collaboration with Tourism and Recreation Organizations Recreational transportation, tourism and scenic byways are high priorities for NEACT. The Scenic Byways Committee, a NEACT subcommittee, works with regional stakeholders to enhance and maintain scenic byways, and provides stakeholder perspectives to NEACT. Stakeholders include local, state and federal governments, private sector interests, and non-profit organizations; both the Eastern Oregon Visitors Association and the U.S. Forest Service are closely involved with this subcommittee. Each of these has a strong interest in transportation issues because they share a common interest in preserving and enhancing the scenic byways.34 The Scenic Byways Committee also provides technical assistance to NEACT about scenic byway programs. It has worked on developing and proposing state legislation to allow roads currently designated as “forest system roads” to receive funding from the federal government. The Committee presents updates at every NEACT meeting.35 4.3 ACT TO ACT COLLABORATION Neighboring ACTs generally do not attend NEACT meetings. However, NEACT stays informed on the activities of other ACTs, especially the Southeast ACT, through Association of Oregon Counties meetings and the ConnectOregon program. In the online survey, 50% of NEACT members said that communication and coordination with neighboring Area Commissions on Transportation was effective or very effective. The issues where NEACT members considered collaboration with neighboring ACTs most important include STIP prioritization, ConnectOregon II, scenic byways, and other funding issues. 32 NEACT Focus Group 33 NEACT Interview 34 NEACT Interview 35 NEACT Interview C-25 4.3.1 ConnectOregon ConnectOregon is a transportation initiative focused on integrating non-highway, multi-modal infrastructure with the larger transportation system. The initiative is funded by lottery-backed bonds and has had two $100 million funding cycles: 2005/06 and 2007/08. In the ConnectOregon programs, NEACT’s chairs joined with the chairs of the Southeast ACT and eastern Oregon county commissioners to create their SuperACT. In hindsight, members of NEACT found that the ConnectOregon I process was less successful than ConnectOregon II because the SuperACT lacked pre-designated scoring criteria for ranking project priorities in the first process. In ConnectOregon II, the SuperACT and ODOT set project priorities by mode first, then by local and sub-committee priorities. ODOT staff were able sort priorities in a spreadsheet matrix during the meeting. This made it much easier for the SuperACT to prioritize projects from a merged list of all the projects. The matrix provided information to the SuperACT where all the members could quickly see the output of the spreadsheet, which in turn informed and structured their deliberation. 4.4 NEACT ISSUES AND PRACTICES The primary effect of NEACT has been to impose a formal structure for communication and put a time constraint on action. This has facilitated collaboration on project progress, new funding streams, changes to legislation and rules and transportation-related activities. NEACT members, as reflected in the focus group comments and survey responses, believe that the ACT framework has been very effective at increasing communication in the region. Every NEACT survey respondent agreed or strongly agreed that NEACT members communicate openly, and 90% thought that communication has improved among organizations because of the ACT.36 And lastly, 100% of respondents thought “The ACT has improved cross-jurisdictional coordination on transportation issues among the jurisdictions included in the ACT.”37 The membership is also very committed to the NEACT; 100% of NEACT respondents thought the participants were committed to NEACT and 90% said their organization was committed. 4.4.1 STIP Prioritization Members of NEACT perceive the effectiveness of STIP prioritization process very highly. The focus group participants feel good about the STIP prioritization process and 82% of NEACT survey respondents think NEACT “effectively” or “very effectively” fills its role of prioritizing projects for the STIP. The NEACT staff are very involved and provide a great deal of information to the ACT stakeholders. NEACT uses sub-committees to put projects into matrices and rank them. In its own prioritization criteria, NEACT has incorporated a focus on modes of transportation. This is an area that the NEACT focus group asserted was a great strength not found in other 36 There were 11 ACT survey respondents from NEACT. 37 ACT survey C-26 ACTs. By having modal criteria, the ACT has incorporated different modes such as rail and bicycle and pedestrian projects.38 4.4.2 Sub-Committees NEACT sub-committees play a significant role in its processes. NEACT members form subcommittees based on the need for technical guidance or to prepare alternatives or recommendations to the OTC. The NEACT Chair has primary authority to form or disband committees. The sub-committees make use of local stakeholder capacity to generate information and guidance, which the NEACT members would not be able to do alone. The formation of sub- committees has expanded the capacity of the ACT by providing technical support and coordinating activities within the region. 4.4.3 Collaboration with ODOT NEACT relies heavily on ODOT and ODOT support staff to keep them informed on important issues. However, eight of nine respondents “agree” or “strongly agree” that agency staff does not dominate the ACT meetings; the other respondent was “not sure.”39 The staff provides most technical support, but other technical experts occasionally join sub-committees because they contribute specific knowledge or expertise. For example, ODOT staff from Salem occasionally present information on changes to the state or federal transportation legislation that affects how ACTs make decisions. 4.4.4 Boundaries Boundaries are not a challenging issue for NEACT. The focus group participants mentioned their overall comfort with their ACT boundary and 64% of NEACT respondents thought boundaries match travel patterns. They also mentioned that, though the ACT members would like the boundary to be smaller, they also felt that the sparse population throughout the ACT made the geographic size appropriate. One benefit of NEACT’s boundary is its similarity to the ODOT region boundary. However, the boundary similarities do not have a direct impact on NEACT’s membership according to the focus group participants. Instead, the boundary similarities are more of a benefit realized by the ODOT staff because it improves coordination among staff members.40 But, the members of NEACT indirectly realize these benefits, particularly when ODOT can respond to issues quickly and effectively. 4.4.5 Common Priorities When NEACT was formed, the membership discussed mutual issues that they all share as a region and inventoried the shared characteristics of all the jurisdictions across the region. Based 38 ACT Focus Group 39 ACT Survey 40 NEACT Focus Group C-27 on the inventory, NEACT developed a list of “Common Priorities” to guide the ACT’s work. The list emphasized support for the following: • Stewardship of the Oregon Trail • Involvement with the federal government because of its large land ownership in the region • Policies that recognize funding needs regardless of jurisdiction • Recreational transportation and tourism to the region • Prioritization of maintenance and preservation of existing roads • Hazard mitigation because of the presence of the Hanford Nuclear Facility and the U.S. Army Chemical Weapons depot. • The stewardship of the Columbia and Snake river systems • Opportunities to enhance inter-modal facilities and freight mobility • Funding of Interstate-84 improvements that optimize performance • Support for airports in the region41 NEACT continues to use the list today for policy guidance.42 This “geographic community of interest” has been a good approach for determining common policies.43 It has allowed NEACT’s membership to develop a concrete regional perspective that they refer to for guidance. The list is also an agreement developed from within the ACT, which the members build upon by developing proposals based on the agreed-upon regional priorities. 4.5 NEACT’S ROLE AND AUTHORITY NEACT members are generally satisfied with the current authority given to ACTs. The focus group participants thought the current framework is working very well and that there is no need to complicate it further. Of the 11 NEACT survey respondents, only two thought there should be other primary activities the ACTs should be engaged in. They suggested economic development as related to transportation, especially air service. 4.6 HIGHLIGHTS In comparison to other ACTs, NEACT offers three unique highlights discussed below. • Committees enhance the ACT’s capacity. NEACT increases its capacity by using sub- committees to address issues at an in-depth level. Through delegation of tasks to sub- 41 NEACT Bylaws 2006 42 NEACT Informant Interview Summary 43 NEACT Bylaws C-28 committees, NEACT breaks its work into teams that specifically address issues at a more intimate level before bringing them to the group for a decision. • Common priorities provide guidance and perspective. NEACT created a list of “Common priorities” at the ACT’s inception to build a regional perspective for guidance and reference. NEACT members developed the list by determining what characteristics were relevant to the jurisdictions across all five of NEACT’s counties. NEACT continues to use these “Common Priorities” today when they deliberate on project prioritization or other ACT business. • Technology aids decision-making. NEACT uses spreadsheets to aid in the decision- making process because it increases the speed and transparency of analysis. Through the use of spreadsheets, staff can do analysis on the fly and reduce the time lag between decision-making and analysis. The display of information before the entire ACT body introduces greater transparency by showing how staff conducts its analysis APPENDIX D: STATE COMPARATIVE STUDIES Prepared by: Community Planning Workshop Community Service Center 1209 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1209 Phone: 541.346.3889 Fax: 541.346.2040 Email: cpw@uoregon.edu http://www.uoregon.edu/~cpw APPENDIX D: STATE COMPARATIVE STUDIES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... D-1 1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................. D-1 1.2 METHODS .................................................................................................................... D-2 1.3 COMPARATIVE STUDY STRUCTURE.............................................................................. D-2 1.4 HIGHLIGHTS................................................................................................................. D-3 2.0 WASHINGTON REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS .................................................................................................................. D-5 2.1 KEY HIGHLIGHTS......................................................................................................... D-5 2.2 WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SYSTEM ...................................... D-6 2.3 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS.......................................... D-7 2.3.1 Planning............................................................................................................................................ D-8 2.3.2 Project Prioritization........................................................................................................................ D-9 2.3.3 Structure of the RTPO ...................................................................................................................... D-9 2.3.4 RTPO Sub-Committees ................................................................................................................... D-11 2.3.5 Collaborative Practices .................................................................................................................. D-12 2.3.6 Funding........................................................................................................................................... D-13 2.4 TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING........................................................................ D-13 2.5 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. D-14 2.6 COORDINATION.......................................................................................................... D-15 2.7 STRUCTURE................................................................................................................ D-15 2.8 FUNDING.................................................................................................................... D-16 3.0 IOWA REGIONAL PLANNING AFFILIATIONS ................................................ D-17 3.1 KEY HIGHLIGHTS....................................................................................................... D-17 3.2 IOWA’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ........................................................................... D-17 3.3 REGIONAL PLANNING AFFILIATIONS.......................................................................... D-18 3.3.1 Iowa’s COGs .................................................................................................................................. D-18 3.3.2 Transportation Project Prioritization and Funding ....................................................................... D-19 3.3.3 TIP Prioritization Example............................................................................................................. D-20 3.3.4 Quarterly Meetings......................................................................................................................... D-20 3.4 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. D-21 3.5 COORDINATION.......................................................................................................... D-21 3.6 STRUCTURE................................................................................................................ D-21 3.7 PROCESS .................................................................................................................... D-22 4.0 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ASSOCIATIONS .........................................................................................................................23 4.1 KEY HIGHLIGHTS....................................................................................................... D-23 4.2 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ASSOCIATIONS........................................... D-24 4.2.1 Membership .................................................................................................................................... D-25 4.2.2 RTPA to RTPA Coordination.......................................................................................................... D-26 4.3 REGIONAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS: RTIPS, THE STIP, AND RTPS ........................... D-26 4.4 SENATE BILL 45......................................................................................................... D-27 4.5 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. D-28 4.6 COORDINATION.......................................................................................................... D-28 4.7 STRUCTURE................................................................................................................ D-28 4.8 FUNDING.................................................................................................................... D-29 4.9 PROCESS .................................................................................................................... D-29 5.0 LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED ..................................................................... D-30 D-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Appendix presents the results of three “comparative” studies conducted as a part of a larger project analyzing Oregon’s Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs). The comparative studies include a review of three other state regional decision-making structures. The comparative studies provide context for Oregon’s ACTs by highlighting both similarities and differences between Oregon’s system and other state systems. The research team completed three comparative studies of transportation planning and programming systems in California, Iowa and Washington between March and June 2008. The comparative studies highlight the practices of the regional decision-making organizations in these systems. These practices can enlighten the policy and process options available to Oregon’s Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and the Oregon Department of Transportation by providing options for improving coordination of transportation and land use across jurisdictions, corridors and travel-sheds. 1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The comparative studies address objectives 2 and 3 of this research project’s objectives: • Assess the current role and experience of ACTs and MPOs, and their interactions with each other, in addressing travel-shed, cross-jurisdictional and cross-sector (public-private) issues. • Research best practices (including collaborative processes and governance approaches) in Oregon and elsewhere in the nation for effectively bridging jurisdictional and institutional barriers. • Develop and assess options (in both policy and process) available to ODOT, ACTs, and MPOs for improving coordination of transportation and land use across jurisdictions, corridors and travel-sheds. The goal of the comparative studies was to analyze regional decision-making organizations outside of Oregon and to make comparisons between the best practices of those organizations and Oregon ACTs. D-2 1.2 METHODS CPW used both primary and secondary research methods for the comparative studies. The first step was to select which states to include in the comparative studies. In consultation with this project’s Technical Advisory Committee, the research team chose California, Iowa, and Washington because the authority of these states’ regional decision-making bodies contrasts with that of the Oregon ACTs and allows for interesting comparisons. The research team used key informant interviews, online research, and document reviews to develop these comparative studies. For each study, the team conducted 5-10 telephone interviews of individuals affiliated with organizations closely involved in transportation planning and programming. These individuals included state DOT employees, regional transportation planners, and members of the regional decision-making bodies. State DOT websites and links, websites of the regional decision-making bodies, and documents provided by interviewees were particularly helpful in completing the studies. This appendix was reviewed by staff from Iowa and Washington. 1.3 COMPARATIVE STUDY STRUCTURE Each comparative study begins with a summary of findings followed by a discussion of the relationships between local, regional and state level organizations, with a focus on the regional decision-making bodies. The overview is followed by a summary of the state’s planning and programming system. Each study concludes by making key comparisons to the Oregon ACTs and highlighting the differences and best practices. These key comparisons can be separated into four broad categories: coordination, structure, funding, and process. • Coordination: This section describes systems that the three states have created to foster collaboration and coordination among their regional organizations. • Structure: This section describes how California, Iowa and Washington have structured elements of their regional transportation planning and programming system differently than the system used by Oregon ACTs. • Funding: This section describes transportation systems including funding resources and responsibilities for the three states’ regional organizations that are different than are used in Oregon. • Process: This section describes process tools states use to help with their decision-making that are worth comparing to the tools used by Oregon ACTs. D-3 1.4 HIGHLIGHTS Across the comparative studies, the research identified several practices that are present in at least two of the transportation planning systems. These include: • Planning: unlike the ACTs, regional organizations in California, Iowa, and Washington have the authority and mandate to perform planning duties in addition to project prioritization. • Statewide coordinating meetings: all three of the comparative study states have statewide coordinating meetings for their regional organizations. • Common MPO/regional policy board membership: Several but not all of Washington’s regional organizations share the same policy board membership with the local MPO. California’s regional organizations share the same policy board membership with their local MPO. • State has less authority to choose projects for Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs): the regional organizations have more authority to choose projects for RTIPs in California, Iowa and Washington than ACTs do in Oregon. In Washington, regional organizations have very little project selection authority. The Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) have a greater project selection authority than do the non-TMA MPOs. • Use of information technology: Iowa and California use a web-based system that allows easy access to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process by all involved parties. Table 1.1 shows which comparative study states and Oregon use these highlights and other common regional planning practices. Table 1.1: Regional planning practices in California, Iowa, Washington and Oregon California Iowa Washington Oregon Regional organization has transportation planning responsibilities Yes Yes Yes None Private sector representation on regional policy board No, but occurs in advisory committees No, but occurs in advisory committees Some regional policy board have private sector members Yes Statewide coordinating meetings Monthly Quarterly Quarterly None Web based software used to facilitate project prioritization Yes Yes Yes No Integration of regional organization and MPO Yes, with several exceptions No, but usually housed in same organization No, even where RTPOs and MPOs are run by the same organization they are rarely coterminous No, but usually overlap in policy board membership Special funds for planning across regional boundaries Yes No Yes No Majority of public involvement and project deliberation occurs in subcommittees Yes Yes No, the majority of public involvement occurs at the local jurisdiction and during the MPO TIP approval process No Examples of non-transportation responsibilities assigned to some regional organizations Housing, airports, hazardous waste, air quality, water quality, solid waste, econ. development, financial services, sales tax authority Rural water, sewage, landfills, housing, main street, CDBG, other grants Economic development occurs in regional organizations with co- managed organizational missions None D -4 D-5 2.0 WASHINGTON REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS The Washington State regional transportation planning system is composed of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), fourteen Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs), eleven Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and a statewide Tribal Transportation Planning Organization (TTPO). This comparative study looks at this system and its similarities and differences with the Oregon system and Oregon’s Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs). It begins with the key highlights of this comparative study, including a brief comparison of four different approaches to regional planning issues in the Washington and Oregon systems. After these highlights, it then reviews the Washington transportation planning system with special emphasis on unique features of the system seen within the Tribal Transportation Planning Organization and the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC). It concludes with a longer discussion of the highlights. 2.1 KEY HIGHLIGHTS Many elements of the Washington State transportation planning system that provide a contrasting perspective to the ways that Oregon ACTs operate. These highlights include: • Organizational integration of RTPOs and MPOs: In Washington, five RTPOs and MPOs use the same policy board for decision making. Five RTPO and MPO do not use the same policy board for decision making. The eleventh MPO is a bi-state MPO with affiliate membership with a RTPO. Both organizations attend the others meetings but do not use the same policy board for decision making. • Formal statewide meetings of regional planning organizations: WSDOT holds quarterly meetings for all regional planning organizations in the state to coordinate activities and information. • The Tribal Transportation Planning Organization (TTPO): Washington created the TTPO to more fully incorporate tribal participation in transportation planning and programming. • Dedicated funding for planning cross boundary projects: The Revised Code of Washington has a provision for this type of grant; however, it has been little used. An example may include a safety study of a state or U.S. corridor that crosses regional lines. D-6 2.2 WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SYSTEM The Washington State transportation planning structure (Figure 2.1) is based on the relationships between the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the regional transportation planning bodies, which include metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and regional transportation planning organizations (RTPOs). Figure 2.1: Washington State Regional Transportation Planning Structure In 1990 the Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA). The legislature recognized that while the transportation system in Washington is owned and operated by numerous public jurisdictions, it should function as one interconnected and coordinated system. The process provides an opportunity for integration of local comprehensive plans and regional goals with state and local transportation programs. The RTPO program provides better integration of land use and transportation planning that decision makers can use to address regional strategies. RTPO membership includes cities, counties, tribes, transit agencies, port districts, major employers in the area and the WSDOT Region. Figure 2.2: Tribal Transportation Planning Organization Structure Tribal Transportation Planning Organization 36 Tribes Bureau of Indian Affairs Federal Highway Administration WSDOT MPO/RTPO Membership Cities Counties Major Employers Tribes Lead Agency WSDOT Region Transit Agencies Port Districts D-7 Tribes in the State of Washington are also members of the Tribal Transportation Planning Organization (TTPO). Membership is open to 29 federally recognized tribes and 7 non-federally recognized tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FHWA, and WSDOT. On July 29, 2004, adoption of the TTPO Bylaws occurred. The Bylaws stipulate the TTPO promote tribal transportation planning in Washington State and foster intergovernmental cooperation and coordination. The Bylaws specify the TTPO will provide for the advancement of professional skills and knowledge among transportation professionals employed with Indian governments and encourages effective use of planning principles, cooperation, and education among transportation agencies at the local, regional, state, and federal level. 2.3 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS Washington has 14 RTPOs; ten of these RTPOs are integrated with an MPO (Figure 2.3). Notably, the same policy board membership performs the requirements of both organizations. The effect of this organizational structure is discussed in greater detail in the profile of the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council later in this study. Lewis-Clark Valley MPO is one of two bi-state MPOs in Washington and the only MPO in the state that operates separately from the area RTPO. Washington counties are given the choice not to participate in the RTPO process, but can only abstain rather than create an ”RTPO-like body.” San Juan County is the only county of the state that has chosen not to create or join an RTPO; however, it is currently reconsidering this status.44 Regional Planning Bodies 14 RTPOs; 11 MPOs; 1 TTPO; 1 non-partic ipating countySource: W SDOT Transportation Planning W ebsite and Casey Kleinhenz Notes: Island County is part of the Skagit/Island RTPO; and Cowlitz-Wahkiakum is a bi-state MPO Figure 2.3: Washington State Regional Planning Bodies 44 PRTPO minutes D-8 All RTPO boundaries align with county boundaries. There are between one and five counties within each RTPO. Minimum jurisdictional requirements state that RTPOs must encompass at least one complete county and have a minimum population of one hundred thousand or contain a minimum of three counties.45 The size of RTPO policy boards varies among regions and increases as population in the RTPO increases. For example, the Puget Sound Regional Council has 97 voting members that represent a population of 3.5 million. Of these members, a subset of 32 is elected to an executive board. By contrast, the Northeast Washington RTPO represents a population of 60,000 and its policy board has 28 members. RTPOs are required to include representatives of all counties within the region in their membership. They are also required to include representation from at least 60% of the cities and towns within the region, with the population of those towns totaling a minimum of 75% of the incorporated population.46 Transit and port districts, WSDOT, and major employers within a region may, but are not required to be members. All RTPOs invite the participation of tribal governments. In all RTPOs except Puget Sound Regional, state legislators are considered non-voting ex-officio members. Positions on the RTPO board are not paid. 2.3.1 Planning The primary planning duties of RTPOs include: 1. Developing a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and ensuring and certifying the transportation elements of comprehensive plans of local governments within the region are consistent with the plan 2. Reviewing and developing transportation level of service methodologies used by cities and counties 3. Developing Human Services Transportation Coordination Plans for persons with special needs47 The scope of work for the RTPO is documented biennially in a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The UPWP documents all transportation and related planning activities for the ensuing biennium; it also includes goals and a budget summary. RTPOs create jointly sponsored planning projects because their membership includes representatives of multiple cities, counties, port districts, transit agencies, and WSDOT. They also coordinate with the County Road Administrative Board and the Transportation Improvement Board. A decision to fund a planning study does not guarantee a construction project or other investment will follow. In regions with an MPO and RTPO, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) encompasses long-range planning for both the MPO and RTPO. The portions of the document that cover planning inside the MPO boundary is referred to as the “urban section. The area outside the MPO boundary is referred to as the “rural section.” Metropolitan and Regional Transportation 45 RCW 47.80.020 www.mrsc.org 46 RCW 47.80.020 www.msrc.org 47 RCW 47.80.023 “Duties” www.mrsc.org D-9 Plans may mention specific projects as well as goals, policies, and issues that guide future project decisions. MTPs must meet federal guidelines for fiscal constraint. The RTPs and MTPs complement and should be consistent with the statewide long-range, the statewide long-range plan. The statewide long-range plan is developed by WSDOT. It is a policy oriented document and does not generally contain specific projects. RTPs and MTPs often reference the statewide long-range plan goals and objectives. 2.3.2 Project Prioritization The RTPOs develop a six year regional transportation improvement program (regional TIP) in cooperation with the WSDOT, operators of public transportation services, and local governments that proposes regionally significant transportation projects and programs and transportation demand management measures. The program shall be updated at least every two years for the ensuing six-year period. Regional TIP projects originate in the local and regional plans of cities, counties, and the RTPO. RTPOs work with the communities to prioritize the projects according to their plans and the modal plans of the state. In areas where the MPO is the lead agency for the RTPO, the RTIP is included as the rural portion of the MPO TIP. In RTPO without a MPO lead agency the counties are eligible for STP rural funds according to distribution formulas maintained by WSDOT Highways & Local Programs Division. When STP funds are used local or state funds are required as matching funds. All federally funded and regionally significant projects regardless of funding must be included in the MPO TIP and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The MPO Board and the Governor approve each MPO TIP. The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration approve the STIP. 2.3.3 Structure of the RTPO No two RTPOs are organized alike. Ten of the fourteen RTPOs are organized with a MPO and four are stand-alone organizations. Once an RTPO has been established, the RTPO must designate a lead planning agency to staff the Regional Transportation Planning Program. The lead planning agency may be a regional council, a county, a city or town agency, or a Washington State Department of Transportation Regional Office. The stand-alone RTPO lead agencies include one WSDOT Region, one rotating lead county, and two economic development districts/agencies. The lead planning agency is the designated recipient of the regional transportation planning grants from WSDOT. For example, The Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council as the lead planning agency for the MPO and RTPO is the recipient of the transportation planning grants within its region. The QuadCo RTPO lead agency is Lincoln County Department of Public Works which receives the RTPO planning grants. D-10 RTPO boundaries are county wide. The metropolitan planning area (MPA) is the geographic area determined by agreement between the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the area and the Governor. The MPO may have an air quality boundary designated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Those RTPOs within the air quality boundary are not responsible for the conformity determination. Federal legislation mandates the responsibility of the MPO. MPOs must review and update the metropolitan transportation plan at least every four years in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas and at least every five years in attainment areas to confirm the plan's validity. The RTPO must review the Regional Transportation Plan biennially for currency and forward the plan along with documentation of the biennial review to the WSDOT. The integration of MPO and RTPO duties institutionalizes coordination between the organizations because they may have the same policy board making decisions. This agreement is determined in a cooperative process by the organization's membership. An example of a diversified planning process is the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) which includes three counties, Clark, Skamania, and Klickitat. RTC is required to complete MPO and RTPO planning for Clark County, but Klickitat and Skamania Counties are outside of the metropolitan planning area and only perform RTPO requirements. By agreement the same policy board members make the MPO and RTPO planning decisions within the entire region. The integrated board has the effect of allowing members from rural counties to vote on MPO issues and urban members to vote on rural regional issues. An individual interviewed for this study reported that rural board members provide valuable insight on urban issues and that, although some rural/urban equity issues exist, those issues never focus on the right of urban members to vote on non-MPO issues. The only case where the aforementioned RTPO-MPO integration is not in effect is where the jurisdiction of Palouse RTPO overlaps the Lewis Clark Valley MPO (LCVMPO). LCVMPO is a bi-state MPO; it plans for the metropolitan planning area including Asotin County and the cities of Clarkston and Asotin in Washington and the city of Lewiston and Nez Perce County in Idaho.48 Because it conducts bi-state activities, LCVMPO cannot serve as the lead planning agency for the Palouse RTPO. Instead, the Southeast Washington Economic Development Association was selected as the lead planning agency for Palouse RTPO and it completes all the regional planning requirements for the region. The Washington portion of LCVMPO lies in the northeast corner of Asotin County. Palouse RTPO boundaries include all of Asotin, Columbia, Garfield, and Whitman counties. There are two primary factors that influence the cross-jurisdictional collaboration of the two organizations. First, the two organizations share approximately a third of their membership. Sharing membership allows LCVMPO to coordinate with Palouse RTPO on significant regional planning projects. The members’ mutual involvement facilitates communication to the extent that meetings between Palouse RTPO and LCVMPO are not necessary. Another factor that aids communication is the “small town feel” of the area. There are few planning activities in the 48 WSDOT regional planning. www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/regional/ D-11 region that members of both organizations are not generally aware of. Through Palouse RTPO, LCVMPO currently receives $8,000 state planning funds every year to facilitate planning activities within the Washington portion of LCVMPO boundaries.49 2.3.4 RTPO Sub-Committees Most RTPOs minimally use subcommittees. An example of a regional subcommittee is the QuadCo RTPO's Legislative Outreach Subcommittee. The committee's purpose is to communicate RTPO activities with the legislative members in the RTPO area. Other subcommittees may be created and disbanded to address a specific funding need or study. There are three RTPOs that have created subregions or subcommittees. They are the Southwest Washington RTPO, the Skagit Island RTPO, and the Southwest Regional Transportation Council. The Southwest RTPO provides a direct allocation of planning funds to Grays Harbor and Lewis counties to conduct transportation planning. The planning activities are included in the work program for the RTPO and are approved by the RTPO board. The Skagit Island RTPO functions in a similar manner as the Island subregion has a separate work program, while the Skagit work program is included with that of the Skagit MPO. A description of the Southwest Regional Transportation Council subcommittees is below. The Southwest Regional Transportation Council (RTC) has three sub-committees that address transportation planning and prioritization issues at the county level. The three advisory committees are the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee in Clark County, The Klickitat County Transportation Policy Committee, and the Skamania County Transportation Policy Committee. Each of these committees advises the RTC Board of Directors, the policy level decision-making body. Another committee, the Bi-State Coordinating Committee, addresses cross-jurisdictional issues between the Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington metropolitan areas. It is advisory to the RTC Board of Directors, to Metro’s Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation and Metro on issues of bi-state transportation significance. The county advisory committees are the primary means for involving the public in regional planning. By identifying issues at the county level rather than at the regional level, the separate advisory councils help assure that local issues will not be overlooked. The advisory councils consider regional issues when overseeing their counties, but they try to focus on county issues and let the regional planning coordination occur at RTC Board meetings. All the advisory committees report their priorities to the RTC Board of Directors. Although public involvement at the county meetings is preferred, the RTC monthly Board of Directors meetings and the advisory committee meetings are all open to the public. In addition, individual citizen comment is received through the RTC website, emails and participation in special public meetings.50 The Bi-State Coordinating Committee consists of six RTC members and seven Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) members. JPACT is the transportation advisory 49 Informant interview 50 Informant interview D-12 committee for Metro, the Portland metropolitan area’s regional government. RTC and Metro share the costs of convening the group. 2.3.5 Collaborative Practices RTPO collaborative practices include formal statewide meetings, informal coordination between adjacent and similar organizations, and inter-regional collaboration. 2.3.5.1 State Coordination of the RTPOs The MPO/RTPO/WSDOT Coordinating Committee serves as a formal gathering for communication between all state and regional transportation planning bodies. This statewide committee’s membership includes: • All regional transportation planning bodies (MPO and RTPOs,) • WSDOT headquarters and regional planning offices • Other regular participants include: • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration • Association of Washington Cities • Washington State Association of Counties • Tribal Transportation Planning Organization • The Governor’s Office • Office of Financial Management51 • Legislative members or committee staff The primary purpose of the Coordinating Committee is to share information and provide education on transportation planning activities ranging from the national to local levels. The quarterly meetings begin with updates on planning activities, projects, and legislation. WSDOT's Highway System Plan (HSP) provides an example of state-regional communication in addition to Coordinating Committee meetings. The approval process of the most recent HSP update placed emphasis on communication among WSDOT Regions, Headquarters, and the MPO and RTPOs. The WSDOT Manager for Systems Analysis and Program Development traveled to all regions to meet with each MPO and RTPO director and technical staff to get local input on the plan as well as regular briefing at the MPO/RTPO/WSDOT Coordinating Committee meetings.52 51 “OrganizationsthatComprisetheCoordinatingCommittee.pdf” www.wsdot.wa.gov 52 Coordinating Committee minutes 10/30/2007. www.wsdot.wa.gov D-13 2.3.5.2 Informal RTPO to RTPO Coordination It is common for RTPOs to participate in informal information sharing with their neighbors. For example, the Southwest Regional Transportation Council (RTC) shares information on corridor projects with the RTPOs adjacent to it.53 Information sharing with non-adjacent RTPOs is less common, but does occur. Puget Sound Regional Council, RTC, and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council hold conference calls to discuss special issues of the largest state MPOs.54 2.3.6 Funding In each of the past three biennia, the Washington State Legislature appropriated a total of $4.4 million to WSDOT for the RTPO program. This appropriation is distributed, as agreed to among the WSDOT and RTPOs, in two parts: • $2.4 million is distributed among the RTPOs for regional transportation planning. Each RTPO receives $15,000 for each county within the RTPO; the remainder is distributed based on a population formula (one-half on a per capita basis of total population and one- half on a per capita basis of the rural population in each RTPO). • $2 million is distributed among the RTPOs for participation in statewide long-range transportation planning. Each RTPO receives an allocation dependent upon the type of organization: Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) – $50,000; MPOs – $30,000; and Rural RTPOs – $10,000; with the remainder distributed on a per capita basis. 2.4 TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING WSDOT created the Tribal Transportation Planning Organization (TTPO) in 2003 from WSDOT's planning budget. The organization is currently searching for permanent funding streams. The primary function of the TTPO is to provide a direct connection for tribes collectively to participate in WSDOT's transportation planning activities. Each tribe can and does participate individually, as well. The TTPO also provides a forum to discuss improving tribal governments’ transportation planning issues through enhanced coordination with tribal, federal, state, and local governments. Research and data collection are other functions of the TTPO and its participants, as funding is available. Recent TTPO projects include: • Participating in the update of Washington’s Statewide Transportation Plan (WTP) • Identifying and tracking tribal transportation needs through a database • Planning for the Tribal-State Transportation Conference55 The TTPO is a young organization and it relies heavily on its volunteer membership and one half-time WSDOT staff.56 53 Informant interview 54 Informant interview 55 WashingtonStateTribalTransportationPlanningOrganization.pdf www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Tribal/ D-14 The TTPO tribal membership is invited to the transportation planners or other representatives of all 29 reservations in the state, though not all participate. Local, state, and federal representatives are also notified about the quarterly TTPO meetings. Tribal membership is encouraged on the RTPO policy boards and many have tribal members. However, tribal involvement in RTPOs has not been fully effective. One issue is that old conflicts between reservations and “border towns” can live on in prejudices that prevent some tribal members from feeling comfortable at regional planning meetings.57 The second is that the tribal sovereign nations are used to interacting with the federal government and interaction with regional planning bodies is unfamiliar. For these reasons, the TTPO provides a secondary avenue for tribal members to be involved in regional planning without being a member of an RTPO. RTPOs benefit from the participation of the tribes because it informs them or tribal decisions or activities that may place demands on the regional or statewide transportation system or when there are tribal funds available for transportation projects and therefore the formation of potential partnerships.58 2.5 SUMMARY The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) manages the state transportation planning program. WSDOT coordinates the three primary regional planning bodies, RTPOs, MPOs, and the TTPO. The RTPOs are the organizations most similar to the Oregon ACTs. The RTPOs have two primary roles: • They facilitate the creation of Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) that is consistent with the county-wide planning policies within the region, with city and town comprehensive plans, and statewide transportation plans. • They create the Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) for their regions. The TIPs created by all RTPOs in the state are combined into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is approved for funding by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. Washington and Oregon’s regional transportation planning systems have more differences than similarities. The biggest difference is that in Washington, the RTPOs conduct transportation planning but Oregon’s ACTs primarily only prioritize projects for the STIP. Five other significant differences are discussed below, in three categories: coordination, structure, and funding. 56 Informant interview 57 Informant interview 58 Informant interview D-15 2.6 COORDINATION In Oregon, although informal coordination occurs regularly, there is little evidence of formal coordination between adjacent ACTs except in Region 2 and through the ConnectOregon process because the ACTs are not contiguous. There is essentially no evidence of coordination between non-adjacent ACTs or statewide. The MPO/RTPO/WSDOT Coordinating Committee is a formal gathering of all state and regional planning bodies in Washington State. At the quarterly meetings, information is exchanged between participants. The meetings allow the state to reach all regional planning bodies at once and facilitate coordination between non-adjacent RTPOs. The SuperACTs created in the ConnectOregon program are effective at bringing adjacent ACTs together, but are only focused on one program and don’t provide the overarching perspective of a statewide gathering. Oregon tribes participate in regional transportation decision making primarily through membership on ACT boards. WSDOT has created a secondary method of involving tribes in regional planning that operates effectively regardless of the tribes’ relationship with the local RTPO. All tribes in the state are members of the Tribal Transportation Planning Organization (TTPO). The Chair of the TTPO attends state level coordinating meetings and informs other regional planning bodies on tribal planning issues across the state. This method of involvement works in conjunction with tribal membership on RTPOs, which is highly encouraged. Oregon does not have a secondary system for tribes to participate in regional planning beyond ACTs. 2.7 STRUCTURE Coordination between Oregon ACTs and the MPO in their region can be a challenging issue. In Washington, it is mandated that RTPOs be structurally integrated with an MPO if it is within their boundaries. If there is no MPO, then a lead agency is selected as previously described. MPOs and RTPOs have matured and regional planning is now a common activity. This has the effect of institutionalizing collaboration among jurisdictions. In Oregon, ACTs and MPOs often share some membership, and collaborate on important regional issues, but are not structurally predisposed to collaboration like the Washington organizations. Both ACTs and RTPOs use sub-committees to assist with their work. One interesting difference is that ACT sub-committees are generally issue focused, whereas some RTPO’s have sub- committees focused on both issues and on a specific area of their region.59 In the case of the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, these county-level sub-committees are used to solicit public involvement at a more local scale than at the policy board meetings. 59 Southwest ACT does have regionally focused sub-committees D-16 2.8 FUNDING The ACT member survey showed that inter-regional issues can be significant to ACTs because there is little political or economic incentive to recommend work projects for travel sheds that are primarily used by an external constituency. RTPOs primarily receive funding through per county and per capita allocations. RCW 47.80.050 (3) allows for a discretionary grant program to be administered. Due to funding constraints this program has not been used for several years. There is no analogous source of funding for ACTs, in part because ACTs only prioritize projects and do not conduct planning. D-17 3.0 IOWA REGIONAL PLANNING AFFILIATIONS Iowa’s transportation planning system is managed though a unique partnership involving the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), nine Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and 18 Regional Planning Affiliations (RPAs). This comparative study compares and contrasts the Oregon and Iowa transportation planning and project prioritization systems. After briefly highlighting some of the significant differences between the Oregon and Iowa systems, the study describes Iowa’s transportation planning and project prioritization structure and the collaborative practices of one RPA. It concludes with a more in-depth discussion of the highlights. 3.1 KEY HIGHLIGHTS Oregon and Iowa use different systems for regional transportation planning and project prioritization. Some of the key differences include: • Quarterly meetings: Unlike Oregon, the Iowa DOT holds quarterly meetings with directors and staff from all MPOs and RPAs to share information, train staff, and encourage regional collaboration. • Transportation Program Management System: Iowa uses web-based Transportation Program Management System software to help keep RPAs and MPOs informed of the transportation improvement programming (TIP) process. • Institutionalized coordination: RPAs and MPOs in Iowa are usually housed within the same council of government and share staff, which encourages and facilitates coordination between the RPA and MPO. 3.2 IOWA’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Iowa DOT carries out planning and management activities for Iowa’s transportation system. Iowa DOT’s Office of Systems Planning works with MPOs and RPAs on the following activities: • Transportation Planning Work Program: annually outlines the transportation planning activities each MPO/RPA will undertake for the next fiscal year. • Long-Range Transportation Plan: provides direction and guidance for every MPO/RPA in the state to make efficient transportation investment decisions. • Public Participation Plan: outlines in detail the process each MPO/RPA will follow to adequately involve the public in their transportation planning activities. D-18 • Passenger Transportation Development Plan: an annual document that provides need- based justification for all federal and state transit programs. The plan is developed collaboratively by human service agencies, private transportation providers, and public transit systems.60 3.3 REGIONAL PLANNING AFFILIATIONS In its initial regional transportation planning, Iowa delineated areas outside MPO boundaries into 16 rural transit regions, which were each represented by a council of governments (COG). After the passage of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, Iowa created a new process based on the existing rural transit regions. The new system created Regional Planning Affiliations (RPAs) to implement a relatively new method of collaboratively- based regional transportation planning for Iowa by including local governments in regional transportation planning, project prioritization and funding.61 Iowa established 18 RPAs, which conduct transportation planning and programming for all areas outside of MPOs. All RPAs consist of a technical advisory committee and a policy board. Both committees are supported by Iowa DOT staff, which helps coordinate efforts between the two. Technical advisory committee members are generally professional staff representatives of member counties and cities and private sector representatives. They work closely with RPA staff to advise the policy board on more technical transportation issues. The policy board consists primarily of elected officials from the member counties and cities. The policy board ultimately approves all technical advisory committee documents and plans. RPAs also conduct long range transportation planning studies that identify needed improvements within the current transportation system. Every MPO and RPA in Iowa develops their own Long Range Plan with a minimum 20 year planning horizon. The MPO and RPA plans are fiscally constrained and mention specific projects. The State Long Range Plan is a policy plan that does not mention specific projects. The State Long Range Plan includes input from the MPOs and RPAs through the development of their Long Range Plans. 3.3.1 Iowa’s COGs Six of the RPAs and MPOs are housed within the same council of governments (COG) when a COG is present. RPAs and MPOs within the same COG still function independently but collaborate closely. In many cases, staffs from both RPAs and MPOs work within the same office and sometimes staffing is shared between both organizations. RPAs and MPOs benefit from this by pooling resources, and as a result, transportation projects that cross MPO and RPA jurisdictional boundaries are addressed in an effective and efficient manner. 60 Iowa Department of Transportation, “Office of Systems Planning page,” available at: http://www.sysplan.dot.state.ia.us/main_planning.htm 61 Iowa Department of Transportation, “Planning Partners” PDF, available at: http://www.sysplan.dot.state.ia.us/pdf/Introduction.pdf D-19 Along with increasing collaboration between RPAs and MPOs, the organizations benefit from using COGs in other ways. Having one organization instead of two reduces structural costs so that more specialized staff members and resources are available, increases cross RPA and MPO membership on decision-making boards, and increases connectivity to those working in the land use and economic fields. For example, the Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission’s authority extends beyond the realm of transportation planning and includes land use planning, economic development, and housing. Individuals interviewed for this study believe that RPAs would struggle outside of the COG structure due to a lack of staff and financial resources. 3.3.2 Transportation Project Prioritization and Funding Within Iowa, RPAs and MPOs are given authority to prioritize funding for local transportation projects within their own boundaries. This annual process starts with each RPA and MPO receiving their yearly funding target from Iowa DOT Office of Program Management. Sometimes RPAs and MPOs receive their yearly funding target several months after they have begun prioritizing projects for the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Prior to receiving the actual funding target, RPAs and MPOs work with a projected funding target that approximates actual funding. Funding targets are projected on a four-year basis and are usually very close to the actual amount of funding. Each RPA and MPO receives its percentage of federal funding based on a variable calculated from their population, vehicle miles traveled, “need,” and the mileage of Farm to Market and county roads within their boundaries.62 After the RPAs and MPOs have drafted their TIPs according to the established funding targets, they send them to be compiled into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) by Iowa DOT’s Office of Program Management. TIPs are reviewed as they are compiled; the Iowa DOT, the Iowa Transportation Commission and the RPAs and MPOs all have the authority to review the STIPs and to initiate revisions. Revisions that originate at the state level are sent back to the RPAs and MPOs for approval. MPOs are legally required to provide final approval for revisions to their TIPs. Iowa DOT is not legally required to receive final approval from RPAs for revisions to their TIPs, but it requests final approval from the organizations to maintain transparency. Revisions occur fairly regularly and the RPA board members rarely dispute them because the board usually initiates the revision and is kept informed throughout the revising process.63 Within the RPA, there are two funding allocation methodologies: a sub-allocation method and an application method for distributing funding for projects. The sub-allocation method is a process where RPA decision-making boards distribute funds to local governments based on a predetermined formula. This method reduces local and cross-sector input to the decision-making process. The application method is a process where local governments apply for funding of transportation projects, which are then approved by RPA decision-making boards. Iowa DOT is urging all of their RPAs to start using the application method because it increases local and cross-sector involvement and allows for more transparency in funding allocations. 62Informant interview 63Informant interview D-20 In some cases there are not enough transportation funds to meet all local needs, resulting in the loss of some projects. Individuals interviewed for this study mentioned that in many areas equity issues between the local governments that belong to a given RPA are a consideration. In some cases when an RPA does not approve a local government’s transportation project, there is an understanding that it will be approved during a following funding cycle. Sometimes these are purely unspoken agreements, but in others they are formalized. In essence, this system gives RPAs authority to fund transportation projects, in collaboration with Iowa DOT and the Iowa Transportation Commission. During the project prioritization process noted above, all projects submitted to Iowa DOT by RPAs are funded. 3.3.3 TIP Prioritization Example Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission (SEIRPC), the RPA for southeast Iowa, typically receives $1.5 to $2 million in STIP funds each year. After 5 to 10 percent of the amount is allocated to transportation planning, the funds are divided for TIP programming. City projects receive 45% of the funds and county projects receive 55%. Any government sponsored organization can engage in the competitive application process for the funding. Applications are ranked according to scoring criteria developed by the Transportation Technical Committee (TTC). The categories of scoring criteria include both qualitative and quantitative variables, so the TTC preference does play a role in determining what projects are included in the TIP. After the TTC makes their TIP recommendations, the recommendations are sent to the SEIRPC policy board. The policy board has the authority to override the TTC recommendations, but has never done so. After the TIP recommendations are sent to Iowa DOT, SEIRPC has never received revisions from the state level. Revisions that originate at the local level follow the same route through the TTC and policy board as the original TIP project. Local revisions usually concern minor details of the project.64 3.3.4 Quarterly Meetings All federal transportation planning funds are administered through Iowa DOT’s Office of Systems Planning. To help ensure collaboration between and across RPAs and MPOs, the Office of Systems Planning holds quarterly meetings with MPO and RPA representatives. At these meetings, MPO and RPA representatives come together to collaborate on transportation projects that cross multiple MPO and RPA boundaries. Iowa DOT and RPA and MPO representatives believe these meetings are very effective for a number of reasons: they offer technical assistance and trainings, ensure collaboration between the RPAs and MPOs on projects that cross jurisdictional boundaries, improve RPA and MPO relationships, and help to address transportation planning. 64 Informant interview D-21 3.4 SUMMARY A number of characteristics of Iowa’s RPAs are worth comparing to Oregon’s ACT system. Both states use a collaborative structure that brings together regional perspectives to prioritize transportation projects. Collaboration is further incorporated into the process by including members from multiple local, state and federal organizations in the decision-making process. Often, there is representation from both the public and private sectors within these organizations, although private sector representation in RPAs is usually limited to technical advisory committees. Collaboration is a key tool to address the inherent inter-jurisdictional nature of transportation projects and is a necessary element in successful transportation planning systems. Many RPA and Iowa DOT representatives mentioned that the RPA collaborative framework has a number of positive “spin-off” effects, such as increasing public input on transportation projects and increasing local understanding of the regional transportation system. Further differences and similarities between RPAs and ACTs are discussed below, in three categories: coordination, structure, and process. 3.5 COORDINATION Iowa DOT holds and facilitates quarterly meetings with directors and staff from all Iowa MPOs and RPAs. At these meetings, information is both shared and gathered in a collaborative format. In every interview for this study, the quarterly meetings were seen as very “effective meetings,” and are considered to be a crucial aspect to the success of Iowa’s transportation planning system. Quarterly meetings provide a forum for cross-jurisdictional collaboration between RPA and MPO directors and staff, helping keep each region aware of transportation related issues going on across the state. A unique aspect of the meetings is that Iowa DOT provides trainings, which is important for keeping all of the RPAs on the same page. Ultimately, quarterly meetings improve communication and strengthen working relationships between the Iowa DOT and the RPAs.65 3.6 STRUCTURE Both ACTs and RPAs have private sector representation on boards and committees, although to different extents. Individuals interviewed as part of this study indicated this helps to improve local representation in allocating transportation funds in Iowa. Private sector representation, however, is stronger in ACTs than in RPAs. In fact, the majority of RPAs lack private sector representation. Representatives from RPAs with private sector representation interviewed for this study believe private sector voting representation is a very positive aspect, and is something they recommend other RPAs work towards implementing. Using COGs also promotes collaboration between MPOs and RPAs and makes it easier than if they were independent. In some cases, the staff is actually the same for both MPOs and RPAs 65Transportation Capacity Building Program, Peer Exchange, webpage available at: http://www.planning.dot.gov/Peer/iowa/iowa_2006.htm D-22 where a COG exists. COGs keep both staff and voting board members of both organizations constantly updated about projects and programming. COGs also offer means of pooling resources to work on projects that cross jurisdictional boundaries. 3.7 PROCESS The use of web-based software to prioritize transportation projects is another tool Iowa DOT is using to improve collaboration among RPAs. The Transportation Program Management System (TPMS) is an online project management system for creation and management of the Statewide TIP. This system allows Iowa DOT, FHWA Iowa Division, MPOs, RPAs and counties to access, edit, and approve STIP projects, improving the efficiency of STIP development.66 Using this software allows RPAs to track transportation project development within the state. This resource is valuable for collaborative transportation planning, as it allows organizations to be constantly informed about transportation projects occurring statewide. 66 Transportation Capacity Building Program, Peer Exchange, webpage available at: http://www.planning.dot.gov/Peer/iowa/iowa_2006.htm D-23 4.0 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ASSOCIATIONS The California transportation planning system consists of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), 26 Regional Transportation Planning Associations (RTPAs), and the California Transportation Commission. This comparative study compares and contrasts the California system with the Oregon’s transportation system and Oregon’s Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs). After briefly discussing the key highlights of this study, the report explains how the regional transportation funding system is structured in California. The study concludes with a more in-depth discussion of the key highlights. California is a large and diverse state. It has large metropolitan areas with major traffic problems, rural areas that are sparsely populated, and major freight corridors bisecting the state. Because of this diversity, the California transportation planning system is very complex and requires flexibility to allow regional bodies to adjust to the needs of their individual regions. This flexibility creates approaches that are as diverse as the state is large. 4.1 KEY HIGHLIGHTS Some of the key similarities and differences between Oregon ACTs and California’s RTPAs discussed in this study are listed below. • RTPA configuration flexibility: There is no one configuration for the relationship between RTPAs, MPOs, and counties. The configurations vary depending on the local needs of the region. • MPO and RTPA integration: In most cases, MPOs, RTPAs, and COGs share the same boundaries and decision-making policy boards. • Scoring criteria: Like ACTs, some RTPAs have criteria for scoring projects to help minimize political conflicts over project prioritization. • Regional funding authority: The state has delegated, but not fully relinquished, funding authority for transportation projects to RTPAs. • Monthly coordination meetings: Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission coordinate monthly meetings for RTPAs to discuss statewide issues, items on the CTC agenda, and negotiate among themselves. There is also a monthly meeting for rural RTPAs to ensure rural representation at the statewide level. D-24 4.2 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ASSOCIATIONS The California transportation system uses Regional Transportation Planning Associations (RTPAs) to provide regional perspectives in transportation planning and decision-making. State law requires areas to be represented by RTPAs, by agreement by cities and counties in each area.67 RTPAs are designated by the California Director of Transportation based on county boundaries and created from established regional agencies. These regional agencies can be a regional transportation planning agency (like an MPO), a council of governments, or a local transportation commission.68 Sometimes, particularly in small counties, the RTPA and a local transportation commission are the same body, and their responsibilities are carried out by the county government (sometimes county public works departments). Most RTPAs share boundaries with one county; however, there are some variations. RTPAs were created by California after federal legislation created MPOs. California wrote RTPA requirements to be generally consistent with federal MPO requirements. There are small differences, but none of significance.69 The configurations of RTPAs are summarized in Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Summary of RTPA configurations Configuration Description One county, one RTPA County and RTPA boundaries match and there is no MPO—these are in rural counties. Often, the RTPA and local transportation commission are the same body. One MPO, one county, one RTPA County, MPO and RTPA boundaries match and all RTPA responsibilities are fulfilled by the MPO. In the eyes of Caltrans, they are the same organization. One MPO, multiple counties, one RTPA The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the MPO and RTPA for the nine counties around the San Francisco Bay area. One MPO, multiple counties, multiple RTPAs The MPO and RTPAs are different organizations. Along the coast, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) is the MPO for three counties, but each county has its own RTPA. Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the MPO and RTPA for four counties but only the MPO for the western part of two counties; the western parts of these counties each have their own RTPA. One MPO, one RTPA, parts of two counties The Tahoe MPO is a bi-state MPO and is the RTPA for the eastern part of El Dorado and Placer Counties in California. One MPO, six counties, five independent RTPAs The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the MPO for six counties surrounding Los Angeles and the RTPA for only one of the counties. Five of the counties are their own RTPA, which propose county projects to SCAG for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program.70 Source: Caltrans and Community Planning Workshop In all RTPA’s large enough to have an MPO, one policy board serves both the RTPA and the MPO. In most regions where there is both an MPO and RTPA, there is also a council or association of governments. The COGs carry out the MPO and/or RTPA responsibilities for their area and the COG, MPO and RTPA have the same policy board. For example, SANDAG (San 67 Informant interview 68 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/list/agencies_files/p1-3.pdf 69 Informant interview 70 www.scag.ca.gov D-25 Diego Association of Governments) is a COG for the 18 cities in San Diego County. It is also the MPO and RTPA for the county. For planning, SANDAG brings together all 18 city land use plans, as well as the plans for the unincorporated areas, and makes the regional transportation plan (RTP) and regional comprehensive plan. The SANDAG board makes transportation funding decisions based on criteria it established to help guide its process. One board makes the decisions for the many different roles that SANDAG fulfills.71 The structure of MPOs and RTPAs varies widely across the state from single-county MPOs (such as SANDAG) to large multicounty MPOs. Because there are such diverse formulations of RTPAs, the roles they play vary considerably as well. When combined with MPOs and COGs, the whole organization can be involved in economic development, land use planning, habitat preservation, environmental planning, housing, and more. Many RTPAs are also transit providers for their county. For funding, some RTPAs also receive 50% of Public Transportation Account revenues, such as fuel sales taxes. Half of this money is spent for county/city mass transit; the other half is allocated to transit operators. RTPAs also bring in State Transit Assistance money, county Local Transportation Fund money, county sales tax money, and other local funds. Local Transportation Funds, taxes raised by individual counties, are the largest pool of money available to RTPAs.72 In short, RTPAs rely on a diverse set of funding streams. While RTPAs may engage in a broad range of activities, at a minimum they must develop the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). 4.2.1 Membership A policy board governs an RTPA, whether it’s a MPO/RTPA or a stand-a-lone RTPA. Some RTPAs have state-imposed requirements on board representation, often at their own request. The five county RTPAs within the Southern California Association of Governments region have state-imposed requirements on their board representation. This area is very large, and the individual counties did not want Los Angeles County to have excessive influence over decisions. The state legislature created guidelines for these RTPAs to follow; these guidelines specify board representation requirements but did not change other requirements of RTPAs. Four other counties have state board representation guidelines as well. The RTPAs in Placer County, El Dorado County, Monterrey County, and Santa Cruz County follow state guidelines for the composition of their boards. The rest of the state that formed county transportation commissions formed them under a single law that allowed localities to decide composition of the governing boards. All RTPAs also happen to be county transportation commissions, governed by that set of laws.73 Caltrans generally has one district staff person on the board of RTPAs in an ex-officio or advisory role—this is fairly common across the state, though it is not a requirement. 71 Informant interview 72 Informant interview 73 Informant interview D-26 There are 12 district Caltrans offices across the state, and these tend to match up well with MPOs. District directors are in constant communication with the staff of MPOs, all the way down the staff level, as well as up the highest level staff at the State. There is at least weekly contact between Caltrans and the local agency, at least in cases of larger MPOs.74 4.2.2 RTPA to RTPA Coordination Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) coordinate a monthly statewide meeting for RTPAs before the monthly CTC meeting. The meetings are used as an opportunity to discuss CTC issues affecting RTPAs and for RTPAs to negotiate with each other about project lists. Some RTPAs see this as a very effective coordination method.75 In addition to the meeting open to all RTPAs, there is also a Rural Counties Task Force that meets before the CTC meetings that is open to all rural RTPAs. The purpose of these meetings is to give rural RTPAs the chance to work together to make their voices heard that the state level. Some RTPAs coordinate at Caltrans district meetings. In the case of the Siskiyou Local Transportation Commission, the chair attends the quarterly meeting along with the other RTPAs in the district, where they often discuss larger regional issues like the I-5 corridor. 4.3 REGIONAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS: RTIPS, THE STIP, AND RTPS The regional transportation plan (RTP) is a 20+ year plan for identifying how a region will meet its future multi-modal transportation needs. RTPAs are required to produce RTPs and MPOs are required to produce metropolitan transportation plans, which are functionally equivalent to RTPs. MPOs update their RTPs every four or five years depending on air quality. The MPO must update their plan every four years in air quality nonattainment areas and every five years in attainment areas. RTPAs update their plans every five years. RTPs are financially constrained to realistic funding levels. In areas where the MPO is larger than the individual RTPAs, the RTPAs are still responsible for creating their own RTP. However, they send their RTP to the larger MPO to be incorporated into the MPO’s RTP. For example, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) is an MPO with three county-level RTPAs within its boundaries. The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission creates the RTP for Santa Cruz County, but then it is also incorporated into AMBAG’s RTP. Developing RTPs is one of the core functions of MPOs and RTPAs. MPOs receive federal money from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration to complete the RTPs. Non-MPO RTPAs receive annual rural planning assistance funds from Caltrans. After completion, local RTPs are compiled into the state long-range transportation plan. The state long range transportation plan is used to guide the next round of local RTPs in an iterative cycle. 74 Informant interview 75 Informant interview D-27 The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is California’s five-year spending program for state and federal funding. It is approved biennially, and is comprised of a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and an Interregional Transportation Improvement Program. Of the state and federal STIP funds, 75% go to RTPAs for their RTIPs. The STIP money is also divided geographically; of the 75% that goes to RTPAs, 40% goes to counties in Northern California and 60% goes to counties in Southern California.76 The funds are then distributed to RTPAs based on population (75%) and state highway miles (25%).77 STIP funding comes from federal, state, and local sources. As part of the STIP process, Caltrans and the CTC give RTPAs a minimum and a likely funding allocation level to base their regional project recommendations, which are included in the RTIP. An RTIP is a five-year capital improvement program that identifies projects for an RTPA’s share of the STIP and is supposed to implement the region’s RTP. Using these numbers, RTPAs create RTIPs to make regional funding allocations and then send them to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for final approval. RTIPs include funds for improvements to state highways and local roads, public transit and intercity rail, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, grade separations, transportation system and demand management, soundwall projects, and safety. RTIPs are also financially constrained programs. In areas with an MPO larger than the RTPA, the MPO has no supervisory or advisory role in the development of the RTPA’s RTIP. In the case of Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, AMBAG has a seat on a sub-committee that helps to develop the county’s RTIP but that is their only role. 4.4 SENATE BILL 45 In most states, the state department of transportation or another statewide entity makes the decisions for transportation funding allocation. California was struggling with this system and in 1998 passed Senate Bill 45 which stipulates that 75% of all the STIP funds go directly to RTPAs and requires a 60/40 split between Southern and Northern California. The key element of this bill, however, is that it gave the RTPAs the authority to make funding decisions for the STIP. Under this law, RTPAs create their RTIP and submit it to the CTC for review. The CTC could then either accept or reject the entire RTIP; it no longer was supposed to have the power to select projects from within the RTIP for approval or denial. However, in practice that has not always been the case. The CTC has usurped some of this power by creating broad criteria to selectively remove projects from RTIPs. For example, both the Inyo County Local Transportation Commission and the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission had projects from the most recent TIP cycle rejected by the CTC because they were not focused on state highway projects. The other 25% of STIP funds are retained by Caltrans: 15% go into the inter-regional road system (rural roads) and 10% become discretionary funds for Caltrans to solve problems around 76 Caltrans—Transportation Funding in California 2007. Chart 4 77 http://inyoltc.org/rtip.html D-28 regional boundary lines.78 The projects supported by this funding comprise the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program. Generally, STIP projects for inter-regional system are state highway projects. STIP funds are not a large part of the funding; usually about $1 billion of the $20 billion per year of project funds are from the STIP.79 4.5 SUMMARY Despite the obvious population and size differences between California and Oregon, the California transportation planning system still provides many characteristics and practices that may be useful to consider in the Oregon’s system. Even though they conduct regional planning and Oregon’s ACTs do not, California’s RTPAs still deal with many of the same cross- jurisdictional issues confronting Oregon. Some of the differences between the systems are discussed below in four categories: coordination, structure, funding, and process. 4.6 COORDINATION The monthly statewide RTPA meetings coordinated by Caltrans and CTC provide a venue for RTPA to RTPA coordination. In addition to negotiations between RTPAs, the primary purpose of the RTPA meeting is to discuss issues on the CTC agenda and other statewide issues; an RTPA representative from this meeting has time allotted during the CTC meeting to present and comment on issues facing RTPAs. In addition to the meeting open to all RTPAs, there is also a Rural Counties Task Force that meets before the CTC meetings that is open to all rural RTPAs. The task force was created as a partnership between CTC and rural counties as a way to ensure rural voices weren’t lost in discussions of statewide transportation issues.80 A representative from this meeting is also given time at the CTC meeting to comment on any pertinent issues facing rural RTPAs. 4.7 STRUCTURE A primary difference between Oregon’s ACTs and California’s RTPAs is the integration of MPOs with RTPAs. In regions with an MPO in Oregon, the MPO is only a smaller area of the larger ACT. In most cases in California, the MPO and RTPA are essentially the same organization and have the same boundaries. Most often, these boundaries also coincide with county boundaries. In California, the MPO and RTPA have the same policy board. If a COG exists, the COG policy board also serves as the MPO and RTPA policy board. This minimizes the number of jurisdictions that the RTPA needs to coordinate with. Put simply, California relies on RTPAs to conduct regional transportation planning. However, to make RTPAs work for the diverse regions and metropolitan areas of the state, California has 78 Informant interview 79 Informant interview 80 http://www.catc.ca.gov/committees/ruralcnty/GENERAL INFORMATION.pdf D-29 allowed diversity in RTPA formulations. The expectations of each RTPA are the same, yet the flexibility lets counties and MPOs adapt the RTPA structure to pre-existing institutions and unique situations to make sure the RTPAs would be successful. Another consequence of having one policy board is that, in some cases, these decision-makers have a broader perspective beyond just transportation. This is because some of these policy boards make decisions regarding land use, housing, economic development, environmental protection and public safety, in addition to transportation. It is not clear, however, whether this leads to a greater integration of issues in the transportation decision-making process. In Oregon, the members of ACT boards often represent other entities dealing with issues beyond transportation, but as a board, they only make transportation decisions for the ACT. 4.8 FUNDING Another important difference between ACTs and RTPAs is the way funding is allocated. In Oregon, ACTs make regional recommendations to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). ACTs do not conduct planning for their regions, but they provide a list of projects to the OTC and the OTC ultimately chooses which projects will be funded. In California, RTPAs create the RTIP and the RTP (although in some cases, the RTPA creates a section of a larger RTP). Senate Bill 45 delegated the authority for transportation funding decisions to RTPAs and according to this bill, the CTC approves or denies the entire plan; it can’t pick and choose projects from an RTPA’s RTIP. However in recent RTIP cycles, the CTC has found ways around this requirement by creating criteria to selectively remove projects from within an RTPA’s RTIP. 4.9 PROCESS Like ACTs, some RTPAs use scoring criteria to create an initial evaluation of the value of projects. San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG’s) uses a rating system to minimize political conflicts between areas. The SANDAG board rates each proposed project based on how many people it will affect, its safety benefits, its effects on other forms of transportation, and other factors. D-30 5.0 LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED California: • Randy Rentschler, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco area) • Rusty Selix, Executive Director, California Association of COGs • Gary Gallegos, Executive Director of San Diego Association of Governments • Pedro Orso-Delgado, Caltrans District 11 Director • Rosemary Ayala, Transportation Program Manager, Southern California Association of Governments • Rachel Moriconi, Senior Transportation Planner, Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission • Garth Hopkins, Acting Chief of the Office of Regional and Interagency Planning, Caltrans • Mike McKeever, Executive Director, Sacramento Area Council of Governments • Courtney Smith, staff to the Inyo County Local Transportation Commission • Tom Andersen, Siskiyou County Transportation Services Manager Washington: • Lynda David, Senior Transportation Planner, Southwest Regional Transportation Council • Nancy Huntley, Project Prioritization Engineer, Program Management Office, WSDOT Highways and Local Programs • Charlie Howard, Transportation Planning Director, Puget Sound Regional Council • Steve Watson, Director, Lewis and Clark Valley MPO • Megan Nicodemus, North Central Region Tribal Coordinator and Tribal Transportation Planning Organization Coordinator • Bill Wiebe, WSDOT Transportation Planning Specialist Iowa: • Shawn Majors, Iowa DOT, Office of Systems Planning • James, Zachary, SEIRPC transportation planner • Stan Peterson, Iowa DOT, Office of Systems Planning APPENDIX E: LITERATURE REVIEW Prepared by: Rich D. Margerum, PhD Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management 1209 University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403 APPENDIX E: LITERATURE REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... E-1 1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................E-1 2.0 COLLABORATION..................................................................................................... E-2 2.1 THE COLLABORATION PROCESS....................................................................................E-2 2.2 HYPOTHESIZED EFFECTS OF COLLABORATION...............................................................E-3 3.0 EVALUATION ELEMENTS ...................................................................................... E-4 4.0 EVALUATION ELEMENTS AND LINKS TO METHODS................................... E-5 4.1 STRUCTURE...................................................................................................................E-5 4.2 COMMITMENT ...............................................................................................................E-5 4.3 PROCESS .......................................................................................................................E-6 4.4 OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES ............................................................................................E-7 5.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. E-9 E-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION To help inform the methods and recommendations for this Oregon ACT study, the research team reviewed the literature from several different fields, including urban planning, transportation, and environmental management. This appendix provides a summary literature review on collaboration, consensus, commitment, and outputs and outcomes. This summary is based on a review of published articles and reports and other documents of experiences from practice. 1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES The objective of this study is to develop and assess options available to ODOT, ACTs and MPOs for improving cross-jurisdictional coordination, which involves the following questions: • What are the most critical cross-jurisdictional issues in Oregon? • What issues are ACTs currently addressing and not addressing? • How are ACTs organized and how do they operate in addressing these issues? • How well are they addressing the roles outlined for them in legislation\? • How has cross-jurisdictional coordination been undertaken in other regions outside Oregon? • What are other approaches and options for addressing cross-jurisdictional issues in Oregon? E-2 2.0 COLLABORATION Over the past several years, the planning and public policy literature has emphasized the value and benefits of collaborative decision making to address complex problems spanning multiple jurisdictions. A collaborative approach to planning and management involves a shared process of decision making in which a range of participants are involved in a extended, face to face process of communication and deliberation (Barbara Gray 1989; Innes 1996; 1999; Innes and Booher 1999a). In practice, collaborative approaches have been used to address regional planning, metropolitan transportation, and social services (Colby and Murrell 1998; Darlington, Feeney, and Rixon 2005; Dempsey, Goetz, and Larson 2000; Helling 1998; Margerum 2005; Mattia 2002; NPCC 2006; Taylor and Schweitzer 2005), but its longest and most extensive use has been in the area of environmental management (Bidwell and Ryan 2006; Bonnell and Koontz 2007; Conley and Moote 2003; Tomas M. Koontz et al. 2004; T. M. Koontz and Thomas 2006; Moore and Koontz 2003; P. A. Sabatier et al. 2005). 2.1 THE COLLABORATION PROCESS Research indicates that when the collaborative process is effective it leads to plans that reflect local conditions, incorporate a wider range of information and perspectives, and garner greater support that carries over into implementation (Burby 2002; Cortner and Moote 1999; Innes 1996; Innes and Booher 1999a; J. M. Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). This literature emphasizes that an effective collaboration process requires involvement from a full range of stakeholders, and an effective, joint problem-solving process that leads to agreement about problems and consensus on actions. For example, an evaluation of sixty comprehensive plans in Florida and Washington by Burby (2002) found that “broad stakeholder involvement contributes to both stronger plans and the implementation of proposals in plans.” Research from the fields of conflict resolution and collaborative decision making have shown that joint problem solving also requires effective stakeholder communication (Ehrmann and Stinson 1999; Innes 1998; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). The principles of this communication process include open sharing of information, agreement on problem definitions, and a process of joint fact finding. The research suggests that these principles are important for several reasons. First, it is important for all participants to develop a common understanding of the information so they can agree on a common problem definition (Bingham 1986; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; Susskind and Weinstein 1980; Wondolleck 1985). This allows all participants to freely communicate in effective and creative ways (Innes and Booher 1999b). Second, clear communication of information is critical, because each person interprets and translates information in different ways, depending upon their expertise and concerns (Innes 1998). In other words, a land use planner will filter information about flood risk through a regulatory lens, while a emergency manager will filter the same information through a vulnerability and risk lens. If the participants find it difficult to understand the base information, E-3 there is little hope they will be able to communicate their issues to the other people, and even less likelihood that others will understand their perspective. Third, an open communication process is important so that all participants can use the same information base (Ehrmann and Stinson 1999). Data collected by different agencies may reveal contradictions, provide complimentary data or reveal data gaps (Ehrmann and Stinson 1999; Innes 1998). Studies by Innes et al. (1994) and Margerum (1995) revealed that observations and information from lay people can supplement scientific data by providing new information or insights that allow scientists to add interpretive meaning. Furthermore, developing a richer data set may assist with interpretation by both experts and lay people (Ehrmann and Stinson 1999). As Innes (1998) notes, “the experts sometimes changed their views, not about the findings, but about their implications” (57). For example, in a collaborative effort in Oxford County, Maine, it was critical for a wide range of stakeholders to share information and understand the data to help develop a better understanding of the different scientific information about the high rates of cancer in the region (Ehrmann and Stinson 1999; McKearnon and Field 1999). 2.2 HYPOTHESIZED EFFECTS OF COLLABORATION The hypothesized effects of consensus-based approaches over voting-based processes can be grouped into three categories. First, researchers assert that consensus produces greater satisfaction with the process, because participants have better opportunities to communicate and develop a better understanding of the information (Bingham 1986; Barbara Gray 1985, and 1989; Innes, 1996; Margerum, 1999, 2002b). Second, researchers contend that participants have greater ownership and commitment to outcomes, which increases the likelihood of implementation (Barbara Gray 1989; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). Third, researchers have found that consensus leads to better outcomes, because the process includes a broader array of information and perspectives that should lead to more creative and integrative solution effectively (Gigone and Hastie 1993; Stasser, Stewart, and Wittenbaum 1995; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; Wondolleck 1985). E-4 3.0 EVALUATION ELEMENTS Table 2.1 lists evaluation elements identified from the literature on collaboration, consensus based decision making, and small group decision making. The table also shows the four relevant data sources: • Key Informant Interviews (K.I. Interv.): a statewide perspective on ACTs and their performance in relation to transportation needs. In most cases these evaluations will not be linked to the performance of an individual ACT. • Survey: evaluation by members and observers of individual ACTs through an on-line survey • Cases: detailed assessment of ACTs and other collaboration structures to help understand more about a group and its performance • Other: documents, annual reports, meeting minutes and other information that can provide supporting evidence Table 2.1: Evaluation elements Element References K.I. Interv. Survey Cases Other Structure: Scope of group and participants in relation to the problems (Alexander 1993; Beierle and Konisky 2000; Barbara Gray 1989; Margerum and Born 2000; Mitchell 1986; Rogers and Whetten 1982; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; Susskind, McKearnon, and Carpenter, 1999) Statewide view on ACT structure vs. problems Evaluate: members and external players ACT views on how well structure works ACT rules Commitment Participants are committed to the group and its decisions (Kingdon 2003; Mazmanian and Sabatier 1983; Ostrom 1990; Sabatier, Jenkins-Smith and Lawlor 1996) Statewide view on ACT commit Evaluate: members and external players Factors that affect ACT commit- ment Process The group operates with good information flow, decision making and agreement (Beierle 2002; Beierle and Konisky 2000; Curtis, Shindler, and Wright 2002; Curtis, Van Nouhuys, Robinson, and Mackay 2000; Gigone and Hastie 1997; Barbara Gray 1989; Innes 1998; Innes and Booher 1999a; Innes, Gruber, Neuman, and Thompson 1994; Julian 1994; Margerum 2002a; Mattessich, Murray-Close, and Monsey 2004; McKearnon and Fairman 1999; Rosenberg and Margerum in press; Schulz, Israel, and Lantz 2003; Selin and Chavez 1995; Selin, Schuett, and Carr 2000; Stasser, Vaughan, and Stewart 2000) n.a. Evaluate ACT process by members Factors affecting ACT effective- ness Meeting minutes, annual reports Outputs/ Outcomes: Achievements in group in relation to mission; quality of products; influence: spin- offs (Frame, Gunton, and Day 2004; Innes 1998; Innes and Booher 1999b; Margerum 2002c; Mattessich et al. 2004; Mazmanian and Sabatier 1983; McKearnon and Fairman 1999; Schulz et al. 2003; Selin et al. 2000) Statewide view on ACT effective- ness Evaluate: members and external players Factors affecting quality of products Document evaluation Key Informant Interviews E-5 4.0 EVALUATION ELEMENTS AND LINKS TO METHODS The sections below link the evaluation elements to specific questions or data sources, including questions for surveys, interviews, and key information interviews. Many of the questions for the draft ACT survey were generated from this literature and have been tested previously. 4.1 STRUCTURE One set of commonly cited factors related to the effectiveness of collaborative groups is scope and structure (Beierle and Konisky 2000; Frame et al. 2004; Gray 1989; Mattessich et al. 2004; Selin et al. 2000). Table 4.1 summarizes the related topics based on the themes from the literature. Because ACTs are established under a statewide framework with an established set of purposes, there is less variation than what would sometimes be found with other types of collaborative groups. However, given limited time and resources, different ACTs likely focus on varying issues. For these structural issues, it will also be important to gain an external perspective on the ACTS and how well they are addressing the most significant issues in the region and the state. Table 4.1: Structure sub-topics and data sources Topic Survey & Key Informant Interviews Case Study & Key Informant Interviews Notes & Other Sources Geographic scope The geographic scope of the ACT is a very good match for the problems facing the region Do issues extend beyond the geographic scope of the ACT? Area covered by ACT Commuter and transportation patterns Issue scope The ACT has accurately targeted the most important issues facing the region. Are there critical issues that the ACT is not addressing that it should be considering? Interests All of the interests that should be included in the ACT are participating Is everyone who should be at the table participating? Charter: Stakeholder lists Mission and Goals The ACT has clear goals and objectives What do you see as the goals of the ACT Charter: Mission defined by ACT Policy guidance The policies and legislation affecting the ACTs activities are clear and consistent Are the policies under which your ACT operates clear or do you have to be resolve differences? Key informant interviews may define the importance of this question. Structure The group is clearly structured and organized Documents: positions, sub- committees 4.2 COMMITMENT One of the important factors associated with the effectiveness of a collaborative group during implementation is the extent to which the participants (and their organizations) are committed to the group. Membership in a group does not necessarily mean that the stakeholders participate, or E-6 for those that participate, if they follow through on issues and actions. A lack of commitment may be due to a range of factors, including: • Low priority by individual or their organization • Other competing issues or topics • Reaction to how the rest of the group operates There has been much less attention paid to the reasons that support or undermine commitment in the collaboration literature. Drawing from a range of sources, there are reasons why a stakeholder may be more or less committed to a group, including the relationship of the issues to the mission, the costs and benefits of participation and the pressures for action (Kingdon 2003; Ostrom 1990; P. A. Sabatier et al. 2005). Commitment is important for several reasons. First, a lack of commitment by certain individuals or organizations can make the process of interaction more difficult and time consuming. Second, lack of commitment can lead to lower quality products, because key perspectives or data are missing. Finally, lack of commitment can reduce the likelihood of implementation success, particularly if a key role of the group is to coordinate activities. Table 4.2 summarizes the commitment sub-topics and data sources. Table 4.2: Commitment sub-topics and data sources Topic Survey & Key Informant Interviews Case Study & Key Informant Interviews Notes & Other Sources Personal commitment I am personally highly committed to the ACT Are there factors that make it easy or hard for you to commit time to the ACT? Attendance Organizational commitment My organization is highly committed to the ACT Does your organization respond well to changes or requests that come out of the ACT? Participation Funding commitments Attendance Commitment of others As a whole the members of the ACT are highly committed to the group Overall attendance Number of meetings Work effort ACT members put considerable effort into the work of the group Number of meetings Substantive overlap The issues that the ACT addresses are highly relevant to the activities of my organization What do you see as the factors that make your organization more or less committed to the ACT and its mission? (such as: overlap with your mission, public attention, political attention, evaluation) Benefits vs costs The benefits of participating in the ACT outweigh the costs How much does your organization benefit from participating in the ACT relative to the cost of participating 4.3 PROCESS The collaboration and conflict resolution literature devotes considerable attention to the importance of process in the effectiveness of a stakeholder group (Beierle and Konisky 2000; Frame et al. 2004; Gray 1989; Innes and Booher 1999a; Mattessich et al. 2004; Ozawa 1991; Ozawa and Ethan 1999; Schulz et al. 2003; Selin et al. 2000; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). This E-7 literature contends that a high quality process with high quality information will lead to better decisions. The principles of collaboration are becoming commonly understood in many professions, but some people are used to more traditional hierarchical approaches to groups (e.g., city councils, formally appointed committees). The survey data provides some indication of the types of processes used by each Oregon ACT, which may be a factor influencing its ability to address some of the issues and problems in its region. Table 4.3: Process sub-topics and data sources Topic Survey & Key Informant Interviews Case Study & Key Informant Interviews Notes & Other Sources Communication People in the group communicate openly with each other Are there ways in which the group’s process could be improved? Meeting minutes High quality information The group has access to high quality information Decision making The process of decision making is clear How does the group deliberate when it faces difficult decisions? ACT rules Consensus The group reaches decisions by consensus ACT rules Conflicts The group has resolved differences and conflicts effectively Can you give an example of a conflict or difference that was resolved effectively or ineffectively? Meeting minutes Creativity The group has produced creative and innovative ideas Running meetings The meetings are effectively run or facilitated Have you found that the meetings are run effectively? Why or why not? Support ODOT provides adequate resources to support the operation of the ACT ODOT funding and staff support information Transitions and turnover (–) Transitions and turnover have limited the effectiveness of the group Management authority The participants in the ACT have sufficient influence over decision making within their organization Strategic thinking The participants in the ACT are effective in thinking strategically 4.4 OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES The literature on collaboration highlights a range of outputs and outcomes of the collaboration effort. Outputs refer to the things that are produced directly by the group, such as a plan, strategy, project or activity. These can be asked about generally and in relation to the specific purposes of the ACT as outlined in legislation. Outcomes refer to the resulting effect on decision making. Outcomes may be direct, relating to on the ground activities (e.g., transportation E-8 improvement project that is better because of the ACT). Outcomes can also be indirect, such as changes in priorities and policies of another organization as a result of the ACTs activities. These indirect outcomes can be very difficult to identify, because people may not always know that their participation in the collaborative has had this effect. One of primary roles of ACTs are its coordination responsibilities. It is important to note that coordination involves several components. First, it requires information exchange to identify common problems and share data. Second, it requires resolution of differences about goals, interpretations of data, or even disputes about the data itself. Third, it requires people and organizations to incorporate the information, share the information internally, and/or make adjustments to their policies, programs or priorities (Alexander 1995; Chisholm 1989; Gray 1989; Gray and Wood 1991; Innes et al. 1994). Table 4.4: Outputs/outcomes sub-topics and data sources Topic Survey & Key Informant Interviews Case Study & Key Informant Interviews Notes & Other Sources ACT roles Questions relating to specific roles defined for ACTs How has the group accomplished its roles? What are some examples of how the ACT has accomplished its roles? Annual reports ODOT data General Performance Overall, the ACT is an effective group. Annual reports Products The ACT has produced high quality products Do you think that the ACT has produced high quality work? Can you give think of specific examples that are typical of the quality of the group’s work? Annual reports Communication The ACT has improved communication among those involved Annual reports Understanding The activities of the ACT has led to improved understanding of issues and problems Influence of organizations The ACT has influenced the decision making of my organization (e.g., priorities, allocation of resources How has the ACT influenced information or decisions within your organization? Influence of organizations The ACT has influenced the decision making of other organizations (e.g., priorities, allocation of resources Secondary effects The ACT has helped produced a better working relationship among the parties involved Annual reports Meeting minutes Spin-off effects As a result of the ACT, new initiatives and spin-off activities has taken place Annual reports Meeting minutes Priorities The ACT is tackling the most important transportation issues in our region Are there things that the ACT is not doing that it should be doing? E-9 5.0 REFERENCES Alexander, E. R. (1993). Interorganizational Coordination: Theory and Practice. Journal of Planning Literature, 7(4), 328-343. Alexander, E. R. (1995). How organizations act together: interorganizational coordination in theory and practice. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Publishers. Beierle, T. C. (2002). The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 739-749. Beierle, T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2000). Values, Conflict, and Trust in Participatory Environmental Planning. Journal of policy analysis and management : [the journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management], 19(4), 16. Bidwell, R. D., & Ryan, C. M. (2006). Collaborative Partnership Design: The Implications of Organizational Affiliation for Watershed Partnerships. Society & Natural Resources, 19(9), 827-843. Bingham, G. (1986). Resolving environmental disputes: A decade of experience. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation. Bonnell, J. E., & Koontz, T. M. (2007). Stumbling forward: the organizational challenges of building and sustaining collaborative watershed management. Society & Natural Resources, 20, 153-167. Burby, R. J. (2002). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(1), 33-49. Chisholm, D. (1989). Coordination Without Hierarchy: Informal Structures in Multiorganizational Systems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Colby, S. M., & Murrell, W. (1998). Child welfare and substance abuse services: from barriers to collaboration. In R. L. Hampton, V. Senatore & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Substance abuse, family violence and child welfare. Bridging perspectives (pp. 188-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Conley, A., & Moote, M. A. (2003). Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 16(3), 317-386. Cortner, H. J., & Moote, M. A. (1999). The politics of ecosystem management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Curtis, A., Shindler, B., & Wright, A. (2002). Sustaining local watershed initiatives: Lessons from Landcare and Watershed Councils. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 38(5), 1207- 1216. Curtis, A., Van Nouhuys, M., Robinson, W., & Mackay, J. (2000). Exploring Landcare effectiveness using organisational theory. Australian Geographer, 31(3), 349-366. Darlington, Y., Feeney, J. A., & Rixon, K. (2005). Interagency collaboration between child protection and mental health services: Practices, attitudes and barriers. Child abuse & neglect, 29(10), 14. E-10 Dempsey, P. S., Goetz, A., & Larson, C. E. (2000). Volume II: Structure and process of transportation planning. In Metropolitan planning organizations: An assessment of the transportation planning process. Denver, CO: University of Denver Intermodal Transportation Institute and The National Center for Intermodal Transportatoin. Ehrmann, J. R., & Stinson, B. L. (1999). Joint fact-finding and the use of technical experts. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnon & S. Carpenter (Eds.), Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement (pp. 375-399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Frame, T. M., Gunton, T., & Day, J. C. (2004). The role of collaboration in environmental management: an evaluation of land and resource planning in British Columbia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(1), 59-82. Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The Common Knowledge Effect: Information Sharing and Group Judgment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(5), 959. Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). The Impact of Information on Small Group Choice. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(1), 9. Gray, B. (1985). Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration. Human Relations, 38(10), 911-936. Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Gray, B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative Alliances: Moving From Practice to Theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3-22. Helling, A. (1998). Collaborative visioning: proceed with caution! Results from evaluating Atlanta's Vision 2020 project. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(3), 335-349. Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new perspective on the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460-472. Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 52-63. Innes, J. E. (1999). Evaluating Consensus Building. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnon & S. Carpenter (Eds.), Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement (pp. 631-675). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999a). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412-423. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999b). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(1), 9-26. Innes, J. E., Gruber, J., Neuman, M., & Thompson, R. (1994). Coordinating growth and environmental management through consensus building. Berkeley, CA: California Policy Seminar. E-11 Julian, D. A. (1994). Planning for Collaborative Neighborhood Problem-Solving: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 9(1), 3-13. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Koontz, T. M., Steelman, T. A., Carmin, J., Korfmacher, K. S., Moseley, C., & Thomas, C. W. (2004). Collaborative environmental management : what roles for government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Koontz, T. M., & Thomas, C. W. (2006). What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review. Margerum, R. D. (1995). Examining the Practice of Integrated Environmental Management: Towards a Conceptual Model. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Margerum, R. D. (1999). Getting Past Yes: From Capital Creation to Action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(2), 181-192. Margerum, R. D. (2002a). Collaborative planning: building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(2), 237-253. Margerum, R. D. (2002b). Evaluating collaborative planning - Implications from an empirical analysis of growth management. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(2), 179-193. Margerum, R. D. (2002c). Evaluating collaborative planning: an empirical analysis of growth management. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(2), 179-193. Margerum, R. D. (2005). Collaborative growth managagement in metropolitan Denver: "Fig leaf or valiant effort?" Land Use Policy, 22(4), 373-386. Margerum, R. D., & Born, S. M. (2000). Co-ordination for environmental management: a framework for analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(1), 5-21. Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. R. (2004). Collaboration: What Makes it Work (2nd Edition ed.). Saint Paul, Minnesota: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. Mattia, M. (2002). Communicative Planning for Neighborhood-based Social Services: A Case Study Evaluation of the City of Eugene Social Service Siting Task Force Process. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. McKearnon, S., & Fairman, D. (1999). Producing Consensus. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnon & S. Carpenter (Eds.), Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement (pp. 325-373). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McKearnon, S., & Field, P. (1999). The Northern Oxford County Coalition. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnon & S. Carpenter (Eds.), Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement (pp. 711-741). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. E-12 Mitchell, B. (1986). The Evolution of Integrated Resource Management. In R. Lang (Ed.), Integrated Approaches to Resource Planning and Management (pp. 13-26). Calgary, Alberta, Canada: The Banff Centre. Moore, E. A., & Koontz, T. M. (2003). A typology of collaborative watershed groups: Citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society & Natural Resources, 16(5), 451-460. NPCC. (2006). Transportation Collaboration in the States (Report prepared by the National Policy Consensus Center for the Federal Highway Administration Office of Project Development and Environmental Review.). Portland, OR: National Policy Consensus Center. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing The Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. Ozawa, C. P. (1991). Recasting Science: Consensual Procedures in Public Policy Making. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Ozawa, C. P., & Ethan, P. S. (1999). Taking our bearings: Mapping a relationship among planning practice, theory, and education. Journal of Planning Literature, 14(2). Rogers, D. L., & Whetten, D. A. (1982). Interorganizational Coordination: Theory, Research and Implementation. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Rosenberg, S., & Margerum, R. D. (in press). Landowner motivations for watershed restoration: lessons from five watersheds. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, (accepted 11/2007). Sabatier, P., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Lawlor, E. F. (1996). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Journal of policy analysis and management : [the journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management], 15(1), 11. Sabatier, P. A., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., & Matlock, M. (2005). Swimming upstream : collaborative approaches to watershed management. Cambridge, Mass: MIT. Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., & Lantz, P. (2003). Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26(3), 249-262. Selin, S., & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management. Environmental Management, 19(2), 189-195. Selin, S., Schuett, M. A., & Carr, D. (2000). Modeling stakeholder perceptions of collaborative initiative effectiveness. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 735-745. Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert Roles and Information Exchange During Discussion - the Importance of Knowing Who Knows What. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(3), 244-265. Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I., & Stewart, D. D. (2000). Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 102-116. E-13 Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books. Susskind, L., McKearnon, S., & Carpenter, S. (1999). Consensus building handbook. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Susskind, L., & Weinstein, A. (1980). Towards a theory of environmental dispute resolution. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 9(2), 311-357. Taylor, B. D., & Schweitzer, L. (2005). Assessing the experience of mandated collaborative inter- jurisdictional transport planning in the United States. Transport Policy, 12(6), 500-511. Wondolleck, J. (1985). The Importance of Process in Resolving Environmental Disputes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 5, 341-356. Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington D.C.: Island Press. APPENDIX F: ACT / MPO DESCRIPTIONS APPENDIX F: ACT / MPO DESCRIPTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................F-1 1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...............................................................................................F-1 1.2 METHODS .....................................................................................................................F-1 2.0 CENTRAL OREGON ACT..........................................................................................F-2 3.0 CASCADES WEST ACT ..............................................................................................F-5 4.0 LOWER JOHN DAY ACT...........................................................................................F-8 5.0 MID-WILLAMETTE VALLEY ACT.......................................................................F-11 6.0 NORTHEAST ACT.....................................................................................................F-14 7.0 NORTHWEST ACT....................................................................................................F-17 8.0 ROGUE VALLEY ACT..............................................................................................F-20 9.0 SOUTH CENTRAL OREGON ACT.........................................................................F-23 10.0 SOUTH EAST ACT.....................................................................................................F-26 11.0 SOUTH WEST ACT....................................................................................................F-29 12.0 LANE COUNTY ..........................................................................................................F-32 13.0 BEND MPO ..................................................................................................................F-35 14.0 EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD MPO................................................................................F-37 15.0 CORVALLIS AREA MPO SUMMARY...................................................................F-40 16.0 JOINT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION............F-42 17.0 ROGUE VALLEY MPO.............................................................................................F-45 18.0 SALEM-KEIZER AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY.......................................F-47 F-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION One element of the study looking at Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs) and cross- jurisdictional and cross-sector collaboration is to summarize Oregon ACTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The work program called for summaries of the 10 ACTs, Lane County, Portland Metro area and all of the Oregon MPOs to describe the geographic extent, membership, structure, priorities and accomplishments, and other key issues. This Appendix presents the ACT and MPO summaries conducted as a part of a larger project analyzing Oregon’s Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs). This appendix includes summary matrices that allow easy comparison of the structure, geography, membership and issues of the ACTs and the MPOs. Note that Hood River County was not examined as part of this study (they are not in any ACT or MPO). 1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The comparative studies address objective 1 of this research project’s objectives: 1. Assess the current role and experience of ACTs and MPOs, and their interactions with each other, in addressing travel-shed, cross-jurisdictional and cross-sector (public- private) issues. 2. Research best practices (including collaborative processes and governance approaches) in Oregon and elsewhere in the nation for effectively bridging jurisdictional and institutional barriers. 3. Develop and assess options (in both policy and process) available to ODOT, ACTs, and MPOs for improving coordination of transportation and land use across jurisdictions, corridors and travel-sheds. The goal of the ACT / MPO summaries was to gather information on organization structure and operations. 1.2 METHODS CPW used both primary and secondary research methods for the comparative studies. The research team used key informant interviews, online research, and document reviews to develop these comparative studies. ACT and MPO websites and links, websites of the regional decision- making bodies, and documents provided by interviewees were particularly helpful in completing the studies. F-2 2.0 CENTRAL OREGON ACT The Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT) consists of Jefferson, Crook and Deschutes Counties (Figure 2.1). This area includes seven cities, Bend MPO, and the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council. Major cities include Bend, Madras, Prineville and Redmond. The area lies within Oregon Department of Transportation Region 4 and Maintenance District 10. Highways 20, 26 and 97 are major thoroughfares within this ACT. Figure 2.1: Map showing Central Oregon ACT COACT’s 14 voting members consist of county commissioners, city officials, stakeholder representatives, a tribal representative and the ODOT area manager. There are 18 non-voting, ex- officio members, including local legislators, congressional aids, the public, the OTC, and representatives from the aviation sector. Staff support for COACT is provided by the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council and funded by ODOT COACT meets bi-monthly. Decisions are made by consensus. In the event a consensus cannot be reached, the decision is based on majority vote and a record is made of all dissenting votes. Attendance by 50% of members constitutes a quorum. The Chair and Vice-Chair facilitate meetings; the positions rotate between the three county representatives. COACT has an F-3 Executive Committee that establishes agendas and meeting dates. The committee consists of three appointed representatives from within the membership and the ODOT Region 4 representative. COACT by-laws allow for the formation of subcommittees when necessary, but no subcommittees currently exist. The City of Bend representative and the Deschutes County representative are members of both COACT and the Bend MPO Policy Board. The organizations primarily coordinate through their shared members. COACT does not commonly coordinate with other ACTs. In a review of January 2006 to December 2007 meeting minutes, COACT discussed transportation programs including the OTIP, STIP, ConnectOregon, TE, Tribal TIP and OTIA. In addition to highway transportation, COACT regularly discussed air, rail and bicycle/pedestrian transportation issues. Tables 2.1-2.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for COACT. Table 2.1: ACT Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 3 Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson Cities 7 Bend, Culver, Madras, Metolious, Prineville, Redmond, Sisters MPOs 1 Bend Other jurisdictions 1 Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council ODOT Region 4; ODOT Maintenance District 10 Table 2.2: Act Composition/Membership Affiliation Status (voting, ex-officio) # of Members County Voting 3 City Voting 7 Private Sector Voting 2 Tribal Representative Voting 1 ODOT Area Manager Voting 1 Local State Legislators Ex-officio 7 Local Congressional Aides Ex-officio 3 Oregon Transportation Commission Ex-officio 5 Aviation Representative Ex-officio 1 Special Transportation Issue Representative Ex-officio 1 Public Representative Ex officio 1 Table 2.3: Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Bi-monthly, 2006-2007; “twice a month” in bylaws Selection of Committee Chair Chair and Vice-Chair positions rotate between the three county representatives Role of Committee Chair Facilitate meetings, ensure adherence to operating guidelines Decision-Making Process Consensus if possible. Otherwise, majority and minority votes recorded if consensus cannot be reached Public Comment Protocol Requested at beginning of meetings Sub-Committees Executive Committee – three appointed representatives from ACT membership and a Region 4 ODOT Representative. Establishes agendas and meeting dates. Meets on alternate months from COACT. COACT can form additional subcommittees if necessary F-4 Table 2.4: Range of Issues (12 meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed ACT to ACT Coordination Information exchange 11/07 Cross attendance No evidence from minutes/report Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing No evidence from minutes/report Joint projects 11/07 ACT and MPO Coordination Information exchange 11/06; 3/06; 5/06; 7/06; 9/06; 11/06; 1/07; 3/07; 5/07; 7/07; 9/07; 11/8/07 Cross attendance 11/06; 3/06; 5/06; 7/06; 9/06; 11/06; 1/07; 3/07; 5/07; 7/07; 9/07; 11/8/07 Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing 7/07 Joint projects No evidence from minutes/report Transportation Programs Discussed OTP: 1/06 STIP: 3/06; 5/06; 11/06; 7/07; 9/07; 11/07 Connect Oregon: 5/06; 7/06; 9/06; 3/8/07; 5/10/07; 7/07; 11/07 TE: 7/06; 11/06; 11/07 Tribal TIP: 9/06 OTIA: 11/07 Other Transportation Modes Discussed Air: 5/06; 7/06; 5/07; Bike/Ped: 7/06; 1/07 Rail: 5/06; 7/06; 9/06; 1/07; 3/8/07; 5/07; 9/13/07 Public Comment 5/06; 9/06; 3/07; 11/07 F-5 3.0 CASCADES WEST ACT The Cascades West Area Commission on Transportation (CWACT) consists of Benton, Linn, and Lincoln Counties in western Oregon (Figure 3.1). It includes 26 cities, Corvallis Area MPO, and four transit districts. Major cities include Corvallis, Albany, Lebanon, Newport, and Lincoln City. The CWACT is part of the Oregon Department of Transportation Region 2 and Maintenance District 4. Major thoroughfares within this ACT include Interstate 5 and Highways 101 and 20. Figure 3.1: Map showing Cascades West ACT There are currently 27 voting members of CWACT. All counties, cities, tribes, ports and transit districts within the CWACT boundaries are allowed a voting member and alternate. About 60% of the organizations who are offered voting membership in the CWACT By-Laws currently participate in the ACT. Ex-officio members include legislative and policy representatives, alternative transportation modes representatives, regional advocacy and special interest groups, neighboring ACTs and the executive director of the Corvallis Area MPO. Staff support for the CWACT comes from the CWCOG and is funded by ODOT. F-6 The CWACT meets bi-monthly. Decisions are made on a consensus basis whenever possible, otherwise it uses 75% majority rule. The Chair of the CWCOG appoints the Chair and Chair- Elect of CWACT. The CWACT has two subcommittees: the Executive Committee is made up of the Chair and Chair-Elect, a county commissioner from each county, one additional member from each county, and the ODOT area manager. The Executive Committee determines agendas and meeting dates. It also holds decision-making authority between ACT meeting dates, but is encouraged to reserve major decisions for ACT meetings. The Technical Committee has 16 public sector members and is chaired by an ex-officio member of CWACT. The Technical Committee provides CWACT with additional information on transportation projects and ranks and prioritizes projects. The Rail Task Force has nine members and coordinates efforts to improve rail investments in the region. The CWACT shares county and city members with the Corvallis MPO Policy Board and Technical Advisory Committee. In a review of January 2006 to December 2007 meeting minutes, CWACT members frequently discussed the State Transportation Improvement Program, the ConnectOregon program, and rail transportation systems. Tables 3.1-3.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for CWACT. Table 3.1: ACT Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 3 Benton, Linn, and Lincoln Cities 26 MPOs 1 Corvallis Area MPO Port Authorities 2 Port of Toledo, Port of Newport Transit Districts 4 Corvallis Transit System, Albany Transit System, Linn-Benton Loop Bus, Lincoln County Transit District Other jurisdictions N/A ODOT Region 2; ODOT Maintenance District 4 Table 3.2: Act Composition/Membership Affiliation Status (voting, ex-officio) # of Members County Voting 3 City Voting 17 Private Sector Voting 3 Tribal Government Voting 1 ODOT Voting 1 Port Authority Voting 2 County Alternate 3 City Alternate 16 Tribal Government Alternate 1 Port Authority Alternate 2 County Ex-officio 2 City Ex-officio 13 ODOT Ex-officio 4 ODOT Districts Ex-officio 11 CAMPO Ex-officio 1 CWCOG Ex-officio 4 Other Public Agency Ex-officio 2 CWCOG Staff 3 F-7 Table 3.3: Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Bi-monthly Selection of Committee Chair Chair and chair-elect are appointed by the chair of Cascades West COG. Part of a six member Executive Committee Role of Committee Chair Preside at all CWACT meetings, serve as an ex-officio member of all committees, appoint chairs of all committees. Holds decision-making authority for the ACT between meetings Decision-Making Process Consensus if possible; otherwise, 75% majority. Public Comment Protocol Requested at beginning of meetings Sub-committees Executive Committee made up of Chair and Chair-elect, a county commissioner from each county, one additional member from each county, and the ODOT area manager. Technical Committee performs project evaluation. 16 public sector members. Chaired by an ex-officio member. Table 3.4: Range of Issues (7 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed ACT to ACT Coordination Information exchange No evidence from minutes/report Cross attendance No evidence from minutes/report Joint meetings 9/07: Chair’s report on meeting with Region 2 staff and ACTs and Lane County. Data sharing No evidence from minutes/report Joint projects 1/07: SuperACT in Connect Oregon II recap ACT and MPO Coordination Information exchange 1/07: CAMPO Cross attendance 1/07, 3/07, 5/07, 7/07, 9/07, 11/07, 1/08: CAMPO Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing No evidence from minutes/report Joint projects 5/07: CAMPO Transportation Programs Discussed STIP: 3/07, 5/07, 7/07, 9/07, 11/07, 1/08 Connect Oregon II: 1/07, 5/07, 7/07, 11/07, 1/08 Other Transportation Modes Discussed Rail: 1/07, 3/07 Public Comment Local Projects: 5/07 F-8 4.0 LOWER JOHN DAY ACT The Lower John Day Area Commission on Transportation (LJDACT) consists of Gilliam, Sherman, Wheeler, and Wasco Counties in northern Oregon (Figure 4.1). LJDACT includes 16 cities and three transit districts. The Dalles is the major city in the area. LJDACT is part of ODOT’s Region 4 and Maintenance District 9. Major travel corridors include Highways 26, 197, and Interstate 84. Figure 4.1: Map showing Lower John Day ACT F-9 The 14 voting members of LJDACT are made up of representatives from county and city governments, the private sector, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and one ODOT area manager. Ex-officio members include representatives of legislature, ports, public works, adjacent ACTs, and Regional Community Solutions Team members. Staff support for LJDACT is funded by ODOT and provided by the Lower John Day Regional Partnership and Gilliam County. The LJDACT meets bimonthly. Decisions are made by consensus, which the ACT is always able to obtain. The LJDACT's steering committee is made up of the ODOT Area Manager and ACT Chair they guide the agendas and work program of the LJDACT. LJDACT members also fulfill the responsibilities of the Lower John Day Regional Partnership, an economic, environmental, and community development council that is a member of the Greater Eastern Oregon Development Corporation. This additional authority helps ACT members coordinate transportation and land use decisions in the region. Regional Partnership meetings are held separately from ACT meetings. The LJDACT does not commonly coordinate with other ACTs or MPOs. In a review of January 2006 to December 2007 meeting minutes, members frequently discussed the Transportation Enhancement Program, State Transportation Improvement Program and the ConnectOregon programs. Tables 4.1-4.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for LJDACT. Table 4.1: ACT Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 4 Gilliam, Sherman, Wheeler, and Wasco Cities 16 MPOs 0 Port Authorities 2 Port of The Dalles, Port of Arlington Transit Districts 3 Sherman County Bus Service, Wheeler County Community Transportation, The Link (Mid-Columbia Council of Governments Transportation Network) Tribes 1 Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Other jurisdictions N/A ODOT Region 4; ODOT Maintenance District 9 Table 4.2: Act Composition/Membership Affiliation Status (voting, ex-officio) # of Members County Voting 4 City Voting 4 Private Sector Voting 4 Tribal Government Voting 1 ODOT Voting 1 County Ex-officio 4+ OTC Ex-officio 2+ State level Ex-officio 2+ Adjoining ACTs Ex-officio 2+ Community Solutions Team Ex-officio 2+ Ports Ex-officio 4 F-10 Table 4.3: Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Approximately every two months. Selection of Committee Chair The Chair of the Lower John Day Regional Partnership is also the chair of the LJDACT. Role of Committee Chair Facilitate meeting. Decision-Making Process Consensus. Public Comment Protocol Meetings include time for public comment. Sub-committees Steering committee Table 4.4: Range of Issues (7 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed ACT to ACT Coordination No evidence from minutes/report Information exchange No evidence from minutes/report Cross attendance No evidence from minutes/report Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing No evidence from minutes/report Joint projects No evidence from minutes/report ACT and MPO Coordination No evidence from minutes/report Information exchange No evidence from minutes/report Cross attendance No evidence from minutes/report Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing No evidence from minutes/report Joint projects No evidence from minutes/report Transportation Programs Discussed TEP: 2/06, 3/06, 2/07, 4/07 STIP: 2/06, 7/06, 9/06, 11/06, 2/07, 4/07 Connect Oregon: 2/06, 3/06, 7/06, 9/06, 11/06, 2/07, 4/07 Connect Oregon II: 4/07 Other Transportation Modes Discussed No evidence from minutes/report Public Comment No evidence from minutes/report F-11 5.0 MID-WILLAMETTE VALLEY ACT The Mid-Willamette Valley Area Commission on Transportation (MWACT) includes Marion, Polk, and Yamhill Counties (Figure 5.1). MWACT includes 36 cities, the Salem-Keizer MPO - Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS), and two transit districts. Major cities in this area include Salem, Keizer, McMinnville, Woodburn and Dallas. MWACT is part of Oregon Department of Transportation Region 2 and Maintenance District 3. Major travel corridors include highways 99, 18, 22, and Interstate 5. Figure 5.1: Map showing Mid-Willamette Valley ACT MWACT has 17 voting members. The membership includes representatives of counties, cities, highway corridors, transit districts, the private sector and the ODOT area manager. All members of SKATS except the Salem School District 24J are included in the MWACT membership. Salem and Keizer are the only two cities that have city representatives. The other cities are categorized into five regional highway corridors and one person represents the entire corridor. The ex-officio membership consists of state legislators, members of neighboring ACTs, and the transportation programming body for the Portland Metro region – the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT). Staffing for MWACT is provided by Mid-Willamette Valley COG and ODOT Region 2. F-12 MWACT meets monthly. The members use a consensus based decision making process, but has voting protocol in place for when consensus cannot be reached. Members last voted in September 2005. The Steering Committee establishes agendas and work programs. It consists of the current Chair, Vice-Chair, ODOT Representative, the immediate past MWACT Chair, and one or more appointed commission members. Currently, six MWACT members serve on the Steering Committee. The Mid-Willamette Technical Advisory Committee consists of ODOT staff and meets as needed to prepares technical information for the ACT. SKATS MPO members attended every MWACT meeting. JPACT does not send ex-officio representatives to MWACT meetings. In a review of January 2006 to December 2007 meeting minutes, MWACT discussed the State Transportation Improvement Program at every meeting. Members also discussed the ConnectOregon program regularly. The ACT occasionally received comment from the public, legislative representatives and the OTC. MWACT coordinated with the other Region 2 ACTs in regional STIP project prioritization. Tables 5.1-5.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for MWACT. Table 5.1: MWACT Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 3 Marion, Polk, Yamhill Cities 36 MPOs 1 Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study Tribes 1 The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Transit Districts 2 Salem-Keizer Transit, Yamhill County Transit District Other jurisdictions N/A ODOT Region 2; ODOT Maintenance District 3 Table 5.2: MWACT Composition and Membership (17 Voting members) Affiliation Status (voting, ex-officio) # of Members County Voting 3 Cities Voting 2 Corridors Voting 5 Private Sector Voting 3 Transit District Voting 2 Tribal Council Voting 1 ODOT Voting 1 State Legislators representing Marion-Polk-Yamhill counties Ex-officio N/A Neighboring ACTs Ex-officio N/A Metro Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation Ex-officio N/A F-13 Table 5.3: MWACT Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Monthly Selection of Committee Chair Elected annually from within membership. Role of Committee Chair Work with steering committee to set 6 month agenda for MWACT. Chair serves in Steering Committee after term is complete Decision-Making Process Consensus is most desirable. Voting protocol is also in place Public Comment Protocol Involve target audiences throughout STIP process. Comments received in meetings. Sub-committees Six MWACT members serve on the Steering Committee that develops work programs and agendas Technical Advisory Committees The Mid-Willamette Technical Advisory Committee (MWTAC) consists of ODOT staff who prepare recommendations for the ACT members Table 5.4: Range of Issues (21 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed ACT to ACT Coordination Information exchange 6/06 Cross attendance No evidence from minutes/report Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing No evidence from minutes/report Joint projects No evidence from minutes/report ACT and MPO Coordination Information exchange 2/06, 8/06, 2/07 Cross attendance All meetings Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing 2/06, 8/06 Joint projects No evidence from minutes/report Transportation Programs Discussed STIP: All meetings ConnectOregon: 1/06, 2/06, 4/06, 5/06, 8/06, 9/06, 12/06, 8/07, 9/07, 12/07 OTIA: 2/06, 8/06, 9/06 TE: 1/06, 2/06, 11/07 Other Transportation Modes Discussed – Air: 12/06 Bicycle/Pedestrian: 1/06 Rail: 12/06, 5/07, 6/07 Public Comment 9/06, 11/06 F-14 6.0 NORTHEAST ACT The Northeast Area Commission on Transportation (NEACT) includes Morrow, Baker, Union, Umatilla and Wallowa counties in northeast Oregon (Figure 6.1). There are 37 cities and one tribal confederation within NEACT. Major cities in the area include Hermiston, Pendleton and La Grande. MWACT is in Oregon Department of Transportation Region 5 and Maintenance Districts 12, 13 and 14. Major travel corridors include Highway 395 and Interstates 84 and 82. Figure 6.1: Map showing Northeast ACT There are 18 voting members in the NEACT. Voting members represent counties, cities, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and ODOT. Ex-officio members serve as advisors to the voting members of NEACT and represent adjacent ACTs, the OTC, the Oregon Department of Aviation, North East Region Community Solutions Team, the state legislature, and regional groups that have an interest in transportation issues. ODOT provides staff support. NEACT meets bimonthly and strives for consensus when making decisions. If consensus cannot be reached, the ACT uses majority rule and records the circumstances of the vote in meeting minutes. Two chairs are elected from the full body of NEACT members. NEACT by-laws allow F-15 for the formation of subcommittees. The Scenic Byways Subcommittee helps area roads receive scenic byway designation. NEACT forms a “SuperACT” with Southeast ACT to discuss project prioritization for ConnectOregon. It does not commonly coordinate with other ACTs or MPOs. In a review of January 2006 to December 2007 meeting minutes, NEACT frequently discussed the STIP, ConnectOregon programming, and the work of its Scenic Byways Subcommittee. NEACT also spent a significant amount of meeting time building members perspective on transportation issues at the regional, state and federal level. Tables 6.1-6.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for NEACT. Table 6.1: ACT Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 5 Morrow, Baker, Union, Umatilla, and Wallowa Cities 37 MPOs 0 Port Authorities 0 Transit Districts 0 Other jurisdictions 1 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation ODOT Region 5; ODOT Maintenance District 13 and partially 14 Table 6.2: Act Composition/Membership Affiliation Status (voting, ex-officio) # of Members County Voting 5 City Voting 5 At-Large Voting 5 Tribal Government Voting 2 ODOT Voting 1 Adjacent ACTs Ex-officio 2 OTC Ex-officio 1 Department of Aviation Ex-officio 1 Northeast Area Community Solutions Team Ex-officio 1 State legislators Ex-officio Based on representative districts Local Congressional aids Ex-officio Based on congressional district boundaries County Roads and Planning Departments Ex-officio 10 Others with interests in transportation Ex-officio No stated limit F-16 Table 6.3: Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Quarterly Selection of Committee Chair 2 chairs elected by ACT members Role of Committee Chair Initiate meeting. Facilitate meeting. Create agenda. Decision-Making Process Consensus if possible. Otherwise, the members vote and report why consensus was not possible. Public Comment Protocol At any time Sub-committees Scenic Byways committee - Members of committee are not all full ACT members. Committee facilitates the process of scenic byway designation Table 6.4: Range of Issues (12 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed ACT to ACT Coordination Information exchange No evidence Cross attendance No evidence Joint meetings Region 5 SUPERACT 05/06, 08/06 Data sharing No evidence Joint projects No evidence ACT and MPO Coordination Information exchange NA Cross attendance NA Joint meetings NA Data sharing NA Joint projects NA Transportation Programs Discussed Byways Committee report 01/08, 11/07, 08/07, 06/07, 04/07, 02/07, 11/06, 10/06, 05/06, 04/06, 03/06, 02/06 STIP 01/08, 11/07, 08/07, 04/07, 02/07, 11/06, 05/06, 04/06, 03/06, 02/06 Connect Oregon 01/08, 11/07, 08/07, 06/07, 02/07, 11/06, 05/06, 04/06, 02/06 Transportation enhancement program 11/07, 02/07, 11/06, 05/06 Other Transportation Modes Discussed Rail 02/07 Public Comment 04/06, 08/06, 11/07 F-17 7.0 NORTHWEST ACT Northwest Area Commission on Transportation (NEACT) includes Clatsop, Tillamook, Columbia and the western portion of Washington counties (Figure 7.1). The area includes 20 cities, five Port Authorities and three Transit districts. Major cities in the area include Astoria, Seaside and Tillamook. NWACT is a part of Oregon Department of Transportation Region 1 and 2 and ODOT Maintenance Districts 1, 2A and 3. Major highways in the region are 101, 26 and 30. Figure 7.1: Map showing Northwest ACT NWACT’s 24 voting members are comprised of county officials, city officials, transit district representatives, port representatives, ODOT managers and citizens-at-large. NWACT By-Laws grant ex-officio membership to adjacent ACTs and MPOs, the cities of Cornelius and Forest Grove, Clatsop-Nehalem Tribe, Congressional delegates, economic development councils, legislators and the Northwest Oregon Regional Partnership. ODOT contracts staffing for NWACT to the NW Oregon Regional Partnership, NW Oregon Economic Alliance, and Col-Pac EDD. F-18 NWACT meets bi-monthly. Consensus is the preferred decision making method, but majority rule is used if consensus cannot be reached. The chair and vice-chair of the NWACT are elected for one year terms. The Chair facilitates NWACT meetings. The Chair, two Vice Chairs and ODOT managers comprise the NWACT steering committee, which creates agendas and work plans for the ACT meetings. NWACT does not frequently coordinate with MPOs. NWACT borders the Cascades-West ACT and the Mid-Willamette Valley ACT and shares information with them. The planning programs NWACT addressed in 2006 and 2007 include: STIP, TE, OTIA, ConnectOregon, STF, IOF, High Risk Rural Roads, Small City Incentive Fund and the Ford Family Foundation Fund. NWACT also discussed other modes of transportation including air, rail, bicycle/pedestrian and marine. Tables 7.1-7.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for NWACT. Table 7.1: NWACT Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 4 Clatsop County; Columbia County; Tillamook County; Washington County Cities 20 Astoria; Banks; Bay City; Cannon Beach; Columbia City; Clatskanie; Garibaldi; Gaston; Gearhart; Manzanita; Nehalem; North Plains; Rainier; Rockaway Beach; Scappoose; Seaside; St Helens; Tillamook; Vernonia; Wheeler MPOs 0 NA Port Authorities 5 Astoria; Garibaldi; Nehalem; St Helens; Tillamook Bay Transit Districts 3 Columbia County; Sunset Empire; Tillamook County ODOT Region 1 and 2; ODOT Maintenance District 1 and partially 2A and 3 Table 7.2: Act Composition/Membership Affiliation Status (voting, ex-officio) # of Members County Voting 4 City Voting 4 Transit District Voting 3 Port Members Voting 3 ODOT Voting 2 Citizen -at-large Voting 8 Adjacent ACTs and MPOs Ex-Officio Cities of Cornelius and Forest Grove Ex-Officio Clatsop-Nehalem Tribe Ex-Officio Congressional delegates Ex-Officio Economic development councils Ex-Officio Legislators Ex-Officio NW Oregon Regional Partnership Ex-Officio Oregon Transportation Commissioners Ex-Officio Ex-Officio Members are not enumerated in NWACT Bylaws Table 7.3: Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Quarterly Selection of Committee Chair Chair, Vice Chair and 2nd Vice Chair elected from membership for 1 year terms Role of Committee Chair Facilitate meetings and create agendas. Serve on Steering Committee with 2 ODOT representatives Decision-Making Process Consensus, then by a majority vote if consensus cannot be reached Public Comment Protocol Requested at the beginning of meetings Sub-committees The Chair, two Vice Chairs and ODOT managers comprise the steering committee, which creates agendas and work plans for the ACT meetings F-19 Table 7.4: Range of Issues (12 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed ACT to ACT Coordination Information exchange 3/7/06; 5/3/07 Cross attendance No evidence from minutes/report Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing 3/7/06; 5/3/07 Joint projects No evidence from minutes/report ACT and MPO Coordination Information exchange NA Cross attendance NA Joint meetings NA Data sharing NA Joint projects NA Transportation Programs Discussed STIP: 3/06; 5/06; 7/06; 9/06; 11/06; 1/07; 5/07; 7/07; 11/07 TE: 3/06; 7/06; 11/06; 7/07 OTIA: 9/06; 5/07 Connect Oregon: 3/06; 6/06; 11/06; 1/07; 5/07; 7//07; 9/07; 11/07 STF: 1/07 IOF: 5/07 High Risk Rural Roads 7/06 Small City Incentive Fund 11/06 Ford Family Foundation: 7/07 Other Transportation Modes Discussed Air: 3/06; 5/06; Bike/Ped: 3/06; 7/06; 11/06; 1/07 Rail: 3/06; 5/06; 9/06; 11/06; 1/07 Marine: 3/06; 5/06 Public Comment 11/06 F-20 8.0 ROGUE VALLEY ACT The Rogue Valley Area Commission on Transportation (RVACT) includes Jackson and Josephine counties in southwest Oregon (Figure 8.1). There are 13 cities, one transportation district and the Rogue Valley MPO within RVACT boundaries. Major cities in the area are Grants Pass, Medford and Ashland. RVACT lies within Oregon Department of Transportation Region 3 and Maintenance District 8. Interstate 5 and Highway 199 are major roads in the area. Figure 8.1: Map showing Rouge Valley ACT The 26 RVACT voting members include county, city, transit district, private sector and Rogue Valley MPO representatives. Ex-officio membership includes the OTC, legislative representatives, Economic Revitalization Team members, and regional groups with an interest in transportation issues. ODOT and RVCOG share staffing responsibilities for RVACT and its technical advisory committee. RVACT meets bi-monthly. Consensus is the preferred decision making method. If consensus cannot be reached, the decision is made by a majority vote. At any time, a member can call for a decision to require a 2/3 majority. Two co-chairs, one from Jackson County and one from F-21 Josephine County are elected by the voting body for one-year terms. The Jackson/Josephine Technical Advisory Committee facilitates the STIP project selection process. RVACT has collaborated on port and freight issues with the South Central Oregon ACT. There is cross attendance from members of the Rogue Valley MPO at all RVACT meetings. RVACT and Rogue Valley MPO coordinate on project prioritization within the region. In 2006 and 2007, RVACT discussed STIP programming at every meeting and discussed ConnectOregon and Transportation Enhancement programs frequently. Tables 8.1-8.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for RVACT. Table 8.1: RVACT Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 2 Jackson, Josephine Cities 13 MPOs 1 RVMPO (Medford, OR) Port Authorities 0 Transit Districts 1 RV Transportation Dist. (Medford, OR) Other jurisdictions 0 ODOT Region 3; ODOT Maintenance District 8 Table 8.2: RVACT Composition and Membership Affiliation Status (voting, ex-officio) # of Members County Voting 2 City Voting 13 Private Sector Voting 7 MPO Voting 1 Transit District Voting 1 ODOT Voting 1 OTC Ex-officio 1 State Legislators Ex-officio N/A Local Congressional Aides Ex-officio N/A Governor’s Economic Revitalization Team Ex-officio N/A City or County road districts Ex-officio N/A Citizen groups Ex-officio N/A Table 8.3: RVACT Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Every other month Selection of Committee Chair 2 chairs, 1 each from Josephine County and Jackson County, elected by ACT members to 2-year terms Role of Committee Chair Facilitate meeting. Create agenda. Decision-Making Process Consensus is preferred When voting, 50% + 1 is mandatory to pass a decision. Anyone can ask for 2/3 Majority Public Comment Protocol 5 minutes per person at the beginning of every meeting Sub-committees Jackson/Josephine Technical Advisory Committee (JJTC) provides assistance when needed F-22 Table 8.4: Range of Issues (7 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed ACT to ACT Coordination Information exchange 1/06, 3/07, 7/07 Cross attendance No evidence from minutes/report Joint meetings 1/06, 3/07, 7/07 Data sharing 1/06, 3/07, 7/07 Joint projects 3/07, 7/07 ACT and MPO Coordination Information exchange 3/06, 3/07, 12/07 Cross attendance All meetings Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing 3/06, 12/07 Joint projects 3/06 Transportation Programs Discussed STIP: All meetings ConnectOregon: 1/06, 3/06, 7/07 Transportation Enhancement: 3/06, 11/06, 1/07, 7/07 Scenic Byways: 1/07 OTIA: 1/07, 7/07 Other Transportation Modes Discussed Air: 3/06 Marine: 3/07, 7/07 Bicycle/Pedestrian: 11/06, 3/07 Rail: 1/06, 3/07, 7/07 Public Comment 11/06, 7/07 F-23 9.0 SOUTH CENTRAL OREGON ACT South Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (SCOACT) includes Lake and Klamath Counties in southern Oregon (Figure 9.1). The area includes seven cities and one transit district. Klamath Falls is the major city. SCOACT is in Oregon Department of Transportation Region 4 and Maintenance Districts 10 and 11. Highways 20, 37, 97, 140, and 395 are major roadways through the region. Figure 9.1: Map showing South Central ACT SCOACT membership consists of 26 voting members. The voting membership includes representatives of counties, cities, the Klamath Tribe, Basin Transit district, regional economic development agencies, the state legislature, the private sector, employment agencies, higher education, and an ODOT Area Manager. SCOACT ex-officio membership includes neighboring ACTs, the OTC, state and federal agencies, and representatives from California and Nevada. ODOT shares SCOACT staffing responsibilities with the administrator of the South Central Oregon Regional Partnership. SCOACT meets monthly in conjunction with the South Central Oregon Regional Partnership. SCOACT makes decisions by majority rule. A quorum consists of two officers and three other F-24 members. The chair and vice-chair of SCOACT are county commissioners. The positions rotate between the counties every two years. SCOACT sub-committee meetings are held on a monthly basis. SCOACT’s executive committee consists of 9 members from the full ACT board. The executive committee oversees and manages SCOACT’s business and holds decision making authority for the ACT between regular meeting dates. It also has the power to enter into agreements and to appoint special committees to for the ACT. SCOACT has a six member technical advisory committee. The SCOACT chair has made personal contacts with adjoining ACT chairs to discuss common issues with transportation corridors. The SCOACT chair meets with the Central Oregon ACT chair and the Lower John Day ACT chair on an annual basis to discuss project selection and other transportation policy issues. Transportation programs SCOACT discussed in 2006 and 2007 include the STIP, ConnectOregon, and Safe Routes to Schools. In addition to highway transportation, SCOACT regularly discussed air, port, rail and bicycle/pedestrian transportation issues. Tables 9.1-9.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for SCOACT. Table 9.1: ACT Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 2 Klamath, Lake Cities 7 Klamath Falls, Bonanza, Chiloquin, Malin, Merrill, Lakeview, Paisley MPOs 0 Port Authorities 0 Transit Districts 1 Basin Transit Other jurisdictions NA ODOT Region 4; ODOT Maintenance District 10 and partially 11 Table 9.2: Act Composition/Membership Affiliation Status (voting, ex-officio) # of Members County Voting 6 City Voting 7 Private Sector Voting 2 Tribal Government Voting 1 ODOT Voting 1 Other Voting 16 OTC Ex-officio COACT Ex-officio RVACT Ex-officio Dept. of Aviation Ex-officio State & Federal Agencies Ex-officio California Ex-officio Nevada Ex-officio Ex-officio members are not enumerated in SCOACT By-laws F-25 Table 9.3: Operating Procedures for Executive Committee Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency ACT members meet once every two months, ACT sub-committee meets once a month Selection of Committee Chair Chair and Vice Chair; one County Commissioner from each County rotating between positions every two years Role of Committee Chair General supervision and control over all the business and affairs of the ACT, including staff. Convene and preside at meetings of the Board of Commissioners and Executive Committee and to see to it that all orders and resolutions of these bodies are carried into effect. Vice Chair presides over meeting when the Chair is absent. Decision-Making Process Majority Rules (TAC is consensus) Public Comment Protocol Public comment can be taken at anytime during the ACT meeting Sub-committees Executive Committee has 9 members (all are voting SCOACT members). TAC has 6 members that are not a part of the regular SCOACT member body except for the ODOT area manager. Table 9.4: Range of Issues (9 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed ACT to ACT Coordination Information exchange SCOACT sends meeting agendas and minutes to adjacent ACTs (Biennial Report) Cross attendance COACT and RVACT are both represented as non-voting ex officio members (Biennial Report) Joint meetings SCOACT chair meets with COACT chair and LJDACT chair on an annual basis to discuss project selection and transportation policy issues (Biennial Report) Data sharing SuperACT mentioned (6/06) Joint projects No evidence from minutes/report ACT and MPO Coordination Information exchange NA Cross attendance NA Joint meetings NA Data sharing NA Joint projects NA Transportation Programs Discussed STIP: 11/07; 9/07; 7/07; 5/07; 3/07;1/07; 6/06; 10/06; Connect Oregon II: 07/07; 5/07; 4/06; 6/06; 10/06; Safe Routes to Schools: 03/07; 1/07 Other Transportation Modes Discussed Air: 4/06; 6/06 Bike/Ped: 7/07; 3/07; 1/07; 6/06 Rail: 9/07; 5/07; 4/06 Marine: 9/07; 7/07 Public Comment 09/07, 7/07 F-26 10.0 SOUTH EAST ACT The South East Area Commission on Transportation (SEACT) is comprised of Grant, Harney, and Malheur Counties in southeastern Oregon (Figure 10.1). The area includes 17 cities and two transit districts. Burns is the major city. SEACT is part of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Region 5 and Maintenance District 14. Highways 20, 26, 95 and 395 are the major regional roadways. Figure 10.1: Map showing South East ACT F-27 Total voting membership of SEACT is 19 members, made up of representatives from counties, cities, the private sector, tribal government and one ODOT staff member. Ex-officio members include county representatives, Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) and other state-level members, members of adjoining ACTs, and regional organization representatives. The ODOT Region 5 Area Manager and the Greater Eastern Oregon Development Corporation provide staffing. The SEACT meets monthly, in conjunction with the Southeast Regional Alliance. Decisions are made by consensus. The chair and vice chair of the SEACT are elected annually. SEACT’s by- laws allow for the formation of subcommittees when necessary, but no subcommittees currently exist. SEACT meetings are open to the public but public comment is rare. SEACT coordinates with the Northeast ACT through the ConnectOregon program. In 2006 and 2007, the SEACT frequently discussed the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the ConnectOregon programs, the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD), the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA), and the Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP). Tables 10.1-10.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for SEACT. Table 10.1: ACT Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 3 Grant, Harney, and Malheur Cities 17 MPOs 0 Transit Districts 2 Malheur County Transportation Services, Grant County Transportation District Other jurisdictions N/A ODOT Region 5; ODOT Maintenance District 14 Table 10.2: Act Composition/Membership Affiliation Status (voting, ex-officio) # of Members County Voting 11 City Voting 3 Private Sector Voting 3 Tribal Government Voting 1 ODOT Voting 1 County Ex-officio 3 Regional Ex-officio 3+ OTC Ex-officio 1 Other state-level Ex-officio 4 F-28 Table 10.3: Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Monthly, in conjunction with the Southeast Regional Alliance. Selection of Committee Chair Chair and vice-chair are elected annually. Role of Committee Chair May call special meetings, help guide the monthly work of the SEACT. Decision-Making Process Consensus. Public Comment Protocol May be taken at any time during meeting. Sub-committees None. Table 10.4: Range of Issues (9 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed ACT to ACT Coordination Information exchange Four adjacent ACTs receive agendas and minutes for each meeting. Cross attendance No evidence from minutes/report Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing No evidence from minutes/report Joint projects No evidence from minutes/report ACT and MPO Coordination Information exchange No evidence from minutes/report Cross attendance No evidence from minutes/report Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing No evidence from minutes/report Joint projects No evidence from minutes/report Transportation Programs Discussed ConnectOregon: 6/07, 8/07, 9/07, 10/07, 11/07 ConnectOregon II: 1/07, 2/07, 3/07, 4/07, 6/07 OECDD: 9/07 OTIA: 1/07, 2/07, 3/07, 8/07 STIP: 1/07, 2/07, 307, 11/07 TEP: 10/07 Other Transportation Modes Discussed Air: 9/07 Rail: 9/07, 11/07 Bike/Ped: 8/07, 10/07 Public Comment No evidence from minutes/report F-29 11.0 SOUTH WEST ACT The South West Area Commission on Transportation (SWACT) boundaries include Coos, Curry, and Douglas Counties (Figure 11.1). There are 22 cities, four port authorities and two transit districts in this area. Coos Bay and Roseburg are the major cities. SWACT is in Oregon Department of Transportation Region 3 and Maintenance District 7. Major roadways in the region are Interstate 5 and Highways 38, 42 and 101. Figure 11.1: Map showing South West ACT SWACT has 40 members who are organized into three subgroups. Each subgroup is representative of a specific transportation corridor. There is the I-5 Corridor Group, the Highway 38/42 group, and the Highway 101 South Group. Subgroups consist of one Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Area Manager, representatives from incorporated cities, tribal members, transit district, port members and other stakeholders residing in SWACT boundaries. More than 50% of SWACT’s current voting members are elected officials. In addition to the voting members, SWACT ex-officio members include the OTC, state legislators, local congressional aides, the Community Solutions Team, regional groups, and state and federal agencies. Staffing is provided by ODOT. F-30 SWACT meets quarterly. Decisions are made by consensus, but majority rule is acceptable. The Steering Committee has 20 members. It is led by a chair and vice chair, who are nominated and elected for two year terms from members of the Steering Committee. The SWACT steering committee sets the work plan for the SWACT, presents final decisions from the SWACT to the Oregon Transportation Commission, receives prioritized recommendations from subgroups and provides a link between the subgroups. SWACT coordinates regional priorities with neighboring ACTs. Transportation programs SWACT discussed in 2006 and 2007 include the STIP, ConnectOregon, and OTIA. In addition to highway transportation, SWACT discussed air, port, rail and bicycle/pedestrian transportation issues. Tables 11.1-11.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for SWACT. Table 11.1: ACT Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 5 Morrow, Baker, Union, Umatilla, and Wallowa Cities 37 MPOs 0 Port Authorities 0 Transit Districts 0 Other jurisdictions 1 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation ODOT Region 3; ODOT Maintenance District 7 Table 11.2: Act Composition/Membership (Steering Committee) Affiliation Status (voting, ex-officio) # of Members County Voting 3 City Voting 3 Private Sector Voting 3 ODOT Voting, Chair 3 Other Voting 5 members from SWACT subgroups OTC Ex-officio Community Solutions Team Ex-officio State and Federal Agencies Ex-officio Ex-officio members are not enumerated in SEACT by-laws Table 11.3: Operating Procedures for Steering Committee Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Quarterly Selection of Committee Chair ODOT Area Manager for Each Subgroup Assigned to Each Subgroup. Steering Committee operates with a Chair and Vice Chair, which is nominated and elected from members of the Steering Committee (two year term). Role of Committee Chair Preside over meetings Decision-Making Process Consensus if possible, if not then majority rules (must have 50% of steering committee present) Public Comment Protocol Each member of the public is allowed 3 minutes to speak Sub-committees A Technical Advisory Committee was mentioned in the 2005 Biennial Report, but not in the by-laws or any subsequent minutes. F-31 Table 11.4: Range of Issues (8 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed ACT to ACT Coordination Information exchange RVACT invited to meet with SWACT and share information of mutual interest: 2005 Biennial Report Cross attendance Ex-Officio Membership of Adjacent ACTs (RVACT): 2005 Biennial Report Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing No evidence from minutes/report Joint projects 1/06 ACT and MPO Coordination Information exchange NA Cross attendance NA Joint meetings NA Data sharing NA Joint projects NA Transportation Programs Discussed STIP: 12/07; 9/07; 7/07; 1/06 Connect Oregon II: 12/07; 9/07; 7/07; 3/07; 3/06 OTIA: 11/06 Other Transportation Modes Discussed Air: 3/06 Rail: 7/06; 3/06 Marine: 12/07; 7/07; 3/06 Bike/Ped: 9/07 Public Comment 7/06 F-32 12.0 LANE COUNTY Lane County extends from the Oregon coast to the crest of the Cascades at the south end of the Willamette Valley (Figure 12.1). There are 12 cities, one transit district and Eugene-Springfield MPO within the county. Eugene and Springfield contain the majority of the county population. Lane County is in Oregon Department of Transportation Region 2 and Maintenance District 5. Interstate 5, and Highways 101 and 126 are major regional roadways. Figure 12.1: Map showing Lane County Lane County and Portland Metro are two areas in Oregon that are not part of an ACT. The Lane County Board of Commissioners fulfills the advisory functions of an ACT in Lane County. The Board meets weekly, but transportation programming is not always discussed. The Board provides recommendations through either the Board meeting process or through public hearings. Staffing is provided by Lane County. The County Commissioners often consult with the county counsel, public works and the county administrator on transportation matters. They also rely on the advice of the Roads Advisory Committee. The Roads Advisory Committee (RAC) develops recommendations dealing with roads throughout the County. The RAC reviews road improvement needs, develops a Capital F-33 Improvement Program, reviews and provides recommendations for long-range transportation planning, and makes recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. The RAC has seven members that are appointed by the Lane County Board of County Commissioners. In 2000 and 2002, the Board deliberated on forming a Lane County ACT. The Board concurred that forming a Lane County ACT based on OTC’s guidelines was not a good option for the County. Based on the minutes, the reasons behind this decision are as follows: • Observation that an ACT would duplicate the activities already performed by the County and the Metropolitan Policy Committee • Observation that LCOG was not the best means to staff an ACT body; instead, it should be the County (largely due to its Public Works staff) • Observation that the existing decision-making framework “works” and does not need replacement • Concern over relinquishing authority to another body Some Board members were open to implementing a similar structure to an ACT but they affirmed that the County should provide staffing and that they should also lead the meetings. In 2006 and 2007, Lane County coordinated with Mid-Willamette ACT, Cascades West ACT, and Northwest ACT on STIP project prioritization for ODOT Region 2. In addition to highways, members discussed rail and bicycle/pedestrian modes. Tables 12.1-12.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for Lane County. Table 12.1: County Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 1 Lane County Cities 12 Coburg, Cottage Grove, Creswell, Dunes City, Eugene, Florence, Junction City, Lowell, Oakridge, Veneta, Westfir MPOs 1 Eugene-Springfield MPO Transit Districts 1 Lane Transit District (LTD) Other jurisdictions NA ODOT Region 2; ODOT Maintenance District 5 Table 12.2: County Composition/Membership Affiliation Status (voting, ex-officio) # of Members County Voting 5 City None 0 Private Sector None 0 Tribal Government None 0 ODOT None 0 OTC None 0 F-34 Table 12.3: Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Board of County Commissioners Meeting Frequency Weekly Selection of Committee Chair Chair elected by board vote. Vice-Chair selected by Chair prior to vote Role of Committee Chair Facilitate meeting. Create agenda. Maintain order and protocol. Initiates, manages and adjourns meetings. Vice chair fills role of Chair when Chair is absent. Decision-Making Process Majority voting Public Comment Protocol Typically 3 minutes for a total of 20 minutes. Public comment is not topic specific. The public can comment on any topic. Public hearings are topic specific and have their own comment period of 3 minutes per commenter. Sub-committees Roads Advisory Committee, 7 members selected by Board of Commissioners Table 12.4: Range of Issues (24 randomly selected meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed ACT to ACT Coordination Information exchange Cross attendance Joint meetings Data sharing Joint projects Not applicable ACT and MPO Coordination Information exchange No evidence Cross attendance All meetings Joint meetings No evidence Data sharing No evidence Joint projects No evidence Transportation Programs Discussed STIP: 01/08,03/06, 04/06 ODOT report 01/08, Road Striping 02/07, 08/06 Bridges 03/07, Jurisdictional transfer 05/06, 03/06, 04/06 Revenue agreement 05/06, ODOT emergency relief 9/06; Maintenance agreement 10/31, 02/06, 01/08 Alternative mobility standards 11/06 Surface Transportation Program (STP-U) 12/06 Highway 06/28 11/06, 02/06, 03/06 Road hazards 01/06 Transportation planning 02/06 Other Transportation Modes Discussed Rail: 05/07 Bicycle and Pedestrian 07/06 Public comment Public comment observed at all meetings, but not necessarily on transportation issues F-35 13.0 BEND MPO The Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization (Bend MPO) coordinates planning around Bend in central Oregon (Figure 13.1). The Bend MPO boundaries are slightly larger than the City of Bend urban growth boundary, but do not include any other cities within Deschutes County. Bend MPO boundaries are included in ODOT Region 4 and ODOT Maintenance District 10. Bend MPO coordinates with the Central Oregon ACT. Figure 13.1: Map showing Bend MPO There are five voting members of the Bend MPO Policy Board. Three members represent the city of Bend, one represents Deschutes County and one represents ODOT Region 4. All voting members have appointed alternates. There are no ex-officio members. Subcommittees of the Bend MPO Policy Board include the Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee. ODOT provides staffing for the Policy Board and Subcommittees. Bend MPO meets monthly. Policy Board decisions are made by consensus. Consensus can still be reached if a member abstains from voting. A chair and vice-chair leads facilitate meetings and create agendas for meetings. The Technical Advisory Committee is comprised of representatives in transportation and administrative fields including a Central Oregon ACT member. The Citizen Advisory Committee is comprised of Bend community members. F-36 The Policy Board identifies transportation issues of regional significance and prepares transportation planning documents that outline future transportation system improvements and prioritize project implementation. The Policy Board coordinates at the federal, state and city levels in most meetings and with county entities less frequently. The MPO also coordinates with the Central Oregon ACT regarding the Connect Oregon project and freight route planning. Tables 13.1-13.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for Bend MPO. Table 13.1: MPO Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 1 Deschutes Cities 1 Bend ACTs 1 COACT ODOT Region 4; ODOT Maintenance District 10 Table 13.2: MPO Composition/Membership Affiliation Status (voting, alternate) # of Members Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Voting 1 State of Oregon Voting 1 Bend City Council Voting 3 Table 13.3: Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Monthly Selection of Committee Chair 1 Chair, 1 Vice-Chair Role of Committee Chair Facilitate meeting. Create agenda. Decision-Making Process Consensus. Consensus can still be reached if members abstain from voting Public Comment Protocol Requested at the beginning of meetings Sub-committees Technical Advisory Committee has 11 voting members in transportation and administrative fields including a COACT member. Citizen Advisory Committee comprised of 11 Bend community members. Table 13.4: Range of Issues (19 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed MPO to ACT Coordination Information exchange 2/06; 4/06; 11/06 Cross attendance 11/06, all TAC subcommittee meetings Joint meetings None identified in minutes Data sharing 2/06; 5/06; 11/06 Joint projects 5/06; 11/06 Evidence of Coordination with Other Entities (counties, cities, etc.) Counties 3/06; 5/06; 6/06; 7/06; 8/06; 11/06; 12/06; 1/07; 11/07 Cities 5/06; 6/06; 7/06; 8/06; 12/06; 11/07 States All meetings F-37 14.0 EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD MPO The Eugene-Springfield MPO lies within Lane County in the Willamette Valley (Figure 14.1). Eugene, Springfield and Coburg are member cities of the MPO as well as some unincorporated parts of Lane County. The MPO is in Oregon Department of Transportation Region 2 and Maintenance District 5. There is no ACT coordinating with the Eugene-Springfield MPO because Lane County fulfills the advisory functions of an ACT for the area. Figure 14.1: Map showing Eugene-Springfield MPO There are eight full voting members of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). Members of the MPC are appointed and include two elected officials from Lane County, two representing the City of Eugene, two representing the City of Springfield, one representing the City of Coburg, and an ODOT manager. Each jurisdiction also has one appointed ex-officio member. In addition to the eight full members Lane Transit District and Willamette Park District also have voting and ex-officio members, these members only vote on issues specific to their jurisdiction. Staffing for Eugene-Springfield MPO is provided by LCOG. The MPC meets monthly. Decisions are made by majority vote. The Chair leads MPC meetings. The Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) is comprised of staff and undertakes all technical F-38 planning activities for Lane Council of Governments and its sub-committees (including the MPC). The Citizen Advisory Committee generates a private sector perspective on MPO issues and facilitates public involvement. The MPC is an intergovernmental committee created to promote problem solving and to resolve intergovernmental disagreements among the two cities and the county. The majority of issues that the MPC addresses are transportation-oriented. Eugene-Springfield MPO coordinates with the federal government, member city governments, with the state, with Lane Couty, and with other urban areas in the state through the Oregon MPO consortium. Tables 14.1-14.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for Eugene- Springfield MPO. Table 14.1: MPO Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 1 Lane Cities 3 Eugene, Springfield, Coburg ACTs 0 NA ODOT Region 2; ODOT Maintenance District 5 Table 14.2: MPO Composition/Membership Affiliation Status (voting, alternate) # of Members County 2 voting 3 Cities 5 voting 5 ODOT 1 voting 1 Transit District 2 voting (on metropolitan transportation matters) 2 Park District 2 voting (on parks and open space matters) 2 County 1 ex officio 1 Cities 3 ex-officio 3 ODOT 1 ex-officio 1 Transit District 1 ex-officio 1 Park District 1 ex officio 1 Table 14.3: Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Monthly Selection of Committee & Vice Chairs By vote, selected from voting members Role of Committee & Vice Chairs Presides over all meetings, entitled to vote on all procedures Decision-Making Process Majority rules. At least 1 Lane County member required for quorum Public Comment Protocol Sign up for commenting at beginning of meeting, Citizen Advisory Committee, Open House meetings Sub-committees Citizen Advisory Committee (made up of 10-15 citizens), Transportation Planning Committee (made up primarily of staff heads of local public works, planning and transportation agencies) F-39 Table 14.4: Range of Issues (22 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed MPO to ACT Coordination Information exchange 5 meetings Cross attendance Not applicable Joint meetings Not applicable Data sharing Not applicable Joint projects 2 meetings Evidence of Coordination with Other Entities (counties, cities, etc.) Counties 14 meetings Cities 9 meetings States All meetings Oregon MPO Consortium 09/07, 06/07, 03/06 F-40 15.0 CORVALLIS AREA MPO SUMMARY The Corvallis Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) coordinates planning in and around the cities of Corvallis, Adair Village, and Philomath in Benton County (Figure 15.1). CAMPO is part of ODOT Region 2 and ODOT Maintenance District 4. CAMPO shares jurisdiction with the Cascades West ACT. Figure 15.1: Map showing Corvallis Area MPO The five voting membership of CAMPO include one representative from Benton County, one from each of the member cities, and an ODOT manager. The CAMPO Technical Advisory Committee has a separate membership from the policy board. It consists of eight county, city, FTA, FHA, and ODOT representatives. Staffing is provided by ODOT. The CAMPO Policy Board meets monthly. Decisions are made by consensus first, and majority vote if consensus cannot be reached. The chair and vice chair are elected at the first meeting of each calendar year and facilitate subsequent meetings. All CAMPO Policy Board members also represent their jurisdictions on the Cascades West ACT. The ODOT Area manager also participates in MPO and ACT meetings. In meeting F-41 minutes, CAMPO primarily coordinated with state officials. Members frequently discussed the STIP, ODOT’s freight program and Highway 20 improvements. Tables 15.1-15.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for CAMPO. Table 15.1: MPO Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 1 Benton Cities 3 Adair Village, Corvallis, Philomath ACTs 1 Cascades West ACT ODOT Region 2; ODOT Maintenance District 4 Table 15.2: MPO Composition/Membership Affiliation Status (voting, alternate) # of Members County Voting 1 City Voting 3 ODOT Voting 1 Table 15.3: Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Monthly Selection of Committee Chair Chair and Vice Chair elected at the first meeting of each calendar year. Role of Committee Chair Facilitate meeting. Decision-Making Process Consensus. Public Comment Protocol Agendas for every meeting include time for public comment. Sub-committees Technical Advisory Committee Table 15.4: Range of Issues (11 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed MPO to ACT Coordination Information exchange 4/06 Cross attendance All meetings Joint meetings No evidence from minutes/report Data sharing 4/06 Joint projects No evidence from minutes/report Evidence of Coordination with Other Entities (counties, cities, etc.) Counties 6/06 Cities 11/06 States STIP: 4/06, 6/06, 8/06, 10/06, 11/06,2/07, 3/07, 5/07, 6/07, 7/07 ODOT Freight Survey: 5/07, 6/07 Federal TE: 6/06 F-42 16.0 JOINT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) is a subcommittee of Metro that coordinates transportation planning for the Portland metropolitan region. The JPACT advisory area includes 25 cities in the urban portions of Multnomah, Clackamas and eastern Washington counties (Figure 16.1). The total population of the area is greater than 1.4 million. JPACT is in ODOT Region 1 and ODOT Maintenance Districts 2A, 2B, 2C and 3. There is no ACT that geographically corresponds with this area. Figure 16.1: Map showing Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation The 17 voting members of JPACT represent counties, cities, ODOT, Tri-Met, Port Authorities, Oregon DEQ, the State of Washington and Metro. JPACT has no ex-officio members. JPACT does not have subcommittees, but it works closely with other Metro subcommittees including the Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee, the Regional Travel Options Subcommittee, and the Bi-State Coordinating Committee. Staffing for JPACT is provided by Metro. JPACT meets monthly. Decisions are made by majority vote. The JPACT Chair and Vice-Chair are appointed by the Metro presiding officer. The Chairs coordinate and facilitate meetings. F-43 The Bi-State Coordination Committee membership includes JPACT and Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council members. JPACT primarily works on the Regional Transportation Plan and the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan. In 2006 and 2007 meeting minutes, JPACT coordinated primarily at the federal and state levels of government. JPACT worked with ACTs outside of its boundaries on the Connect Oregon project in 2006. Tables 16.1-16.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for JPACT. Table 16.1: JPACT Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 3 Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington Cities 25 Beaverton, Cornelius, Damascus, Durham, Fairview, Forest Grove, Gladstone, Gresham, Happy Valley, Hillsboro, Johnson City, King City, Lake Oswego, Maywood Park, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Portland, Rivergrove, Sherwood, Tigard, Troutdale, Tualatin, West Linn, Wilsonville, Wood Village ACTs NA ODOT Region 1; ODOT Maintenance District 2A, 2B, 2C and 3 Table 16.2: MPO Composition/Membership Affiliation Status (voting, alternate) # of Members County Voting 3 City Voting 4 ODOT Voting 1 Tri-Met Voting 1 Port Authority Voting 1 DEQ Voting 1 State of Washington Voting 3 Metro Voting 3 Table 16.3: Operating Procedures Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Monthly + special meetings Selection of Committee Chair Chair and Vice-Chair appointed by Metro presiding officer Role of Committee Chair Chair presides at meetings, Vice-Chair takes over duties in absence Decision-Making Process Majority vote. Public Comment Protocol Requested at the beginning of meetings. Sub-committees Bi-State Coordination Committee F-44 Table 16.4: Range of Issues (29 Meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed MPO to ACT Coordination Information exchange 3/06; 5/06; 6/06 Cross attendance No evidence from minutes Joint meetings No evidence from minutes Data sharing 5/06; 6/06 Joint projects 3/06; 5/06; 6/06 Evidence of Coordination with Other Entities (counties, cities, etc.) Counties Cities States City, County and State level coordination is evident in all JPACT meetings within the study period F-45 17.0 ROGUE VALLEY MPO The Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) is located in southwest Oregon and centered on the I-5 corridor in Jackson County (Figure 17.1). There are eight cities within RVMPO’s jurisdiction. RVMPO is in ODOT Region 3 and ODOT Maintenance District 8. RVMPO shares some membership and jurisdiction with the Rogue Valley ACT. Figure 17.1: Map showing Rogue Valley MPO The RVMPO Policy Board has ten members with designated alternates. Members represent cities, counties, the transit district and ODOT. The Public Advisory Council and the Technical Advisory Committee advise the RVMPO Policy Committee. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments provides staffing. RVMPO meets monthly. Policy Board decisions are made by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, decisions can be made by a 2/3 +1 vote. The Chair and Vice-Chair serve annual terms and preside over meetings and appoints sub-committees as needed. The membership of RVMPO overlaps considerably with Rogue Valley ACT and members routinely discusses RVACT updates when covering other business at the end of each meeting. F-46 RVMPO most commonly coordinates at the federal and state levels of government. Transportation funding programs addressed by RVMPO in 2006 and 2007 include ConnectOregon, and the Oregon Gateway Project in Coos Bay. Tables 17.1-17.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for RVMPO. Table 17.1: RVMPO Geography and Profile Number Comments Counties 1 Jackson County Cities 8 Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix, Talent, White City ACTs 1 Rogue Valley (RVACT) ODOT Region 3; ODOT Maintenance District 8 Table 17.2: RVMPO Composition/Membership (10 voting members) Affiliation Status (voting, alternate) # of Members County Voting 1 City Voting 7 ODOT Voting 1 Transit Districts Voting 1 Table 17.3: Operating Procedures of RVMPO Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Monthly Selection of Committee Chair Chair and Vice-Chair elected each February by a simple majority vote. Role of Committee Chair Preside at meetings. Appoint subcommittees as required. Specify assignments / deadlines. Decision-Making Process Vote by voice-vote. Quorum consists of majority of member jurisdictions. Any member can ask for 2/3 majority vote. Public Comment Protocol (None documented in bylaws) Sub-committees Technical Advisory Committee and Public Advisory Council Table 17.4: Range of Issues (21 meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed MPO to ACT Coordination Information exchange Decision regarding RVACT alternate appointment: 9/07 Oregon transportation Enhancement Policy, Change: 10/07 Cross attendance All meetings, RVACT Private Sector Member: 9/07, Joint meetings (No outstanding evidence in minutes) Data sharing (No outstanding evidence in minutes) Joint projects Connect Oregon II: 3/06 Oregon Gateway Discussed: 2/07 Evidence of Coordination with Other Entities (counties, cities, etc.) Counties Cities State F-47 18.0 SALEM-KEIZER AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY The Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS) is the MPO located around Salem in the mid-Willamette Valley (Figure 18.1). SKATS includes parts of Polk and Marion counties and the cities of Salem, Keizer, and Turner. The MPO has a population of 230,000. SKATS is in ODOT Region 2 and ODOT Maintenance District 3. SKATS shares membership and jurisdiction with the Mid-Willamette Valley ACT. Figure 18.1: Map showing Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study The SKATS Policy Committee has eight voting members. The membership includes representatives from each county and city, the public school district, and the transit district. All members except the school district representative also hold membership on the Mid-Willamette Valley ACT. The 16 member Technical Advisory Board advises the Policy Committee. Staffing is provided by the Mid-Willamette Council of Governments SKATS meets monthly. Policy Board decisions are made by majority vote. The SKATS chair and vice-chair facilitate meetings and create agendas. F-48 SKATS has coordinated at the state level and with city governments within their jurisdiction and Portland. SKATS primarily corresponds with MWACT through shared staff and membership and was able to pass on their recommendations to MWACT for the ConnectOregon program. Tables 18.1-18.4 summarize the geography, membership, procedures, and key issues for SKATS. Table 18.1: SKATS Geography and Profile • ODOT Region 2 • ODOT Maintenance District 3 Number Comments Counties 2 Marion, Polk Cities 3 Salem, Keizer, Turner ACTs 1 Mid-Willamette ACT ODOT Region 2; ODOT Maintenance District 3 Table 18.2: SKATS Composition/Membership (8 voting members) Affiliation Status # of Members County Voting 2 City Voting 3 ODOT Voting 1 Transit Districts Voting 1 Public School District Voting 1 Table 18.3: Operating Procedures of SKATS Operation Procedure Meeting Frequency Monthly / Bimonthly Selection of Committee Chair Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson elected at first meeting each year by majority vote. Role of Committee Chair Preside at meetings. Appoint subcommittees as required. Assign report deadlines. Decision-Making Process All members have equal weighted votes. Quorum consists of not less than 4 votes. Public Comment Protocol Beginning of meetings Sub-committees Technical Advisory Committee Table 18.4: Range of Issues (16 meetings) Issue When/How Often Addressed MPO to ACT Coordination Information exchange 11/06 Cross attendance All meetings Joint meetings No outstanding evidence in minutes Data sharing No outstanding evidence in minutes Joint projects 3/06 Evidence of Coordination with Other Entities (counties, cities, etc.) Counties No outstanding evidence in minutes Cities 1/06, 3/06 State All meetings through ODOT manager