Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Rail and Public Transit Division Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund
Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary
and Intercommunity Discretionary Funds Jan. 24, 2018
Introduction
The Oregon Department of Transportation made the draft Oregon State administrative rules for the
Discretionary and Intercommunity Discretionary Funds of the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Fund (STIF) available for public comment Jan. 2-17, 2018. Feedback was collected using an online survey
with questions focused on two key elements of the draft rules for each fund. These key elements
included Purpose and Project Eligibility and Project Selection. In addition, respondents were invited to
comment on any aspect of the draft rules beyond the key elements.
ODOT collected a total of 35 survey responses from a variety of stakeholders. Respondents were not
required to answer all survey questions, and the number of respondents varies by question accordingly.
The goal of the survey was to engage and learn from as many stakeholders and community members as
possible. The results are qualitative rather than being statistically representative, meaning the
respondent sample is not predictive of the opinions of all Oregonians.
Key Findings
• Most respondents agreed the draft rules are heading in the right direction. Respondents who
disagreed commented on match requirements, types of projects eligible to receive funds and fiscal
responsibility.
• Build an integrated statewide transit system. Some respondents encouraged ODOT to fund projects
that contribute to a robust transit network that allows transit users to easily travel across the state.
• Prioritize benefits to low income households and other vulnerable populations. A few respondents
said ODOT should fund projects that benefit groups such as veterans, seniors, people with
disabilities and people who speak English as a second language in addition to low income
households. Other respondents said priority should be given to projects that have the greatest
increase in ridership.
• Reduce barriers to communities in most need of funding. Respondents said requirements like the
local match would discourage organizations with fewer resources like small and rural transit
providers from applying for funds.
• Provide additional clarity or definition to the following items:
o Types of entities that may apply for funds
o Types of projects that are eligible to receive funds
o Types of funds that may be used for match requirements
o Whether Intercommunity Discretionary applications must be a collaboration of multiple
transit providers
o Other key destinations as it relates to rules for the Intercommunity Discretionary Fund
Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and
Intercommunity Discretionary Funds
Jan. 24, 2018 2
Summary
A summary of observed comment themes organized by level of agreement begins on the following page.
Respondents who identified with an entity type were grouped into the following categories for reporting
purposes in the pie charts at the beginning of each section.
Qualified Entity: Transportation districts, mass transit districts, counties without a mass transit or
transportation district or Indian Tribe identified as a qualified entity in Section 122 of House Bill 2017.
Not Qualified Entity: City or county that is not a qualified entity, special district or intergovernmental
entity that provides public transportation, non-profit public transportation provider, other non-profit or
other government entity.
Individual/Other: Non-affiliated individuals or other organization that do not fit in one of the above
entity types.
Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and Intercommunity Discretionary Funds
Jan. 24, 2018 3
Level of Agreement with Draft Discretionary Rules: Purpose and Project Eligibility
All Responses (34)1 Individual/Other (11)
Qualified Entity (8) Not Qualified Entity (13)
1 Two respondents did not provide an entity type.
41.2% Strongly
agree
44.1% Somewhat
agree
5.9% Somewhat disagree
8.8% Strongly disagree 18.2% Strongly agree
54.5% Somewhat agree
9.1% Somewhat disagree
18.2% Strongly disagree
50.0% Somewhat
agree
50.0% Strongly
agree
61.5% Strongly agree
23.1% Somewhat
agree
15.4% Strongly disagree
Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and Intercommunity Discretionary Funds
Jan. 24, 2018 4
Comments on Draft Discretionary Rules: Purpose and Project Eligibility
Most respondents agreed strongly or somewhat with the
draft rules, including all qualified entities
One individual disagreed somewhat with the draft rules
Three respondents strongly disagreed with the draft rules,
including two individuals and one non‐qualified entity
Strongly agree
New fare technologies and existing projects should be
eligible for funds
Make non‐profits eligible to receive funds directly
Allow fund recipients to keep unspent funds in the event
projects are under budget
Consider waiving match requirements for small and rural
transit providers
Veterans will benefit from an enhanced statewide transit
system
Somewhat agree
Management, planning and research projects should be
eligible for funds
Prioritize projects that reduce barriers to transit use and
increase ridership, such as expanded bus schedules and new
park and ride locations
Prioritize benefits to vulnerable populations
Increase access to transit to reduce road congestion
Invest in technology that allows transit users to plan and
pay for trips across multiple transit providers
Clarify the types of research eligible for funding
Clarify the types of entities eligible to apply for funding
Somewhat disagree
Commuter rail should be eligible for funding
Strongly disagree
Avoid funding projects because they are “fashionable”
The 10 percent match requirement is a barrier to small and
rural community participation
Create incentives to increase ridership
Prioritize benefits to vulnerable and underserved
population
Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and Intercommunity Discretionary Funds
Jan. 24, 2018 5
Level of Agreement with Draft Discretionary Rules: Project Selection
All Responses (33)2 Individual/Other (11)
Qualified Entity (8) Not Qualified Entity (13)
2 One respondent did not provide an entity type.
39.4% Strongly agree
51.5% Somewhat agree
3.0% Somewhat disagree
6.1% Strongly disagree18.2% Strongly agree
72.7% Somewhat agree
9.1% Strongly disagree
25.0% Strongly agree
75.0% Somewhat agree
61.5% Strongly agree
23.1% Somewhat
agree
7.7% Somewhat disagree
7.7% Strongly disagree
Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and Intercommunity Discretionary Funds
Jan. 24, 2018 6
Comments on Draft Discretionary Rules: Project Selection
Most respondents agreed strongly or somewhat with the
draft rules, including all qualified entities
One non‐qualified entity disagreed somewhat with the draft
rules
Two respondents strongly disagreed with the draft rules,
including one individual and one non‐qualified entity
Strongly agree
Clarify the eligibility of planning projects to receive funds
Clarify the types of funds that may be used for match
requirement
Consider selection criteria that align with other social
service goals such as public health
Somewhat agree
Require applicants to demonstrate the need for and
expected benefits of a project
Limit use of funds for administrative costs
The match requirements may be a barrier to communities in
most need of funding, such as small and rural communities
Prioritize benefits to seniors and people with disabilities
Prioritize projects that increase transit use
Somewhat disagree
Allow existing projects to be eligible for funds
Strongly disagree
Include budget accountability measures
Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and Intercommunity Discretionary Funds
Jan. 24, 2018 7
Level of Agreement with Draft Intercommunity Discretionary Rules: Purpose and Project Eligibility
All Responses (30)3 Individual/Other (10)
Qualified Entity (8) Not Qualified Entity (12)
3 All respondents provided an entity type.
50.0% Somewhat
agree50.0% Strongly
agree
50.0% Strongly
agree
50.0% Strongly
agree
40.0% Strongly agree
50.0% Somewhat
agree
50.0% Somewhat
agree
8.3% Strongly disagree
10.0% Strongly disagree6.7% Strongly disagree
43.3% Somewhat
agree
Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and Intercommunity Discretionary Funds
Jan. 24, 2018 8
Comments on Draft Intercommunity Discretionary Rules: Purpose and Project Eligibility
Most respondents agreed strongly or somewhat with the
draft rules, including all qualified entities
Two respondents strongly disagreed with the draft rules,
including one individual and one non‐qualified entity
Strongly agree
Encourage technology that allows transit users to plan and
pay for trips across multiple transit providers
Somewhat agree
Review the existing network of intercommunity transit
service and identify areas to expand or reduce service
Encourage diversity of advisory committees
Define “Other key destinations”
Clarify that projects served by a single transit provider are
eligible for funds
Strongly disagree
There are characteristics inherent to public transportation
that discourage people from using it, such as a need for
privacy, convenience and flexibility
The program should address a need to integrate air and rail
transportation
Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and Intercommunity Discretionary Funds
Jan. 24, 2018 9
Level of Agreement with Draft Intercommunity Discretionary Rules: Project Selection
All Responses (30)4 Individual/Other (10)
Qualified Entity (8) Not Qualified Entity (12)
4 All respondents provided an entity type.
50.0% Somewhat
agree
50.0% Strongly
agree
43.3% Strongly
agree
50.0% Somewhat
agree
6.7% Strongly disagree 10.0% Strongly disagree
40.0% Strongly
agree
50.0% Somewhat
agree
8.3% Strongly disagree
58.3% Strongly agree
33.3% Somewhat
agree
Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and Intercommunity Discretionary Funds
Jan. 24, 2018 10
Comments on Draft Intercommunity Discretionary Rules: Project Selection
Most respondents agreed strongly or somewhat with the
draft rules, including all qualified entities
Two respondents strongly disagreed with the draft rules,
including one individual and one non‐qualified entity
Strongly agree
Prioritize public entities; private entities should receive
funds through partnerships with public entities
Review the existing network of intercommunity transit
service
Strengthen geographic equity consideration
Somewhat agree
Prioritize benefits to vulnerable populations such as people
with disabilities and people who speak English as a second
language
Consider how intercommunity planning can benefit low
income populations
Eliminate redundant service and fill in service gaps
Do not prioritize projects that are a collaboration of
multiple entities over projects proposed by a single entity
Strongly disagree
Make private and commercial forms of transportation more
efficient instead of funding public transportation
Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and Intercommunity Discretionary Funds
Jan. 24, 2018 11
Additional comments
Require applicants to demonstrate the need for their
projects
Encourage technology that allows transit users to plan and
pay for trips across multiple transit providers
Fund transportation options preferred by the most people
Avoid administrative costs that reduce project benefits
Small and rural communities may not have enough
resources to participate in the programs
The proposed distribution of Formula Funds will penalize
bedroom communities; distribution of Formula Funds
should benefit the location of residents as well as
employers
Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and Intercommunity Discretionary Funds
Jan. 24, 2018 12
List of survey respondents:
Last Name First Name Affiliation
Chancey Scott Josephine County
Donald Charles C METRO
Elston Michael Veterans Health system DSAC. Gresham Neighborhood Coalition
Hanson Molly Metropolitan Family Service Project Linkage
Inerfeld Rob City of Eugene
Kelly Irvin Selena M Coquille Indian Tribe
Miller Rebecca [not provided]
Needham James G Regional Government
Pilant Doug Tillamook County Transportation District
Pinheiro Dennis Douglas County
Pranger Anita The Loop Morrow County Transportation
Stevens Marjorie Corvallis Sustainability Coalition Transportation Action Team
Szolnoki Andrew Ride Connection
[not provided] Angie Non‐profit Transit Provider
[not provided] [not provided] Resident
[not provided] [not provided] AARP
[not provided] [not provided] Oregon State University