Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and

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


18.2% Strongly disagree

50.0% Somewhat

agree

50.0% Strongly

agree

61.5% Strongly agree

23.1% Somewhat

agree



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


Jan. 24, 2018 5

Level of Agreement with Draft Discretionary Rules: Project Selection



2 One respondent did not provide an entity type.




6.1% Strongly disagree18.2% Strongly agree






23.1% Somewhat

agree




Jan. 24, 2018 6

Comments on Draft Discretionary Rules: Project Selection



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


Jan. 24, 2018 7

Level of Agreement with Draft Intercommunity Discretionary Rules: Purpose and Project Eligibility



3 All respondents provided an entity type.

50.0% Somewhat

agree50.0% Strongly

agree

50.0% Strongly

agree

50.0% Strongly

agree


50.0% Somewhat

agree

50.0% Somewhat

agree


10.0% Strongly disagree6.7% Strongly disagree

43.3% Somewhat

agree


Jan. 24, 2018 8

Comments on Draft Intercommunity Discretionary Rules: Purpose and Project Eligibility





Strongly agree

Encourage technology that allows transit users to plan and


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


Jan. 24, 2018 9

Level of Agreement with Draft Intercommunity Discretionary Rules: Project Selection



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



33.3% Somewhat

agree


Jan. 24, 2018 10

Comments on Draft Intercommunity Discretionary Rules: Project Selection





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


Jan. 24, 2018 11

Additional comments

Require applicants to demonstrate the need for their

projects

Encourage technology that allows transit users to plan and


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


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

Documents

Survey Results on Draft Rules for Discretionary and