Oregon Safe Routes to School Rules Advisory Committee RAC Meeting # - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oregon Safe Routes to School Rules Advisory Committee RAC Meeting # 6 Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Welcome

Goals for this meeting: • Provide input on program structure. • Work toward opening program Fall 2018 • Review and debrief all the great work we’ve accomplished.

Meeting #1 – Charge of committee. Discuss program success, goals, priorities and performance measures. November 20th, 2017 Meeting #2 – Finalize vision, review values and discuss program design options that align with values and outcomes. December 13th, 2017 Meeting #3 – Review definitions. Review draft program design recommendations. Review criteria, eligibility, funding targets and carve-outs, etc. January 16, 2018 Meeting #4 – Review and draft rule amendments for OTC discussion. February 13, 2018 OTC – Bring draft rules to OTC for approval to release for public review. March 15th, 2018 Meeting #5 – Review draft rule, discuss criteria, eligibility, solicitation process, etc. April 3rd, 2018 Open 21 day rulemaking public comment period. Promotion of draft rules. 1 public Comment Period hearing. May 1, 2018 Meeting #6- Discuss and provide input for program guidance May 9 th , 2018 Public Hearing Public hearing in Salem to gather additional public comment. May 15th, 2019 Meeting #7- If needed June 6, 2018 OTC Review public comment. Approve OAR or request additional action. July 19, 2018

Where we are

RAC Outreach Central Lane MPO Metropolitan Policy Portland Bureau of Transportation Committee City of Seaside Public Works Director Blue Zones, The Dalles Central Lane MPO Transportation Policy Oregon Safe Routes to School Blue Zones, Community Multnomah County Committee Network project Eugene/Springfield Safe Routes to Lane County Area Commission on School Coordinators Transportation City of Gresham Blue Zones Umpqua Bethel, Eugene 4J, and Springfield school City of Eugene districts; SRTS Coordinators Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) Blue Zones, Klamath Falls Lane County Area Commission on Multnomah County Street Trust Transportation (LCACT) Grants Pass, Blue Zones East Portland/Gresham Oregon School of the Deaf Glendale School Board and Mayor Kaiser Permanente South West Area Oregon Legislature House Commission on Transportation Policy Committee ODOT Highway Management Team Clackamas County and school districts Transportation (SWACT) Association of Oregon Counties’ Rouge Valley Area Commission on Transportation Steering Committee City of Gaston and School District Transportation (RVACT) ODOT Highway Management The Dalles: Blue Zones Team (includes Central Oregon Area Commission on Oregon Senator Lee Beyer School principals and City staff) Transportation (COACT) Multnomah County Bend Accessibility Advisory Committee Hood River: Hood River Valley Residents Oregon Transportation Safety (pending) Committee and School District Committee (OTSC) City of Gresham Portland Bureau of Transportation internal Bend/LaPine School District Dufur Elementary School Community Connections, La Grande discussions Klamath County, City of Seaside Transportation Commute Options Redmond School District Mosier School District Committee City of Seaside Transportation Oregon Department of Education, Advisory Committee North Oregon Coast City Managers School Wellness

Progress to Date Jan Nov Narrow March Values and Program Update Outcomes Design to OTC OAR filed and public comment open April Dec Feb High level Program Recommend guidance Design Draft Rules Ideas

Geographic Equity Social Maximize Resources Equity RAC Values Communication, Coordination, Safety and Collaboration Health

Public Comment

Presentation and Discussion Overview Review what we’ve done OAR/Public Comment update Dig into more program guidance Review and debrief RAC accomplishments

What we’ve done… Determine goals for program rules and guidance OAR update Add Infrastructure Revise Advisory Minor Revision of Non- Add Definitions Add Program Descriptions Program: How Funds are Committee Infrastructure Program Divided and Eligibility RAC agreement on recommended OAR language High-level Guidance Creation Timeline for first round Program descriptions Criteria to evaluate projects RAC agreement on recommended program high level guidance

OAR/Public Comment Update Submitted to Secretary of Public Comment Period State and Public Hearing

Public Comment Possible Outcomes RAC meets to Update discuss • Substantive changes OAR, may potential • Topics the RAC didn’t resubmit substantive discuss Comments to S.O.S. changes • Topics the RAC discussed • Example: Eligible entities about rule • Non-substantive changes • Example: Change bike Small changes lanes to bikeways are made if needed, are in line with RAC values, and • About guidance don’t change the Comments • Example: When to start intent of the the first competitive cycle. that are rule. • About the statute Comments are • Example: Concern about not about recorded and the 40% local match shared with the the rule OTC on July 19, 2018.

High-level Program Guidance Review

Show Me the Money…Details Annual 2018= 8.3M allocation FY 19-20= $18.33M 2019= 10M 2020= 10M FY 21-22= 2021= 10M $30M 2022= 10M 2023= 15M FY 23-24= $30M 2024= 15M TBD

Money … continued Min/Max Competitive Minimum funding request = $60K Program Maximum funding request= $2M Minimum funding Rapid request= N/A Response Maximum funding Program request= $500K

Competitive Program Timeline July 23, 2018: Solicitation Starts 1 st Cycle August 31, 2018: Letter of Intent Due October 15, 2018: Application due September-November: Staff review December 2018 –January 2019: SRTS Advisory Committee makes recommendation February 21, 2019: Oregon Transportation Commission considers approval of project list March 2019 - 2024: Agreements signed and projects built.

Project Proposal Evaluation Targets Non-MPO Title I

Next-level Guidance Discussion

First Round of $: Proposal Focus Tile I schools area Priority Safety Corridors Highest Priority Elementary/Middle schools Project Readiness Proximity to Schools (1/2 mile) Medium Weight Benefits to Multiple Schools Priorities Complete Existing Routes Low Connection with education and encouragement programs Weight Priorities

Timing & Decision Making: RR and PIP Staff Rolling applications starting in Spring 2018 Recommendation Program Manager screen for eligibility and weighted criteria SRAC or SRAC sub-committee review applications for approval in a timely manner SRAC determines how to incorporate targets into decisions

RAC Debrief and Discussion

Accomplishments! Jan Nov Narrow March Values and Program Update Public Outcomes Design to OTC Comment Period Open! April Dec Feb High level Program Recommend guidance Design Draft Rules /OAR to Ideas SoS

RAC Values and Outcomes Geographic Rural and small areas are able to compete for funds Equity Funds are dispersed across a geographically diverse landscape to communities of all sizes and characteristics Social Underserved or economically depressed areas (including Title I Schools) are identified and addressed Equity The biking and walking built-environment around schools is open to all people, communities, and cultures There are no more student fatalities or serious injuries (Vision Zero is realized) Safety Policy and design reflect a high standard of safety near schools Children feel safer walking or biking to school Issues are proactively addressed, rather than waiting for a crash to occur The most unsafe areas are addressed

RAC Values and Outcomes Health Complete routes near schools encourage physical activity More kids walk and bike to school Communication, Communities are involved in decision making and project prioritization Coordination, School districts are engaged and Interagency collaboration occurs (e.g. between roadway agency and school) Collaboration Projects are selected using a public and transparent process Legislature sees this as a good use of funds SRTS infrastructure and non-infrastructure programs are aligned and support one another Maximize Funds are leveraged to make SRTS dollars stretch further resources Projects are scoped as accurately as possible and cost over-runs are minimal Scoping and project delivery are streamlined Projects get built and funds are allocated in a timely fashion

RAC input on Guidance Program Policy and Design Discussion Create Technical Develop steps for Prioritize existing routes Prioritize: equity, safety, Assistance/Project project selection and Link between IN and NI or where no routes rural, leverage Planning Program delivery exist? Comments on OAR referring to Guidance How will Rapid Response work? How will Project Planning Assistance work? Key Considerations Clarify how ODOT will compete with local Streamlining proposals Prioritize communities with NI programs jurisdictions.

We’re on track for implementation! May June July Rule Public Program Finalize Rule Review Policy and Program • Meet with • Meet with • Developed RAC RAC Application materials • Formal public • Respond to review Comments • OTC adopt rule and review • Public Hearing • Recommend program policy (May 15th) policy • Open solicitation • Set guidance