New Search
11 1 1 1 <br /> ~ ~ 11 1 ~ I ~ 1 <br /> the Transportation System Plan level exponentially. Both increased state <br /> might be detailed enough to forgo an and local funding will be required to <br /> additional public process that would meet these growing costs. Yet local <br /> be redundant; and 3) Determine if jurisdictions today have limited ability <br /> public involvement can be conducted to raise revenue, and for counties there <br /> concurrently with, not after, certain are few options that do not require <br /> development phases. referring a ballot measure to the voters. <br /> There may be other models of public There is general agreement that local <br /> involvement that can speed projects governments need more effective tools <br /> and provide greater accessibility to the to raise transportation revenues. Local <br /> decision-making process. The Vision governments, AAA Oregon, and the <br /> Committee recommends that a joint Oregon Trucking Associations each have <br /> legislative/stakeholder task force review distinct concerns that could be resolved <br /> national "best practices" standards, if cost-responsibility could be addressed <br /> local planning and project development and maintain relative equity between <br /> guidelines and make recommendations cars and trucks. These parties are <br /> for improving the public involvement currently discussing these issues and <br /> process in Oregon. examining other options to provide local <br /> jurisdictions with the opportunity to <br /> 4. Evaluate transportation decision- raise transportation revenue locally with i <br /> making in metropolitan regions. the goal of achieving resolution during <br /> Area Commissions on Transportation the 2009 Legislature. <br /> (ACTs) make recommendations on <br /> transportation investment priorities. 6. Relax legal constraints on facility <br /> Metropolitan Planning Organizations co-location. <br /> (MPOs) set similar priorities and make There are potential economies in the co- <br /> federal planning, system management location of ODOT and local government <br /> and investment criteria. Membership, highway facilities. Efforts to implement <br /> authority, and decision-making facility co-locations, however, have been i <br /> processes differ between these local frustrated by the extremely long lead <br /> organizations and improvements in times demanded by the state capital i <br /> the process may increase stakeholder construction process. A mechanism for <br /> consensus and metropolitan exempting ODOT buildings from current <br /> transportation management. state budget requirements is needed if ~ <br /> ODOT is to be able to respond better to <br /> The Oregon Transportation Commission co-location opportunities. <br /> (OTC) should initiate a study of national ~i <br /> <br /> "best practices" for improving the Modification of statutory requirements <br /> delivery of metropolitan transportation governing state/local co-locations to <br /> services through enhanced regional better enable consideration of the <br /> decision making. mutual benefits of these transactions <br /> would both protect the public interest <br /> 5. Expand the use of local option and facilitate the efficiency gains of ~ <br /> registration fees. co-location. This will require ODOT to <br /> Prompted in part by the loss of develop a legislative concept. <br /> federal timber payments to counties, <br /> the inadequacy of local government 7. Develop and implement interim <br /> transportation revenue is becoming project selection criteria. <br /> critical. Local maintenance and capital ODOT's modernization program remains <br /> improvement costs continue to grow funded at a modest level, and much <br /> <br />