2008-2011 STIP Final - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

F1NAL 2008-2011 STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IlVIPROVEMENT PROGRAM Using the list generated by the Pavement Management System (PMS), each Region is responsible for recommending preservation projects for inclusion in the STIP. C.2. Construction STIP Prioritization Factors for Pavement Preservation Footnotes isProject Readiness for C-STIP Preservation Projects Projects that can begin construction within the timeframe of the STIP and within the timeframe expected are considered to be more ready than those that have many or complicated remaining steps. The overall judgement of a project's readiness is dependent on timeliness of construction expectations not on the number of steps to be completed. 14Preservation Projects that Best Support the Oregon Highway Plan Policies Oregon Highway Plan policies that are applicable to preservation projects may include but are not neces- sarily limited to the following (Table 1): • lA, 1B, 1C, 1D, lE, 2A, 2C, ZE, 2F, 3A, 4A, 4B, and SA 'sLeverage and Public Benefit for C-STIP Preservation Projects ACTS, MPOs and regional or statewide advisory groups should evaluate how proposed projects leverage additional funding or collateral community benefits and make wise and efficient use of infrastructure and natural resources. Examples of leverage and public benefits for C-STIP pavement preservation projects include: • Other funding contributions, such as additional federal funds, local matching funds or provision of project right-of--way, private funding. • Bundling with other infrastructure projects (provided no adverse affect on project readiness). • Environmental enhancement, such as culvert replacement and improved drainage. • Transfer of jurisdiction from state to local control. • Leveraging of additional funds that contribute to transportation system effectiveness, revitaliza- tion of the downtown or mainstreet, etc. • Direct benefits to multiple modes of travel. This would include local efforts to accommodate non- auto modal opportunities. • Local circulation improvements that support and complement the state highway project. • Improvements in Oregon's economy by addressing transportation challenges. D. Bridge The process of identifying bridge projects for the STIP is two-fold in nature: (1) bridges are inspected at least every two years in order that the most current inspection information is used to develop a list of bridges; and (2) the use of a Bridge Management System (BMS). The State has implemented the use of bridge management system software condition evaluation criteria for bridge inspection. Upon full im- plementation of all the BMS software modules, the BMS will evaluate the existing condition of bridges, predict the rate of deterioration and suggest repairs and rehabilitation option. For development of the 08- 11 STIP, the Bridge Program will continue to use other technical databases to identify bridges that meet twelve separate deficiency parameters. Applying this information, after technical review and coordina- tion with the Regions and the State Bridge Leadership Team, the State Bridge Program Manager recom- mends aprioritized list of projects for inclusion in the STIP. The role of ACTS, MPOs and regional or statewide advisory groups is to review the timing of the bridge replacement/rehabilitation projects as they relate to other local projects or issues; their comments will be considered as part of the process. It is an- ticipated that these groups will primarily enhance selected projects by leveraging additional funding or collateral community benefit. Page 348