Development Of The 2024-2027 Statewide Transportation .

Development of the2024-2027 Statewide TransportationImprovement ProgramDecember 1, 2020Jerri Bohard, Policy, Data and Analysis Division AdministratorAmanda Pietz, Climate Office DirectorKaren Rowe, Delivery and Operations Division AdministratorJeff Flowers, Statewide Investments Management Section ManagerTravis Brouwer, Assistant Director for Revenue, Finance & Compliance1

Outline of Today’s Discussion Overview of Decisions in December &January Public Input Overview Scenario Discussion & Decision

2024-2027 STIP Development & Analysis Process21-24 ysisAllocationDecisionPhase 2Project SelectionJulyKick off 24-27STIP fundingallocation withOTC decision onprogram fundingareasAug-NovDevelopment ofscenarios basedon Commissioninput,stakeholderinput on fundingprioritiesAug-NovApplication ofclimate lens andanalysis oftradeoffs amongoutcomes forSTIP fundingscenariosDec-JanOTC approval ofprogram fundingand kick offphase 2Application ofclimate lens inSTIP projectscoping andselectiondecisions2

STIP Funding Allocation DecisionsDecember OTC selects funding scenarioJanuary ODOT presents program allocations OTC direction on how to plan for anyadditional federal funds3

January: Program-Level Funding DecisionsEnhance HighwayWhat types of projectsshould we prioritize?Non-HighwayHow much should weallocate to transit andbicycle/pedestrian?What are the prioritieswithin each mode?Fix-ItHow much should wespend on each type ofasset?

January: Planning for Additional Federal Funding 600.0MAP-21FAST ACT21-24 STIP24-27 STIPMillions of Dollars 500.010% Reduction 400.0 300.0 02020212022202320242025202620275

Public Input Overview

STIP Public Engagement andInput Opportunities in Phase II Advisory committee discussions onfunding scenarios Online open house for public commenton funding scenarios Webinar on November 2 for publiccomment opportunity Encouraging stakeholders to weigh inthrough letters to the OTC4

Themes of Public Input Support to increase Non-Highway fundingto advance equity, address climate, andenhance accessibility and mobility for all Support for Fix-It investments andreluctance to cut spending on bridge &pavement preservation to avoidaccelerating system deterioration Support for Enhance Highway investmentsto reduce congestion and help economy

Spending Priorities in the 2024-2027 STIPPercent Saying the Area is Somewhat or Very ImportantMaintaining roads and bridgesImproving safetyReducing traffic congestionProtecting the environmentSeismic improvementsSenior and disabled transportationProtecting fish and wildlifeExpanding roadsLocal public transportationReducing GHG emissionsIntercity bus serviceAdding sidewalks and bike lanesPassenger rail0%10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%TNIS 2020STIP Survey10

Online Open House: Scenario RankingsWhich option would best help advance Oregon’s transportation goals?0-4 scale, higher numbers show stronger Highway &SafetyFix-It11

Online Open House:Key Themes in Comments Address climate change (59) Focus on preservation and safety (39) Prioritize safety (33) Prioritize non-highway improvements(27) Prioritize public transit and rail (22) Focus on bicycle/pedestrian projects(23)

Scenario Discussion & Decision

2024-2027 STIP Initial Scenarios 2,500,000,000 2,000,000,000 1,500,000,000 1,000,000,000 500,000,000 Adjusted BaselineLocal ProgramADA Curb RampsEnhanceNon-HighwayOther itNon-Highway14

Tradeoffs – Scenario Results Relative to Adjusted BaselineIMPACT OF SCENARIO FUNDINGLEVELS ACROSS DESIREDOUTCOME AREASADJUSTED S4FIX-IT 6 FIX-IT(-7% NON-HIGHWAY) 271% ENHANCE 35% NON-HIGHWAY 35% SAFETY(-15% FIX-IT) 103% NON-HIGHWAY(-14% FIX-IT) 103% ENHANCE 55% SAFETY 42% NON-HIGHWAY(-15% FIX-IT) 14% FIX-IT(-51% NON-HIGHWAY)CLIMATE CHANGE GHG MITIGATIONDMost trips drive alone & in lowMPG carsCLIMATE CHANGE - ADAPTATION/RESILIENCECSlow progress with preservationprojectsCONGESTION RELIEFBSelect, legislatively fundedbottleneck projects indevelopmentSOCIAL EQUITYCFew low cost travel optionsMULTIMODAL MOBILITYDMany connectivity gapsSAFETYBFocus on fatalities and seriousinjuriesSTATE OF GOOD REPAIRCSeveral assets and areasdeterioratingNote: Changes to program funding levels are relative to 2021-2024 STIP funding; Enhance Highway funding calculations exclude HB 2017 earmarked fundsNote: All changes to fix-it funding levels account for the 120M reduction for 2021-2024 ADA requirements

2,500,000,0002,000,000,000New Proposed Hybrid ScenariosHYBRID 000404,500,000404,500,000Hybrid 1: NonHighway/Fix-ItHybrid 2: NonHighway/Enhance1,500,000,000CHANGES IN FUNDING RELATIVE TO 2021-2024 STIP FUNDINGPROGRAM FUNDINGCATEGORY221,550,000HYBRID 2;NON-HIGHWAY/ENHANCE1,000,000,000FIX-IT 4% 5%ENHANCE HIGHWAY(DISCRETIONARY) 100% 275%NON-HIGHWAY SAFETY500,000,00040% LOCAL ADA CURB RAMPS Both Hybrid Scenariosmaintain funding levelsreflected in the AdjustedBaseline Scenario for theseprogram funding categories42% - Note: Changes to program funding levels are relative to 2021-2024 STIP funding; Enhance Highway funding calculations exclude HB 2017 earmarkedfundsNote: All changes to fix-it funding levels account for the 120M reduction for 2021-2024 ADA requirementsLocal ProgramOther FunctionsHB 2017 EnhanceSafetyADA Curb RampsFix-itEnhance HighwayNon-Highway

Tradeoffs – considerations when evaluating STIP funding scenariosProgram funding categoriesare distinct, but not siloedFix-itEnhanceSafetyNon-Highway70% of projects are funded by more than one of these programsSafety is engrained throughout ODOT investmentsAt least 0.60 of every 1.00 spent in any program funding category benefits safetyImpacts on GHG Emissions MitigationThe OTC is required to consider GHG emissions in STIP decisions The scenario results in this presentation were developed by the Climate Office and showwhich scenarios will reduce GHG emissions (green boxes in tradeoff charts) After the OTC determines program allocations, the Climate Office will inform project selectionand report on GHG totals in the final STIP Analysis will show additional opportunities, but different actions are needed to reduce GHG17

Summary Results – Hybrid ScenariosIMPACT OF SCENARIO FUNDING LEVELS ACROSS DESIRED OUTCOME AREASHybrid 1Non-Highway 40%Fix-It 4%Enhance Hwy(-100%)CLIMATE CHANGE GHG MITIGATIONCLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION/RESILIENCENon-Highway 42%Enhance Hwy 275%Fix-it (-5%)DMost trips drive alone & inlow MPG carsCSlow progress withpreservation projectsBCONGESTION RELIEFHybrid 2HYBRID 1:NON-HIGHWAY/FIX-ITADJUSTED BASELINESOCIAL EQUITYMULTIMODALMOBILITYSAFETYSTATE OF GOODREPAIRSelect, legislatively fundedbottleneck projects indevelopmentCFew low cost travel optionsDMany connectivity gapsBFocus on fatalities andserious injuriesCSeveral assets and areasdeterioratingSlight GHG reductions anticipated2nd(performsbest overall behind nonhighway scenario)HYBRID 2:NON-HIGHWAY/ENHANCENo emission reductionsNon-highway and enhance offset(performs 2nd worst behind fix-it scenarioand same as baseline)Slight, marginal declineFewer adaptation projects(performs roughly same as the baseline andbetter than enhance and non-highwayscenarios)(marginal decline from baseline but stillbetter than enhance and non-highwayscenarios)Less resources for bottleneck projectsbut is offset some by multimodalprojects (overall performance is similar toSome funding for critical bottlenecks(performs best overall for congestion)baseline)Slight increase in access for all usersSlight increase in access for all users(does not perform as well as non-highwayscenarios but better than enhance, baselineand fix-it scenarios)(does not perform as well as non-highwayscenarios but better than enhance, baselineand fix-it scenarios)Small increase in bikeways, walkways,TDM programs, etc.Small increase in bikeways, walkways,TDM programs, etc.(does not perform as well as non-highwayscenarios but better than enhance, baselineand fix-it scenarios)(does not perform as well as non-highwayscenarios but better than enhance, baselineand fix-it scenarios)No change from baselineNo change from baseline(safety funding flat, consistent with baselineand 21-24 STIP)(safety funding flat, consistent with baselineand 21-24 STIP)Consistent with baseline(Funding consistent with 21-24 STIP;expect continued system decline)Overall, hybrids help to lessen hit to Fix-It and show directionality for other outcomesSmall decline(decline from baseline but not as much asenhance and non-highway scenarios;slightly more rapid decline)

Tradeoffs –Impacts of Hybrid Scenarios on SOGR12002021-2024 STIPFix-it Funding10008006004002000Adjusted BaselineHybrid 1Remaining Scenario FundingHybrid 221-24 ADA Borrow

Tradeoffs – State of Good Repair Under Hybrid 1State Highway Bridge idges 900 year bridge replacement cycle Continue making “throw-away” repairsto bridges that should be replaced Bridges off Priority Corridors limited forheavy loads in near termPavements 50 year paving cycle- average pavementlife is 25 years with patching Conditions off Priority Corridors declinedue to very few paving projects

Tradeoffs--- State of Good RepairUnder Hybrid 2Adds to backlog of work; conditions decline fasterEven more throw-away work for bridgesLoad postings on bridges accelerateMaintenance on some rural highways ceasesUsers will notice rougher roads primarily on lowvolume highways Negative impacts on resilience and climateadaptation across all programs

Tradeoffs – Impacts of Hybrid Scenarios on Other Outcomes Getting to different outcomes will require changes in decision-making Increased investment in non-highway most benefits Climate ChangeGHG Mitigation, Multimodal Mobility, and Social Equity outcomes2502002021-2024 STIPFix-it Funding15010050 Needs far outweigh available funds; top among historicallyunderfunded outcome areas, include: Climate Change GHG Mitigation Multimodal Mobility and Social EquityHYBRID 140% increase to non-highway funding, 100% decrease to enhance highway funding;maintaining status quo 21-24 funding for fix-it (4% increase)IMPACTS: Slight reductions to GHG emissions anticipated Increased access for all users Increase in bikeways, walkways, and TDM programs0Adjusted BaselineHybrid 1Hybrid 2Non-highway Scenario FundingHYBRID 2275% Increase to enhance highway funding, 42% increase to non-highway funding;5% decrease from status quo 21-24 fix-it fundingIMPACTS: GHG emissions reductions gained in Hybrid 1 offset by increased Enhance Highway in Hybrid 2 Some funding available to address critical bottlenecks Increased access for all users Increase in bikeways, walkways, and TDM programs

Possible Modifications – Hybrid 2B and Hybrid 3CHANGES IN FUNDING-LEVELS RELATIVE TO 2021-2024 STIP (DOLLAR AMOUNTS SHOWN IN MILLIONS)CATEGORY21-24STIP*FIX-IT** 850 6% 902 4% 880 5% 805 5% 805 32% 579ENHANCE HWYDISCRETIONARY 24 24 100% 0 275% 90 192% 70 400% 120NON-HIGHWAY 158 6% 148 40% 221.5 42% 225 55% 245 86% 294SAFETY 147 147 147 147 147 55% 228ADJUSTED BASELINEHYBRID 1HYBRID 2-AHYBRID 2-BHYBRID 3*Initial funding allocation approved by OTC in December 2017; ADA curb ramps were funded in Non-Highway and Fix-it categories**Fix-it Funding Adjusted to account for borrowing funds for 2021-2024 ADA needs