Laserfiche WebLink
ODOThas expectations for how the applications will be reviewed and for documenting <br />how the final lists were selected. The following expectations will be included in the <br />direction to ACTs, MPOs, and others to guide their review of applications and their <br />development of prioritized project lists: <br />a.The process used to review applications and establish priorities should be <br />as inclusive of participants and as transparent as possible. <br />b.No benefit category is to be defined as more important than others,and <br />project applications do not need to show benefit in all categories to be <br />eligible. Reviewers are to discuss the project benefits holisticallyand <br />strive for consensus. Becausedifferent types of projects will have <br />different kinds of benefits, to decidebefore review that certain benefits are <br />most important will disadvantage some projects that may be important to <br />the area. Likewise, reviewers should not use overall numerical scores to <br />determine outcomes, but use a discussion and consensus process. <br />Reviewers mayuse qualitative rankings within the benefit categories. For <br />example, different projects may have high, medium, or low benefits for <br />individual benefit categories such as mobility or livability. Discussion and <br />consensus will then decide how to prioritizeprojects with very different <br />benefits. <br />c.Reviewers can use state and local plans and goals and policies described <br />in plans to help determine priority. Plans may include the Oregon <br />Transportation Plan, the Oregon Highway Plan, other Oregon <br />transportation topic or mode plans, local transportation system plans, local <br />comprehensive plans, etc. <br />d.Reviewers are expected to consider the merits of the project regardless of <br />the level of detail in the application. For example, some jurisdictions may <br />have access to considerable data and analyses to support their project. <br />Other jurisdictions with more limited staff resources and experience may <br />have less detail to report, but their applications must be considered <br />equally. <br />e.ODOT will require that the decision-making processbe documented in a <br />consistent manner throughout the state. The department will provide a <br />template to accomplish this. <br />f.Some programsincluded in Enhancehave previously developedSTIP <br />selection criteria. Reviewers are not required to use these other STIP <br />criteria in establishing priorities. However,reviewersare welcome to <br />consider these other STIP criteria if they are helpful in the prioritization <br />process. <br />g.Reviewers must include any required elements of project prioritization in <br />their evaluations. For example, ODOT is required in statute to give priority <br />to freight projects in the STIP. ODOT region staff will explain such <br />requirements to reviewers. The final list and documentation will show how <br />they were considered. Similarly, ODOT will ensure that the final STIP <br />meets all legal requirements, such as minimum amounts for certain types <br />of projects including bicycleand pedestrianprojects. <br />9/24/2012Page 13 <br /> <br />