Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Highway Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bend TAC revises state highway fund application criteria and forwards recommendation to policy board
Summary
The Bend TAC reviewed and revised criteria and scoring for the upcoming State Highway Fund project application process, agreed on wording changes to prioritize projects benefiting people who cannot drive, removed certain low‑use criteria and voted to forward the revised criteria to the policy board for approval.
The Bend Technical Advisory Committee reviewed proposed scoring criteria for the next State Highway Fund competitive call for projects and voted to recommend the revised criteria to the policy board.
Staff explained the competitive, criteria-based process (run roughly every two to three years) and said the criteria used in 2020 and 2022 would be the starting point for the 2028–2030 funding cycle. The TAC discussed each criterion in turn and suggested wording and scoring changes; committee members then moved to forward the revised criteria as the TAC—s recommendation to the policy board.
Key changes discussed and recorded by staff during the meeting included: clarifying that "multiple users" means multiple modes (for scoring), removing the word "drivers" and explicitly including "those who do not drive" (for example, pedestrians, cyclists, transit-dependent populations) in the criterion that rewards projects serving non‑driving populations, retaining a safety criterion, keeping an equity criterion tied to ODOT's equity mapping tool, and dropping two low‑value criteria used previously ("supports economic development" and a freight-routing criterion) because members found them less useful for scoring small projects given the limited funding available.
Committee members debated how to interpret "system efficiency" and agreed to frame it as improvements in efficiency and reliability that do not increase vehicle lane mileage (staff agreed to add language such as "without increasing vehicle lane capacity" to clarify intent). Members also discussed scoring weights: TAC members considered assigning a higher weight to the criterion that prioritizes projects serving people who cannot drive and discussed putting that criterion at a higher point value (staff said they would circulate a clean draft of the revised criteria and scoring after the meeting).
The TAC voted on a motion to recommend the revised project application criteria and scoring to the policy board. The motion passed by voice vote; the committee chair adjourned the meeting after final comments and scheduling the next TAC meeting for July 1.
Staff said they will email a clean draft of the final revised criteria and scoring to TAC members for confirmation before the packet that goes to the policy board.
