Michigan transportation alternatives program
Download
1 / 36

Michigan Transportation Alternatives Program - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 175 Views
  • Uploaded on

Michigan Transportation Alternatives Program. Michigan Suburbs Alliance November 18, 2013. Transportation Enhancement Program. Popular program with most states and local communities Some states didn’t embrace TE Some states used TE funds only on their system

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Michigan Transportation Alternatives Program' - ellis


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Michigan transportation alternatives program

Michigan TransportationAlternatives Program

Michigan Suburbs Alliance

November 18, 2013


Transportation enhancement program
Transportation Enhancement Program

  • Popular program with most states and local communities

  • Some states didn’t embrace TE

  • Some states used TE funds only on their system

  • Some Members of Congress thought TE was frivolous


Congressional compromise
Congressional Compromise

  • Consolidate 3 federal programs (TE, RTP and SRTS) into one program – TAP

  • Eliminate some TE program categories

  • Substantial reduction in overall funding

  • Allow transfer provisions to give states flexibility

  • Strengthen input of locals by mandating a role for Metropolitan Planning Organization’s


TE, SRTS, & RTP in Michigan before MAP-21

TE – centralized DOT reviewand selection process

SRTS– centralized DOT review and selection process after school-based planning process

  • Open call for applications, quarterly review meetings

  • Quarterly communication between DOT and MPO’s sending TE and SRTS application and approved project lists

  • All Local TE and SRTS projects implemented by Local Agencies through MDOT’s letting process and with MDOT oversight

  • Both TE and SRTS Programs were and are in the same

    MDOT office

    RTP – administered by the MDNR


Funding distribution
Funding Distribution

Statewide TAP Apportionment $26 Million

Rec. Trails $2.9 million

50% by Population

50% Any Area

SEMCOG Region Receives about $5 Million


MAP-21 Challenges:

MDOT perspective

  • Less than 90 days to prepare new program

  • Many unknowns

  • Grant IT system was scheduled for August 2013 implementation and designed with “TE” in mind

  • 6 Large MPO’s and State received direct suballocation - could result in 7 different TAP Programs

  • Avoid disruption of existing TE projects that

  • were “in the pipeline”

  • Let’s not make the same mistakes again!

  • Direction from MDOT Director


MAP-21 Challenges:

SEMCOG perspective

  • Less than 90 days to prepare new program

  • Many unknowns

  • SEMCOG did not have a system established to process TAP projects

  • SEMCOG did not have staff available to solely dedicate to TAP

  • Because of “Fiscal Constraint”, there is pressure to obligate all available funds within a FY

  • Pressure to show value of projects


Answer:

DOT/MPO Collaboration

  • MDOT and SEMCOG began meeting to coordinate respective TAP’s

  • MDOT Selection Advisory Committee utilized by SEMCOG for project comment and technical review

  • Schedules have been coordinated to fully integrate MDOT’s Selection Advisory Team into SEMCOG’s TAP application process

  • SEMCOG funded some projects from MDOT’s FY 2013 Conditional Commitment list


Answer:

DOT/MPO Collaboration

  • SEMCOG (and the 5 other Large MPO’s in MI) adopted the MDOT Grant System for TAP applications and review documentation

  • Monthly meetings are held between MDOT and MPO’s to discuss the implementation status of all TAP projects (MPO selected and MDOT selected)

  • Reports have been developed to track project progress through the grant application, review, selection, and implementation processes


Advantages:

MDOT’s perspective

  • Win-win for customers! One application, DOT and MPO’s will coordinate reviews and negotiate funding

  • MDOT grant system makes statewide TAP reporting much more efficient

  • More collaboration can lead to better projects that are more likely to be implemented

    • “$ on the ground”, benefitting MI communities

  • Good government in action!


Advantages:

SEMCOG’s perspective

  • Staff time savings - didn’t have to “reinvent the wheel”

  • Did not require a new application portal

  • Take advantage of MDOT’s experience with TE and SRTS projects

  • Builds even more professional links between MDOT and SEMCOG

  • SEMCOG can consider funding all or part

  • of an application submitted to MDOT, and

  • vice versa


Other Advantages

  • Jointly funding projects – MPO’s use all or a portion of their suballocated TAP funding and MDOT uses “Any Area” funds on the same project

    • Helps the Large MPO’s with small TAP suballocations (examples: Niles area receives $43,000/year from the South Bend, IN urbanized area and Kalamazoo receives $246,000/year)

  • So far, MDOT and the MPO’s have jointly funded 6 TAP projects

  • More collaboration likely


Other Advantages

  • Proactive and joint approach to outreach/education of TAP to public

    • Two TAP workshops held

      • Focus on best practices, advice to getting projects funded, & technical assistance on navigating both MGS and eligibility requirements

      • One specific to SRTS - changes under MAP-21/TAP, planning process, eligibility, case studies

    • Ongoing MDOT/SEMCOG outreach to communities

      • Emphasis on meeting prior to application (recommendations; potential other funding sources; meeting match requirements;

      • etc.)


Important Notes

  • MDOT and MPO’s still retain separate competitive selection processes

    • See MDOT’s competitiveness criteria at: www.michigan.gov/tap

    • www.saferoutesmichigan.org

    • See SEMCOG’s competitiveness criteria at: www.semcog.org/TAPCall.aspx

  • Former TE activities and SRTS are still being treated as two separate programs at the DOT level, however, they share the same review schedules

  • RTP is still being administered by the MDNR


Eligible Activities

  • On-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation including:

    • Sidewalks

    • Bicycle infrastructure

    • Pedestrian and bicycle signals

    • Traffic calming techniques

    • Lighting and other safety-related infrastructure

    • ADA compliance


Eligible Activities

Examples: Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities

Marine City Broadway Streetscape

Detroit Midtown Loop


Eligible Activities

Examples: Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities

South Lyon Southwest Connector

Detroit Riverwalk at Milliken State Park


Eligible Activities

Examples: Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities

Macomb Orchard Trail Bridge over M-53

DDOT Bike Racks on Buses


Eligible Activities

Examples: Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities

Detroit West Vernor Bike Lanes


Eligible Activities

Infrastructure-related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for non-drivers including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs


Eligible Activities

Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for nonmotorized users.

Detroit Dequindre Cut Greenway

Polly Ann Trail


Eligible Activities

Construction of turnouts and overlooks

M-26 Great Sand Bay Overlook

M-25 White Rock Overlook


Eligible Activities

Community improvement activities, including:

  • Inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising

  • Preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities

  • Vegetation management practices in transportation rights-of-way to improve roadway safety, prevent against invasive species, and provide erosion control

  • Archeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of transportation projects eligible under title 23.

Houghton Historic Brick Street


Eligible Activities

Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution abatement activities and mitigation to:

  • Address stormwater management, control and water pollution prevention or abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff, including activities described in sections 133(b)(11), 328(a), and 329 of title 23

  • Reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats

    http://youtu.be/kLYX6tp_6zg

Grand Rapids Plainfield Avenue Bio-retention Basins


Match requirements
Match Requirements

  • 20 percent minimum from non-federal sources

  • Encourage partnerships with foundations, businesses, nonprofits

  • Higher match is welcomed


Eligible entities
Eligible Entities

  • Southeast Michigan Act 51 agencies are eligible to submit projects

    • County road agencies

    • Cities/villages

    • Transit agencies

    • Others through eligible entities (need Sponsorship Agreement)


Master Grant System (MGS)

TAP Online Application


Application Process

  • Discuss your project idea with MDOT/SEMCOG

  • Online application: MDOT Grant System

  • Register at https://sso.state.mi.us/




MDOT Project

Competitiveness Details

  • Please visit www.michigan.gov/tap for TAP Competitiveness Details

  • Please visit www.saferoutesmichigan.org for SRTS Competitiveness Details

  • Discuss project with an MDOT or MFF grant coordinator


Project Implementation

  • MDOT Local Agency Programs (LAP) will assist you through the federal aid implementation process www.michigan.gov/mdotlap

  • Contacts

    • Bruce Kadzban, P.E. LAP Manager

    • 517.335.2229 |  [email protected]

    • Landon Johnson, P.E. LAP Staff Engineer 517.335.6779 |  [email protected]


Project Implementation

  • Construction Phase - Federal funding requirements

    • Davis Bacon wage rates

    • 1999/2012 AASHTO design standards

    • 2011 Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD)

    • Environmental clearance

      • Permits

      • SHPO approval

      • Right of way certification

    • Historic Preservation Covenant

    • Matching funds must comply w/ FHWA

    • Resolution from transportation agency governing body to certify a fully funded project and maintenance

    • Competitive bid process through MDOT Local Agency

    • Programs (LAP) referred to as the MDOT let process


Project Implementation

  • Construction Phase - MDOT letting process

    • Letting Schedule found at www.michigan.gov/mdotlap

    • Complete Grade Inspection (GI) package must be submitted to LAP

      • Plans (80% complete)

      • Special provisions

      • Cost estimate

      • Programming application (MDOT form #0259)


Contact Us

  • SEMCOG Contacts:

    • Kevin Vettraino, TAP

    • 313.324.3357 |  [email protected]

    • Kajal Patel, SRTS

    • 313.324.3329 |  [email protected]

  • MDOT Contacts (TAP):

    • Vince Ranger, Grant Coordinator

    • 248.483.5130 |  [email protected]

  • MFF Contacts (SRTS):

    • Adrianna Jordan, Grant Coordinator

    • 517.908.3826 |  [email protected]



ad