Advocacy Advance Action 2020 Workshop - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

action 2020 workshop n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Advocacy Advance Action 2020 Workshop PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Advocacy Advance Action 2020 Workshop

play fullscreen
1 / 89
Advocacy Advance Action 2020 Workshop
117 Views
Download Presentation
ozzy
Download Presentation

Advocacy Advance Action 2020 Workshop

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Action 2020 Workshop Advocacy Advance Action 2020 Workshop Action 2020 Workshop

  2. Welcome • Partnership funded by SRAM • Double federal funding for bike/ped projects • Work with state, local, and regional partners • Reports, technical assistance & coaching, grants, workshops

  3. Action 2020 Workshops • Advocates, agency staff & elected officials • Work collaboratively to increase bicycle & pedestrian investments • Materials are available online: advocacyadvance.org

  4. Navigating MAP-21 • State strategies • MPO Working Group • Resources and tools • Webinars www.AdvocacyAdvance.org/MAP21

  5. Agenda 8:30 Introductions 9:00 MAP-21 and Funding Program Overview 10:30 Break 10:45Funding from the Local Context 11:15 Keynote Speaker Darwin Hindman 11:45 Lunch 12:45 Road Map for Success 1:00Opportunities and Next Steps in MAP-21 1:45 Closing 2:00 Adjourn

  6. Working Together • Elected Officials • Set priorities • Vision • Budget • Public Accountability • Advocates • Knowledge of local needs • Represent the public will • Demonstrate community support • Organize • Agency Staff • Technical expertise • Knowledge of the process • Project selection • Get stuff done

  7. Introductions • Name • Organization / Agency • Position • Why are you here today?

  8. The ABCs of MAP-21 Basics of the new federal transportation law, how it affects biking and walking and how we can take advantage of new opportunities to fund biking and walking projects and programs.

  9. Federal-Aid Bike/PedSpending 1992-2010

  10. MAP-21 Overview • 2 year bill • October 1, 2012- September 30, 2014 • Extends funding at current level • Themes • Consolidate programs • Streamline project delivery • Give states more flexibility

  11. MAP-21 Changes to Biking and Walking • Transportation Alternatives • Eligible activities • Funding and opt outs • Distribution of Funds • Changes to other funding programs • Highway Safety Improvement Program • STP • CMAQ • Federal Lands

  12. Transportation Alternatives (Formerly TE) • Combines programs: • Transportation Enhancements (now Transportation Alternatives) • Safe Routes to School • Recreational Trails • Redevelopment of underused highways to boulevards

  13. Transportation Alternatives Changes eligibilities from Transportation Enhancements • ADDS: • Safe Routes for Non- Drivers (networks) • ANY Environmental Mitigation • Scenic Byway uses • SUBTRACTS • Funding For Bicycle and Pedestrian Education • Streetscaping • Acquisition of Scenic or Historic sites • Transportation Museums

  14. Reduction in Funding • MAP-21 • TOTAL: $808 MILLION SAFETEA LU- FY 2011 TOTAL: $1.2 BILLION SRTS $202 M TE $928 MILLION TRANSPORT-ATION ALTERNATIVES $808 M RTP $97 SOURCE: FHWA, Revised Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Supplementary Tables – Apportionments Pursuant to the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010, as Amended. Feb 1, 2012

  15. Comparison of Dedicated funding in 2012 vs. 2013 funding for TA

  16. Distribution of Funding 1. State gets funding equivalent of 2% of highway funds (minus safety , etc.) 2. Recreational Trails Program funded 3. Funding is divided into 2 equal pots; • One distributed by population • One to a grant program 4. State has the ability to transfer funding out of Transportation Alternatives

  17. Grant Program Mechanics

  18. Transportation AlternativesFunding Distribution 2. Recreational Trails Program funding gets taken off the top (unless Governor Opts out) • Maintains Rec Trails Program process and funding (2009 levels) • Opt-out date is 30 days before money is available • Opt-out decision made every year • Rec Trails projects eligible under TA and STP

  19. Transportation AlternativesFunding Distribution 3. Remaining funding is divided into 2 equal pots • POT 1- distributed by population • MPOs Population > 200,000 • Funding is sub-allocated • MPOs must run competitive grant process • Urban areas population < 200,000 • State will run a competitive grant process • Rural areas population < 5000 • State will run a competitive grant process

  20. Missouri Example Funds Distributed by Population Map and Data source: Rails to Trails Conservancy, http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/ourWork/MPOs_by_state

  21. Transportation AlternativesFunding Distribution 3. Remaining funding is divided into 2 equal pots • POT 2- distributed through competitive grant process run by state. • Eligible Entities • Local/regional governments • Tribes • Local/regional transportation agencies • Public land agencies • Other local/regional entities state deems eligible STATE DOT

  22. State Ability to Transfer Funds 4. State can choose to transfer funding out Transfer option: • up to 50% of TA to any other program • Only out of Pot 2 Coburn Opt-out: • based on unobligated balance • Doesn’t apply until year 2 • Unique to TA State of Emergency • Can transfer funding in state of emergency • If State gets federal funds for emergency, must reimburse TA

  23. Other MAP-21 Changes to Biking and Walking • Coordinators: • Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinators are still required • Safe Routes to School Coordinators eligible • Clearinghouses- Not funded in MAP-21 • Bicycle Pedestrian Information Center • Under contract until Summer 2013 • Safe Routes to School National Center • Under contract until January 2013

  24. Eligibility in Other Programs • Expediting Project Delivery • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) • Surface Transportation Program (STP) • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) • Federal Lands Programs

  25. Expediting Projects/Streamlining • Streamlining of regulations • Categorical Exclusion (CE) • SAFETEA-LU Categorical Exclusions • Biking and walking projects • MAP-21 CategoricalExclusions • Biking and walking projects • Projects within the right-of-way • Projects with a total cost of less than $5 million

  26. Program Overview Characteristics, requirements, and opportunities of under-utilized funding sources that exist for biking and walking projects and programs

  27. Outline Funding Overview • History • Today Program features • Bike/ped eligibility • Project examples • Case study Think about • Systems not projects • Federal vs. state and regional policy • Programming decisions • Who, What, Where, When, How • Policy and politics • Resources in folder

  28. Federal-Aid Highway Programs • Surface Transportation Program (STP) • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) • Section 402 Safety Grants

  29. Federal-Aid Bike/PedSpending 1992-2010

  30. Use of Federal Funds for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, 1992 - 2011

  31. Growth in Bicycle Commuting

  32. Suggested Approaches • Guidance & Policy • Application • Prioritization • Committee Membership • Political Support • Focus on Safety Warsaw, MO

  33. Surface Transportation Program (STP) • Flexible funding • Construction of bicycle transportation facilities and walkways • Non-construction projects related to safe bicycle use • 80% Federal Share

  34. STP Example: Peoria Project Rating Criteria • Before 2006, project selection was not quantified • MPO asked League of Illinois Bicyclists for suggestions • Peoria MPO created new quantitative criteria • Most projects now include bike/ped accommodations

  35. Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) • Emission-reductions • Must be non-attainment area for eligibility • Construction and non-construction projects and programs eligible • Typically 80% federal share

  36. CMAQ Examples • Capital Bikeshare (Washington, DC & Arlington, VA) • Millennium Park Cycling Center (Chicago, IL) • Bike racks (Sacramento, CA)

  37. CMAQ Examples: Non-Construction • Bike education (Louisville, KY) • Bike promotion (Washington, DC) • City employee bike fleet (Chicago, IL) • Bike map (Milwaukee, WI &Sacramento, CA) • Bike plan (Philadelphia, PA &Birmingham, AL)

  38. CMAQ cities, # of B/P projects, 10 yrs

  39. CMAQ cities, $ for Bike/Ped, 5 yrs Among 50 largest U.S. cities. Source 2012 Benchmarking Report, source data: FMIS, 2006 – 2010.

  40. Bicycle-friendly policies • Regional decision-making (California, Illinois) • Projects rated by type (Chicago, Kansas City) • Set-aside (Seattle) • Intentional planning (Milwaukee) • Local advocacy support, quality applications (Milwaukee)

  41. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) • Safety infrastructure • All public roads are eligible • Bike lanes, roadway shoulders, crosswalks, signage • Data driven • 90% Federal Share

  42. HSIP Examples: Virginia and Florida • Virginia: • “Fair share for safety” • 10% set-aside • Project selection focused on corridors • Florida: • High bicycle fatalities • $5 million in 2009 • $5.5 million in 2010

  43. Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program • NHTSA & FHWA • Non-infrastructure • Bicycle and pedestrian safety and education programs • Can be run by local advocacy groups • Reimbursement

  44. Section 402 Examples • BikeEd (Bike Texas) • Share the Road program (Atlanta) • BikeSchool (New Jersey) • Helmet distribution (Florida) • Pedestrian safety for older adults • Training on ped/bike design guidelines • Bike Safety Month

  45. Section 402 Example: Bike Walk CT • CRCOG received $20,000 grant for bike education program • Bike Walk CT actively involved • Close agency and advocacy relationship in development of bike education program

  46. Example: GA Bikes • Local Match • Share the Road Plates • 3 year grant

  47. Questions?

  48. Break Back at 10:45

  49. Local Context

  50. Keynote Speaker Darwin Hindman