ADVOCACY ADVANCE ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP Action 2020 Workshop ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP Concordia, MO...

ADVOCACY ADVANCE ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP Action 2020 Workshop

ACTION 2020 WORKSHOPConcordia, MO

August 15, 2012

1

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

Action 2020 Workshops

Advocates, agency staff & elected officials

Work collaboratively to increase bicycle & pedestrian investments

Materials are available online: advocacyadvance.org

Navigating MAP-21

State strategies MPO Working

Group Resources and

tools Webinars

www.AdvocacyAdvance.org/MAP21

Agenda

8:30 Introductions

9:00 Keynote Speaker: State Senator David Pearce

9:30 The ABCs of MAP-21

10:00 Break

10:15 Funding Program Overview

11:15 Funding from the Local Context

11:45 Lunch

12:30 Road Map for Success

1:15 Small Groups: Opportunities and Next Steps in MAP-21

1:45 Closing

2:00 Adjourn

Working Together

Elected Officials• Set priorities• Vision• Budget• Public Accountability

Advocates• Knowledge of local

needs• Represent the public

will• Demonstrate

community support• OrganizeAgency Staff

• Technical expertise• Knowledge of the

process• Project selection• Get stuff done

Introductions

Name Organization / Agency Position Why are you here today?

Senator David Pearce District 31

Keynote Speaker

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.

The ABCs of MAP-21

Federal-Aid Bike/Ped Spending 1992-2010

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

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

Transportation Alternatives (Formerly TE)

Combines programs: Transportation

Enhancements (now Transportation Alternatives)

Safe Routes to School Recreational Trails Redevelopment of

underused highways to boulevards

Transportation Alternatives

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

Changes eligibilities from Transportation Enhancements

Reduction in Funding

SAFETEA LU- FY 2011

TOTAL: $1.2 BILLION

MAP-21

TOTAL: $808 MILLION

TE

$928 MILLIO

N

SRTS $202 M

RTP $97

TRANSPORT-ATION

ALTERNATIVES

$808 M

SOURCE: FHWA, Revised Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Supplementary Tables – Apportionments Pursuant to the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010, as Amended. Feb 1, 2012

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

Distribution of Funding

1. State gets funding equivalent of 2% of highway funds (minus safety , etc.)

2. Recreational Trails Program funded3. 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

Grant Program Mechanics

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


3. Remaining funding is divided into 2 equal potsPOT 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

Missouri Example Funds Distributed by Population

Map and Data source: Rails to Trails Conservancy, http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/ourWork/MPOs_by_state

MPO/ Metropolitan area

Percent of Pot 1 Funding (estimated)

Kansas City 14.2%

St. Louis 29.6%

Springfield 4.5%

Rest of state 51.4%


3. Remaining funding is divided into 2 equal potsPOT 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

State Ability to Transfer Funds

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

4. State can choose to transfer funding out

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

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

Expediting Projects/Streamlining

Streamlining of regulations Categorical Exclusion (CE)

SAFETEA-LU Categorical Exclusions

• Biking and walking projects

MAP-21 Categorical Exclusions

• Biking and walking projects

• Projects within the right-of-way

• Projects with a total cost of less than $5 million

Break

Back at 10:15

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

Program Overview

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

Federal-Aid Highway Programs Surface Transportation Program (STP) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement (CMAQ) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Section 402 Safety Grants

Federal-Aid Bike/Ped Spending 1992-2010

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

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Including American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds Not including ARRA

Millions

Growth in Bicycle Commuting

How about Missouri?

Current overall $ MAP-21

2012 - 2013 -

Other Issues

Suggested Approaches

Guidance & Policy Application Prioritization Committee

Membership Political Support Focus on Safety

Denali National Park and Preserve

Surface Transportation Program (STP)

Flexible funding Construction of

bicycle transportation facilities and walkways

Non-construction projects related to safe bicycle use

80% Federal Share

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

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

CMAQ Examples

Capital Bikeshare (Washington, DC & Arlington, VA)

Millennium Park Cycling Center (Chicago, IL)

Bike racks (Sacramento, CA)

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)

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

City# of CMAQ

projects

# Ped - Bicycle Projects

% Ped - Bicycle Projects

Seattle, WA 181 88 48.6

Milwaukee, WI 124 58 46.7

Sacramento, CA 210 95 45.2

San Francisco, CA 469 209 44.5

Portland, OR 90 37 41.1

Atlanta, GA 230 75 32.6

Chicago, IL 454 138 30.3

Boston, MA 152 39 25.6

Buffalo, NY 45 11 24

Cincinnati, OH 86 14 16.2

City# of CMAQ

projects

# Ped - Bicycle Projects

% Ped - Bicycle Projects

Philadelphia, PA 231 35 15.1

Washington, DC 530 79 14.9

New York, NY 275 33 12

Denver, CO 117 13 11.1

Columbus, OH 72 5 6.9

St. Louis, MO 167 11 6.5

Cleveland, OH 120 1 0.8

Pittsburgh, PA 179 1 0.5

Baltimore, MD 45 0 0

(Source: BikePGH, data source: FHWA, 2000-2009)

CMAQ cities, $ for Bike/Ped, 5 yrs

Cities Percent of total CMAQ funding to bicycle/pedestrian projects

Dollars per capita (annual average)

Washington, D.C. 88% $7.41 San Jose, CA 57% $0.47 Seattle, WA 38% $0.69 Kansas City, MO 36% $1.03 Milwaukee, MN 16% $0.54 Philadelphia, PA 12% $0.45 Sacramento, CA 10% $3.72 Phoenix, AZ 8% $0.23 Honolulu, HI 7% $0.67 San Francisco, CA 6% $2.11 Chicago, IL 6% $0.20

Among 50 largest U.S. cities. Source 2012 Benchmarking Report, source data: FMIS, 2006 – 2010.

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)

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

Safety infrastructure All public roads are

eligible Bike lanes, roadway

shoulders, crosswalks, signage

Data driven 90% Federal Share

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

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

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

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

Local Match Share the Road

Plates 3 year grant

Example: GA Bikes

Questions?

Hope ViscontiTransportation Planning CoordinatorMoDOT Kansas City District

Local Context

Questions?

Back at 12:30

Lunch

Favorable factors for bicycling and walking investments

Road Map for Success

Learning Objectives

Identify opportunities for funding and support of bicycle and pedestrian projects

Explore the meaning of institutionalizing bicycle and pedestrian planning

Outline

Implementation through institutionalization 19 ways to fund your bicycle and pedestrian

programs Modifying Planning and Design Documents and

Regulations Finding Sustainable Funding Building Communication, Collaboration, and Support

Introduction

Perception of a lack of funding can be one of the biggest barriers keeping communities from investing in bicycle and pedestrian programs

Funding and support for bicycle and pedestrian projects can come from many different sources – some are obvious, others are not

Institutionalization

Bicyclist and pedestrian needs are part of the agency's mission and corporate culture

Entire organization/agency focuses on reducing crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians

Pedestrian and bicycle considerations are automatically included in all plans, policies and projects

Ways to Fund Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs

Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations

Finding Sustainable Funding Building Communication, Collaboration,

and Support


1. Policy Documents

• Set the tone of the agency or organization

• Include mission statements that indicate the organization’s priorities


2. Planning Documents • Provide an

opportunity for purposefully including bicycle and pedestrian needs into the planning process

• Integrate pedestrian considerations into planning documents


3. Design Guidelines and Standards• Include

specifications for street width, sidewalk design, intersection construction, and crossing facilities


4. Zoning Codes and Land Use Regulations• Residential &

Commercial• Redevelopment

zones• Include amenities


5. Maintenance• Starts with good

design• Prioritize location &

frequency• Follow the money;

51% of money to critical bridges in Pennsylvania

• Paint is your friend• Often related to

water


6. Trails and Rural Communities

• Local control• Opportunities for

input

Finding Sustainable Funding

7. Needs Prioritization and Funding Criteria

• Ensure bicycle/pedestrian projects are competitive with other transportation projects


8. Routine Accommodation• Complete Streets• Consider

bicycle/pedestrian needs in every transportation project


9. Combined Projects• Bundle smaller

projects with larger ones


10. Shovel-Ready and Match

• One project ahead• One match ahead


11. Environmental Impact Statements• Mitigation• Restoration


12. Health Impact Assessments

• Consider both adverse & beneficial health effects

• Incorporate various types of evidence

• Engage communities and stakeholders in a deliberative process


13. Transit• “Alternative

modes” - FTA funding

• Street Crossings - signals, schools & access

• Station area planning - Neighborhood Connectivity

• Social Equity

Building Communication, Collaboration & Support

14. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Boards

• Creates an ongoing system for citizen input


15. Advocacy Groups• Raise awareness• 25 – 2 – 2 – 2


16. Neighborhood Groups

• Macro-paradigm shifts

• 36/36 plans• Gap between

what agency thinks they want and what they really want

• Know the problem, not the correct solution


17. Boards and Commissions• Provide policy

direction and recommendations to state and local government


18. Interagency Coordination• Establish

cooperative relationships and consistent regional priorities


19. Recognition for Good Work• Show support for

bicycle/pedestrian champions

Questions?

Opportunities and Next Steps in MAP-21

Next Steps

What will you do tomorrow?

What do you need help with?

Who will you connect with?

Advocacy Advance Resources Navigating MAP-21 resources and

webinars: www.AdvocacyAdvance.org/MAP21

Rapid Response Grants Reports, technical assistance Winning Campaigns Training

Kansas City, MO: October 19-21 [email protected]

Thank You!

Trailsrpc.orgMacogonline.orgMobikefed.org

ADVOCACY ADVANCE ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP Action 2020 Workshop

TRAINING FOR TRAINERSConcordia, MO

August 15, 2012

84

Agenda

2:00 Break and Transition2:15 Q & A 2:30 Collaboration Tools 2:45 Discussion of Local Issues 3:45 Implementation and Next Steps4:00 Adjourn and Optional Happy Hour

Q & A

Gain clarity and understanding of the content and facilitation of the Action 2020 Workshop

Collaboration Tools

Using the workshops to develop local priorities and act on them

Discussion of Local Issues

Suggested topics include Regional Transportation Plan, statewide trails inventory, sidewalk inventory, uniqueness of rural communities, projects and plans that are happening, Missouri’s plan for MAP-21

Implementation and Next StepsWhat will you do next?

Thank You!

Join us for an optional happy hour at:Biffles Smokehouse BBQ103 NE 2nd St.

ADVOCACY ADVANCE ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP Action 2020 Workshop ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP Concordia, MO...

Documents

Transcript of ADVOCACY ADVANCE ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP Action 2020 Workshop ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP Concordia, MO...