Winning Bicycling and Walking Projects in TIGER 6 Applications

8/12/2019 Winning Bicycling and Walking Projects in TIGER 6 Applications

1/61

!"##"#$ &'()* + ,-#./

!"#$ &'( )**+ $' ,)'- $' .(/01$ #.(22*..3(4 56789 3()+1): #;;412#


2/61

=+>'2#2& =+>#)2*

---?=+>'2#2&=+>#)2*?'@:


3/61

A*B$ !*/1)#@C(0"#$ 1-2340.52 56 678 952206 90:;!"##"#$ &'()*&+,-( .-((+/ &0-1'201

!1$" $"* D*)$*@ E'@ 5@#).;'@$#


4/61

5'+#&U. V;*#,*@.


5/61

+

2014 ApplicationPreparation WebinarPresented by the Office of the AssistantSecretary for Transportation PolicyUnited States Department of Transportation


6/61

+

! $600 million multimodal, merit-baseddiscretionary grant program

! $120 million for rural areas

! $35 million for planning grants

! Strong focus on creating ladders of opportunity! Modal and geographic equity requirements! No Pre-Application Required


7/61

+How is TIGER different?

! Broadly multimodal

! Open to any governmental entity

! Outcome-based! Use of economic analysis

! Strict time limits on funding

! Performance measures

! Extremely competitive


8/61

+2014 Application Review! Must have submitted Applications on or

before April 28, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. EDT via www.grants.gov .

! Common application deficiencies:! Funding amount requested! Applicant eligibility! Project eligibility! Urban / rural designation and project location

clarity


9/61

+Demand for TIGER!

Over five rounds, only about 5 percent ofapplications have been awarded

! 5,300 applications received

! $115 billion requested

! 270 Awards

! Most awards have been partial funding

! We anticipate about 1,000 applications


10/61

+ What projects compete well?

! Demonstrated strength in at least 2-3 of theprimary selection criteria

! Projects which are difficult to fund elsewhere

! Strong partnership and matches, private fundsfrom benefitting private entities anddemonstrated leveraging of other funds(including federal funds from other agencies,such as HUD, EPA, USDA, SBA, etc.)

! Projects farther along in development

! Presents a clear story and project impact


11/61

+Ladders of Opportunity

! Create or improve connections betweenpeople and centers of employment,education, and services

! Remove barriers to connected systems oftransportation

! Promote workforce development


12/61

+Planning Grants! Up to $35 million available! Project level planning:

! Any pre-construction activity! Highway or bridge projects (including bicycle and

pedestrian related projects);! Public transportation projects;! Passenger and freight rail transportation projects;! Port infrastructure investments;! and Intermodal projects


13/61

+Planning Grants! Regional planning examples include:

! Development of master plans, comprehensive plans, or corridorplans that will provide connection to jobs for disadvantagedpopulations, or include affordable housing components

! Planning activities related to the development of a multimodal freight

corridor, including those that seek to reduce conflicts withresidential areas and with passenger and non-motorized traffic! Development of port and regional port planning grants, including

State-wide or multi-port planning within a single jurisdiction orregion

! Planning to encourage multiple projects within a common area toengage in programmatic mitigation in order to increase efficiencyand improve outcomes for communities and the environment

! Risk Assesments and planning to identify vulnerabilities and addressthe transportation system's ability to withstand probable occurrenceor recurrence of an emergency or major disaster or impacts ofclimate change.


14/61

+Planning Grants! Same selection criteria as capital grants! Applicants should demonstrate means and

methods to align with the criteria! Example: How will this process lead to a plan that

addresses economic development and environmentalsustainability? Who will be involved in creating it, etc

" Demonstrated alignment with housing, land use,economic development, stormwater, and otherinfrastructure elements.

" BCAs not required, but quantifying potentialbenefits and outcomes recommended


15/61

+TIGER Evaluation Process

! Does the project align well with the long termpriorities of USDOT? (state of good repair,economic competitiveness, livability, sustainability,safety). Does it provide better ladders ofopportunity and create more connections betweenpeople and jobs?

! Does the application demonstrate jurisdictionaland/or disciplinary partnership?

! Does the application leverage significant non-federal resources?

! Is the project innovative in terms of design,technology, project delivery, or financing?


16/61

+Bikes, Peds, and TIGER

! 8]*2* ;@':@#0 $' 1)2@*#.* 3()+1): 3'@ /12&24* ;@'^*2$.

! A'$ $"* (.(#4 2#$*:'@12#4F 3'@0(4# ;@':@#0! Z1,* ;@'^*2$. "#>* @*2*1>*+ _GHS 01441')! S?I` '3 $'$#4! 5"1. +'*. )'$ 1)24(+* ;@'^*2$. -1$" /1,*P;*+ *4*0*)$.

! 5"1. @'()+ #44'-. 3'@ 2#;1$#4 =AN ;4#))1): #;;412#


17/61

+TIGER Capital Grantees

8#.$ Z#& L*+*.$@1#) #)+ Z12&24* A*$-'@,F 56789 QKGK=;;412#)$P V;').'@J 8#.$ Z#& 9*:1')#4 L#@, N1.$@12$

5'$#4 L@'^*2$ D'.$ _SIFIKKFKKK

7@#)$ E()+1): _GKFQKKFKKK

5"* 8#.$ Z#& L*+*.$@1#) #)+ Z12&24* A*$-'@, -144 24'.* .*>*@#4 2@1*@.* ;';(4#


18/61

+TIGER Capital Grantees

6)+1#)#;'41. Z12&24* #)+ L*+*.$@1#) A*$-'@,=;;412#)$P V;').'@J D1$& '3 6)+1#)#;'41.

5'$#4 L@'^*2$ D'.$ _bQFHKKFKKK

7@#)$ E()+1): _QKFHKKFKKK

5"* ;@'^*2$ -144 2'0;4*$* $"* *1:"$a014* (@/#) /12&24* #)+ ;*+*.$@1#) )*$-'@, 1) $"* "*#@$ '3 +'-)$'-) 6)+1#)#;'41.?5"* )*$-'@, -144 2'))*2$ $"* +'-)$'-) +1.$@12$. '3 M#.. =>*)(*F 6)+1#)# =>*)(*F $"* D#)#4 !#4, #)+ !"1$* 91>*@V$#$* L#@,F $"* !"'4*.#4* N1.$@12$F #)+ E'()$#1) Vc(#@* #4'): -1$" 0#)& '$"*@ 2'00*@21#4 #)+ /(.1)*.. +*.* # $'$#4 *2')'012 /*)*d$ '3 0'@* $"#) _RKK 01441') #)+ 2@*#$*0'@* $"#) $*) $"'(.#)+ ^'/.e#44 $"@'(:" +1@*2$ 2').$@(2*.$0*)$ #4'): $"* $@#14 #)+ #)*B;#).1') '3 $'(@1.0


19/61

+TIGER 2 Planning Grants! Newark Train Station Improvement Plan (DE)

! Funded for the design of a multi-modal passenger railstation that will be located in a former Chryslerautomotive plant now owned by the University of

Delaware. The money helped eliminate existing freightrail conflicts. This transit-orienteddevelopment on a brownfield site

will lead to increased passengerservice on the Northeast Corridorand provide transportationchoices for transit users,pedestrians , and bicyclists.

" Awarded TIGER 4 capitalfunds

19


20/61

+TIGER 2 Planning Grants! Ranson-Charles Town Corridor Revitalization (WV)

! The Green Corridor Revitalization created a plan to: improvethe communitys main roadway into a Complete Street withgreen infrastructure; transform a historic public building into aregional Commuter Center; and tie these transportation

improvements together with a zoning code that will support vibrant, walkable, and sustainable community development.

" Awarded TIGER 4 capital funds

20


21/61

+TIGER 2 Planning Grants! Downtown St. Albans Streetscape (VT)

! The City of St. Albans envisioned a revitalized downtown byimproving sidewalks, installing energy efficient light fixtures,replacing street trees, and reducing conflict among transportationmodes. The city had raised an initial $1 million for construction.

The Northwest Regional Planning Commission, on behalf of thecity, used planning dollars for design engineering that will create adowntown where housing and services are accessible by bicycleand foot.

! Awarded TIGER 3 capital funding

21


22/61

+Bikes, Peds, and TIGER!

8B1.


23/61


Selection Criteria! State of good repair,

! Economic competitiveness

! Quality of life

! Sustainability

! Safety

Ladders of Opportunity lens

! Does this project help increase connectivity? Removebarriers? Promote workforce development?


24/61


Benefit Cost Analysis! 5-' /#.12 .$*;.

! 91+*@."1;J f'- 0#)& ;*';4* -144 (.* 1$g! Z*)*d$. ;*@ @1+*@J f'- 0(2" -144 *#2" @1+*@ /*)*d$g

! A'$ #44 @1+*@. #@* *c(#4! C5@#).;'@$#


25/61

+Highly Competitive Projects! Multimodal projects, coordinated investment from

other sources and programs

! Demonstrate project benefits across selection criteria! Demonstrate improved connectivity between users

and centers of employment, education, and services! New partnerships, multi-jurisdictional cooperation

! Public-private partnerships

! Support key national priorities! Non-traditional or hard to fund projects


26/61

+ Application Pitfalls

! Ineligibility: applicants and projects

! Priorities/outcomes not aligned w/ selection criteria

! Project readiness

! Insufficient matching funds, lack of demonstration

! Non-construction requests: O/M assistance, ROW

! Grouping unrelated projects


27/61

+Technical Assistance

! USDOT offers technical assistance to helpapplicants through the TIGER process

! Previous TIGER application debriefs

! Benefit cost analysis resource guide

! Special Topics Webinars

! Questions sent to [email protected]


28/61

+ Additional Application Help

! 2014 Preparing a TIGER Planning Grant Application, Preparing a TIGERPlanning Grant Application

! 2014 Preparing a Benefit-Cost Analysisfor a TIGER Grant

! TIGER Website: www.dot.gov/tiger/

! Special Topics Webinars and Frequently Asked Questions:

! http://www.dot.gov/tiger/resources


29/61

+

Question and Answer Session


30/61

"#$%# &'()*$+'#*

,-$.% /0 12/34%'()*$+'#*56.7'8#%7%''9)$:


31/61

# ;


32/61

=;;412#


33/61

L@'2*..! E#$(+'$'4 8.(< HEI N(#O .+ 1@?'#$ 'O)$(! AP& %'#4 )+ 6*.%4.+: =*--)$( C$)B #%% '%'D('4 6)4.'=

#+4 :'((.+: QQ %'(('$= )C =*--)$( C$)B )$:#+.L#(.)+=! R'-( C)D*= )+


34/61

[*..').! \''4 =(#O #+4G)$ '%'D('4 6)4? D)BB.(('4 () -$)F'D(! ;STKU +''4= () 6*.%4 )+ D


35/61

[*..'). 2')$?! WN"I; #--%.D#(.)+ (.B'C$#B'= J'$? (.:


36/61

D(@@*)$ V$#$(.! N'D? ])`` -$'== #++)*+D'B'+( .+ ])$( H?'$=0 ]& N'-(912/Z

! HEI A)#$4 B)+(


37/61

!"#$%&'#($$ !'*+ ,$-*./0$-1

!%(2- 34567, 89$:;*=?,$-*./0$1;$=


38/61

Bicycling & Walking in TIGER 6 ApplicationsApril 1, 2014

TRANSFORMATION PROJECT

Erik Frisch, DESTranspo. Specialist

INNER LOOP EAST


39/61


40/61

Inner Loop East HistoryCity population peaked in1950s at over 330,000Built in late 1950s and early1960sBetter Distribute TrafficThrough and AroundDowntownConnect to I-490Ultimately complete I-390extension and Northern Exwy149 parcels razed

Completion of the Inner Loop in mid 1960s(looking east at Monroe Ave)


41/61

Inner Loop East History

1947 Plans for Inner Loop


42/61


1951 Arterial Plan for City1929 Bartholomew Street Plan


43/61


Project Area - 1940


44/61


Project Area - 1965


45/61

Inner Loop Today (Count the Vehicles)


46/61

Why?We are building a city thatencourages walking, bikingand enjoying the outdoor

environment. Replacing thissection of the Inner Loopwill demonstrate the cityscommitment to fostering

quality of life here inRochester. FormerMayor Thomas S. Richards


47/61

Inner Loop East StudiesVisions of removal of the Inner Loop

The Vision 2000 Plan

The Neighbors BuildingNeighborhoods Program

City of Rochesters Inner LoopImprovement Study 2001

Center City Master Plan 2003

Rochester Regional CommunityDesign Center Charrette ACommunity Based Vision Plan for

Downtown Rochester 2007The Renaissance 2010Comprehensive Plan

GTC Long Range TransportationPlan 2035

Scoping Document 2013


48/61

BackgroundNYS Route 940T Federal AidPrincipal Arterial Expressway4 -6 Travel LanesParallel 2 to 3 Lane Frontage Streets

Entrance and Exit RampsUp to 12 travel lanes (355 feet wide)6,990 AADT (north end)10,560 AADT (south end)

Union St 3,515 AADTPitkin St 3,353 AADT


49/61

Background Structural Issues Geometric Deficiencies Safety Concerns Poor Bicycle/PedestrianConnectivity

Depressed Land Values/Uses


50/61


51/61

Recommended Final DesignProposed Complete Street: Wide sidewalks Two Way Cycle Track w/

Bike Lanes at approaches On-street parking Generous tree canopy 3-4 travel lanes Two-way traffic operations Reconnected City streets


52/61

Recommended Final Design


53/61

Recommended Final Design

Corridor will have bike boxes, two stage turn queueboxes, bike lanes, contraflow lanes, colored lanes, and

a two-way cycle track


54/61

TIGER ApplicationTIGER 2013 was third attempt at securingconstruction funding through TIGER program$17.7 million request for $23.6 million project

Notified August 30, 2013 that project wasselected for full fundingThird largest grant given during TIGER 2013 cycleRequires quick turnaround funds must beobligated by June 2014


55/61

TIGER Application StrengthsTransformative Transportation InvestmentEconomic Development in Distressed Area2:1 Benefit Cost Ratio

Widespread Community and Political SupportFocus on Livability Bicycling, Walking, DensityMinimum 25% Local Match

Ready to Go (Finally)


56/61

TIGER Lessons LearnedGet Your Political House in Order

Should be no disagreement among majorelected officials, especially Congressional

delegationHave an Airtight Benefit Cost Analysis

USDOT needs to know that their investmentwill generate net positive returns


57/61


58/61

TIGER Lessons LearnedMulti-Modal

Emphasize the multi-modal benefits of yourproject; cant be one-dimensional

If at First You Dont SucceedUSDOT Staff are very willing to discuss yourapplication and ways to improve it in thefuture


59/61

Role of Political SupportCritical

Entire Congressional DelegationState Elected Officials

MayorCity CouncilCounty Legislators


60/61


61/61

For More InformationProject Website Project overview Project support letters Documents (TIGER Grant

Application, ScopingReport and DesignReport)

Multimedia and Press

Information Public Participation

Information

www.cityofrochester.gov/innerloopeast

[email protected]
http://www.cityofrochester.gov/innerloopeastmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.cityofrochester.gov/innerloopeast

Winning Bicycling and Walking Projects in TIGER 6 Applications

Documents

Transcript of Winning Bicycling and Walking Projects in TIGER 6 Applications