advocacy advance action 2020 workshop action 2020 workshop action 2020 workshop concordia, mo...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
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
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
Transportation AlternativesFunding Distribution
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%
Transportation AlternativesFunding Distribution
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
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
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
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
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
Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations
1. Policy Documents
• Set the tone of the agency or organization
• Include mission statements that indicate the organization’s priorities
Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations
2. Planning Documents • Provide an
opportunity for purposefully including bicycle and pedestrian needs into the planning process
• Integrate pedestrian considerations into planning documents
Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations
3. Design Guidelines and Standards• Include
specifications for street width, sidewalk design, intersection construction, and crossing facilities
Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations
4. Zoning Codes and Land Use Regulations• Residential &
Commercial• Redevelopment
zones• Include amenities
Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations
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
Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations
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
Finding Sustainable Funding
8. Routine Accommodation• Complete Streets• Consider
bicycle/pedestrian needs in every transportation project
Finding Sustainable Funding
12. Health Impact Assessments
• Consider both adverse & beneficial health effects
• Incorporate various types of evidence
• Engage communities and stakeholders in a deliberative process
Finding Sustainable Funding
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
Building Communication, Collaboration & Support
15. Advocacy Groups• Raise awareness• 25 – 2 – 2 – 2
Building Communication, Collaboration & Support
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
Building Communication, Collaboration & Support
17. Boards and Commissions• Provide policy
direction and recommendations to state and local government
Building Communication, Collaboration & Support
18. Interagency Coordination• Establish
cooperative relationships and consistent regional priorities
Building Communication, Collaboration & Support
19. Recognition for Good Work• Show support for
bicycle/pedestrian champions
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 info@AdvocacyAdvance.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
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
top related