moving ahead for progress in the 21st century …reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or...

Moving Ahead for Progress in the

21st Century (MAP-21)

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) ATP 6 Discussion

June 28, 2013

• Overall apportionment consistent with FY 2012 funding

• Matching requirements vary by program but resemble SAFETEA-LU requirements

• Population-based formulas for STP and TAP

• TAP requires a competitive grant process

• Up to 50% of apportionment from each program can be transferred among the six core programs

• Enhanced emphasis on performance measurement (incl. minimum condition levels)

Minnesota Overview: MAP-21 vs. SAFETEA-LU

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Incorporates eligibilities from many current programs • Most (but not all) formerly TE-eligible

activities • Recreational Trails program • Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program • Planning, designing, or constructing

roadways within the right-of-way of former Interstate and divided highways

• Total TAP funds equal to 2% of MAP-21 highway funding

• Funded via takedown from each state’s formula funds

On-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized forms of transportation

Transportation projects to achieve Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 compliance

Safe routes for non-drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs.

Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors

Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas

Historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities

Inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising

Archaeological activities

Vegetation management to provide erosion control

Environmental mitigation to address storm water management

Vegetation management to improve roadway safety

Reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or restore/maintain habitat connectivity

Recreational trails program

Safe Routes to School

Transportation activities no longer eligible for TAP funding:

• Scenic easements • Transportation museums • Visitor centers • Marketing and marketing plans • Interpretive plans • Scenic Byway corridor management plans • Bicycling and pedestrian safety and education programs

for adults. Adult safety and education programs are eligible under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and the Surface Transportation Program (STP).

Minnesota State Legislature (2013) Statute 174.42 Transportation Alternative Projects

• This provision now creates a risk for the Commissioner in how transportation alternative projects can be delivered within the overall program

• 99% of these projects are delivered by locals • Historically 66% of all transportation alternative projects are

not being delivered

MPR

MnDOT is required to deliver as much (or more) in transportation alternatives projects as they have in the previous fiscal years

How projects are selected on a statewide level

Safe Routes to School: Project development, solicitation and selection process

Local team defines SRTS planning or

construction goals

Local team submits planning or construction grant application to SRTS coordinators

MnDOT Transit and State Aid for Local Transportation (SALT) Office reviews and selects planning or construction projects

Scenic Byway: Project development, solicitation and selection process

Local byway team defines eligible planning or construction projects

Local byway team submits eligible planning or construction grant application to MnDOT Scenic Byway Coordinator

MnDOT Environmental Stewardship Office and the Minnesota Scenic Byway Commission reviews and ranks planning or construction projects

FHWA DC Office reviews and selects planning or construction projects

How projects are selected on a statewide level

How will this input be used?

Discussion Format: • Review key strengths and weaknesses identified

through the outreach meetings last month and thoughts they had on decision making at regional and statewide levels

• Discuss ways for ATPs to capitalize on strengths

and mitigate weaknesses • Review feasibility of ATPs delivering projects

formally outside of their scope