Rochester, NY October 17, 2012 ADVOCACY ADVANCE ACTION2020 2020WORKSHOP WORKSHOP ACTION Action 2020 Workshop 11.5 % 13.5 % 1.6 %
Download ReportTranscript Rochester, NY October 17, 2012 ADVOCACY ADVANCE ACTION2020 2020WORKSHOP WORKSHOP ACTION Action 2020 Workshop 11.5 % 13.5 % 1.6 %
1 Rochester, NY October 17, 2012 ADVOCACY ADVANCE ACTION2020 2020WORKSHOP WORKSHOP ACTION Action 2020 Workshop 11.5 % 13.5 % 1.6 % 3,000 projects $2.1750 8,400 jobs States 15 State Comparisons Safety in Numbers Advocacy Advance Partnership Action 2020 Workshops 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 Navigating MAP-21 New York State Contact: Brian Kehoe, Executive Director New York Bicycling Coalition [email protected] www.AdvocacyAdvance.org/MAP21 Agenda 9:30 Welcome & Introductions 10:00 Keynote Speaker - Mayor Thomas S. Richards 10:30 Navigating MAP-21 11:00 Break 11:15 Federal Funding Programs 12:00 Information from the Local Context 12:30 Lunch 1:15 Road Map for Success 2:00 Opportunities and Next Steps in MAP-21 4:30 Adjourn & Social Event Introductions Name Organization / Agency Position What is your vision for biking and walking in Rochester? Keynote Speaker Mayor Thomas Richards 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. Federal-Aid Bike/Ped Spending 1992-2010 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century MAP-21 2 year bill October 1, 2012 September 30, 2014 Extends funding at current level over all programs Themes: Consolidates programs Gives states more flexibility Streamlines project delivery Waiting for Guidance www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/ guidance/index.cfm MAP-21 Changes to Biking and Walking: Transportation Alternatives Program consolidation Changes in eligibility Reduction in funding Distribution of funds Opt-out and transfers Transportation Alternatives Program Consolidation Activities: Transportation Enhancements (now Transportation Alternatives) Safe Routes to School Recreational Trails Redevelopment of underused highways to boulevards Changes in Eligibility Adds: Safe Routes for NonDrivers (networks) ANY Environmental Mitigation Scenic Byway Uses Subtracts: Funding for bicycle and pedestrian education Streetscaping Acquisition of scenic or historic sites Transportation museums 30% Reduction in Funding SAFETEA LU – FY 2011 MAP-21 – FY 2013 SRTS $202 M TE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES $928 MILLION RTP $97 TOTAL: $1.2 BILLION $808 M TOTAL: $808 MILLION Comparison of Dedicated funding in 2012 vs. 2013 funding for TA Distribution of TA Funds Distribution of TA Funds: 1. Mechanics 1. State gets funding equivalent of 2% of highway funds (minus safety, transit, etc.) 2. Recreational Trails Program funding option 3. Remaining funds are divided into 2 equal pots: One distributed by population One distributed through a state grant program 4. State has the ability to transfer funding out of the “state pot” Distribution of TA Funds: 2. Recreational Trails Program RTP funding gets taken off the top (unless Governor Opts out) Maintains 2009 RTP process and funding levels Opt-out date is September 1st every year RTP projects eligible under TA and STP Distribution of TA Funding: 3. Remaining funds divided into 2 pots Equal pots: One pot distributed by population One pot distributed through a state grant program Distribution of TA Funds: 3a. Distributed by Population MPOs > 200,000 people Funding is suballocated MPOs run competitive grant process Urban areas < 20,000 State runs competitive grant process Rural areas < 5000 State runs competitive grant process New York Funds Distributed by Population Distribution of TA Funds: 3b. Distributed through State Grant Eligible entities: Local/regional governments Local/regional transportation agencies Tribes Public land agencies Other local/regional entities state deems eligible State DOT Distribution of TA Funds: 4. State can Transfer Funds Transfer options: Can transfer up to 50% out of TA Only out of Pot 2 Coburt Opt-Out Based on unobligated balances Doesn’t apply until the second year Unique to TA State of Emergency State must reimburse TA if it receives federal assistance States can also transfer funds INTO Transportation Alternatives MAP-21 Changes to Biking and Walking: Beyond TA State 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 MAP-21 Changes to Biking and Walking: Eligibility in Other Programs Surface Transportation Program (STP) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program (Section 402) MAP-21 Changes to Biking and Walking: Streamlining Projects SAFETEA-LU Categorical Exclusions Biking and walking projects MAP-21 Categorical Exclusions Biking and walking projects Projects within the right-of-way Projects with total cost < $5 million Maximizing Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding in MAP-21 Spend existing funds SRTS doesn’t expire TE available for 3 years Fully fund, staff, and implement TA Maximize bike/ped spending across all programs Break Federal Funding Programs Characteristics, requirements, and opportunities of under-utilized funding sources that exist for biking and walking projects and programs Outline Funding overview Strategies to increase funding Program features Bike/ped eligibility Changes in MAP-21 Case studies 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 $1,200 $1,000 Millions $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 Not including ARRA 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 Including American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds Growth in Bicycle Commuting Bicycle Commuting 2011 Rochester, NY – 1.6% bicycle commuter rate blog.bikeleague.org/blog/ 2012/10/infographicbike-commuting-growingfaster-in-bicycle-friendlycommunities/ Strategies to Increase Funding: What to Consider Systems, not projects Who, What, Where, When, How Federal vs. state vs. local policies and politics Programming decisions Strategies to Increase Funding: Suggested Approaches Guidance & Policy Application Prioritization Committee Membership Political Support Focus on Safety 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 Changes in MAP-21 Higher funding, more competition Sub-allocation to metropolitan areas Same dollar amount as before Eligibility: Transportation Alternatives activities Rec Trails projects SRTS not listed as eligible, but similar projects fit under Safe Routes for non-drivers STP Example: Peoria, IL 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 nonattainment area for eligibility Construction and nonconstruction projects and programs eligible Typically 80% federal share CMAQ Changes in MAP-21 New eligibility Project or program that shifts traffic demands to other modes Transferability States can transfer up to 50% of CMAQ Up from ~21% in SAFETEA-LU Evaluation and Assessments Require cost-benefit analysis Assessment of health impacts CMAQ Examples Construction: Capital Bikeshare (Washington, DC & Arlington, VA) Millennium Park Cycling Center (Chicago, IL) Bike racks (Sacramento, CA) 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) Strategies to Increase Funding: Bike/Ped-Friendly Policies Regional decisionmaking (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 Changes in MAP-21 HSIP funding increases Still includes bike/ped and school zone safety eligibilities In writing plans, states must consult with: State nonmotorized representative May include reps from safety stakeholder groups HSIP Changes in MAP-21 New data and research requirements for states non-motorized crash data Crash frequency and crash rate data Identify roadway elements/features that constitute hazard... [and/or] safe conditions HSIP Example: Virginia “Fair share for safety” 10% set-aside Project selection focused on corridors 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 Changes in MAP-21 Bicycle and pedestrian safety programs are still eligible Adult programs also eligible Section 402 Examples BikeEd (Bike Texas) Share the Road program (Atlanta) BikeSchool (New Jersey) Helmet distribution (Florida) Training on ped/bike design guidelines Bike Safety Month Bike Walk Connecticut Questions? Local Context Richard Perrin, Executive Director Genessee Transportation Council Erik Frisch, Transportation Specialist City of Rochester Questions? Lunch Road Map for Success Favorable factors for bicycling and walking investments 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 • • • • “Builds in” bike & ped 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 Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations 6. Trails and Rural Communities • • • • • Have a long term goal Connectivity Timing: acquisition & development Corridor under public ownership Rails / Trails as fundraising Finding Sustainable Funding 7. Needs Prioritization and Funding Criteria • • Follow the money 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 9. Combined Projects • Bundle smaller projects with larger ones Finding Sustainable Funding 10. Shovel-Ready and Match • • One project ahead One match ahead Finding Sustainable Funding 11. Environmental Impact Statements • • Mitigation Restoration Finding Sustainable Funding 12. Health Impact Assessments • • Consider both adverse & beneficial health effects Engage communities and stakeholders in a deliberative process Finding Sustainable Funding 13. Transit • • • • “Alternative modes” FTA funding Station area planning, catchment area Social equity First and last mile 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 Multiple jurisdictions Building Communication, Collaboration & Support 19. Recognition for Good Work • • Show support for bicycle/pedestrian champions 3-to-1 rule Questions? Straight from the Headlines! Prioritization Activity Next Steps What will you do tomorrow? What do you need help with? Who will you connect with? Advocacy Advance Resources Rapid Response Grants, Reports, Technical Assistance www.AdvocacyAdvance.org Navigating MAP-21 Resources www.AdvocacyAdvance.org/MAP21 State Contact: Brian Kehoe [email protected] Contact Us! Brighid O’Keane: [email protected] Darren Flusche: [email protected] Thank You! Nikko: 1 Capron Street