1 / 23

MAP-21 Transportation Alternatives Workshop - Program Overview and Initial Recommendations

This workshop provides an overview of the MAP-21 Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), and Surface Transportation Program (STP), along with initial recommendations for implementation. Attendees will have the opportunity to provide input on the recommendations.

sieg
Download Presentation

MAP-21 Transportation Alternatives Workshop - Program Overview and Initial Recommendations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. MAP-21Transportation Alternatives, Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality and Surface Transportation Program Transportation Commission Workshop October 8, 2012

  2. Overview • Implementation Process/Schedule • Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) • Scenarios • Comments • Initial Recommendation • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) • Scenarios • Comments • Initial Recommendation • Surface Transportation Program (STP) Background

  3. Implementation Process/Schedule • Present background information • TAP/CMAQ – Completed in September • STP – Today • Solicit city, county, RPA, MPO, and other input (ongoing) • Present initial implementation recommendation • TAP/CMAQ – Today • STP – November workshop • Solicit input regarding recommendation • TAP/CMAQ – Following October workshop • STP – Following November workshop

  4. Implementation Process/Schedule(continued) • Present formal recommendation • TAP/CMAQ – November workshop • STP – December workshop • Request Commission action • TAP/CMAQ – December business meeting • STP – January business meeting

  5. Input Process • Iowa DOT MAP-21 website: www.iowadot.gov/pol_leg_services/map21.html • Email updates to city, county, RPA, and MPO representatives. • Email to past grant program award recipients and other interested parties • Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee meeting held September 20 • Joint MPO/RPA meeting held September 26 • City/County/MPO/RPA meeting held October 2 • Commission public input meetings in August and October

  6. Transportation Alternatives Program - Decisions • Should funding be transferred to TAP to match historic funding levels? • How should the 50 percent of TAP funding allocated by population be distributed? • How should the 50 percent of TAP funding for any area of the state be used? • If funding awarded through Commission, run as a single program or multiple programs?

  7. FY2012 SAFETEA-LU FY2013 MAP-21 Consolidated Funding Recreational Trails Program $1,283,484 Recreational Trails Program $1,374,817 Safe Routes To School Transportation Enhancements $11,956,340 Transportation Alternatives $8,867,155 Transportation Enhancements Safe Routes To School $1,581,103 Scenic Byways Program National Scenic Byways * $4,085,316 * Discretionary

  8. Transportation AlternativesSub-allocation Requirements Transportation Alternatives $10,241,972 Recreational Trails $1,374,817 50% by Population $4,433,578 50% to Any Area $4,433,578 TMA Competitive Grant Process $962,623 $1,740,512 $1,730,442 Population Greater than 200,000 Population 5,000-200,000 Population Less than 5,000

  9. Option A: Transportation Alternatives(Status Quo) Transportation Alternatives $10,241,972 Recreational Trails $1,374,817 50% Distributed by Population $4,433,578 50% Awarded by Commission $4,433,578 Safe Routes to School Scenic Byways MPOs RPAs TMAs Transportation Enhancements Discretionary FY2012 Total = $13,537,443 This scenario = $8,867,156

  10. Option B: Transportation Alternatives(Transfer Majority of TA Funds & Programs to Locals as TA) Transportation Alternatives $10,241,972 Recreational Trails $1,374,817 50% Required Distribution by Population $4,433,578 50% Available to Any Area of the State $4,433,578 Distributed by Population $7,867,156 Distributed By Population $3,433,578 Discretionary for Statewide Awards $1,000,000 MPOs RPAs TMAs FY2012 Total = $13,537,443 This scenario = $7,867,156

  11. Option C: Transportation Alternatives(Transfer to STP for Highways and Bridges) Transportation Alternatives $10,241,972 Recreational Trails $1,374,817 50% Distributed by Population $4,433,578 50% Transferred from TAP to highways and bridges $4,433,578 MPOs RPAs TMAs FY2012 Total = $13,537,443 This scenario = $4,433,578

  12. Option D: Transportation Alternatives(Initial Staff Recommendation) Transportation Alternatives Program $10,241,972 Recreational Trails $1,374,817 50% Required Distribution by Population (must be used for TAP) $4,433,578 50% Available to Any Area of the State $4,433,578 Distributed By Population (can be used for any eligible activity e.g. highway, bridge, TAP, transit, etc.) $3,433,578 Discretionary for Statewide Awards $1,000,000 MPOs RPAs TMAs Note: TAP funded only with appropriated funds. Does not include a transfer from other programs to match historic levels. FY2012 Total = $13,537,443 This scenario = $5,433,578 assured plus additional TAP projects selected

  13. Transportation Alternatives Program – Initial Recommendation Key Points • Funding should not be transferred to TAP to match historic funding levels. • The 50 percent of TAP funding allocated by population should be distributed to the MPOs and RPAs. • The majority of the 50 percent of TAP funding available for any area of the state should be distributed by population to the MPOs and RPAs for flexible use. • The Commission awards reduced amount of TAP funding.

  14. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality - Decisions • Should the Iowa’s Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP) be maintained? • Should CMAQ funds be allocated to other activities?

  15. Option A: Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (Status Quo) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality $10,340,596 Iowa’s Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP) $4,700,000 Iowa DOT Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Activities $5,640,596 15

  16. Option B: Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (ICAAP Program Elimination) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality $10,340,596 Bus Replacement Setaside $3,000,000 Traffic Signal Analysis & Coordination $2,000,000 Iowa DOT CMAQ Activities $5,340,596 16

  17. Option C: Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (Initial Staff Recommendation) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality $10,340,596 Bus Replacement Setaside $3,000,000 Iowa’s Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP) $4,000,000 Iowa DOT CMAQ Activities $3,340,596 17

  18. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality– Initial Recommendation Key Points • Funds should be allocated to a bus replacement program • The Iowa’s Clean Air Attainment Program (ICAAP) should be maintained at a reduced funding level. • Funding is maintained to support other Iowa DOT CMAQ activities

  19. Next Steps • Modify initial staff recommendations based on Commission guidance • Send out revised recommendations for input • Summarize input and present formal staff recommendation at November workshop

  20. STP Background • Surface Transportation Program (STP): Core program of approximately $125 million eligible to be spent on 26,000 miles of Iowa’s roadway system. • No set-aside for Transportation Enhancements • Includes a minimum set-aside for “off-system” bridges – estimated to be $9.3 million • With elimination of federal bridge program, STP is the only viable source of federal funding to support local bridges • Primary source of funding for local jurisdictions • Distributed to RPAs and MPOs • 62.5 percent to locals and 37.5 percent to DOT

  21. STP Decisions • How should STP funding be allocated between local jurisdictions and DOT? • Should STP funding be set-aside for local bridges? If so, how much and how should it be allocated? • How should STP funding be allocated among the RPAs and MPOs? • Other (non-STP) – Should funds be set-aside for High Risk Rural Road type projects?

  22. Next Steps • Present initial staff recommendations regarding STP at November workshop

  23. QUESTIONS

More Related