Michigan Transportation Alternatives Program

1. Michigan TransportationAlternatives Program Michigan Suburbs Alliance November 18, 2013

2. Transportation Enhancement Program • Popular program with most states and local communities • Some states didn’t embrace TE • Some states used TE funds only on their system • Some Members of Congress thought TE was frivolous

3. Congressional Compromise • Consolidate 3 federal programs (TE, RTP and SRTS) into one program – TAP • Eliminate some TE program categories • Substantial reduction in overall funding • Allow transfer provisions to give states flexibility • Strengthen input of locals by mandating a role for Metropolitan Planning Organization’s

4. TE, SRTS, & RTP in Michigan before MAP-21 TE – centralized DOT reviewand selection process SRTS– centralized DOT review and selection process after school-based planning process • Open call for applications, quarterly review meetings • Quarterly communication between DOT and MPO’s sending TE and SRTS application and approved project lists • All Local TE and SRTS projects implemented by Local Agencies through MDOT’s letting process and with MDOT oversight • Both TE and SRTS Programs were and are in the same MDOT office RTP – administered by the MDNR

5. Funding Distribution Statewide TAP Apportionment $26 Million Rec. Trails $2.9 million 50% by Population 50% Any Area SEMCOG Region Receives about $5 Million

6. MAP-21 Challenges: MDOT perspective • Less than 90 days to prepare new program • Many unknowns • Grant IT system was scheduled for August 2013 implementation and designed with “TE” in mind • 6 Large MPO’s and State received direct suballocation - could result in 7 different TAP Programs • Avoid disruption of existing TE projects that • were “in the pipeline” • Let’s not make the same mistakes again! • Direction from MDOT Director

7. MAP-21 Challenges: SEMCOG perspective • Less than 90 days to prepare new program • Many unknowns • SEMCOG did not have a system established to process TAP projects • SEMCOG did not have staff available to solely dedicate to TAP • Because of “Fiscal Constraint”, there is pressure to obligate all available funds within a FY • Pressure to show value of projects

8. Answer: DOT/MPO Collaboration • MDOT and SEMCOG began meeting to coordinate respective TAP’s • MDOT Selection Advisory Committee utilized by SEMCOG for project comment and technical review • Schedules have been coordinated to fully integrate MDOT’s Selection Advisory Team into SEMCOG’s TAP application process • SEMCOG funded some projects from MDOT’s FY 2013 Conditional Commitment list

9. Answer: DOT/MPO Collaboration • SEMCOG (and the 5 other Large MPO’s in MI) adopted the MDOT Grant System for TAP applications and review documentation • Monthly meetings are held between MDOT and MPO’s to discuss the implementation status of all TAP projects (MPO selected and MDOT selected) • Reports have been developed to track project progress through the grant application, review, selection, and implementation processes

10. Advantages: MDOT’s perspective • Win-win for customers! One application, DOT and MPO’s will coordinate reviews and negotiate funding • MDOT grant system makes statewide TAP reporting much more efficient • More collaboration can lead to better projects that are more likely to be implemented • “$ on the ground”, benefitting MI communities • Good government in action!

11. Advantages: SEMCOG’s perspective • Staff time savings - didn’t have to “reinvent the wheel” • Did not require a new application portal • Take advantage of MDOT’s experience with TE and SRTS projects • Builds even more professional links between MDOT and SEMCOG • SEMCOG can consider funding all or part • of an application submitted to MDOT, and • vice versa

12. Other Advantages • Jointly funding projects – MPO’s use all or a portion of their suballocated TAP funding and MDOT uses “Any Area” funds on the same project • Helps the Large MPO’s with small TAP suballocations (examples: Niles area receives $43,000/year from the South Bend, IN urbanized area and Kalamazoo receives $246,000/year) • So far, MDOT and the MPO’s have jointly funded 6 TAP projects • More collaboration likely

13. Other Advantages • Proactive and joint approach to outreach/education of TAP to public • Two TAP workshops held • Focus on best practices, advice to getting projects funded, & technical assistance on navigating both MGS and eligibility requirements • One specific to SRTS - changes under MAP-21/TAP, planning process, eligibility, case studies • Ongoing MDOT/SEMCOG outreach to communities • Emphasis on meeting prior to application (recommendations; potential other funding sources; meeting match requirements; • etc.)

14. Important Notes • MDOT and MPO’s still retain separate competitive selection processes • See MDOT’s competitiveness criteria at: www.michigan.gov/tap • www.saferoutesmichigan.org • See SEMCOG’s competitiveness criteria at: www.semcog.org/TAPCall.aspx • Former TE activities and SRTS are still being treated as two separate programs at the DOT level, however, they share the same review schedules • RTP is still being administered by the MDNR

15. Eligible Activities • On-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation including: • Sidewalks • Bicycle infrastructure • Pedestrian and bicycle signals • Traffic calming techniques • Lighting and other safety-related infrastructure • ADA compliance

16. Eligible Activities Examples: Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Marine City Broadway Streetscape Detroit Midtown Loop

17. Eligible Activities Examples: Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities South Lyon Southwest Connector Detroit Riverwalk at Milliken State Park

18. Eligible Activities Examples: Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Macomb Orchard Trail Bridge over M-53 DDOT Bike Racks on Buses

19. Eligible Activities Examples: Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Detroit West Vernor Bike Lanes

20. Eligible Activities Infrastructure-related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for non-drivers including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs

21. Eligible Activities Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for nonmotorized users. Detroit Dequindre Cut Greenway Polly Ann Trail

22. Eligible Activities Construction of turnouts and overlooks M-26 Great Sand Bay Overlook M-25 White Rock Overlook

23. Eligible Activities Community improvement activities, including: • Inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising • Preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities • Vegetation management practices in transportation rights-of-way to improve roadway safety, prevent against invasive species, and provide erosion control • Archeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of transportation projects eligible under title 23. Houghton Historic Brick Street

24. Eligible Activities Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution abatement activities and mitigation to: • Address stormwater management, control and water pollution prevention or abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff, including activities described in sections 133(b)(11), 328(a), and 329 of title 23 • Reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats http://youtu.be/kLYX6tp_6zg Grand Rapids Plainfield Avenue Bio-retention Basins

25. Match Requirements • 20 percent minimum from non-federal sources • Encourage partnerships with foundations, businesses, nonprofits • Higher match is welcomed

26. Eligible Entities • Southeast Michigan Act 51 agencies are eligible to submit projects • County road agencies • Cities/villages • Transit agencies • Others through eligible entities (need Sponsorship Agreement)

27. Master Grant System (MGS) TAP Online Application

28. Application Process • Discuss your project idea with MDOT/SEMCOG • Online application: MDOT Grant System • Register at https://sso.state.mi.us/

29. Application Process

30. MDOT Timeline

31. MDOT Project Competitiveness Details • Please visit www.michigan.gov/tap for TAP Competitiveness Details • Please visit www.saferoutesmichigan.org for SRTS Competitiveness Details • Discuss project with an MDOT or MFF grant coordinator

32. Project Implementation • MDOT Local Agency Programs (LAP) will assist you through the federal aid implementation process www.michigan.gov/mdotlap • Contacts • Bruce Kadzban, P.E. LAP Manager • 517.335.2229 |  kadzbanb@michigan.gov • Landon Johnson, P.E. LAP Staff Engineer 517.335.6779 |  johnsonl26@michigan.gov

33. Project Implementation • Construction Phase - Federal funding requirements • Davis Bacon wage rates • 1999/2012 AASHTO design standards • 2011 Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) • Environmental clearance • Permits • SHPO approval • Right of way certification • Historic Preservation Covenant • Matching funds must comply w/ FHWA • Resolution from transportation agency governing body to certify a fully funded project and maintenance • Competitive bid process through MDOT Local Agency • Programs (LAP) referred to as the MDOT let process

34. Project Implementation • Construction Phase - MDOT letting process • Letting Schedule found at www.michigan.gov/mdotlap • Complete Grade Inspection (GI) package must be submitted to LAP • Plans (80% complete) • Special provisions • Cost estimate • Programming application (MDOT form #0259)

35. Contact Us • SEMCOG Contacts: • Kevin Vettraino, TAP • 313.324.3357 |  vettraino@semcog.org • Kajal Patel, SRTS • 313.324.3329 |  patel@semcog.org • MDOT Contacts (TAP): • Vince Ranger, Grant Coordinator • 248.483.5130 |  rangerv@michigan.gov • MFF Contacts (SRTS): • Adrianna Jordan, Grant Coordinator • 517.908.3826 |  ajordan@michiganfitness.org

36. Questions?