Advocacy Advance Action 2020 Workshop

1. Action 2020 Workshop Advocacy Advance Action 2020 Workshop Action 2020 Workshop

2. 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

3. Action 2020 Workshops • Advocates, agency staff & elected officials • Work collaboratively to increase bicycle & pedestrian investments • Materials are available online: advocacyadvance.org

4. Navigating MAP-21 • State strategies • MPO Working Group • Resources and tools • Webinars www.AdvocacyAdvance.org/MAP21

5. 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

6. 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

7. Introductions • Name • Organization / Agency • Position • Why are you here today?

8. Keynote Speaker Senator David Pearce District 31

9. 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.

10. Federal-Aid Bike/PedSpending 1992-2010

11. 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

12. 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

13. Transportation Alternatives (Formerly TE) • Combines programs: • Transportation Enhancements (now Transportation Alternatives) • Safe Routes to School • Recreational Trails • Redevelopment of underused highways to boulevards

14. Transportation Alternatives Changes eligibilities from Transportation Enhancements • 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

15. Reduction in Funding • MAP-21 • TOTAL: $808 MILLION SAFETEA LU- FY 2011 TOTAL: $1.2 BILLION SRTS $202 M TE $928 MILLION TRANSPORT-ATION ALTERNATIVES $808 M RTP $97 SOURCE: FHWA, Revised Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Supplementary Tables – Apportionments Pursuant to the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010, as Amended. Feb 1, 2012

16. Comparison of Dedicated funding in 2012 vs. 2013 funding for TA

17. Distribution of Funding 1. State gets funding equivalent of 2% of highway funds (minus safety , etc.) 2. Recreational Trails Program funded 3. 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

18. Grant Program Mechanics

19. 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

20. Transportation AlternativesFunding Distribution 3. Remaining funding is divided into 2 equal pots • POT 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

21. Missouri Example Funds Distributed by Population Map and Data source: Rails to Trails Conservancy, http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/ourWork/MPOs_by_state

22. Transportation AlternativesFunding Distribution 3. Remaining funding is divided into 2 equal pots • POT 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

23. State Ability to Transfer Funds 4. State can choose to transfer funding out 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Expediting Projects/Streamlining • Streamlining of regulations • Categorical Exclusion (CE) • SAFETEA-LU Categorical Exclusions • Biking and walking projects • MAP-21 CategoricalExclusions • Biking and walking projects • Projects within the right-of-way • Projects with a total cost of less than $5 million

27. Break Back at 10:15

28. Program Overview Characteristics, requirements, and opportunities of under-utilized funding sources that exist for biking and walking projects and programs

29. 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

30. Federal-Aid Highway Programs • Surface Transportation Program (STP) • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) • Section 402 Safety Grants

31. Federal-Aid Bike/PedSpending 1992-2010

32. Use of Federal Funds for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, 1992 - 2011

33. Growth in Bicycle Commuting

34. How about Missouri? • Current overall $ • MAP-21 • 2012 - • 2013 - • Other Issues

35. Suggested Approaches • Guidance & Policy • Application • Prioritization • Committee Membership • Political Support • Focus on Safety Denali National Park and Preserve

36. Surface Transportation Program (STP) • Flexible funding • Construction of bicycle transportation facilities and walkways • Non-construction projects related to safe bicycle use • 80% Federal Share

37. 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

38. 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

39. CMAQ Examples • Capital Bikeshare (Washington, DC & Arlington, VA) • Millennium Park Cycling Center (Chicago, IL) • Bike racks (Sacramento, CA)

40. 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)

41. CMAQ cities, # of B/P projects, 10 yrs

42. CMAQ cities, $ for Bike/Ped, 5 yrs Among 50 largest U.S. cities. Source 2012 Benchmarking Report, source data: FMIS, 2006 – 2010.

43. 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)

44. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) • Safety infrastructure • All public roads are eligible • Bike lanes, roadway shoulders, crosswalks, signage • Data driven • 90% Federal Share

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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

49. Example: GA Bikes • Local Match • Share the Road Plates • 3 year grant

50. Questions?