Navigating MAP-21

2. Navigating MAP-21 Securing Federal Funding for Community Walking & Biking Projects

3. Presenters Dave Tyahla NRPA Christopher Douwes Federal Highway Administration Margo Pedroso Safe Routes to School National Partnership

4. Overview of the Transportation Alternatives Programand MAP-21 Youth Corps ProvisionsWebinar: August 30, 2012; Revised October 23, 2012The original presentation is found at http://connectdot.connectsolutions.com/p41dbszct0v/ and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/docs/30aug_trans_alt.pdf.These webinars are informational in nature and not decisional at this time. FHWA is still in the process of interpreting this newly enacted law.FHWA’s MAP-21 Website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/MAP21/

5. Funding Levels • Similar funding levels to the Transportation Enhancement Activities under SAFETEA-LU: • FY 2013: $808,760,000 • FY 2014: $819,900,000 • Total TAP funding is 2% of MAP-21 highway funding. • Funded via set-aside from each State’s formula programs.

6. Funding structure Steps in the TAP suballocationprocess: • States receive an apportionment of TAP funds. • Funds are set aside for the Recreational Trails Program at FY 2009 levels ($84.16 m) (unless the State opts out). • Of the remaining funds: • 50% are suballocated by population (large urbanized areas, other urban areas, rural areas). • 50% are available for any area of the State.

7. TAP Eligible activities Transportation Alternatives (TA) as defined: • Construction, planning, and design of …facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, ... compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act. • …safe routes for non-drivers… to access daily needs. • Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails… • Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas.

8. TAP Eligible Activities (continued) TA as defined (continued) • Community improvement activities, including— • inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising; • historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities; • vegetation management practices… • archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a transportation project eligible under this title.

9. TAP Eligible Activities (continued) TA as defined (continued) • Any environmental mitigation activity… • address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention or abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff…; or • reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats.

10. TAP Eligible Activities (continued) • The Recreational Trails Program under section 206. • Safe Routes to School under section 1404 of the SAFETEA–LU. • Planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways.

11. TE Activities No Longer Eligible • Safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicycles. • Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites. • Scenic or historic highway programs (including visitor and welcome centers). • Historic preservation as an independent activity unrelated to historic transportation facilities. • Operation of historic transportation facilities. • Archaeological planning and research undertaken for proactive planning. This category now must be used only as mitigation for highway projects. • Transportation museums.

12. Safe Routes to School Eligibility Safe Routes to School (SRTS): • No setaside funding for SRTS. • All eligibilities remain. • Allocation of funds for Infrastructure and Noninfrastructureactivities do not apply (because there is no apportionment). • Option to have a State SRTS coordinator, not required. • No National Clearinghouse requirement or funds.

13. Recreational Trails Program Eligibility Recreational Trails Program (RTP): • RTP usually administered by a State resource agency. • Funds set aside from TAP (prior to suballocation), unless the State opts out. • 1% returned to FHWA for administration. • All other RTP provisions and requirements remain the same. • States can opt out of the RTP. If so: • Funds remain as TAP funds (prior to suballocation). • The State does not return 1 percent to FHWA administration. • The State cannot use funds for State RTP administrative costs. • The State may use TAP funds for trails projects, but using TAP requirements (must treat projects as highway projects). • Recreational trails projects also are eligible under STP.

14. Competitive Processes • States and MPOs • “Shall develop a competitive process to allow eligible entities to submit projects for funding…” • States and MPOs develop their own competitive processes.

15. Eligible Project Sponsors • Local governments; • Regional transportation authorities; • Transit agencies; • Natural resource or public land agencies; • School districts, local education agencies, or schools; • Tribal governments; and • Any other local or regional governmental entity with responsibility for or oversight of transportation or recreational trails (other than a metropolitan planning organization or a State agency) that the State determines to be eligible, consistent with the goals of this subsection. • RTP setaside keeps its list of eligible project sponsors.

16. Transferability of Funds • States may transfer the “any area” TAP funds to other apportioned programs. • Funds from other apportioned programs may be transferred into TAP… • …but TAP projects are broadly eligible under STP, so a transfer is not necessary to use STP funds. • In the second fiscal year of MAP-21, unobligated balances of over 100% can be used for any TAP-eligible activity or any CMAQ activity.

17. Treatment of Projects • TAP projects “shall be treated as projects on a Federal-aid highway…” • TAP projects must comply with applicable provisions in Title 23, such as project agreements, authorization to proceed prior to incurring costs, prevailing wage rates (Davis-Bacon), competitive bidding, and other contracting requirements, even for projects not located within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway. • Does not apply to projects conducted under the Recreational Trails Program setaside. • MAP-21 §1524 Youth Corps provision offers flexibility.

18. Youth Service and Conservation Corps MAP-21 §1524: Use of Youth Service or Conservation Corps • Defines qualified youth service or conservation corps. • Requires the USDOT/FHWA to "…encourage the States and regional transportation planning agencies to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with qualified youth service or conservation corps … to perform appropriate projects… • Living allowance or rate of pay (account for prevailing wage rates). • Exempts contracts and cooperative agreements with Corps from highway program contracting requirements: allows Sole Source. • §1524 supersedes TAP Treatment of Projects requirement. • §1524 applies at the project level, not the program level.

19. Contact • FHWA MAP-21 Website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/MAP21/. • FHWA Office of Human Environment • Christopher Douwes • Christopher.Douwes@dot.gov • 202-366-5013 • Gabe Rousseau • Gabe.Rousseau@dot.gov • 202-366-8044

20. MAP-21 Transportation Law Understanding changes to bike/ped funding and opportunities for state action Margo PedrosoDeputy DirectorSafe Routes to School National Partnership

21. MAP-21 changes to Bike/Ped Funding • Consolidates 3 separate programs into new Transportation Alternatives program • Funding is no longer dedicated; includesseveral new and expensive eligibilities like environmental mitigation • Significant cut in funding from $1.2B to $808M;state cuts range from 18-51% • Allows states to transfer half of funding out; can also transfer funding in • Requires competitive process to award funds • State DOTs and large MPOs are decision-makers • Now requires a 20% match for SRTS projects

22. How Transportation Alternatives works State’s TA allocation Minus: Recreational Trails (FY09 level) *unless Governor opts out • Half goes to “Population pot” • Distributed by population share • Large MPOs (200k or up) get a share to distribute by regional competition • With remainder, state runs a competition to fund projects in rural areas (5k or less) and mid-sized areas (5k-200k) • Half goes to “Unrestricted pot” • Distributed by state competition • Variety of local entities eligible; state DOT not eligible • States can transfer all this money away to roads • States can also use road funds to transfer into this pot

23. Example: Transportation Alternatives in Oregon

24. State campaigns to influence decisions • We have engaged state coalitions on Transportation Alternatives and other funding streams • Asking states: • Not to transfer funding out • Where possible, to transfer money in to supplement bike/ped funding • Preserve good competitive processes, includingstandalone Safe Routes to School program where possible • Retain state DOT bike/ped and SRTS staff • Some states likely to preserve commitments to bike/ped; others looking to decimate funding • Implementation is slow as final guidance is not yet out

25. Who can you check in with? • State TA campaign leads • http://www.bit.ly/MAP21stateleads • Capacity varies widely from state to state • The “ask” varies from state to state • Safe Routes to School National Partnership staff (can’t lobby) • State networks in CA, FL, MS, NC, NJ, OH, TN • http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/state/network • Regional networks in Atlanta, Denver, DC, Los Angeles and San Francisco • http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/local/rnp

26. Examples of Campaign results • Washington: • Will retain a standalone SRTS program using a portion of funding from the HSIP safety program • When DOT was not supportive, advocates petitioned Governor • Florida: • Committed to retain a standalone SRTS program at current funding levels • Will also use state toll revenues as matching funds for SRTS • North Carolina: • Hiring 10 regional SRTS staff to work directly with schools to increase utilization of SRTS funds • Committed to retain SRTS for at least 3 more years

27. Another option: State revenue legislation • Hawaii – HB2626 (passed in 2012) • $25 surcharge on traffic violations in school zones directed to county SRTS program coordinators • Bypasses state DOT as it has been slow on SRTS • California – AB1194 • Governor’s budget would eliminate standalone SRTS program and reducing funding for bike/ped • Advocates now turning to legislature; legislation introduced to retain SRTS at current funding level • Minnesota – SF1439/HF1429 (2012) • Created a state Safe Routes to School program • Advocates trying again in 2013 for funding

28. What can you do at home? • Get involved with state MAP-21 and legislative campaigns • Inform and involve local leaders (mayors, councilmembers) too • Get to know your large MPOs • New decision-making authority on funding • Get them out to see your facilities and help them understand the importance of park access • Get to know your local bike/SRTS groups andsee if you can partner on funding proposals • Safe Routes for Non-Drivers is now eligible – could include park access

29. What is the message for the Hill? • Bicycling and walking is good for communities • Generally small dollar projects, so the bike/ped funding can go further than traditional transportation projects • Has a direct impact on state’s people: mobility, safety, health • The safety and health of children is of paramount concern • Can aid with economic development – tourism dollars, business revenue, property taxes • Popular with local governments and citizens

30. What is the message for the Hill? • Come see our facilities and how important bike/ped access to parks is • You want them to see first-hand the challenges and solutions • It’s also about building those relationships with Members of Congress • It’s too soon to tell the impact of the Transportation Alternatives changes • We’re working with our states and MPOs on implementation and are hopeful about process • We remain concerned about the funding cuts • But we will be back with recommendations for the next bill once we know more

31. Margo Pedroso, Safe Routes to School National Partnership margo@saferoutespartnership.org www.saferoutespartnership.org For More Information:

32. Thank You Questions? NOTE: Presentation will be available on-line This Week