This document provides an overview of MAP-21, the new transportation law, with a focus on changes that affect biking and walking. Some key points include:
1. The Transportation Alternatives program consolidates several bike/ped programs and sees a funding reduction of approximately 30%. Eligibility and distribution of funds also changed.
2. Other programs like HSIP, STP, CMAQ, and Federal Lands still provide eligibility for bike/ped projects, and HSIP requires new safety data collection.
3. Advocates are coordinating campaigns at the state level to fully fund, staff, and implement the Transportation Alternatives program and maximize bike/ped spending across all programs. Goals include
The document discusses Michigan's Transportation Alternatives (TA) program under MAP-21. It outlines the program's goals of efficiently using funds, implementing quality projects with local support, and transitioning existing Transportation Enhancement and Safe Routes to School projects. The program will maintain support for initiatives like placemaking and trails. It will collaborate with MPOs to meet goals while facing challenges of less funding and more eligible activities. Lessons from Michigan's 20-year Transportation Enhancements program will help ensure a successful TA program through partnerships and understanding project requirements.
The document summarizes the key aspects of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21 consolidated and reformed surface transportation programs, established performance measures for transportation systems, and provided funding authorizations through Fiscal Year 2014. It streamlined programs, placed an increased emphasis on performance management to support national transportation goals, and implemented reforms to accelerate project delivery. MAP-21 also required states to develop performance targets in several areas and link investment priorities to performance. However, the funding authorized by MAP-21 only sustained surface transportation spending for two years and did not identify a long-term solution for financing infrastructure needs beyond FY2014.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee proposed a six-year, $260 billion highway reauthorization bill. Key provisions include establishing a $2 billion National Freight Program, a $400 million permanent Projects of National and Regional Significance program, and streamlining project delivery requirements. The bill also requires research on alternative funding options for the Highway Trust Fund and authorizes $125 million annually for transportation best practice awards. However, the Senate Finance Committee must identify $100 billion in additional revenues to supplement the Highway Trust Fund to maintain current investment levels under the proposal.
Reston Funding Plan: Potential Cost AllocationsFairfax County
The document discusses potential funding plans for transportation improvements in Reston, Virginia. It outlines six options for allocating costs between public and private sectors, such as based on project location, traffic volumes, or project type. The total estimated cost is $2.589 billion. Next steps include seeking feedback, developing a funding framework, and establishing development contribution rates to fund improvements.
- ARNOLD stands for the All Roads Network Of Linear referenced Data, which is FHWA's requirement for states to provide a geospatial network of all public roads.
- The goal is to create a complete inventory of the nation's road network to support a variety of programs and address inefficiencies.
- By June 2014, states are expected to provide a geospatial network that meets the specifications, which include attributes like route IDs and geometry for all public roads. Funding options and waivers have been made available to help states develop their networks.
Rural Long Range Transportation Plan 2005 - 2030LSCOG
This document provides a summary of the Lower Savannah Council of Governments Rural Long-Range Transportation Plan for 2005-2030. The plan was developed in partnership with the South Carolina Department of Transportation and a Technical Advisory Committee to identify and prioritize rural transportation needs in the region in accordance with federal transportation planning requirements. Key aspects of the plan include maintaining and improving the region's highway, bridge, intersection and other infrastructure over the 25-year period through projects funded by rural system upgrade funds. Public involvement was an important part of developing and implementing the plan.
This document discusses 11 funding scenarios to fund $350 million in transportation projects in Reston, Virginia over 40 years. It outlines the projects and their estimated costs totaling $2.265 billion. It proposes that public funds pay for roadway projects totaling $1.2 billion, while private revenues pay for intersections and a transportation grid totaling $1.066 billion. Various scenarios are presented to generate the $350 million in private funds through a combination of road funds, service districts, and tax districts applied to residential and commercial properties. An advisory group recommended removing scenarios relying solely on tax districts and those that did not generate sufficient funds, leaving scenarios using adjusted Tysons rates with a service district to fill any shortfall.
The document discusses Michigan's Transportation Alternatives (TA) program under MAP-21. It outlines the program's goals of efficiently using funds, implementing quality projects with local support, and transitioning existing Transportation Enhancement and Safe Routes to School projects. The program will maintain support for initiatives like placemaking and trails. It will collaborate with MPOs to meet goals while facing challenges of less funding and more eligible activities. Lessons from Michigan's 20-year Transportation Enhancements program will help ensure a successful TA program through partnerships and understanding project requirements.
The document summarizes the key aspects of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21 consolidated and reformed surface transportation programs, established performance measures for transportation systems, and provided funding authorizations through Fiscal Year 2014. It streamlined programs, placed an increased emphasis on performance management to support national transportation goals, and implemented reforms to accelerate project delivery. MAP-21 also required states to develop performance targets in several areas and link investment priorities to performance. However, the funding authorized by MAP-21 only sustained surface transportation spending for two years and did not identify a long-term solution for financing infrastructure needs beyond FY2014.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee proposed a six-year, $260 billion highway reauthorization bill. Key provisions include establishing a $2 billion National Freight Program, a $400 million permanent Projects of National and Regional Significance program, and streamlining project delivery requirements. The bill also requires research on alternative funding options for the Highway Trust Fund and authorizes $125 million annually for transportation best practice awards. However, the Senate Finance Committee must identify $100 billion in additional revenues to supplement the Highway Trust Fund to maintain current investment levels under the proposal.
Reston Funding Plan: Potential Cost AllocationsFairfax County
The document discusses potential funding plans for transportation improvements in Reston, Virginia. It outlines six options for allocating costs between public and private sectors, such as based on project location, traffic volumes, or project type. The total estimated cost is $2.589 billion. Next steps include seeking feedback, developing a funding framework, and establishing development contribution rates to fund improvements.
- ARNOLD stands for the All Roads Network Of Linear referenced Data, which is FHWA's requirement for states to provide a geospatial network of all public roads.
- The goal is to create a complete inventory of the nation's road network to support a variety of programs and address inefficiencies.
- By June 2014, states are expected to provide a geospatial network that meets the specifications, which include attributes like route IDs and geometry for all public roads. Funding options and waivers have been made available to help states develop their networks.
Rural Long Range Transportation Plan 2005 - 2030LSCOG
This document provides a summary of the Lower Savannah Council of Governments Rural Long-Range Transportation Plan for 2005-2030. The plan was developed in partnership with the South Carolina Department of Transportation and a Technical Advisory Committee to identify and prioritize rural transportation needs in the region in accordance with federal transportation planning requirements. Key aspects of the plan include maintaining and improving the region's highway, bridge, intersection and other infrastructure over the 25-year period through projects funded by rural system upgrade funds. Public involvement was an important part of developing and implementing the plan.
This document discusses 11 funding scenarios to fund $350 million in transportation projects in Reston, Virginia over 40 years. It outlines the projects and their estimated costs totaling $2.265 billion. It proposes that public funds pay for roadway projects totaling $1.2 billion, while private revenues pay for intersections and a transportation grid totaling $1.066 billion. Various scenarios are presented to generate the $350 million in private funds through a combination of road funds, service districts, and tax districts applied to residential and commercial properties. An advisory group recommended removing scenarios relying solely on tax districts and those that did not generate sufficient funds, leaving scenarios using adjusted Tysons rates with a service district to fill any shortfall.
This document is Appendix 3 of the Nisqually River Water Trail Concept Plan and Recommendations. It outlines potential funding sources for the water trail. The full draft document is available on the NRC website (www.nisquallyriver.org).
Dulles Corridor Air Rights Study InvestigationFairfax County
The document summarizes a study by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) investigating the feasibility of developing air rights over the Dulles Toll Road. The MWAA study found that building a platform over the Reston Town Center station would cost $1.469 billion but have transportation challenges. A follow-up study by Fairfax County concluded additional development from air rights would worsen traffic and not be aligned with the comprehensive plan. While air rights have development potential, significant hurdles around costs, transportation impacts, and land leasing would need to be addressed. A feasibility study for Fairfax County was estimated to cost $150,000-$200,000.
Reston Transportation Funding Plan: Updates and Recommendations: Jan. 19, 2017Fairfax County
The document summarizes a presentation given by Fairfax County Department of Transportation staff on a proposed Reston Transportation Funding Plan. It reviews the proposed projects and cost estimates, outlines different funding scenarios to meet the private share funding need of $350 million, and provides feedback received from community meetings. A key point is that the plan allocates roadway improvements to public funding and intersections/grid network to private funding from developers. Staff has proposed "Scenario 12" as their recommendation and will take next steps in further developing and scheduling the plan.
The document summarizes the long range transportation plan for the George Washington Region through 2040. It finds that population growth will exacerbate existing transportation challenges unless improvements are made. A needs plan identifies $13 billion in projects but exceeds available funding. A fiscally constrained plan prioritizes $3.3 billion in projects like new I-95 express lanes and US Route 1/17 improvements, but significant congestion will remain. Public comment is sought on the draft plan through March 2013.
Transportation Improvement Program 2014 - 2019LSCOG
This document provides an overview of the 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program for the Lower Savannah region of South Carolina. It discusses the planning process and goals for improving transportation in the region, which includes Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Calhoun and Orangeburg counties. The document outlines the projects and funding included in the improvement program, which must follow state and federal requirements regarding public input, civil rights compliance, and financial constraint. It also describes the process for amending projects in the program as needed.
The document summarizes the long range transportation plan for the George Washington Region. It discusses the existing transportation issues in the region, which are expected to worsen with continued population growth. The plan identifies transportation needs across all modes through 2040, including highways, bicycling/pedestrian, transit, and freight. However, only a constrained plan focusing on projects that can be funded through existing revenues can be implemented. This will still leave significant congestion as many needed transportation improvements cannot be afforded. Public comment is sought on the draft plan.
Reston Transportation Funding Plan: Dec. 13, 2016Fairfax County
The Fairfax County Department of Transportation presented a funding plan for transportation improvements in Reston, Virginia. The plan allocates costs equally between public and private funding. Roadway projects would be paid by public revenues, while intersections and grid network projects would be paid by private revenues. Eleven funding scenarios were proposed to generate $350 million in private funds. Based on feedback, Scenario 12 was proposed using a service district fee of $0.021 per $100 of assessed value along with road fund rates. This scenario balances input received to fund 40% of the private share over 40 years.
The South Central Planning and Development Commission (SCPDC) is a regional planning commission established in 1973 in Louisiana. It serves Assumption, Lafourche, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, and Terrebonne Parishes. SCPDC is involved with comprehensive and land use planning for the parishes, including transportation elements. It also works to educate communities on policies like complete streets and supports coordination of human services transportation.
For more information, see http://reliefline.ca
Do not include any personal information as all posted material on this site is considered to be part of a public record as defined by section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
We reserve the right to remove inappropriate comments. Please see Terms of Use for City of Toronto Social Media Sites at http://www.toronto.ca/e-updates/termsofuse.htm.
The document provides an update on MTC's Regional Means-Based Transit Fare Pricing Study. The study aims to develop scenarios for implementing means-based transit fare discounts in the Bay Area. Three affordability scenarios are proposed: discounted fares/passes for low-income riders, fare caps based on daily/monthly trip thresholds, and automatically loading Clipper cards with transit stipends for low-income riders. Two revenue-generating scenarios are also proposed: eliminating non-mandated discounts and raising fares. Stakeholder outreach is ongoing. Evaluation of scenarios will be completed in early 2016 followed by recommendations and next steps.
The Transportation Improvement Program of the Martin Metropolitan Planning Organization for Fiscal Years 2016/17-2020/21 outlines transportation projects that will receive funding. It was developed in accordance with federal and state regulations through cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation, local agencies, and transit operators in the Martin MPO area. The program's projects are consistent with the region's long range transportation plan and were approved by the Martin MPO Board on June 20, 2016.
Reston Transportation Funding Plan-Updates and Funding Scenarios: Sept. 12, 2016Fairfax County
This document summarizes a presentation made to the Reston Transportation Funding Plan Advisory Group. It discusses three funding scenarios (8, 10, and 11) to fund transportation improvements in Reston, Virginia. Scenario 8 adjusts contribution rates from a nearby area down 11% and uses a service district. Scenario 10 splits costs equally between a road fund and service district. Scenario 11 aims to equalize out-of-pocket costs for existing and new residents. The document outlines estimated revenues and impacts on property owners for each scenario. Next steps include an advisory group recommendation, briefing local officials, and seeking public input before the Board of Supervisors approves a funding plan.
Bay Area regional transit fare coordinationAdina Levin
The document discusses regional fare coordination efforts in the San Francisco Bay Area, including:
1) Standardizing youth and senior discount ages across transit agencies to improve the customer experience.
2) Adopting a $0.50 inter-agency transfer discount for adult single rides between bus operators to simplify fare rules.
3) Exploring a universal transit pass for tourists but addressing challenges around pricing and revenue sharing between agencies.
Lessons Learned from Irene: Vermont RPCs Address Transportation System RecoveryRPO America
One week after striking the U.S. east coast as a category 1 hurricane, Irene arrived in Vermont on August 27, 2011. Flooding was devastating for transportation infrastructure, leading the RPCs to assist the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) in the recovery.
This document discusses funding scenarios for transportation projects in Reston, Virginia. It provides updated cost estimates totaling $2.36 billion for roadway, intersection, and grid network projects. One funding scenario proposes splitting costs approximately equally between public and private revenues, with roadway projects funded publicly and most intersections and the grid privately. The document also discusses using tax increment financing and private contributions to generate revenues for the projects.
The document discusses various levels and types of transportation planning organizations in California. It explains that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are federally required transportation planning agencies for urbanized areas with over 50,000 people, while Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) are state-created agencies that often serve entire counties. Local Transportation Commissions (LTCs) function similarly to RTPAs within counties. Key transportation plans developed by these agencies include Regional/Metropolitan Transportation Plans, Transportation Improvement Programs, and Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans. The document also discusses sources of transportation funding and ways for citizens to get involved in the transportation planning process.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21):
- Provides over $105 billion in funding for surface transportation programs for fiscal years 2013-2014.
- Transforms the policy and programmatic framework for transportation infrastructure investments to guide growth.
- Creates a streamlined, performance-based program to address challenges like safety, infrastructure condition, congestion, freight movement, environment, and project delays.
This document discusses the relationship between community design, transportation, physical activity, and public health. It notes that a lack of active transportation options and physical inactivity can contribute to health issues like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. The document advocates for designing communities and transportation systems to encourage walking and biking through initiatives like Complete Streets in order to improve health outcomes.
Title: 'Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling
Track: Prosper
Format: 60 minute panel
Abstract: This panel will share successful strategies and programs utilized in Oregon and Pennsylvania developed to leverage and promote the economic benefits of cycling in rural communities.
Presenters:
Presenter: Sheila Lyons Oregon DOT
Co-Presenter: Jessica Horning Oregon DOT
Co-Presenter: Cathy McCollom River Town Program
This document is Appendix 3 of the Nisqually River Water Trail Concept Plan and Recommendations. It outlines potential funding sources for the water trail. The full draft document is available on the NRC website (www.nisquallyriver.org).
Dulles Corridor Air Rights Study InvestigationFairfax County
The document summarizes a study by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) investigating the feasibility of developing air rights over the Dulles Toll Road. The MWAA study found that building a platform over the Reston Town Center station would cost $1.469 billion but have transportation challenges. A follow-up study by Fairfax County concluded additional development from air rights would worsen traffic and not be aligned with the comprehensive plan. While air rights have development potential, significant hurdles around costs, transportation impacts, and land leasing would need to be addressed. A feasibility study for Fairfax County was estimated to cost $150,000-$200,000.
Reston Transportation Funding Plan: Updates and Recommendations: Jan. 19, 2017Fairfax County
The document summarizes a presentation given by Fairfax County Department of Transportation staff on a proposed Reston Transportation Funding Plan. It reviews the proposed projects and cost estimates, outlines different funding scenarios to meet the private share funding need of $350 million, and provides feedback received from community meetings. A key point is that the plan allocates roadway improvements to public funding and intersections/grid network to private funding from developers. Staff has proposed "Scenario 12" as their recommendation and will take next steps in further developing and scheduling the plan.
The document summarizes the long range transportation plan for the George Washington Region through 2040. It finds that population growth will exacerbate existing transportation challenges unless improvements are made. A needs plan identifies $13 billion in projects but exceeds available funding. A fiscally constrained plan prioritizes $3.3 billion in projects like new I-95 express lanes and US Route 1/17 improvements, but significant congestion will remain. Public comment is sought on the draft plan through March 2013.
Transportation Improvement Program 2014 - 2019LSCOG
This document provides an overview of the 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program for the Lower Savannah region of South Carolina. It discusses the planning process and goals for improving transportation in the region, which includes Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Calhoun and Orangeburg counties. The document outlines the projects and funding included in the improvement program, which must follow state and federal requirements regarding public input, civil rights compliance, and financial constraint. It also describes the process for amending projects in the program as needed.
The document summarizes the long range transportation plan for the George Washington Region. It discusses the existing transportation issues in the region, which are expected to worsen with continued population growth. The plan identifies transportation needs across all modes through 2040, including highways, bicycling/pedestrian, transit, and freight. However, only a constrained plan focusing on projects that can be funded through existing revenues can be implemented. This will still leave significant congestion as many needed transportation improvements cannot be afforded. Public comment is sought on the draft plan.
Reston Transportation Funding Plan: Dec. 13, 2016Fairfax County
The Fairfax County Department of Transportation presented a funding plan for transportation improvements in Reston, Virginia. The plan allocates costs equally between public and private funding. Roadway projects would be paid by public revenues, while intersections and grid network projects would be paid by private revenues. Eleven funding scenarios were proposed to generate $350 million in private funds. Based on feedback, Scenario 12 was proposed using a service district fee of $0.021 per $100 of assessed value along with road fund rates. This scenario balances input received to fund 40% of the private share over 40 years.
The South Central Planning and Development Commission (SCPDC) is a regional planning commission established in 1973 in Louisiana. It serves Assumption, Lafourche, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, and Terrebonne Parishes. SCPDC is involved with comprehensive and land use planning for the parishes, including transportation elements. It also works to educate communities on policies like complete streets and supports coordination of human services transportation.
For more information, see http://reliefline.ca
Do not include any personal information as all posted material on this site is considered to be part of a public record as defined by section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
We reserve the right to remove inappropriate comments. Please see Terms of Use for City of Toronto Social Media Sites at http://www.toronto.ca/e-updates/termsofuse.htm.
The document provides an update on MTC's Regional Means-Based Transit Fare Pricing Study. The study aims to develop scenarios for implementing means-based transit fare discounts in the Bay Area. Three affordability scenarios are proposed: discounted fares/passes for low-income riders, fare caps based on daily/monthly trip thresholds, and automatically loading Clipper cards with transit stipends for low-income riders. Two revenue-generating scenarios are also proposed: eliminating non-mandated discounts and raising fares. Stakeholder outreach is ongoing. Evaluation of scenarios will be completed in early 2016 followed by recommendations and next steps.
The Transportation Improvement Program of the Martin Metropolitan Planning Organization for Fiscal Years 2016/17-2020/21 outlines transportation projects that will receive funding. It was developed in accordance with federal and state regulations through cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation, local agencies, and transit operators in the Martin MPO area. The program's projects are consistent with the region's long range transportation plan and were approved by the Martin MPO Board on June 20, 2016.
Reston Transportation Funding Plan-Updates and Funding Scenarios: Sept. 12, 2016Fairfax County
This document summarizes a presentation made to the Reston Transportation Funding Plan Advisory Group. It discusses three funding scenarios (8, 10, and 11) to fund transportation improvements in Reston, Virginia. Scenario 8 adjusts contribution rates from a nearby area down 11% and uses a service district. Scenario 10 splits costs equally between a road fund and service district. Scenario 11 aims to equalize out-of-pocket costs for existing and new residents. The document outlines estimated revenues and impacts on property owners for each scenario. Next steps include an advisory group recommendation, briefing local officials, and seeking public input before the Board of Supervisors approves a funding plan.
Bay Area regional transit fare coordinationAdina Levin
The document discusses regional fare coordination efforts in the San Francisco Bay Area, including:
1) Standardizing youth and senior discount ages across transit agencies to improve the customer experience.
2) Adopting a $0.50 inter-agency transfer discount for adult single rides between bus operators to simplify fare rules.
3) Exploring a universal transit pass for tourists but addressing challenges around pricing and revenue sharing between agencies.
Lessons Learned from Irene: Vermont RPCs Address Transportation System RecoveryRPO America
One week after striking the U.S. east coast as a category 1 hurricane, Irene arrived in Vermont on August 27, 2011. Flooding was devastating for transportation infrastructure, leading the RPCs to assist the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) in the recovery.
This document discusses funding scenarios for transportation projects in Reston, Virginia. It provides updated cost estimates totaling $2.36 billion for roadway, intersection, and grid network projects. One funding scenario proposes splitting costs approximately equally between public and private revenues, with roadway projects funded publicly and most intersections and the grid privately. The document also discusses using tax increment financing and private contributions to generate revenues for the projects.
The document discusses various levels and types of transportation planning organizations in California. It explains that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are federally required transportation planning agencies for urbanized areas with over 50,000 people, while Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) are state-created agencies that often serve entire counties. Local Transportation Commissions (LTCs) function similarly to RTPAs within counties. Key transportation plans developed by these agencies include Regional/Metropolitan Transportation Plans, Transportation Improvement Programs, and Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans. The document also discusses sources of transportation funding and ways for citizens to get involved in the transportation planning process.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21):
- Provides over $105 billion in funding for surface transportation programs for fiscal years 2013-2014.
- Transforms the policy and programmatic framework for transportation infrastructure investments to guide growth.
- Creates a streamlined, performance-based program to address challenges like safety, infrastructure condition, congestion, freight movement, environment, and project delays.
This document discusses the relationship between community design, transportation, physical activity, and public health. It notes that a lack of active transportation options and physical inactivity can contribute to health issues like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. The document advocates for designing communities and transportation systems to encourage walking and biking through initiatives like Complete Streets in order to improve health outcomes.
Title: 'Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling
Track: Prosper
Format: 60 minute panel
Abstract: This panel will share successful strategies and programs utilized in Oregon and Pennsylvania developed to leverage and promote the economic benefits of cycling in rural communities.
Presenters:
Presenter: Sheila Lyons Oregon DOT
Co-Presenter: Jessica Horning Oregon DOT
Co-Presenter: Cathy McCollom River Town Program
This document discusses three Safe Routes to School networks in California: the statewide network since 2007 led by Deb Hubsmith, the Southern California regional network since 2010, and the Bay Area regional network since 2012. It outlines their partnerships, action plans, successes in policy and funding, and use of social media and lessons learned around MAP-21 legislation.
This document outlines a process for prioritizing pedestrian infrastructure improvements near schools in order to make walking to school safer. It involves a multi-step process:
1. Schools are grouped based on factors like crash history, safety concerns, and walking rates. Higher priority is given to schools with current walking and crash issues.
2. Additional prioritization is done within the highest priority groups based on traffic volumes, road characteristics, and crossings near the schools.
3. Field reviews are then conducted at the highest priority schools to identify specific pedestrian infrastructure improvement needs.
The result is a list of prioritized pedestrian infrastructure needs for the schools with the greatest safety issues related to walking. Non-infrastructure programs
Title: Not Your Grandfather's DOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences
Track: Connect
Format: 90 minute moderated discussion
Abstract: Today's economic realities require the rethinking of conventional transportation approaches. Learn about how Florida and Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation are using new tools, policies, and guides to proactively plan multi-modal transportation solutions.
Presenters:
Presenter: Jane Lim-Yap Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Co-Presenter: Steven Deck Parsons Brinckerhoff
Co-Presenter: Brian Hare PennDOT Program Center
Co-Presenter: Mary Raulerson Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
The document outlines plans for expanding Philadelphia's bike share program to improve social equity. It discusses establishing bike share as an affordable and accessible transportation option that connects communities across the city. A $5.9 million grant will fund research on barriers to bike share use among low-income residents, targeted marketing, installing 20 stations in low-income areas, and a universal access program without credit card requirements. The grant also aims to develop national best practices through research, convenings, and challenge grants to other cities and non-profits.
Title: 'Selling' Rural Communities on Cycling
Track: Prosper
Format: 60 minute panel
Abstract: This panel will share successful strategies and programs utilized in Oregon and Pennsylvania developed to leverage and promote the economic benefits of cycling in rural communities.
Presenters:
Presenter: Sheila Lyons Oregon DOT
Co-Presenter: Jessica Horning Oregon DOT
Co-Presenter: Cathy McCollom River Town Program
Title: Level of Service F for Grade A Streets
Track: Prosper
Format: 90 minute panel
Abstract: Relying solely on Level of Service criteria for street design, which evaluates vehicle congestion, leads to poor outcomes on many of our roadways. LOS F, far from a failure, creates opportunities to reallocate roadway space for more livable street designs. In this session, learn about projects in Cambridge and San Francisco that overcame opposition and generated community support in prioritizing better bicycling and walking over vehicle capacity during the peak hour of travel.
Presenters:
Presenter: Michael Sallaberry San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Co-Presenter: Jeffrey Rosenblum City of Cambridge, MA
Community Engagement Approaches for Active Transportation and Equity
This workshop will include lessons learned from local initiatives of Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities and the Active Living Minnesota campaign, with a focus on how to create the partnerships necessary to foster more equitable active transportation solutions.
Presenters:
Presenter: Fay Gibson Active Living By Design
Co-Presenter: Jill Chamberlain Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota
Co-Presenter: Naomi Doerner Bike Easy
Co-Presenter: Rosa Soto California Center for Public Health Advocacy
MAP-21 consolidated several transportation programs including Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and Recreational Trails into the new Transportation Alternatives program. It reduced funding for biking and walking projects and made changes to project eligibility and how funding is distributed between population-based and competitive grant programs. It also expanded eligibility and opportunities for biking and walking projects to receive funding under programs like HSIP, CMAQ, STP, and Federal Lands transportation.
The document summarizes the highlights of the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization. The RTP allocates $6.3 billion over 20 years for roadway maintenance (32%), roadway capacity (30%), transit (23%), safety (8%), biking and walking (5%), and system operations (2%). Compared to the previous plan, there is a shift toward cost-effective multimodal solutions, doubling funding for biking and walking and increasing transit funding by 26%. The plan also takes a "fix it first" approach by doubling funding for roadway preservation.
Arlington County Transportation Funding 101Mobility Lab
This document provides an overview of transportation funding sources for Arlington County, including capital funding from federal, state, regional, local, and WMATA sources. It discusses various federal, state, and regional grant programs that require matching local funds. The goal is to leverage external funding sources with local dollars to fund transportation projects. The document also outlines Arlington County's annual contributions to WMATA's capital and operating budgets from local transportation taxes and fees.
The document provides an overview and updates on changes to US federal transportation policy under MAP-21. Key points include clarification on the mandatory sidepath law, increases to Transportation Alternatives and CMAQ funding, the reinstatement of the ban on new SOV lanes using CMAQ funds, and next steps for advocates to provide input and ensure bicycle and pedestrian projects are included in implementation at the state and local level.
The document provides an overview and updates on changes to US federal transportation policy under MAP-21. Key points include clarification on the mandatory sidepath law, increases to Transportation Alternatives and CMAQ funding, the reinstatement of the ban on new SOV lanes using CMAQ funds, and next steps for guidance and ensuring bike/ped projects are included at the state and local level in implementation.
During the 2022 NADO Annual Training Conference, Robert Hyman and Alex Clegg shared information about the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and U.S. Department of Transportation programs.
Keynote Part 1 - Alternative Funding of Road ProjectsCharlotte Chamber
Mark Foster, chief financial officer of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), reports on innovative financing at the Charlotte Chamber 2011 Transportation Summit.
Statewide Transit Plan Open House with CDOT and DRCOG May 12, 2014OV Consulting
This document outlines the process and timeline for developing the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). It involves collaboration between transportation agencies and local governments to identify major transportation projects and allocate funding over the next 20 years. The plan will need to address growth in population and accommodate different transportation needs while staying within expected funding constraints. Key dates include completing an initial draft in September and adopting the final plan in October-December after public hearings.
The document provides an overview of funding for surface transportation projects from several sources, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the State Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund, and the Federal Highway Trust Fund. It discusses the status of ARRA funding distributions for highways, transit, rail, and other projects in New York. It also summarizes the needs and challenges facing surface transportation funding at both the state and federal levels, such as the impending insolvency of funding sources like the Federal Highway Trust Fund. New York's positions on priorities and policies for the next federal transportation bill are outlined.
The document presents a conceptual financial plan proposal for implementing rapid transit corridors in Miami-Dade County, Florida according to the SMART plan. It proposes using existing local revenues to fund initial rapid transit service on dedicated lanes for the North and South corridors at a cost of $534 million. This would begin service in 3 years. It also discusses options to expand service to other corridors, such as the Kendall corridor, that would require additional funding beyond what is currently dedicated to transportation. The plan is an important step towards realizing the vision of the SMART plan through incremental implementation of initial rapid transit services based on existing local revenues.
Reston Funding Plan
Potential Sources of Revenue for Funding Reston Transportation Improvements
Reston Network Analysis & Funding Plan Advisory Group
Dec. 14, 2015
ROUTES: USDOT’s New Rural Transportation Initiativenado-web
During the 2019 NADO Annual Training Conference (October 19 - 22 in Reno, NV), Jannine Miller shared information USDOT’s New Rural Transportation Initiative.
Implementation of HB2 (2014) and HB 1887 (2015)Fairfax County
The document provides information on recent changes to transportation funding processes in Virginia as a result of House Bills 2 (2014) and 1887 (2015). Key points include:
- HB 2 established a prioritization process for transportation projects using criteria like congestion mitigation, safety, accessibility and economic development. It excluded certain programs from this process.
- HB 1887 modified the previous funding formula and allocated funds to state of good repair, high priority projects, and district grant programs. It allowed regional agencies and transit agencies to apply for funds.
- Eligible projects must address needs in the Statewide Transportation Plan. Factors and measures were defined to evaluate and score projects for funding. The application process and timelines
The key issue discussed in the document is the implementation of the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program funding formula and the resulting trend in funding distribution. Specifically, the formula has not been fully implemented as intended, resulting in all road ownerships except states being calculated at 100% rather than making the distinctions outlined in the regulations. This has led to a trend where the majority of IRR funding is now generated by non-BIA and non-tribal roads rather than BIA and tribal roads. Various data runs were analyzed to try to address this issue, but the IRR Program Coordinating Committee was unable to reach a consensus solution. The document discusses preliminary recommendations to better implement the funding formula in line with the
This document provides policy recommendations from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) for the next federal surface transportation reauthorization bill regarding public-private partnerships (P3s). It recommends continuing to grow funding for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program to meet demand from P3 projects. It also recommends lifting the cap on using private activity bonds (PABs) for highway projects and allowing greater tolling flexibility to supplement limited federal funding. ARTBA supports these reforms to increase the role of P3s in financing transportation infrastructure.
Voters across eight states approved ballot initiatives totaling over $376 million to fund transportation infrastructure projects in November 2010. Thirteen initiatives aimed to increase funding through bonds, taxes, or fees, while four were defeated. The initiatives approved funding for projects like a $120 million bond for Fairfax County, Virginia, a $90 million bond for Austin, Texas, and $80 million in bonds for Rhode Island. However, an initiative in Alabama to transfer $1 billion from the state rainy day fund for roads was defeated.
This document summarizes California's transportation funding history and current challenges. It notes that California's transportation funding will collapse in 2013 due to declining gas tax revenues and diversions. The state has $295 billion in unmet transportation infrastructure needs through 2021. Without new funding, 58% of roads will require rehabilitation and 20% of bridges will need major work. The document calls for developing local and state funding solutions to address the crisis and invest in maintaining California's deteriorating transportation system.
This document provides a summary of topics from a presentation on the MAP-21 transportation bill implementation update including: funding issues, performance measures, and the future authorization process. MAP-21 consolidated programs and emphasized planning, performance measures, and freight. States will establish performance targets within a year of federal rulemaking. Future authorization faces challenges from a funding gap in the Highway Trust Fund and lack of public and congressional support for revenue increases. The transportation industry is working to develop consensus on funding options for the next bill due by September 2014.
Title: Level of Service F for Grade A Streets
Track: Prosper
Format: 90 minute panel
Abstract: Relying solely on Level of Service criteria for street design, which evaluates vehicle congestion, leads to poor outcomes on many of our roadways. LOS F, far from a failure, creates opportunities to reallocate roadway space for more livable street designs. In this session, learn about projects in Cambridge and San Francisco that overcame opposition and generated community support in prioritizing better bicycling and walking over vehicle capacity during the peak hour of travel.
Presenters:
Presenter: Michael Sallaberry San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Co-Presenter: Jeffrey Rosenblum City of Cambridge, MA
Title: A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities
Track: Connect
Format: 60 minute panel
Abstract: Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC have taken a strategic approach to bicycle parking. This session will focus on their planning tools and lessons learned from both the public and private sector.
Presenters:
Presenter: Megan Kanagy Downtown DC Business Improvement District
Co-Presenter: Daniel Clark Dero Bike Rack Company
Co-Presenter: Jeffrey Rosenblum City of Cambridge, MA
Title: Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Policies
Track: Change
Format: 90 minute panel
Abstract: Engaging schools in walking and bicycling efforts can be difficult given competing education priorities and frequent staff and volunteer turn-over. Attendees will learn about strategies for influencing school boards and policy opportunities at the district level.
Presenters:
Presenter: Sara Zimmerman Safe Routes to School National Partnership
Co-Presenter: Diane Dohm ChangeLab Solutions
Co-Presenter: Bree Romero Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Co-Presenter: Leigh Ann Von Hagen Voorhees Transportation Center, Rutgers University
Title: Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Policies
Track: Change
Format: 90 minute panel
Abstract: Engaging schools in walking and bicycling efforts can be difficult given competing education priorities and frequent staff and volunteer turn-over. Attendees will learn about strategies for influencing school boards and policy opportunities at the district level.
Presenters:
Presenter: Sara Zimmerman Safe Routes to School National Partnership
Co-Presenter: Diane Dohm ChangeLab Solutions
Co-Presenter: Bree Romero Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Co-Presenter: Leigh Ann Von Hagen Voorhees Transportation Center, Rutgers University
Title: Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Policies
Track: Change
Format: 90 minute panel
Abstract: Engaging schools in walking and bicycling efforts can be difficult given competing education priorities and frequent staff and volunteer turn-over. Attendees will learn about strategies for influencing school boards and policy opportunities at the district level.
Presenters:
Presenter: Sara Zimmerman Safe Routes to School National Partnership
Co-Presenter: Diane Dohm ChangeLab Solutions
Co-Presenter: Bree Romero Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Co-Presenter: Leigh Ann Von Hagen Voorhees Transportation Center, Rutgers University
This document discusses livability, transportation alternative programs (TAP), and safe routes to school (SRTS) funding. It defines livability as tying transportation to access to jobs, housing, schools, and safe streets. TAP and SRTS funding can be used for byways projects like historic preservation, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and visitor centers. Examples of SRTS infrastructure projects include pedestrian bulb-outs, wider sidewalks, and underground utilities. Contact information is provided for livability, byways, and SRTS programs at the DOT.
The document discusses proposed updates to a city's zoning regulations regarding bicycle parking. It aims to increase the quantity and quality of bicycle parking required for new developments to better support the city's goal of 10% of trips by bicycle. The proposed changes would modify definitions, design standards, access requirements, and quantities of both long-term secured and short-term bicycle parking. It also allows for special permit modifications to requirements to accommodate new ideas and technologies.
Cycle Oregon provides grants from its $2 million fund to support projects in communities where its bicycle tours travel through and for statewide bicycling advocacy. It distributes around $100,000 annually in grants and gives approximately $130,000 yearly to communities that host its summer and September tours to help with event planning and volunteer support from residents, which are critical to the tours' success.
Title: A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities
Track: Connect
Format: 60 minute panel
Abstract: Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC have taken a strategic approach to bicycle parking. This session will focus on their planning tools and lessons learned from both the public and private sector.
Presenters:
Presenter: Megan Kanagy Downtown DC Business Improvement District
Co-Presenter: Daniel Clark Dero Bike Rack Company
Co-Presenter: Jeffrey Rosenblum City of Cambridge, MA
Schedule:
Wednesday 9/10 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM in Breakout Rooms, 316
Title: Taking Pedestrian and Bicycle Counting Programs to the Next Level
Track: Connect
Format: 90 minute panel
Abstract: Panelists will provide practical guidance for pedestrian and bicycle counting programs based on findings from NCHRP Project 07-19, "Methods and Technologies for Collecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data."
Presenters:
Presenter: Robert Schneider University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Co-Presenter: RJ Eldridge Toole Design Group, LLC
Co-Presenter: Conor Semler Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Policies for Pupils: Working with School Boards on Walking and Bicycling Policies
Track: Change
Format: 90 minute panel
Abstract: Engaging schools in walking and bicycling efforts can be difficult given competing education priorities and frequent staff and volunteer turn-over. Attendees will learn about strategies for influencing school boards and policy opportunities at the district level.
Presenters:
Presenter: Sara Zimmerman Safe Routes to School National Partnership
Co-Presenter: Diane Dohm ChangeLab Solutions
Co-Presenter: Bree Romero Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Co-Presenter: Leigh Ann Von Hagen Voorhees Transportation Center, Rutgers University
Federal Funding for Active Transportation and Recreation
Track: Connect
Format: 60 minute panel
Abstract: This session will provide an overview about federal transportation programs that can fund infrastructure for walking and bicycling.
Full Description: Federal programs provide funds to develop transportation, community, and recreation infrastructure for walking and bicycling and to connect communities and promote active living. Attendees will learn how about Federal programs to promote sustainable communities.
Learning Objectives:
Participants will learn about the Federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities.
Participants will learn about the Federal-aid surface transportation programs that benefit pedestrians and bicyclists.
Participants will be able to successfully write a competitive proposal.
Participants will understand how Federal, State, and local programs interact.
Presenter(s)
Presenter: Christopher Douwes Transportation Alternatives Program / Recreational Trails Program, FHWA
Co-Presenter: Wesley Blount Office of Planning, Environment & Realty FHWA
Title: Not Your Grandfather's DOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences
Track: Connect
Format: 90 minute moderated discussion
Abstract: Today's economic realities require the rethinking of conventional transportation approaches. Learn about how Florida and Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation are using new tools, policies, and guides to proactively plan multi-modal transportation solutions.
Presenters:
Presenter: Jane Lim-Yap Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Co-Presenter: Steven Deck Parsons Brinckerhoff
Co-Presenter: Brian Hare PennDOT Program Center
Co-Presenter: Mary Raulerson Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Title: Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes
Track: Sustain
Format: 90 minute panel
Abstract: In the 21st century, the basic purpose of transportation studies needs to change from making it easier to drive to giving people options other than driving. This session will present case studies of alternatives to the auto-dominated Level of Service traffic impact studies in order to better address bicycling, transit and walking.
Presenters:
Presenter: Michelle DeRobertis Transportation Choices for Sustainable Communities
Co-Presenter: Peter Albert San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Co-Presenter: Patrick Lynch Transpo Group
Co-Presenter: David Thompson City of Boulder, Colorado
Title: Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes
Track: Sustain
Format: 90 minute panel
Abstract: In the 21st century, the basic purpose of transportation studies needs to change from making it easier to drive to giving people options other than driving. This session will present case studies of alternatives to the auto-dominated Level of Service traffic impact studies in order to better address bicycling, transit and walking.
Presenters:
Presenter: Michelle DeRobertis Transportation Choices for Sustainable Communities
Co-Presenter: Peter Albert San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Co-Presenter: Patrick Lynch Transpo Group
Co-Presenter: David Thompson City of Boulder, Colorado
Title: Integrating a Health Impact Assessment into District-Wide School Travel Planning
Track: Prosper
Format: 60 minute panel
Abstract: Learn about how a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) was used for the first time to guide the formulation of the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Columbus City Schools District-Wide School Travel Plan, which focused on schools and neighborhoods with health inequities.
Presenters:
Presenter: Brian Butler Columbus Public Health
Co-Presenter: Kate Moening Safe Routes to School National Partnership
Co-Presenter: Alex Smith Columbus Public Health
Co-Presenter: Julie Walcoff Ohio DOT
Title: Safer People, Safer Streets, and Safer Policies at USDOT
Track: Connect
Format: 90 minute moderated discussion
Abstract: This USDOT panel will provide details on the Department’s new bicycle and pedestrian safety initiative, including information on the Ped-Bike Safety Action Agenda, Road Safety for Transit Patrons initiative, bike-walk assessments, Road Diet Guide, an aggressive research agenda, and local partnerships, including how community members can get involved.
Presenters:
Presenter: Barbara McCann Office of Secretary, USDOT
Co-Presenter: Heidi Coleman National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Co-Presenter: Dan Goodman Office of Human Environment, Livability Team, FHWA
Co-Presenter: Joanne Waszczak Special Assistant, FTA Office of Budget and Policy
Title: Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes
Track: Sustain
Format: 90 minute panel
Abstract: In the 21st century, the basic purpose of transportation studies needs to change from making it easier to drive to giving people options other than driving. This session will present case studies of alternatives to the auto-dominated Level of Service traffic impact studies in order to better address bicycling, transit and walking.
Presenters:
Presenter: Michelle DeRobertis Transportation Choices for Sustainable Communities
Co-Presenter: Peter Albert San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Co-Presenter: Patrick Lynch Transpo Group
Co-Presenter: David Thompson City of Boulder, Colorado
This document discusses Safe Kids' Photovoice program, which uses photography to document children's perspectives on road safety issues in their communities. The program has been implemented in 10 countries. It aims to raise awareness, educate children, and improve pedestrian environments through community-identified solutions. Evaluation found the program increased children's road safety knowledge and some countries made environmental changes like adding crosswalks in response to the children's photos and concerns. The case study from Vietnam showed how children's photos were exhibited to influence road planning and design.
Safer People, Safer Streets, and Safer Policies at USDOT
Track: Connect
Format: 90 minute moderated discussion
Abstract: This USDOT panel will provide details on the Department’s new bicycle and pedestrian safety initiative, including information on the Ped-Bike Safety Action Agenda, Road Safety for Transit Patrons initiative, bike-walk assessments, Road Diet Guide, an aggressive research agenda, and local partnerships, including how community members can get involved.
Presenter: Barbara McCann Office of Secretary, USDOT
Co-Presenter: Heidi Coleman National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Co-Presenter: Dan Goodman Office of Human Environment, Livability Team, FHWA
Co-Presenter: Joanne Waszczak Special Assistant, FTA Office of Budget and Policy
More from Project for Public Spaces & National Center for Biking and Walking (20)
Safer People, Safer Streets, and Safer Policies at USDOT
#3 / #50 Navigating MAP-21
1. Naviga&ng MAP‐21
Advocacy Advance
America Bikes
Safe Routes to School Na&onal Partnership
2. Agenda
1. Overview of MAP‐21
2. Q & A
3. Campaign Strategies
4. Advocacy Strategies
5. Discussion
3. Overview of MAP‐21
1. Overview of MAP‐21 Caron Whitaker
2. Q & A Campaign Director,
America Bikes
3. Campaign Strategies
4. Advocacy Strategies
Margo Pedroso
5. Discussion Deputy Director, Safe
Routes to School
Na&onal Partnership
4. MAP‐21 Basics
Current transporta&on law in effect &l 9/30/12
2 year bill
October 1, 2012‐ September 30, 2014
Extends funding at current level
Themes:
☞ Consolidate programs
☞ Streamline project delivery
☞ Give states more flexibility
6. Transporta&on Alterna&ves
Consolidates bike/ped programs into new program and changes
eligibili&es.
Includes:
Changes TE eligibili&es, including:
Recrea&onal Trails
ADDS:
Safe Routes to School ✔ Turnoffs, overlooks, viewing areas
(per current law) ✔ Safe routes for non‐drivers
✔ ANY environmental mi&ga&on
Transporta&on Alterna&ves
(rename of Transporta&on REMOVES:
Enhancements) ✗ Tourist/welcome centers
✗ Museums
Redevelopment of under‐ ✗ Buying scenic/historic sites
used highways to boulevards ✗ Streetscaping
✗ Bike/ped educa&on
7. Transporta&on Alterna&ves
Reduc&on in Funding
SAFETEA LU ‐ FY 2011 MAP‐21
SRTS
$202 M
TE
TransportaAon
$928
AlternaAves
MILLION
$808 M
RTP
$97
Total: $1.2 BILLION Total: $808 MILLION
Na&onally approx. 30% cut
State cuts range from 18% (GA) to 51% (VT)
8. Transporta&on Alterna&ves
Funding Distribu&on
State s TA alloca&on
Minus: Recrea&onal Trails (FY09 level) *unless Governor opted out
Half of $: PopulaAon pot Half of $: Unrestricted pot **
Distributed by popula&on share Distributed by state
through compe&&on
MPOs w/popula&on>200K Variety of local en&&es eligible; state
• Receive suballocated funds DOT not eligible
• Must hold compe&&on to
award funds
** Transferability:
• State can transfer all of this pot to
Remainder distributed by other transporta&on programs
state‐run compe&&on • State can also transfer up to 50% of
Split between areas with other funds into TA
popula&on of 5‐200k and
below 5k
9. Transporta&on Alterna&ves
Funding Distribu&on
Recrea&onal Trails Program funding gets taken
off the top (unless Governor opts out)
To date: FL and KS have opted out
34 States have confirmed opt ins
Oregon Amount
Total TA Funding $8.96M
Rec Trails $1.6M
Remaining TA funding $7.36 M
10. Transporta&on Alterna&ves
Funding Distribu&on
Remaining funding is divided into 2 equal pots
POT 1‐ distributed by popula&on
MPOs Popula&on > 200,000
• Funding is sub‐allocated
• MPOs must run compe&&ve grant process
Communi&es with a popula&on < 200,000
• State will run a compe&&ve grant process
Rural areas popula&on < 5000
• State will run a compe&&ve grant process
12. Transporta&on Alterna&ves
Oregon Example
MPO/ Metropolitan Percent of Pot 1
area Funding (esAmated)
Portland 39%
Salem 6%
Eugene 6.5%
Other areas of the state 48%
(pop < 200,000)
Map: Rails to Trails Conservancy, h:p://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/ourWork/MPOs_by_state
13. Transporta&on Alterna&ves
Funding Distribu&on
Remaining funding is divided into 2 equal pots
POT 2‐ distributed through compe&&ve grant process
run by state.
Eligible En&&es
State
Local/regional governments DOT
Tribes
Local/regional transporta&on agencies
Public land agencies
Other local/regional en&&es state deems eligible
14. Transporta&on Alterna&ves
Transferability Op&ons
State can choose to transfer funding out
Transfer op&on
– up to 50% of TA to any other program
– Only out of Pot 2 (Unrestricted pot)
– Can also transfer 50% of any other pot INTO TA
Coburn Opt‐ out
– based on unobligated balance
– Doesn t apply un&l year 2
– Unique to TA
State of Emergency
– Can transfer funding to fix damaged infrastructure
– If State gets federal funds for emergency later, must reimburse TA
15. Transporta&on Alterna&ves
Safe Routes to School Issues
Federal Share/Local Match
For rest of TA, it s 80% federal; 20% local dollars
Safe Routes to School is 100% federally funded
Infrastructure/Non‐infrastructure
Current law: states spend 10‐30% on non‐infrastructure
NI definitely eligible, minimums difficult to apply
16. Coordinators and Clearinghouses
Coordinators
– Bike/Ped Coordinator
– Safe Routes to School
– (TE Coordinator)
Clearinghouses
– Safe Routes to School Na&onal Center
– Pedestrian/Bicycle Informa&on Center
– (NTEC)
17. Expedi&ng Projects/
Streamlining
USDOT must iden&fy best prac&ces to expedite
projects
Expanded Categorical Exclusions (CE) for NEPA
SAFETEA LU Categorical MAP‐21 Categorical
Exclusions Exclusions
☞ Biking and walking
☞ Biking and walking
projects projects
☞ Projects within the right‐
of‐way
☞ Projects with a total cost
of less than $5 million
18. Highway Safety
Improvement Program
HSIP funding increases under MAP‐21
S&ll includes bike/ped and school zone safety
eligibili&es
In wri&ng plans, states must consult with:
– State nonmotorized representa&ve
– May include representa&ves from
safety stakeholder groups
19. Highway Safety
Improvement Program
New data and research
requirements for states
Nonmotorized crash data
Motor vehicle crashes that
include pedestrians and
bicyclists
Iden&fy roadway elements/
features
• That cons&tute hazard...
• [and/or] safe condi&ons
20. Surface Transporta&on
Program (STP)
Higher funding, more compe&&on on non sub‐
allocated funds
Sub‐alloca&on to metropolitan areas
– Same dollar amount as before
Eligibility:
☞ T ransporta&on Alterna&ves ac&vi&es eligible
☞ R ec Trails projects eligible
☞ SRTS not listed as eligible, but similar projects fit under new
TA eligibility for Safe Routes for non‐drivers
21. Conges&on Mi&ga&on and
Air Quality (CMAQ)
New Eligibility
☞ Project or program that shiqs traffic
demand to… other transporta&on
modes
Transferability
– States can transfer up to 50% of CMAQ
– Increase from ~ 21% in SAFETEA LU
Evalua&on and Assessments
– Require cost benefit analysis
– Assessment of health impacts
23. Summary
Transporta&on Alterna&ves
– Changes to eligibility
– Lower funding
– Funding distribu&on changes
• 50% by popula&on
• 50% by grant program
Eligibility
☞ Increased opportunity for data and funding under HSIP
☞ Con&nued eligibility under CMAQ, STP, and Federal
Lands
24. Q & A
1. Overview of MAP‐21
2. Q & A
3. Campaign Strategies
4. Advocacy Strategies
5. Discussion
25. Campaign Strategies
1. Overview of MAP‐21 Darren Flusche
2. Q & A Policy Director
3. Campaign Strategies League of American
Bicyclists
4. Advocacy Strategies
5. Discussion
29. Fully Fund TA
Spend Transporta&on Alterna&ves funds on
Transporta&on Alterna&ves projects
Do not transfer funds out of TA
– Transfer funds into TA
Don t let TA funds accumulate
Don t opt out of Recrea&onal Trails Program
– Broadly successful
33. Fully Maximize Investments
Underu&lized Funding Programs
Surface
Transporta&on
Program (STP)
Conges&on Mi&ga&on
and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ)
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Sec&on 402 Safety
Grants
34. Fully Maximize Investments
Suggested Approaches
Policy:
Guidance & Policy
Applica&on
Priori&za&on
Commiuee Membership
Advocacy:
Poli&cal Support
Focus on Safety
35. Fully Maximize Investments
Bicycle‐friendly Policies
CMAQ lessons:
Regional decision making
– Sub‐alloca&on
Projects rated by type
Set‐asides
Inten&onal planning
Local advocacy support
Quality applica&ons
37. Advocacy Strategies
1. Overview of MAP‐21 Robert Ping
Technical Assistance Director
2. Q & A Safe Routes to School
3. Campaign Strategies Na&onal Partnership
4. Advocacy Strategies
5. Discussion
39. It Takes People: Fully Staff
Coordinators are cri&cal to
move funds to communi&es
Program staff needed at
regional and local levels
Diverse advisory commiuees
help DOT s achieve goals
Coali&ons help DOT s achieve
and keep moving forward
DOT staff needed at regional
and local/district level
41. SAFETEA‐LU: Fully Implement
ApplicaAons: Hold grant compe&&ons
Announce: Award funds without delay
Obligate: Get Projects Approved
Build: Spend
Obligated Funds
42. SRTS Can Lead and Grow: Fully
Maximize
Opportunity: SRTS can help push bike/ped
Flexibility: SRTS could even get bigger
Make the Case: Health, Safety, Kids
43. What You Can Do Overall
Act Now!!
Check in with your state campaign leader
Gather intel on regional, local decisions, &meline
Develop local and join state campaigns
Ask for mee&ng to gather info and make statements
Get Funds to Lower‐Income Communi&es
Get SRTS Champions onto Bike/Ped and Health
Commiuees – Health in All Policies
Get Decision Makers to Meet and See Programs
Go to saferoutespartnership.org ‐ Resource Center
44. State: What We Are Learning
Some states may push funding decisions to
local coali&ons/commiuees
Some may maintain current status, others
may combine all into one compe&&on
Many coordinators are not gewng any
informa&on about the future
States are wai&ng for FHWA guidance
Some DOT staff feel there will be even more
spent on bike/ped/SRTS
45. State: What We Are Learning
Some states are going to spend down
SAFETEA‐LU funds on statewide campaigns
and contractors
SRTS and other bike/ped will be administered
as a single program
Some regional governments may follow state
lead/processes
Some states are locked into exis&ng funding
for 2013, even 2014/2015
46. State: What You Can Do
Talk to SRTS, TE and Bike/Ped coordinators and
others, especially upper mgmt.
Learn about STP, CMAQ, HSIP funding, decision
makers and applica&on criteria
Talk to statewide bike/ped and health advocates
Figure out mechanisms that will protect or even
increase SRTS funding
Conduct outreach to local advocates to get info
out to them, join campaign
47. Regional/Local: What You Can Do
Connect with other bike/ped/health advocates, get them
involved and inspired to work towards regional funding
targets
Find out who the decision makers are on bike/ped, what
relevant commiuees are ac&ve
RTP ‐ learn &meline, commiuees, public input phases;
any new ini&a&ves/ processes being developed by MPO?
Collect data on spending history of MPO, and regional
safety and health data
Work with other champions to brainstorm ideas, build
playorm – especially health partners
Feed informa&on to state lead
49. Contact
Caron Whitaker Darren Flusche
Campaign Director, America Bikes Policy Director, League of American
caron@americabikes.org Bicyclists / Advocacy Advance
darren@bikeleague.org
Margo Pedroso
Deputy Director, Safe Routes to Robert Ping
School Na&onal Partnership Technical Assistance Director, Safe
margo@saferoutespartnership.org Routes to School Na&onal Partnership
robert@saferoutespartnership.org
Brighid O Keene
Program Manager, Alliance for
Biking & Walking / Advocacy
Advance
brighid@peoplepowered
movement.org