1. ADVOCACY ADVANCE ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP  Action 2020 Workshop ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP Concordia, MO August 15, 2012 1

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 8:30Introductions 9:00 Keynote Speaker: State Senator David Pearce 9:30 The ABCs of MAP-21 10:00Break 10:15Funding Program Overview 11:15Funding from the Local Context 11:45Lunch 12:30Road Map for Success 1:15Small Groups: Opportunities and Next Steps in MAP-21 1:45Closing 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. Senator David Pearce District 31 Keynote Speaker

9. 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. The ABCs of MAP-21

10. Federal-Aid Bike/Ped Spending 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 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 Changes eligibilities from Transportation Enhancements

15. Reduction in Funding SAFETEA LU- FY 2011 TOTAL: $1.2 BILLION MAP-21 TOTAL: $808 MILLION TE $928 MILLION SRTS $202 M RTP $97 TRANSPORT- ATION ALTERNATIVES $808 M 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 Alternatives Funding 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 Alternatives Funding 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 MPO/ Metropolitan area Percent of Pot 1 Funding (estimated) Kansas City14.2% St. Louis29.6% Springfield4.5% Rest of state51.4%

22. Transportation Alternatives Funding 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 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 4. State can choose to transfer funding out

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

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/Ped Spending 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 City # of CMAQ projects # Ped - Bicycle Projects % Ped - Bicycle Projects Seattle, WA1818848.6 Milwaukee, WI1245846.7 Sacramento, CA2109545.2 San Francisco, CA46920944.5 Portland, OR903741.1 Atlanta, GA2307532.6 Chicago, IL45413830.3 Boston, MA1523925.6 Buffalo, NY451124 Cincinnati, OH861416.2 City # of CMAQ projects # Ped - Bicycle Projects % Ped - Bicycle Projects Philadelphia, PA2313515.1 Washington, DC5307914.9 New York, NY2753312 Denver, CO1171311.1 Columbus, OH7256.9 St. Louis, MO167116.5 Cleveland, OH12010.8 Pittsburgh, PA17910.5 Baltimore, MD4500 (Source: BikePGH, data source: FHWA, 2000-2009)

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.  Local Match  Share the Road Plates  3 year grant Example: GA Bikes

50. Questions?

51. Hope Visconti Transportation Planning Coordinator MoDOT Kansas City District Local Context

52. Questions?

53. Back at 12:30 Lunch

54. Favorable factors for bicycling and walking investments Road Map for Success

55. Learning Objectives  Identify opportunities for funding and support of bicycle and pedestrian projects  Explore the meaning of institutionalizing bicycle and pedestrian planning

56. Outline  Implementation through institutionalization  19 ways to fund your bicycle and pedestrian programs  Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations  Finding Sustainable Funding  Building Communication, Collaboration, and Support

57. Introduction  Perception of a lack of funding can be one of the biggest barriers keeping communities from investing in bicycle and pedestrian programs  Funding and support for bicycle and pedestrian projects can come from many different sources – some are obvious, others are not

58. Institutionalization  Bicyclist and pedestrian needs are part of the agency's mission and corporate culture  Entire organization/agency focuses on reducing crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians  Pedestrian and bicycle considerations are automatically included in all plans, policies and projects

59. Ways to Fund Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs  Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations  Finding Sustainable Funding  Building Communication, Collaboration, and Support

60. Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations 1. Policy Documents Set the tone of the agency or organization Include mission statements that indicate the organization’s priorities

61. Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations 2. Planning Documents Provide an opportunity for purposefully including bicycle and pedestrian needs into the planning process Integrate pedestrian considerations into planning documents

62. Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations 3. Design Guidelines and Standards Include specifications for street width, sidewalk design, intersection construction, and crossing facilities

63. Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations 4. Zoning Codes and Land Use Regulations Residential & Commercial Redevelopment zones Include amenities

64. Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations 5. Maintenance Starts with good design Prioritize location & frequency Follow the money; 51% of money to critical bridges in Pennsylvania Paint is your friend Often related to water

65. Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations 6. Trails and Rural Communities Local control Opportunities for input

66. Finding Sustainable Funding 7. Needs Prioritization and Funding Criteria Ensure bicycle/pedestrian projects are competitive with other transportation projects

67. Finding Sustainable Funding 8. Routine Accommodation Complete Streets Consider bicycle/pedestrian needs in every transportation project

68. Finding Sustainable Funding 9. Combined Projects Bundle smaller projects with larger ones

69. Finding Sustainable Funding 10. Shovel-Ready and Match One project ahead One match ahead

70. Finding Sustainable Funding 11. Environmental Impact Statements Mitigation Restoration

71. Finding Sustainable Funding 12. Health Impact Assessments Consider both adverse & beneficial health effects Incorporate various types of evidence Engage communities and stakeholders in a deliberative process

72. Finding Sustainable Funding 13. Transit “Alternative modes” - FTA funding Street Crossings - signals, schools & access Station area planning - Neighborhood Connectivity Social Equity

73. Building Communication, Collaboration & Support 14. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Boards Creates an ongoing system for citizen input

74. Building Communication, Collaboration & Support 15. Advocacy Groups Raise awareness 25 – 2 – 2 – 2

75. Building Communication, Collaboration & Support 16. Neighborhood Groups Macro-paradigm shifts 36/36 plans Gap between what agency thinks they want and what they really want Know the problem, not the correct solution

76. Building Communication, Collaboration & Support 17. Boards and Commissions Provide policy direction and recommendations to state and local government

77. Building Communication, Collaboration & Support 18. Interagency Coordination Establish cooperative relationships and consistent regional priorities

78. Building Communication, Collaboration & Support 19. Recognition for Good Work Show support for bicycle/pedestrian champions

79. Questions?

80. Opportunities and Next Steps in MAP-21

81. Next Steps  What will you do tomorrow?  What do you need help with?  Who will you connect with?

82. Advocacy Advance Resources  Navigating MAP-21 resources and webinars:  www.AdvocacyAdvance.org/MAP21  Rapid Response Grants  Reports, technical assistance  Winning Campaigns Training  Kansas City, MO: October 19-21  info@AdvocacyAdvance.org

83. Thank You! Trailsrpc.org Macogonline.org Mobikefed.org

84. ADVOCACY ADVANCE ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP  Action 2020 Workshop TRAINING FOR TRAINERS Concordia, MO August 15, 2012 84

85. Agenda 2:00Break and Transition 2:15Q & A 2:30Collaboration Tools 2:45Discussion of Local Issues 3:45Implementation and Next Steps 4:00Adjourn and Optional Happy Hour

86. Q & A Gain clarity and understanding of the content and facilitation of the Action 2020 Workshop

87. Collaboration Tools Using the workshops to develop local priorities and act on them

88. Discussion of Local Issues Suggested topics include Regional Transportation Plan, statewide trails inventory, sidewalk inventory, uniqueness of rural communities, projects and plans that are happening, Missouri’s plan for MAP-21

89. Implementation and Next Steps What will you do next?

90. Thank You! Join us for an optional happy hour at: Biffles Smokehouse BBQ 103 NE 2 nd St.