1. ADVOCACY ADVANCE ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP  Action 2020 Workshop ACTION 2020 WORKSHOP Rochester, NY October 17, 2012 1

2. 11.5 %

3. 13.5 %

4. 1.6 %

6. 3,000 projects 50 States 8,400 jobs $2.17

7. 15

8. State Comparisons

10. Safety in Numbers

11. Advocacy Advance Partnership

12. Action 2020 Workshops

13. 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

14. Navigating MAP-21 New York State Contact:  Brian Kehoe, Executive Director  New York Bicycling Coalition  Brian@NYBC.net Brian@NYBC.net www.AdvocacyAdvance.org/MAP21

15. Agenda 9:30Welcome & Introductions 10:00Keynote Speaker - Mayor Thomas S. Richards 10:30Navigating MAP-21 11:00Break 11:15Federal Funding Programs 12:00Information from the Local Context 12:30Lunch 1:15 Road Map for Success 2:00Opportunities and Next Steps in MAP-21 4:30Adjourn & Social Event

16. Introductions  Name  Organization / Agency  Position  What is your vision for biking and walking in Rochester?

17. Mayor Thomas Richards Keynote Speaker

18. 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

19. Federal-Aid Bike/Ped Spending 1992-2010

20. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century MAP-21  2 year bill  October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2014  Extends funding at current level over all programs Themes:  Consolidates programs  Gives states more flexibility  Streamlines project delivery

21. Waiting for Guidance www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/ guidance/index.cfm

22. MAP-21 Changes to Biking and Walking: Transportation Alternatives  Program consolidation  Changes in eligibility  Reduction in funding  Distribution of funds  Opt-out and transfers

23. Transportation Alternatives Program Consolidation Activities:  Transportation Enhancements (now Transportation Alternatives)  Safe Routes to School  Recreational Trails  Redevelopment of underused highways to boulevards

24. Changes in Eligibility 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

25. 30% Reduction in Funding SAFETEA LU – FY 2011 TOTAL: $1.2 BILLION MAP-21 – FY 2013 TOTAL: $808 MILLION TE $928 MILLION SRTS $202 M RTP $97 TRANSPORT- ATION ALTERNATIVES $808 M

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

27. Distribution of TA Funds

28. Distribution of TA Funds: 1. Mechanics 1. State gets funding equivalent of 2% of highway funds (minus safety, transit, etc.) 2. Recreational Trails Program funding option 3. Remaining funds are divided into 2 equal pots:  One distributed by population  One distributed through a state grant program 4. State has the ability to transfer funding out of the “state pot”

29. Distribution of TA Funds: 2. Recreational Trails Program RTP funding gets taken off the top (unless Governor Opts out)  Maintains 2009 RTP process and funding levels  Opt-out date is September 1 st every year  RTP projects eligible under TA and STP

30. Distribution of TA Funding: 3. Remaining funds divided into 2 pots Equal pots:  One pot distributed by population  One pot distributed through a state grant program

31. Distribution of TA Funds: 3a. Distributed by Population MPOs > 200,000 people  Funding is sub- allocated  MPOs run competitive grant process Urban areas < 20,000  State runs competitive grant process Rural areas < 5000  State runs competitive grant process

32. New York Funds Distributed by Population

33. Distribution of TA Funds: 3b. Distributed through State Grant Eligible entities:  Local/regional governments  Local/regional transportation agencies  Tribes  Public land agencies  Other local/regional entities state deems eligible State DOT

34. Distribution of TA Funds: 4. State can Transfer Funds Transfer options:  Can transfer up to 50% out of TA  Only out of Pot 2 Coburt Opt-Out  Based on unobligated balances  Doesn’t apply until the second year  Unique to TA State of Emergency  State must reimburse TA if it receives federal assistance States can also transfer funds INTO Transportation Alternatives

35. MAP-21 Changes to Biking and Walking: Beyond TA State 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

36. MAP-21 Changes to Biking and Walking: Eligibility in Other Programs  Surface Transportation Program (STP)  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)  Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)  Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program (Section 402)

37. MAP-21 Changes to Biking and Walking: Streamlining Projects SAFETEA-LU Categorical Exclusions  Biking and walking projects MAP-21 Categorical Exclusions  Biking and walking projects  Projects within the right-of-way  Projects with total cost < $5 million

38. Maximizing Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding in MAP-21  Spend existing funds  SRTS doesn’t expire  TE available for 3 years  Fully fund, staff, and implement TA  Maximize bike/ped spending across all programs

39. Break

40. Characteristics, requirements, and opportunities of under-utilized funding sources that exist for biking and walking projects and programs Federal Funding Programs

41. Outline  Funding overview  Strategies to increase funding  Program features  Bike/ped eligibility  Changes in MAP-21  Case studies

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

43. Federal-Aid Bike/Ped Spending 1992-2010

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

45. Growth in Bicycle Commuting

46. Bicycle Commuting blog.bikeleague.org/blog/ 2012/10/infographic- bike-commuting-growing- faster-in-bicycle-friendly- communities/ 2011 Rochester, NY – 1.6% bicycle commuter rate

47. Strategies to Increase Funding: What to Consider  Systems, not projects  Who, What, Where, When, How  Federal vs. state vs. local policies and politics  Programming decisions

48. Strategies to Increase Funding: Suggested Approaches  Guidance & Policy  Application  Prioritization  Committee Membership  Political Support  Focus on Safety

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

50. STP Changes in MAP-21  Higher funding, more competition  Sub-allocation to metropolitan areas  Same dollar amount as before Eligibility:  Transportation Alternatives activities  Rec Trails projects  SRTS not listed as eligible, but similar projects fit under Safe Routes for non-drivers

51. STP Example: Peoria, IL 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

52. 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

53. CMAQ Changes in MAP-21  New eligibility  Project or program that shifts traffic demands to other modes  Transferability  States can transfer up to 50% of CMAQ  Up from ~21% in SAFETEA-LU  Evaluation and Assessments  Require cost-benefit analysis  Assessment of health impacts

54. CMAQ Examples Construction:  Capital Bikeshare (Washington, DC & Arlington, VA)  Millennium Park Cycling Center (Chicago, IL)  Bike racks (Sacramento, CA) 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)

55. Strategies to Increase Funding: Bike/Ped-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)

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

57. HSIP Changes in MAP-21  HSIP funding increases  Still includes bike/ped and school zone safety eligibilities  In writing plans, states must consult with:  State nonmotorized representative  May include reps from safety stakeholder groups

58. HSIP Changes in MAP-21 New data and research requirements for states  non-motorized crash data  Crash frequency and crash rate data  Identify roadway elements/features  that constitute hazard...  [and/or] safe conditions

59. HSIP Example: Virginia “Fair share for safety”  10% set-aside  Project selection focused on corridors

60. 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

61. Section 402 Changes in MAP-21  Bicycle and pedestrian safety programs are still eligible  Adult programs also eligible

62. Section 402 Examples  BikeEd (Bike Texas)  Share the Road program (Atlanta)  BikeSchool (New Jersey)  Helmet distribution (Florida)  Training on ped/bike design guidelines  Bike Safety Month  Bike Walk Connecticut

63. Questions?

64. Richard Perrin, Executive Director Genessee Transportation Council Erik Frisch, Transportation Specialist City of Rochester Local Context

65. Questions?

66. Lunch

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

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

69. 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

70. 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

71. 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

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

73. 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

74. 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

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

76. Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations 4. Zoning Codes and Land Use Regulations “Builds in” bike & ped Residential & Commercial Redevelopment zones Include amenities

77. 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

78. Modifying Planning and Design Documents and Regulations 6. Trails and Rural Communities Have a long term goal Connectivity Timing: acquisition & development Corridor under public ownership Rails / Trails as fundraising

79. Finding Sustainable Funding 7. Needs Prioritization and Funding Criteria Follow the money Ensure bicycle/pedestrian projects are competitive with other transportation projects

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

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

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

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

84. Finding Sustainable Funding 12. Health Impact Assessments Consider both adverse & beneficial health effects Engage communities and stakeholders in a deliberative process

85. Finding Sustainable Funding 13. Transit “Alternative modes” - FTA funding Station area planning, catchment area Social equity First and last mile

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

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

88. 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

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

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

91. Building Communication, Collaboration & Support 19. Recognition for Good Work Show support for bicycle/pedestrian champions 3-to-1 rule

92. Questions?

93. Straight from the Headlines!

94. Prioritization Activity

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

96. Advocacy Advance Resources  Rapid Response Grants, Reports, Technical Assistance  www.AdvocacyAdvance.org  Navigating MAP-21 Resources  www.AdvocacyAdvance.org/MAP21  State Contact: Brian Kehoe Brian@NYBC.netBrian@NYBC.net

97. Contact Us!  Brighid O’Keane: Brighid@AdvocacyAdvance.orgBrighid@AdvocacyAdvance.org  Darren Flusche: Darren@AdvocacyAdvance.orgDarren@AdvocacyAdvance.org

98. Thank You!

99. Nikko: 1 Capron Street