The future of federal transportation policy may be summarized in two words: Performance Measures. Will states be required to set safety goals for people on bikes — or will we get lost in the shuffle?
The transportation bill — Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, MAP-21 — requires states to set performance goals across several categories. The details of these goals will very likely determine transportation priorities well into the future.
Join our next Advocacy Advance webinar on Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. EDT for the first our series on Understanding and Shaping Transportation Performance Measures.
This webinar series will explore the implications of the new performance measure requirements in MAP-21. How will performance measures impact bicycling and walking investments? Can they work in favor for active transportation? What should be measured? What can be measured? Join the discussion with national experts on the topic.
First up on Tuesday, we’ll find out the latest on federal performance measure policy from two experts from the U.S. Department of Transportation and our own Caron Whitaker, the League’s Vice President of Government Relation.
Part I: Federal Context and Perspectives
Tuesday, April 23 @ 2:00 – 3:30 p.m. EDT -Register here
Presenters:
Rebecca Higgins, Transportation and Environmental Policy Analyst, Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Robert Ritter, Acting Safety Team Leader, Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Caron Whitaker, Vice President of Government Relations, League of American Bicyclists
Part II: Current Data Collection Methods and Exploring What’s Possible
Tuesday, May 14 @ 2:00 – 3:30 p.m. EDT – Register here
Presenters:
Charles Denney, Alta Planning + Design
Jean-Francois Rheault, Director, Eco-Counter
Tony Hull, Senior Planner, Toole Design Group
David Patton, Bicycle & Pedestrian Planner, Arlington County Division of Transportation
Advocacy Advance is a partnership of the League of American Bicyclists and the Alliance for Biking & Walking.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
How is my state spending its share of federal transportation funds? How much is my community investing in bicycling and walking?
These common questions can be difficult to answer.
Data on federal funding is vital to understanding the range of programs that fund bicycle projects — and let you know if your state is effectively tapping into federal dollars to make biking better in your community.
Adding to the report, Advocacy Advance is also hosting a webinar next week on “Tracking Data on Bicycling and Walking Investments.” Join us on Tuesday, January 29th, at 2 p.m. Eastern as we explore sources of funding outside of new Transportation Alternatives programs and explain what’s being done to track bicycle funding. Panelists will include:
Ken McLeod, Legal Specialist, Advocacy Advance
Andrea Milne, Benchmarking Project Manager, Alliance for Biking & Walking
Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.
What does the fiscal cliff have to do with biking? From a distance, very little. But look closer and biking is, indeed, perched on a potential precipice…
With the debt ceiling coming due in February, the fiscal cliff deal expiring March 1 and the current budget expiring on March 31, Congress will be looking for any and all possible budget cuts. Though the new transportation bill, MAP-21 passed last year, there could still be some attempts to eliminate funding for biking. After all, we’ve been down this road before.
In the past several years, we’ve seen a small number of lawmakers use the budget process as an opportunity to cut funding for biking. Since 2009 there have been at least six (unsuccessful) attempts during the budget process to either weaken programs that fund biking and walking, or eliminate funding to biking facilities outright.
The irony: None of the anti-bike amendments that were suggested or voted on would have actually cut spending if enacted. They would just shift that funding into road building.
The truth: Investing in bicycling facilities and complete streets is a cost effective way to improve transportation, health and safety and to boost local economies. Improving the economy IS in the federal interest.
I don’t need to tell you that. But we do need to tell Congress that.
Avoiding this scenario will require bicycling advocates to do what we do best. Two years ago, when the 112th Congress came in their main goal was to cut spending — and that’s exactly what they did. In March 2010, the House of Representatives approved a series of cuts to transit, to Amtrak and to several other programs. But, despite the dramatic cuts to several related programs, biking and walking programs survived intact.
That was no accident. In 2010, bicycling and walking advocates met with more than 100 members of Congress in their districts and more than 400 members during the National Bike Summit — within weeks of that budget process. Now, the drumbeat to cut spending is even stronger. We need to be prepared to tell the story of the importance of biking to safety, transportation and to local economies.
The National Bike Summit is a critical opportunity for people who ride bikes to have our voices heard — and let Congress know that Bicycling Means Business.
There’s just one week left to register with the reduced, early-bird rates and save $100. Don’t wait; sign up today!
Caron Whitaker Vice President of Government Relations
Prior to joining the League of American Bicyclists in 2012, Ms. Whitaker served as the Campaign Director for America Bikes where she coordinated and implemented America Bikes federal policy agenda. Before that, she worked for the National Wildlife Federation on smart growth, international policy, and community engagement. In addition, Caron served as a Community Land Use Planner for the State of North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, providing technical assistance to local governments and staffing a stakeholders’ council responsible for revising state planning regulations. She has a Masters in Environmental Management for Duke University, Nicolas School of the Environment and a Bachelors of Arts from Williams College.
The new federal transportation bill, MAP-21, reinforces the critical importance of state and local bicycle advocacy.
Now that Congress has passed the law, the game is played at the state regional level. Our Advocacy Advance team is working with advocates in each state who are coordinating efforts to ensure state Departments of Transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) make bicycling and walking a priority. While it’s critical that agencies use all of the federal-aid programs available (as we explained on this webinar), it’s also important to understand the Transportation Alternatives program.
Why? Even though its small in terms of total dollars, the largest percentage of funding goes to biking and walking.
It’s not a simple process, so we created a helpful infographic on how the TA program funds flow from states to your communities:
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
The National Bike Summit has a long history of being the premier advocacy event of the year — and we couldn’t be more excited about the line-up for 2013.
First of all, thank you to the many people who shared great session ideas in our call for proposals. We wish we could incorporate all of them — and did our best to include at least some aspect the vast majority of your diverse submissions.
In line with our “Bicycling Means Business” theme, we’ll have specific tracks exploring the economic benefits of bicycling and how to take advantage of federal funding through the new transportation law, MAP-21.
But that’s not all.
We want to move beyond static Powerpoint presentations and engage YOUR ideas, too. So this year, you can role play effective communications tactics to engage your elected officials, sharpen your press strategy with an interactive storytelling workshop and, perhaps most importantly, help us develop a “Bicycling Agenda for 2014 and Beyond.”
The workshops compliment an exciting group of plenary speakers, as well. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) will join Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and other political leaders — and we can’t wait to hear Yolanda Cade of AAA.
Stay tuned for the announcement of more keynote speakers, four exciting pecha kuchas, and the complete Summit schedule later this week.
Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.
It took Congress nearly three contentious years to agree on a new federal transportation bill — but Advocacy Advance didn’t waste a single day.
Immediately after the passage of the new law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, the League launched Navigating MAP-21 to ensure that advocates and policymakers understand what the new law means for bicyclists — and how to best utilize the programs to continue building a bicycle friendly America.
In short order, the Advocacy Advance team put together a wealth of resources explaining how the new programs work, how much money each state will get and how to best organize at a state and local level to make the best of the new bill. And grassroots advocates stepped up to the plate, mobilizing quickly in dozens of states and beginning the long-term work to maximize funding for biking under MAP-21.
But the team didn’t stop with online resources and technical assistance — they brought the knowledge to the people. More than 500 participants attended the incredibly successful Navigating MAP-21 workshops in eight cities. From Atlanta, Ga., to Anchorage, AK, those workshops had a huge impact, leading to more than $10 million in new funding for bike/ped projects in local communities.
The Advocacy Advance team has plans to do even more in 2013 (if that’s possible!) — with a new staff member, a system to track federal funding, at least 10 workshops and a whole suite of new resources. After all, we’re just getting started Navigating MAP-21.
Carolyn Szczepanski Communications Director
Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.
Over the past 11 months, the Advocacy Advance team — a partnership of the League and Alliance for Biking & Walking — has been your source for critical analysis and resources on the new federal transportation bill. But, beyond the reports and webinars and one-on-one assistance, Darren and Brighid have been out in the field conducting Navigating MAP-21 Workshops, too.
Funded by SRAM, these workshops have brought together advocates, agency staff and elected officials, giving them the tools and knowledge to access federal funding for local biking and walking projects and program.
And, from Atlanta, Ga., to Anchorage, AK, those workshops have had a huge impact, leading to more than $10 million in new funding for bike/ped projects in local communities.
Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.
After Congress passes a transportation bill, it’s up to the U.S. Department of Transportation to figure out how the law should be interpreted — and release “guidance” for your state department of transportation to follow.
Join us TODAY, November 28, at 2 p.m. Eastern for our next Navigating MAP-21 webinar to learn the importance of the recently released guidance and what it means for cyclists in your area. Presenters will include Caron Whitaker, League Vice President of Government Relations, and Darren Flusche, League Director of Policy.
Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.
Whose streets work better: Atlanta or Chicago? According to the most common assessment tool for congestion — the Travel Time Index (TTI) — the answer is Atlanta.
The average trip to work in Atlanta takes 57.4 minutes, while the typical commuter in Chicago spends 35.6 minutes getting to the office. So it seems like the Windy City would be rated higher, right? Well, no. The TTI gives more credit to speed than travel time and destination proximity. Atlanta looks better because their commuters drive faster over a farther distance, even though their trips take longer on average. This example, highlighted in a recent memo from Transportation for America, reveals the challenges and limitations of our current thinking about transportation performance. And, unfortunately, this isn’t just an academic problem.
Under the law, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) will set up Performance Measures for its largest program, the $22 billion National Highway Performance Program, that will ultimately reward and penalize states for reaching or failing to meet these targets, and
The law expands the scope of the National Highway System by 60,000 new lane miles; now it will include many roads (primary arterials) that don’t feel like highways at all.
So, unless the performance measures are set appropriately, state DOTs will treat many roads that cut through neighborhoods essentially the same way they treat interstate highways: prioritizing speed over other factors. Which roads will that affect in your state? You can find the primary arterial routes that will be added to the NHS in here.
Should the performance of this road…
…be measured like this one?
Under the new National Highway Performance Program, the performance of these two roads could be measured the same way. One is a bustling business district, the other is an Interstate highway. (Example provided by Transportation for America.)
Fortunately, the USDOT appears to recognize the challenge before it. In September, the DOT solicited input through an online dialogue, where the public contributed and voted on ideas for these performance measures.
The number one ranked idea for Highway System Performance:“Performance measures should be defined and measured in ways that reflect all of the benefits of an integrated, comprehensive system based on the movement of people, not vehicles.” One of the most popular ideas for Congestion Mitigation: “Performance measures should emphasize spatial and temporal dimensions of congestion” (translation: the measure should consider trip time, as well as distance traveled). Both suggestions would encourage communities to build infrastructure that helps people get where they are going rather than travel the greatest distance possible at the highest speeds possible.
In fact, the DOT received so much feedback that it hosted a listening session late last month. During the session, officials acknowledged the need to address issues like “vehicle vs. passenger movement,” and there was considerable discussion about how to measure people on foot and on bicycle. In the League’s recommendations to DOT, we identified Regional Household Travel Surveys, infrared counters, and traditional bike/ped counts, as possible tools, and pointed to states like Massachusetts, which is setting mode-shift goals as part of its transportation performance measures. We also passed along some of the on-goingresearch into bicycling and walking measurement.
It is good that this dialog is taking place, but we’ll be watching carefully to see what comes out these discussions. Whatever gets put into place now will likely influence transportation decision-making for years to come, so it’s critically important to keep the focus on moving people, not vehicles.
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
In September, 50 community members participated in an Advocacy Advance Action 2020 Workshop in Harrisonburg, Virginia, to jumpstart the region’s efforts to fund local bicycle and pedestrian projects.
The clear goal of the day: Work together to get facilities on the ground that keep people safe and make Harrisonburg – a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Community – the “bicycle capital of Virginia.”
The mayor, city councilmembers, county administrator, sheriff, transportation planners, and local advocacy attendees were all on board.
Since then, they’ve have taken a giant leap towards meeting that goal: more than $2 million was invested in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in 24 hours.
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Earlier this month, Anchorage advocates celebrated a major step toward implementation of the region’s bike plan.
The Anchorage Metro Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) is the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). AMATS has been reviewing how it would distribute federal dollars to transportation projects in Anchorage through 2014.
The Bicycle Commuters of Anchorage (BCA) saw the proposed budget and noticed that bicycles were largely left out of the equation, despite a bike plan they helped to develop. The plan was unanimously passed by the Anchorage Assembly in 2010, but implementation of it was not widely reflected in the budget.
More than 100 members and supporters of the Bicycle Commuters of Anchorage sent letters to the MPO’s Technical Advisory Committee – the committee that votes on the budget. Thirty-five bicyclists attended a Thursday afternoon meeting of the committee on November 1.
At the meeting, Committee member Lance Wilber, Director of People Mover (Anchorages transit system), proposed that by moving some of the $19 million around, $1.3 million could be shifted to implementation of the bike plan. The other committee members approved the revised budget.
But there’s more work to be done to pass the budget with these funds included…
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
By Brighid O’Keane, Advocacy Advance Program Manager
Not many people think of New Orleans as a refuge from hurricanes, but it was the welcome location of the most recent Advocacy Advance Workshop The Advocacy Advance team flew down from D.C. in the wake of Sandy and biked with the workshop hosts around a city affected by the power of storms.
Despite – or because of – roads that are ripped up and unpaved, NOLA residents bike and walk the streets in flocks. New Orleans has the ninth highest bike commuter rate among large US cities. The New Orleans Regional Planning Commission (the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization – or “MPO”) has a Transportation Plan that aims to spend 10% of funds on bicycle and pedestrian facilities by 2040 – about $24 million per year. Maximizing available federal dollars are essential to meet that goal.
On November 1, sixty advocates, agency staff and elected officials came together to learn how to fund transportation infrastructure that is safe for all users. Joined by participants from Baton Rouge and Mississippi, discussion focused on bringing in more money with the new transportation bill to fund local biking and walking projects. The workshop was co-hosted by the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission (RPC) and the local advocacy organization Bike Easy.
“This Workshop provided a unique opportunity to bring together agency staff and the public to understand and highlight some exciting opportunities to take advantage of previously unused funding sources,” said Dan Jatres, Program Manager at the RPC.
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
With the passage of the new transportation law, the route to federal funding for biking and walking in your community isn’t as direct as it used to be. With dedicated programs, like Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to School, eliminated and folded into the new Transportation Alternatives program, there’s far more flexibility in how — or if — federal dollars are spent on bike/ped projects.
But if there’s one guiding principle to this new landscape it’s the increased importance of state departments of transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations — or MPOs.
As Darren Flusche, League Policy Director, explains: “The new transportation law gives Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) more responsibility for distributing federal transportation funds. MPOs serving areas with more than 200,000 residents are required to run a competitive grant program to distribute federal funds from the Transportation Alternatives (TA) program.”
So how do advocates and officials work together to ensure biking and walking are integrated into the funding process in general and, more specifically, this new competitive grant process? Working with MPO staff who are leading the way in bike/ped planning and funding, Advocacy Advance put together a short new report highlighting best practices for MPOs, including:
General best practices
Planning
Funding and funding approaches
Best practices for the Transportation Alternatives competitive grant process
Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.
The Federal Highway Administration issued guidance today to state departments of transportation on the Transportation Alternatives Program (TA) — a key piece of the new federal transportation bill, MAP-21. The guidance provides specifics for state agencies and resolves any ambiguities in the complex legislative language.
Today’s release is just the basics — an “interim” guidance. We expect more comprehensive guidance to be issued later in the fall. But here’s the good and bad news for bicyclists.
Good news:
Transportation Alternatives (TA) maintains local control over biking and walking funds, preserving the original intentions of Senators Cardin and Cochran.
There was some concern that the language could be interpreted to make state DOTs eligible for 50 percent of TA. This would have diminished local control over half of these essential funds. Fortunately, state DOTs remain ineligible for TA funding.
However, state DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) can partner with eligible entities to carry out a project. This increases flexibility for states and helps local governments get the help they need while maintaining local control.
Safe Routes to School coordinators are eligible under TA.
MAP-21 was written in a way that makes the entire Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program eligible for Transportation Alternatives funding, but not required. This made it difficult for the DOT lawyers to interpret whether requirements under the old SRTS program should be requirements under the new TA program. However, DOT does interpret SRTS coordinators to be eligible under TA. We believe that fully staffing these programs is critical to successfully implementing them.
The DOT will provide a model MPO and State Grant process.
While TA legislative language does not define a competitive process, the DOT has committed to publish a model Request for Proposal or Notice of Funds Available that states and MPOS may use at their discretion. Having a model available should speed the process of MPOs getting their grant programs up and running.
Nonprofits, while not eligible to receive funds, can partner with other eligible entities.
The legislative language is clear that nonprofit organizations and NGOs are not eligible for TA funding. However, the guidance states that nonprofits can continue to partner with any eligible entity. Watch for the model grant program to see if such partnerships are incentivized.
Bad news:
SRTS projects are no longer 100% federally funded.
Under previous transportation laws, Safe Routes to School projects were completely federally funded. This level of federal support was especially important for low-income communities.
Bicycling and pedestrian safety and education programs for adults are not eligible.
Non-infrastructure safety and education programs are no longer eligible for funding — not even under the new Safe Routes for Non-Drivers eligibility. The guidance does point out, though, that adult safety and education programs are eligible under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and the Surface Transportation Program (STP). It also points out that education for kindergarten through eighth grade is eligible under Safe Routes to School.
Next steps: Speak up locally and turn to the larger programs
We can take two clear messages from today’s guidance:
State and local action is critical to ensure funding for biking and walking projects and programs.In MAP-21, local leaders — like mayors and school boards — have more direct access to federal funding for biking and walking infrastructure. Now, more than ever before, it’s up to state and local advocates to make communities more bike-friendly and walkable.To learn more about how to get involved in a campaign in your state, visit our Advocacy Advance Navigating MAP-21 resource center at AdvocacyAdvance.org/MAP21.
Accessing funds from the transportation bill’s larger programs is more important than ever.Larger highway programs like the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), and Surface Transportation Program (STP) are not only more essential sources for infrastructure dollars, but also for funding education, encouragement, and safety programs.If you’re interested in learning how to maximize eligibility for biking and walking projects under MAP-21′s largest programs, view Advocacy Advance’s webinar and our reports on these funding sources.
Most of the areas on which we had issued recommendations have still not been determined. We will, of course, continue working at the federal level to advocate for changes to improve funding opportunities for biking and walking projects.
Click here for more from our partners at America Bikes and here for more from the Safe Routes to School National Partnership.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
After years of advocacy and months of preparation, the new federal transportation bill, MAP-21, goes into effect next week.
As we’ve been explaining in our Navigating MAP-21 campaign, states have a lot of flexibility in how they spend their transportation dollars. Over the past few months we’ve been talking a lot about Transportation Alternatives — certainly one of the most important programs and biggest pots of money for bike/ped. But that’s not the sole source of funding for cyclists and pedestrians.
If you want to make big investments in bicycling and walking in your state, you need to tap into sources that address safety, congestion, and general transportation funds. We explored how advocates are doing just that in our latest webinar: “Maximizing Eligibility for Biking and Walking Projects Under MAP-21.”
Watch the full webinar below.
Learn more about MAP-21 and download the webinar presenter slides here.
Carolyn Szczepanski Communications Director
Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.
The advocates in Illinois wasted no time. President Obama hadn’t even signed the new federal transportation law (MAP-21) yet — and the League of Illinois Bicyclists and Active Transportation Alliance had already written a letter to the secretary of the Illinois Department of Transportation about the future of bicycle funding.
They asked for a meeting — and got it.
They asked the DOT to fully utilize funding for biking and walking under the new Transportation Alternatives program — and signs are good that Illinois will do just that.
Facilitated by Darren Flusche, League Policy Director, this webinar will delve into the Transportation Alternatives programs — a key aspect of the new transportation law for bike/ped funding. To shed some light on early successes and lessons learned by leading advocates, we’ll be joined by Ron Burke, Executive Director of the Active Transportation Alliance in Chicago, and Tim Young, League Board Member, in Wyoming.
Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.
The new federal transportation law (MAP-21) presents plenty of challenges, but here’s some good news: The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) could turn out to be one of the brighter spots for bicycling.
The program is used to address a wide variety of safety concerns, like seat belt use, drunk driving, and high-collision locations (often fixing bad roadway design). Safety was such a central theme in the federal transportation debate that Congress allocated $2.4 billion annually to HSIP — an increase from $1 billion under the previous law. And that’s not all: There will be improvements in data collection and cost-effectiveness analysis of safety projects that will benefit bicycles, too.
We’ve already blogged and written reports about the importance of including bicycle safety in the state Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Based on the 2012 Bicycle Friendly States survey, 29 states currently include bicycle safety in their SHSP. Now that’s more important than ever, what can advocates do if your state isn’t on this list?
Under MAP-21 states have to consult with a “non-motorized” representative when writing the SHSP. The language isn’t clear whether this means a state employee (bicycle and pedestrian coordinators would be a good fit) or an advocate. Senator Udall from New Mexico, who offered the amendment, intends for the representative to be an advocate. The MAP-21 guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation is expected to provide an answer.
Fortunately, there is plenty of precedent for bicycle advocates helping to craft the state SHSP and increase HSIP bike safety spending. These examples are especially important if your state Department of Transportation is hesitant or resistant to adding a bicycle safety advocate. The League reviewed the 29 SHSPs that currently include bicycle safety as an emphasis area. The majority consult with state and local advocates. Several states to highlight include:
Click here for the full listing of bicycle safety stakeholders in SHSPs
Having advocates actively involved in the program will help improve the abysmal track record of HSIP spending on bicycle safety. In California, bicycle advocates made sure to have representatives on each of the topic area committees drafting the state SHSP. This directly resulted in the state beginning to prioritize and spend HSIP funds on bicycle safety.
Check out the Advocacy Advance Highway Safety Improvement Program report to learn how to get involved and create safer streets for bicycles.
Matt Wempe League State and Local Advocacy Coordinator
Mr. Wempe joined the League in September 2011. For the three years prior, he worked as a transportation planner and Safe Routes to School Coordinator in Fort Collins, Colo. He holds a BA in Economics from the University of Illinois at Chicago and a Masters of Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
The new federal transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), poses plenty of challenges for bicycling and walking. For the past four years, Advocacy Advance has been working to demystify the federal funding process and help advocates and agency staff maximize funding opportunities. So it only made sense that, with the launch of the Navigating MAP-21 campaign, we expanded our popular Action 2020 workshops to help agency staff and advocates understand and utilize MAP-21.
The Advocacy Advance team with officials from Warsaw, MO (Photo by Brent Hugh)
Last week, we held the first of the MAP-21 Action 2020 workshops in Concordia and Jefferson City, Missouri. More than 100 advocates, agency staff, and elected officials met to learn more about the opportunities and challenges of MAP-21, funding sources and best practices, how to make bicycles and pedestrians a priority, and network with other professionals. The workshops were hosted by the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation and the Missouri Association of Councils of Government (MACOG). Here are some highlights from the week:
First MAP-21 Action 2020 workshops: The new information about MAP-21 stirred some excellent discussions at both workshops. Advocates spoke highly of the progress the Missouri Department of Transportation has made towards accommodating bicycles and pedestrians. Luckily, Missouri is already a model for sub-allocating its STP and CMAQ funds — which will make it easier to direct dollars to bicycling and walking projects through the new Transportation Alternatives state grant process. We look forward to great things coming out of MAP-21 in Missouri.
Rural communities walk and bike, too: The workshops were also unique because the Advocacy Advance team spent a week in the state. This allowed us the time to host two workshops, as well as visit some of the smaller rural communities in central Missouri. We visited Warsaw (population 2,100) to ride the mountain, road and water trails. Mac Vorce and Randy Pogue, both with the city of Warsaw, were gracious hosts and very proud of their community’s efforts to increase walking and bicycling. Check out the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation blog for a picture tour of the day. The League is looking forward to a Bicycle Friendly Community application any day now!
Riding in Warsaw (Photo by Brent Hugh)
Train the trainers: We also used the extra time to “train the trainers” during the workshops. Approximately half of Missouri’s population lives outside the major cities (Kansas City and St. Louis, both bronze-level BFCs) in small communities and rural areas. It’s often challenging for these communities to apply for federal funds, due to a lack of resources or knowledge about the opportunities. Our host organizations had the great idea to train agency staff and advocates on the MAP-21 Action 2020 curriculum so they can share it with rural and small communities. Regional planning commission staff and advocates learned how to run a successful workshop and had time to practice speaking about funding in front of the group. If you’re interested in a future workshop in Missouri, contact Brent Hugh with the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation.
The Advocacy Advance team was really impressed with the progress Missouri is making already. After a whirlwind week of traveling throughout the state, we left energized and positive that we’ll be shortly sharing best practices from Missouri.
MAP-21 Action 2020 Workshops are part of the Advocacy Advance program – a partnership of the League of American Bicyclists and Alliance for Biking and Walking. The workshops are designed to ensure advocates, agency staff, and elected officials have the knowledge, skills, and resources to maximize the new Transportation Alternatives program and access untapped and under-utilized federal funding sources for bicycles and pedestrians. To learn more, visit www.advocacyadvance.org.
Matt Wempe League State and Local Advocacy Coordinator
Mr. Wempe joined the League in September 2011. For the three years prior, he worked as a transportation planner and Safe Routes to School Coordinator in Fort Collins, Colo. He holds a BA in Economics from the University of Illinois at Chicago and a Masters of Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
We had a great turn-out for our webinar this week, with nearly 400 people eager to get an overview of the new federal transportation bill.
The first of the Navigating MAP-21 webinar series, “The ABCs of MAP-21″ explained the basics of the new law, what it means for bicyclists and how we can harness the opportunities to fund biking and walking projects and programs. The session was facilitated by Darren Flusche, policy director for the League of American Bicyclists, and included presentations by Caron Whitaker, campaign manager for America Bikes and Randy Neufeld, director of SRAM Cycling Fund.
Mark your calendars for the next Navigating MAP-21 webinar on August 27, which will focuse specifically on the impact of the new transportation law on Safe Routes to School, and what you can do to ensure that SRTS survives and thrives in your community and state. Register here.
Carolyn Szczepanski Communications Director
Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.
The new transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) creates a new program called Transportation Alternatives program (TA). TA combines several key funding pots from the past — Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School and Recreational Trails — and adds new eligible activities, like environmental mitigation (which used to be included in road project costs), over-looks and viewing areas, and certain boulevard projects.
Everyone seems to have the same question: How much money is my state going to get?
We’ve tried to answer that question as simply as possible. This table shows the amount of funds each state received in fiscal year 2012 from Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and the Recreational Trails program combined, compared to how much each state will receive from the Transportation Alternatives program.
All states will see a reduction in funding, but, because the law changes the way these funds are distributed to the states, the percentages vary.
For a more detailed break down, check out these two tables from America Bikes and the Safe Routes to School National Partnership (also see SRTS’s blog post).
2012 TE, SRTS, & Rec Tails VS. TA in 2013 and 2014: This is a more detailed version of the table above. It includes the funding levels of each distinct program in FY 2012. It also shows the TA values for FY 2014 and the percentage reduction in funding.
Sub-division of Transportation Alternatives: This is a table for those who really want to understand the breakdown of the TA program. It shows the dollars amounts distributed according to this break down:
The key point in all of this is that TA still represents an opportunity for bicycling and walking projects. We are asking cyclists to work closely with their state and local advocacy organizations to ask their state to make full use of Transportation Alternatives funds. To see how your state ranking in spending federal money, see our Bicycle Friendly State report cards.
For more resources, check out our MAP-21 resources section on the Advocacy Advance website to find tables on how well your state has spent existing bicycling and walking programs.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Twenty years of experience has shown that bicycling and walking projects generally do better at lower levels of government. Cities and regions often value investments in bicycling and walking projects more clearly than states do. That’s why bicyclists strongly supported the bi-partisan Cardin-Cochran amendment to the Senate transportation bill. The amendment increased local control over a small portion of transportation spending – slightly less than half the TA funds – by requiring regional planning agencies, called Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), to directly allocate funds to local projects, without being overruled by the state DOT. Although some of the details have changed, the basic principle has been retained in the final version of the law, known as MAP-21.
Local demand for bicycling and walking projects is overwhelming. Now we have a measure of local control to direct these funds, known in MAP-21 as Transportation Alternatives (TA). Half the TA funds will be distributed to MPOs and rural areas. The state allocates the other half – as long as they do not transfer it to other programs.
If this program works well over the next two years, it will send a powerful signal to Congress that we need to expanding biking and walking programs. If agencies drag their feet – it won’t look good.
To make sure we don’t go back on twenty years of progress, we need every state to immediately fully fund, staff, and implement the new Transportation Alternatives program and make full use of all of MAP-21’s programs.
We expect every state to fully fund, staff, and implement the new Transportation Alternatives program. Specifically, states should:
Fully fund: Do not transfer any funds away from Transportation Alternatives or opt-out of the Recreational Trails program
Fully staff: Preserve or increase staff support for Transportation Alternatives by maintaining state Safe Routes to School coordinators and bike/ped coordinators
Fully implement: Promptly award Transportation Alternatives grants with participation of relevant stakeholders
Fully spend remaining funds from the Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and Recreational Trails programs
We need these programs to get started right away and work well. If that is successful, it will be promising for the future. If not, it will be an uphill ride. Every single state matters in this. This is a great opportunity for state and local advocates to make sure resources are directed to their communities. We will be providing resources to help with this in the coming weeks.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
In the five years from 2007 to 2011, states spent 1.8 billion federal transportation dollars on bicycle and pedestrian projects from sources other than Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and Recreational Trails – our “dedicated” sources.
There are two things to learn from that statement:
First, states spend federal transportation dollars. It’s federal money in the sense that it comes from the federal gas tax (and general funds) and that Congress authorizes and allocates the funds to the states. But, functionally, they have always been state and local dollars because those non-federal entities actually choose the projects. Except in rare cases, like TIGER and the earmarks of old, the federal government is not determining which projects are built in your community. Instead, it is the job of the states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Therefore, it is state and local advocacy that determines if agencies are using federal funds to develop a balanced transportation system or just build highways, highways, highways.
Second, the weakening of dedicated funding sources is a cause for concern, but it need not mean the end of federal funds directed towards bicycling and walking projects. Despite the need for dramatic improvement, states have made progress over the past twenty years in integrating bicycling and walking facilities in their planning, engineering, and funding processes. We now expect state DOTs to make full use of the new Transportation Alternatives programs AND make full use of the programs under which bicycling and walking projects are eligible.
That $1.8 billion mentioned above came from programs that still exist (with some changes) in the new transportation law, MAP-21; programs intended to improve congestion and air quality, safety, and general transportation infrastructure. They are called, in order, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), and the Surface Transportation Program (STP). The League and the Alliance for Biking and Walking have set up an entire program called Advocacy Advance dedicated to helping state and local advocates and agency staff tap into these sources – and it’s working.
Under MAP-21, implementing existing and new Complete Streets policies is important, maximizing the Transportation Alternatives program is important – and taking advantage of the full eligibility of bicycling and walking in programs like CMAQ, HSIP, and STP is more important than ever.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
The feeling most associated with the new federal transportation, MAP-21, is disappointment – and with good reason. It is a highway-focused bill. Dedicated funding to bicycling and walking projects was cut and it will be a fight to get what’s left spent in states across the country.
But this disappointment overshadows another truth: it could have been much worse.
In fact, we bicyclists won a number of impressive victories in the long struggle for a new transportation bill. Like every other stakeholder in the federal bill — except, perhaps, highway safety people —we were playing defense throughout the entirety of the policy debate. Those who responded to action alerts (THANK YOU!) know that we dodged several bullets aimed directly at bicycling and walking funding.
When Senators Coburn, McCain and Paul introduced an amendment to restrict Transportation Enhancements last fall, we beat back the attack. When the House proposed a disastrous transportation bill that completely eliminated biking and walking programs, we successfully protested it. When the House’s initial counteroffer to the Senate eliminated all local control over biking and walking funds, our voices helped protect the Cardin-Cochran agreement. Chapters and books could be written about the challenges we overcame.
And yet, with the outspoken support of people who walk and ride bikes all over the country, we stood strong. Here’s one example: HR 7, the bill that came out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, completely eliminated SRTS and cut all funding to Transportation Enhancements along with federal funding for transit. Despite being a priority of House leadership the bill never even got a vote on the House floor thanks to the “Kill the Bill” campaign supported by biking, walking and transit supporters.
Nobody has been much in the mood to celebrate this, but the fact that “Transportation Alternatives” exists in the bill is a massive accomplishment. This is not to say this is a good bill for people on bikes. This is not a thank you to Congress. It’s just a fact: because League members, members of our America Bikes coalition partners, the bicycling industry, health partners, mayors and community leaders, and countless bicyclists spoke up, bicycling and walking projects still have a chance to compete for federal transportation dollars.
Bicyclists convinced the Senate to include a bi-partisan amendment known as Cardin-Cochran into their bill. People on the Hill told us that they had never seen such a powerful grassroots push for a relatively obscure amendment before. It is one thing to push for a law, but you all made your voices heard on a small but important amendment that makes it more likely that communities will building bicycling facilities. We’ll talk more about the particulars of this feature of the law – and the ways it changed in the final law – in the coming days and weeks.
We also had some important saves at the very last minute. We had been hearing pessimistic rumors about what was in the final bill, written behind closed doors. The right for metro areas to make funding decisions (“sub-allocation”) was gone. New, expensive activities like carpools and van pool were eligible for Transportation Alternatives funds, the language authorizing Safe Routes to School (section 1404) was eliminated. We had good reason to take this seriously, and we asked Barbara Boxer to stand up for people on bikes. We didn’t get everything we wanted. Far from it. But we successfully petitioned to remove a number of terrible policies from the final bill. That’s the power of bicyclists.
If some people in Congress had their way, bicycling and walking projects would not even be eligible for federal transportation funds. Thanks to everything that bicyclists have done over the past three years, we don’t live in a country without biking and walking funds.
As Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood recently said, now it’s our job to work at the local and state level to make sure that our communities benefit from federal funding opportunities for biking and walking projects:
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Blog
The future of federal transportation policy may be summarized in two words: Performance Measures. Will states be required to set safety goals for people on bikes — or will we get lost in the shuffle?
How is my state spending its share of federal transportation funds? How much is my community investing in bicycling and walking?
The 
Subscribe
