TITLE: Title
Communication with Legislative Delegation Regarding the Transportation Alternatives Program
PURPOSE: The Greenways Commission and Transportation Advisory Board have recommended a letter stating concerns and offering recommendations on the federal Transportation Alternatives Program be sent to the Town's representatives in the State Legislature. The Board of Aldermen is asked to review and consider authorizing that the letter be sent on behalf of the Board.
body
DEPARTMENT: Planning
CONTACT INFORMATION: Jeff Brubaker - 919-918-7329
INFORMATION: The most recent federal transportation bill, MAP-21, signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012, established the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance lists eligible TAP projects:
The TAP provides funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities, and environmental mitigation; recreational trail program projects; safe routes to school projects; and projects for planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways. [ATTACHMENT E is a link to FHWA's guidance]
TAP consolidates programs established by the previous federal transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, such as Transportation Enhancements (TE), Safe Routes to School (SRTS), and Recreational Trails (RTP). While these three programs no longer exist independently at the federal level, projects eligible under them are generally eligible under TAP. The Town has made use of each of these programs, with supported projects and programs including a sidewalk on Elm St., walking and cycling encouragement and education at Carrboro Elementary, and the Safe Routes to School Action Plan (SRTS); a sidewalk on Jones Ferry Rd. west of Alabama Ave. (TE); and the Wilson Park Multi-use Path (RTP).
As can be seen from the FHWA guidance, the program primarily funds walking and cycling projects and programs, though environmental mitigation projects and the construction of boulevards on some roads are also eligible.
At its January 14, 2013, meeting, the Greenways Commission adopted a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen that the Town include in its State legislative agenda that the State use TAP funding for true transportation alternatives - for example, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and greenways - and not transfer some of this federal allocation to non-bicycle and pedestrian programs, which is allowed to an extent under MAP-21. It was discussed that this communication involve a letter to the state legislative delegation.
The TAB adopted a recommendation on February 7, 2013, approving a draft letter. This recommendation is included in ATTACHMENT D. The Greenways Commission then approved the draft letter at its April 15, 2013, meeting. Approved minutes from the Greenways Commission's January and April meetings are included in ATTACHMENT C.
In August 2013, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO provided more information on the MPO's TAP allocation. The MPO TCC (technical/staff committee) has begun discussing the details of a competitive selection process for suballocating this funding to member jurisdictions, a process that must be reviewed by NCDOT and FHWA. However, as stated in the August 28, 2013, TCC meeting agenda:
MPOs have discretion about how to establish project priorities, or whether to fund (or not fund) particular categories. There is no requirement to consider all eligible TAP activities equally. The MPO is not an eligible entity to receive TAP funding; eligible entities include local governments, regional transportation authorities, transit agencies, natural resource or public land agencies; and school districts or local education agencies.
The MPO notes that its total annual allocation is $351,069. Since MAP-21 has a two-year length, this allocation is authorized for FY13 and FY14, yielding about $700,000 total. Congress could extend MAP-21 for subsequent fiscal years or possibly enact new legislation.
Staff understand TAP funds to be susceptible to use on non-alternative transportation/environmental mitigation projects in the ways listed below. However, now that the second federal fiscal year of MAP-21 has already started, some of these questions have already been clarified or are in the process of being clarified. It should also be noted that, should MAP-21 be continued by Congress, these questions could be renewed for subsequent fiscal years.
· There is a set-aside within a State's TAP allocation for RTP, but a state can opt out of this with a gubernatorial letter sent to FHWA by September 1 prior to the start of the upcoming federal fiscal year (Oct. 1 -Sept. 30). From the information staff is aware of, staff believes that no opt-out took place and the State is indeed retaining the RTP funds.
· After accounting for the RTP set-aside, half (50%) of all TAP funds for each state must be suballocated to urbanized areas. This is the source of the aforementioned DCHC-MPO allocation. The other half (50%) a state can use for "any area of the state". If this funding also is to be suballocated to municipalities and other eligible entities, there must be a competitive process for doing so. But the State may also transfer this 50% to other federal transportation programs, some of which fund highway and transit projects or metropolitan planning. These projects could be beneficial for their own reasons, such as improving transit service, improving safety, or advancing important planning efforts, but would be examples of how TAP funds could go to non-bike-ped projects. Staff are not aware of any published information on how the State plans to spend this 50% and the extent to which it may be applied to non-bike-ped projects.
· Any TAP funding can be used for constructing boulevards. Such projects could be proposed by eligible entities. While these projects would not necessarily improve bike-ped facilities, they could have other benefits such as safety improvements in high-crash corridors, scenic and aesthetic improvements, and traffic calming.
Given the relatively limited (in staff's opinion) amount of funding suballocated to the MPO, when taken into the context of project costs, continued discussion will need to occur at the MPO TAC and TCC levels regarding suitable distribution of TAP funds. Many individual projects could easily subsume the entire MPO-wide annual suballocation (~$350,000) by themselves. Distributing TAP allocations to several small, independent projects could raise cost-effectiveness questions: given the resources needed to comply with federal regulations and procedures during the design, environmental documentation, and construction phases of projects, it has been stressed by MPO staff that larger projects are the most cost-effective from a staff time standpoint.
Given this additional information, the letter approved by the Greenways Commission and Transportation Advisory Board is presented in ATTACHMENT B-1, and a marked-up version is presented in ATTACHMENT B-2. Note minor, editorial changes were made to the letter.
FISCAL & STAFF IMPACT: If the resolution is approved, approximately two (2) hours of staff time will be necessary to finalize the letter and facilitate its distribution to the Board's intended recipients.
RECOMMENDATION:r Staff recommend that the Board of Aldermen consider the resolution in ATTACHMENT A.