Healthy Transportation Idea Exchange: Public Health Alliance of Southern California

Transcription

1 Healthy Transportation Idea Exchange: Public Health Alliance of Southern California Alexis Lantz, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Jessica Meaney and Pauline Chow for the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, May 2013

2 Safe Routes to School National Partnership who we are Non-profit Organization, major funders: Kaiser Permanente, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, LAC DPH Working on regional policy change (SoCal, Bay Area, DC, and Atlanta) Working on State Policy (Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee and California) Other key initiatives Federal Transportation Bill, National Movement, Technical Assistance

3 Today s Agenda Why the report was done Methodology how we found the information Lessons learned Discussion How to do this in your county Jessica and Alexis at 2011 April ciclavia

4 Why we re doing this work In 2010, funded by Kaiser Foundation to develop the Safe Routes to School Southern California network to look at regional transportation planning During development of 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) SCAG staff was asked to estimate the funding need for active transportation projects SCAG RTP/SCS Meeting

5 LAC DPH Methodology Using existing pedestrian and bicycle (including SRTS plans), and transit oriented development plans Calculated annual per capita costs for different components of ped/bike infrastructure Applied per capita costs to SCAG population Cost data for earlier years was converted to 2011 dollar values Projected costs for future (25 year plan) were adjusted, assuming 3% annual inflation

6 LAC DPH Methodology 25 Year Cost Estimates:

7 Why we undertook this research During SCAG RTP/SCS development we received pushback on the methodology developed by DPH from policy makers and even some fellow advocates SCAG/partners stressed the ability of cities to fund bike/ped projects from existing local funding sources. Realization that transportation priorities in SCAG region are set at the County Transportation Commission level

8 LAC Transportation Finance Research Key research questions: What sources fund transportation projects in LA County? What funds are available for active transportation projects? Are cities able to fund active transportation projects with existing resources? LA County Active Transportation Coalition Kick-off Meeting

9 Sources: LAC Transportation Finance Research Methodology Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) LA County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Federal Transportation Improvement Plan (FTIP) City Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Interviews with city staff Attending Metro board meetings & board committee meetings, and other key stakeholder meetings

10 LAC Transportation Finance Research Key Findings Legislation Tax Rate Local Retur n Transit Roads/ Highways Discretionary Ped/ Bicycle Proposition A 1/2 Cent 25% 35% n/a 40% 0% Proposition C 1/2 Cent 20% 55% 25% - Transit Specific Highway Improvements n/a 0% Measure R 1/2 Cent 15% 65% 20% n/a 0% TDA 1/4 Cent 0% 98% TDA Article 4, 8 (which also included allocations for highways) 0% n/a 2% TDA Article 3 (15% of which goes directly to LA City and LA County for bike paths) 67% of LA County transportation funds come from local sales taxes

11 LAC Transportation Finance Research Key Findings Average across 13 cities High Resourced Cities (Culver City, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, South Pasadena, West Hollywood) Medium-High Resourced Cities (Burbank, Temple City, Pasadena, Whittier) Bicycle and pedestrian project funding in city CIPs from State and Federal sources Bicycle and pedestrian project funding in city CIPs from city sources (local returns and other city revenues) Bicycle and pedestrian project funding in city CIPs from city revenues other than local return % 9.86 % 4.70 % % % % % % 3.92 % Cities rely on federal and state grants to implement bike/ped projects. Cities use local returns for match requirements on grants. Many cities using local returns to fund local transit & para-transit services Medium-Low Resource Cities (City of Los Angeles, Lancaster, Long Beach) Low Resourced City (Huntington Park) % 4.19 % 1.23% 100 % 0.00 % 0.00%

12 How we re using the research Generated recommendations for ways to increase funding at county & local level for active transportation projects Educating partners & creating LA County Active Transportation Coalition Educating decision makers & staff Building relationships at the COG level

13 Lessons learned Many cities do not publish easy to use CIPs CIPs & FTIP don t break-out how much of a project is bike/ped if part of a larger roadway & transit project Difficult to break-out funding sources if using multiple sources for a project Importance of a good complete streets policy & checklist to ensure all transportation projects include bike/ped improvements Need to have county transportation agency to evaluate how cities use local returns

14 Other Counties - Agencies Orange Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Measure M Voter Approved Sales Tax Dedicated staff to public transit and active transportation Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) San Bernardino San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) Imperial Measure I Voter Approved Sales Tax Dedicated staff to public transit and active transportation Imperial County Transportation Commission (ICTC)

15 Other Counties - Agencies Riverside No dedicated department or staff to NMT Riverside County Transportation Comm. (RCTC) Measure A Voter Approved Sales Tax Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Coachella Valley Associated Governments (CVAG) Ventura Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Ventura County Transportation Comm. (VCTC) Considered a sales tax measure Released the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) in Spring 2013 Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG)

16 Other Counties AT Funding Orange County Metrolink Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Study (SCAG) The 2010 LRTP projects $39.4 billion of $704.6 million (1.8% total) in available revenue between 2011 and 2035 for bicycle and pedestrian projects, including: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) 10% set aside for bike and ped Bicycle Corridor Improvement (BCI) Program using CMAQ funds in the amount of $9.4 million dollars over two years. First competitive call for projects to the local jurisdictions to allocate these funds for FY13 and FY14. OCTA awarded all 23 project proposals from 12 agencies that applied for this call for projects. Together TE and BCI programs provide roughly $8.6 million per year. Ventura County CTP Over the next 30 years, $230M out of $4.9B transportation funding dedicated to Bicycle/Pedestrian Imperial County Currently no data

17 Other Counties AT Funding San Bernardino No LRTP (note there is a Long Range Transit Plan) Metrolink Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Study (SCAG) $5M for bus stops, bicycles and sidewalks Call for projects every 3 years for $4-$5M; $1.25M yearly set aside from budget Riverside WRCOG, CVAG & RCTC agreements not accounted RCTC no LRTP, note there is a Framework for Journey Delivery Plan (high level goals) RCTC Annual call for projects under SB821 (schools) by Transportation Development Act (TDA); Local Transportation Fund (LTF) ¼ cent sales tax collected statewide

18 Thanks! Please feel free to contact us with any questions/feedback: Presenters: Alexis Lantz Jessica Meaney Pauline Chow