transportation alternatives program (tap): the regional role in project selection in minnesota
TRANSCRIPT
NADO Rural Transportation ConferenceDecember 3-5, 2014
• TAP highlights
• How MnDOT developed the TAP
project-selection processBackground
• The regional role in TAP project-
selectionProcess
• Summary of the first year
• Next stepsOutcomes
TAP Highlights
Population-based formula
Requires competitive grant process
Up to 50% can be transferred to other core programs
Total funding equal to 2% of MAP-21 highway funding
MAP-21
Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP)
SAFETEA-LU• Transportation Enhancements• Safe Routes to School• Recreational Trails• Scenic Byways*
$17.92 $15.04
$4.51
$12.65 $2.22
$3.04
$-
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
Past Federal Investment MAP-21 Distribution
TAP Funding ReductionAnnual funding per year in millions of dollars
(funding gap)
$27.69
Minnesota State Legislature (2013)
Statute 174.42 Transportation Alternative Projects
Issues:◦ 99% of TAP projects are delivered by locals◦ Historically, 66% of TAP projects are not being
delivered in programmed year◦ Commissioner is now responsible for on-time
delivery
“In each federal fiscal year, the commissioner shall obtain a total amount in federal authorizations for reimbursement on transportation alternatives projects that is equal to or greater than the annual average of federal authorizations on transportation alternatives projects calculated over federal fiscal years 2010 to 2012.”
How should we structure TAP moving
forward?
Two Main Considerations
Should the funding remain together?
Where should project selection occur?
Weaknesses of a Statewide ProcessStrengths of a Statewide Process
Weaknesses of a Regional ProcessStrengths of a Regional Process
1. Mitigate weaknesses and capitalize on strengths
2. Identify their preference for TAP project selection
3. Challenged group to think about how their needs/wants could be addressed in different situations
Statewide Programs Eligible for
Transportation Alternatives
ATP Members
Program Principles
1. Ensure application streamlining
2. Strengthen the role of the ATP
3. Promote projects identified in statewide and regional plans
4. Support Safe Routes to School
5. Serve a transportation purpose
6. Target mid-size projects
7. Preserve the spirit of MAP-21
8. Prevent project slippage
9. Evaluate program processes and outcomes
Program Recommendations
Funding remains together◦ Except Recreational Trails
◦ All eligible activities compete in one project-selection process
◦ Some preference given to certain eligible activities
The ATPs select projects◦ Process developed cooperatively between MnDOT and ATPs
◦ MnDOT will set a consistent solicitation schedule and structure
◦ ATPs develop selection criteria based on guidance from State
Pre-Solicitation
•Planning and project development occurs
•ATP TAP subcommittee reviews application and requirements
Letter of Intent
•Brief summary of project
•Questions about project development
Regional Letter of Intent Review
•Project reviewed with applicant by a regional representative
•Recommendation if project should proceed
Full Application Submitted
•Two month submission window
ATP TAP Subcommittee Review
Letter of Intent
New step in the solicitation process
Intended as a filtering process to identify projects which are developed and ready for implementation
Review targets issues of project planning and development, local match, possible project delays, and overall readiness of project
Determines if project is ready for a full application
Projects are not required to submit a LOI but are strongly encouraged
TAP Review Process
Each ATPs process for review is different
Subcommittee is generally made up of city, county, RDC, MPO, Dept. of Natural Resources, and MnDOTrepresentatives
Criteria are set by each ATP but incorporate statewide TAP goals and principles
Project maximums and minimums of funding are set by ATPs
Many have applicants present their projects and answer questions during the review meeting
This is seen as a way to find the good/deserving projects not just the well written applications
Regional Role in Program Principles
1. Ensure application streamlining
2. Strengthen the role of the ATP
3. Promote projects identified in statewide and regional plans
4. Support Safe Routes to School
5. Serve a transportation purpose
6. Target mid-size projects
7. Preserve the spirit of MAP-21
8. Prevent project slippage
9. Evaluate program processes and outcomes
Regional Role Beyond Solicitation Assist our communities in planning and project
development Provide guidance and feedback to applicants through
application process Work with MnDOT to streamline the consolidation of
three federal funding programs into one (Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes To School, Scenic Byways)
Serve as a resource and link between MnDOT and locals
Safe Routes To School
TAP being used for infrastructure only
State legislature created a Minnesota program with funding available
State SRTS Strategic Plan underway
No decision on MnDOT continued funding for planning
Non-MnDOT funding sources available which can also be used for SRTS and bike/ped planning
Scenic Byway Planning
Outlier compared to Transportation Enhancements or Safe Routes To School
MnDOT and RDCs reached out to scenic byway groups to update plans
Goal of bringing scenic byway plans into alignment with new TAP requirements
Identify scenic byway projects in plans
By the Numbers
Solicitation for FY17 & FY18*
84 applicants
37 projects received TAP funding
6 projects funded by other sources
11 projects unfunded
30 projects did not proceed to full application
Next Steps
Feedback was generally positive
Minor process tweaks for FY19 solicitation
Working group to address bigger issues
Reporting to legislature and advocates
Program evaluation
Katie Caskey
MnDOT
(651) 366-3901
Josh Pearson
Region 9 Development Comm
(507) 389-8886