california's active transportation program: coalition building to boost funding--safe routes to...
Upload: project-for-public-spaces-national-center-for-biking-and-walking
Post on 15-Apr-2017
231 views
TRANSCRIPT
Safe Routes to School Perspective Jeanie Ward-Waller CA Advocacy Organizer
September 11, 2014
Karen Higgins/UC Davis
About the National Partnership
We are a nonprofit organization and network of partners nationwide that advance safe walking and bicycling to and from schools, and in daily life, to improve the health and well-being of America's children and to foster the creation of livable, sustainable communities.
Why maintain SRTS funding?
1. Children more at risk on CA roads
fatality/serious injury rate = 27% vs 23% ages 5-15 all ages
2. Prevent childhood obesity and chronic disease
Severe public health risks associated with early inactivity – important build healthy lifestyles at early age
3. Unique community support of school-based projects
Consolidation of Programs
1. Loss of dedicated funding for SRTS 2. Loss of identity of Safe Routes to School Program 3. Loss of institutional architecture of the SRTS/SR2S
programs and Technical Assistance Resource Center (TARC)
Funding for SRTS
2011 & 2012 ATP
SR2S (State)
SRTS (Federal) SRTS-only $21M
$24M
$24M (min)
Project eligibilities
• Continue eligibilities from old SRTS programs • Maintain non-infrastructure eligibility (concern about
competitiveness against infrastructure projects) • Include planning for under-resourced communities
Disadvantaged Communities (DACs)
Priority for neediest communities to address: …higher walk/bike to school mode share …higher safety risk than statewide average
SRTS/SR2S used priority scoring criteria • “Low-income schools” = 75% of school students
eligible for free/reduced price meals • Up to 10% of program funds could fund “safe
routes to bus stops” for rural access
In LA County…
39% of
students walk/bike/transit to school vs
31% statewide
38% of
fatalities and serious injuries are on foot/bike
vs 23% statewide
Guidelines
• Require strong public participation especially:
…by disadvantaged residents for DAC projects
…by school community for school projects
• Eligibility for public health departments & school districts
• Exemption from local matching fund requirements for SRTS projects and disadvantaged communities
• Involvement of multidisciplinary committee in development of program and application review
• Standards for data collection, reporting, transparency
Cycle 1 Result
Statewide & Small Urban/Rural projects awarded Aug 2014
$221M (60% of total ATP) $119M = 94 projects all/partially fund SRTS
$23M = 53 projects include SRTS non-infrastructure program components
$189M = 110 projects provide a “benefit” to disadvantaged communities
$221M + $206M in matching funds = $426M total for walking and bicycling projects statewide
Working in a Coalition
Advantages • Internal coordination allowed for united asks, collective
representation of individual interests • Could shift workload and leadership to prevent burnout • Combined networks to leverage tremendous public support
Challenges • Delineating collective “bottom-line” asks • Hanging together despite external attempts to divide us • Maintaining momentum over the long haul
• Continuing to grow the overall ATP pie
• Improving the effectiveness of the program for future cycles
• Ensuring ATP Cycle I funds are effectively implemented
• Improving outreach to disadvantaged communities
• Innovative approaches to leveraging ATP funds to achieve more with current funds
• Collaborating on other grant programs – new sustainable communities and transit programs through Cap-and-Trade
What’s next for our coalition?
Thanks!
Jeanie Ward-Waller
California Advocacy Organizer
503-313-6400
Safe Routes to School National Partnership
www.saferoutescalifornia.org
www.saferoutespartnership.org
Questions?