WakePedNet Meeting
June 11, 2013
Attendees:
 Ed Johnson
 Elizabeth Sharpe
 Jennifer Baldwin
 Kenneth Withrow
 Cecelia Saloni
 Kristy Tally
 Sarah Martin
 Michele McKinley
 Reed Huegerich
 Lauren Blackburn
 Juliet Andes
 Sheree Vodicka
 Scott Naeser
 Scott Lane
 Terry Lansdell
 James Gallagher
 Jennifer Toole (by phone)
 Nancy Pullen-Seufert
 Carol Kachadoorian
 Laura Sandt (by phone)
 Jessica Zdeb (by phone)
Introductions – attendees in-person and on the phone announced their names and organizations.
Jennifer Toole, Toole Design Group – Funding for Pedestrian Safety
 Pedestrian safety improvements don’t require huge amounts of money most of the time, and
ped safety projects are typically cheaper than many other transportation projects we build
o Collect some examples of high-profile highway/road widening projects in your
community to compare price tags
 Incorporate ped safety in all projects so you don’t have to go back and fix something later
 Transportation funding in the future will be about focusing on tweaks rather than big-ticket
items
o Key is to assure ped projects compete well and that improvements include ped
accommodations as an integral part
 All groups present in WakePedNet can influence the funding process
 Funding is a political process, and if ped safety isn’t on the radar screen of local leaders, it’s
difficult to get anything funded
o Doesn’t take a large group of people to be effective: 20-2-2-2-1 (see slides)
o


Decision makers will perceive that public support is there for improving biking and
walking if there is a presence for it in decision-making process
Recognition can help raise the profile of ped safety: everyone loves awards. Use them to
reinforce the importance of working on ped safety, for example: best complete streets engineer
Twelve ways to get at funding pedestrian safety
o 1. Enforcement: requires coordination; can be funded through many sources
o 2. Collaboration between transportation agencies and schools; DPW and schools; one
example is a DPW supporting not just crosswalk installation, but also an education
program
o 3. Crossing guards: First line of communication about problems at a school.
Collaboration with transportation and crossing guards can help prioritize funding. School
crossings should receive higher priority when restriping, other maintenance.
o 4. Health Impact Assessment: a way to bring awareness to importance of ped/bike
improvements; tool to bring more ped/bike accommodation into a routine
transportation project; maybe not all transportation projects are “improvements” since
some can have negative effects on pedestrian safety. Health organizations can get
involved by conducting HIAs.
o 5. Policy documents: include pedestrian safety in everything from transportation policy
to land use policy, recreation plan, environmental policies because they all impact it;
policy is high-level way of ensuring that documents recognize the need to accommodate
pedestrians and institutionalize it.
o 6. Routine accommodation: every time a project is done should include ped (and bike
and transit) in all transportation decisions. Complete streets is a great example; always
consider pedestrians, make it a “routine”
o 7. Design guidelines & standards: need to clearly define how to accommodate
pedestrians; a good example is parking lot design which often cater to people who drive
to a location, peds eventually have to walk through them
o 8. Planning documents: the expression of policy in stating how an area will be built or
developed. Peds should be included. Make SRTS a broader part of transportation plans
in communities.
o 9. Internal and external training: make sure that the people who are involved in
changing our environment know how to accommodate pedestrians, typically has not
been part of their training in engineering programs; one reason why complete streets
trainings are so important. Law enforcement, walk audits are other examples – equip
decision makers with info about how to accommodate peds.
o 10. Maintenance schedules and procedures: many types of ped/bike treatments can be
done very cheaply this way through coordinating with an existing maintenance
schedule; some cities and towns are implementing their entire bike plan this way; when
roads are resurfaced, is a trigger to fix curb ramps, also opportunity
o 11. Combine projects: Redevelopment projects are opportunity to address ped
improvements – can get private funding for ped projects. Don’t fund small different
projects; can save money if bundle them.
o
12. Dedicated funds: towns and cities have set aside pots of money in the CIP (capital
improvement program), very important source of funding for ped projects even if it’s a
small amount because it’s much easier to spend local funds on projects than federal
funding; fed has a lot of strings
 these sums are going to be shared with bike/trail
 need to be able to quantify the need for ped safety and access so that projects
can compete well
Lauren Blackburn, NCDOT – State Funding
 There is an opportunity to change pedestrian safety for the better as more development
happens in urban and suburban context
 There are decreasing financial resources in NC: funding picture may mean that we need to be
smarter about how to catalyze and take advantage of what we do have
 NCDOT can be a catalyst: look for partners to bond to, perform reaction, and then let go – what
does it mean to un-latch from the reaction?
o Many orgs can act as catalysts:
 MPO/RPO
 BPAC
 Experts and researchers: may not have been enough connectivity thus far for us
to understand what can be done to apply research
 Advocates: don’t know that we need to have formal groups for every type of
issue, maybe neighborhood groups can
 Health professionals
 Business owners: people with a financial interest to speak on behalf of bike/ped
safety improvements are huge
 Catalysts are at many levels: neighborhood, community, journey
o Neighborhood (1-2 miles from home): daily trips, health, work and business access;
smallest sphere
o Community: connecting people to other destination centers: explore your community as
a whole, recreation; maybe greatest opportunity for change in safety because
recreational facilities can get people out of cars
o Journey: long distance, tourism.
 Facilities and needs change according to level
o Neighborhood: sometimes doesn’t require lot of infrastructure change, more about
encouragement (bike rodeo, walking school bus), wayfinding, sidewalks and signals
o Community: larger infrastructure systems like greenways; complete streets;
enforcement activities have great opportunity here so that they’re working with groups
and people who visit the community (worker, visitor)
o Journey: infrastructure is signage, trails to connect communities, education campaigns
about laws and safety
 People who impact the infrastructure change according to level
o








One emerging group: conservation groups. Land trusts, park associations can have an
impact especially at the journey level. They can leverage funding. They may have more
experience fundraising. How can we work with them to secure local funding sources?
NCDOT Department of Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation
o Planning: DPBT funds plans and hope that this will continue; proposed budget would
limit ability to create local and regional plans
o Assists with design and funding of projects: run competitive prioritization process for
federal funding
o Program and evaluate: have not done enough of this in the past
Budget: Senate proposed to cut regional bike program funding in half, House budget would
eliminate entirely (really is a next two years issue, but could become a long-term issue to
develop more planning)
DBPT administers programs: Safe Routes to Transit, SRTS, Complete Streets trainings, coordinate
with other state agencies to leverage funds
Project types
o Mainstay in last 10 years has been greenway projects at 90% of funding: parks/rec have
been well sold to depts. of transportation; gets people out to bike or walk who may
have stopped doing so prior to then; 8% pedestrian projects; 2% shoulder widening
o Post-2013: greenways closer to 50% of the ask, sidewalks, bike/ped improvements are
now 50% since there’s greater demand, especially in urban areas
Watch for Me NC
o Using funds from previous SAFETEA-LU funding: MAP-21 doesn’t allow for development
of safety campaigns; will continue until those funds run out OR they find a more
sustainable funding source
o Governor’s Highway Safety Program may be a new sustainable funding source
SRTS will keep working through SAFETEA-LU funding
o Have worked closely with NC Division of Public Health
Complete Streets training can be paid for under MAP-21: see this as ongoing need for several
more years to get all of the engineers throughout the state
o Senate budget bill has language which would prohibit NCDOT from putting funds out for
bike/ped improvements, some ambiguity about how it would impact Complete St
projects.
o As of last Friday, finance comm approved amendment which clarified that bike/ped
improvements in the bill are stand-alone projects, not things that are part of a larger
project; restriction applies to greenways, stand-alone, anything bike-related that is not
part of a roadway project
o complete streets looks like it will continue on, but no clarity
What NCDOT can provide in making the case for funding
o Count data: supports usage, shows what types of facilities make the biggest difference
and help people make healthier choices, working to secure funding for pilot study on

bike/ped counts: 2014 purchase counters, identify locations, initiate counts, 2015:
robust counts, evaluation
o GIS data: 2013 NCDOT will pilot data collection in Uwharries region of existing and
planned bike/ped facilities (could go to phone app), will help answer basic questions
o Crash data: NC has good data; HSRC maps the data and can make inferences about
impact of where crashes are and facilities needed
MAP-21: NCDOT TAP approach – probably will apply federal funding to already programmed
projects in TIP to start
o will start discussing TAP funds allocation system in 2016 and will have different process
for ranking projects
o bike and pedestrian projects are one of the best-suited uses to the competitive process
o bad news: previously, state has helped with the match to get access to the federal
funding which they likely now will not
o finding local match to access federal funds is really hard at rural and small community
level; not clear where that funding will come from
Questions
Are AQ funds still available?
Answer: those are fed funds provided to some portions of the state depending on AQ. CMAQ allows for
pedestrian/bike projects to be funded using it. No known changes.
State match: Can funds be raised by conservation and other groups?
Answer: yes. Have to work with local govt because federal funds must go through them. Local govt has
to be actual match provider but funds could be provided by non-profit or others.
Kenneth Withrow, CAMPO – Regional funds and process
 History of bike and pedestrian project work at CAMPO
o Bike/ped projects were afterthought in 1980s-1990s
o 1999: ISTEA and Dan Burden got bike and ped issues to raise to the top; was desire to
change development and land use codes for getting rid of cul de sacs, making sure
sidewalks were 5’ minimum, etc
o 2000s: before Complete Streets, CAMPO had a policy by which all road projects would
“consider” bike/ped accommodations; CAMPO developed a bike/ped plan and
stakeholder group, but the bike/ped element of the LRTP was not strong; bike/ped
component has blossomed in this area
o 2008-09: MPOs received STP funds and could use as they desired
 Catalyst for the LAPP (Locally-Administered Projects Program): What are we going to do about
smaller urban projects like sidewalks and crosswalks?
o Wanted to avoid rescissions and establish a better modal mix
o SRTS and small bicycle and pedestrian projects are eligible
 CAMPO is first MPO in the state to create a program like this; addresses unmet need










Advocacy can have a big impact on this process to change the modal mix
Funds are locally administered and local govts need a 20% minimum match no in-kind match
o A higher local match helps the project score higher overall
Projects must be LRTP/CTP compliant: CTP is the vision plan for 25-40 years out for the whole
region, whereas the LRTP is more of an implementation document
MTIP Metro Transportation Improvement Plan: LAPP projects must be able to be incorporated
here
Project must provide a solution to a current transportation problem
$50,000 minimum; are project submission limits for communities of various sizes
o Money has to be spent, no carryover
o Apply for design and again for construction
Congestion management process toolbox: in CAMPO area, can’t address all problems with road
widening, so they use land use or ITS to address congestion
Mode mix: 2005-2011 roadway projects had 56% of funds, bike/ped 14%; 2014 projection is for
65% roadway, 20% bike/ped, 15% transit
o giving input on how the funding split should go is where advocates can make a bigger
difference
LAPP committee comprised of local planners makes adjustments to improve the process; makes
recommendations to the transportation policy board
Minimum project amount is the result of significant costs of administering a project, so less
than $50,000 would not go far in also covering these administrative costs; not worth it to go for
a small project with federal funds because it costs more to apply for and administer the funding
Questions:
What’s the funding match? Answer: Must be monetary, at least 20%.
Who reviews applications? LAPP committee (part of Technical Advisory Committee) – staff from
Technical Coordinating Committee (staff from local government in CAMPO). TCC makes any
recommendations for changes to TCC.
Project minimums for LAPP are $50K. How was that established? Is it presumed that local government
has right of way already? Answer: When you program a project, it costs as much to administer as
construct so it all costs at least $50k. Don’t have to have ROW. Can do as part of project. Given the
federal funding source, smaller projects not worth the money.
Ed Johnson, NCDOT – State SRTS Program
 Since 2005, NC has gotten $29.5M total for SRTS
 100% federally funded, no match needed; NC still working through its SAFETEA-LU monies
o 70% required to be spent on infrastructure; 10% must be non-infrastructure
 Mainstay of allocation has been the Division Fund: a rolling grant cycle that works through the
NCDOT division office and Ed




K-8 program, public or private schools, funded facility must be within 2 miles of the school
(some wiggle room on that for the coordinator to make judgment calls)
o Route must demonstrate a real connection to school to be eligible
o Good for project to be a part of an existing plan and work within a bigger picture
o Project must meet ADA standards
Scoping meeting makes sure that the community is aware of what they’re getting into in terms
of project demands: environmental review, etc
Currently working with the state physical activity and nutrition branch: 1 coordinator, 10 local
coordinators in each of 10 public health regions throughout the state will work as local SRTS
coordinators.
Ed is currently reviewing previous cycle applications including non-winners so that he can see
what ones might be good to fund now that there’s more capacity; looking for a way to obligate
the money; trying not to reinvent the wheel by looking back at projects; allows the program to
continue 3-4 more years. Considering geographical reach, spot safety needs.
Questions:
Do you have a strategy on how fast you want to spend the money? Answer: SRTS program would like to
encumber the money over next three years. Coordinator position not in MAP-21 as a requirement. Being
able to show we’re being good stewards of money is helpful.
There will be an independent third party to evaluate joint use agreements, school siting, physical
activity, active living, education, enforcement, encouragement and evaluation. At end of three years,
data should hopefully speak to the difference SRTS has made in NC.
Is there a way Wake County can apply to do non-infrastructure programming? Answer: Yes, through
NCDOT. Divisions only do infrastructures projects as part of their role. Many divisions are great
advocates for other Es.
Could a particular school also apply for infrastructure portion? Answer: At county level, look at priorities
for improvements.
Part 2: Updates on Wake Pedestrian Net Action Items
Presentations took the full meeting time so there were no updates.
Final announcements
Next meeting: July 18. Pedestrian safety in schools, drivers education and after-school programs.
Upcoming opportunities:
Thurs Aug 29: Wake County PTA Leadership Meeting. Opportunity to present a workshop approx. 50
min long. Potential collaborations within Wake Ped Net members.
Sept 8 El Pueblo event at Moore Square, downtown Raleigh: Opportunity to discuss sponsoring Safety
City installation.