Categories
COG Measure M Transportation Finance

The Road to Rolling and Walking in LA: A 2% Active Transportation Primer

You know what music is to the ears of active transportation advocates? Active transportation funding. Without dedicated funding, how can we build healthy communities where all people have safe and convenient transportation choices?

 

When Measure M was passed by voters in 2016, ensuring a $122 billion funding source for transportation investments across Greater Los Angeles, it marked the first countywide transportation sales-tax that specifically dedicated funding for active transportation!

 

But in a $122 billion expenditure plan that includes transit and highway construction, goods movement, transit operations, state of good repair (maintenance), and local return, where do we find the funds set aside for walking and rolling?

 

Show me the money

One of the Measure M programs that specifically funds active transportation is the 2% Active Transportation program (or 2% ATP). (Not to be confused with the State’s ATP fund!)

Image courtesy of: Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition

 

2% ATP is estimated to generate approximately $17 million per year from Measure M. Program details are currently being developed by Metro, but objectives and eligible uses have been established.

 

Objectives:

  • Expand multi-modal connectivity
  • Improve the regional active transportation network

 

Eligible uses:

  • Active transportation and other capital that achieve 2% ATP objectives
  • First/last mile components of major capital projects listed in the 2016 Measure M Expenditure Plan

Two existing policies that will guide the development of 2% ATP are the Metro Active Transportation Strategic Plan (ATSP) and Vision Zero. These are critical frameworks that will shape the program’s planning and emphasis on safety.

  • Planning: Countywide funding needs for active transportation are huge. When Metro adopted the ATSP in 2016, staff estimated the cost of funding Countywide annual active transportation needs at low end of $737M and high end of $1.7B.
  • Safety: The adopted Measure M Guidelines  direct projects funded through Measure M to “support the protection of pedestrian and bicycle safety in parallel with Vision Zero or equivalent policies.” While the greater region currently lacks a countywide Vision Zero policy, it is crucial that traffic safety is a priority for active transportation investments.

 

The 2% ATP program will also coordinate with a number of related Metro plans and policies, covering Complete Streets, First/Last Mile, Sustainability, and Bike Share (22.1).

 

It is important to note that 2% ATP is not intended to be a standalone funding source for countywide active transportation needs and programs. Metro envisions this pot of Measure M funds as matching grant program for external funding opportunities (such as statewide ATP), and a competitive fund for regional active transportation projects.

 

Wait, can you show me more money?

Let’s recap:

  • 2% ATP is estimated to generate approximately $17 million annually for the entire region
  • Metro’s own ATSP estimate of regional active transportation needs total $737 million annually (on the low end) and up to $1.7 billion
  • 2% ATP is not intended to be a standalone funding source for active transportation projects

 

While 2% ATP is a step forward in identifying the health and safety needs for Greater Los Angeles that can be addressed through active transportation improvements, it clearly is not enough money to meet the identified countywide need. Fortunately, it is not the only source of active transportation funding in Measure M.

 

 

We have written about the $10 billion Multi-year Subregional Programs (MSP) in Measure M. Part of why we care so much is that is comprises the largest amount of dedicated funding for first/last mile, sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and safe routes to school in Measure M. For further explanation of the difference between 2% ATP and MSP, check out our March 6 #JustGrowth webinar (slides).

 

Since 2% ATP is eligible for matching funds, it will be critical to strategically leverage these limited dollars with other funding opportunities to most efficiently improve the health and safety of our entire region.

 

What’s next?

Metro staff is currently finalizing draft guidelines for 2% ATP. On April 5, Metro will be hosting a 2% ATP working group open to members of the Metro Policy Advisory Council (PAC) to further refine these guidelines. See the 2% ATP guidelines process below.

On April 4, Investing in Place will be hosting an open planning call with our #JustGrowth participants, and other interested parties, to weigh in on the development of 2% ATP guidelines, prior to the April 5 PAC working group. We are particularly excited to further develop the prioritization criteria for any 2% ATP competitive funds

For those interested in getting more involved in the MSP process, this is managed by the County’s nine subregions or COGs

New Title

New Name

New Bio

Estolano Advisors

Richard France

Richard France assists clients with strategic planning, visioning, and community and economic development. He is a strategic planner at Estolano Advisors, where he has been involved in a variety of active transportation, transit-oriented development, climate change resiliency, and equitable economic development projects. His work in active transportation includes coordinating a study to improve bike and pedestrian access to transit oriented districts for the County of Los Angeles, and working with the Southern California Association of Governments to host tactical urbanism events throughout the region. Richard also serves as a technical assistance provider for a number of California Climate Investment programs, including the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities, Transformative Climate Communities, and Low Carbon Transit Operations programs. He has also taught at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. Richard received a Bachelor of Environmental Design from the University of Colorado at Boulder, and his M.A. in Urban Planning from UCLA.

Accelerator for America, Milken Institute

Matt Horton

Matt Horton is the director of state policy and initiatives for Accelerator for America. He collaborates with government officials, impact investors, and community leaders to shape infrastructure, job creation, and equitable community development efforts. With over fifteen years of experience, Matt has directed research-driven programs and initiatives focusing on housing production, infrastructure finance, access to capital, job creation, and economic development strategies. Previously, he served as the director of the California Center at the Milken Institute, where he produced research and events to support innovative economic policy solutions. Matt also has experience at the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), where he coordinated regional policy development and planning efforts. He holds an MA in political science from California State University, Fullerton, and a BA in history from Azusa Pacific University. Additionally, Matt serves as a Senior Advisor for the Milken Institute and is involved in various advisory boards, including Lift to Rise and WorkingNation.

UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies

Madeline Brozen

Madeline is the Deputy Director of the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies at the Luskin School of Public Affairs. She oversees and supports students, staff, and faculty who work on planning and policy issues about how people live, move, and work in the Southern California region. When not supporting the work of the Lewis Center community, Madeline is doing research on the transportation patterns and travel needs of vulnerable populations in LA. Her recent work includes studies of low-income older adults in Westlake, public transit safety among university students, and uncovering the transportation needs of women, and girls in partnership with Los Angeles public agencies. Outside of UCLA, Madeline serves as the vice-chair of the Metro Westside Service Council and enjoys spending time seeing Los Angeles on the bus, on foot, and by bike.

Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass

Luis Gutierrez

Luis Gutierrez, works in the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, as the Director of Energy & Water in the Office of Energy and Sustainability (MOES), Luis oversees issues related to LA’s transition to clean energy, water infrastructure, and serves as the primary liaison between the Mayor’s Office and the Department of Water and Power. Prior to joining MOES, Luis managed regulatory policy proceedings for Southern California Edison (SCE), focusing on issues related to equity and justice. Before joining SCE, Luis served as the Director of Policy and Research for Inclusive Action for the City, a community development organization dedicated to economic justice in Los Angeles. Luis holds a BA in Sociology and Spanish Literature from Wesleyan University, and a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from Cal State LA.

kim@investinginplace.org

Communications Strategist

Kim Perez

Kim is a writer, researcher and communications strategist, focused on sustainability, urban resilience and safe streets. Her specialty is taking something complex and making it clear and compelling. Harvard-trained in sustainability, she won a prize for her original research related to urban resilience in heat waves—in which she proposed a method to help cities identify where pedestrians spend a dangerous amount of time in direct sun, so they can plan for more equitable access to shade across a city.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Jessica Meaney

For over almost two decades, Jessica has led efforts in Los Angeles to promote inclusive decision-making and equitable resource allocation in public works and transportation funding. Jessica’s current work at Investing in Place is grounded in the belief that transparent and strategic prioritization of public funds can transform Los Angeles into a city where inclusive, accessible public spaces enrich both livability and well-being. As a collaborator and convener, Jessica plays a role in facilitating public policy conversations and providing nuanced insights into the interplay of politics, power, and process on decision-making and fiscal allocations.