HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 06/08/2022AGENDA
South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee
Virtual Meeting Only https://meet.goto.com/616133061
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (786) 535-3211 Access Code: 616-133-061
5:30 PM Wednesday, June 8, 2022
1.Welcome, Virtual Meeting Instructions, Gratitude – Havaleh Gagne (5:30 PM)
2.Changes or additions to the agenda – Havaleh Gagne (5:35 PM)
3.Comments from the public not related to the agenda Havaleh Gagne (5:40 PM)
4.***Consideration of minutes from May 11, 2022 Havaleh Gagne (5:50 PM)
5.Updates from the City – Andrew Bolduc (6:00 PM)
6.***Queen City Park Scoping Study- Presentation and Feedback- Andrew Bolduc (6:30)
7.***Chittenden Co Regional Active Transportation Plan- Andrew Bolduc (6:50)
8.***ARPA funding- final recommendations. Havaleh Gagne (7:00)
9.***Safe Streets for All- Federal Grant Opportunity FYI Havaleh Gagne (7:30)
10.Updates Ongoing Committee/Liaison Work: (7:40)
1.DRB Update – Cathy is stepping down from BPC, we will need another liaison, or group
of people to share this.
2.DPW- Regular meetings on hold for now, topics to relay to Andrew Bolduc?
3.Bike Friendly Community Planning-/Greenway progress-Nic,
4.Chair updates/comments- Havaleh Gagne
5.Climate Action- Donna Leban
6. Communications/Outreach -Cathy Frank, Donna Leban (Havaleh Gagne)
7.Safety -Bob Britt, Dana Farr
8. Mapping- Amanda Holland, Nic Anderson
9.Signs- Nic Anderson, Donna Leban, Dana Farr
11.Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday August 10, 2022 @ 5:30pm
12.Adjourn (by 8:00 p.m.)
*** Attachments Included
1
South Burlington Bike & Pedestrian Committee
DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, May 11, 2022 @ 5:30 p.m.
VIRTUAL MEETING
Committee Attendees - Remote: Havaleh Gagne (Goddess/Chair), Nic Anderson (Clerk), Donna Leban,
Cathy Frank, Amanda Holland,
Committee Absent: Bob Britt, Dana Farr
Other Attendees: Andrew Bolduc (City Liaison)
Public: Alexandra Gitzes (Ali)
1. Welcome, Gratitude and Virtual Meeting Instructions
2. Changes or additions to the agenda
a. None
3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda
a. Ali – Member of the public just attending to see how things are. 6 year resident. Lives in
Chamberlin neighborhood.
4. Consideration of minutes from April 13,2022
a. Motion by Cathy
b. Seconded by Nic
c. Unanimous approval
5. Queen City Park Scoping Study –Discuss and Possible Committee Recommendations
a. Andrew sent to Committee today. Will send to City Council as a consent agenda item for
their information. Can discuss next meeting
b. Donna detailed report
c. Amanda on advisory committee who meets tomorrow. Has not seen yet.
6. Updates from the City
a. No updates on staffing yet.
b. Two new deputy CIP positions in DPW. Whoever is in that role will oversee our
committee. Will solve a lot of the communication issues.
c. Don’t have clear spreadsheet of Penny for Paths expenses. Meeting with Tom to go
through finances soon.
d. Question sent to Andrew from Havaleh on committees’ role. New bylaws sent around
last week. Committee should review.
e. Donna asked for them to be summarized.
f. Andrew – Setting expectations from Council. Detailed pieces of bylaws. Encouraged to
look at conduct component
g. Nic mentioned Hinesburg Road crosswalks and the need for additional phase of RRFB’s.
Would like to do the next phase to petition VTRANS for permit to do RRFB’s.
h. Andrew will connect with Tom DiPetro to discuss process.
i. Amanda noted states approval.
j. Nic would like to keep the discussion going and is planting the seed for future
discussion.
7. Hubbard Path Memo
a. Havaleh put memo in the packet so that it was publicly noted that the committee has
submitted this to City Council.
2
b. Donna mentioned the Climate Task force have been using the word resiliency. Not sure
how they coin the term resiliency. Up for debate. Could be more about storms.
c. Andrew believed it went to City Council already.
d. Nic is happy that our position was stated publicly.
8. VT Bike/Walk Summit Update
a. Nic and Amanda attended and presented on Penny for Paths. Successful discussion and
well received.
9. Discuss Potential ARPA Projects
a. Havaleh detailed ARPA funding documents
b. Nic asked Andrew if he considered any bike ped projects to fit
c. Donna noted that health and safety are big pieces. Reviewed Bicycle Friendly
Community report. Two components talked about education and outreach methods.
Wondered if there was interest in expanding Greenride Bikeshare to neighborhoods
that are lower income or targeted groups.
d. Ali – Doesn’t drive and plenty of places where she gets harassed by drivers because the
infrastructure isn’t there. Focus on Williston Rd where people walk because they don’t
have a choice. Would like to see funding used for walking infrastructure. Drivers aren’t
paying attention. Social justice issue.
e. Donna mentioned Williston Road bike ped facilities project
f. Nic noted two projects – One is bike path on south side but other is changing travel
lanes and reducing curb cuts
g. Amanda – Are there two funding streams and are there other things to think about.
h. Andrew detailed what is already committed and what is left. One of the categories is
disproportionately impacted communities. Lost revenue helps to designate general fund
purpose. Big splash projects which align with funding.
i. Donna mentioned access to Micro-transit for seniors. A lot of older folks driving cars.
Plus other folks who don’t drive.
j. Amanda – where there is lack of money is funding for folks to socialize or get rides to
entertainment. Instead of just medical trips. Asked what process is for input from
groups and prioritization.
k. Andrew – Community outreach. City Council discussing on Monday. Want to get into
FY24 budget process.
l. Nic thinks that Hinesburg Road sidewalk is needed to be replaced much sooner than
2026. It is access to schools, Price Chopper and Walgreens and is in a bad shape. People
using wheelchairs have had challenges in a long time and there were Front Porch Forum
posts this year about snow management. Impossible to plow. Thinks this could be a
good candidate due to location and access to services.
m. Amanda thinks that using our CIP projects list could be good. Airport Parkway project
was expensive and could be a good idea. Could come up with a short list of these.
n. Nic thinks 2-3 would be the max
o. Cathy agrees it has to focus on places people need to get places and access to services
for essential transportation.
p. Ali thinks it’s an issue of accessibility that keeps people feeling stuck. Accessible
sidewalks allow independence that gets people places. Mentioned the GMT Micro-
Transit pilot in Montpelier. Would rather just be independent and have the ability to get
places without relying on others to get around safely. Wants to be able to get to services
such as grocery store, City Hall, library and school independently.
q. Havaleh can maybe finalize top two or three items in next meeting.
3
r. Donna – All feed into Climate Task force issues too.
10. Discuss FY23 Priorities & Strategies
a. Nic thinks the work plan for FY22 seem to be fully accurate for FY23 too. Maybe no
changes needed.
b. Amanda wonders if we should add more detail on Committee Interest.
c. Andrew – Good way for two-way communication with Council for what are being
worked on an quarterly updates. Really helpful for council.
d. Donna – Talked about in the past about planning bike friendly community events. So
much work on CIP and projects which takes up bulk of time. Need to work on building
more community and community focused activities.
e. Amanda – Yes that is one area that has lagged because of so much has been going on.
Maybe adding bullet or action/goal on communication and outreach.
f. Donna – Maybe one banner community event would be good.
g. Havaleh – Having a committee run event is difficult and not sure the bandwidth is there
with the City support staff.
h. Donna – Local Motion is also a resource we have not used much recently.
i. Amanda – One of our priorities is education and outreach but maybe we need to
address staffing constraints. Know we can’t have a specific Facebook page but wanting
to know if we can push to bolster communications department.
j. Andrew – Bringing these things up to Council is the important part. Ideas may get put on
the bike rack but worth putting on.
k. Cathy – Other thing we can do is reach out to Parks and Rec and partner on events and
subject matter for encouraging bikes/walking.
l. Havaleh – Have not reached out to Holly lately. Last time was COVID so may be good to
reconnect.
m. Donna – GMBC does rides every week. Not for kids but for encouraging adults to ride.
Volunteer organization that has done it for years. Should be acknowledged.
n. Havaleh – Lots of media places that can help promote biking.
o. Andrew – A lot of work in the past for coordinating efforts and ensuring “branding”. Not
sure there are written policies around this. Does have City News that could include.
Send to him and can send to Coralee.
p. Havaleh – A lot of things are buried in the SB website.
q. Amanda – Could have conversation with Coralee about updating bike ped pages.
r. Nic suggested Slow Roll events
s. Amanda talked about Ciclovia in Bogata, Columbia
t. Donna talked about Montreal organized ride and CLACC ride in the islands that funds
infrastructure.
u. Havaleh – Proposed to include in 2023 plan to include sponsoring one event and to
improve web/social media presence.
v. Moved by Cathy
w. All in favor to include. Nic will provide to Andrew.
11. Updates Ongoing Committee Work
a. Chair Updates/Comments -Havaleh
b. DPW –Bob, Dana, Amanda, Donna
i. Donna - Making sure fog line maintenance spreadsheet gets shared with Tom.
Andrew will forward along.
ii. Amanda – Would be good to ensure that our work is useful and may be easier to
have conversations if our Liaison was a DPW employee as suggested earlier.
4
c. Climate Action -Donna
i. Definite push and pull of the comments and committee. After next go around of
transportation will share spreadsheet.
d. DRB Update –Cathy
i. Old Farm Road discussion still needs to keep an eye on.
ii. Gaining some paths around airport with Beta. Discussion around Airport paths.
e. Communications/Outreach–Cathy, Donna (Havaleh)
i. Good conversation today. Park Your Car(bon) event. Maybe put in next City
newsletter.
f. Safety –Bob, Dana
i. Last meeting had spreadsheet of safety items for DPW. Donna appreciated Dana
who had neck surgery. Should be up and about in the next couple of weeks.
g. Mapping –Amanda/Nic
i. No update. Email to Paul. As there is no point person for city on mapping so has
no direction on who to connect with. Haven’t heard anything back
h. Signs –Nic, Donna, Dana
i. Travis Ladd is Parks and Rec person. Nic to come up with plan of what and
where and then connect with Travis to get a quote and move the project
forward.
i. Bike Friendly Community Planning –Nic
i. Greenway – August Launch. Have asked Local Motion for MOU. Once we get
that back, I will connect with Andrew on the remaining components.
ii. BFC sign proposal – Nic to resend to Andrew.
12. Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday, June 8, 2022@ 5:30pm
13. Adjourn (by 8:00 p.m.)
TOOLE DESIGN |
QUEEN CITY PARK – AUSTIN
DRIVE BICYCLE
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS
SCOPING STUDY
Prepared for the CCRPC, City of Burlington and City of South Burlington
4 May 2022 | DRAFT
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | i
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Regional Connections 1
Purpose and Need statement 1
Project Context 2
Relevant Projects and Studies 3
Study Process 4
Engagement and Outreach 4
Existing Conditions 7
TranSportation 7
Project Area Environment 10
Alternatives 14
Pedestrian Alternatives 14
Bicycle Alternatives 14
Segment A 15
Segment B 17
Segment C 19
Segment D 21
Segment E 25
Alternative Cost Estimates 27
Preferred Alternative 27
Implementation Strategy 27
Short Term Recommendations 28
Attachments 29
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 1
INTRODUCTION
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC), in
association with the Cities of Burlington and South Burlington, initiated a
Scoping Study for a bicycle and pedestrian connection between the
Lindenwood Drive intersection on US Route 7 in South Burlington, along Queen
City Park Road and Austin Drive, to the Burlington Waterfront Greenway
(commonly called the Burlington bike path). Toole Design was retained to
conduct the study, which includes the required elements of a VTrans scoping
study. This will allow the City of Burlington or City of South Burlington to pursue
funding through the VTrans Bicycle and Pedestrian Program or other similar
funding sources.
This study evaluates connections between the South Burlington Recreation
Path network at Lindenwood Drive, the Hannaford Plaza, Red Rocks Park,
Oakledge Park, Green Mountain Transit (GMT) transit stops, the existing
shared use path along the Champlain Parkway corridor, and many other
destinations.
The UVM Consulting Archaeology Program was also retained to conduct an
evaluation of the cultural resources in the study area, which is required for a
VTrans scoping study.
REGIONAL CONNECTIONS
One intent of this project is to address several gaps in the regional bicycle
network that can be seen in Figure 1. The project has regional implications for
bike tourism and transportation, enhancing access to Lake Champlain and the
Champlain Islands as well as strengthening the local network of on and off-
street bike facilities.
Figure 1: Regional Bike Network
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
This study explores options, costs and feasibility for two primary purposes:
• Provide a regional bike connection between several existing shared
use paths (the Burlington Waterfront Greenway, the Champlain
Parkway Shared Use Path, and the South Burlington path network),
and key destinations in the study area: Oakledge Park and Red Rocks
Park.
• Provide a safe and comfortable movement for people to travel by all
modes of transportation throughout the study area.
The need for these connections is due to gaps in the network for both walking
and biking, and transit stops that are not served by sidewalks. These are
described in detail in the following sections.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 2
PROJECT CONTEXT
The study area, shown in Figure 2, has diverse land uses in and adjacent that
include industrial and manufacturing facilities, major waterfront parks,
residential neighborhoods, smaller commercial properties, the Champlain
Water District, electrical utility installations, and other uses, as shown in Figure
2.
Figure 2: Land Uses in the Study Area
Study Area
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 3
R ELEVANT PROJECTS AND S TUDIES
This project is one of several transportation-related initiatives in the area:
2020 Queen City Park Road Pedestrian Facility Assessment
This study was conducted by the City of Burlington and Clough Harbor
Associates, and provides an assessment of alternatives for either a new
sidewalk or shared use path on Queen City Park Road in Burlington, between
Central Ave and Home Ave. The intent was to investigate both drainage
considerations and sidewalk feasibility in advance of a resurfacing and drainage
project. The resurfacing project was completed in 2021, altering the drainage
patterns on the road that will facilitate the construction of a sidewalk or shared
use path on the east side of the road.
2008 Queen City Park Road Bridge Initial Project Definition
Report
This study evaluated the condition and operations of the one-lane bridge over
the Vermont Railroad. Key findings include the following:
• The bridge is generally structurally sound, but is deteriorating due to
age, and there is a failing retaining wall adjacent to the bridge
abutment.
• There is not sufficient vertical clearance for double stack rail cars.
Accommodating them would require increasing the vertical clearance
by about 2 feet.
• The one-lane width causes delay for people driving or biking across
the bridge.
• The open grating sidewalk is not desirable to walk on, especially for
those walking with dogs, and people often walk across in the vehicle
lane.
• Public comments also noted that eastbound vehicles tend to pull onto
the right side to make room for oncoming traffic across the bridge,
blocking the pedestrian access to the sidewalk.
The report recommended replacing the bridge with a bridge wide enough to
carry two lanes of traffic (one in each direction).
At this time the project is not funded for design and construction.
Champlain Parkway Project
This project has been decades in the planning, and is expected to break
ground in 2022. Figure 3 shows elements of this project that impact the study
area.
Figure 3: Champlain Parkway Project Features
The closure of Pine Street will significantly affect circulation in the study area,
and will create a barrier for walking and biking between Burlington’s south end
and Queen City Park Road.
Champlain Parkway
ramp intersects with
Queen City Park Rd
Shared Use Path
extended north to
Kilburn St
Traffic signal
at Home Ave
Pine Street Closed at
Queen City Park Road
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 4
STUDY PROCESS
The study was guided by a project management committee including the
following people.
Member Representing
Christine Forde CCRPC
Nicole Losch City of Burlington Department of Public Works
Marla Keene City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning
Lucy Gibson Toole Design Group
Julie Shapiro Toole Design Group
This study also coordinated with a Project Advisory Committee, with members
appointed by the City of Burlington and the City of South Burlington. This
committee met four times during the study.
Member Representing
Peter Keating Burlington Walk Bike Council
Gillian Bell Burlington Neighborhood Planning Assembly
Chip Mason Burlington City Council
Doug Goodman South Burlington Neighborhood Representative
Bob Britt South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian
Committee
Amanda Holland South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian
Committee
Tim Barrett South Burlington City Council
Chris Damiani Green Mountain Transit
The committee met the following dates:
• September 23, 2021
• November 18, 2021
• February 22, 2022
Meeting notes are attached to this report as Appendix 1.
ENGAGEMENT AND O UTREACH
This project had three opportunities for the public to weigh in on the project,
early as the issues and concerns were identified, mid-way through the project
when alternatives were developed, and at the project conclusion to review the
final report and recommendations.
Survey
An online survey was open for responses between September 17 and October
18, 2021 to obtain information from the public on issues, concerns, and needs
in the study area. It was advertised on the Front Porch Forum, City and CCPRC
websites, and via lawn signs that were placed at numerous locations in the
study area and in surrounding neighborhoods. The survey yielded over 250
individual responses and 896 comments on issues and concerns. The survey
respondents were generally representative of Burlington and South Burlington
demographics in terms of age, gender, and ethnicity. In terms of barriers to
walking, the following chart summarizes the survey responses.
The charts presented here summarize some data on why people travel to the
study area, and what they find to be barriers to walking and biking. Additional
questions and data are provided in Appendix 2.
Figure 4: Purpose of trips in study area
Live, 244, 29%
Work, 62, 7%Commerce, 116, 14%
Other Destinations, 234, 28%
Recreation, 185, 22%
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 5
Figure 5: Barriers to Walking
Figure 6: Barriers to Biking
The most useful information came in the form of location-specific comments for
issues related to travel by all modes throughout the study area. These
comments are summarized in Figure 7.
Alternatives Presentation
A public meeting was held on Wednesday, March 9, 2022, hosted by the South
Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee Meeting, to share project
alternatives and gather feedback. This virtual event was well attended, allowing
participants to hear a presentation on the project progress and alternatives,
and provide feedback. Concerns expressed by attendees included parking in
the vicinity of Red Rocks Park, the one lane bridge safety, and speeding traffic.
There was general support for the alternatives that were reviewed. Meeting
notes are attached to this report in Appendix 3.
Missing Sidewalks29%
Sidewalk Condition17%Driver Speed17%
Seasonal Maintenance11%
Unsafe Crossings18%
Seating2%
Lighting6%
Lack of Bike Infrastructure39%
road-condition23%
seasonal-maintenance12%
drivers26%
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 6
Figure 7: Public Comments for Transportation-related Issues and Concerns
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 7
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The study area spans from the Burlington Waterfront Greenway terminus on
Austin Drive, and the intersection of Shelburne Road/US Route 7 and
Lindenwood Drive. The following sections review all relevant aspects of the
study area, including all applicable modes of transportation, safety, and
environmental resources.
T RAN S PORTATION
The following sections provide an overview of conditions for each mode of
transportation. More detailed descriptions are provided in later sections of the
report.
Walking
There are sidewalks and shared use paths serving some portions of the study
area streets, as show in Figure 10. The notable lack of sidewalks is along
Queen City Park Road, generally between Arthur Court and Home
Avenue/Austin Drive. In addition, while the bridge over the railroad has a
sidewalk, its metal grate material is undesirable, and many walkers avoid using
the sidewalk.
Bicycling
As shown in Figure 10, there are a variety of bicycle facility types in the study
area, including shared use paths, bicycle lanes, shared lanes and advisory
lanes. The bicycle level of traffic stress is a method to measure how
comfortable a bicycle facility is for people, with a low stress environment (1 or 2
on a scale of 4) being completely separated from traffic, or shared with traffic
on a low volume, low speed street. Stress levels are associated with user types,
illustrated in Figure 8, with stress level 1 being most suitable for less
experienced riders or mixed ability groups, and stress level 4 representative of
riding on a busy road with no separation from traffic. As the goal of this project
is to provide a bicycle connection through the study area for all ages and
abilities of riders, a level of stress target of 1 is appropriate. As shown in Figure
9, the existing bicycle level of stress ranges from 1 on the shared use paths in
the study area to 4 along Shelburne Road, due to the high volumes of traffic
and lack of bicycle facilities. Queen City Park Road and Austin Drive have level
of stress 2 where bike lanes exist, and 3 elsewhere.
Figure 8: Bicycle User Profiles and Traffic Stress Tolerance
Figure 9: Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
TOOLE DESIGN | 8
Figure 10: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in the Project study Area
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 9
Transit
Several routes are operated by Green Mountain Transit within or adjacent to
the study area:
Route #5 runs on Pine Street, terminating in a loop at the end of Pine Street via
Queen City Park. This route runs on 60 minute headways, and serves the
Howard Center on Pine Street.
Route #6 runs on Shelburne Road on 20 to 30 minute headways, with a
southbound stop at the Queen City Park Road intersection, and northbound at
Lindenwood Drive.
Bus stop locations are shown in Figure 11. In addition to these fixed routes, the
Green Mountain Transit service center is within the study area on Queen City
Park Road, where all GMTA buses are serviced. This facility generates nearly
200 bus trips per day on Queen City Park Road.
Figure 11: Bus Stop locations for GMTA Routes 5 and 6
Driving
Study area traffic volumes are shown on Figure 12. The highest traffic is on
Shelburne Road, followed by Queen City Park Road between Pine Street and
Shelburne Road. The lowest volumes are on Queen City Park Road north of
Central Avenue. It is expected that, after construction of the Champlain
Parkway, traffic on Queen City Park Road east of Pine Street will be considerably
lower than today.
Figure 12: Average Annual Daily Traffic (VTrans)
Crash Summary
Between January 2016 and April 2021, fifteen (15) crashes occurred in the
study area (Figure 13):
• Eight (8) at the intersection of Queen City Park Road and Pine Street.
• Two (2) at the intersection of Austin Drive and Ledgewood Circle.
• One (1) at the intersection of Queen City Park Road and Central Avenue
• One (1) at the intersection of Shelburne Road and Lindenwood Drive.
• One (1) occurred along Queen City Park Road near the one-lane bridge
over the railroad.
Three (3) of the fifteen were injury crashes. None were fatal. All crashes were
vehicular, and no pedestrians or people on bikes were involved. Sight distance
5,900 (2011)
1,135 (2020)
860 (2020)
22,000 (2016)
2,500 (2016) GMTA
Service
Facility
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 10
from Pine Street appears to be a factor for the number of crashes at this
intersection.
Figure 13: Crash Locations (Source: VTrans, 2016-2021)
PROJECT AREA ENVIRONMENT
The study area was evaluated for environmental resources that may affect the
design, location, or feasibility of alternatives.
Natural Resources
Several natural resources in the study area will be considered in the planning
and design of transportation projects:
• The project area drains either into Potash Brook or Lake Champlain,
both of which are considered water quality impaired. This status
emphasizes the need to reduce the amount of additional pavement
resulting from the project. Incorporation of green stormwater
infrastructure may be helpful to reduce any impacts to these waters.
• Wetlands are in the vicinity of the study area. Figure 14 shows that
there are both Class 2 and possible Class 3 wetlands associated with
Potash Brook, and additional areas in Red Rocks Park. None of these
are within 50 feet of the project corridor streets. There are additional
wet areas in the project vicinity, including in drainage swales along
Queen City Park Road. Some of these have recently been determined
in the Burton Snowboards permitting process to not be wetlands
under state jurisdiction.
• There are some rare species in the vicinity of the study area, primarily
in Red Rocks and Oakledge Parks (Figure 15). There are also several
sites on the south side of Queen City Park Road with rare plants,
which may require documentation for any work outside of the
roadway.
Hazardous Material Sites
The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources hazardous material site inventory
indicates that there are eight sites in the vicinity of the project area where
hazardous materials have been discharged or spilled (Figure 16). All of these
currently have a status of “SMAC - Site Management Activities Completed” or
“NFAP - No Further Action Planned” with the exception of the Hoechner/Gulf
site at 793 Shelburne Road, which has a status of “MED - Site with sensitive
receptors that are threatened by contamination.” Contamination from this site
was found during site investigations after a property sale, and was found to
have spread to the Limoge apartment complex, adjacent to the site. Monitoring
and the development of a corrective action plan (CAP) is currently underway.
As any project work occurs in this area, it will need to be done in coordination
with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. A summary table of all
hazardous material sites is included in the report Appendix 4.
Historic and Archaeologic
The UVM Consulting Archaeology Program conducted an assessment of
cultural resources in the project area, including both architectural history and
archaeological resources. While there is a rich agricultural and archaeological
history in the project area, their report concludes that there are no intact
resources in the project area that might be affected by the project. This is due
to the proposed path being located on land that has already been disturbed,
and any historic buildings in the area have been so significantly altered that
they are no longer contributing to the area’s historic landscape.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 11
Figure 14: Vermont Wetlands Mapping for Project Area
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 12
Figure 15: Rare, threatened and endangered species in the vicinity of the study area
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 13
Figure 16: Hazardous Waste Sites in or adjacent to project area (Source: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 14
ALTERNATIVES
The project area has broken up into segments (Figure 17) in order to evaluate
the existing conditions and alternatives for each segment.
Figure 17: Project Area Segments
Alternatives for the project are specific to each segment, as conditions vary
considerably. In general, pedestrian accommodations include sidewalks or
shared use paths, and bicycle accommodations include shared use paths or
separated bicycle lanes in order to achieve the low stress/all ages and abilities
bicycle network.
PEDESTRIAN ALTERNATIVES
To provide for safe and comfortable pedestrian travel on the study area streets,
dedicated pedestrian infrastructure – either a sidewalk or shared use path – is
considered for all streets in the project area, and marked/signed crosswalks
where needed. While the advisory walk-bike lanes provide an indication to
drivers to keep to the center of the road, and reserve the edges for walking and
biking, input from people who currently walk in this area supports providing
separated facilities. In the bend of Queen City Park Road just west of Central
Avenue, the tracking of larger trucks and buses while turning puts people
walking or biking at risk, especially in winter when snowbanks are present.
BICYCLE ALTERNATIVES
Several different types of bicycle infrastructure were considered for each
segment, as described and illustrated below.
Shared Used Paths
Similar to the Champlain Parkway Path, these are 10 feet wide and typically
surfaced with asphalt
pavement. Pedestrians and
bicycles share the space,
so they are not well suited
to corridors with high
volumes of either people
walking or biking. They can
provide an enjoyable
recreational experience as
they allow for side-by-side
riding.
Separated Bicycle Lanes
These allow bicycles to be separated from moving traffic by curbing, flex-posts,
planters, or other materials. They can be constructed as one-way facilities on
each side of a street, or two-way facilities on one side. These provide a
comfortable riding experience for a range of abilities. Two-way facilities offer
some advantages including greater ease of passing, side-by-side riding, and
the ability of a small plow
to perform snow removal.
The disadvantage is that
bicycles are sometimes
traveling in a direction not
expected by motorists,
which can result in
greater risk of conflicts at
intersections and
driveways.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 15
SEGMENT 1
This segment connects Lindenwood Drive with Queen City Park Road (Figure
18). An ongoing VTrans signal project will provide a crosswalk over the south
side of the intersection of US 7/Shelburne Road and Queen City Park Road,
which will significantly improve access from Shelburne Road to the existing
segment of path, addressing many concerns about this location that were
expressed early in this study process.
Figure 18: Segment A – Shelburne Road to Existing Shared Use Path
Conditions along the corridor include a sidewalk that many bicyclists will use to
travel this segment of Shelburne Road, and the existing shared use path
segment that is narrow at about 8 feet wide, with pavement and drainage that
is in poor condition, and with a grade of approximately 7.5%.
With the high traffic volumes along Shelburne Road, and the current strong
desire line to cross at the Queen City Park intersection to access the project
area, the recommended improvements include widening the sidewalk on the
east side to a 10 or 12 feet wide shared use path, and widening the curb ramp
on the west side to provide convenient access to the existing shared use path
entrance. In addition, a bollard-style push button unit should be provided in a
location that is convenient for people riding a bike to activate. See Figure 19 for
an illustration of these recommendations.
Site Photos
Shared Use Path connecting Shelburne Road with Queen City Park Road
Bicycle rider waiting to cross at Shelburne Road
Dattilios
Hoechner
Gulf Limoge
Apartments
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 16
Figure 19: Proposed Recommendations for Segment A
N
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 17
SEGMENT B
This segment extends from the Hannaford Plaza entrance at Queen City Park
Road to the intersection of the Champlain Parkway Shared Use Path, just west
of the intersection with Pine Street. This segment has a continuous sidewalk on
the south side of Queen City Park Road and no dedicated bicycle facilities.
There is no crosswalk, nor accessible curb ramp connecting the sidewalk to the
Champlain Parkway Path.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
SEGMENT LENGTH 1,120 feet
TRAFFIC VOLUME 5,900 ADT
POSTED SPEED 25 mph
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH 49.5 ft +/-
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Sidewalk on south side
BICYCLE FACILITIES Shoulders of approximately 4 feet
Public input for this segment expressed significant concerns at the intersection
of Pine Street and Queen City Park Road due to sight distance and grades.
The City of South Burlington noted that the drainage infrastructure along the
sides of this segment are in poor condition, and may need to be replaced if any
proposed work involves relocation of catch basins.
Existing Width and Configuration
While the width varies somewhat along the length of this segment, the typical
width of Queen City Park Road is 30 feet from curb to curb, and a 5 foot
sidewalk with a 6 inch granite curb. This is shown below.
Alternative: Shared Use Path
A shared use path can be constructed along the south side of Queen City Park
Road such that the roadway width is narrowed by about 6 feet, and the
sidewalk is essentially widened to the width of a shared use path, which has a
minimum width of 10 feet.
This alternative would not result in any additional paved area, but would require
relocating catch basins, and possibly associated reconstruction of the
stormwater collection system on the south side of this street.
Alternative: Separated Bicycle Lanes
In this alternative, Queen City Park Road would be widened to a total width of
36 feet to provide room for 2-way separated bicycle lanes on the north side of
the street. This will also potentially require reconstruction of stormwater
infrastructure, and examination of possible wetland impacts along the north
side of the street.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 18
Site Photos
Looking east from south side of street at Kindness Court
Looking east from south side of street
Possible wet area alongside of Queen City Park Road
Pine Street intersection
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 19
SEGMENT C
This segment leads from the Champlain Parkway Path crossing to the
intersection of Central Avenue. A sidewalk extends along Queen City Park
Road for the frontage of the Champlain Water District, and there is a sidewalk
on the bridge over the railroad. West of the bridge over the railroad, there is a
gravel path or shoulder on the south side that leads to Red Rocks Park.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
SEGMENT LENGTH 1,300 feet
TRAFFIC VOLUME 2,500 ADT
POSTED SPEED 25 mph
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH 49.5 feet +/-
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Intermittent sidewalk on south side
BICYCLE FACILITIES Shared lane (unmarked) or shoulder
Public concerns noted in this section included a lack of a continuous sidewalk,
and inadequate parking at Red Rocks Park. Among the intent of the project is
to provide better access to Red Rocks Park for people biking and walking,
which could potentially help to alleviate the parking situation.
The one-lane bridge over the Vermont Railway corridor has also been the
subject of study and concern. Its current condition requires motorists to yield to
oncoming traffic due to the narrow width. There is a sidewalk on the bridge, but
its metal grate surface makes it unusable for anyone walking a pet. While there
is a sidewalk on the bridge, the lack of curbed sidewalks approaching the
bridge allows waiting vehicles to pull along side of the road, waiting for
oncoming traffic to pass, which hinders safe pedestrian access. A study was
conducted in 2008 that evaluated alternatives for rehabilitation or replacement,
and identified a preferred alternative for the bridge replacement to have two
lanes for traffic, plus a sidewalk. At this time, no funding for the bridge
replacement has been identified.
TOOLE DESIGN | 20
Site Photos
Wide buffer and utility poles between sidewalk and street
Approach to bridge from west
Bus stop near Pine Street
Path leading to Red Rocks Park
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 21
Project Alternatives
Two options were explored for this alternative: a shared use path on the south
side, or widening the road by approximately 8 feet to provide for separated
bicycle lanes. As the timeline for the bridge replacement is uncertain at this
time, it is expected that the bridge project could be designed and constructed
to accommodate the preferred alternative as identified in this report.
Shared Use Path Alternative
The shared use path would be established by widening the sidewalk to a width
of 10 feet where it exists, and constructing a new path where there is no
sidewalk. This is illustrated on an aerial photograph above, right. In general, the
shared use path could avoid conflicting with utilities that are present along the
south side of the street.
Shared Use Path on south side
Separated Bicycle Lanes
This option involves widening the road to the north side by about 8 feet, and
providing two-way separated bicycle lanes. This would allow riders to access
the Champlain Parkway Path without crossing the road. There would be
relatively few utility impacts, and all widening would be within the city right-of-
way.
Separated Bicycle Lanes on north side
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 22
SEGMENT D
This segment runs between the intersection of Central Avenue and Home
Avenue/Austin Drive, through an industrial zone with commercial,
manufacturing, and transportation uses. This section currently has advisory
lanes for walking and biking, which were installed after a recent resurfacing
project.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
SEGMENT LENGTH 2,000 feet
TRAFFIC VOLUME 1,200 ADT
POSTED SPEED 25 mph
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH 49.5 feet +/-
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Advisory lanes
BICYCLE FACILITIES Advisory lanes
While overall traffic volumes for this segment are relatively low, the land uses in
this area generate significant heavy vehicle traffic. Rhino Foods and Edlund
have deliveries in and out with tractor trailers, and Green Mountain Transit
buses move in and out of their site for maintenance throughout the day.
The level topography and the high water table in this area create a challenge
for stormwater drainage. There are currently large swales on each side of
Queen City Park Road to manage stormwater from both private land and the
street right-of-way. Burton Snowboards is in the process of design and
permitting of a site renovation that will include new stormwater infrastructure so
that all of their stormwater is handled on-site. The drainage pattern for Queen
City Park Road was altered during the recent resurfacing such that for its
frontage with the Burton Snowboards site, it now drains to the east. This was
done in part to facilitate the construction of a sidewalk or shared use path on
the east side of Queen City Park Road. This alteration in drainage patterns, in
conjunction with the proposed alterations at Burton Snowboards, obviates the
need for the swale on the eastern side of Queen City Park Road in this segment
The proposed layout of the Burton Snowboards site is shown on Figure 20, with
the potential alignment of a sidewalk or shared use path shown in red.
Figure 20: Burton Snowboards Site Plan
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 23
Site Photos
Approach to Central Avenue from the east
Advisory Lanes signage
Drainage swale and utilities in front of Burton Snowboards site
Drainage swale and utilities near Rhino Foods
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 24
Other planned changes to this area include changes at the Queen City
Park/Home Avenue/Austin Drive intersection, associated with the Champlain
Parkway (Figure 21). These include a new shared use path connection from the
intersection to the existing Champlain Parkway Path, as well as its northern
extension up to Pine Street. The intersection of the Champlain Parkway will be
signalized, which will affect traffic circulation in this area. In addition, traffic
circulation may be affected by planned AMTRAK service along the Vermont
Railway corridor.
Figure 21: Plan Excerpt for Champlain Parkway project
Proposed Alternatives
Queen City Park Road has a width of 28 to 30 feet, and is marked with Advisory
lanes for walking or biking. Two alternatives are considered: one with a new
shared use path constructed on the east side of Queen City Park Road, and
one with a new sidewalk constructed, plus separated bicycle lanes. The option
of constructing a new sidewalk and maintaining the advisory lanes for bicycles
was considered, but as the costs were higher and impacts were similar to
construction of a shared use path, so this alternative was less favorable.
Existing Cross Section
Shared Use Path on east side of Queen City Park Road
Sidewalk and separated bicycle lanes
Shared Use
Path Extension
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 25
SEGMENT E
Austin Drive between the Home Avenue/Queen City Park intersection and the
crossing to the Burlington Waterfront Greenway makes up this segment, which
includes bike lanes on the eastern portion and shared lanes with parallel
parking on the western section. Land uses are all residential, and the parking
usage is primarily for people accessing Oakledge Park, which charges a fee for
parking in its dedicated lot on Flynn Avenue.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
SEGMENT LENGTH 2,600 feet
TRAFFIC VOLUME 1,100 ADT
POSTED SPEED 25 mph
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH 60 feet
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Sidewalk on south side
BICYCLE FACILITIES Bicycle lanes, shared lanes (marked)
The right-of-way of 60 feet is wider than other streets in the study area, and the
existing sidewalk has a generous tree lawn, with tree plantings and utilities
present.
Alternatives
Two alternatives were developed for this section to address the project goal to
provide low stress bicycling along Austin Drive:
Widen sidewalk to a 10 feet shared use path. This will be possible to do within
the public right-of-way, and can avoid utility impacts by aligning the path
around trees and existing electric and telecom utilities. This will not affect
stormwater drainage patterns on Austin Drive, but it will increase the paved
area surface by approximately 10,000 square feet, which is less than a quarter
acre. This option will preserve the on-street parking along Austin Drive that
provides free access to Oakledge Park.
Widen Austin Drive to provide separated bicycle lanes. In this alternative, the
existing street width would be widened by approximately 5 feet to provide
space for separated bicycle facilities. This will require some utility relocation,
including electric, telecom, and stormwater infrastructure. It will require either
prohibition of on-street parking, or additional street widening of about 8 feet to
accommodate a parking lane. This option will also result in about 10,000
square feet of additional paved area.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 26
Site Photos
Looking east toward Home/Queen City Park intersection
Intersection of Red Rocks Condominium Entrance
Shared lanes and sidewalk on Austin Drive
Crosswalk to Burlington Waterfront Greenway
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 27
ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
A planning level cost estimate has been prepared for each alternative,
incorporating the following assumptions:
• The most recent available VTrans unit costs were used for major items
such as excavation, pavement, curbing, catch basins, pavement markings
and plantings.
• A contingency of 25% has been included to cover costs of items that have
not specifically been quantified due to the planning level of this analysis.
• Allowances were also included for items including mobilization, erosion
control, traffic control, design engineering, and construction engineering.
The following table summarizes the cost for each project segment for the
alternatives of a shared use path or separated bicycle lanes.
Segment Length Shared Use Path Bicycle Lanes and Sidewalk
1 450 $ 138,150 $ 138,150
2 1,120 $ 333,760 $ 273,280
3 1,300 $ 265,200 $ 364,000
4 2,000 $ 476,000 $ 866,000
5 2,600 $ 943,800 $ 894,400
TOTAL 7470 $ 2,157,000 $ 2,536,000
For the segments that have an existing sidewalk, the bicycle lanes alternative
has a slightly lower cost estimate than the shared use path option. For
segments that do not have a continuous sidewalk, the cost estimate for a
shared use path is significantly lower. Segment cost estimates are provided in
Appendix 5.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
After consideration of the advantages and constraints of each alternative,
project costs, and public input, the Shared Use Path alternative is
recommended for implementation. The following factors were important in this
recommendation:
• The project costs are lower for the shared use path in segments 3 and
4, and only slightly more costly for segments 2 and 5. (Bicycle lanes
were not considered an alternative for segment 1).
• The project impacts to utilities and environmental resources are nearly
identical for each alternative, and therefore not a significant factor in
the recommendation.
• Providing a continuous shared use path connecting the entire study
area will provide continuity in the rider experience, and will be easier
to navigate for less experienced riders. It would be possible to select
different alternatives for each segment, but the consistent type of
facility is desirable to make this connection.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
The project will require the coordination of the cities of Burlington and South
Burlington to implement this regional project. While it is likely to be completed in
phases due to funding constraints, the following are considerations for
implementation.
Funding Sources
There are many possible funding sources for this project. Several of the most
commonly-used funding sources include the following:
• VTrans Bicycle-Pedestrian Program. This program uses up to 80%
federal funds and 10% state funds for projects to improve bicycle and
pedestrian transportation. There is a 10% local match, and no project
funding limit, though it is rare for a project exceeding a total cost of $1
million to be funded in a single year/grant cycle.
• VTrans Transportation Alternatives Program. This program provides
80% federal funds and requires at least a 10% local match. The
projects are capped at $500,000 total cost ($375,000 grant award),
and are sometimes used to provide additional funding for large
bicycle/pedestrian projects.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 28
• RAISE grants. This is a new federal funding source that may be a
source for funding the entire project, as typical grants exceed $2
million.
There may be options to augment funding with urban forestry or stormwater
project funding for project elements such as tree planting or green stormwater
infrastructure.
Prioritization and Phasing
Each segment has a different role in this network, and the prioritization among
segments should consider the relative needs. Some considerations for
prioritization include the following:
• Segments 1 and 2 should be considered for implementation at the
same time and with the same priority, as they are both essential to
make the connection from South Burlington’s Recreation Path
network to the Champlain Parkway path, which will eventually
continue towards downtown Burlington when the Champlain Parkway
is completed. Segment 1 will require coordination with the State of
Vermont both because part of this is within the right-of-way of US
Route 7, and because of potential hazardous materials issues
adjacent to the Hoechner Gulf/Limoge Apartments hazardous
materials site.
• Segment 3 addresses connectivity for all modes to Red Rocks Park.
With the current issues related to inadequate parking, providing safe
and comfortable walking and biking access to the park will be
beneficial.
• Segment 4 addresses needs for access to significant employment
opportunities, and currently has pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations that do not provide any separation from traffic that
includes heavy trucks and buses.
• Segment 5 may be relatively lower priority due to the presence of
bicycle lanes for part of this route, and the lower volumes on Austin
Drive. There may be greater opportunity to reduce traffic speeds
through installation of traffic calming measures, making the street
more suitable to shared use by people biking and driving. As any
sidewalk repairs or utility work are done in this segment, consideration
should be made for the eventual widening of the sidewalk to a 10 feet
wide shared use path.
SHORT TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are proposed as near-term projects for consideration, to address
issues raised in the public engagement, and result in some benefits to safety
and accessibility.
Queen City Park/Hannaford Intersection. This location had numerous
complaints for confusing circulation. One factor is that the street network is
confusing, and overly wide paved area doesn’t define travel ways. In observed
field conditions, the pavement markings indicating that this is an all-way stop
intersection are barely visible, likely due to the heavy traffic in this area. Figure
22 shows potential rapid implementation changes using paint, flex-posts, and
other low cost materials to clarify circulation and reduce vehicle speeds.
Figure 22: Short Term Recommendations for Queen City Park Road at the
Hannaford entrance
Queen City Park Road between Hannaford and Pine Street. Narrow travel lanes
to 10 feet, and provide 5 ft bicycle lanes. This provides some additional space
and may have the effect of reducing traffic speeds.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 29
Pine Street/Queen City Park. Initial analysis using available data suggests that
all-way stop would be appropriate for the traffic volumes at this intersection.
Pine Street carries a similar amount of traffic as Queen City Park Road, making
an all way stop advantageous. This change could be beneficial for speed
reduction and improved safety.
Queen City Park Road Bridge over the Railroad. Re-deck sidewalk with a
material that can be more easily cleared of snow, and that will be comfortable
for pets to walk on in all seasons. At bridge approaches, provide some
protection for pedestrians approaching sidewalk on the western side of bridge
with quick build materials, as vehicles pull into the shoulder waiting for
oncoming vehicles, not leaving any space for people crossing bridge on foot.
Queen City Park Road/Central. Consider all-way stop to reduce confusion, as
only two approaches stop currently. Traffic count would be useful to confirm
traffic operations.
Queen City Park Road/Home/Austin. Consider all way stop as an interim
measure before the Champlain Parkway is constructed. Traffic count would be
useful to confirm traffic operations
Austin Drive/Redstone Condo Drive - Reinforce the painted curb extensions
with quick build materials, such as planters, flex posts, or reflective elements,
and solid colored paint.
Austin Drive Traffic Calming – Consider traffic calming measures such as speed
lumps, chicanes or choke points to reduce speeds along this street and make it
more suitable for shared use for bicycling.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Advisory Committee Meeting notes –
2. Survey results
3. Public Meeting Notes and Presentation
4. Hazardous Materials Table
5. Cost Estimates by Segment
The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds provide a
substantial infusion of resources to help turn the tide on the
pandemic, address its economic fallout, and lay the foundation for a strong and equitable recovery.
The American Rescue Plan will deliver $350 billion for state, local, territorial, and
Tribal governments to respond to the COVID-19 emergency and bring back jobs.
Eligible Jurisdictions & Allocations
Direct Recipients
•States and District of Columbia
($195.3 billion)
•Counties ($65.1 billion)
•Metropolitan cities ($45.6 billion)
•Tribal governments ($20.0 billion)
•Territories ($4.5 billion)
Indirect Recipients
•Non-entitlement units ($19.5 billion)
Funding Objectives
•Support urgent COVID-19 response efforts to continue to
decrease spread of the virus and bring the pandemic under control
•Replace lost public sector revenue to strengthen support for vital
public services and help retain jobs
•Support immediate economic stabilization for households and businesses
•Address systemic public health and economic challenges that
have contributed to the inequal impact of the pandemic
Address Negative Economic Impacts
Respond to economic harms to workers, families,
small businesses, impacted industries, and the
public sector
Premium Pay for Essential Workers
Offer additional support to those who have and
will bear the greatest health risks because of their
service in critical infrastructure sectors
Replace Public Sector Revenue Loss
Use funds to provide government services to
the extent of the reduction in revenue
experienced due to the pandemic
Support Public Health Response
Fund COVID-19 mitigation efforts, medical
expenses, behavioral healthcare, and certain
public health and safety staff
Broadband Infrastructure
Make necessary investments to provide unserved
or underserved locations with new or expanded
broadband access
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Make necessary investments to improve access
to clean drinking water and invest in
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure
Example Uses of Funds
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant
Program -From
https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) established the new Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) discretionary program with $5 billion in appropriated funds over the next 5 years. In fiscal year 2022 (FY22), up to $1 billion is available. The SS4A program funds regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries.
The SS4A program supports Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg’s National Roadway
Safety Strategy and the Department’s goal of zero deaths and serious injuries on our nation’s
roadways.
FY22 Notice of Funding Opportunity is open, now through September 15, 2022
The FY22 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for Safe Streets and Roads for All grants is
live on Grants.gov.
The deadline for applications is 5:00 p.m. EDT on September 15, 2022. For details, more information, and applicant guidance:
• Review the NOFO
• Visit our “How to Apply” assistance page
• Attend a “How to Apply” webinar
Award announcements are expected to be made by the end of calendar year 2022 or early 2023.
Who is eligible to apply for grant funding?
• Metropolitan planning organizations;
• Counties, cities, towns, and transit agencies or other special districts that are subdivisions of a State;
• Federally recognized Tribal governments; and
• Multijurisdictional groups comprised of the above entities.
Eligible activities
The following activities are eligible for the SS4A program:
• Develop or update a comprehensive safety action plan (Action Plan).
• Conduct planning, design, and development activities in support of an Action Plan.
• Carry out projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan.
There are two types of SS4A grants: Action Plan Grants and Implementation Grants.
Action Plan Grant example activities
Communities can use Action Plan Grants to develop or complete an Action Plan or to conduct
supplemental planning activities.
Below are illustrative examples of activities that could directly assist in the process of developing or updating an Action Plan by conducting outreach, data collection, analysis, and other related tasks:
• Leadership commitment and goal setting that includes a goal timeline for eliminating
roadway fatalities and serious injuries.
• Planning structure through a committee, task force, implementation group, or similar body charged with oversight of the Action Plan development, implementation, and monitoring.
• Safety analysis of the existing conditions and historical trends that provides a baseline
level of crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries across a jurisdiction, locality,
Tribe, or region.
• Engagement and collaboration with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups, that allows for both community representation and feedback.
• Equity considerations developed through a plan using inclusive and representative processes.
• Policy and process changes that assess the current policies, plans, guidelines, and/or standards to identify opportunities to improve how processes prioritize transportation safety.
• Strategy and project selections that identify a comprehensive set of projects and strategies, shaped by data, the best available evidence and noteworthy practices, as well as stakeholder input and equity considerations, that will address the safety problems described in the Action Plan.
• Progress and transparency methods that measure progress over time after an Action
Plan is developed or updated, including outcome data.
Supplemental planning example activities (must have an eligible Action Plan in
place)
Supplemental Action Plan activities that support or enhance an existing Action Plan could include, but are not limited to:
• Additional analysis
• Expanded data collection and evaluation using integrated data
• Testing Action Plan concepts before project and strategy implementation
• Feasibility studies using quick-build strategies that inform permanent projects in the
future (e.g., paint, plastic bollards)
• Follow-up stakeholder engagement and collaboration
• Targeted equity assessments
• Progress report development
• Complementary planning efforts such as speed management plans, accessibility and
transition plans, racial and health equity plans, and lighting management plans
Implementation Grant example activities
Below are illustrative examples of activities that could be conducted as part of an Implementation Grant. This list is not intended to be exhaustive in nature and could include
infrastructure, behavioral, and operational safety activities identified in an Action Plan:
• Applying low-cost roadway safety treatments system-wide, such as left- and right-turn lanes at intersections, centerline and shoulder rumble strips, wider edge lines, high-friction surface treatments, road diets, and better signage along high-crash urban and rural corridors.
• Identifying and correcting common risks across a network, such as improving pedestrian crosswalks by adding high-visibility pavement markings, lighting, and signage at transit stops, in a designated neighborhood, or along a busy public transportation route.
• Transforming a roadway corridor on a High-Injury Network into a Complete Street with safety improvements to control speed, separate users, and improve visibility, along
with other measures that improve safety for all users.
• Installing pedestrian safety enhancements and closing network gaps with sidewalks, rectangular rapid-flashing beacons, signal improvements, and audible pedestrian signals for people walking, rolling, or using mobility assisted devices.
• Working with community members in an identified problem area to carry out quick-
build street design changes informed by outreach and user input.
• Supporting the development of bikeway networks with bicycle lanes for different roadway volumes and speeds that are safe for people of all ages and abilities.
• Carrying out speed management strategies such as implementing traffic calming road design changes, addressing speed along key corridors through infrastructure, conducting
education and outreach, setting appropriate speed limits, and making strategic use of speed safety cameras.
• Creating safe routes to school and public transit services through multiple activities that lead to people safely walking, biking, and rolling in underserved communities.
• Promoting the adoption of innovative technologies or strategies to promote safety
and protect vulnerable road users in high-traffic areas where commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, etc. interact.
• Conducting education campaigns to accompany new or innovative infrastructure, such as roundabouts, pedestrian hybrid beacons, or pedestrian-only zones.
• Implementing standard and novel data collection and analysis technologies and strategies to better understand vulnerable road user (pedestrian/bicycle/transit rider) network gaps and to collect exposure data.
• Deploying advanced transportation technologies, such as the installation of connected intersection-based safety solutions and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) advisory speed
limit systems (e.g., Intelligent Speed Assistance [ISA]).
• Combating roadway departure crashes through enhanced delineation, shoulder widening, rumble strips, and roadside safety improvements.
• Evaluating and improving the safety of intersections by considering innovative design changes, improved delineation, and advanced warning.
• Improving first responder services with improved crash data collection, formalizing
street names and addressing, and enhancing emergency vehicle warning systems.
• Unifying and integrating safety data across jurisdictions where local agencies share their crash, roadway inventory, and traffic volume data to create an analytic data resource.
1
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Discretionary Grant Opportunity AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or the
Department) ACTION: Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), Assistance Listing # 20.939 SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to solicit applications for Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) grants. Funds for the fiscal year (FY) 2022 SS4A grant program are to be awarded on a competitive basis to support planning, infrastructure, behavioral, and operational initiatives to prevent death and serious injury on roads and streets involving all roadway users, including pedestrians; bicyclists; public transportation, personal conveyance, and micromobility users; motorists; and commercial vehicle operators.1
DATES: Applications must be submitted by 5:00 PM EDT on Thursday, September 15, 2022. Late applications will not be accepted. ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted through https://www.grants.gov/.
FOR FURTHER CONTACT INFORMATION: Please contact the SS4A grant program staff via email at SS4A@dot.gov, or call Paul Teicher at 202-366-4114. A telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) is available at 202-366-3993. In addition, DOT will regularly post answers to questions and requests for clarifications, as well as schedule information regarding webinars providing additional
guidance, on DOT’s website at https://www.transportation.gov/SS4A. The deadline to submit technical questions is August 15, 2022. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each section of this notice contains information and
instructions relevant to the application process for SS4A grants, and all applicants should read this notice
in its entirety so that they have the information they need to submit eligible and competitive applications.
N/A SUMMARY INFORMATION
A PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
B FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION
C ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
D APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
E APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION
F FEDERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
G FEDERAL AWARDING AGENCY CONTACTS
H OTHER INFORMATION
Section A (Program Description) describes the Department’s goals and purpose in making awards, and Section E (Application Review Information) describes how the Department will select from eligible
1The term “pedestrians” is inclusive of all users of the pedestrian infrastructure, including persons with disabilities.
2
applications. To support applicants through the process, the Department will provide technical assistance and resources at https://www.transportation.gov/SS4A.
DEFINITIONS
Term Definition
Applicant’s Jurisdiction(s)
The U.S. Census tracts where the applicant operates or performs
their safety responsibilities. If an applicant is seeking funding for multiple jurisdictions, all of the relevant Census tracts for the jurisdictions covered by the application should be included.
Complete Streets
Standards or policies that ensure the safe and adequate accommodation of all users of the transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, personal conveyance and
micromobility users, public transportation users, children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles.2
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
A comprehensive safety action plan (referred to as Action Plan) is aimed at preventing roadway fatalities and serious injuries in a locality, Tribe, or region. This can either be a plan developed with an Action Plan Grant, or a previously developed plan that is
substantially similar and meets the eligibility requirements (e.g., a
Vision Zero plan or similar plan).
Equity
The consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment
of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.
High Injury Network
Identifies the highest concentrations of traffic crashes resulting in serious injuries and fatalities within a given roadway network or jurisdiction.
Micromobility
Any small, low-speed, human- or electric-powered transportation device, including bicycles, scooters, electric-assist bicycles, electric scooters (e-scooters), and other small, lightweight, wheeled conveyances.3
Personal Conveyance
A personal conveyance is a device, other than a transport device, used by a pedestrian for personal mobility assistance or
recreation. These devices can be motorized or human powered,
but not propelled by pedaling.4
2 The definition is based on the “Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to Congress on Opportunities and Challenges,” https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/federal-highway-administration-details-efforts-advance-complete-streets-design-model
3 Source: FHWA, Public Roads Magazine Spring 2021 “Micromobility: a Travel Innovation.” Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-21-003
4 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813251, see page 127 for the full definition as defined in the 2020 FARS/CRSS Coding and Validation Manual.
3
Term Definition
Political Subdivision of a
State
A unit of government created under the authority of State law. This includes cities, towns, counties, special districts, certain transit agencies, and similar units of local government. A transit
district, authority, or public benefit corporation is eligible if it
was created under State law, including transit authorities operated by political subdivisions of a State.
Rural
For the purposes of this NOFO, jurisdictions outside an Urbanized Area (UA) or located within Urbanized Areas with populations fewer than 200,000 will be considered rural. Lists of UAs are available on the U.S. Census Bureau website at http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/.
Safe System Approach
A guiding principle to address the safety of all road users. It involves a paradigm shift to improve safety culture, increase
collaboration across all safety stakeholders, and refocus
transportation system design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening impact forces to reduce crash severity and save lives.5,6 Underserved Community An underserved community as defined for this NOFO is consistent with the Office of Management and Budget’s Interim Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative and the Historically Disadvantaged Community designation, which includes:
• U.S. Census tracts identified in this table: https://datahub.transportation.gov/stories/s/tsyd-k6ij; • Any Tribal land; or
• Any territory or possession of the United States.
A. Program Description
1. Overview
Section 24112 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117–58, November 15, 2021; also referred to as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law” or “BIL”) authorized and appropriated $1 billion to be awarded by the Department of Transportation for FY 2022 for the SS4A grant program. This NOFO solicits applications for activities to be funded under the SS4A grant program. The FY22 funding will be
implemented, as appropriate and consistent with law, in alignment with the priorities in Executive Order
14052, Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (86 FR 64355).7 The purpose of SS4A grants is to improve roadway safety by significantly reducing or eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries through safety action plan development and implementation
focused on all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, motorists, personal
conveyance and micromobility users, and commercial vehicle operators. The program provides funding
5 See: https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS/SafeSystem
6 Safety culture can be defined as the shared values, actions, and behaviors that demonstrate a commitment to safety over competing goals and demands.
7 The priorities of Executive Order 14052, Implementation of the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act are: to invest efficiently and equitably, promote the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, improve job opportunities by focusing on high labor standards and equal employment opportunity, strengthen infrastructure resilience to hazards including climate change, and to effectively coordinate with State, local, Tribal, and territorial government partners.
4
to develop the tools to help strengthen a community’s approach to roadway safety and save lives and is designed to meet the needs of diverse local, Tribal, and regional communities that differ dramatically in size, location, and experience administering Federal funding.
2. Grant Types and Deliverables
The SS4A program provides funding for two types of grants: Action Plan Grants (for comprehensive safety action plans) and Implementation Grants. Action Plan Grants are used to develop, complete, or supplement a comprehensive safety action plan. To apply for an Implementation Grant, an eligible applicant must have a qualifying Action Plan. Implementation Grants are available to implement strategies or projects that are consistent with an existing Action Plan. Applicants for Implementation
Grants can self-certify that they have in place one or more plans that together are substantially similar to and meet the eligibility requirements for an Action Plan. i. Action Plan Grants
An Action Plan is the foundation of the SS4A grant program. Action Plan Grants provide Federal
funds to eligible applicants to develop or complete an Action Plan. Action Plan Grants may also fund
supplemental Action Plan activities. The goal of an Action Plan is to develop a holistic, well-defined strategy to prevent roadway fatalities and serious injuries in a locality, Tribe, or region. Further information on eligibility requirements is in Section C.
The primary deliverable for an Action Plan Grant is a publicly available Action Plan. For the
purposes of the SS4A grant program, an Action Plan includes the components in Table 1. DOT considers the process of developing an Action Plan to be critical for success, and the components reflect a process-oriented set of activities.
Table 1: Action Plan Components
Component Description Leadership Commitment and Goal
Setting
An official public commitment (e.g., resolution, policy, ordinance, etc.) by a high-ranking official and/or governing body (e.g., Mayor, City Council, Tribal Council, MPO Policy Board, etc.) to an eventual goal of zero roadway
fatalities and serious injuries. The commitment must include a goal and
timeline for eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries achieved through one, or both, of the following: (1) the target date for achieving zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries, OR
(2) an ambitious percentage reduction of roadway fatalities and serious
injuries by a specific date with an eventual goal of eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries.
Planning Structure A committee, task force, implementation group, or similar body charged with oversight of the Action Plan development, implementation, and monitoring.
5
Component Description Safety Analysis Analysis of existing conditions and historical trends that provides a baseline level of crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries across a jurisdiction, locality, Tribe, or region. Includes an analysis of locations where there are
crashes and the severity of the crashes, as well as contributing factors and
crash types by relevant road users (motorists, people walking, transit users, etc.). Analysis of systemic and specific safety needs is also performed, as needed (e.g., high-risk road features, specific safety needs of relevant road users, public health approaches, analysis of the built environment,
demographic, and structural issues, etc.). To the extent practical, the analysis
should include all roadways within the jurisdiction, without regard for ownership. Based on the analysis performed, a geospatial identification of higher-risk locations is developed (a High-Injury Network or equivalent). Engagement and Collaboration
Robust engagement with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups, that allows for both community representation and feedback. Information received from engagement and collaboration is analyzed and incorporated into the Action Plan. Overlapping
jurisdictions are included in the process. Plans and processes are coordinated and aligned with other governmental plans and planning processes to the extent practical.
Equity Considerations Plan development using inclusive and representative processes. Underserved communities are identified through data and other analyses in collaboration with appropriate partners.8 Analysis includes both population characteristics and initial equity impact assessments of the proposed projects and strategies.
Policy and Process Changes
Assessment of current policies, plans, guidelines, and/or standards (e.g., manuals) to identify opportunities to improve how processes prioritize transportation safety. The Action Plan discusses implementation through the
adoption of revised or new policies, guidelines, and/or standards, as appropriate.
Strategy and
Project Selections
Identification of a comprehensive set of projects and strategies, shaped by
data, the best available evidence and noteworthy practices, as well as stakeholder input and equity considerations, that will address the safety problems described in the Action Plan. These strategies and countermeasures focus on a Safe System Approach, effective interventions, and consider
multidisciplinary activities. To the extent practical, data limitations are
identified and mitigated. Once identified, the list of projects and strategies is prioritized in a list that provides time ranges for when the strategies and countermeasures will be
deployed (e.g., short-, mid-, and long-term timeframes). The list should
include specific projects and strategies, or descriptions of programs of projects and strategies, and explains prioritization criteria used. The list should contain interventions focused on infrastructure, behavioral, and/or operational safety.
8 An underserved community as defined for this NOFO is consistent with the Office of Management and Budget’s Interim Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/M-21-28.pdf) and the Historically Disadvantaged Community designation, which includes U.S. Census tracts identified in this table https://datahub.transportation.gov/stories/s/tsyd-k6ij; any Tribal land; or any territory or possession of the United States.
6
Component Description Progress and Transparency Method to measure progress over time after an Action Plan is developed or updated, including outcome data. Means to ensure ongoing transparency is established with residents and other relevant stakeholders. Must include, at a
minimum, annual public and accessible reporting on progress toward
reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries, and public posting of the Action Plan online.
a) Supplemental Action Plan Activities:
Supplemental action plan activities support or enhance an existing Action Plan. To fund supplemental Action Plan activities through the SS4A program, an applicant must have an existing Action Plan, or a
plan that is substantially similar and meets the eligibility requirements for having an existing plan. The
plan components may be contained within several documents. Table 2 in Section C is a Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet with instructions to determine whether an existing plan meets the eligibility requirements. Supplemental action plan activities could include, but are not limited to: a second round of analysis; expanded data collection and evaluation using integrated data; testing action plan concepts
before project and strategy implementation; feasibility studies using quick-build strategies that inform
permanent projects in the future (e.g., paint, plastic bollards, etc.); follow-up stakeholder engagement and collaboration; targeted equity assessments; progress report development; and complementary planning efforts such as speed management plans, accessibility and transition plans, racial and health equity plans, and lighting management plans. Additional information on supplemental action plan activities is located
at https://www.transportation.gov/SS4A.
Applicants that have an existing plan that is substantially similar to and meets the eligibility requirements of an Action Plan may alternatively choose to fund supplemental Action Plan activities through an application for an Implementation Grant rather than an Action Plan Grant. See Section A.2.ii
below.
ii. Implementation Grants
Implementation Grants fund projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan that address roadway safety problems. Implementation Grants may also fund associated planning and design and supplemental
Action Plan activities in support of an existing Action Plan. DOT encourages Implementation Grant
applicants to include supplemental Action Plan activities in their application to further improve and update existing plans. Applicants must have an existing Action Plan to apply for Implementation Grants or have an existing plan that is substantially similar and meets the eligibility requirements of an Action Plan. If applicants do not have an existing Action Plan, they should apply for Action Plan Grants and
NOT Implementation Grants. The plan components may be contained within several documents. Table 2
in Section C is a Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet with instructions to determine eligibility to apply for an Implementation Grant. Additional information on eligibility requirements and eligible activities is in Section C below.
3. SS4A Grant Priorities
This section discusses priorities specific to SS4A and those related to the Department’s overall mission, which are reflected in the selection criteria and NOFO requirements. Successful grant applications will demonstrate engagement with a variety of public and private stakeholders and seek to adopt innovative technologies and strategies to:
7
• Promote safety;
• Employ low-cost, high-impact strategies that can improve safety over a wider geographic
area;
• Ensure equitable investment in the safety needs of underserved communities, which includes
both underserved urban and rural communities;
• Incorporate evidence-based projects and strategies; and
• Align with the Department’s mission and with priorities such as equity, climate and
sustainability, quality job creation, and economic strength and global competitiveness.
The Department seeks to award Action Plan Grants based on safety impact, equity, and other safety considerations. For Implementation Grants, DOT seeks to make awards to projects and strategies that save lives and reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries; incorporate equity, engagement, and collaboration into how projects and strategies are executed; use effective practices and strategies; consider climate change, sustainability, and economic competitiveness in project and strategy
implementation; and will be able to complete the full scope of funded projects and strategies within five years after the establishment of a grant agreement. Section D provides more information on the specific measures an application should demonstrate to support these goals. The SS4A grant program aligns with both Departmental and Biden-Harris Administration activities
and priorities. The National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS, issued January 27, 2022) commits the Department to respond to the current crisis in roadway fatalities by “taking substantial, comprehensive action to significantly reduce serious and fatal injuries on the Nation’s roadways,” in pursuit of the goal of achieving zero roadway deaths.9 DOT recognizes that zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on
our roads, and achieving that is our long-term safety goal. The outcomes that are anticipated from the
SS4A program also support the FY 2022-2026 DOT Strategic Plan and the accompanying safety performance goals such as a medium-term goal of a two-thirds reduction in roadway fatalities by 2040.10 As part of the NRSS, the Department adopted the Safe System Approach as a guiding principle to
advance roadway safety. The Safe System Approach addresses the safety of all road users. It involves a
paradigm shift to improve safety culture, increase collaboration across all safety stakeholders, and refocus transportation system design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening impact forces to reduce crash severity and save lives. For more information on the Safe System Approach, see the NRSS.
DOT encourages communities to adopt and implement Complete Streets policies that prioritize the safety of all users in transportation network planning, design, construction, and operations.11 A full transition to a Complete Streets design model requires leadership, identification and elimination of barriers, and development of new policies, rules, and procedures to prioritize safety. A Complete Street
includes, but is not limited to: sidewalks, curb ramps, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders), special bus
lanes, accessible public transportation stops, safe and accommodating crossing options, median islands, pedestrian signals, curb extensions, narrower travel lanes, and roundabouts.12 Recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to ensure the accessibility of pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way. See Section F.2 of this NOFO for program requirements.
9 https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS 10 https://www.transportation.gov/dot-strategic-plan
11 Complete Streets are defined in the Definitions table at the beginning of the document. 12 More information on Complete Streets can be found at https://highways.dot.gov/complete-streets
8
The NOFO aligns with and considers Departmental policy priorities that have a nexus to roadway safety and grant funding. As part of the Department’s implementation of Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (86 FR 7619), the Department seeks to fund
applications that, to the extent possible, target at least 40 percent of benefits towards low-income and
underserved communities. DOT also seeks to award funds under the SS4A grant program that proactively address equity and barriers to opportunity, or redress prior inequities and barriers to opportunity. DOT supports the policies in Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (86 FR 7009), to pursue a comprehensive approach to
advancing equity for all, including people of color, rural communities, and others who have been
historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. An important area for DOT’s focus is the disproportionate, adverse safety impacts that affect certain groups on our roadways, particularly people walking and biking in underserved communities. See Section F.2.i of this NOFO for equity-related program requirements. As part of the United States’ commitment to a whole-of-government approach to reaching net-zero
emissions economy-wide by 2050 and a 50–52 percent reduction in emissions from 2005 levels by 2030,
BIL and its associated transportation funding programs permit historic investments to improve the resilience of transportation infrastructure, helping States and communities prepare for hazards such as wildfires, floods, storms, and droughts exacerbated by climate change. DOT’s goal is to encourage the advancement of projects and strategies that address climate change and sustainability. To enable this, the
Department encourages applicants to consider climate change and sustainability throughout the planning
and project development process, including the extent to which projects and strategies under the SS4A grant program align with the President’s greenhouse gas reduction, climate resilience, and environmental justice commitments.
The Department intends to use the SS4A grant program to support the creation of good-paying jobs
with the free and fair choice to join a union, and the incorporation of strong labor standards and workforce programs, in particular registered apprenticeships, joint labor-management programs, or other high-quality workforce training programs, including high-quality pre-apprenticeships tied to registered apprenticeships, in project planning stages and program delivery. Grant applications that incorporate such
considerations support a strong economy and labor market.
Consistent with the Department’s Rural Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES) initiative, the Department seeks to award funding to rural applications that address disproportionately high fatality rates in rural communities. For applicants seeking to use innovative
technologies and strategies, the Department’s Innovation Principles serve as a guide to ensure
innovations reduce deaths and serious injuries while committing to the highest standards of safety across technologies.13 B. Federal Award Information
1. Total Funding Available
The BIL established the SS4A program with $5,000,000,000 in advanced appropriations in Division J, including $1,000,000,000 for FY 2022. Therefore, this Notice makes available up to $1 billion for FY 2022 grants under the SS4A program. Refer to Section D for greater detail on additional funding considerations and Section D.5 for funding restrictions.
13 https://www.transportation.gov/priorities/innovation/us-dot-innovation-principles. Released January 6, 2022.
9
2. Availability of Funds
Grant funding obligation occurs when a selected applicant and DOT enter into a written grant agreement after the applicant has satisfied applicable administrative requirements. Unless authorized by DOT in writing after DOT’s announcement of FY 2022 SS4A grant awards, any costs incurred prior to DOT’s obligation of funds for activities (“pre-award costs”) are ineligible for reimbursement. All
FY 2022 SS4A funds must be expended within five years after the grant agreement is executed and DOT obligates the funds. 3. Award Size and Anticipated Quantity
In FY 2022, DOT expects to award hundreds of Action Plan Grants, and up to one hundred
Implementation Grants. The Department reserves the right to make more, or fewer, awards. DOT
reserves the discretion to alter minimum and maximum award sizes upon receiving the full pool of applications and assessing the needs of the program in relation to the SS4A grant priorities in Section A.3.
i. Action Plan Grants
For Action Plan Grants, award amounts will be based on estimated costs, with an expected minimum of $200,000 for all applicants, an expected maximum of $1,000,000 for a political subdivision of a State or a federally recognized Tribal government, and an expected maximum of $5,000,000 for a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or a joint application comprised of a multijurisdictional group of entities
that is regional in scope (e.g., a multijurisdictional group of counties, a council of governments and cities
within the same region, etc.). The Department will consider applications with funding requests under the expected minimum award amount. DOT reserves the right to make Action Grant awards less than the total amount requested by the applicant.
Joint applications that engage multiple jurisdictions in the same region are encouraged, in order to
ensure collaboration across multiple jurisdictions and leverage the expertise of agencies with established financial relationships with DOT and knowledge of Federal grant administration requirements. Applicants may propose development of a single Action Plan covering all jurisdictions, or several plans for individual jurisdictions, administered by the leading agency.
ii. Implementation Plan Grants
For Implementation Grants, DOT expects the minimum award will be $5,000,000 and the maximum award will be $30,000,000 for political subdivisions of a State. For applicants who are federally recognized Tribal governments or applicants in rural areas, DOT expects the minimum award will be $3,000,000 and the maximum award will be $30,000,000. For an MPO or a joint application comprised
of a multijurisdictional group of entities that is regional in scope, the expected maximum award will be $50,000,000. For the purposes of the SS4A grant program award size minimum, rural is defined as an area outside an Urbanized Area (UA) or located within a UA with a population of fewer than 200,000.14 DOT reserves the right to make Implementation Grant awards less than the total amount requested by the
applicant.
14 Current lists of Urbanized Areas are available on the U.S. Census Bureau website at http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/uauc_refmap/ua/. For the purposes of the SS4A program, Urbanized Areas with populations fewer than 200,000 will be considered rural.
10
4. Start Dates and Period of Performance
DOT expects to obligate SS4A award funding via a signed grant agreement between the Department and the recipient, as flexibly and expeditiously as possible, within 12 months after awards have been announced. Applicants who have never received Federal funding from DOT before are encouraged to partner with eligible applicants within the same region, such as an MPO, that have established financial
relationships with DOT and knowledge of Federal grant administration requirements. While States are not eligible applicants and cannot be a co-applicant, eligible applicants are encouraged to separately partner with States and other entities experienced with administering Federal grants, outside of the SS4A grant award process, to ensure effective administration of a grant award. The expected period of performance for Action Plan Grant agreements is between 12 and 24 months. The period of performance
for Implementation Grant agreements may not exceed five years. Because award recipients under this program may be first-time recipients of Federal funding, DOT is committed to implementing the program as flexibly as permitted by statute and to providing assistance to help award recipients through the process of securing a grant agreement and delivering both Action Plan
activities and Implementation Grant projects and strategies. 5. Data Collection Requirements
Under the BIL, the Department shall post on a publicly available website best practices and lessons learned for preventing roadway fatalities and serious injuries pursuant to strategies or interventions
implemented under SS4A. Additionally, DOT shall evaluate and incorporate, as appropriate, the
effectiveness of strategies and interventions implemented under the SS4A grant program.15 The Department intends to measure safety outcomes through a combination of grant agreement activities and data collections, DOT data collections already underway, and program evaluations separate from the individual grant agreements in accordance with Section F.3.iii. The grant data-collection requirements
reflect the need to build evidence of noteworthy strategies and what works. The Department expects to
use the data and outcome information collected as part of the SS4A in evaluations focused on before and after studies. All award recipients shall submit a report that describes:
• The costs of each eligible project and strategy carried out using the grant;
• The roadway safety outcomes and any additional benefits (e.g., increased walking, biking, or
transit use without a commensurate increase in crashes, etc.) that each such project and strategy
has generated, as—
o Identified in the grant application; and
o Measured by data, to the maximum extent practicable; and
• The lessons learned and any recommendations relating to future projects or strategies to prevent
death and serious injury on roads and streets.
All recipients must provide aggregated annual crash data on serious injuries and fatalities for the
duration of the period of performance for the jurisdiction or jurisdictions for which funds were awarded.
These data will provide the information for metrics on changes in serious injuries and fatalities over time.
15 BIL specifically cites Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety
Offices, Ninth Edition or any successor document, but DOT also is to consider applied research focused on infrastructure and operational projects and strategies.
11
Implementation Grant recipients must also provide crash data on serious injury and fatalities in the locations where projects and strategies are implemented, which are expected to include crash characteristics and contributing factor information associated with the safety problems being addressed. Data that measure outcomes for the specific safety problems addressed are required and could include,
but are not limited to, aggregated information by road user, safety issue, and demographic characteristics
such as race and gender. For Implementation Grants that undertake projects and strategies to foster applied research and experimentation to inform project and strategy effectiveness, additional data collection requirements will be negotiated with the applicant before a grant agreement is established. Federally recognized Tribal governments receiving grants may request alternative data collection
requirements during grant agreement formulation, as appropriate. This information will be gathered on a
quarterly basis in a Performance Progress Report (SF-PPR).16 To fulfill the data collection requirements and in accordance with the U.S. DOT Public Access Plan, award recipients must consider, budget for, and implement appropriate data management, for data and
information outputs acquired or generated during the course of the grant.17, 18 Applicants are expected to
account for data and performance reporting in their budget submission. C. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
Eligible applicants for SS4A grants are (1) a metropolitan planning organization (MPO); (2) a political subdivision of a State or territory; (3) a federally recognized Tribal government; and (4) a multijurisdictional group of entities described in any of the aforementioned three types of entities. A multijurisdictional group of entities described in (4) should identify a lead applicant as the primary point of contact. For the purposes of this NOFO, a political subdivision of a State under (2), above, is defined
as a unit of government under the authority of State law. This includes cities, towns, counties, special districts, and similar units of local government. A transit district, authority, or public benefit corporation is eligible if it was created under State law, including transit authorities operated by political subdivisions of a State. States are not eligible applicants, but DOT encourages applicants to coordinate with State entities, as appropriate.
Eligible MPOs, transit agencies, and multijurisdictional groups of entities with a regional scope are encouraged to support subdivisions of a State such as cities, towns, and counties with smaller populations within their region. The Department strongly encourages such joint applications for Action Plan Grants, and for applicants who have never received Federal funding and can jointly apply with entities
experienced executing DOT grants. An eligible applicant for Implementation Grants must also meet at least one of these conditions: (1) have ownership and/or maintenance responsibilities over a roadway network; (2) have safety responsibilities that affect roadways; or (3) have agreement from the agency that has ownership and/or
maintenance responsibilities for the roadway within the applicant’s jurisdiction. For the purposes of this NOFO, an applicant’s jurisdiction is defined as the U.S. Census tracts where the applicant operates or performs their safety responsibilities.
16 https://www.sbir.gov/sites/default/files/SF%20PPR.pdf
17 https://doi.org/10.21949/1520559 18 United States. Department of Transportation. (2022) DOT Public Access [Home page]. https://doi.org/10.21949/1503647
12
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
The Federal share of a SS4A grant may not exceed 80 percent of total eligible activity costs. Recipients are required to contribute a local matching share of no less than 20 percent of eligible activity costs. All matching funds must be from non-Federal sources. In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.306, grant recipients may use in-kind or cash contributions toward local match requirements so long as those
contributions meet the requirements under 2 CFR § 200.306(b). Matching funds may include funding from the applicant, or other SS4A-eligible non-Federal sources partnering with the applicant, which could include, but is not limited to, funds from the State. Any in-kind contributions used to fulfill the cost-share requirement for Action Plan and Implementation Grants must: be in accordance with the cost principles in 2 CFR § 200 Subpart E; include documented evidence of completion within the period of
performance; and support the execution of the eligible activities in Section C.4. SS4A funds will reimburse recipients only after a grant agreement has been executed, allowable expenses are incurred, and valid requests for reimbursement are submitted. Grant agreements are expected to be administered on a reimbursement basis, and at the Department’s discretion alternative
funding arrangements may be established on a case-by-case basis. 3. Grant Eligibility Requirements
If an applicant is eligible for both an Action Plan Grant and an Implementation Grant, the applicant may only apply for an Action Plan Grant or an Implementation Grant, not both. An eligible applicant
may only submit one application to the funding opportunity. Action Plan Grant funding recipients are not precluded from applying for Implementation Grants in future funding rounds. i. Action Plan Grant Eligibility Requirements
The Action Plan Grant eligibility requirements are contingent on whether an applicant is requesting
funds to develop or complete an Action Plan, or if the applicant is requesting funds for supplemental
action plan activities. Applicants may not apply to develop or complete an Action Plan and fund supplemental action plan activities in the current round of funding. a) Eligibility Requirements to Develop or Complete an Action Plan
Any applicant that meets the eligibility requirements may apply for an Action Plan Grant to develop
or complete an Action Plan. Applicants with an existing Action Plan may also apply to develop a new Action Plan. b) Eligibility Requirements for Supplemental Action Plan Activities
Applicants for Action Plan Grants to fund supplemental action plan activities must either have an
established Action Plan with all components described in Table 1 in Section A, or an existing plan that is substantially similar and meets the eligibility requirements. Table 2 below provides instructions to determine eligibility for applicants that have a substantially similar plan. The components required for an established plan to be substantially similar to an Action Plan may be found in multiple plans. State-level action plans (e.g., a Strategic Highway Safety Plan required in 23 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 148, State
Highway Safety Plans required in 23 U.S.C. § 402, etc.) or Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans in 49 U.S.C. § 5329 cannot be used as an established plan. It is recommended that applicants include this eligibility worksheet as part of their narrative submission. If this Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet
13
is not used, applicants must describe how their established plan is substantially similar to an Action Plan as part of the Narrative, based on the criteria in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet
Worksheet instructions: The purpose of the worksheet is to determine whether an applicant’s existing plan is substantially similar to an Action Plan, or not. For each question below, answer yes or no. For each yes, cite the specific page in your existing Action Plan or other plan/plans that corroborate your response, provide supporting documentation, or provide other
evidence. Refer to Table 1 for further details on each component. Note: The term Action Plan
is used in this worksheet; it covers either a stand-alone Action Plan or components of other plans that combined comprise an Action Plan.
Instructions to affirm eligibility: Based on the questions in this eligibility worksheet, an
applicant is eligible to apply for an Action Plan Grant that funds supplemental action plan activities, or an Implementation Grant, if the following two conditions are met:
• Questions 3, 7, and 9 are answered “yes.” If Question 3, 7, or 9 is answered “no,” the plan
is not substantially similar and ineligible to apply for Action Plan funds specifically for a
supplemental action plan activity, nor an Implementation Grant.
• At least four of the six remaining Questions are answered “yes”
(Questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, or 8).
If both conditions are met, an applicant has a substantially similar plan.
Question Response, Document and Page Number 1. Are both of the following true:
• Did a high-ranking official and/or governing body in the
jurisdiction publicly commit to an eventual goal of zero
roadway fatalities and serious injuries?
• Did the commitment include either setting a target date
to reach zero, OR setting one or more targets to achieve
significant declines in roadway fatalities and serious
injuries by a specific date?
2. To develop the Action Plan, was a committee, task force,
implementation group, or similar body established and
charged with the plan’s development, implementation, and
monitoring?
3. Does the Action Plan include all of the following?
• Analysis of existing conditions and historical trends to
baseline the level of crashes involving fatalities and
serious injuries across a jurisdiction, locality, Tribe, or
region;
• Analysis of the location(s) where there are crashes, the
severity, as well as contributing factors and crash types;
14
• Analysis of systemic and specific safety needs is also
performed, as needed (e.g., high risk road features,
specific safety needs of relevant road users; and
• A geospatial identification (geographic or locational
data using maps) of higher risk locations.
4. Did the Action Plan development include all of the
following activities?
• Engagement with the public and relevant stakeholders,
including the private sector and community groups;
• Incorporation of information received from the
engagement and collaboration into the plan; and
• Coordination that included inter- and intra-
governmental cooperation and collaboration, as
appropriate.
5. Did the Action Plan development include all of the
following?
• Considerations of equity using inclusive and
representative processes;
• The identification of underserved communities through
data; and
• Equity analysis, in collaboration with appropriate
partners, focused on initial equity impact assessments of
the proposed projects and strategies, and population
characteristics.
6. Are both of the following true?
• The plan development included an assessment of current
policies, plans, guidelines, and/or standards to identify
opportunities to improve how processes prioritize
safety; and
• The plan discusses implementation through the adoption
of revised or new policies, guidelines, and/or standards.
7. Does the plan identify a comprehensive set of projects and
strategies to address the safety problems identified in the
Action Plan, time ranges when the strategies and projects
will be deployed, and explain project prioritization criteria?
15
8. Does the plan include all of the following?
• A description of how progress will be measured over
time that includes, at a minimum, outcome data
• The plan is posted publicly online.
9. Was the plan finalized and/or last updated between 2017
and 2022?
ii. Implementation Grant Eligibility Requirements
To apply for an Implementation Grant, the applicant must certify that they have an existing plan which is substantially similar to an Action Plan. The plan or plans should be uploaded as an attachment to your application. Use Table 2, Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet, from the previous section to determine eligibility. The existing plan must be focused, at least in part, on the roadway network within the applicant’s jurisdiction. The components required for an existing plan to be substantially similar to an
Action Plan may be found in multiple plans. State-level action plans (e.g., a Strategic Highway Safety Plan required in 23 U.S.C. § 148, State Highway Safety Plans required in 23 U.S.C. § 402, Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans required in 49 U.S.C. § 31102, etc.) as well as Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans in 49 U.S.C. § 5329 cannot be used as an established plan to apply for an Implementation Grant. 4. Eligible Activities and Costs
i. Eligible Activities
Broadly, eligible activity costs must comply with the cost principles set forth in with 2 CFR, Subpart E (i.e., 2 CFR § 200.403 and § 200.405). DOT reserves the right to make cost eligibility determinations
on a case-by-case basis. Eligible activities for grant funding include the following three elements:
• (A) developing a comprehensive safety action plan or Action Plan (i.e., the activities outlined
in Section A.2.i in Table 1 and the list of supplemental Action Plan activities);
• (B) conducting planning, design, and development activities for projects and strategies
identified in an Action Plan; and
• (C) carrying out projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan.
For Action Plan Grants, eligible activities and costs only include those that directly assist in the development of the Action Plan, element (A), and/or supplemental action plan activities in support of an existing Action Plan or plans.
For Implementation Grants, activities must include element (C) “carrying out projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan,” and may include element (B) “conducting planning, design, and development activities for projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan” and/or element (A) “supplemental action plan activities in support of an existing Action Plan.” Projects and strategies
identified in element (C) must be either infrastructure, behavioral, or operational activities identified in the Action Plan, and must be directly related to addressing the safety problem(s) identified in the application and Action Plan. Examples of eligible Implementation Grant activities are listed on the SS4A website located at www.transportation.gov/SS4A. The following activities are not eligible for element (C) “projects and strategies” funding:
16
• Projects and strategies whose primary purpose is not roadway safety.
• Projects and strategies exclusively focused on non-roadway modes of transportation, including
air, rail, marine, and pipeline. Roadway intersections with other modes of transportation (e.g., at-
grade highway rail crossings, etc.) are eligible activities.
• Capital projects to construct new roadways used for motor vehicles. New roadways exclusively
for non-motorists is an eligible activity if the primary purpose is safety-related.
• Infrastructure projects primarily intended to expand capacity to improve Levels of Service for
motorists on an existing roadway, such as the creation of additional lanes.
• Maintenance activities for an existing roadway primarily to maintain a state of good repair.
However, roadway modifications on an existing roadway in support of specific safety-related
projects identified in an Action Plan are eligible activities.
• Development or implementation of a public transportation agency safety plan (PTASP) required
by 49 U.S.C. § 5329. However, a PTASP that identifies and addresses risks to pedestrians,
bicyclists, personal conveyance and micromobility users, transit riders, and others may inform
Action Plan development.
All projects and strategies must have equity—the consistent, fair, just, and impartial treatment of all people—at their foundation. This includes traffic enforcement strategies. As part of the Safe System Approach adopted in the USDOT’s National Roadway Safety Strategy, any activities related to compliance or enforcement efforts to make our roads safer should affirmatively improve equity outcomes
as part of a comprehensive approach to achieve zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The SS4A
program can be used to support safety projects and strategies that address serious safety violations of drivers (e.g., speeding, alcohol and drug-impaired driving, etc.), so long as the proposed strategies are data-driven and demonstrate a process in alignment with goals around community policing and in accordance with Federal civil rights laws and regulations.19
Funds may not be used, either directly or indirectly, to support or oppose union organizing.
ii. Project and Strategy Location
For Implementation Grants, applications must identify the problems to be addressed, the relevant geographic locations, and the projects and strategies they plan to implement, based on their Action Plan or established plan. This should include specific intervention types to the extent practicable. To provide flexibility in the implementation of projects and strategies that involve systemic safety strategies or
bundling of similar countermeasures, an applicant may wait to specify specific site locations and designs for the projects and strategies as part of executing the grant agreement, if necessary, upon approval of the Department and so long as the identified site locations and designs remain consistent with the intent of the award.
19 For one such example see https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-p157-pub.pdf.
17
D. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application Package
All grant application materials can be accessed at grants.gov. Applicants must submit their applications via grants.gov under the Notice of Funding Opportunity Number cited herein. Potential
applicants may also request paper copies of materials at: Telephone: (202)-366-4114 Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
W84-322 Washington, DC 20590 2. Content and Form of Application Submission
The Action Plan Grant and Implementation Grant have different application submission and
supporting document requirements.
i. Action Plan Grant Application Submissions
All Action Plan Grant applications must submit the following Standard Forms (SFs):
• Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424)
• Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (SF-424A)
• Assurances for Non-Construction Programs (SF-424B)
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL)
In addition to the SFs above, the applicant must provide: a) Key Information; b) Narrative; c) Self-
Certification Eligibility Worksheet, if applying for action plan supplemental activities; d) Map; and e) Budget. While it is not required to conform to the recommended templates below, it is strongly encouraged to provide the information using the specific structure provided in this NOFO.
a) Key Information Table
Lead Applicant If Multijurisdictional, additional eligible entities jointly applying
Total jurisdiction population
Count of motor-vehicle-involved roadway fatalities from
2016 to 2020
Fatality rate
Population in Underserved Communities States(s) in which projects and strategies are located
Costs by State (if project spans more than one State)
Instructions for a):
• The lead applicant is the primary jurisdiction, and the lead eligible entity applying for the grant.
18
• If the application is multijurisdictional, list additional eligible entities within the multijurisdictional
group of entities. If a single applicant, mark as not applicable.
• Total jurisdiction population is based on 2020 U.S. Census data and includes the total population of
all Census tracts where the applicant operates or performs their safety responsibilities.
• The count of roadway fatalities from 2016 to 2020 in the jurisdiction based on DOT’s Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, an alternative traffic fatality dataset, or a comparable data
set with roadway fatality information.20 This should be a number. Cite the source, if using a dataset
different from FARS, with a link to the data if publicly available.
• The fatality rate, calculated using the average from the total count of fatalities from 2016 to 2020
based on FARS data, an alternative traffic fatality dataset, or a comparable data set with roadway
fatality information, which is divided by the population of the applicant’s jurisdiction based on 2020
U.S. Census population data. This should be a number. Cite the source, if using a dataset different
from FARS.
• Check one of the three available boxes to the right of the column with the three Action Plan types:
new Action Plan; Action Plan completion; or supplemental action plan activities.
• The population in underserved communities should be a percentage obtained by dividing the
population living in Census tracts with an Underserved Community designation divided by the total
population living in the jurisdiction.21 For multi-jurisdictional groups, provide this information for
each jurisdiction in the group.
• Note the State(s) of the applicants. If a federally recognized Tribal government, mark as not
applicable.
• Allocate funding request amounts by State based on where the funds are expected to be spent. If the
projects and strategies are located in only one State, put the full funding request amount.
c) Narrative
In narrative form, the applicant should respond to the Action Plan Grant selection criteria described in Section E.1.i to affirm whether the applicant has considered certain activities that will enhance the
implementation of an Action Plan once developed or updated. The narrative must be no longer than 300
words. d) Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet
If applying for Action Plan Grant funding supplemental action plan activities, attach the filled out
Table 2 Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet. If applying to develop or complete an Action Plan, do
not include Table 2.
20 https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars. To query the FARS data see https://cdan.dot.gov/query. To query the FARS data see https://cdan.dot.gov/query. For the Census data visit https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/rdo/summary-files.html 21 https://datahub.transportation.gov/stories/s/tsyd-k6ij
19
e) Map
The applicant must submit a map that shows the location of the jurisdiction and highlights the roadway network under the applicant’s jurisdiction. The permissible formats include: map web link (e.g., Google, Bing, etc.), PDF, image file, vector file, or shapefile.
f) Budget
Applicants are required to provide a brief budget summary and a high-level overview of estimated activity costs, as organized by all major cost elements. The budget only includes costs associated with the eligible activity (A) developing a comprehensive safety action plan and may include supplemental action plan activities. Funding sources should be grouped into two categories: SS4A Funding Federal share, and
non-Federal share funds. The costs or value of in-kind matches should also be provided. This budget
should not include any previously incurred expenses, or costs to be incurred before the time of award. DOT requires applicants use SF-424A to provide this information. ii. Implementation Grant Application Submissions
Implementation Grant applications must submit the following Standard Forms (SFs):
• Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424)
• Budget Information for Construction Programs (SF-424C)
• Assurances for Construction Programs (SF-424D)
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL)
In addition to the SFs above, the applicant must provide: a) Key Information; b) Narrative; c) Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet; and d) Budget. While it is not required to conform to the recommended template in the Key Information Table below, it is strongly encouraged to provide the
information using the specific structure provided in this NOFO. a) Key Information Table
Application Name
Lead Applicant
If Multijurisdictional, additional eligible entities jointly applying
Roadway safety responsibility Ownership and/or maintenance responsibilities over a roadway network
Safety responsibilities that affect roadways
Have an agreement from the agency that has ownership and/or maintenance responsibilities for the roadway within
the applicant’s jurisdiction
Population in Underserved Communities
States(s) in which activities are located
Costs by State
Funds to Underserved Communities
20
Cost total for eligible activity (A) supplemental action plan activities in support
of an existing Action Plan
Cost total for eligible activity (B) conducting
planning, design, and development activities
for projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan
Cost total for eligible activity (C) carrying out projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan
Action Plan or Established Plan Link
Instructions for a)
• Provide a grant application name to accompany the grant application.
• The lead applicant is the primary jurisdiction, and the lead eligible entity applying for the grant.
• If the application is multijurisdictional, list additional eligible entities within the multijurisdictional
group of entities. If a single applicant, leave blank.
• The roadway safety responsibility response should check one of the three answers to meet eligibility
conditions.
• The population in Underserved Community Census Tracts should be a percentage number obtained
by dividing the population living in Underserved Community Census tracts within the jurisdiction
divided by the total population living in the jurisdiction.
• Identify State(s) in which the applicant is located in. If a federally recognized Tribal government,
leave blank.
• The total amount of funds to underserved communities is the amount of spent in, and provide safety
benefits to, locations in census tracts designated as underserved communities.
• For each State, allocate funding request amounts divided up by State based on where the funds are
expected to be spent. If the applicant is located in in only one State, put the full funding request
amount only.
• Provide a weblink to the plan that serves as the Action Plan or established plan that is substantially
similar. This may be attached as a supporting PDF document instead; if so please write “See
Supporting Documents.”
b) Narrative
The Department recommends that the narrative follows the outline below to address the program requirements and assist evaluators in locating relevant information. The narrative may not exceed 10 pages in length, excluding cover pages and the table of contents. Key information, the Self-Certification
Eligibility Worksheet, and Budget sections do not count towards the 10-page limit. Appendices may include documents supporting assertions or conclusions made in the 10-page narrative and also do not count towards the 10-page limit. If possible, website links to supporting documentation should be provided rather than copies of these supporting materials. If supporting documents are submitted, applicants should clearly identify within the narrative the relevance of each supporting document.
21
I. Overview See D.2.ii.b.I
II. Location See D.2.ii.b.II
III. Response to Selection Criteria See D.2.ii.b.III and Section E.1.ii
IV. Project Readiness See D.2.ii.b.IV
I. Overview
This section should provide an introduction, describe the safety context, jurisdiction, and any high-level background information that would be useful to understand the rest of the application.
II. Location
This section of the application should describe the jurisdiction’s location, the jurisdiction’s High-Injury Network or equivalent geospatial identification (geographic or locational data using maps) of higher risk locations, and potential locations and corridors of the projects and strategies. Note that the applicant is not required to provide exact locations for each project or strategy; rather, the application
should identify which geographic locations are under consideration for projects and strategies to be implemented and what analysis will be used in a final determination. III. Response to Selection Criteria
This section should respond to the criteria for evaluation and selection in Section E.1.ii of this Notice
and include compelling narrative to highlight how the application aligns with criteria #1 Safety Impact;
#2 Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration; #3 Effective Practices and Strategies; and #4 Climate Change and Sustainability, and Economic Competitiveness. Note, criterion #1 Safety Impact assesses “implementation cost” information, which will be described in SF-424C and the d) Budget of the narrative and does not need to be duplicated in this portion of the narrative.
The applicant must respond to each of the four criteria. Applicants are not required to follow a specific format, but the organization provided, which addresses each criterion separately, promotes a clear discussion that assists evaluators. To minimize redundant information in the application, the Department encourages applicants to cross-reference from this section of their application to relevant
substantive information in other sections of the application. To the extent practical, DOT encourages
applicants to use and reference existing content from their Action Plan/established plan(s) to demonstrate their comprehensive, evidence-based approach to improving safety. IV. Project Readiness
The applicant must provide information to demonstrate the applicant’s ability to substantially execute
and complete the full scope of work in the application proposal within five years of when the grant is executed, with a particular focus on design and construction, as well as environmental, permitting, and approval processes. Applicants should indicate if they will be seeking permission to use roadway design standards that are different from those generally applied by the State in which the project is located. As
part of this portion of the narrative, the applicant must include a detailed activity schedule that identifies
all major project and strategy milestones. Examples of such milestones include: State and local planning approvals; start and completion of National Environmental Policy Act and other Federal environmental
22
reviews and approvals including permitting; design completion; right of way acquisition; approval of plans, specifications, and estimates; procurement; State and local approvals; public involvement; partnership and implementation agreements; and construction. Environmental review documentation should describe in detail known project impacts, and possible mitigation for those impacts. When a
project results in impacts, it is expected an award recipient will take steps to engage the public. For
additional guidance and resources, visit www.transportation.gov/SS4A. c) Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet
Attach a completed Table 2: Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet.
d) Budget
This section of the application should describe the budget for the SS4A proposal. Applicants are required to provide a brief budget summary and provide a high-level overview of estimated activity costs, as organized by all major cost elements. The budget should provide itemized estimates of the costs of the proposed projects and strategies at the individual component level. This includes capital costs for
infrastructure safety improvements and costs associated with behavioral and operational safety projects and strategies. The section should also distinguish between the three eligible activity areas: (A) supplementing action plan activities in support of an existing Action Plan; (B) conducting planning, design, and development activities for projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan; and (C) carrying out projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan.
Funding sources should be grouped into two categories: SS4A funding Federal share, and non-Federal share funds. Estimated costs or value of in-kind matches should also be provided. The budget should show how each source of funds will be spent. This budget should not include any previously incurred expenses, or costs to be incurred before the time of award and obligation because these expenses
are not eligible for reimbursement or cost-sharing. If non-Federal share funds or in-kind contributions are from entities who are not the applicant, include commitment letters or evidence of allocated cost share as a supporting document. DOT requires applicants use form SF-424C, and the applicant must also provide the information in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Supplemental Estimated Budget
Subtotal Budget for (A) supplemental action plan activities; $0.00
Itemized Estimated Costs of the (A) supplemental action plan activities
Item #1 $0.00 Item #2 $0.00
Subtotal Budget for (B) conducting planning, design, and development activities $0.00
Itemized Estimated Costs of the (B) planning, design, and development activities
Item #1 $0.00
Item #2 $0.00
23
Item #3 $0.00
Subtotal Budget for (C) carrying out projects and strategies $0.00
Itemized Estimated Costs of the (C) proposed projects and strategies
Item #1 $0.00
Item #2
$0.00
Item #3 $0.00
Item #4 $0.00
Subtotal Funds to Underserved Communities $0.00
3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)
Each applicant is required to: (i) be registered in SAM (https://sam.gov/content/home) before submitting its application; (ii) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its application; and (iii) continue
to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active
Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency. DOT may not make a Federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time DOT is ready to make an award, DOT may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive an
award and use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant.
4. Submission Dates and Times
Applications must be submitted by 5:00 PM EDT on Thursday, September 15, 2022. 5. Funding Restrictions
Per BIL requirements, not more than 15 percent of the funds made available to carry out the SS4A
program in FY22 may be awarded to eligible applicants in a single State.22 In addition, 40 percent of the total FY22 funds made available must be for developing and updating a comprehensive safety action plan, or supplemental action plan activities.
6. Other Submission Requirements
The format of the Section D.2 application submission should be in PDF format, with font size no less than 12-point Times New Roman, margins a minimum of 1 inch on all sides, and include page numbers. The complete application must be submitted via grants.gov. In the event of system problems or the
applicant experiences technical difficulties, contact grants.gov technical support via telephone at 1-800-
518-4726 or email at support@grants.gov.
22 Funding for Tribal lands will be treated as their own State and will not count toward a State’s 15% limit.
24
E. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria
This section specifies the criteria DOT will use to evaluate and select applications for SS4A grant awards. The Department will review merit criteria for all applications. Each of the two grant types to be
made available through the SS4A grant program, Action Plan Grant and Implementation Grant, will have its own set of application review and selection criteria. i. Action Plan Grant Selection Criteria
For Action Plan Grants, the Department will use three evaluation criteria. The Department will
evaluate quantitative data in two selection criteria areas: #1 Safety Impact; and #2 Equity. The
Department will also assess the narrative for #3 Additional Safety Considerations. Costs will also be considered. Selection Criterion #1: Safety Impact. The activities are in jurisdictions that will likely support a
significant reduction or elimination of roadway fatalities and serious injuries involving various road
users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, personal conveyance and micromobility users, motorists, and commercial operators, within the timeframe proposed by the applicant. The Department will assess safety impact using two quantitative ratings:
• The count of roadway fatalities from 2016 to 2020 based on DOT’s FARS data, an alternative
traffic crash dataset, or a comparable data set with roadway fatality information.23
• The fatality rate, which is calculating using the average from the total count of fatalities from
2016 to 2020 (based on FARS data or an alternative traffic crash dataset) divided by the 2020
population of the applicant’s jurisdiction based on 2020 U.S. Census population data.
Selection Criterion #2: Equity. The activities will ensure equitable investment in the safety needs of
underserved communities in preventing roadway fatalities and injuries, including rural communities. The Department will assess the equity criterion using one quantitative rating:
• The percentage of the population in the applicant’s jurisdiction that resides in an Underserved
Community Census tract.24 Population of a Census tract, either a tract that is Underserved
Community or not, must be based on 2020 U.S. Census population data.
Selection Criterion #3: Additional Safety Considerations. The Department will assess whether the applicant has considered any of the following in the development of the Action Plan:
• Employ low-cost, high-impact strategies that can improve safety over a wider geographical area;
• Engage with a variety of public and private stakeholders (e.g., inclusive community engagement,
community benefit agreements, etc.);
• Seek to adopt innovative technologies or strategies to promote safety and equity; and
• Include evidence-based projects or strategies.
23 https://cdan.dot.gov/query 24 https://usdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/d6f90dfcc8b44525b04c7ce748a3674a
25
The applicant must address these considerations in narrative form. Additional Consideration: Budget Costs
The Department will assess the extent to which the budget and costs to perform the activities required
to execute the Action Plan Grant are reasonable based on 2 CFR § 200.404. ii. Implementation Grant Selection Criteria
Implementation Grants have four merit criteria: #1 Safety Impact; #2 Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration; #3 Effective Practices and Strategies; and #4 Climate Change and Economic
Competitiveness. Two additional considerations will also be used in the selection process: Project Readiness, and Funds to Underserved Communities. The response to each criterion, to the extent practicable, should be aligned with the applicant’s Action Plan. Below describes the specific content the applicant should respond to for each of these criteria. Selection Criterion #1: Safety Impact. DOT will assess whether the proposal is likely to: significantly reduce or eliminate roadway fatalities and serious injuries; employ low-cost, high-impact strategies over a wide geographic area; and include evidence-based projects and strategies. Safety impact is the most important criterion and will be weighed more heavily in the review and selection process. The Department will assess the applicant’s description of the safety problem, safety impact assessment, and
costs as part of the Safety Impact criterion:
• Description of the safety problem. DOT will assess the extent to which:
o The safety problem is described, including historical trends, fatal and serious injury crash
locations, contributing factors, and crash types by category of road user.
o Crashes and/or crash risk are displayed in a High-Injury Network, hot spot analysis, or similar
geospatial risk visualization.
o Safety risk is summarized from risk models, hazard analysis, the identification of high-risk
roadway features, road safety audits/assessments, and/or other proactive safety analyses.
• Safety impact assessment. DOT will assess the extent to which projects and strategies:
o Align with and address the identified safety problems.
o Are supported by evidence to significantly reduce or eliminate roadway fatalities and serious
injuries involving various road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation
users, personal conveyance and micromobility users, motorists, and commercial vehicle
operators.
o Use low-cost, high-impact strategies and projects that can improve safety over a wider
geographical area.
o Measure safety impact through models, studies, reports, proven noteworthy practices, Crash
Modification Factors (CMF), and other information on project and strategy effectiveness.
o Include a multi-disciplinary, systemic approach that relies on redundancies to reduce safety
risks.
o Will have safety benefits that persist over time.
26
• Implementation Costs. DOT will assess the extent to which projects and strategies are itemized
and summarized, including capital costs for infrastructure, behavioral, and operational safety
improvements.
Selection Criterion #2: Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration. This criterion supports the
legislative requirements to assess the extent to which the application ensures the equitable investment in
the safety needs of underserved communities, and demonstrates engagement with a variety of public and private stakeholders. The response to this criterion should focus on equity, engagement, and collaboration in relation to the implementation of the projects and strategies. DOT will assess the extent to which projects and strategies:
• Ensure equitable investment in underserved communities in preventing roadway fatalities and
serious injuries, including rural communities.
• Are designed to decrease existing disparities identified through equity analysis.
• Consider key population groups (e.g., people in underserved communities, children, seniors,
Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, other
persons of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural areas, and persons otherwise
adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality) to ensure the impact to these groups is
understood and addressed.
• Include equity analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, and stakeholder engagement in
underserved communities as part of the development and implementation process.
• Include meaningful engagement with the public, including public involvement for underserved
communities, community benefit agreements, and relevant stakeholders such as private sector and
community groups, as part of implementation.
• Leverage partnerships within their jurisdiction, with other government entities, non-governmental
organizations, the private sector, academic institutions, and/or other relevant stakeholders to
achieve safety benefits while preventing unintended consequences for persons living in the
jurisdiction.
• Inform representatives from areas impacted on implementation progress and meaningfully engage
over time to evaluate the impact of projects and strategies on persons living in the jurisdiction.
• Align with the equity analysis performed as part of the development of an existing Action Plan.
Selection Criterion #3: Effective Practices and Strategies. DOT will assess the extent to which the
application employs low-cost, high-impact strategies that can improve safety over a wide geographical area, includes evidence-based projects or strategies that improve safety, and seeks to adopt innovative technologies or strategies to promote safety and equity. The response to this criterion needs to address, at a minimum, one of the four effective practices and strategies from the list below, which includes: create a safer community; Safe System Approach; Complete Streets; and innovative practices and technologies. If
the applicant responds to more than one of the four options, the option that is rated highest in the review process will be used for the rating of this criterion.
• Create a safer community. DOT will assess the extent to which the projects and strategies:
o Establish basic, evidence-based roadway safety infrastructure features, including but not
limited to sidewalks and separated bicycle lanes.
27
o Improve safety for all road users along a roadway network using proposed Public-Rights-of-
Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).25
o Use evidence-based, proven, and effective safety countermeasures to significantly improve
existing roadways.26
o Use evidence-based Countermeasures that Work with four or five stars to address persistent
behavioral safety issues and consider equity in their implementation.27
o Apply systemic safety practices that involve widely implemented improvements based on
high-risk roadway features correlated with particular severe crash types.
• Safe System Approach. DOT will assess the extent to which the projects and strategies:
o Encompass at least two of the five safety elements in the National Roadway Safety Strategy
(Safer People, Safer Roads, Safer Speeds, Safer Vehicles, and Post-Crash Care). This may
include a mix of infrastructure, behavioral, and operational safety projects and strategies.
o Create a transportation system that accounts for and mitigates human mistakes.
o Incorporate data-driven design features that are human-centric, limit kinetic energy, and are
selected based on the physical limits of people’s crash tolerances before injury or death
occurs.
o Support actions and activities identified in the Department’s National Roadway Safety
Strategy that are evidence-based.
• Complete Streets. DOT will assess the extent to which the projects and strategies:
o Account for the safety of all road users in their implementation through evidence-based
activities.
o Are supported by an existing Complete Streets Policy that prioritizes safety in standard
agency procedures and guidance or other roadway safety policies that have eliminated barriers
to prioritizing the safety of all users, or includes supplemental planning activities to achieve
this. Consider the management of the right of way using a data-driven approach (e.g., delivery
access, features that promote biking and micromobility, electric vehicle charging
infrastructure, etc.).
o Improve accessibility and multimodal networks for people outside of a motor vehicle,
including people who are walking, biking, rolling, public transit users, and have disabilities.
o Incorporate the proposed PROWAG, and any actions in an established the American with
Disabilities Act Transition Plan to correct barriers to individuals with disabilities.
• Innovative practices and technologies. DOT will assess the extent to which the projects and
strategies:
o Incorporate practices that promote efficiency within the planning and road management
lifecycle (e.g., dig once, etc.).
o Integrate additional data beyond roadway and crash information to inform implementation and
location, such as data on the built environment.
25 https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/
26 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/ 27 https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2021-09/Countermeasures-10th_080621_v5_tag.pdf
28
o Foster applied, data-driven research and experimentation to inform project and strategy
effectiveness, including but not limited to participation in a sanctioned Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices experimentation, research to inform Proven Safety Countermeasures
or Countermeasures that Work, and/or research that measures the effectiveness of
multidisciplinary activities.
o Adopt innovative technologies or practices to promote safety and equity. These could include
infrastructure, behavioral, operational, or vehicular safety-focused approaches.
Selection Criterion #4: Climate Change and Sustainability, and Economic Competitiveness. This program's focus on equity and safety are also advanced by considerations of how applications address climate and sustainability considerations, as well as whether applications support economic competitiveness. DOT will assess the extent to which the projects and strategies use safety strategies to support the Departmental strategic goals of climate change and sustainability, and economic strength and
global competitiveness, and the extent to which the proposal is expected to:
• Reduce motor vehicle-related pollution such as air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Increase safety of lower-carbon travel modes such as transit and active transportation.
• Incorporate lower-carbon pavement and construction materials.
• Support fiscally responsible land use and transportation efficient design that reduces greenhouse
gas emissions.
• Includes storm water management practices and incorporates other climate resilience measures or
feature, including but not limited to nature-based solutions that improve built and/or natural
environment while enhancing resilience.
• Lead to increased economic or business activity due to enhanced safety features for all road users.
• Increase mobility and expand connectivity for all road users to jobs and business opportunities,
including people in underserved communities.
• Improve multimodal transportation systems that incorporate affordable transportation options
such as public transit and micromobility.
• Demonstrate a plan or credible planning activities and project delivery actions to advance quality
jobs, workforce programs, including partnerships with labor unions, training providers, education
institutions, and hiring policies that promote workforce inclusion.
• Result in high-quality job creation by supporting good-paying jobs with a free and fair choice to
join a union, incorporate strong labor standards (e.g., wages and benefits at or above prevailing;
use of project labor agreements, registered apprenticeship programs, pre-apprenticeships tied to
registered apprenticeships, etc.), and/or provide workforce opportunities for historically
underrepresented groups (e.g., workforce development program, etc.).
Additional Consideration: Project Readiness
Applications rated as “Highly Recommended” or “Recommended” based on the selection Criteria 1
through 4 will be reviewed for Project Readiness, which will be a consideration for application selection. Project Readiness focuses on the extent to which the applicant will be able to substantially execute and complete the full scope of work in the Implementation Grant application within five (5) years of when the grant is executed. This includes information related to required design and construction standards, as well
29
as environmental, permitting, and approval processes. DOT will evaluate the extent to which the application:
• Documents all applicable local, State, and Federal requirements.
• Includes information on activity schedule, required permits and approvals, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) class of action and status, State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) status, public involvement,
right-of-way acquisition plans, procurement schedules, multi-party agreements, utility relocation
plans and risk and mitigation strategies, as appropriate.
• Is reasonably expected to begin any construction-related projects in a timely manner consistent
with all applicable local, State, and Federal requirements.
Additional Consideration: Funds to Underserved Communities. The percentage of Implementation Grant funds that will be spent in, and provide safety benefits to, locations in census tracts designated as underserved communities as defined by this NOFO will be
considered as part of application selection.28 DOT will use this information in support of the legislative requirement to ensure equitable investment in the safety needs of underserved communities in preventing roadway fatalities and injuries. Higher percentages of funding to underserved communities will be generally viewed favorably by DOT, and the Department encourages applicants to leverage project and strategy activities to the extent practical and in alignment with the safety problems identified in an Action
Plan. 2. Review and Selection Process
This section addresses the BIL requirement to describe the methodology for evaluation in the NOFO,
including how applications will be rated according to selection criteria and considerations, and how those
criteria and considerations will be used to assign an overall rating. The SS4A grant program review and selection process consists of eligibility reviews, merit criteria review, and Senior Review. The Secretary makes the final selections.
i. Action Plan Grant Review and Selection Process
The process for the application plan review is described below:
• Teams of Department and contractor support staff review all applications to determine eligibility
based on the eligibility information in Section C.
• Eligible Action Plan applications received by the deadline will be reviewed for their merit based
on the selection criteria in Section E.1.i.
• Applications are scored numerically based on Merit Criteria #1 Safety Impact and #2 Equity
Criteria.
28 An underserved community as defined for this NOFO is consistent with the Office of Management and Budget’s Interim Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative and the Historically Disadvantaged Community designation, which includes: U.S. Census tracts identified in this table https://datahub.transportation.gov/stories/s/tsyd-k6ij; any Tribal land; or any territory or possession of the United States.
30
• The #3 Additional Safety Considerations criterion narrative will be reviewed and assessed as
either “qualified,” meaning the application addresses the criterion at least in part, or “not
qualified,” meaning the application does not address the criterion. Applications that do not
address the #3 Additional Safety Considerations and are deemed “not qualified” will not be
considered.
• Action Plan Grant applications to develop or complete a new Action Plan will be noted and
prioritized for funding.
• In order to ensure that final selections will meet the statutory requirement that no more than
15 percent of program funds may be awarded to eligible applicants in one State, applications will
have their State location denoted. Tribal awards are not counted towards this 15 percent
maximum.
• The Teams will examine the locations of the applicants to identify if multiple applicants requested
funding for the same jurisdiction. DOT reserves the right to request applicants with duplicative
funding requests consolidate their efforts as one multijurisdictional group prior to receiving an
award, and may decline to fund duplicative applications irrespective of their individual merits.
ii. Implementation Grant Review and Selection Process
a) Overall Selection Process and Ratings
Teams of Department and contractor support staff review all applications to determine whether they are eligible applicants based on the eligibility information in Section C. All eligible Implementation Grant applications received by the deadline will be reviewed and receive ratings for each of these criteria:
#1 Safety Impact; #2 Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration; #3 Effective Practices and Strategies; #4
Climate Change and Sustainability, and Economic Competitiveness. Based on the criteria ratings, an overall application rating of “Highly Recommended,” “Recommended,” “Acceptable,” or “Not Recommended” will be assigned. Criterion #1, Safety Impact, will be weighted most heavily.
Overall “Highly Recommended” Application Rating Scenarios
Selection Criteria Scenario (a) Criteria Rating Scenario (b) Criteria Rating
#1 Safety Impact High Medium #2 Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration Medium or High High
#3 Effective Practices and Strategies Medium or High High
#4 Climate Change Sustainability, and
Economic Competitiveness Low, Medium, or High High
Overall Rating Highly Recommended Highly Recommended
31
Overall “Recommended” Rating Scenarios
Selection Criteria Scenario (c) Criteria Rating Scenario (d) Criteria Rating
#1 Safety Impact High Medium
#2 Equity, Engagement, and
Collaboration At least one Low One Medium and One
High or Two Medium #3 Effective Practices and Strategies
#4 Climate Change and Sustainability, and Economic Competitiveness Low, Medium, or High Low, Medium, or High
Overall Rating Recommended Recommended
Overall “Acceptable” and “Not Recommended” Rating Scenarios
Selection Criteria Scenario (e) Criteria Rating Scenario (f) Criteria Rating
#1 Safety Impact Low
Any are determined Non-Responsive
#2 Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration Low, Medium, or High #3 Effective Practices and Strategies
#4 Climate Change and Sustainability, and Economic Competitiveness Low, Medium, or High
Overall Rating Acceptable Not Recommended
b) Safety Impact Criterion Rating Methodology
For the #1 Safety Impact criterion, the Department will assess three subcomponents to determine a
result in an overall rating of “high,” “medium,” and “low,” or “non-responsive.” The three
subcomponents are: the description of the safety problem; the safety impact assessment; and the implementation costs. The description of the safety problem sub-rating will use the guidelines below:
Rating Scale
High Medium Low Non-responsive
The narrative and supporting information
demonstrate the proposal is addressing a substantial safety problem. The narrative is well-
articulated and is strongly supported by data and analysis.
The narrative and supporting information demonstrate the
proposal is addressing an existing safety problem. Narrative articulates the description, is
generally supporting by data and analysis.
The narrative and supporting information demonstrate the
proposal is addressing a safety problem more minor in scope. The narrative is not well-articulated, and the
supporting data and analysis are limited.
The narrative and supporting
information do not address a safety problem.
32
The safety impact assessment sub-rating will use the guidelines below:
Rating
Scale
High Medium Low Non-
responsive
The projects and
strategies have strong
potential to address the safety problem. The projects and strategies proposed
are highly effective,
based on evidence, use a systemic approach, and have benefits that persist
over time.
The projects and
strategies address the
safety problem. Most of the projects and strategies proposed are effective measures,
based on evidence, use
a systemic approach, and have benefits that persist over time.
The projects and
strategies address the
safety problem to a limited degree. Some or none of the projects and strategies proposed
are effective measures,
based on evidence, use a systemic approach, or have benefits that persist over time.
The projects
and strategies
do not address the safety problem.
The implementation costs sub-rating will use the guidelines below:
Rating
Scale
High Medium Low Non-responsive
The costs for the implementation of the projects and strategies
are clearly articulated and summarized. Future costs are well-described. The quantity and quality of
the projects and strategies in relation to the cost amounts strongly indicate the costs are reasonable.
The costs for the implementation of the projects and strategies
are summarized. Future costs are described. The quantity and quality of the projects and
strategies in relation to the cost amounts seem to indicate the costs are reasonable.
The costs for the implementation of the projects and strategies
are not well-articulated or missing key details. Future costs are minimally or not described. Based on
the limited quantity and/or quality of the projects and strategies in relation to the cost amounts, the cost
reasonableness is uncertain.
Cost information is not provided.
The three sub-ratings for the #1 Safety Criterion (the description of the safety problem; the safety impact assessment; and the implementation costs) will be combined and scored using the following rating system to determine if the overall rating for the Safety Criterion is “High,” “Medium,” “Low,” or “Non-Responsive.”
Safety Criterion Sub-Rating Scores Overall Safety Criterion Rating
At least two “high”, no “low”, no “non-responsive” High
No “low”, no “non-responsive,” or does not meet the High criterion Medium
No “high”, at least one “low”, no “non-responsive,” or does not meet the Medium criterion Low
Any “non-responsive” Non-Responsive
33
c) Other Criteria Rating Methodology
For the merit criteria #2 Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration, #3 Effective Practices and Strategies, and #4 Climate Change and Economic Competitiveness, the Department will consider whether the application narrative is clear, direct, responsive to the selection criterion focus areas, and logical,
which will result in a rating of “high, “medium,” “low,” or “non-responsive.”
Rating Scale
High Medium Low Non-Responsive
The application is
substantively
responsive to the criteria, with clear, direct, and logical narrative.
The application is
moderately responsive to the criteria, with mostly clear, direct, and logical narrative.
The application is
minimally responsive to the criteria and is somewhat addressed in the narrative.
The narrative
indicates the
proposal is counter to the criteria, or does not contain sufficient
information
“Highly Recommended” and “Recommended” applications will receive a Project Readiness
evaluation, as described below. The reviewers will use the application materials outlined in Section D to
assess the applicant’s Project Readiness and will provide a rating of either “Very Likely,” “Likely,” or “Unlikely.”
Rating
Scale
Very Likely Likely Unlikely
Based on the information provided in the application and the proposed scope of the projects and strategies, it is very likely the
applicant can complete all projects and strategies within a five-year time horizon.
Based on the information provided in the application and the proposed scope of the projects and strategies, it is probable the applicant
can complete all projects and strategies within a five-year time horizon.
Based on the information provided in the application and the proposed scope of the projects and strategies, it is uncertain whether the
applicant can complete all projects and strategies within a five-year time horizon. iii. Senior Review Team Phase
a) Action Plan Grant Senior Review Team Phase
For the Action Plan Grants, the Secretary will set thresholds for each of the three quantitative criteria
ratings based on their distribution, the number of applicants, and the availability of funds. Eligible applicants who meet or exceed the threshold in any of the three criteria will be offered Action Plan Grant award funding. A composite rating of the three criteria will not be made, and each criterion will be considered separately. Based on the overall application pool, available funding, and legislative
requirements, the Secretary reserves the discretion to set the threshold(s) most advantageous to the U.S.
Government’s interest. The Secretary will consult with a Senior Review Team (SRT) to make the threshold determinations. Additionally, the Secretary may choose to prioritize Action Plan Grants that are developing or completing an Action Plan over Action Plan Grant applications focused on supplemental action plan activities because an Action Plan is a prerequisite to applying for Implementation Grants in
future NOFOs.
34
b) Implementation Grant Senior Review Team Phase
Once every Implementation Grant application has been assigned an overall rating based on the methodology above, all “Highly Recommended” applications will be included in a list of Applications for Consideration. The SRT will review whether the list of “Highly Recommended” applications is sufficient to ensure that no more than 15 percent of the FY 2022 funds made available are awarded to
eligible applicants in a single State. “Recommended” applications may be added to the proposed list of Applications for Consideration until a sufficient number of applications are on the list to ensure that all the legislative requirements can be met and funding would be fully awarded. “Recommended” applications with a “High” Safety Impact Criterion rating will be prioritized and considered first. If that produces an insufficient list, “Recommended” applications with a “Medium” Safety Impact Criterion
rating and a “High” rating for the Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration Criterion will also be considered. The SRT will also review all “Highly Recommended” applications that received an “Unlikely” project readiness rating, and either remove those applicants from the Applications for Consideration, OR recommend a reduced scope to minimize the risk the applicant will not complete the scope of work within five years of the grant agreement execution.
Additionally, to ensure the funding awards align to the extent practicable to the program goal of equitable investment in the safety needs of underserved communities, the SRT may review “Recommended” applications and set a threshold based on the percentage of funds that will be spent in, and provide safety benefits to, locations within underserved communities. Any “Recommended”
applications at or above that threshold will be included in the proposed list of Applications for Consideration. For each grant type, the SRT will present the list of Applications for Consideration to the Secretary, either collectively or through a representative of the SRT. The SRT may advise the Secretary on any
application on the list of Applications for Consideration, including options for reduced awards, and the Secretary makes final selections. The Secretary’s selections identify the applications that best address program requirements and are most worthy of funding.
3. Additional Information
Prior to entering into a grant agreement, each selected applicant will be subject to a risk assessment as required by 2 CFR § 200.206. The Department must review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)). An applicant may review information in FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency
previously entered. The Department will consider comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants. Because award recipients under this program may be first-time recipients of Federal funding, DOT is
committed to implementing the program as flexibly as permitted by statute and to providing assistance to help award recipients through the process of securing a grant agreement and delivering both Action Plan activities and Implementation Grant projects and strategies. Award recipients are encouraged to identify any needs for assistance in delivering the Implementation Grant projects and strategies so that DOT can provide directly, or through a third party, sufficient support and technical assistance to mitigate potential
execution risks.
35
F. Federal Award Administration Information
1. Federal Award Notices
Following the evaluation outlined in Section E, the Secretary will announce awarded applications by posting a list of selected recipients at www.transportation.gov/SS4A.The posting of the list of selected
award recipients will not constitute an authorization to begin performance. Following the announcement,
the Department will contact the point of contact listed in the SF-424 to initiate negotiation of a grant agreement. 2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
i. Equity and Barriers to Opportunity
Each applicant selected for SS4A grant funding must demonstrate effort to improve equity and reduce barriers to opportunity as described in Section A. Award recipients that have not sufficiently addressed equity and barriers to opportunity in their planning, as determined by the Department, will be required to do so before receiving funds, consistent with Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and
Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (86 FR 7009).29 ii. Labor and Workforce
Each applicant selected for SS4A grant funding must demonstrate, to the full extent possible consistent with the law, an effort to create good-paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union
and incorporation of high labor standards as described in Section A. To the extent that applicants have
not sufficiently considered job quality and labor rights in their planning, as determined by the Department of Labor, the applicants will be required to do so before receiving funds, consistent with Executive Order 14025, Worker Organizing and Empowerment (86 FR 22829), and Executive Order 14052, Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (86 FR 64335).
As expressed in section A, equal employment opportunity is an important priority. The Department wants to ensure that sponsors have the support they need to meet requirements under EO 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity (30 FR 12319, and as amended). All Federally assisted contractors are required to make good faith efforts to meet the goals of 6.9 percent of construction project hours being performed
by women and goals that vary based on geography for construction work hours and for work being performed by people of color.30 Projects over $35 million shall meet the requirements in Executive Order 14063, Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects (87 FR 7363). The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has a
Mega Construction Project Program through which it engages with project sponsors as early as the design phase to help promote compliance with non-discrimination and affirmative action obligations. Through the program, OFCCP offers contractors and subcontractors extensive compliance assistance, conducts compliance evaluations, and helps to build partnerships between the project sponsor, prime contractor, subcontractors, and relevant stakeholders. OFCCP will identify projects that receive an award under this
notice and are required to participate in OFCCP’s Mega Construction Project Program from a wide range of federally assisted projects over which OFCCP has jurisdiction and that have a project cost above
29 An illustrative example of how these requirements are applied to recipients can be found here: https://cms.buildamerica.dot.gov/buildamerica/financing/infra-grants/infra-fy21-fhwa-general-terms-and-conditions 30 https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ofccp/ParticipationGoals.pdf
36
$35 million. DOT will require project sponsors with costs above $35 million that receive awards under this funding opportunity to partner with OFCCP, if selected by OFCCP, as a condition of their DOT award. Under that partnership, OFCCP will ask these project sponsors to make clear to prime contractors in the pre-bid phase that project sponsor’s award terms will require their participation in the Mega
Construction Project Program. Additional information on how OFCCP makes their selections for
participation in the Mega Construction Project Program is outlined under “Scheduling” on the Department of Labor website: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/construction-compliance. iii. Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience
It is the policy of the United States to strengthen the security and resilience of its critical
infrastructure against both physical and cyber threats. Each applicant selected for SS4A grant funding must demonstrate, prior to the signing of the grant agreement, effort to consider and address physical and cyber security risks relevant to the transportation mode and type and scale of the activities. Award recipients that have not appropriately considered and addressed physical and cyber security and resilience in their planning, design, and oversight, as determined by the Department and the Department of
Homeland Security, will be required to do so before receiving Implementation Grant funds for construction, consistent with Presidential Policy Directive 21, Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience and the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Improving Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems. Additionally, funding recipients must be in compliance with 2 CFR § 200.216 and the prohibition on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or
equipment. Award recipients shall also consider whether projects in floodplains are upgraded consistent with the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, to the extent consistent with current law, in Executive Order 14030, Climate-Related Financial Risk (86 FR 27967), and Executive Order 13690, Establishing a
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input (80 FR 6425). iv. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
Funding recipients must comply with NEPA under 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. and the Council on
Environmental Quality’s NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR §§ 1500-1508, where applicable. v. Other Administrative and Policy Requirements
All awards will be administered pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards found in 2 CFR § 200, Subpart F, as adopted by
the Department at 2 CFR § 1201. Additionally, as permitted under the requirements described above, applicable Federal laws, rules, and regulations of the relevant operating administration (e.g., the Federal Highway Administration, etc.) administering the activities will apply to the activities that receive SS4A grants, including planning requirements, Stakeholder Agreements, and other requirements under the
Department’s other highway and transit grant programs. DOT anticipates grant recipients to have varying
levels of experience administering Federal funding agreements and complying with Federal requirements, and DOT will take a risk-based approach to SS4A program grant agreement administration to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
The Department will also provide additional technical assistance and support resources to first-time
DOT funding recipients and those who request additional support, as appropriate. With respect to highway projects, except as otherwise noted in this NOFO, please note that these grants are not required
37
to be administered under Title 23 of the U.S.C., which establishes requirements that are generally applicable to funding that is provided by formula to State departments of transportation31. Therefore, the administration and implementation of SS4A grants should be more streamlined for the entities that are eligible for SS4A awards.
As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States. Infrastructure projects are subject to the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. No 117–58, div. G
§§ 70901–70927) as clarified in OMB Memorandum M-22-11.32 The Department expects all recipients
to be able to complete their projects without needing a waiver. However, to obtain a waiver, a recipient must be prepared to demonstrate how they will maximize the use of domestic goods, products, and materials in constructing their project. Projects under this notice will be subject to the domestic preference requirements at § 70914 of the Build America, Buy America Act, as implemented by OMB,
and any awards will contain the award terms specific in M-22-11.
SS4A award recipients should demonstrate compliance with civil rights obligations and nondiscrimination laws, including Titles VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and accompanying regulations.
Recipients of Federal transportation funding will also be required to comply fully with regulations and
guidance for the ADA, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and all other civil rights requirements. Additionally, to the extent practicable, Implementation Grants must adhere to the proposed Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines.33 The Department’s and the applicable Operating Administrations’ Office of Civil Rights may work with awarded grant
recipients to ensure full compliance with Federal civil rights requirements.
In connection with any program or activity conducted with or benefiting from funds awarded under this notice, recipients of funds must comply with all applicable requirements of Federal law, including, without limitation, the Constitution of the United States; the conditions of performance,
nondiscrimination requirements, and other assurances made applicable to the award of funds in
accordance with regulations of the Department of Transportation; and applicable Federal financial assistance and contracting principles promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget. In complying with these requirements, recipients, in particular, must ensure that no concession agreements are denied or other contracting decisions made on the basis of speech or other activities protected by the
First Amendment. If the Department determines that a recipient has failed to comply with applicable
Federal requirements, the Department may terminate the award of funds and disallow previously incurred costs, requiring the recipient to reimburse any expended award funds.
31 Please note that some title 23 requirements apply regardless of funding source. In particular, projects involving routes on the National Highway System must meet the applicable design standards at 23 CFR part 625. 32 Pub. L. No. 117-58, division. G, Title IX, Subtitle A, 135 Stat. 429, 1298 (2021). For additional information on § 70914, see OMB-22-11. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/M-22-11.pdf 33 https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/
38
3. Reporting
i. Progress Reporting on Grant Activity
Reporting responsibilities include quarterly program performance reports using the Performance Progress Report (SF-PPR) and quarterly financial status using the SF-425 (also known as the Federal
Financial Report or SF-FFR).34 ii. Post Award Reporting Requirements/Reporting of Matters Related to Integrity and
Performance
If the total value of a selected applicant’s currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and
procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time
during the period of performance of this Federal award, then the applicant during that period of time must maintain the currency of information reported in SAM that is made available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)) about civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings described in paragraph 2 of this award
term and condition. This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Pub. L. No.110–417, as amended
(41 U.S.C. § 2313). As required by section 3010 of Pub. L. No. 111–212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. Additionally, if applicable funding recipients must be in compliance with the audit requirements in 2 CFR § 200, Subpart F.
iii. Program Evaluation
As a condition of grant award, SS4A grant recipients may be required to participate in an evaluation undertaken by DOT, or another agency or partner. The evaluation may take different forms such as an implementation assessment across grant recipients, an impact and/or outcomes analysis of all or selected
sites within or across grant recipients, or a benefit/cost analysis or assessment of return on investment.
The Department may require applicants to collect data elements to aid the evaluation. As a part of the evaluation, as a condition of award, grant recipients must agree to: (1) make records available to the evaluation contractor; (2) provide access to program records, and any other relevant documents to calculate costs and benefits; (3) in the case of an impact analysis, facilitate the access to relevant
information as requested; and (4) follow evaluation procedures as specified by the evaluation contractor
or DOT staff. Recipients and sub-recipients are also encouraged to incorporate program evaluation including associated data collection activities from the outset of their program design and implementation to
meaningfully document and measure the effectiveness of their projects and strategies. Title I of the
Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act), Pub. L. No. 115–435 (2019) urges Federal awarding agencies and Federal assistance recipients and sub-recipients to use program evaluation as a critical tool to learn, to improve equitable delivery, and to elevate program service and delivery across the program lifecycle. Evaluation means “an assessment using systematic data collection
and analysis of one or more programs, policies, and organizations intended to assess their effectiveness
and efficiency” (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 311). For grant recipients, evaluation expenses are allowable costs (either as direct or indirect), unless prohibited by statute or regulation, and such expenses may include the personnel and equipment needed for data infrastructure and expertise in data analysis, performance, and evaluation (2 CFR §200).
34 https://www.grants.gov/forms/post-award-reporting-forms.html
39
G. Federal Awarding Agency Contacts
For further information concerning this notice, please contact the Office of the Secretary via email at SS4A@dot.gov. In addition, up to the application deadline, the Department will post answers to common
questions and requests for clarifications on the Department’s website at www.transportation.gov/SS4A. To ensure applicants receive accurate information about eligibility or the program, the applicant is encouraged to contact the Department directly, rather than through intermediaries or third parties, with questions. Department staff may also conduct briefings on the SS4A grant selection and award process upon request.
H. Other Information
1. Publication of Application Information
Following the completion of the selection process and announcement of awards, the Department intends to publish a list of all applications received along with the names of the applicant organizations.
The Department may share application information within the Department or with other Federal agencies
if the Department determines that sharing is relevant to the respective program’s objectives. 2. Department Feedback on Applications
The Department will not review applications in advance, but Department staff are available for technical questions and assistance. The deadline to submit technical questions is August 15, 2022. The
Department strives to provide as much information as possible to assist applicants with the application process. Unsuccessful applicants may request a debrief up to 90 days after the selected funding recipients are publicly announced on transportation.gov/SS4A. Program staff will address questions to SS4A@dot.gov throughout the application period. 3. Rural Applicants
User-friendly information and resources regarding DOT’s discretionary grant programs relevant to rural applicants can be found on the Rural Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES) website at www.transportation.gov/rural.