Active Transportation Program.
The proposed changes through SB 152 aim to support and incentivize local governments to enhance active transportation infrastructure, creating a more integrated and accessible transportation system. It fosters an environment where projects addressing community-specific needs can be prioritized by MPOs, thus ensuring that urban development aligns with broader transport policies. Moreover, the bill aims to secure the ongoing viability of the funding allocations through increasing transparency and competition, thereby maximizing public benefit.
Senate Bill 152, introduced by Senator Beall, seeks to amend the Streets and Highways Code to enhance the Active Transportation Program (ATP), which promotes the use of non-motorized transport modes such as biking and walking. This bill mandates a significant reallocation of funds within the ATP, specifying that 60% of available funds must now be awarded to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in urban areas with populations exceeding 200,000, while maintaining allocations for small urban and rural areas. Additionally, it increases the competitive funds available for transformative projects administered at the state level.
The sentiment regarding SB 152 reflects a strong endorsement from advocacy groups for non-motorized transport, who argue that the increased funding would significantly boost community accessibility and safety. Legislators supporting the bill have expressed that it aligns with state goals for sustainable urban development. However, there are concerns from some stakeholders who fear that a heavy focus on urban areas might detrimentally impact rural regions or projects that lack the competitive edge usually seen in larger urban initiatives.
Notable contention surrounding SB 152 focuses on the distribution of funds, particularly the requirement that a substantial portion be allocated to larger metropolitan areas. Critics argue that this shift in focus may lead to underfunding of vital projects in smaller or rural communities, which also require safe and efficient active transportation options. Additionally, the tension between local autonomy and state guidelines regarding fund distribution underscores ongoing debates about transportation equity and the appropriate allocation of state resources.